Rush Limbaugh nails it, IMO. This is from yesterday. What Trump did was very important. Of course it's very unfortunate that a transcript of a call with a foreign leader had to be released. Still, don't waste a lot of time worrying about the corrupt Ukrainians, who've been playing a double game throughout. By releasing the transcript Trump upset the Dem impeachment applecart and has bought valuable time for conservatives to muster their forces. Lindsey Graham's interview on Hannity was an important indication of that. Now we're learning more and more about two important things:
1) Dem corrupt connections to Ukraine; and
2) Deep State chicanery in the "whistleblower" Ukraine Hoax.
A few excerpts from Rush's monologue:
Trump was not supposed to release that transcript, in their [Dem] thinking. He screwed the timeline that they had planned by releasing the transcript of the call and the complaint. See, the plan, what they thought Trump would do, because they still don’t understand Trump. ..., they haven’t taken the time to examine why he got elected, why his voters like him, who he is. They’ve created this caricature of the guy that’s nowhere near truthful and real and they go with that.
They thought Trump would protect the presidency. They thought Trump would be thinking of future presidents and that he would not give away that transcript, he would not reveal for the other branches, he wouldn’t give the legislative branch any of what he was doing. He would protect his executive branch power. This is what the Democrats thought any president would do. So they make this allegation, got a whistleblower. What Trump was supposed to do in their original timeline, Trump was supposed to not release the transcript.
... And then they could say he’s already engaged in a cover-up. Remember, the cover-up is always worse than the crime. That’s what we learned from Nixon. They were attempting, in other words, to engender a cover-up and stonewall.
Recall that Nancy Pelosi attempted to do exactly that shortly after Trump released the transcript--allege a "coverup," than which no crime is greater. It was convoluted and didn't fly.
... Trump blew them up, folks. Today, instead of debating the whistleblower and is he gonna testify and is he afraid for being murdered, we were supposed to be talking about Trump stonewalling and covering up because he would have known he had been had.
..., the Democrats’ original plan was to be all over the media accusing Trump of stonewalling and covering up by not revealing or releasing the transcript of the call, thereby the Democrats could say whatever the whistleblower said was in it. The whistleblower could allege anything.
As long as Trump didn’t release the transcript, the whistleblower’s account would be all anybody had. The whistleblower makes it look bad, and then Trump doesn’t release and that looks like a cover-up and it looks like a stonewall and the Democrats think, we got him!
Trump releases the transcript. There’s nothing in it. Pencil Neck has to go lie about it from his committee chairmanship chair during an official committee hearing! He lied about what Trump said. Which to me proves what their original plan was, to lie and make up what was in that phone call without ever any evidence to contradict them because Trump wouldn’t release it.
-->they haven’t taken the time to examine why he got elected, why his voters like him, who he is.<--
ReplyDeleteExactly. This is the result of what I call Team Sport Politics: My team wins, your team loses, by any means necessary, including changing the rules and moving the goal posts.
Call it the "fan version" if you like. Every team manager/coach scouts and analyzes the opponent down to the fraction. In politics, it is only necessary to control The Narrative, and hence, the voters will follow. And because the voters didn't play true to form in 2016, they are deplorable, ignorant, wrong, and should be disenfranchised.
To further the analogy, we have a replay of the Super Bowl matchup of the NE Patriots vs NY Giants. The Pats were heavily favored to win (XLII), and go undefeated--but the underdog Giants won in an upset. Surely on the rematch 4 years later (XLVI), the Pats would come out on top against the Giants--but the Pats lost again.
Is it kismet?
I disagree, and that's why I've spent as much time as I have on opinions like those Greenfield, Deneen, and Morson. It's not a game that's blinding them, it's ideology. As Greenfield says, if politics and elections are a game, then they are playing it under duress. What they really want is a One Party State in which elections, such as they are, will be intra-party. Like in the old USSR.
DeleteSultan Knish is a regular read for me, and I completely agree (and I doubt Forbes disagrees) that the one-party state is the objective. Or, at least, an opposition so enfeebled as to be a mere token. (I know the GOP already acts like a bunch of Washington Generals, but we're talking about something well beyond that.)
DeleteThe entire mission is punish and destroy, over and over again, until the job is done. Then do it some more. Confidence in this view of things comes primarily from history: none of this is novel save the details.