LEARNING FROM THE ENEMY

-->

Ok, now at last they admit the truth.  All the impeachment defenses put up by the Republicans thus far were lies:  Hearsay, the failure of the House to pursue witnesses in court, a crime is necessary, the absurd Dersh Defense -- all bullshit.

Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, the retiring Senator from Tennessee, spilled the beans in a series, of interviews this weekend. He voted against adding witnesses to the impeachment trial because he didn't need further proof. He was already persuaded that Trump did it. Period. That was clear, said Mitch McConnell's bestie, from the git-go. The Zelensky conversation, taken together with  the hold on the security assistance funds for Ukraine, was all the proof Alexander needed to persuade him that Trump was guilty. Trump's conduct "crossed the line."

Now comes the big BUT from which the Democrats may learn something, or squander their chances to defeat Trump in November.

Having found the President guilty does not mean we should remove him, Alexander said. He hid his real message by asserting his view that Trump's conduct didn't rise to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor." He also said, -- and this was true--his removal was opposed by 50% of the U.S. population.

BUT he concluded with his real message: Alexander summed in the starkest terms: he was opposed to removal because he wanted the voters to "to be able to decide whether they wanted their next president to be Trump or Warren."

Hmmm, "Trump or Warren."  Not "Trump or Biden," not "Trump or Buttigieg," not "Trump or Klobuchar."

This close friend of the Republican Majority Leader was making the best case for his decision: he was suggesting the public should be allowed to choose between the impetuous child in the White House and one of the two far-left Democratic candidates.

Alexander spoke for the Republican caucus: the NYT reported:

"Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, put it this way: “Lamar speaks for lots and lots of us.”

(Even the Senator formerly known as Lindsay Graham agreed with Alexander!)

As one of my Trumpian readers constantly reminds, elections are binary. Trump  did not win the 2016 because the voters liked him. He won because the voters found him less unattractive than his opponent. (You remember his opponent? She-who-still-will-not-get-off-the-stage?)

The Democrats assert that this election may be existential for our democracy, but nevertheless here we are, seriously considering choosing as our candidate one of two ultra "progressives'' who will appeal to the the fewest number of moderate voters: a 78 yr.-old self-described Democrat-Socialist heart patient, or his competitor for the far-left vote, a "Medicare-for-all," "job-killing-lower-our-oil-production," "decriminalize-illegal-immigration" east coast liberal.

Why didn't Alexander make his point by contrasting Trump with Biden, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, or Buttigieg?

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

That's why.

..............................

As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you want a notice of each posting,, send me an email and I will add you to the notice list.  mlondon34@gmail.com