|
Post by robeiae on Aug 1, 2017 9:46:29 GMT -5
One of my favorite Congresscritters--or rather one of the Congresscritters who I find the least objectionable--is Jeff Flake, junior Senator from Arizona. He has--since his time in the House--been the absolute king of criticizing earmark spending, has stood firm on his opposition to over-spending, and has on many occasions been a lone voice for many of these things. Anyway, he has a new book coming out. Here's an excerpt, specific to Trump: www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/31/my-party-is-in-denial-about-donald-trump-215442A taste:
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 1, 2017 9:58:07 GMT -5
I enjoyed the Noah's Ark analogy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 10:08:12 GMT -5
I plan to buy the book. I disagree with Flake on a heap of stuff, but I like him -- he's got integrity (I understand he was a lonely GOP voice saying Garland deserved a hearing). And obviously, I am glad to see him speak out on Trump.
I see a lot of liberals pooh-poohing "oh, sure, he criticizes Trump, but he votes yes on conservative policies, so he's a hypocrite." No, no, no. He's a conservative. He never pretended for a minute not to be. His objection is not to conservative policy, but to Trump's blatant grift and disregard for the rule of law, to chaos, corruption, petty vindictiveness, and partisanship for partisanship's sake. That's not hypocrisy. We NEED conservatives speaking out against this and especially against the Trump administration's embrace of this.
It really says a great deal about the current state of the GOP that an impeccable, straight-shooting conservative like Jeff Flake is unacceptable to much of its base. Lots of people shake their heads about the Democrats splintering and infighting. But I look at the Trump faction vs. the Jeff Flake, Evan McMullin, etc. faction (not to mention the Susan Collinsish moderates), and see no way they continue to hold together. The abuse from self-described "deplorables" on Flake, Collins, McCain, Murkowski, McMullin, etc. is just astonishing.
All Americans need to join hands on common values. We can rip each other to shreds arguing about healthcare and abortion, but we should all agree that grift, blatant lies, and chaos are unacceptable -- especially out of the White House. Otherwise, I frankly see little hope for us as a nation.
IMO, Flake is one of the good guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 12:24:55 GMT -5
The question I've been asking liberal friends:
if we had a Democratic president (or candidate) who advocated pro-choice, pro-ACA, etc. policy you like,and who would appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, but was a lying, corrupt grifter who colluded with a hostile foreign power to sway the election, alienated our allies, constantly tweeted embarrassing, horrific nonsense, etc. -- in other words, was a liberal Trump --
would you repudiate those policies you like just because President Liberal Trump was a horrific human being? would you say "no, I'm against abortion now because that scumbag is pro-choice?
I wouldn't. I'd continue to champion the policies I believed in, but I'd be lambasting the corrupt president and his dishonest doings.
Understand: that's where Flake is and the other NeverTrumpers. It's not hypocrisy.
And if we're going to rein Trump in or get him out, WE NEED THEM. They are taking plenty of abuse from their own party. Liberals, Dems and Independents should we joining hands with them on this (even as we continue to disagree with them on policies).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 12:31:51 GMT -5
Another question I put to my liberal friends -- would you VOTE for the liberal Trump? If he won, would you turn your head and remain silent as he lied and stomped all over the rule of law and our system of government, as long as he advocated liberal policies and nominated liberal Supreme Court justices?
If so, you have no room at all criticizing Conservatives who voted Trump despite their reservations. And you are far more hypocritical, IMO, than Jeff Flake et al., who brave their party's slings and arrows to decry Trump's corruption and behavior despite agreeing with him on policy.
ETA:
As you can imagine, this loses me some friends. As you can probably guess, I don't care.
ETA:
And my answer, as you will also guess, is NO. A thousand times, NO.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 1, 2017 12:41:38 GMT -5
James Baldwin said, "I can't believe what you say because I see what you do." Baldwin didn't have Sen. Flake in mind when he said that but it certainly applies to him. Flake is the junior senator from Arizona and while he despises Donald Trump, that's not reason enough to view his Conscience of A Conservative with considerable skepticism. Don't tell me how much you think Trump has corrupted the Republican Party. Tell me what you're doing to differentiate yourself from him, because I'm not seeing it as the recent healthcare debacle showed. Right now the line, while Dean Heller, Rob Portman, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John McCain and others were giving Mitch McConnell and the White House heartburn trying to line up their support, Flake lined up in the rank and file like a good GOP soldier. It's nice that Jeff Flake is willing to go on the record with his distaste for The Donald, but so has Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and other Republicans who have talked the anti-Trump talk but walked the walk like so many lemmings right over the cliff. Neo-cons and neo-libs can applaud Flake telling Trump that like Taylor Swift, they are never ever getting back together again. But until Flake puts some teeth and deeds behind his high-minded rhetoric, they're just empty words on a page. Talkin' loud and sayin' nothin'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 12:48:40 GMT -5
So -- The question I've been asking liberal friends: if we had a Democratic president (or candidate) who advocated pro-choice, pro-ACA, etc. policy you like,and who would appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, but was a lying, corrupt grifter who colluded with a hostile foreign power to sway the election, alienated our allies, constantly tweeted embarrassing, horrific nonsense, etc. -- in other words, was a liberal Trump -- would you repudiate those policies you like just because President Liberal Trump was a horrific human being? would you say "no, I'm against abortion now because that scumbag is pro-choice? In Alternate World, Liberal President Trump championed a policy you like, and it was bullied through via a Democratic Congress that blocked out all input from white guys and Republicans, and put through a vote in the dead of night, flouting all proper procedures. But you, Congress Critter Nighttimer, agree with the policy itself. Would you vote against the policy? If not, what would you do? ETA: How about if you didn't so much love the policy, but it would at least get rid of a policy you dislike and think must be changed, and could be a stepping stone to a policy you thought was better? And might well be the last shot of getting rid of the policy you dislike? (That was the position McCain, Murkowski et al. were faced with.) ETA: Assuming I were in the latter position, Congress Critter CassandraW would probably do pretty much what McCain did: speak out against the process and the bill, make clear I would not vote for it the way it was, agree to debate it (giving a chance for a votearama that might eventually arrive at an acceptable bill) -- and then, when my colleagues continued to push their crap bill and stone wall input, I'd take a dramatic gesture of stabbing the fucking thing in the heart, and send my colleagues back to the drawing board. (Those theatrics, IMO, killed that shitty bill far more thoroughly -- not to mention rebuking McConnell and Trump -- than if he'd just stayed in his hospital bed or refused to debate at all. And I am certain he had his every action plotted when he arrived for the vote.)
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 1, 2017 13:25:55 GMT -5
So -- The question I've been asking liberal friends: if we had a Democratic president (or candidate) who advocated pro-choice, pro-ACA, etc. policy you like,and who would appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, but was a lying, corrupt grifter who colluded with a hostile foreign power to sway the election, alienated our allies, constantly tweeted embarrassing, horrific nonsense, etc. -- in other words, was a liberal Trump -- would you repudiate those policies you like just because President Liberal Trump was a horrific human being? would you say "no, I'm against abortion now because that scumbag is pro-choice? In Alternate World, Liberal President Trump championed a policy you like, and it was bullied through via a Democratic Congress that blocked out all input from white guys and Republicans, and put through a vote in the dead of night, flouting all proper procedures. But you, Congress Critter Nighttimer, agree with the policy itself. Would you vote against the policy? If not, what would you do? ETA: How about if you didn't so much love the policy, but it would at least get rid of a policy you dislike and think must be changed, and could be a stepping stone to a policy you thought was better? And might well be the last shot of getting rid of the policy you dislike? (That was the position McCain, Murkowski et al. were faced with.) Truth be told, Cassandra, I never much cared for hypotheticals. In debate they can set up some interesting "What If...?" scenarios, but in terms of actually proving anything they're worthless. Perhaps in your alternate reality a Bizarro Liberal Trump could exist and approach governing with the same feckless and infantile mindset. Personally, I don't believe there is a liberal version of Trump unless Roseanne Barr is successful in her next presidential run. Even Bernie Sanders at his smash-the-system best has more respect for protocol, tradition and institutions than Trump. I don't have to invent an alternative reality when the one we're living in is already weird and improbable enough. Incidentally, nobody really knows if Trump is a real Republican or Democrat and that includes Trump. Conservative Trump or Liberal Trump are only labels signifying nothing. The only thing which is certain Trump believes in is himself. The proof is Jeff Flake has not opposed Trump where it counts on the issues when it matters. Now that he's considered the most vulnerable Republican in 2018, he's trying to have it both ways. Denounce Trump in the pages of a book and support him in the well of the Senate floor. The denouncement will win the hearts (and I'm sure Flake hopes the votes) of anti-Trump Republicans and Democrats longing to find a conservative with a functioning spinal cord. I can see you're dazzled by Flake, Cassandra, but don't start lopping off the heads of every other liberal who isn't swooning and gushing over another politician writing another book calling for civility and principle and pulling Americans together while doing little to nothing to bring it to pass. A lousy book isn't going to slow the roll of Trump. A vote against him will, but that's a vote Flake won't cast.Words don't impress me. Deeds do, and on that side of the ledger Jeff Flake is putting up a blank page. Don't tell me what needs to be done. Show me how you're gonna do it. Flake hasn't and in that regard, he has a lot in common with Trump.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 1, 2017 14:39:10 GMT -5
In Alternate World, Liberal President Trump championed a policy you like, and it was bullied through via a Democratic Congress that blocked out all input from white guys and Republicans, and put through a vote in the dead of night, flouting all proper procedures. But you, Congress Critter Nighttimer, agree with the policy itself. Would you vote against the policy? If not, what would you do? Pretty sure this has already happened, most recently under Obama. But it's not limited to him (and indeed, has occurred with the parties reversed). Can speak for NT, obviously, but I'd vote against the policy. Of course, I'd never get elected to Congress... And look, of all the Congresscritters we have, I think Flake is a part of a very limited group that includes Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and a few others (Paul Wellstone was certainly a member, when he was still alive) who are on occasion willing to stand alone, based on principal alone. Of course, they might be totally wrong on that stand, in the minds of many (or even most) people. But they're willing to do it. McCain, I think, would like to imagine he is a part of this group. He's not, imo. Never has been. But I guess that's a tangent... Anyway, I read Flake's piece as painfully honest, from the standpoint of introspection. I don't agree with all he says, but I think he's saying he's been doing it wrong. The New Republic piece is a pretty transparent hit piece and, imo, stupid. The partisan tools there should be applauding this, holding it up and saying "see, Flake says he and his cohorts are doing it wrong!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 15:13:43 GMT -5
So I gather you would have been on team Collins/Murkowski and voted against the various GOP repeal options because of the process that produced them, and also voted against opening debate?
Kudos, if so. I liked McCain's style, but I have profound respect for what Collins and Murkowski did -- it took some serious grit. Voting against a policy you want enacted because you despise the process that produced it is certainly a principled position, and a powerful way to speak against the process.
My rather cynical view is that most people, liberal and conservative, if faced with that choice wouldn't do it. They'd wring their hands a bit, maybe -- or maybe not. Many would just vote for the bill and chalk up the win.
And I think almost no one would vote against a policy they wanted and believed was best for America simply because a hateful jackass like Trump was championing it.
Indeed, I wouldn't do the last thing. I would absolutely do a McCain, Collins, or Murkowski, though, and buck my party over a bill and/or process I though was bad. (And I too would never be elected.)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 1, 2017 15:52:49 GMT -5
So I gather you would have been on team Collins/Murkowski and voted against the various GOP repeal options because of the process that produced them, and also voted against opening debate? Sure. But it doesn't cost me anything to say that, now. And I would never be a successful politician because I don't think I could do a good job weighing such costs (i.e. recognizing when my political future was tied to a particular vote). And I think you're being a little hyerbolic with the dead of night stuff. Regardless, I could ask the same question about the passage of the Stimulus bill, no? Some would clam that even the ACA itself was passed via ramming. And to be clear here, when you say "championed a policy," I read that as legislation to do something. If we're talking about simply striking down a policy/law/program that I happen to think was always wrong in a very fundamental way, I'd vote my conscience, because frankly such a vote can't be subject to secretive planning, as it's a straight up or down thing. So, I'd vote "no" to a poorly thought out replacement plan being rammed through, "yes" to a simple repeal. I think. Really, it's a question for the moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 16:00:58 GMT -5
Really, my hypothetical comes down to this:
does opposition to a President require that you also oppose positions he's taking -- even if you agree with those positions?
I say no. I see nothing hypocritical about conservatives going forward with positions they believe are correct, and at the same time criticizing the president for whatever they think is objectionable. They need not become pro-choice because the president is pro-life.
However, I admit I DO have a problem with those who voted for Trump while knowing full well he was a grifter and a jackass, or who excuse him or ignore him when he does jackass things.
ETA:
I elaborated with the ACA thing because I think a lot of liberals lose sight of the fact that pretty much all Republican Senators would like to see it repealed, and knew this was maybe their last real shot. I think that puts a really different slant on what they all chose to do. McCain et al did not vote no because they love the ACA. They voted no primarily because the GOP options sucked. They didn't like the process, either, but I'm guessing they would have still voted yes if they'd liked the bill. Sticking a finger in Trump's eye likely gratified them, but again, if they'd liked the bill...
But that's not a diss on them. Most politicians would do the same. And probably their constituents, if they liked the legislation, would want them to.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 1, 2017 21:19:54 GMT -5
In Alternate World, Liberal President Trump championed a policy you like, and it was bullied through via a Democratic Congress that blocked out all input from white guys and Republicans, and put through a vote in the dead of night, flouting all proper procedures. But you, Congress Critter Nighttimer, agree with the policy itself. Would you vote against the policy? If not, what would you do? Pretty sure this has already happened, most recently under Obama. But it's not limited to him (and indeed, has occurred with the parties reversed). Can(t) speak for NT, obviously, but I'd vote against the policy. Please. Don't even try to speak for NT. When has Jeff Flake been willing to stand alone, based on principle alone? Generalities are easy. Specifics are hard. Here's a specific. Let's take the living U.S. Senators you named and see how they have voted in support of Trump. Sen. Bernard Sanders: 10.6%Sen. Rand Paul: 88.9%Sen. John McCain: 86.7%Sen. Jeff Flake: 95.6% So when you say Jeff Flake is willing to "stand alone" which Jeff Flake are you talking about? You can't mean the lapdog from Arizona with a voting record of 95% in support of Trump. The numbers put the lie to that absurd assertion. Flake is just another GOP suck-up. I call bullshit. Let's get something straight, robeiae. I don't quote "stupid" pieces. I quote from pieces you don't agree with and that doesn't make it stupid. If you don't like The New Republic piece, say so. If you have a reason why, state it. It's no skin off my ass if you think it's trash, but when you dub it "stupid" and say it's "a pretty transparent hit piece," that's not only attacking the article, it's a jab at ME for reposting it here. You do this and you do so without offering anything in the way of a substantial rebuttal or cogent, coherent argument as to WHY it's a stupid, transparent hit piece.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 2, 2017 9:25:20 GMT -5
I think it's a stupid transparent hit piece--from a highly partisan source at that--because it's finding fault with Flake for going along with Trump as a means to criticize a piece where Flake is saying "look, we've been wrong to go along with Trump." Again, pretty honest introspection imo, a rare thing in Congress. Also, the New Republic's bit about Flake voting the same as Trump 95% of the time is 1) factually wrong (Trump doesn't vote on any legislation) and 2) not actually evidence for anything sigificant. The writer imagines it's some sort of Big Deal--ala "what the reader may not know about Flake"--but why, exactly? Look at the source on this. Christ, we're not even 9 months into Trump's first term. Many of the votes behind this number are appointment confirmations. Look: projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/jeff-flake/Oh noes, Flake is voting like a member of his party won the election! Lol, ridiculous. And again, it's inconsequential by my reading, since Flake is freely admitting that he has gone along when he shouldn't have. Beyond that, I clearly said it was stupid in my opinion. So yes, let's do get something straight: disagree with me freely, slam me for not supporting my position effectively, offer rebuttals or what have you. It's all good. But I'm not going to not express my opinion, so I don't care if you imagine my opinion on a piece is some sort of jab at you.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 2, 2017 9:49:52 GMT -5
More on Flake and Trump: www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/jeff-flake-book-trump-arizona-senate-primary/index.htmlSo Flake is likely to have a primary challenger supported by Trump and his people. Lol, rock and a hard place: he's catching heat from one direction for not supporting Trump enough, and catching heat from the other for supporting Trump too much. But I do think that if he wins the primary, he'll do fine in the actual election.
|
|