An Open Letter to Tulsi Gabbard on Voting “Present”

download
Tulsi Gabbard misses the mark with her move to the “center” and her weak vote of “present”

W.J. Astore

On hearing that Tulsi Gabbard voted “present” on Trump’s impeachment, and after reading her statement about that vote, I sent the following note to her campaign:

Dear Tulsi:

I respect your vote of “present” on Trump’s impeachment, but I think it was the wrong choice. Here’s why:

1. Censure is too weak. Trump’s actions are deserving of impeachment.
2. Of course it’s a partisan process, but this is because Trump dominates the Republicans. They all fear a negative tweet from him. Much more than the Democrats, the Republicans are failing their oaths to the Constitution.
3. Your move to the “center” will please few people. Where is this “center”? Both parties are too far to the right, especially when it comes to the forever wars being waged in places like Afghanistan.

You have spoken eloquently about the need to end regime-change wars, and I support you for this reason. But your “present” vote on impeachment was poorly judged, in my opinion. Yes, the impeachment process was partisan and imperfect, but it has always been thus through our nation’s history.

With respect to Trump, I’d say the following: he is not a public servant. He never has been. Trump is a businessman who knows the art of the con. He conflates his own self-interest with that of the country. For Trump, service to self is the only service he understands. This may not be treason, but it is nonetheless dangerous in the extreme. It’s the attitude of a wannabe king, and we already fought a war against that back in the 18th century.

END OF LETTER

The choice now is obvious: Bernie Sanders.

37 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Tulsi Gabbard on Voting “Present”

  1. Tulsi Gabbard’s “present” vote brings back sore memories to me from my fraudulent deferment to serving in Vietnam: arranged by a huge corporation that employed me at the time. One of our accounts, JP Stevens*, is the huge fabric manufacturer of army uniforms, tents, etc. for the MIC. They put us on this account, perhaps an hour a month, as I continued working on my normal consumer accounts, up to 150 hours a month. *JP Stevens also manufactures fluffy towels & cutesy bedsheets, but if a US General entered the office and asked me pointed questions of what they produced, I’d be quite clueless.
    As anti war movements escalated, I vowed to never participate, stay neutral. I kept my promise, and confused many friends, who didn’t know the details. I was also “present” only, as war hawk bosses went on about escalation a “sure win”. Right or wrong, that’s my truth.
    I’ve certainly changed, and disappointed many when I marched vehemently against “Desert Storm”, ironically many who were against Vietnam!
    I have sympathy for Gabbard, but respect her decision. The Russia/Ukraine/Obama/Clinton
    Biden/Nuland/Polosi/Schiff/Trumpgate is past my wildest cynical fantasies of hypocrisy, corruption, and lies to the American people. Participating in such a sewer is shame, not justice. I too, would vote “present”.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Watching the “debate” tonight, which was actually well-conducted compared to previous debates, it seemed to me as a retired Medicare physician now on Medicare myself, Vietnam Vet, and lifelong progressive Democrat that the entire field, intellectually and politically, was superior to anything the GOP could muster–and that if we could engage the entire panel, pick one as President, another as Vice-P, and the rest in the Cabinet we could rebuild the
    USA in a few years…Fantasy? Perhaps–gotta get the voters out.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Support whom you like Mr. Astore. But I don’t see the point of your burdening your readers with “reasoning” like this. Tulsi Gabbard, whom you praised to the skies the other day, long ago expressed her view that the congressional impeachment process was a bad idea, especially if the basis of it is–as is evidently your position–that you (or whomever) believe the Donald Trump is incompetent to be president and that your belief entitles you and some other gang of people–not disinterested or but political adversaries of Donald Trump–to work to turn him out of office. Tulsi’s view is that the American electorate is the only body entitled to do that (barring any real impeachable “predicate”), and it would be best done, if it’s to be done, in the 2020 election, now less than a year away. But obviously, you don’t have much respect for the sovereignty of the electorate. (Why, God knows, they might even go ahead and re-elect Trump! Can’t have that, if it doesn’t agree with Astore’s judgment!) Tulsi, along with a lot of other people, including myself, think that mounting an impeachment–especially one based simply upon the rage of the Democratic establishment at having lost the 2016 presidential election, which was meant to be in the bag for Hillary Clinton, is a dangerous move that is likely to exacerbate civil discord in a country that is already dysfunctional, and to lead to continuing banana republic struggles for power (which do no one any good and which usually turn violent). Whatever the demerits of Donald Trump, and the presumed prescience of your own lofty opinion, I think that her stand beats yours hands down in terms of wisdom, honesty, integrity, and her hope (perhaps vain) of restoring some vestige of “Aloha” in the sick society that is the United States of America. She also evidently has a much better understanding of this whole charade, and the motives and characters behind it, than you do, or so it seems to me. You might think from this that I have some fondness for Donald Trump or think that Tulsi should be the Democratic nominee, but neither is the case, as it happens. But my sentiments and preferences are wholly irrelevant to the point I am making here and that Tusi Gabbard was making with her (rather exceptionally courageous) “present” vote; a point that seems to have transcended your level of understanding. As a long-time reader of your blog (which I shall continue to be, despite this present piece of arrogant bloviation), I have to say that I am shocked and saddened.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes — I think Trump’s been a disaster as president, but it could be far worse. Fortunately, he doesn’t like to work that hard. He prefers to golf, tweet, go to rallies, and spend lots of time advertising his various “resorts.” What’s scary is the prospect of a future Trump who really has his act together.

        Trump is thin-skinned and surprisingly weak, despite all the tough-guy posturing. For example, he’s enlarged and engorged the military-industrial complex while prolonging the regime-change wars that Tulsi protests against so eloquently and convincingly.

        I still support Tulsi Gabbard; she’d make a good VP to Bernie Sanders. But the DNC despises both of them. So it won’t surprise me at all if Trump wins another term in 2020.

        I wrote in 2016 that Trump was wrong on two big issues: climate change and nuclear proliferation. The longer he’s in office, the greater the chances of harm …

        Like

        1. Thank you for your response. I personally believe that the only combination of present potential nominees is Bernie Sanders (Pres.) with Tulsi Gabbard (VP), but the Democratic establishment would much rather lose to Trump than win with either of them. Besides, I think that the Democratic establishment has so offended the electorate with the impeachment charade–and it is nothing but that–that the chances of Trump missing out on re-election are small and ever-dwindling. In addition, Bernie has lost much of the appeal that he had in 2016, first, by his avid support for Hillary Clinton after her conjured nomination (although he was being honorable, as he had promised to support whomever was nominated); second, by his collapse into warmongering imperialism, fulminating Russophobia and Trump-derangement-syndrome;* thirdly by the debate-frenzy in which he was forced to appear progressiver-than-thou as compared with people whose advertised forms of “progressivism” will not appeal to many voters (including voters who think of themselves as progressive and who trusted and supported Bernie in 2016), and fourthly by his collusion in the impeachment game. In the latter matter, he has shown neither the courage, nor the integrity, nor the understanding and good sense shown by Tulsi Gabbard. So Bernie is now a much-flawed candidate, but some of the flaws could be partially prepared if he were to run with Tulsi as a VP whose views would be taken on board by the frenzied and discredited Bernie. As was the case with FDR’s final election, it’s very important to have someone as VP whom one would welcome as president and eventual successor.** Even if Bernie were to survive a first term healthy, lucid and energetic, it’s doubtful that he would be supported to run for a second term. Tulsi Gabbard has been smeared and marginalized, of course. But I am convinced that with exposure as a VP candidate, she would have tremendous appeal to voters, even many Republican voters; and that could possibly be what’s needed to get Bernie elected. And in my view, she could be just the kind of VP whom one would want as a back-up for the gerontic Bernie, although she needs a track record, which she could acquire in four years as an active VP. The “debates” have been engineered to let the potentially “threatening” Democratic candidates tear one another apart and make all of them appear to be idiots and/or scoundrels, and the engineering has succeeded. People whom I thought of as intelligent and perceptive have been entirely snookered, and I am embarrassed to read their reactions on Facebook.

          *Even some of the main writers for the Black Agenda Report, who seem to hope for, and support, Bernie for the Democratic nomination, have described him as an “imperialist pig”–not polite, but not, in my view, entirely undeserved.

          **And by the way, the same would be true were Joe Biden the nominee, since he is just about as old as Bernie and obviously in fragile condition, and even Elizabeth Warren, who is now past 70. And one has likewise to hope that Trump will not be running again with Pence (or Cruse, or Rubio, or any of those other gangsters.)

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Sorry, I meant to say, “I personally believe that the only combination of present potential nominees THAT COULD POSSIBLY BEAT DONALD TRUMP is Bernie Sanders (Pres.) with Tulsi Gabbard (VP) . . .”

            Like

          2. Sorry, I meant to say: “I personally believe that the only combination of present potential nominees WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO BEAT DONALD TRUMP is Bernie Sanders (Pres.) with Tulsi Gabbard (VP) …”

            Like

  3. I have thought it best to wait a few days before commenting on Representative Tulsi Gabbard’s vote of “Present” in the recent House Impeachment proceedings. Since I value Bill Astore’s opinion, I especially wanted to hear what he had to say. I also wanted to get the views of Jimmy Dore and Alexander Mercouris (a British legal expert and Editor in Chief of The Duran) among others. This uncharacteristically reticent attitude on my part has resulted in several days spent typing up transcripts of youtube videos which I consider germane to the subject at hand. For one example, consider the following based on the yearly question-and-answer session conducted by Russian President Vladimir Putin with Russian journalists: Putin – ‘Dems DREAMT UP idea of pressure being exerted on Ukraine’ (Video), The Duran Quick Take: Episode 409 (December 29, 2019).

    Putin said the Democratic push for impeachment is ‘part of the ongoing domestic political battle in Washington.’
    • Russia’s Putin, asked about impeachment vote against Donald Trump, says ‘I am not sure it’s the end of Trump’s presidency yet.’
    • Russia’s Putin, asked about impeachment vote against Donald Trump, says allegations against him are dreamt up
    • Russia’s Putin says U.S. Senate is unlikely to remove Trump from Presidency.

    Alexander Mercouris: “… all these questions about Donald Trump and his impeachment. What it shows is that Putin is extremely well versed in the U.S. political structures. He knows what the role of the Senate is. He knows what the role of the House of Representatives is. He knows all those sorts of things. He knows quite a bit about the impeachment process in the United States. Putin is also a trained lawyer. This is something people always miss about him. Putin’s training is as a lawyer and he has looked at the case against Donald Trump and he is as unimpressed about it as we on The Duran are and have been saying for a very long time. His point is: there isn’t any real case here. It’s all made up. His words, practically. There is no chance that the Senate is going to impeach him on these nebulous, confected allegations. So Donald Trump is going to survive this impeachment and Donald Trump’s presidency is going to carry on. So accurate and precise an assessment of what is going on in the United States. One only wishes that American political leaders were as familiar and had as good a grasp of Russian affairs as Putin has of American affairs.”

    I agree with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Alexander Mercouris, both trained lawyers. I do not agree with Bill Astore that “Trump’s actions are deserving of impeachment.” President Obama (nominally a “Democrat”) refused to send military “aid” to Ukraine and his Vice President, Joe Biden, helped foment the neo-Nazi coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in 2014, so he has not just dirt all over himself from petty corruption, but plenty of bloodstains, as well. In light of these facts, I find it totally absurd for the Democrats to impeach Donald Trump for only delaying the delivery of provocative weaponry before sending it anyway. As for requesting information on the origins of the U.S. sponsored coup in Ukraine which involved former Vice President Joe Biden and several other high-ranking officials of the Obama Administration, any American government ought to wish these persons and their activities examined, since nuclear war with Russia might ultimately result from such criminal activities.

    Anyway, if the Democratic party did not want Donald Trump to exercise the legitimate powers of the U.S. presidency they would not have stupidly pursued their lunatic “Pied Piper” strategy of building him up with tons of free media on the presumption that he would make an easily defeated opponent for You-Know-Her, about the most damaged and discredited politician that they could have chosen as their candidate. If the Democratic party truly didn’t want Donald Trump as U.S. president for four years, they should have run Bernie Sanders in 2016. But as Jimmy Dore always says: “The Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive.” (More on this in a later comment)

    I consider the entire impeachment proceedings just another phony partisan food fight — like the partisan Republican impeachment of President Bill Clinton for getting a blow job and lying about it — one designed NOT to depose a Republican president guilty of the real war crimes that every U.S. president regularly commits but to keep distracted and disunited those Democrats who might vote for progressive policies like those advanced by Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Therefore, since the Democratic party establishment obviously would rather spend time and resources vilifying and dismaying the “leftist” base of their own party, I do not blame Representative Gabbard from wanting nothing to do with this ludicrous farce: one way, or another way, or any way.

    So much for the first comment I wished to make in response to Bill Astore’s article.

    Like

    1. This is a tough question, Mike, because impeachment, strictly speaking, is a political rather than a legal process.

      Does Trump merit impeachment? I’d say yes, and Tulsi Gabbard does a good job of listing the reasons in her bill to censure him. Censure is not a bad idea, but it’s far too late in the process. The impeachment train has arrived at the station.

      I disagree with Tulsi’s “present” vote for several reasons. One that I didn’t articulate is that I believe it weakens her. Of course, I may be wrong, but I expect her to lose support from this. I would have preferred her to vote yes or no, rather than to show up and essentially vote neutral, as if she’s above the fray.

      Trump, of course, will not be removed from office. That doesn’t mean impeachment is a failure.

      Of course, I am still against the establishment Democrats who basically give Trump everything he wants. But should Trump not be impeached because the Democrats suck too? I wish we could impeach all of the corrupt asses that make up our political system — we have to start somewhere. Why not at the top?

      Like

      1. Thanks for the two replies, Bill. But I hope you’ll understand that since each consists of multiple subsidiary considerations — not all of them relevant to the point at issue, in my opinion — it may take a while for me to respond to them all. So, I’ll just get started and see how far I get.

        First, you say that “impeachment, strictly speaking, is a political rather than a legal process.” What, if anything, do you suppose a time-worn cliché like that actually means? I’ll let Alexander Mercouris, a British legal expert, answer that. See: No witnesses, no long trial. Republicans want quick end to Ukraine impeachment hoax (Video), The Duran Quick Take – Episode 404 (December 14, 2019)

        …[ snip] …

        “… there is no crime here. I am well aware and very familiar with this argument that you don’t need an actual crime for impeachment. I think this is based on a misunderstanding of British impeachment law – US impeachment law is based on British impeachment law – this famous phrase “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” comes from British impeachment law. It actually dates from the Fourteenth century when it was used in one of the early impeachments that happened in England. I have no doubt at all in my mind that when the Founders drafted the Constitution they envisaged something that was a crime or something very like a crime as the basis of an impeachment. They specifically rejected concepts like corruption and maladministration because they said these were too vague. So where do you get precision from? You can only get it effectively from criminal law and that points you in the direction of a crime. BUT, even if you don’t accept that view, which is the one I’ve just expressed – and most American scholars, I understand, do not accept that view – this is so incredibly thin, that it’s basically invisible.”

        What does all this mean, then, in a practical sense, as concerns the present “case” sort-of-unfolding (or maybe not, depending on Nancy Pelosi’s tortured dithering) sometime in the undetermined future? You have “indictments” (named, “Articles of Impeachment”). You have “prosecuting attorneys” (“managers”). You have a “jury” (“U.S. Senators”). You have a “presiding judge” (“Chief Justice of the Supreme Court”). You have a “trial” (“the U.S. Senate sitting as a body and passing ultimate judgement”). If this does not resemble a legal procedure, then it certainly goes as far as one can imagine trying to look like one.

        So why even bother with empty appearances of legality, unless, as Alexander Mercouris points out, the governing regime requires a legitimizing sense of precision which can only come from criminal law. Otherwise, naked and obvious political bile will do (as with the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton) and certain factions within the governing establishment (this time Congressional Democrats and Security State bureaucrats) can simply say: “We impeached BUT DIDN’T REMOVE President Trump from office because we felt like it and because we could.”

        There. I have given my understanding of what the phrase “a political rather than a legal matter” actually means. It does not make a persuasive argument for legitimacy, political or otherwise. It didn’t persuade Tulsi Gabbard, although it seems to have persuaded Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

        Like

      2. As for the second paragraph of your reply, Bill, you ask, rhetorically: “Does Trump merit impeachment? I’d say yes.”

        OK. But what prompts you to say that? Give an example of what you find persuasive in the two Articles of Impeachment upon which Representative Gabbard and other House members had to vote (hint: make sure you understand events in the Ukraine since 2014 upon which the entire impeachment farce wobbles). What do you mean by (1) Abuse of Power? (2) What do you mean by “Obstruction of Congress? Frankly, I do not automatically equate the EXERCISE of delegated power with the ABUSE of it. As well, I’ve never heard of “Obstruction of Congress.” Doesn’t a presidential VETO amount to “obstructing” Congress? Do not The Courts declaring a law unconstitutional “obstruct” one or both of the other two co-equal branches of the government — and all by deliberate design of the Constitution’s Founding Slave Owners and Mercantilist Bankers? A ludicrous charge, and an admission of fundamental ignorance of the Separation of Powers Doctrine that even my visiting older son (the forty-five-year-old software engineer and developer) could instantly recall when I when I asked him what he remembered from High School Civics class.

        So, give a reason or two for why you buy the two Articles of Impeachment and we can discuss the matter. I know why I don’t buy EITHER LET ALONE BOTH of these bogus charges and I suspect that I know why Tulsi Gabbard doesn’t buy them either. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren do buy them, however, as I’ve pointed out in a comment above, which does not, obviously, recommend them for my consideration, at least in the realm of foreign policy. If caving in to intimidation by the discredited Democratic party establishment qualifies as “leadership” on their part, I would strongly disagree.

        Again, though, I find the two Articles of Impeachment total nonsense and the equivalent of asking a man: “Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No.” Do I really have to go further and explain this tawdry semantic trap? Tulsi Gabbard clearly saw it and sidestepped it adroitly, the only person in Congress to do so. More about this two-valued logical trap and your presumption that censure comes too late for an “impeachment train” that has “already left the station” (tell that to “conductor” Nancy Pelosi) in my next comment.

        Like

        1. Couldn’t have said it better myself, Mr Murry! Thank you! In my earlier comments, I see that I assumed that Mr Astore understood all of the things that you have been pointing out. But you have made it clear that he didn’t, and perhaps still doesn’t: merely another victim of Trump derangement syndrome. I should have emphasized, in discussing what I saw (and see) as Bernie Sanders’s weaknesses (which I suggested could possibly be partially compensated if he were to run with Tulsi Gabbard as a VP who would be accepted as an active member of his administration), his “caving in to intimidation by the discredited Democratic party establishment”, which reflects something deeper, namely his own affliction with Trump derangement syndrome and its attendant Russophobic neo-McCarthyism. Of all of the Democratic “hopefuls”, Bernie ought to know better, given that he has been through all of that in earlier days and seemed then to be leaning mostly in the right direction. And Mr Astore ought to know better, too, but Trump derangement syndrome seems to be accompanied by political amnesia and an urge to look for guidance and comfort to the Gestapo . . . er . . . KGB . . . er “Deep State”. The fact that anyone with half a brain can take the Democratic establishment’s impeachment effort seriously as motivated and shaped by anything other than a naked partisan feeding frenzy is something that I find incredible and that has caused me to lose respect for many of the handful of people in whom I earlier had some degree of confidence. So, anyway, thank you again.

          Like

          1. How can I convince you that I’m not suffering from TDS? By adopting your point of view, which is obviously free from bias and derangement?

            Accusing people of TDS and other derangement syndromes gets us nowhere.

            Like

          2. Replying to yours of 23 December:

            “How can I convince you that I’m not suffering from TDS? By adopting your point of view, which is obviously free from bias and derangement?
            Accusing people of TDS and other derangement syndromes gets us nowhere.”

            Dear Mr Astore,
            Your question and remark are deserving of a reply (but there was no direct reply link on the comments page). First, I agree with you that merely accusing someone of TDS is not productive and, indeed, gets us nowhere. And moreover, applying such labels is not generally my style. However, whoever invented the term “Trump derangement syndrome” did a brilliant thing, in my opinion, capturing the idea that people with whom one could previously have a reasoned discussion, including a reasoned disagreement, and who were formerly not gullible consumers of politically (or government) generated agitprop and demonization, and who had lived through the Army-McCarthy Hearings, the Hoover FBI, the Vietnam War and Pentagon Papers, Cold War I (including the Cuban Missile Crisis), the Iran-Contra “scandal” and subsequent exposés, the Church Committee Reports, the Iraq War and Downing Street Memoranda, the suppression (by Obama) of the Congressional report on torture, “and on and on” (as Chomsky often says) with their judgment and integrity more or less intact suddenly lost their wits when Donald Trump was elected president and either allied themselves with, or fell completely for the guile of, the very people, or very sort of people, of whom they had formerly been critical or toward whom they had at least maintained a healthy skepticism. This, some of us–me for instance–found inexplicable. It was only comprehensible as a sort of derangement, a political bad acid trip; if you would prefer to call it “going bananas” as more polite, I could agree to that. Now, you want to know how you can convince me (as if that mattered) that you are not suffering from TDS, I am at a loss to say; for it was you, yourself, who convinced me (to my shock and disappointment) that you were, and evidently still are. In defense of my having applied this label in departure from my usual style, I believe that, in my previous remarks, I made clear enough why–despite my more general, and continuing, respect for you–I considered you a victim. I was not merely casting a label. But even if my explanations were inadequate, your continuing exchange with Mr Murry, in which he points out (in an admirably polite and civil manner) all of the things you have ignored or rejected, and all of the poisonous guff that you have swallowed, and all of the disingenuous bandwagons onto which you have jumped in your discussion (in particular) of the impeachment matter, but also more widely, show that your loathing of Donald Trump has disturbed your critical and rational faculties. Hence, “derangement”. You should pay very close attention to all that Mr Murray has been pointing out and reflect, with a self-critical eye, as to whether your previous blindness to the matters that he has adduced, doesn’t tell you something about the extent to which you have lost your grip on the basis of the premise that The Donald must go and should never have been, so never mind the details of the impeachment process or what would eventuate were Trump to be impeached. No, you don’t have to “adopt my point of view” on any of the various matters that are subject to reasoned disagreement–even virulent disagreement–among people of integrity; and, no, I don’t consider myself to be free of bias, or of error for that matter. But I am confident that I, like Mr Murry (to whom we can both be thankful), am free of derangement and hopeful that you will free yourself from it as soon as possible. Remember that the first step toward healing is coming to admit the problem. This is intended as a well-meant piece of advice, as to a troubled friend, and not as a piece of patronizing arrogance by someone who thinks of himself as always right.

            Like

          3. You accuse me of “loathing” Trump. I can say with all honesty that I don’t. I think he’s a terrible president. But I ask you to look at my writing from 2015 to the present day. Firstly, I was just as critical of Hillary as I was of Trump. Does that mean I have Hillary Derangement Syndrome?

            Secondly, I believe my criticism of Trump has been principled and based on facts. Again, you can read my articles, but here are a few reasons I’ve criticized Trump:

            1. For his rejection of science (climate change) and his support of massive programs to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal.
            2. For his divisive rhetoric that casts Mexicans, Muslims, and others as threats, inciting violence.
            3. For his narcissism and his inability to serve anyone but himself.
            4. For his tax cuts for the richest Americans, even as many in the middle class saw their tax bills go up.
            5. For his patent dishonesty, for his racism, for his opportunism, for his reckless attacks on the media as “the enemy of the people,” etc. Reference my previous articles on Trump.

            Yes, I’ve been very critical of Trump. Hillary too. But I don’t loathe them. I see them as deeply flawed people who make poor public servants.

            “Don’t be a hater” is a sound piece of advice. I don’t hate Trump (or Hillary, or Biden, etc.), but I do believe he needs to be resisted. Because his policies are not about us — they are always all about him.

            Like

          4. You accuse me of “loathing” Trump. I can say with all honesty that I don’t. I think he’s a terrible president.

            OK, I CAN’T SEE INTO YOUR SOUL. I THINK HE’S A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT TOO. BUT I DON’T THINK THAT MY THINKING THAT HE’S A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT MEANS THAT I THINK THAT HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED, OVERTURNING AN ELECTION, ON STRICTLY PARTISAN GROUNDS, BY PEOPLE WHO (IN MY OPINION) ARE NO BETTER THAN TRUMP. EVERN IF THEY WERE BETTER THASN TRUMP, THE POINT STILL HOLDS. YOU HAVE DECLARED THAT HE MUST BE IMPEACHED (ALTHOUGH YOU’VE BACK-PEDALLED A LITTLE IN THE FACE OF CRITICISM. THINKING THAT SOMEONE IS A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT, JUSTIFIABLY OR NOT, IS NOT A PLAUSIBLE REASON TO DEMAND, OR SUPPORT, IMPEACHMENT.

            But I ask you to look at my writing from 2015 to the present day. Firstly, I was just as critical of Hillary as I was of Trump. Does that mean I have Hillary Derangement Syndrome?

            OF COURSE NOT. YOUY EVIDENTLY STILL DON’T GET IT. CRITICISING TRUMP IS NOT A SIGN OF TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. I DON’T THINK THAT ANYONE HAS EVER SAID, OR EVEN HINTED, THAT IT WAS.

            Secondly, I believe my criticism of Trump has been principled and based on facts. Again, you can read my articles, but here are a few reasons I’ve criticized Trump:

            1. For his rejection of science (climate change) and his support of massive programs to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal.

            YES, THIS IS A GOOD REASON. HOWEVER, YOU DIDN’T SUGGEST IMPEACHING OBAMA FOR HIS BUILD-UP (EXCUSE ME, “MODERNIZATION”) OF THE NUCLEAR ARSENAL (THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE PROMISED TO DO).

            2. For his divisive rhetoric that casts Mexicans, Muslims, and others as threats, inciting violence.

            THIS WOULD BE A GOOD REASON FOR CRITICISM, IF IT WERE VERIFIABLY TRUE. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN RECENTLY WELL SAID THAT TRUMP HAS NOT CREATED DIVISIVENESS, BUT RATHER THAT DIVISIVENESS CREATED TRUMP. HAVE YOU OBJECTED TO THE CLEAR INCITEMENT TO DIVISION AND HATRED PROMOTED BY THE MEDIA? (READ MATT TAIBBI’S HATE, INC.) I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND OUT WHAT TRUMP HAS ACTUALLY SAID IN THE WAY OF INCITING VIOLENCE. IT’S CLEAR THAT HE HAS DECLARED UN-VETTED MUSLIMS TO BE DANGEROUS. BUT THAT, BAD AS IT IS–AND A CAUSE FOR SEVERE CRITICISM–IS NOT A CAUSE FOR IMPEACHMENT (AND NO ONE HAS ADVANCED IT AS SUCH, BECAUSE IT COULD COME BACK AND BITE MANY OF THEM IN THE ASS).

            3. For his narcissism and his inability to serve anyone but himself.

            DO YOU REPRESENT THIS AS A FACT? EVEN IF IT WERE A FACT, WOULD TRUMP BE UNIQUE AMONG POLITICIANS IN THIS REGARD? HARDLY. BUT HAVE YOU RAISED SUCH A CRITICISM AGAINST ANYONE ELSE? OH, BUT, I FORGOT, YOU DON’T LOATH THE GUY.

            4. For his tax cuts for the richest Americans, even as many in the middle class saw their tax bills go up.

            GOOD REASON TO CRITICISE. IT’S TERRIBLE. STILL, THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY THE BUSH TAX CUTS, CONTINUED UNDER OBAMA. DID YOU RECOMMEND IMPEACHING THEM?

            5. For his patent dishonesty, for his racism, for his opportunism, for his reckless attacks on the media as “the enemy of the people,” etc. Reference my previous articles on Trump.

            TRY TO SOLICIT SUPPORT FOR IMPEACHING TRUMP ON THE GROUNDS OF DISHONESTY, RACISM, AND OPPORTUNISM, AND SEE HOW FAR YOU GET. YOU ARE DESCRIBING 90% OF AMERICAN POLITICIANS. TRUMP IS SIMPLY UNABASHED, WHICH IS WHAT THEY CAN’T STAND. WOULD THAT WE LIVED IN A WORLD WHERE LYING OPPORTUNISTS AND RACISTS COULDN’T GET ELECTED, AND THEN THE CRITICISM (WHICH IS OF COURSE MORE THAN VALID) WOULDN’T BE HYPOCRITICAL. BUT PRACTICALLY EVERYONE IN THE US CONGRESS SUPPORTS THE ACTIONS OF ISRAEL IN PALESTINE, AND THAT MAKES THEM NOT ONLY SUPPORTERS OF RACISM, BUT OF MURDER AND MAYHEM, AND OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION. (I NOTICE THAT THAT CRITIQUE IS NOT ON YOUR LIST.) AS FOR TRUMP’S ATTACKS ON THE MEDIA, THAT USED TO BE JUST WHAT MOST DISCERNING PEOPLE SAID, UNTIL THE TARGET WAS TRUMP. DON’T YOU READ OR WATCH ANYTHING BY JOHN PILGER? OR NOAM CHOMSKY? HAVEN’T YOU NOTICED THAT EDWARD R. MURROW IS DEAD?

            BUT I DIGRESS, FOR EVEN IF YOUR CRITICISMS OF TRUMP WERE NOT PRINCIPLED OR BASED UPON FACTS (WHICH LET US SUPPOSE FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION THAT THEY ARE), THAT STILL WOULDN’T BE A SIGN OF TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. I DON’T THINK THAT YOU YET APPRECIATE WHAT MR. MURRY HAS BEEN SO PATIENTLY TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU. SURELY HIS POINT IS NOT THAT IT’S MISTAKEN (OR DERANGED–A TERM THAT MR. MURRY DOES NOT USE) TO CRITICISE TRUMP, WHICH WOULD INDEED BE A BIZARE CLAIM.

            Yes, I’ve been very critical of Trump. Hillary too. But I don’t loathe them. I see them as deeply flawed people who make poor public servants.

            WELL, GOOD FOR YOU. NANCY PELOSI WOULD BE PROUD OF YOU. I, ON THE OTHER HAND, LOATH BOTH OF THEM. “POOR PUBLIC SERVANTS” DOESN’T BEGIN TO DESCRIBE THEIR EVILS AS I SEE THEM. BUT THAT DOESN’T DRIVE ME TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN CREATING HATRED AND HYSTERIA, CHEERING FOR WAR, AND BEING ENTIRELY COMFORTABLE WITH (OR RATHER, ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT) THE MANIPULATION OF AMERICA BY A PACK OF BENT “SECURITY” OR “INTELLIGENCE” AGENCIES, BAT-GUANO-TYPE MILITARY OFFICERS, OR WAR-MONGERING NEO-CONS.

            “Don’t be a hater” is a sound piece of advice. I don’t hate Trump (or Hillary, or Biden, etc.), but I do believe he needs to be resisted. Because his policies are not about us — they are always all about him.

            THIS LAST IS JUST MEDIA CANT, BUT OF COURSE TRUMP NEEDS TO BE RESISTED–WOULD THAT THERE WERE SOME AUTHENTIC, PRINCIPLED RESISTANCE, NOT ONLY TO HIM, BUT TO THE WHOLE, BENT POLITICAL CLASS. MANY PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT OBAMA NEEDED TO BE RESISTED, TOO; AND I REMEMBER ALL THE TALK ABOUT “HOLDING HIS FEET TO THE FIRE” AFTER “HOLDING ONE’S NOSE AND VOTING TO RE-ELECT HIM”, AS ALL RIGHT-THINKING PEOPLE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. THAT ALL TURNED OUT TO BE EMPTY TALK. IT WAS OK TO SUPPORT, OR ANYWAY NOT GET TOO DISTURBED ABOUT, HIS WAR-MONGERING, BECAUSE HE WAS “OUR” WAR-MONGER. IT WAS OK TO BAIL OUT HIS FRAUDSTER BANKER BUDDIES AT EVERYONE ELSE’S EXPENSE (AND NOT PROSECUTE ANYONE), BECAUSE HE WAS “OUR” FRAUDSTER. IT WAS OK FOR HIM TO PROMOTE CORPORATE CAPTURE OF DEMOCRATIC (OR NON-DEMOCRATIC) NATIONS, INCLUDING ATTACKS UPON HEALTH, SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND SOCIAL WELFARE, BECAUSE HE WAS “OUR” CORPORATE SHILL. IT WAS OK FOR HIM TO CONTINUE AND PROMOTE THE BUSH TAX CUTS AND THE PATRIOT ACT AND EXPAND THE ATTACKS ON WHISTLE BLOWERS AND TRUTH-TELLERS (LIKE JULIAN ASSANGE), BECAUSE HE WAS THAT NICE, SMOOTH, BLACK FELLOW (WE ALL FELT SO VERY UN-RACIST AND OPEN-MINDED AT HAVING ELECTED HIM), WHO REASSURED US THAT AMERICA WAS THE EXCEPTIONAL (AND THE ONLY “INDISPENSABLE”) NATION. SO OF COURSE, NO ONE WAS OFFENDED OR TALKED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY HAVE OFFERED UP SOME MILD CHASTISEMENTS. BUT, AS TRUMP IS NOT “OUR” SON-OF-A-BITCH (UNLESS ONE HAPPENS TO BE A “DEPLORABLE”), AND LETS IT ALL HANG OUT, WE’LL FOLLOW ANYBODY, AND BELIEVE AND PARROT ALMOST ANYTHING, TO GET RID OF HIM. WHAT ALL THE OTHER BETRAYERS OF THE PUBLIC TRUST HAVE DONE, ONE AFTER ANOTHER, IS ALL OF A SUDDEN INTOLERABLE, BECAUSE–WHILE WE OF COURSE MUSTN’T LOATHE OR HATE DONALD TRUMP (BY THE WAY, I PERSONALLY DON’T HATE HIM, ALTHOUGH I DO LOATHE HIM), WELL, WE JUST CAN’T STAND HIM IN THE WAY THAT WE COULD STAND ALL THE OTHERS–AND WILL AGAIN.

            Like

          5. I’m glad you see much of value in Mike Murry’s writing. I always listen to Mike.

            Time to move on to greener pastures. I think we’ve said our piece.

            Like

        2. Mike: We could spend a lot of time debating this, but the reality is impeachment passed the House, whether merited or not under the two charges brought.

          My real concern in writing to Tulsi’s campaign was that I believed she hurt her cause with her “present” vote. You may admire her for her adroitness, but I think her decision will further marginalize her. Left without a party, seen as a maverick who’s too contrarian, she may well fade away. And that’s a shame, because we really need her anti-war voice.

          That’s really my biggest concern: the potential silencing of Tulsi’s principled stance against these horrible regime-change wars. She can’t make much noise when she doesn’t make the debate stage and her financial support dwindles …

          I will be pleasantly surprised if her candidacy survives her vote of “present.”

          Like

    2. Two more thoughts, Mike:

      1. I was watching the impeachment proceedings “live” when I heard Tulsi’s vote of “present.” My immediate gut reaction was negative. “Present” — really? What the hell does that mean? Why bother? I’m not saying my reaction was “right” — but it just struck me that her instincts were wrong here.

      2. I watched Tulsi explain her rationale to Jimmy Dore. It’s interesting that she dropped her rationale about moving to the center — I think she realized it was flawed. She talked a lot about how impeachment shouldn’t be partisan, but that’s more the fault of the Republicans, who all fear a negative tweet from Trump. No Republican will dare attack Trump for anything — Trump totally dominates the activist base of the party.

      Tulsi is right that impeachment won’t remove Trump and that it’s a partisan process. So? She talked a lot about bridging the divide between Democrats and Republicans, but how did that work for Obama?

      It will be interesting to see what happens to Tulsi after November 2020. She’s not running for reelection. Her unorthodox stances have estranged her from the Democratic Party (not a bad thing, in my eyes). Does she end up with a show on Fox News? If so, was her “present” vote the first act in making her a marketable talent? Not that I’d blame her for cashing in … but if she does, she’ll become yet another swamp creature.

      Like

  4. No, WJAstore, I don’t think Tulsi will soften up to a Fox contract. She has no greed gene, and is more Smedley Butler than Lou Dobbs.
    As for the different viewpoints above in the comments, no one seems to address the catastrophe of couping Ukraine in the 1st place. Oh I can hear it: Nuland, Billary, Obama plotting the theft. “We get a deep water port! Axis to controlling gas to EU! Bases on Russia’s border! Maybe Nato member! EU will be stuck with the costs; we’ll rob the cream!”
    Obviously, none of them read how the Nazi’s skirted the costly French Margot Line, much easier. EU is fed up: don’t want them as a member. Crimea residents gladly voted themselves part of Russia, since Cathrine the Great. Russia & EU build Nordstream 2, castrating Ukraine. Some crumbs for Biden & family, but foreign Oligarchs get the cake.
    The 3 I name above should not be impeached, but arrested.

    Like

    1. Yes, BMCKS, whereas Nancy Pelosi pointed to President Trump and declared: “All roads lead to Putin,” in fact this pathetic “impeachment” proceeding of hers leads back to dubious dealings between Ukrainian neo-Nazis, multinational oligarchs, and senior officials in the Obama administration who actively collaborated in the coup that overthrew the elected Viktor Yanukovych government of Ukraine in 2014. In one of my comments above I parenthetically advised those pushing this “impeachment-gate” Kabuki Theater to familiarize themselves with the cast of characters involved, since any actual “trial” in the Senate runs the risk of uncovering a whole rat’s nest of corrupt politicians, businessmen, generals, and corporate media camp followers, all of whom thought they could get in on the Shock Doctrine looting of Ukraine during a period of disorganization and confusion following the coup. Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris of The Duran discuss what all this means in terms of a potential Senate impeachment trial:

      [Begin quote]

      [14:50]Alex Christoforou: [shows screenshot: ‘End this’: Republicans poised to call no witnesses during Trump impeachment trial in Senate.] “We called this. Lindsey Graham hinted at this… The Republicans in the Senate are going to go along with this. And you said this was very disappointing.

      Alexander Mercouris: “This would have been a good opportunity to get everybody together

      Alex Christoforou: “I think Trump would have liked a trial.

      Alexander Mercouris: “Trump wants a trial. No question about it.

      Alex Christoforou: “They’re squashing this story, right? They don’t want to expose the crimes that EVERYONE was doing in Ukraine. EVERYONE was doing. That includes the illegal funding of neo-Nazi alt-Right forces in Ukraine [shows picture of Petro Poroshenko shaking hands with John McCain]. That includes all the money that was poured into Ukraine and leaving back out of Ukraine. EVERYONE has their hands dirty and those who don’t have their hands dirty don’t want this to see the light of day because it is just going to be the biggest of big bombshells, maybe – outside of the Epstein story – this would be the most damning thing to all these members of the Senate. They’re going to squash this because there’s no way you can have Chalupa and Steele and Hunter Biden and all these people testify. And there’s going to be no way for these guys to question them without incriminating themselves.

      [18:00] Alexander Mercouris: “And to have all these witnesses subject to cross examination. … The accusers would very rapidly become the accused. … A great many Republicans are implicated in these activities also. …. It’s going to be all closed down. It’s going to be squashed. And so we’re probably going to get a very rapid two-week trial in the Senate. Probably the vote will be on strict party lines. … and Donald Trump’s numbers will be pumped up even further. But we will be no closer to the truth about all these terrible things going on than we were before.

      [End quote]

      So now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stammers and stalls and and delays while making impossible demands of a Senate in the hands of the other right-wing faction who will do as they please. All the while, behind-the-scenes negotiations proceed until both factions have squeezed every bit of political juice they can from the choreographed soap opera. The Democrats know that impeachment will fail, but they don’t care as long as they can drag out the preliminary squabbling in an effort to convince their own followers that “we did all we could to rid the country of Donald Trump” (while attending to no business that the country desperately needs done). The Republicans will allow this to go on for awhile because it makes the Democrats look abysmally dumb and delusional. At any time they wish, however, the Republicans can simply declare that, because Nancy Pelosi and the House cannot get their act together and actually transmit the Articles — meaning that, metaphorically, the train cannot even get out of the station — then the Senate has no choice but to declare “No Impeachment” and refuse any further dealings with the House on this subject. In this end, this whole imbroglio may simply evaporate.

      Again, nothing will come of the “impeachment.” Everyone in Washington knows it and welcomes it. The American people will learn nothing from the worthless exercise. Donald Trump, though, will have enormous fun taunting the Democrats for their obvious and demonstrated venality and ineptitude.

      Unlike the engineer/conductor Nancy Pelosi’s phoney “impeachment-gate” choo-choo train, however, the Barr-Durham investigations train promises to depart the station on schedule and arrive at a real destination, on time and with a significant cargo of crooks. Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham will shortly begin issuing subpoenas and indictments against some real U.S. citizens who committed real crimes (no qualifying adjectives required). The list of prime suspects includes John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (DNI), James Comey (FBI), just to name a few, although Undersecretary Victoria Nuland, Secretary of State Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and perhaps even President Obama have some serious explaining to do as well. The entire Russia-gate-Ukraine gambit has flopped ignominiously and anyone associated with it may very well wish that they had found something else to occupy their time and limited intellectual capacity. Tulsi Gabbard showed eminently good sense by not having anything to do with this transparent travesty. Any Democrat who went along with it needs their head examined for terminal porosity. They have only boosted Donald Trump and, as Jimmy Dore says, “I refuse to vote for Trump boosters.”

      Like

      1. Mike: I agree with you here: “The Democrats know that impeachment will fail, but they don’t care as long as they can drag out the preliminary squabbling in an effort to convince their own followers that ‘we did all we could to rid the country of Donald Trump.'”

        Even worse, the Democrats are not offering meaningful resistance on policy. They approve Trump’s judges, his trade deals, his space force, his massive military budget. Shameful.

        That’s the real story, but it’s nothing new. You know the saying: I want a third political party. Actually, I’d settle for a second one. The Repubs and Dems are mostly the same, both bought and paid for, both servants to the rich.

        Like

      2. Beautiful Mr. Murry. If only I could really believe that the Barr-Durham investigations will roust out all of the real villains in this debacle, I would be a happy man. But the governments have a poor record when it comes to really exposing the dirt and putting people in the slammer (wasn’t the last instance Iran-contra?) because the dirty business is so pervasive; and who knows who next year’s Attorney General might be? However, I am afraid that our friend Mr Astore is still snookered. A shame, really, as his basic orientation and sentiments are those that I subscribe to myself and suppose to be sound.

        Like

      1. “I’m glad you see much of value in Mike Murry’s writing. I always listen to Mike.
        Time to move on to greener pastures. I think we’ve said our piece.”

        Agreed, Mr Astore. Thank you for the exchange.

        P.S. – I wish that it were possible to edit these comments. I’m embarrassed by my typos.

        Like

  5. Will you guys stop scrapping about Ukraine? It’s Christmas & a Merry one to you all!
    Let’s investigate Ukraine: John McCain claimed Russia is “a gas station masquerading as a country”, so I’d guess Ukraine is a bordello with no decent looking hookers. Hardly worthy of our high intellect & writing skills. But the debate prompted me into research, of other colossal mistakes our State Dept. made.
    Remember b&w TV debates on “Who lost China?” Same clueless characters put their money on grateful Chiang Kai ‘Chic’ – sorry I meant Shek. Waldorf suites, fur coats and jewellery for wives, only infuriated a billion Chinese peasants wanting a piece of bread. The guy in daytime pyjamas started looking good: “He’s one of us!” Today, your Polo shirts & parts of Boeing jets are made by families of his supporters. Sound stupid? Yes it is, but they still haven’t learned! Chiang Kai Chic, like Ukrainian Oligarchs, promised corruption & force would win the battle, and were all darlings of US/EU establishment. But these darlings are only 1% of the population. Mao knew that, ‘Chic’ didn’t.
    So 2020 should be interesting: Will I see on my flat screen TV debates of “Who lost Ukraine?” I doubt it, because NOBODY WANTS IT. They threw away a patient & tolerant Russia out of history’s sake, their “Sicily”. But they broke the tie, now no mans land. EU doesn’t want them, and after the bottom feeders like Biden & Clinton go away, no debates on “Ukrawhat?”.

    Like

  6. After thinking things over for several days, I have concluded that Tulsi Gabbard’s vote of “present” at the recent House imitation of a an impeachment proceeding closely resembles J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring where the White Wizard, Saruman, holds Gandalf the Grey captive in the Tower of Orthanc, trying to pressure him into joining forces with Sauron, the Evil Eye of Mordor. Said Gandalf:

    “Saruman … You were head of the Council, but you have unmasked yourself at last. Well, the choices are, it seems, to submit to Sauron, or to yourself. I will take neither. Have you others to offer?

    Yes. I think that analogy holds together quite well. Like Tulsi Gabbard, I want other choices. The two on offer simply amount to a Hobson’s choice of “take the horse in the stable closest to the door” or don’t take any horse at all. Some people call this a “take it or leave it” choice, but when it comes to a choice between “Evil” or the self-proclaimed “Lesser Evil” the “choice” is more like a command: “Take it or Take it.” You still wind up with Evil, either way, when you actually wanted something good.

    I’ll go with Gandalf and Tulsi on this one.

    Like

    1. I don’t envy Tulsi’s choice, Mike. I’ve listened to her. She’s not against impeaching Trump — just not in the partisan way it was done, and I think she’d prefer an expanded list of charges, as in her bill of censure.

      If she made her choice, knowing she’d probably hurt her candidacy, I give her respect, as I’ve said above. But it’s hard to stay neutral in a knife fight — indeed, you may be the one who’s cut the deepest.

      Like

      1. I like your metaphorical mention of a “knife fight,” Bill. It puts me in mind of a “who done it” mystery movie that my wife and I have seen twice at a local theater: Knives Out, where the [spoiler alert] ending involves the true culprit attempting to stab the innocent nurse’s aid with a fake knife with a retractable blade. When you see U.S. Congresspersons “fighting” each other with rubber knives or “Star Wars” LED light sabers, you can rest assured that neither tribe has the slightest intention of suffering even a paper cut. If refusing to participate in such an obviously choreographed — and badly bungled — scam “hurts” Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign — which the “click-bait” corporate media have already determined not to publicize anyway — then I suppose she and her supporters — like me — will just have to live with the “damage.” Oh, the shame …

        But with all due respect, Bill, I think you have judged matters a bit prematurely. This farce has not concluded with a single vote that does nothing but demand abject tribal fealty to the “leadership” of a junior-varsity party determined to flog a dead horse until the repeated beatings magically result in its getting up and winning the Kentucky Derby for the deadbeat gamblers who have bankrupted themselves betting the House on a corpse. As I expected, the “beatings” haven’t produced the desired result, so:

        House Democrats Mull Second Impeachment, by Alex Christoforou, The Duran (December 25, 2019)

        Another bite at the apple?

        House Democrats may conduct a second impeachment of President Trump, according to lawyers for the Judiciary Committee.

        In a Monday court filing reported by Politico, House Counsel Douglas Letter argued that they still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn, which may uncover new, impeachable evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct the Russiagate investigation (of a crime he didn’t commit).

        “If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” reads Letter’s filing.

        I think I get it. If one impeachment won’t do the trick, how about two of them? And if two won’t do the trick, how about three? And if …

        Welcome back to Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. “Sentence first. Verdict later.” No kidding. “If … testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion …” Normally, one would have factual evidence of demonstrable wrongdoing first BEFORE calling in eye-witnesses, issuing indictments, trying the case, and reaching a conclusion. Yet here we see the House Judiciary Committee (with Jerrold “Ahab” Nadler at the helm) SPECULATING to a court that “President Trump committed impeachable offenses” and that PERHAPS evidence of this might POSSIBLY come to light IF SOMEONE who hasn’t yet offered their opinions, suppositions, overheard gossip and wild-ass-guesses gets to offer them. And if THAT SOMEONE doesn’t come through (as none of the previous gossip-blowers have) then surely SOME OTHER SOMEONE will throw in their two cents and eventually … A textbook example of the Warlock Hunt or “Fishing Expedition.” The Republicans had theirs with Kenneth Starr. But the imitative Democrats can do no better than Robert Mueller, Adam Schiff, and Jerrold Nadler? This doesn’t even make good comedy.

        No. This hasn’t ended at all. Therefore, it appears that Tulsi Gabbard may have even more chances to “redeem” herself in the eyes of those waving their rubber knives at her, demanding that she “pick a side” of a slippery, rolling turd. If she wants to keep MY support — and perhaps receive another $100 contribution from my little Social Security income — she will do no such thing. Of course, Ralph Nader and Dr Jill Stein also had my support and vote, so what I think probably does not count for much and won’t tip any scales in Tulsi Gabbard’s favor. But I’ll stick it out with her for the present. Rubber knives with retractable blades wielded by myopic miscreants do not frighten me, and I hope they do not cause Tulsi to lose a moment’s sleep, either.

        Last but not least, I do have my own criticisms of Representative Gabbard’s campaign — not nearly “anti-war” enough for me — and do not wish to come off as a naive and trusting dupe of any practicing politician, but so far as this dreadfully dumb impeachment gambit by the Democratic party’s “leadership” concerns her and the United States, she has chosen the correct path and ought to stay on it. At 38 years of age, she has a lot of life and promise ahead of her. At least it looks that way to this old fart.

        Like

        1. You may well be right, Mike.

          My gut instinct isn’t always right, that’s for sure. I’m just not sure there’s a “neutral” side here. Put differently, has Tulsi seized the high ground, or has she exiled herself to parts unknown? Only time will tell, I guess.

          I will likely vote for Bernie when my state votes. Bernie, dismissed as a radical lefty by CNN, is actually slightly left of center, but he has heart and an undeniable track record of standing for people like us.

          Like

  7. An interesting video that raises lots of issues. But the basic one is this: Impeachment for a disastrous war under false pretenses is off the table, but impeachment for a coercive phone call is green-lighted.
    Explain why, Nancy Pelosi …

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I wasn’t bothered by her voting “present”, probably one of the few things I agreed with her on. And not for the reasons she presented. If this impeachment was about law, and order, right and wrong, Trump would have been impeached within a few months of taking office. Much as his predecessors should have been. Trump is simply the more obvious obscene, vile and repugnant face of US empire vs his more polished and nuanced predecessors. As it is, the Democrats (the other right-wing party) are playing their role well as the “Inauthentic Opposition.” More theater of the absurd.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s