Listening to the impeachment debate, with one side saying Trump’s done nothing impeachable — his call to the Ukrainian president was a perfect call, after all, and the aides who immediately sequestered it onto a highly-secure server were wrong to be appalled — I had an idea.
I hesitate to even tell you the idea, because it’s a terrible idea, and out of character for me (I hope!), and we absolutely shouldn’t have done it.
But watching the debate, I kept thinking that, in some alternative universe, every time someone said something to the effect that Trump had not obstructed Congress . . . or any of so many other misleading or disingenuous things so many of them said . . .
. . . every time they did that, 233 Democratic House members should have shouted: “Scumbag! Bullshit!”
Two seconds, tops. But every time.
Can you imagine the shock? How grotesquely inappropriate it would have been? It is, I repeat, a terrible idea.
But in its terribleness, might the public not have realized (and perhaps even the Republican House members themselves) that — wait! the President of the United States says these things on television in front of adoring crowds for all to hear. The President! How can this be happening? How can people be defending him? How can they defend someone who glad-hands Putin and half a dozen other murderous dictators — but not a single democratically-elected ally?
So yes: it’s a terrible idea. I’m glad they didn’t do it.
But it might make a good dream sequence in the movie.
Trump is so awful that — even though I understand it’s unlikely he’ll be convicted in the Senate — I actually got out of my chair Tuesday, stopped raising money for a couple of hours, and went with a friend to one of those hundreds of 5:30 pm rallies. Notable, because I never go to rallies. But this is not business as usual. I was the big green “P” in a row of us along the road spelling I M P E A C H . Maybe you saw me.
Stephen G.: “Re yesterday’s post and the one last month . . . Michael Bloomberg told people what they could drink. He’s funding dozens of “grassroots” anti gun campaigns in cities but keeping his name silent but, but… Michael wants armed security for himself! [Here, Stephen inserted a photo of Mike with armed security guards.] Democrats…hypocrisy, mendacity, gluttony. Republicans…hypocrisy, mendacity, gluttony. My money or my life…I’m thinking, I’m thinking.”
→ Really? I don’t think it’s hypocritical for a gun-safety advocate running for president, who’s a public figure worth $54 billion, to have armed security. Presidents Clinton and Obama were for gun safety, and they had armed security.
And Mike didn’t prevent anyone from drinking what they wanted; just tried to tilt the incentives a bit and raise awareness hoping to improve their health. Is wishing people good health a bad thing? He had nothing to gain from it himself. (I also applaud his extensive anti-smoking efforts.)
As to hypocrisy, mendacity, gluttony – by seeming to make them equivalent for both parties, I think you get it wrong.
E.g., re mendacity: the Washington Post found that Obama made 28 false or misleading statements in eight years as president; Trump, 13,000+ in his first three years. I’m not sure how many of the 28 or the 13,000+ could be fairly termed “mendacious” – but I sure don’t think 28 is even remotely equivalent to 13,000+.
Likewise, comparing Republican and Democratic politicians, for hypocrisy and gluttony. I think you’re more likely to find Republican politicians quietly arranging for abortions or having gay sex while voting to criminalize both (say), than Democrats. More likely to have wealthy Republican politicians voting to lower taxes on the gluttonous (say) than Democrats, who generally vote to raise them.
But I appreciate the feedback — and I will raise a glass of my own this holiday season to your right to drink as much sugar-based soda (or smoke as much tobacco) as you want.
We really need to work at listening to each other. So please don’t stop telling me what you really think.