Impeachment: Where The Points Are All Made Up and The Facts Don't Matter
I'll be honest: I didn't bother paying any attention whatsoever to the Impeachment mess because at the end of the day, I knew it wasn't going to matter and the outcome was more or less foreordained.
And hey- look! I was right.
In an election year, politicians are motivated by one thing and one thing only: keeping their jobs. Now, granted, in the case of the Senate, only a third of them are up for re-election this year, but voters tend to remember these things and in these days of partisan hysteria that we live in, if voters forget, some helpful political action committee is going to come along and remind them again when the time comes. It's not a bad motivation, keeping your job. You, I and the rest of America are probably motivated to keep our jobs, whatever they are. But when you take that and combine it with the current levels of partisan hysteria that keep the internet smoldering like a massive dystopian tire, of course the politicians are going to play their parts in this. They're not going to go against their 'team', they're not going to risk being culled from their respective 'herds' and cast out. Come on, now.
[Insert Liberal Rage]
I get that, Liberal Friend. I do. The President is who he is and his character flaws are well established by now. But in a system where conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I think the President had a case. Perhaps not much of a case, I'll grant you, but enough to put some reasonable (or irrational as the case may be) doubts into the mind of Republican Senators.
Oh, you think he should be held accountable? So, censure him. You may think that censure is the 'weaker' of the two options, but in this case it would have been the smarter play. Censure means the Republicans can't argue that the Deep State is coming to get them and gobble them up. Censure means that the Republicans will put in a position to defend his character flaws- and even Republican voters will admit that they'd like him to Tweet less. And guess what? The last President who was censured was Andrew Jackson-- and it took him a little bit of work to get it expunged. (Alexander Hamilton was also censured, by the way.) It's not nothing and even the reddest of red areas of the country would be forced to admit that yes, this President is worthy of censure- even if they do so in an empty bar at noon when only three other people are around.
But y'all wanted impeachment- because President Pence would be such a vast improvement on Our Tangerine Overlord. And don't even at me about your fever dreams of a President Pelosi. That shit wasn't gonna happen.
Oh, so you think the voters are going to hold the Republicans accountable? Oh please. Let me ask you this: if a group of Democratic Senators had sat down and said, "This House case is flimsy bullshit and they need to do better. We're voting to acquit." How do you think y'all would have taken that? Y'all would have lost your damn minds. Primary challenges would have been launched. Fundraising would have begun. A thousand tweets would been launched raging against the traitors who betrayed the capital R Resistance.
And you don't think the Right would have reacted the same way to Republican Senators who voted to convict? You know damn well they would have. Motivation number one for politicians in an election year: keeping their jobs. Doing some governing and good for the country is just something they stumble into from time to time.
Sit down, have a beer or two, take a deep breath and concentrate on picking a nominee that the country can actually vote for. See you in November!
[Insert Conservative Schaudenfreude]
Oh hi, Conservative Friend. How is that extra-large beer stein of Liberal Tears tasting? Pretty good? Well, you've got to be feeling pretty good about all of this, I guess- but can I let you in on a little secret- just, a tiny, tiny little secret...
This looks shady as all giddy-up.
In your heart of hearts, you know it too-- I'll grant you the President does have a pretty wide amount of latitude when it comes to foreign policy and it was somewhat ironic that not two days after the transcript broke, a Democratic Senator stood up and pretty much said they'd withhold aid to Israel unless they 'change their relationship with Gaza' which is pretty much what the President did- except for that tiny, nagging little hitch in all this. The Gaza suggestions didn't involve one of the Senator's political rivals.
Now in July of 2019, over a year away from the election, the theory that Joe Biden was a mortal lock to be the nominee is a shaky one, I'll grant you. Uncle Joe, bless him, has tried to run for President two times before and he's just well, not that good at it. But, he's also running against an actual Socialist. Like Joe DiMaggio, it's entirely possible the nation will turn it's lonely eyes to him and cometh the hour, cometh the man- that sort of thing. So the idea that this was done to benefit the President is not, you know, entirely unreasonable to conclude.
So, side question for you: if kids of Republican Senators or Vice Presidents are getting shady contracts overseas, are you going to investigate them? If Ivanka Trump or another one of the innumerable Trumps is found to have been doing deals on the side and enriching the family through the power of the office- what will you do about it? Do I think we should look into this Biden business? Absolutely. But if you're asking me to believe that Establishment corruption and self-enrichment is only to be found on one side of the aisle, then GTFO here. Really. (And oh, by the way, I think we all know that Republicans would never look into shenanigans by former Republican Vice Presidents or their families any more than Democrats would investigate their own either. Which is a systemic failure of both parties, I'll grant you.)
Y'all talk about the Constitution quite a bit, but an objective look at the past twenty years reveals that when elected, you don't practice what you preach. Your party started this executive power grab in the wake of 9/11, not the Democrats. It could be argued that your party accelerated our national descent in partisan hysteria (again, admittedly, the Left didn't help either.) But if you're going to talk about the Constitution, then you need to stand by it. Congress needs to stop being the Executive Branch's lapdog. The Senate and The White House may be controlled by the same party at the moment, but they don't work for each other. It's time they stopped acting like it.
[Liberal Friend Returns, Still Raging]
Oh hey, you got yourself another Jaeger-bomb. Keep those coming by all means, I have a feeling you're going to need more of them. Oh, what's that, Conservative Friend? You want to know why I'm not more outraged by Liberal attempts to subvert the result of the 2016 election? And you, Liberal Friend want to know why I'm not outraged that an allegedly Russian controlled President and his corrupt lapdogs in the Senate have escaped accountability?
Because there was never going to be any accountability, to begin with. Laws and consequences are for us peasants, not the rich and powerful. And for all the posturing about how impeachment should be based on facts and evidence like you're in an episode of Law and Order- it's always been an inherently political act. Slate opined that this means that impeachment will never remove a President from office and they're probably right. If no one is willing to take a walk up Pennsylvania Avenue and tell the President what's what and what's coming, it's largely a symbolic piece of performance art and a massive waste of everyone's time. Granted, had Cocaine Mitch seen the evidence and taken that walk up the Avenue, I don't know if this President would have listened-- but that's really what it takes to get a President out of office. The two other times we've had impeachments, they've gone the way of party-line votes and backroom deals. Andrew Johnson, who was apparently a massive prick was perhaps the most worthy of ejection from office- like even more so than the current denizen of the White House- and they couldn't even get it done back then.
And yes, I know Mittens stood on principle and voted to remove on one article. Good for him- because he demonstrated how this shit should have actually worked, but never will because this is the real world and not an episode of The West Wing. Yes, he weighed the facts and evidence and voted his conscience. Good for him. God bless. There's no small amount of irony floating around in the air now that he's been canonized by the Left for his actions. St. Mittens of Romney was, eight years ago, being shishkabobed by the Left for all manner of imagined sins and slights and subjected to a whisper campaign on the Right because, Mormonism creeps all the Evangelicals out and hey, no one finds his lionization the least bit ironic today. And I guess it's true- a genuinely good and decent person really can't be President...
Do I think St. Mittens of Romney is in danger of losing his Senate seat? Oh hell no. He represents Utah, FFS who were seriously considered handing their Electoral Votes to that one dude who's name escapes me in 2016. (BTW, we'd be a lot better of right now if the rest of the country had followed their lead and actually handed their electoral votes to someone else- anyone else.) St. Mittens will be fine. He's a Saint now, after all, and there's plenty of television appearances on MSNBC to be had and maybe when the Tangerine Overlord is gone and we can all just pretend this is a really bad acid trip we're on, he'll saddle up once more and try and prove me wrong about good and decent people and the Presidency.
What? You mean the two of you think I'm being disgustingly cynical about all of this?
Maybe, but I'm not wrong either.
And hey- look! I was right.
In an election year, politicians are motivated by one thing and one thing only: keeping their jobs. Now, granted, in the case of the Senate, only a third of them are up for re-election this year, but voters tend to remember these things and in these days of partisan hysteria that we live in, if voters forget, some helpful political action committee is going to come along and remind them again when the time comes. It's not a bad motivation, keeping your job. You, I and the rest of America are probably motivated to keep our jobs, whatever they are. But when you take that and combine it with the current levels of partisan hysteria that keep the internet smoldering like a massive dystopian tire, of course the politicians are going to play their parts in this. They're not going to go against their 'team', they're not going to risk being culled from their respective 'herds' and cast out. Come on, now.
[Insert Liberal Rage]
I get that, Liberal Friend. I do. The President is who he is and his character flaws are well established by now. But in a system where conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I think the President had a case. Perhaps not much of a case, I'll grant you, but enough to put some reasonable (or irrational as the case may be) doubts into the mind of Republican Senators.
Oh, you think he should be held accountable? So, censure him. You may think that censure is the 'weaker' of the two options, but in this case it would have been the smarter play. Censure means the Republicans can't argue that the Deep State is coming to get them and gobble them up. Censure means that the Republicans will put in a position to defend his character flaws- and even Republican voters will admit that they'd like him to Tweet less. And guess what? The last President who was censured was Andrew Jackson-- and it took him a little bit of work to get it expunged. (Alexander Hamilton was also censured, by the way.) It's not nothing and even the reddest of red areas of the country would be forced to admit that yes, this President is worthy of censure- even if they do so in an empty bar at noon when only three other people are around.
But y'all wanted impeachment- because President Pence would be such a vast improvement on Our Tangerine Overlord. And don't even at me about your fever dreams of a President Pelosi. That shit wasn't gonna happen.
Oh, so you think the voters are going to hold the Republicans accountable? Oh please. Let me ask you this: if a group of Democratic Senators had sat down and said, "This House case is flimsy bullshit and they need to do better. We're voting to acquit." How do you think y'all would have taken that? Y'all would have lost your damn minds. Primary challenges would have been launched. Fundraising would have begun. A thousand tweets would been launched raging against the traitors who betrayed the capital R Resistance.
And you don't think the Right would have reacted the same way to Republican Senators who voted to convict? You know damn well they would have. Motivation number one for politicians in an election year: keeping their jobs. Doing some governing and good for the country is just something they stumble into from time to time.
Sit down, have a beer or two, take a deep breath and concentrate on picking a nominee that the country can actually vote for. See you in November!
[Insert Conservative Schaudenfreude]
Oh hi, Conservative Friend. How is that extra-large beer stein of Liberal Tears tasting? Pretty good? Well, you've got to be feeling pretty good about all of this, I guess- but can I let you in on a little secret- just, a tiny, tiny little secret...
This looks shady as all giddy-up.
In your heart of hearts, you know it too-- I'll grant you the President does have a pretty wide amount of latitude when it comes to foreign policy and it was somewhat ironic that not two days after the transcript broke, a Democratic Senator stood up and pretty much said they'd withhold aid to Israel unless they 'change their relationship with Gaza' which is pretty much what the President did- except for that tiny, nagging little hitch in all this. The Gaza suggestions didn't involve one of the Senator's political rivals.
Now in July of 2019, over a year away from the election, the theory that Joe Biden was a mortal lock to be the nominee is a shaky one, I'll grant you. Uncle Joe, bless him, has tried to run for President two times before and he's just well, not that good at it. But, he's also running against an actual Socialist. Like Joe DiMaggio, it's entirely possible the nation will turn it's lonely eyes to him and cometh the hour, cometh the man- that sort of thing. So the idea that this was done to benefit the President is not, you know, entirely unreasonable to conclude.
So, side question for you: if kids of Republican Senators or Vice Presidents are getting shady contracts overseas, are you going to investigate them? If Ivanka Trump or another one of the innumerable Trumps is found to have been doing deals on the side and enriching the family through the power of the office- what will you do about it? Do I think we should look into this Biden business? Absolutely. But if you're asking me to believe that Establishment corruption and self-enrichment is only to be found on one side of the aisle, then GTFO here. Really. (And oh, by the way, I think we all know that Republicans would never look into shenanigans by former Republican Vice Presidents or their families any more than Democrats would investigate their own either. Which is a systemic failure of both parties, I'll grant you.)
Y'all talk about the Constitution quite a bit, but an objective look at the past twenty years reveals that when elected, you don't practice what you preach. Your party started this executive power grab in the wake of 9/11, not the Democrats. It could be argued that your party accelerated our national descent in partisan hysteria (again, admittedly, the Left didn't help either.) But if you're going to talk about the Constitution, then you need to stand by it. Congress needs to stop being the Executive Branch's lapdog. The Senate and The White House may be controlled by the same party at the moment, but they don't work for each other. It's time they stopped acting like it.
[Liberal Friend Returns, Still Raging]
Oh hey, you got yourself another Jaeger-bomb. Keep those coming by all means, I have a feeling you're going to need more of them. Oh, what's that, Conservative Friend? You want to know why I'm not more outraged by Liberal attempts to subvert the result of the 2016 election? And you, Liberal Friend want to know why I'm not outraged that an allegedly Russian controlled President and his corrupt lapdogs in the Senate have escaped accountability?
Because there was never going to be any accountability, to begin with. Laws and consequences are for us peasants, not the rich and powerful. And for all the posturing about how impeachment should be based on facts and evidence like you're in an episode of Law and Order- it's always been an inherently political act. Slate opined that this means that impeachment will never remove a President from office and they're probably right. If no one is willing to take a walk up Pennsylvania Avenue and tell the President what's what and what's coming, it's largely a symbolic piece of performance art and a massive waste of everyone's time. Granted, had Cocaine Mitch seen the evidence and taken that walk up the Avenue, I don't know if this President would have listened-- but that's really what it takes to get a President out of office. The two other times we've had impeachments, they've gone the way of party-line votes and backroom deals. Andrew Johnson, who was apparently a massive prick was perhaps the most worthy of ejection from office- like even more so than the current denizen of the White House- and they couldn't even get it done back then.
And yes, I know Mittens stood on principle and voted to remove on one article. Good for him- because he demonstrated how this shit should have actually worked, but never will because this is the real world and not an episode of The West Wing. Yes, he weighed the facts and evidence and voted his conscience. Good for him. God bless. There's no small amount of irony floating around in the air now that he's been canonized by the Left for his actions. St. Mittens of Romney was, eight years ago, being shishkabobed by the Left for all manner of imagined sins and slights and subjected to a whisper campaign on the Right because, Mormonism creeps all the Evangelicals out and hey, no one finds his lionization the least bit ironic today. And I guess it's true- a genuinely good and decent person really can't be President...
Do I think St. Mittens of Romney is in danger of losing his Senate seat? Oh hell no. He represents Utah, FFS who were seriously considered handing their Electoral Votes to that one dude who's name escapes me in 2016. (BTW, we'd be a lot better of right now if the rest of the country had followed their lead and actually handed their electoral votes to someone else- anyone else.) St. Mittens will be fine. He's a Saint now, after all, and there's plenty of television appearances on MSNBC to be had and maybe when the Tangerine Overlord is gone and we can all just pretend this is a really bad acid trip we're on, he'll saddle up once more and try and prove me wrong about good and decent people and the Presidency.
What? You mean the two of you think I'm being disgustingly cynical about all of this?
Maybe, but I'm not wrong either.
Comments
Post a Comment