As mentioned in the prior post, the 3/18/18 Book Review section of the New York Times has an analysis by Andrew Sullivan on two new books. The one authored by Cass Sunstein on impeachment is discussed in the prior post. This post discusses "Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America," which was edited by Cass Sunstein. Sullivan/Sunstein (again, it is not clear who is speaking) do not expect Trump to become an outright dictator. No, the suggestion is that he would be an authoritarian in the manner of Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
That is curious. Back in Obama's first term, in January, 2012, Obama gave an interview to Fareed Zakaria of Time magazine. When asked about close relationships he has developed with other world leaders he names, among others, Recep Erdogan. One may recall that Obama liked the "authoritarian" Erdogan a whole lot more than he liked the democratic Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. Of the ways Trump might be helped in exerting this authoritarian control are "ever more extreme talk radio and what is essentially a state propaganda channel, Fox News."
Once again, you have to admire the artful characterization of conservative media; all the while ignoring how virtually the entire mainstream media, with the New York Times leading the way, was in the tank for Obama. Or, to put it the way Sullivan/Sunstein might, the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media, including CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC all acted as propaganda arms for the Obama Administration. It is also essential that the point be made that this Sullivan/Sunstein article views conservative news outlets as being bad. The Left has no tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
Yes, Trump calls the mainstream media the "fake news." But many of their articles are fake in the sense of pushing the Left-wing agenda ahead of honest reporting. But recall that it was Obama who, along with his top aids, repeated the same line about Fox not being a real news organization. It was as if Obama had declared war on Fox News. Why? Because Fox would not adhere to the Obama/Democrats party line. And talk radio? Obama also expressed his dissatisfaction with Rush Limbaugh setting the tone for conservatives. When Obama went after the media, that was acceptable. Only when Trump attacks the media does it become a sign of authoritarianism.
The article then discusses the "wreckage" caused by Trump in his first year. They say that Trump has gone after the FBI, the CIA, the media, judges, and so on. In case you were wondering - no, Trump has not done one single positive thing; at least, the article did not suggest that he did. Why shouldn't Trump attack the bias of the FBI? Think Comey, Strzok, Page and McCabe. The CIA past and present is always nonpartisan, right? It is hard to believe that any CIA Director would ever make this comment about the President of the United States: "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history." Actually, former CIA Director under Obama, John Brennan, just made those remarks.
Frankly, I don't give a damn if Brennan feels that way about Trump. However, I care a great deal when we have high government officials, past or present, publicly making such distasteful and repulsive comments that add nothing to the civil discourse of real issues.
The article concludes with the assertion that the American people "voted for the kind of monarchy the American republic was designed, above all else, to resist..." And I thought it was Obama who told us that "we're not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help they need. I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Yes, no point in waiting for the elected representatives of the American people to actually pass bills. Who's the monarch?
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Russia, Trump and Impeachment
Starting on the first page - in large print - of the Book Review section in today's New York Times, is an analysis by liberal commentator Andrew Sullivan of two books. One, written by former Obama aid and confidante Cass Sunstein, is entitled "Impeachment, A Citizen's Guide," and is the subject of this post. The other, edited by Sunstein, is entitled "Can It Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America," and is the subject of the next post. Sullivan starts his piece discussing the four times impeachment proceedings were begun, along with a general review of when impeachment might be proper.
After analyzing some of what Sunstein, and apparently Sullivan, believe to be potentially impeachable offenses by Trump, Sullivan/Sunstein (it is difficult to ascertain who is speaking) conclude that those offenses may not be sufficient for impeachment. Then, we have this question: "What about passively cooperating with a foreign power to subvert an American election and then, after clear proof of such interference, refusing to counter that foreign power"s intent to disrupt the next election too?" You have to admire the phrasing of the question; analogous to a lawyer asking a defendant: "So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
Then, we are told there would be a difference between being a passive beneficiary of a foreign power's meddling, versus "but if he is actively neglecting a defense of this country's electoral integrity because he believes the Kremlin helped him win an election in the past, and will almost certainly help him and his party in the near future, then impeachment is a no-brainer." Notice the deft switching from "a foreign power" to "the Kremlin." Notice, too, that we are now told the Kremlin will be helping the entire Republican party. So, should we conclude that a vote for a Republican is a vote for Putin?
Wait a second! Obama was the one who drew a red line for Syria's (a client state of Russia) use of chemical weapons - and then did nothing when Syria crossed that line. It was Obama who mocked Romney in one of the 2012 debates when Romney asserted - correctly - that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the USA. It was Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who famously had the 'reset" button with Russia. It was Obama who was caught on an open mike telling Medvedev to advise Putin that he, Obama, would have more flexibility (especially with regards to the placement of defensive missiles in Eastern Europe) after he won reelection. And it was Obama who watched - but did nothing - as Russia invaded and took over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
You have to give the Left credit. After all, notwithstanding all of the above, and notwithstanding Obama's awareness of Russian meddling years before the 2016 election, Russia was simply a non-issue for them. Here's Obama on 10/18/16, a mere 3 weeks before the Presidential election: "There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections. In part because they're so decentralized, and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that they're instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes." Here is a question that the mainstream media has no interest in asking: How come Russia was a non-issue for them and the Democrats when they thought Clinton would win the election, but then immediately became a huge issue after Trump won?
The hypocrisy by the Democrat politicians is no surprise. The willingness of the mainstream media to go along with the narrative about Trump and Russia is also not shocking. However, the willingness by my friends on the Left to simply ignore the actual facts involving Obama and Russia is, well, quite dismaying.
After analyzing some of what Sunstein, and apparently Sullivan, believe to be potentially impeachable offenses by Trump, Sullivan/Sunstein (it is difficult to ascertain who is speaking) conclude that those offenses may not be sufficient for impeachment. Then, we have this question: "What about passively cooperating with a foreign power to subvert an American election and then, after clear proof of such interference, refusing to counter that foreign power"s intent to disrupt the next election too?" You have to admire the phrasing of the question; analogous to a lawyer asking a defendant: "So, when did you stop beating your wife?"
Then, we are told there would be a difference between being a passive beneficiary of a foreign power's meddling, versus "but if he is actively neglecting a defense of this country's electoral integrity because he believes the Kremlin helped him win an election in the past, and will almost certainly help him and his party in the near future, then impeachment is a no-brainer." Notice the deft switching from "a foreign power" to "the Kremlin." Notice, too, that we are now told the Kremlin will be helping the entire Republican party. So, should we conclude that a vote for a Republican is a vote for Putin?
Wait a second! Obama was the one who drew a red line for Syria's (a client state of Russia) use of chemical weapons - and then did nothing when Syria crossed that line. It was Obama who mocked Romney in one of the 2012 debates when Romney asserted - correctly - that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat to the USA. It was Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who famously had the 'reset" button with Russia. It was Obama who was caught on an open mike telling Medvedev to advise Putin that he, Obama, would have more flexibility (especially with regards to the placement of defensive missiles in Eastern Europe) after he won reelection. And it was Obama who watched - but did nothing - as Russia invaded and took over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
You have to give the Left credit. After all, notwithstanding all of the above, and notwithstanding Obama's awareness of Russian meddling years before the 2016 election, Russia was simply a non-issue for them. Here's Obama on 10/18/16, a mere 3 weeks before the Presidential election: "There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections. In part because they're so decentralized, and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that they're instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes." Here is a question that the mainstream media has no interest in asking: How come Russia was a non-issue for them and the Democrats when they thought Clinton would win the election, but then immediately became a huge issue after Trump won?
The hypocrisy by the Democrat politicians is no surprise. The willingness of the mainstream media to go along with the narrative about Trump and Russia is also not shocking. However, the willingness by my friends on the Left to simply ignore the actual facts involving Obama and Russia is, well, quite dismaying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)