The Battle In The Democratic Party Over Impeachment Vs. Democratic Goal Of Accomplishment Of Party Agenda

The battle is in full swing now to move the House of Representatives toward impeachment hearings against Donald Trump.

But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still reluctant to move ahead, and it is causing a split within the Democratic caucus.

Donald Trump is refusing to cooperate in any fashion, including stonewalling any testimony by anyone connected to Trump, including by subpoena, and going to court to block any investigation of Trump tax returns.

Many Democrats are saying that the main emphasis of the Democratic Party should be to promote their agenda for the upcoming election, including dealing with Health Care, Global Warming, Environmental Protection, Education, the Minimum Wage, Civil Rights, and so much more.

The argument is that Donald Trump, even if impeached, will not be convicted by the Republican controlled US Senate, but the argument for doing what can be done is that it is needed to set a standard for future Presidents, so that never again, hopefully, will we have a lawless President on the level of a Donald Trump.

Despite Democratic desires to accomplish their legislative goals, the reality is that little actual legislation is possible as long as there is a divided Congress, where both parties control one chamber.

America is now, in many ways, in a greater crisis than we have had over the future of our Constitution and Bill of Rights since World War II, already seen as far greater than the Presidency of Richard Nixon. Then, many Republicans cooperated in doing what was essential to do, to get Nixon out of office, but sadly that is not the agenda now for a party which can only find one person, Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan, committed to impeachment and punishment for President Trump.

Michigan Congressman Justin Amash The Only Elected Republican Willing To Stand Up To Donald Trump On Obstruction Of Justice

Michigan Republican Congressman Justin Amash is not someone who progressives would admire, but on the issue of Donald Trump and impeachment, he is the only Congressional Republican willing to stick his neck out, and call for the impeachment of the President for Obstruction of Justice.

Amash is a right wing Republican who has served since 2011, and is one of the most conservative members of Congress, with libertarian beliefs, and a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus and a founder and Chair of the Liberty Caucus in that legislative body. He was an original Tea Party activist in 2009-2010 after Barack Obama became President.

His parents are Palestinian and Syrian Christians, so he is of Arab descent, and he represents western Michigan, including Grand Rapids, the area of Michigan represented by Gerald Ford for 25 years before he became Vice President and President.

He has been a critic of Trump from the beginning, and refused to endorse him, and now House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy has repudiated him, claiming he votes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi more than with his party, which is purely a lie.

Amash has voted against funding for the border wall; has been critical of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement); voted against the Muslim Ban from seven nations promoted by Donald Trump in 2017; opposed renewal of the Patriot Act in 2011 and and is a critic of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; has served on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and believes in Congress having the final say in the commitment of troops to combat overseas.

It seems as if he is a man without a party now, and it is rumored that he might run for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination in 2020, which if he does, he could help affect the election and help to cause the defeat of Donald Trump, which would be true justice!

Clinton Case And Trump Case For Impeachment Totally Different, Including Clinton Popularity Remained High, And Trump Has Never Had A Majority Popularity Rating!

As the debate begins over whether Donald Trump should face impeachment by the House of Representatives, even if the US Senate will not convict, it is instructive to examine the Bill Clinton Impeachment and compare it to the proposed Donald Trump Impeachment.

Bill Clinton remained popular through the whole impeachment crisis and after, and yet the majority of the American people did not support his impeachment, based on the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky scandals. But the Republican Party played politics, and insisted on impeaching him and bringing him to trial in the Senate, knowing full well that Clinton would NOT be removed from office, and knowing that if he was removed, Al Gore would have become President and had an edge as a sitting President for the 2000 Presidential election.

Donald Trump, on the other hand has never been popular with more than 42-43 percent of the American people, and the support for his impeachment has grown as time has passed, although a majority in polls do not yet support action to be taken, despite the clear cut abuses of power and obstruction of justice being utilized by Trump, including refusal to hand over documents and have people testify before Congressional committees. And the fact that he has earned hundreds of millions of dollars from his properties, violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, is yet another reason for his impeachment, no matter what happens in the Senate.

Democrats know that if Donald Trump were to be removed, Mike Pence would replace him, a horrifying thought, but for the record of history, it is clear that Donald Trump is more abusive of power, and violating the separation of powers and checks and balances, endangering the nation in international affairs, and in retaining the great reforms of Democratic and Republican Presidents since Theodore Roosevelt and through Barack Obama.

There is no acceptable excuse for moving ahead on impeachment, and it is time for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to stop worrying about the impact of impeachment, and do the right thing, make Donald Trump accountable under the Constitution for his violation of his Presidential oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States!

“Pro Life” Religious Extremists Are Totalitarian Minded Hypocrites Who Do Not Care About Poor Children Once They Are Born!

The extreme right wing Christians who are now declaring war on abortion rights of women are totalitarian minded hypocrites who do NOT care about the lives of poor children once they are born.

They are pro birth, but not truly pro life, as many of them support capital punishment, and have no desire or interest in supporting single mothers, abused mothers, raped mothers, incest mothers, and are from states that historically have always mistreated the poor.

Yet they claim to be following the teachings of Jesus, when many are them are actually antisemites, as well as racists, nativists, and misogynists. Their only interest in the religion of Judaism is to convince them to become Christians, and even at the time when Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the evangelical preachers were preaching the virtues of their extremist views of Christianity, rather than supporting the Jewish faith.

Evangelical right wingers are not true friend of Jews, or any other faith, or of the dignity of women to control their own lives, and particularly when they are the victims of violence through rape and incest, and when they are themselves children as young as 11 or 12.

The role of extremist religion and women’s rights continues to be a battleground, and anyone who believes in the dignity of women must fight this massive campaign to outlaw legal abortion, as it is designed to harm women who will still get abortions underground, endangering their lives.

This must be a key campaign issue in the Presidential and Congressional Elections of 2020!

Donald Trump Advocates Black Spiked Wall On Mexican Border, Demonstrates How Evil And Mentally Deranged He Is!

Donald Trump is becoming clearly more mentally deranged every day, as now when he advocates building a Border Wall with Mexico with a specific design.

Trump has openly said that the wall should be black steel and have spikes, with the goal of making it impossible for anyone to scale the wall, as the black steel would be too hot, and the spikes would be sharp and cause massive injuries and blood letting to occur.

How sickening and outrageous such a thought is even crossing one’s mind, let alone being expressed, as this utterance by the 45th President!

And let us not forget that at a recent rally, when someone in the crowd advocated shooting migrants trying to cross the border, Trump laughed and said only in the Florida Panhandle (where the rally occurred), would someone come up with such a thought! But the point was Trump should have immediately become angry and condemned the sick person who uttered such a thought in the crowd. Instead, the crowd laughed along with Trump, so one can imagine that many of these excuses for human beings, including women and racial minorities, not just white males, would willingly participate in mass murder, as occurred in the Holocaust under Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany!

What has happened to the moral compass of America, which clearly is a very sick nation! We have millions of racists, nativists, misogynists, antisemites, all willing to sacrifice human lives. At the same time, they are working to promote a so called Pro Life agenda for fetuses, but with no concern about the children born to poor mothers, and providing no medical, housing, or food support to many of these unfortunate families, who live in backwards states that abuse and mistreat their own population. But this is done in the name of their hypocritical religious views, which are NOT the teachings of Jesus Christ!

Is It Essential To Have A Woman On The Democratic Ticket In 2020, The Centennial Of The 19th Amendment? If So, Amy Klobuchar Is The Right Choice!

The question arises whether it is essential to have a woman on the Democratic Presidential ticket in 2020, the Centennial of the 19th Amendment.

The experience with women on the national ticket is not a good one. Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro of New York ran with Democratic Presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984, and Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska ran with Republican Presidential nominee John McCain in 2008.

Having said that, the potential women who could be on the national ticket are far superior to Ferraro and Palin.

Many observers have the feeling that no woman could engage in adequate verbal combat with Donald Trump on a debate stage.

But what about engaging in debate with Vice President Mike Pence? That seems much more promising.

The issue is which woman would be seen as best to debate, in the sense of coming across as even tempered, calm, rational, and effective in any debate with a male opponent, as neither Ferraro nor Palin came across well when debating George H. W. Bush in 1984 in the case of Ferraro, or Joe Biden in 2008 in the case of Palin.

The gut feeling this blogger and scholar has is that Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar would probably be most effective in a debate. She is not seen by the population as emotional, shrill, or as someone who would be perceived as overly feminist in her views. Understand that this whole issue is not a problem with the author, but he is trying to perceive how white working class males would judge a woman candidate.

Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand would all have “problems” that would make them negatively seen by the group which helped to elect Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. This is reality, not what the author wishes was so, but we cannot deny the issue of misogyny.

Klobuchar would make a great Vice Presidential running mate, from the Midwest, and yet with a tradition inherited from Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone, of Democratic Farmer Labor commitment that made Minnesota one of the most advanced states politically in the last half of the 20th century and into the 21st century.

The odds of her being the Presidential nominee seem highly unlikely at this point, but she would be an excellent choice to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency with an older man as President, such as Joe Biden.

New York City Mayors, Other Mayors And The Presidency

New York City has had Mayors who have sought the Presidency, but never has a NYC Mayor reached the White House.

With the announcement by present NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio of him becoming number 23 to run for the White House, this is a good time to look back at failed runs for the White House by NYC Mayors, and the history of other Mayors who have run for President.

DeWitt Clinton was the Federalist nominee for President in 1812 against President James Madison, but lost.

John Lindsay switched from the Republican to Democratic Party in 1972, but lost early in the process and withdrew his candidacy by April.

Rudy Giuliani was leading in polls in 2007 as a potential Republican nominee, but flopped badly and withdrew in January 2008.

Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, then an Independent, then a Democrat, considered announcing in 2016 and 2020, but decided not to at the present time, due to Joe Biden entering the race with similar views.

Additionally, a future President ran for Mayor of NYC in 1886 as a Republican, and ended up third, and yet went on to the White House, and that was Theodore Roosevelt.

Additionally, we have former Buffalo, New York Mayor and New York Governor Grover Cleveland who went on to the Presidency in 1884.

Other Mayors who ran for the Presidency include:

Hubert Humphrey of Minneapolis, Minnesota, who went on to the Senate and Vice Presidency, but lost the Presidential election of 1968 to Richard Nixon.

Sam Yorty of Los Angeles, who ran for the Democratic nomination unsuccessfully in 1972.

Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland, Ohio, who also served in Congress, and was a Democratic candidate unsuccessfully in 2004 and 2008.

Martin O’Malley of Baltimore, Maryland, who also served as Maryland Governor, and ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Additionally, two Presidents who succeeded after the death of the incumbent President, had served as Mayors of small cities–Andrew Johnson as Greeneville, Tennessee Mayor; and Calvin Coolidge as Northampton, Massachusetts Mayor, and was successful in winning his own term as President in 1924.

And now, of course, we have four former Mayors running in the Democratic Presidential competition:

Cory Booker of Newark, New Jersey

Julian Castro of San Antonio, Texas

John Hickenlooper of Denver, Colorado

Bernie Sanders of Burlington, Vermont

We also have three sitting Mayors now running for the Democratic nomination:

Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana

Bill de Blasio of New York City

Wayne Messam of Miramar, Florida

Elizabeth Warren May Overtake Bernie Sanders As The Favored Candidate On The Left Of The Democratic Party

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren seems to be improving her situation in the Democratic Presidential race, while Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders seems to be faltering, if one believes recent polls that have been published.

Everyone in their right mind knows that trying to assume that anyone has a long term advantage six weeks before the first Democratic Presidential debate is indeed foolish.

But right now, Warren, with her combative nature, and many specific proposals, seems to be improving dramatically in her image, while Sanders may have reached his peak, and is declining in the competition of former Vice President Joe Biden for the support of African Americans, a crucial voting bloc, with about 60 percent of the South Carolina Primary vote likely to be of that group, and 25 percent overall.

So instead of a heads on battle between Sanders and Biden, it could be that it will end up as Warren vs Biden, with Warren to be 71 in 2020, as compared to Biden being 78 and Sanders being 79 in 2020.

And, of course, do not forget Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg, and of course, always the possibility of someone else emerging as a “dark horse”.

Four Presidential Candidates Who Should Run For Senate Instead

It is clear, with the announcement today officially that Montana Governor Steve Bullock is running for President, making for a total of 22 candidates, that there are simply too many, and that some of them need to give up the fight, and run instead for the US Senate, to bolster the chances of a Democratic take over in 2020.

Without the Senate, any Democratic President will face the impossibility of accomplishing his or her goals for the nation, both domestically and in foreign affairs.

So some friendly advice as follows:

Steve Bullock of Montana, run for the US Senate, and since you have been a popular Governor for two terms, spend your time on helping the Democrats gain the Senate majority and defeat Senator Steve Daines.

John Hickenlooper of Colorado, the same advice for you, run to defeat Cory Gardner, one of the most endangered Republicans.

Beto O’Rourke of Texas, you could really help make the Lone Star State turn “Blue” after your close race against Ted Cruz in 2018. Run to retire John Cornyn.

And Stacey Abrams, who is rumored to be thinking of announcing for President, instead you should run for Senator in Georgia, and defeat David Perdue.

Is Chief Justice John Roberts On Road To Judicial Leadership Of John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, And Earl Warren?

Chief Justice John Roberts is clearly a conservative on the Supreme Court, but he is also very much aware of and concerned about the turmoil in American society, and concerned about the long term reputation of the Court, as well as his own historical image, since he has a sense of history.

So Roberts has surprised Court watchers in some of his decisions, and he has emerged as the “swing” vote on the Court, as only he can prevent the Court from going so hard to the Right that it will lose its image of being an institution that promotes fairness and equity under the Constitution.

So expect that John Roberts will become a true judicial leader on the level of John Marshall (1801-1835), Charles Evans Hughes (1930-1941), and Earl Warren (1953-1969).

These three Chief Justices, generally acknowledged as the three greatest of the 16 previous Chief Justices before Roberts came to the Court in 2005, all demonstrated courage and principle, and came into conflict with Presidents.

Marshall had to deal with the strong opposition of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, while Charles Evans Hughes had Franklin D. Roosevelt challenging the Court during the Great Depression, and Earl Warren steered the Court in a direction not always agreed with by Republicans Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.

Now John Roberts has to deal with Donald Trump, who he has already issued a criticism, when Trump spoke of “Obama Judges”, “Bush Judges”, and “Clinton Judges”, with Roberts asserting there is no such thing as judges based on a President, but rather judges adhering to the Constitution as they see it.

This makes it quite clear to many observers that Roberts is ready to take a more moderate stand than he does typically, as he did in saving the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) in 2012.

Expect Roberts to side, if necessary, with the four “liberals” on the Court (chosen by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama), with the constitutional crisis that has clearly arisen, including trying to convince the four conservatives selected by both President Bushes and even the two Trump judges, to consider how the Court was unanimous in curbing President Richard Nixon in the Watergate Scandal 45 years ago, and Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit 22 years ago.

It is the Supreme Court that is being looked to as the ultimate government branch to rein in a President far more abusive than Richard Nixon, and to reassert separation of powers and checks and balances.