When Overreach Starts to Fail


Nancy Pelosi allowed the forces on her left wing to go a bridge too far. She tried to find a way to salvage the House Impeachment Hoax, but she’s been outmaneuvered by Cocaine Mitch. The mopping up action will begin in the Senate next week, and the hapless PR skirmishing by the Maddows in The Media will not save The Narrative.

Meanwhile in Virginia, Governor Blackface and his friends in the Legislature are pushing ahead with California/New York style gun control. As anyone who has looked at a map of those Second Amendment sanctuaries can see, the proposed laws have little popular support outside of the DC suburbs and a few urban areas. The legislature has responded to public unrest by changing its rules in order to be make lobbying by gun control supporters more difficult and by moving to change the law related to recalling public officials. The governor plans an emergency declaration to prevent the carrying of firearms at a pro-Second-Amendment rally. These are not the acts of fair-minded politicians seeking to do the will of their constituents.

We see the system of checks and balances envisioned by The Founders working in the case of the Impeachment Hoax. We see it apparently failing in Virginia. I doubt Madison or Jefferson would be pleased with their home state today.

President Trump will face an election, and the voters will either keep him for another term or fire him.

Virginia … well, the state’s motto is sic semper tyrannis, so let’s hope that cooler, wiser heads prevail.

Buyer’s Remorse


The Russian Collusion Hoax had failed. The Mueller Report was a nothing burger. So the left wing of the House Democrats sold Nancy Pelosi a bill of goods that finally led to her allowing the Impeachment Hoax to go forward. And then it dawned on the Speaker that it would be Cocaine Mitch who would take charge of the action when the Impeachment reached the Senate.

Now, it may be that she had thought that 2019/202 would be like 1974 and that a group of Republican senators would go to the President and tell him to resign rather than face a trial. But 2020 isn’t 1974. In 1974 there was an underlying crime and a cover up of that crime. In 2020, there’s merely whining about Orange Man Bad. Indeed, it appears that there was significant criminal activity that tainted the 2016 election, but the President was among the victims of those crimes. In 2020, the Republicans in the Senate seem prepared to give the President an opportunity to present his defense, and the President seems to look forward to vindication rather than removal from office.

Hence, the Speaker’s problem. If the case goes forward to the Senate, more of the Truth about who did what is likely to come to light, and that is not likely to be beneficial to Pelosi, her allies, or Democrats as a whole. No wonder she’s having trouble articulating her talking points.

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

 

Don’t Know Much About History


As this tweet demonstrates,  should never be considered an authoritative source for Real World information—While it is true that Speaker Pelosi is next in line after the Vice President in the order of succession, Section 2 of the 25th Amendment specifies that the President (i.e., President Pence if Donald Trump were removed from office) “shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.” Note the use of the word shall. President Pence would be required to nominate a new Vice President subject to the approval of both houses of Congress. When the new VP was sworn in, the Speaker would move back to her proper place in line.

Section 2 has been triggered twice. When Vice President Agnew resigned, President Nixon nominated Gerald Ford to replace him. Congress confirmed that nomination. When President Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford became President, President Ford nominated Nelson Rockefeller as VP, and Congress confirmed him.

Perhaps the kids over at Vox think that Mike Pence couldn’t think of a sufficiently non-controversial nominee for VP and that the office would remain vacant until after the next election. Or maybe they’re too young and too ignorant of History to remember or know what happened 45 years ago.

Or both.

Trump v. Pelosi v. AOC


Donald Trump is running for reelection, and it seems that he’d rather run against the sort of Progressive Democrat whose politics are strongly different from his own—”a choice not an echo” to borrow an old campaign slogan. While AOC won’t be the 2020 nominee, she’s the face of the Democrat’s for now, and that seems to suit Trump just fine.

Nancy Pelosi’s goals aren’t much different from She Guevara’s, but the two differ radically on how to achieve those goals. After six months as a congresscritter, AOC has shown that she is unwilling and/or unable to work within the established congressional order. She wants revolution now. Pelosi’s decades of practical politics have taught her that a recurring first step toward her goals is winning elections. She’s also seen what happens when her side’s politics moves too fast for the voters. See, eg., the elections of 1994 and 2010.

Pelosi isn’t all that popular with voters outside the costal blue zones, but recent poling shows that AOC and her squad of newbies are unpopular even in many Democrat strongholds. Thus, Trump would much rather have She Guevara as the face of the Democratic Party. As the coming primaries settle on the Democrat’s presidential nominee, that candidate will push AOC aside, but her effect on the party’s branding will linger, and Trump sees that as to his advantage.

So Trump is likely to continue baiting AOC and her squad. And given their mix of arrogance and inexperience, I suspect they’ll keep taking the bait.

Oh, one more thing … I’ve seen Trump’s tweets from last weekend labeled as “racist.” He suggested that a foreign-born congresswoman return to her homeland, straighten it out, and then come back to show us how it was done. How is that challenge racist?

Don’t Know Much About History


Nancy Pelosi has recently said that the National Park Service should deny a permit to a group she opposes rather than let them “spew forth their venom.” She says that the Constitution doesn’t allow one to “yell wolf in a crowded theater.” David French has a piece over at NRO that looks at how her misquoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., shows her ignorance of constitutional law and our country’s history. (The fire in a crowded theater comment is dicta found in Schenck v. U.S. which is no longer good law. Brandenburg v. Ohio is now the proper standard.)

Mrs. Pelosi has also called for Speaker Ryan to remove statues of Confederates from the Capitol, something she failed to do when she was Speaker of the House. (She did order the statue of Robert E. Lee moved to a less prominent spot and his old spot given to a statue of Rosa Parks.) OTOH, at least she didn’t dedicate any such statues—as her father did when he was Mayor of Baltimore. AFAIK, she’s failed to make any public comments concerning her family’s history related to Confederate monuments.

One more thing … Because it will come up, here’s my opinion on Confederate monuments:

I grew up in the South. One of my great-great-grandfathers served as an officer in the Confederate Army. Another great-great-grandfather was a slaveholder. What both of them did was wrong, and I like to believe that I would have been among the substantial minority of Tennesseans who opposed secession and supported the Union.

The monuments that were built by people with a living memory of the war should probably be left alone as historical artifacts. However, later monuments erected as pushback to the 20th-century civil rights movement should have no such protection. If, for example, Baltimore decides to remove the Lee-Jackson monument Nancy Pelosi’s father dedicated in 1948, I would be inclined to believe that city was making a wise choice.