September 26, 2019
Move for Impeachment a Gift for Trump?
Timothy Birdnow
Our friend Bill H. has a fine post at his website about the whole "Ukrainegate" whistleblower business. After rehashing the ridiculousness of the charges since it was Joe Biden who committed the far greater offense, Bill states:
Amen to that!
The Democrats just don't know what to do to beat Trump,, and they fear losing the crazies in their base, so they are going to be led by the nose on this issue. Nancy Pelosi (whose nose looks quite graspable, in no small part because she appears to be holding it to avoid a bad smell coming from somewhere below) clearly understands the folly of this but can't stop it. I suspect she will allow this to go only so far and then throw a monkey wrench into the machinery when it looks like they really ARE going to impeach Trump. But I may be giving the old bag of bones too much credit.
But remember this; Saul Alinsky said in Rules for Radicals, the Gospel of the modern cook fringe "
a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag" and clearly this drive towards impeachment is becoming a drag. The Donks are looking like spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum.
It worked in the past, especially with Richard Nixon. But that was because there was no alternative media to get the other side of the story. Now there are voices opposing the Washington Post and New York Times. Back when Nixon was about to be impeached there were no other voices and people were more trusting then. Now we are perhaps not wiser but at least less gullible.
I suspect Pelosi (the San Francisco Bleat) knows this but just doesn't know what else to do. Or she wants to at least appease the wackadoodles in her base and at the same time bloody Trump. But there is the real danger of a backlash, of the whole witch hunt appearing to be precisely that. The Democrats no longer even try to oppose Trump on policy or even competence.
It all depends on the public, but I see no reason to believe the public has moved away from the President on key issues, and the people who voted for him in 2016 have no reason to vote Democratic now. Even if they hold their noses, they'll probably do it because Trump at least appears to be trying and they know what they will get - and there is always a perverse sense in the human spirit that desires to stick it to those who insist you do things their way. That is what the Democrats, the Media, and the Establishment Republicans demand.
Oh, and remember this; Bill Clinton had high popularity numbers despite being shown to be a degenerate. A black man (I don't remember who) called Clinton the "first black President" because he was "pursued by The Man". How much more so is that true of Donald Trump? If blacks liked Clinton for his bucking Ken Starr, how much more will they like DS, who has "attitude", who eats fast food, and doesn't take any crap off his enemies? Couple that with the fact black unemployment is way down and you get at least a suggestion of a fair sized defection to Trump by black voters.
Frankly, I think this move for impeachment was a huge gift to the Orange Menace.
Our friend Bill H. has a fine post at his website about the whole "Ukrainegate" whistleblower business. After rehashing the ridiculousness of the charges since it was Joe Biden who committed the far greater offense, Bill states:
They really think this one is going to work, even though Hillary’s
crimes were not identical to those attributed to Trump and that she did
not admit them, while Biden’s crime is identical to that attributed to
Trump, and not only has he admitted it, he actually brags about it
repeatedly.
And, as an interesting little sidelight, they condemn Trump for not delivering the whistleblower to them, notwithstanding that no president in history and been as viciously prosecutorial of whistleblowers as Barack Obama, a policy of which Democrats were fully supportive.
And, as an interesting little sidelight, they condemn Trump for not delivering the whistleblower to them, notwithstanding that no president in history and been as viciously prosecutorial of whistleblowers as Barack Obama, a policy of which Democrats were fully supportive.
Amen to that!
The Democrats just don't know what to do to beat Trump,, and they fear losing the crazies in their base, so they are going to be led by the nose on this issue. Nancy Pelosi (whose nose looks quite graspable, in no small part because she appears to be holding it to avoid a bad smell coming from somewhere below) clearly understands the folly of this but can't stop it. I suspect she will allow this to go only so far and then throw a monkey wrench into the machinery when it looks like they really ARE going to impeach Trump. But I may be giving the old bag of bones too much credit.
But remember this; Saul Alinsky said in Rules for Radicals, the Gospel of the modern cook fringe "
a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag" and clearly this drive towards impeachment is becoming a drag. The Donks are looking like spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum.
It worked in the past, especially with Richard Nixon. But that was because there was no alternative media to get the other side of the story. Now there are voices opposing the Washington Post and New York Times. Back when Nixon was about to be impeached there were no other voices and people were more trusting then. Now we are perhaps not wiser but at least less gullible.
I suspect Pelosi (the San Francisco Bleat) knows this but just doesn't know what else to do. Or she wants to at least appease the wackadoodles in her base and at the same time bloody Trump. But there is the real danger of a backlash, of the whole witch hunt appearing to be precisely that. The Democrats no longer even try to oppose Trump on policy or even competence.
It all depends on the public, but I see no reason to believe the public has moved away from the President on key issues, and the people who voted for him in 2016 have no reason to vote Democratic now. Even if they hold their noses, they'll probably do it because Trump at least appears to be trying and they know what they will get - and there is always a perverse sense in the human spirit that desires to stick it to those who insist you do things their way. That is what the Democrats, the Media, and the Establishment Republicans demand.
Oh, and remember this; Bill Clinton had high popularity numbers despite being shown to be a degenerate. A black man (I don't remember who) called Clinton the "first black President" because he was "pursued by The Man". How much more so is that true of Donald Trump? If blacks liked Clinton for his bucking Ken Starr, how much more will they like DS, who has "attitude", who eats fast food, and doesn't take any crap off his enemies? Couple that with the fact black unemployment is way down and you get at least a suggestion of a fair sized defection to Trump by black voters.
Frankly, I think this move for impeachment was a huge gift to the Orange Menace.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:50 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Believe it was author Toni Morrison -- writer of works of seminal literature such as "I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings" (who can forget it?) and other similar oeuvre, who called Bill the "first black president," and was misunderstood for the remark. As you say, it had to do with the beating he was taking regarding his sexual misconduct, not from any empathy toward the black community, and I believe that some time later, she expressed some regret that she'd called him that. Perhaps she didn't think it all the way through?
A thought: I have to admit Bill was a better president as the "first black president" than the real first one. Want to argue with me?
A thought: I have to admit Bill was a better president as the "first black president" than the real first one. Want to argue with me?
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at September 26, 2019 07:17 PM (RxeLB)
2
No argument there, Dana; Bill Clinton was unprincipled to the point where he could be influenced by both public opinion and partisan pressure, so he would work with the other side. BHO was entirely ideological, unmoving and rigid and solely about power. He never made any concessions, no matter how small, and he was willing to destroy the country in the process of getting what he wanted. Clinton at least wanted to be remembered as a great president, so he wasn't willing to kill the "patient" to "cure" it. That's not to say Clinton wasn't a horribly destructive force; He gave the Chinese ICBM technology via Loral Aerospace fixing their satellite launch capabilities for campaign cash. That's just one instance of the evil the man wrought. But Obama would do that not for personal gain but to advance the Revolution. Much worse.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at September 27, 2019 08:45 AM (LiPT6)
26kb generated in CPU 0.0112, elapsed 0.1714 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1644 seconds, 175 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.1644 seconds, 175 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
