No it should get nothing as penance for the final season terribleness.
You probably know Spanberger
Yeah, there's context in the full piece that a headline strips here. They're not being credited with leading the charge, but with getting it over the last hump.I get why people are annoyed with this, but it's not wrong to give these members from vulnerable districts credit for paving the way for the rest of the impeachment-shy dems to come out in favor of it. Even in this thread we knew it was signaling something big when they wrote that op-ed.
In the (very unlikely) scenario a couple house/senate republicans come out in favor of impeachment and break the dam on that side we'll have to deal with endless articles praising them for their courage and it'll be insufferable.
Ok I know who that is. Just read who the others are. Yeah who??.
That's not how I would categorize the situation whatsoever.Maxine Waters and Al Green were often ridiculed by their own party for being the first to openly call for impeachment. Never wavered.
Rashida Tlaib was threatened with censure. Never wavered.
These women "pivoted" only when Donald Trump's crimes grew to such a level that being against impeachment as a Democrat fundamentally became ethically and morally indefensible. But sure...courage!
That's not how I would categorize the situation whatsoever.
Trump's been doing morally/ethically indefensible stuff for eons. What changed is him hitting up something we could get through the head of the average voter. Which didn't take a genius to figure out and like, no one should actually be getting credit for this beyond not fucking it up.
Wait I take that back, that is actually something.
"Leaders" was a poor choice of words for the headlineYeah, there's context in the full piece that a headline strips here. They're not being credited with leading the charge, but with getting it over the last hump.
I'm with you on this Roy, but let's at least be happy it's happening period.And unless Pelosi and this moderate "vanguard" are clairvoyant, there's no way they could have known Trump would have served them up an easy bake impeachment.
There were people leading on this when it was hard. When it was risky. When the only compass provided was your conscience. I'm grateful that these women are finally here...finally...finally. But leaders they aren't.
Waiting for a better opportunity was the better choice. Prior to this I thought going full BENGHAZI was the best strategy given the cicrcumstances at the time because of the difficulty of turning the Senate vote into a GOP Catch-22. Post-Ukraine, they need to be going for the throat.And unless Pelosi and this moderate "vanguard" are clairvoyant, there's no way they could have known Trump would have served them up an easy bake impeachment.
There were people leading on this when it was hard. When it was risky. When the only compass provided was your conscience. I'm grateful that these women are finally here...finally...finally. But leaders they aren't.
Agreed, and the article as well.
I mean they got here. It's whatevah.I'm with you on this Roy, but let's at least be happy it's happening period.
Take the wins we can get in this post 2016 hellscape.
From Red to Red.2004 was a pretty great morale boost if you were a Republican, like I was.
Maxine Waters has been attacked by Donald Trump (and her own party). She has been regularly used as fodder by the president."Risky" isn't really what I'd call supporting it in a deep blue Dem district though. Those leading on it and those for whom it was a risk were generally two separate categories.
And unless Pelosi and this moderate "vanguard" are clairvoyant, there's no way they could have known Trump would have served them up an easy bake impeachment.
There were people leading on this when it was hard. When it was risky. When the only compass provided was your conscience. I'm grateful that these women are finally here...finally...finally. But leaders they aren't.
2004 was a pretty great morale boost if you were a Republican, like I was.
"There is no way we could somehow bar the doors and prevent the managers from presenting the articles to the Senate," stated the memo, which was obtained by HuffPost. "The rules of impeachment are clear on this point."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also said as much in a March interview with NPR: "If it [impeachment] were to happen, the Senate has no choice. If the House were to act, the Senate immediately goes into a trial."
When H.R. McMaster took over as Mr. Trump's second national security adviser, those distribution lists grew smaller, officials said, although certain individuals, on a need-to-know basis, still could access records from the NSC traditional computer portal, which handled everything except CIA operational information, one official explained.
It couldn't immediately be determined whether the records of Mr. Trump's conversations with Mexico's president were stored in the highly secure computer system, but access to its content was virtually blocked, the officials said.
Beyond the existence of official records from the president's official calls, many senior officials have expressed concern over phone calls the president has had with foreign leaders on his cellphone.
Early in his presidency, the president handed his cellphone number out to several world leaders, including the heads of Mexico, Canada and France, and urged them to call him directly, an unusual invitation that breaks with diplomatic protocol and raised concerns about the security and secrecy of his communications, according to people with direct knowledge.
Even if the president conducted business on his government-issued cellphone, the calls are vulnerable to eavesdropping, particularly from foreign governments, officials said.
What a numbskull.One former senior administration official said the president's advisers tried the best they could to manage the president's discussions with world leaders, "but once he's up in the residence, we never know who he's speaking to."
At the start of his presidency, Mr. Trump's freewheeling conversations with world leaders prompted consternation among the president's senior aides, who took steps to keep him from making inappropriate comments or divulging sensitive information.
On more than one occasion, John Kelly, the White House's then-chief of staff, who was often in the room during calls with world leaders, briefly muted the line so he could caution Mr. Trump against continuing to talk about sensitive subjects, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. The small group of advisers in the room for the calls would also often pass the president notes offering guidance, the person said.
The fact that Moscow Mitch can't block it means there's a good chance trump might actually get impeached, all we need to hope for is that Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership don't snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
That's why we need more facts first.It's not Pelosi and the Democrats you should be worried about on that subject, it's Moscow Mitch and the GOP. This is far too optimistic, as though we won already. We haven't, it's a long road ahead of us and we'll lose in the senate at this stage. This might change after the election, but considering how the senate leans more conservative with its makeup don't place any bets on it. Don't get complacent.
So I just found this article, not sure if it's posted yet.
Since the Impeachment has started the polling in favour for it has significantly increased. According to Jeff flake (A former R Senator) "if it were a secret vote 35 republicans would vote in favour of impeachment". If the polls increase further the republicans may vote in favour (despite not being secret) of it because it's politically expedient
If you remember Nixon's impeachment had low approval to start with but it eventually became a majority in favour, which he then resigned in response to.
The fact that Moscow Mitch can't block it means there's a good chance trump might actually get impeached, all we need to hope for is that Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership don't snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
You know, an underrated aspect of why this particular story has broken the dam is that it had no prior buildup.
Even fairly moderate independents could look at the Mueller investigation and sort of handwave it as a politically motivated investigation looking back for dirt, even if that dirt was as rich as loam.
But this situation, even as an ongoing series of events, was never even hinted at beyond fitting a general pattern. It's so specific and new that it becomes a tipping point.
The closing days of a fundraising quarter are usually hectic for presidential candidates and their top-level staffers, who are tasked with pulling in every last dime they can find and figuring out what to do with the cash. This week — punctuated by the lightning-fast ramp-up of an official impeachment inquiry into the president — was different. By Tuesday, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally announced the move, it was clear to aides of most of the 18 at-least-semi-serious remaining Democratic campaigns that, with the country's attention squarely on Capitol Hill and the White House, they'd suddenly fallen further off the national radar than ever before. By Thursday, that attention was even more intensely focused, and a handful of campaign operatives began ringing internal alarm bells so loudly that their candidates had no choice but to start reckoning with the painful reality that no one cares about them right now.
Some candidates could raise money off their potential involvement in impeachment, most prominently the House members or the senators who could have a vote on Trump's ultimate fate. (Supporters of Kamala Harris, for one, have been highlighting clips of her past questioning of Attorney General Bill Barr.) But this has, for now, proven an unconvincing pitch for potential supporters, according to people familiar with multiple candidates' digital fundraising numbers.
So far, candidates are largely playing it safe and keeping their heads down — they'll answer questions about impeachment when asked, and issue statements, but no campaign has yet reset its messaging to be all about Trump's corruption or the investigation. Even billionaire Tom Steyer — who rose to national prominence in part by campaigning for Trump's impeachment, and who doesn't need to raise money but could use all the attention he can get — unveiled a new global climate plan on Friday, sticking to his pre-impeachment plan. Montana Governor Steve Bullock unveiled a public lands proposal. But as the week closed, some aides for other campaigns considered last-ditch direction changes at their "we're fucked" meetings. "You basically have two choices: Say outlandish shit about impeachment, or do something so big that people have to pay attention. Hard to do at tier two or below," said one top strategist for a candidate who will, at least, make the next debate stage.
tl;dr the quarter closing is usually good for tamoingnup fundraising, but if you're one of the nobodys outside of the top 5 or Senatorial caucus, it means no one will give even more of a shit about you, and your $ dries up.
I think it's the 'new' part that kept peoples' attention. We've seen all manner of criminal activity from elected people, but straight up siding with tyrants and extortion caught on tape are new ones.
I also think we can't discount the fact that this is a perfect continuation of the whole Mueller investigation, so people didn't need an entirely new framework to assess whether they believed Trump was capable of this crap.
A lot of people couldn't get over Bush being personable and affable when it came to him ordering torture. It was too much of a departure from the person they though Shrub was. Everyone can believe Trump would be a self-dealing wannabe mobster to our friends and allies.
Edit: This poll just popped up, and I think it crystallizes the point that this is so on-brand for Trump
Add in the not so surprised and you're at ~83%!Lmao @ that not surprised at all number
~51% of the country knows he's a corrupt cunt
Compare it to a couple other cases -
Bill Clinton. He was never at actual threat of being removed from office but the lewinsky scandal forever solidified that he'd be viewed as, at least, a sexual miscreant. It also dominated airwaves. Why? It fit a previous image very well and was a new allegation. True, previous ones existed but he would have weathered those without comment because they were baked in. But a new one, easily distilled solidified an image.
Nixon. He already had the nickname Tricky Dick and had been embroiled in scandals. But those were old news. Again baked in. But watergate was new and easily explained, this solidifying the image.
A framework thus presents itself to help explain how to leverage scandal -
1. A preexisting notion must exist, but by itself cannot be enough.
2. Thus the new scandal must fit that image.
3. And be easily explained or overwhelming.
Let's look at Bush and Katrina. That really is the moment he entered an extended lame duck status. There was a general sense of his incompetence but it could be deflected by being relatively baked in or surrounding elements of policy people were willing to overlook. But Katrina was immediate and overwhelming while fitting into the idea of his incompetence.