If the Failure is obviously because one party could not find even a few people to stand on the right side of the Rule of Law in the face of multiple well documented treasonous crimes…I don’t think the negative baggage will be The Dems. And it might be the only way we get them all on record…sticking their nose in the evidence…and have them refuse to adhere to our Rule of Law for all to see.
Good point. I’m sure Nadler and Pelosi have that in mind. So should we all.
1 Like
That, I think, is exactly the problem. The original statement “Repubs have become more extreme than Dems” at the very least implies that Dems are (or were already) extreme. To the extent that that implication is inherent in the original statement, it ought to generate logical objection.
3 Likes
We don’t have the votes in the Senate. Nadler has to tread carefully. Although this is the very definition of lawyer speak.
1 Like
I didn’t realize we were commenting for grades.
Okay.
You got it in one.
Thanks for making it explicit.
I really am out of time now!
1 Like
Are you possibly referring to the inherent ambiguity of the words “Republicans” and “Democrats” insofar as it’s not clear whether the referent in either case is a political party, a group of people, or a set of individuals identifying as such?
I suppose that’s true. But … I cannot agree with you, because in context it’s clear that the referent is the political parties referred to. And in that respect, as I tried to say, it’s been patently obvious for years that the very fact Republicans have been getting more and more extreme right-wing has pushed the political conversation in this country ever further to the right. Republicans haven’t been trying to come up with different universal health care proposals to meet those of Democrats; to the contrary, up until now, Democrats have always tried to compromise with Republicans and find common ground, as they did in adopting the “Romneycare” model for the Affordable Care Act, in a (futile) attempt to get Republicans on board. Of course they failed because … Republicans decided to move the argument even further to the right.
2 Likes
You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
3 Likes
No you don’t.
I hope it does not shock you to hear that there is nothing in your paragraph that I disagree with.
Have a great evening!
1 Like
All well and good, but tactically speaking, wouldn’t it be much saner to “contain and control” the current president, while developing larger “piles of evidence” in which to stick their noses before moving forward with a House vote to impeach?
2 Likes
Oh, alright. I get it.
The assumption is that Democrats were also, in some sense, “extreme.”
OK, OK.
I didn’t know this was a grade school test and we were commenting for a score.
2 Likes
The authors of the article point out that Democrats have stayed center left for decades while Rs have not hesitated to move far right whenever they could, and the examples of that are well known to us. There is neither inference nor implication that Dems were ever extreme or are ever going to be.
3 Likes
This makes me feel good and goddamned old. From SF Chron writer Garchik.
At the checkout counter at Harvest Market in Novato, Mark Aronoff noticed two workers standing side by side wearing badges with their first names, “Bob” and “Dylan.” He made some joke about the musician and Nobel Prize winner, but Dylan, the younger of the two, said he hadn’t heard of anyone named “Bob Dylan”
1 Like
O that seems impossible!
Wow.
1 Like
Nothing wrong with keeping your powder dry. Nadler is no dummy.
Except in that top line you quoted?
If you don’t understand why Republicans have worked hard for more than two decades to paint Democrats as “extreme,” and why one should fight that suggestion at every turn, well, there’s really not much to say.
But again, have a great evening.
I said upthread…I trust Nadler, Pelosi, Schiff to come up with a wisely coordinated strategy of bringing all the other mechanisms to bear, and to keep impeachment on hold until everything else is firmly underway. If impeachment becomes necessary or our only recourse, or the good results outweigh the chances it fails…to move ahead. History will have shown Ds were obliged to do it, and I think we have watched Republicans say “I didn’t see nuthing” for 2+ yrs and impeachment will put every one of them on record. If it works out perfectly, just as these folks are vying for re-election they will be forced during an election to say No Crime Here on an impeachment vote in the face of a Mountainous Pile of Evidence.
5 Likes
True, but specifically the only election that Ford won was for Michigan’s 5th Congressional District. He was never elected to national office (the only president who could make this claim) hence was never in a position to win “reelection” in "76.
1 Like
I just looked up the Watergate timeline.
The televised Senate Watergate hearings began in the spring of 1973.
About a year later, the House Judiciary Committee. takes up impeachment.
I can see that timeline working here.
Obviously the Senate won’t do anything. But the house could do a LOT by setting up one committee to investigate… in a very public way. Mueller will continue to roll out indictments, which will create the considerable gravity that a “partisan” congressional investigation cannot (thanks a lot Benghazi).
All of that activity will erode Senate resistance to impeachment.
At that point, the HJC takes up impeachment.
There’s no other way, unless Mueller indicts Trump, but that doesn’t look like it will happen.
One way or the other, DJT is completely fucked.
3 Likes