Trump Apologists: You Lose Me at ‘Take a Deep Breath’
I’ve noticed that there are some who keep warning the Democrats that they are overdoing their opposition to Trump they sound like Cassandra.
Tom Nichols is a conservative who has been very critical of Trump. But he argues that liberals and the media have been too critical of Trump.
“Constant panic undermines his critics and boosts his base.”
“The president fired all the ambassadors! He’s issuing executive orders! He’s putting political cronies into trusted positions! He’s declaring his inauguration to be a special national day! Well, of course he is. It’s what presidents do in their first weeks in office. It’s what Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama did, too.”
Right. The GOP never criticized Obama for doing anything previous Presidents had done and acted like it was unprecedented. They never criticized Hillary Clinton for doing what everyone else in politics have done.
They had a huge panic over private emails and now we learn Trump uses his unsecured android and the Trump WH is using a private server at the RNC. Yet throughout the campaign, while Nichols was critical of Trump he always insisted that Hillary’s server was this huge five star alarm and worth great panic.
And on some of these examples Nichols is wrong. It’s not just that they’re political cronies as it is their unprecedented conflicts of interest. But maybe people are panicking because there’s something to panic about. Like in 1933 does Nichols think people at the time panicked too much or too little about Hitler?
And if people are panicking maybe it also energizes the Dem base and that’s what matters.
“Trump promised a Muslim ban during the campaign. But the executive order now running into multiple challenges is not actually a Muslim ban: It affects the citizens, regardless of faith, of several Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and Africa but has no relevance to persons of Islamic faith who carry the passports of almost 200 other countries. Nonetheless, pundits and critics — and some Trump surrogates— are happy to call it a Muslim ban. This sends a message to Trump’s voters that he is a decisive leader who has fulfilled his promise, even though he has done no such thing. “I love it when they bash him, because it tells me he’s doing the right thing,” a Wisconsin retiree told the New York Times.”
So Nichols believes that while Trump wanted a Muslim ban during the campaign this is not a Muslim ban even though the practical result is that it impacts almost solely people who just happen to be Muslim. A Muslim ban is not a Muslim ban so long as: the Trump team calls it something different you see. Meanwhile the government admitted in court Friday that 100,000 people had already been barred. But this is no big deal. Just liberals ‘hyperventilating’ over what everyone else does too.
Andrew Exum also is warning liberals not to go too far.
“Don’t Politicize the Failed Yemen Raid/”
“America cannot punish its elected officials for allowing its military, diplomatic corps, and intelligence services to take risks necessary to pursue its interests.”
I’m sure if this were Obama the GOP would have said ‘Let’s not politicize this decision made over dinner with his political operatives over dinner.’
Then Exum says this:
“I was born a few years after the end of the Vietnam War, but never in my own memory has the political opposition to the sitting president been this intense. No president in my lifetime has become so unpopular, so fast. Yes, there was a lot of domestic opposition to President Bush, which culminated in the 2006 midterms, and yes, Republicans in the Obama years used a wave of Tea Party resentment to obstruct the president’s agenda, but this really and truly is something different. I was catching up with a friend in Congress, a Democrat, earlier this week, and he described the anger of his base as something he had never seen before.”
Yes and this is a good thing despite some trying to make it a bad thing. If Democrats are this fired up this early it bodes well. Tom Nichols totally misses the point here:
“Still furious over the outcome of the election, Trump’s critics seize on every move as if there is a Watergate moment to be found if only they look hard enough. But even Nixon didn’t fall to a sudden scandal: He was a deeply consequential president who governed his way to a reelection landslide before his eventual resignation.”
You don’t have to look very hard. Based on what the intel agencies have said we’re already in Watergate territory. As we speak the Senate intelligence panel is already investigating whether or not anyone in the Trump campaign had financial ties or cooperated with Russia’s interference in our election.
If that answer is yes this is already Watergate territory. Indeed, it’s worse as it was conspiracy with a foreign power. Just because it took six years for Nixon’s criminality to catch up with him doesn’t mean it will-or won’t-take Trump that long.
We’re way ahead of Nixon in the sense that this didn’t become an issue until Nixon’s second term. But this Senate panel got formed a week before Trump was even sworn in.
So long as there’s a GOP Congress they will be very reluctant to go too far against Trump-though his popularity and how much they hear from their own constituents matters.
But if the Dems were to take the House in 2018, this could change overnight. The Dems would then be able to launch investigation after investigation into Trump where an impeachment vote prior to 2020 is not out of the question.
They’d investigate fully the Russia ties-Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Carter Page. They can also investigate James Comey’s investigation of the email server and contrast this with how he slow walked concerns about Trump’s Russia ties.
Investigations into Trump’s conflicts of interests. They can demand his tax returns and sanction him if-when-he fails to comply.
Investigate his Muslim ban-or as Nichols prefers ‘ban of a bunch of countries who all coincidentally happen to be Muslim.’ Did the WH ignore a federal court order? Did he tell the custom agents to disregard it?
In any case, you’re better off starting sooner rather than later. Nichols misses the point: if, as many believe, Trump is a unique and unprecedented threat, then nothing is gained by being slow and giving him a head start.
A new Politico article again misses the point. It ‘worries’ that Democrats are going to burn themselves out opposing Trump. Want to bet?
I would hope that Democratic Congress folks would welcome the enthusiasm and determination of their own base.
“I don’t know whether we can count on him to do that for the full four years, but if he keeps it, folks aren’t going to go away,” said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, the chair of the Democratic Governors Association. “Quite frankly, this is Vietnam at its height. The only thing that resolved Vietnam was America leaving Vietnam. I suspect in some ways, the only thing that’s going to resolve this is when Donald Trump leaves Washington.”
Exactly. And the base wants Democrats wants to make this happen ASAP. As possible-I get it won’t happen this week but this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t lay the groundwork now.
As for this worry that some of the things we’re going after Trump aren’t really outrages: even if true, so what? They got Al Capone on tax evasion. Again, this worked for the GOP. Now Dems are supposed to what, turn the other cheek?
P.S. It is good to be back. I finally have a new host for this blog. The old one was a disaster. As I continue to try to do my part for #TheResistance I would ask all who read me to consider a donation.