Tag: Barack Obama

No Need for Trial, the GOP’s Mainstream is Done with Trump

By Bryan Williams

Remember when 2021 was supposed to be the year everything got better? The Year of Recovery started off more like the Year of Hell Part II. Our country witnessed an insurrection from the whackadoo Right, egged on by none other than the President of the United States and a few Republican senators and House members. Then we had the first non-traditional and arguably non-peaceful transfer in our nation’s history (unless you want to debate the election of 1800). In February, the Senate will hold the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, who is now just a "regular" citizen.

What should we do? I think our country needs to heal and move on from the horrors of 2020 -- pandemic, divisive politics, economic upheaval -- all of it. Joe Biden claims he will unite us once again. The first 17 executive orders he signed within the first 36 hours of his administration have, in my opinion, failed to unite us, although there were some good ones in there, including halting construction of The Wall, delaying student loan payments until late September, and other pandemic-related orders. 

He signed others that will only continue to divide us: Orders relating to gender identity, abortion, energy and the environment. But I am just one moderate Republican. There are about 80 million other people in this country who voted for Biden and are happy with all of these. Those 80 million, and a few of my fellow moderate Republicans want to see Trump convicted in the Senate and barred from running for office ever again.

But it's going to be a tall order to convict Trump on the slapdash impeachment charges the House voted shortly before Biden’s inauguration. The single impeachment article was a rush job, and not very well thought through. The House impeached Trump on inciting an insurrection. Although the court of public opinion would assuredly convict him of inciting that mob, it may be a tougher sell for 17 Republican senators to agree based on the evidence.

If Trump does try to run again in 2024, he will still be a couple of years younger than Joe Biden when he became president. Do rational, reflective, analytical minds really believe Trump will still be focused on the presidency four years from now, or will he return to political power via more lucrative work in talk radio and conservative television?

Let’s not forget why he won the presidency in 2016 in the first place: He wasn’t Hillary. I think he lost in ’20 because more Americans were voting against Trump rather than in favor of Biden. The latter will be true again in ’24, and any thoughts of resurrecting MAGA will frighten many of us into voting for someone safe, comfortable like old shoes, and “moderate.” Maybe 2024 will be Romney's comeback year.

After Trump inflicted himself upon our body politic and the Republican party, impeaching him twice should be enough. I do not think it’s likely, nor necessary to convict him this time, and add the punitive result of a lifetime ban from running for federal office.

The same can be said for those who have pushed for Trump’s stolen election legerdemain. 

Sen. Josh Hawley, of Missouri, is the GOP’s Barack Obama. He can’t sit still in office long enough for a cup of coffee before he’s running for a higher office, and he’s remarkably inconsistent with his views. Stimulus, free speech on the Internet, you name it … Hawley flip-flops whenever it suits him politically. 

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who barely beat Beto O’Rourke in his re-election in 2018, who was “Lyin’ Ted” when Trump trounced him in the 2016 presidential primary run, is no Ronald Reagan. Cruz won’t win a comeback second attempt for the '24 GOP nomination.

Lastly, there’s Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who wants desperately to become House speaker. His 2020 re-election was the slimmest ever in his 14-year House tenure. I live in his district, and he still has solid support from many, but a well-financed Democrat did do damage last year and can do it again in ’22. The Republican House caucus is even more of a threat. Will they back him for speaker if the GOP retakes the House in 2022? They passed on him once already, and his ability to fundraise after his vote to support Trump's crazy election shenanigans will not be forgotten by the businesses that back his campaign committees.

And what about the 10 Republicans who did vote with Democrats in favor of Trump’s second impeachment (Rep. Liz Cheney, R-WY., here's looking at you), and have been censured by their local parties for it? As a former member and delegate of the California Republican Party, I can tell you state parties are much more red meat right now than the general Republican electorate, of which I now consider myself. In California, these party apparatchiks are obsolete and ineffectual. Don't worry about calls from these types for you to step down and resign, Liz. In fact, maybe it’s time to explore a run for president in 2024! Now there's something I think should happen.

—–
Click on News & Notes for details on the Impeachment Article against former President Trump.

Words & Power

First Person Essay by Stephen Macaulay

Several years ago there was a massive ice storm in Cincinnati. I was with a colleague and we were going into a restaurant. As we walked across the parking lot my feet slipped out from under me and the next thing I knew I was flat on my back in massive pain, and so 911 was called.

And at some point—of course it seemed far too long to me, as I was prostrate on the ice-covered asphalt—a full-size fire truck showed up. Yes, one of those vehicles with ladders on the side.

The fire crew came out, surrounded me, and fairly quickly concluded that there wasn’t much they could do for me.

What eventually happened was that a good Samaritan said that he could take me to the hospital. So the fire crew lifted me up and put me in the back seat of a Honda Accord. And I was taken to the hospital.

The situation at the time was that there had been such a great number of emergency calls throughout Cincinnati that what was available had to be sent.

So here’s the thing: Would anyone take a look at that situation and say, “Defund the fire department!” or “Fund EMS!”? In my case, more EMS people and gear would have been appropriate. If the restaurant had been on fire, it would have been the former.

As the old British legal saw has it, “horses for courses.”

///

In early December Barrack Obama was interviewed on Snapchat and said, “If you believe, as I do, that we should be able to reform the criminal justice system so that it's not biased and treats everybody fairly, I guess you can use a snappy slogan like 'Defund the police,' but, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done.”

Which caused a number of audible and visible members of the Democratic Party to be completely agitated by what is clearly a pragmatic remark, politically, socially and, dare I say, realistically.

If someone is robbing your restaurant, you surely hope that cops are coming sooner rather than later. When someone is pointing a gun at you, you’re not worried about nuanced phrasing if it means that there isn’t going to be a police officer there to keep you from being permanently perforated.

///

Linguistics is the scientific study of language. It is one of those things that you can readily imagine being the purview of professors at Ivy League schools, where they debate how many liberals can dance on the head of a pin.

You would imagine that Democrats would be good at it.

But when it comes to messaging, Trump has, yes, trumped them.

Think of the two slogans that resonated in the election that Trump won, not the one he lost in a landslide.

  • “Build the Wall!”
  • “Lock Her Up!”

Although the Wall still remains to be built and Hillary Clinton is free without bond, those chants still echo.

Why? Because they are positive, proactive statements.

They are commands to do something. “Performative acts,” in the words of linguists.

“Defund the police”?

As “snappy” as that might be, it simply doesn’t do the job because it is saying something that people shouldn’t do. If you want to get people on your side, you get them to buy into what they should be doing.

Proof? Well, the 10 Commandments are chock full of “Thou shalt nots.” How’s that working out?

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Texas AG’s Case was Legitimate

By Bryan Williams

I have always found the selective amnesia of people a curious thing. My wife will be the first to tell you I have selective amnesia (though I swear I don't recall she said this or that!), but I do remember big things. My high school band teacher was one of my favorites. He was fond of saying, “A short pencil is better than a long memory."  The news is not written in pencil, but it is written online.

I still find it curious that Nancy Pelosi is outraged by the GOP signing on to the Texas Attorney General's (very creative) suit as subverting the Constitution. I hate to break it to the Speaker, but the whole purpose of sending lawsuits to the Supreme Court is to determine if they stand constitutional muster. Everyone has a right to her or his day in court no matter how specious or far-fetched the lawsuit may be. You gotta give Texas AG Paxton some points for creativity though. He had a point, whether or not voting in each state and the District of Columbia was conducted November 3 in a clean, legal manner. The Supreme Court said, "Nice try, but nope." What would have subverted the Constitution is not giving Paxton and 126 GOP members of Congress their day in court.

And here comes the "short pencil" part: Remember about four years ago when people within Barack Obama's government were spying on Trump and his incoming team using dubious legal means? Was that not a subversion of the Constitution? What about all the executive orders President Obama signed? Is that not a subversion of the Constitution, and even of the very power Pelosi wields in the House? 

I don’t think the most die-hard liberal, or Joe Biden supporter would assume there could be absolutely no election fraud in 2020, considering the unprecedented number of mail-in ballots in such an atypical year. Rules for signature verification on ballots varies widely from county to county, and the United States has over 3,000 counties. 

Do I wish Mr. Paxton had tried a different tactic? Yes. I’m not a lawyer, but I think he should have asked the Supremes to rule on signature verification consistency, and how the lack of such consistency affected his state’s voters’ rights. 

Was he trying to subvert the Constitution? I don't think he believes he was, nor do I think the GOP House members who signed on believe they were. I wish people would be more careful with their language. Pelosi's subversion comment was hyperbole. But what else would we expect in a year like this? Keep those pencils sharp, and short.

—–

Ode to Pennsylvania

By Charles Dervarics

Pennsylvania has had its detractors over the years.  To famed political advisor James Carville, it’s just Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with “Alabama in between.” In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama got into hot water by citing his trips to struggling small towns in the state where people “cling to guns or religion.”

As a Pennsylvania native with a blue-collar background, I usually don’t take kindly to these references – though the state has had its challenges. As the coal and steel industries declined, those without a college education suffered. And it has a record of social conservatism, perhaps best reflected by the late Bob Casey, Sr., father of the current U.S. senator, who was a pro-union governor and leader of the anti-abortion wing of the national Democratic party.

Fast forward to 2020, and it’s not surprising the state emerged as a political hotspot. Natural gas and fracking have revitalized parts of the old industrial base in the north and west, while the state’s vast middle is still largely Republican and conservative. But the cities, particularly Philadelphia, remain a huge source of Democratic support where concerns about racial injustice and poverty take precedence.

But after Donald Trump surprised Hillary Clinton there in fall 2016, Joe Biden has turned the state blue again for a few reasons:

His home state roots: As he never hesitates to mention, Biden was born in Scranton in the state’s northeast area. The official 2020 tally has him with 54 percent of the vote in Lackawanna County, where Scranton is the county seat. Clinton’s share was about 50 percent. Biden also prevailed in Monroe County, the next county to the south.

Philadelphia and its suburbs: Biden again ran a few percentage points ahead of Clinton in the all-important suburbs and benefitted from higher turnout overall. In Bucks County, Biden claimed nearly 200,000 votes and 51.5 percent of the total, compared with Clinton’s 165,000 and 48 percent. More city residents also cast ballots in 2020, with Biden earning about 81 percent of the vote. 

Limiting losses: While Trump ran up the score in rural locations, Biden captured some areas the president won in 2016. One is Northampton County in the central-eastern Lehigh Valley, which Trump carried by four points in 2016. But current results show Biden with a slight lead there. It’s a similar story in Erie County in the state’s northwest corner.

It wasn’t easy for Biden, who took heat for comments on the oil industry and fracking that likely cost him some votes. But the small gains he made in many vote-rich areas – compared with 2016 – have given him a statewide edge of 40,000 votes.

The president’s legal team has raised challenges in Pennsylvania and other swing states, filing lawsuits to halt counts and challenge votes. So far, those efforts have not resulted in any changes to the Pennsylvania tally.

Charles Dervarics is a writer and policy analyst based in Alexandria, Va. He formerly was a reporter with newspapers in Allentown and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

_____