Tag Archives: Federalist

Impeachment is triggering Republicans

Admittedly it doesn’t take much to low-life rich brat turned Trump toady Rep. Gaetz, who stormed into the hearing rooms with a flock of other Republicans on the grounds not discussing possibly classified diplomatic material in public is an eeevil plot (being open to scrutiny does not, of course, mean support for anyone in the Executive Branch answering questions). He’s like the Spartans in 300! Except, of course, that Gaetz and his fellows are, as New Republic points out, full of shit:

“Holding the hearings behind closed doors in a SCIF—a secure room designed for discussing classified information—makes sense when questioning diplomats about national-security matters. (It also makes it harder for witnesses to coordinate their testimony.) House Republicans aren’t being denied access to the sessions. So long as they sit on the relevant committees, they can and have participated in the inquiry. Nor is any of this novel. Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News legal analyst, noted on Thursday that Democrats were operating under rules established by former Speaker John Boehner in 2015. Under those same rules, House Republicans held multiple closed-door hearings to depose witnesses during the congressional Benghazi investigations.”

At the NR link, Matt Ford speculates this is Trump pushing legislators to show their love for him, which will have the added benefit that the senators condemning impeachment now will look worse voting for it later. Though for the Representatives who stormed the hearing, I doubt Trump has to push much: here’s their story.

The real issue, of course, is that for some reason this scandal seems to be sticking. Maybe because it’s relatively clear-cut: Congress approved money for the Ukraine, Trump held it up to pressure the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s kid. So naturally they’re running around like cockroaches exposed to the light. And squealing about how impeachment violates the will of the people (which Republicans are trying to silence) Mollie Hemingway, the editor-in-chief of The Federalist (a woman who once complained women who aren’t her should stop trying to get the corner office and stay home to make babies) likewise freaks out that impeachment means government “exists to do the bidding of an unelected cabal of unelected, taxpayer-funded bureaucrats and smug partisans of the corporate media.” Well, the people spoke in 2016 and picked Clinton, but Hemingway’s A-OK with that.

Likewise pseudo-historian David Barton suddenly discovered there’s no grounds for impeaching Trump. Kevin D. Williamson has likewise changed his previous view that it’s good the Constitution is anti-democratic. And speaking of the Constitution, some right-wingers are showing their devotion to Constitutional norms by claiming an acquittal in the Senate should entitle Trump to run for a third term.

They’re scared, which is good. It won’t get Trump impeached, but it might hurt them in the fall. One reason they’re pushing to restrict voting even further (Gaetz literaly objects to counting every vote), and possibly looking at Tulsi Gabbard as a third-party spoiler (more on that here) Feeling scared they might lose is a piss-poor compensation for the pain they’ve inflicted on this country but I’ll take the partial win.

To end on a light note, my friend Jon Maki mocks the belief that Trump’s a macho badass.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Pundits begging us to mock them

Remember Kevin Williamson? The right-wing twerp currently seething with outrage that Atlantic denied him a columnist slot just because he says women who get abortions should be executed? Ed Kilgore of New York asked Williamson what punishment he really believes appropriate. Williamson’s response? Duck the question because it’s an evil liberal trap!!! No, it’s a valid question, Williamson just doesn’t want to answer. Oh, he also whines that offered to air his views in an essay for New York, for free, but the liberal fascists said no, having  seen “as much on the subject of your views on this matter as we want to publish.”

That’s not a first world problem, that’s a first-world right-wing bullshit artist problem.

*I can’t comment on Jonah Goldberg’s new book, having not even read an excerpt but I have read David Brooks’ gushing column about what a game-changer it will be (given Goldberg’s body of work, I’m unconvinced). According to Brooks, Goldberg’s thesis is that 300 years ago, Europe adopted (and America embraced) the belief that “each person is to be judged and respected on account of their own merits, not the class or caste of their ancestors.” And this worldview, which gave us democracy, equality and capitalism, lasted until the left got into identity politics, the right reacted and now we’re sliding back into tribalism. As noted at the link and in comments, any book that argues America treated all races and genders equally until social justice warriors started demanding identity politics is bullshit.

Brooks adds Goldberg’s only mistake is missing that the real problem isn’t tribalism but Brooks’ personal bugaboo, too much individualism! Brooks has always been nostalgic for the days of traditional morality, when white, male Protestants imposed a social order on everyone else, individual choice be damned. As Echidne of the Snakes says, why doesn’t he just move to Saudi Arabia where that kind of top-down social order is still a thing? As a couple of people noted in comments, it’s very easy to believe that even a rigged system is meritocratic — just assume that by definition, white men are more meritorious.

Over at Harper’s, an editor says he was fired  for opposing a Katie Roiphe piece on the #metoo movement. As LGM says, a piece commissioned to be contrarian (everyone things fighting sexual harassment is good — let’s say it isn’t!) rather than a serious investigative piece was probably a bad idea in the first place. Particularly from Katie Roiphe.

And then we have The Federalist. California is considering a bill to ban gay-conversion therapy. Conservative fake news claims the state will ban the Bible, Snopes says no — so Snopes is fake fact-checking right! A Federalist pundit argues that while, no, obviously it’s not going to ban the Bible, but you can’t tell gays “Jesus can make you straight!” (this being The Federalist, I wouldn’t trust that to be accurate) and that’s exactly the same thing!

Oh, and for bonus annoyance, Charlie Rose, having lost his TV show due to charges of sexual harassment has proposed a new talk show where he’ll talk to powerful men accused of harassment. No way that could go wrong.

And for double bonus, annoyance, the very serious journalists horribly offended over Michelle Wolf’s routine at the White House Correspondents’ dinner.

To compensate for subjecting you to all that, here’s Mr. Squirrel trying to get into our bird feeder and failing.

5 Comments

Filed under Politics