Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Senate Republicans’

Ann Coulter Op-ed: My Nation-Unifying Impeachment Solution


Commentary by Ann Coulter  Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 10, 2021

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
My Nation-Unifying Impeachment Solution

Source: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Senate Republicans should offer to convict Donald Trump in return for Democrats agreeing to fund the wall. Trump is not going to run again anyway. In four years, he will be as viable a presidential candidate as Hillary was in 2020. You wouldn’t have guessed that, either, from all the gnashing of teeth about the MOST QUALIFIED WOMAN EVER TO SEEK THE PRESIDENCY immediately after she lost. 

The reason elected Republicans, Fox News, OAN, Newsmax and a hundred talk radio hosts are terrified of supporting conviction is that they don’t want to look like Mitt Romney and incur the wrath of the Trump base (whatever remains of it).

Trading conviction for a wall solves that. It will remind Trump loyalists that he betrayed them on his central campaign promise, and also will actually fulfill that promise.

Democrats, if they have half a brain, will leap at the offer. They are about to destroy Biden’s presidency by defining themselves — as The New York Times’ Frank Bruni put it — as “antonyms to Trump.” Trump was for a wall. Ipso facto, Democrats are for open borders.

Trump was lying, liberals! Even President Obama was for border security. Great socialist hope Bernie Sanders has denounced open borders as a gift to the Koch brothers.

They don’t care. Trump supporters wanted a wall, so we’re going to punish them by throwing open the border!

If Biden continues with his tsunami of open border executive orders: 1) COVID-19 cases will multiply, as untested, unvaccinated third-worlders pour in at breakneck speed; 2) Black and Hispanic unemployment will go through the roof; and 3) crime — already reaching mind-blowing proportions — will become as potent a political issue as it has ever been.

Good luck in 2022, Democrats!

But if Democrats were to trade wall funding for the holy grail of a Trump conviction, they could save Biden’s presidency, humiliate Trump, and explain to their nut base, We know, we know — walls don’t work — but we had to trade it to convict Trump! Aren’t you happy?

It’s win-win-win all around.

Sitting on a nation-unifying idea like that, I never should have tuned into the impeachment trial. I knew the Democrats would somehow manage to turn me against conviction. I’m still not pro-Trump — that’s a tall order. But could Democrats please ease up on the hysterical weeping?

The president is not supposed to be organizing protests at all, much less against his own vice president. Isn’t that enough? You don’t need to juice up the story, Democrats.

Impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin:

“All around me, people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones to say goodbye ….

“[My] kids, hiding under the desk, placing what they thought were their final texts and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes. They thought they were going to die.”

Yes, being forced to listen to the Trump “shaman” gas on about organic food could have annihilated legions!

Trump is a selfish, ignorant child. But he is not responsible for the reactions of neurotic liberals.

It would be as if Raskin’s neighbor smashed into his parked car, then drove off. Raskin has a perfectly good case without having to wail, I WAS AFRAID HE WOULD COME TO MY HOUSE AND MURDER MY ENTIRE FAMILY!

Raskin’s most precious argument was this:

“Of all the terrible, brutal things I saw … watching someone use an American flagpole, the flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly, mercilessly, tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life.”

First, give me a break, Democrats, pretending to give a crap about the American flag.

Second: “Tortured”?

Impeachment managers apparently used a thesaurus to write their speeches:

Siri, give me a synonym for “poke” or “strike.”

Siri: jab, punch, prod, thrust, wallop … TORTURE.

Really?

Yup, it’s right there in Roget’s!

Curiously, even the teary-eyed Raskin didn’t allege that Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by the protesters, a claim being made hourly on MSNBC.

Raskin: “People died that day. Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage. People’s eyes were gouged. One officer had a heart attack. One officer lost three fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives.”

Jeremy Bash, later that day on MSNBC: “They killed a cop, Nicole!”

If Officer Sicknick’s death truly resulted from injuries sustained at the hands of the mob, it would be the case in chief against the protesters. (We’re not counting heart attacks, much less suicides that occurred days, or weeks, later.) But no one in the media has been able to scare up a single eyewitness to the attack on Brian Sicknick?

Unlike defund-the-police liberals, I actually am heartbroken about the death of a Trump-supporting law enforcement officer.

But the media are lying about his death. First, they claimed he was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher. Then they said he was dragged into the crowd and beaten. All that is known for sure is that after Sicknick returned to headquarters, he collapsed and later died.

Last week, CNN nonchalantly inserted this into a story on Officer Sicknick: “Medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.”

There’s no hope for our media, who are irredeemable liars. But there’s still a chance for everyone else to come out a winner here! Trade conviction for a wall, Republicans.

Obama’s last hope for GOP support on Iran: Susan Collins


By Julian Hattem08/26/15

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine). Photo by Greg Nash

Suicide-USA-NRD-600Senate Republicans are united in their opposition to President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran — with one exception. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has yet to take a position on the agreement, making her the last undecided Senate Republican who could conceivably side with the president. Some observers say Collins, a centrist known for bucking party convention, could go it alone next month and vote against a resolution to kill the Iran deal when it comes to the Senate floor.

“At this time, Sen. Collins is still gathering a lot of information and has not reached a final decision,” an aide said last week. The aide reaffirmed on Tuesday that Collins is still undecided. Collins “remains concerned about several aspects of the agreement, such as the lack of a good inspection regime to make sure that the Iranians are not cheating on the agreement,” the aide added, while noting that the senator has been “meeting with people on both sides of this very complex and important issue. She believes a good inspection regime is absolutely essential and is carefully weighing this issue in her decision making.” Picture3

Death to AmericaOn Wednesday afternoon, Collins’s office said that she would not announce a position on the deal until after lawmakers return to Washington in September. Collins became the last Senate Republican on the fence after Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced on Friday that she would oppose the agreement. The Alaska senator said the deal does not require Iran to completely abandon its nuclear program.

Murkowski and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) — who announced earlier this month that he would vote against the deal — had been considered the only other Senate Republicans who might side with Obama.

There are reasons to think Collins is truly torn. She was one of just seven Senate Republicans who did not sign a controversial letter to the Iranian government in March that warned a nuclear deal could be revoked by the next president. Collins may also be feeling boxed in by Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who came out in support of the agreement in a floor speech shortly before the August recess. Though he is officially an independent, King caucuses with Democrats.

Additionally, Collins might be hesitant to rebuff the president, given that the United States took a lead role in the multination Iran negotiations.

“Sen. Collins is quite frequently concerned with good governance and good process,” said Blaise Misztal, the director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s national security program. “I could see her not wanting this deal to have to go to a presidential veto.”More Evidence

Missing-Piece-600-LIStill, close observers of the Iran deal remain skeptical that Collins, or any other Republican, will side with the president and vote to uphold the deal. “Given that the way votes are breaking, it might even be difficult for opponents to get the 60 votes they need in the Senate to get past cloture,” Misztal added. “I don’t think [Collins is] going to feel that compunction to have to break with her party on the deal.”

The White House likely needs the support of 34 Senate Democrats to uphold a veto of the disapproval resolution, and the support of 41 to prevent it from ever reaching Obama’s desk. So far, only two Senate Democrats have announced that they will oppose the deal, while 29 have committed to backing it. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) became the latest supporter of the deal on Tuesday.

The math is slightly different in the House, where the lack of a filibuster means Republicans will have no trouble passing the initial resolution. If the House voted on whether to override Obama, Democrats could afford to Deflated Diplomacylose no more than 43 members to uphold the White House’s veto.

While supporters and opponents of the deal have been focused on the Senate, there’s also a chance that one or two House Republicans break from their party and oppose legislation aiming to kill the deal.

“It is a rare occasion when Republicans all vote together,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) — an ardent critic of the Iran agreement — told reporters earlier this week. “This will be close, I suspect,” he added. “I can’t imagine there will be too many [defectors].”

But might there be at least one? “Sure,” Pompeo answered.

Reps. Walter Jones (N.C.), Justin Amash (Mich.) and Thomas Massie (Ky.) are considered to be the House Republicans most likely to oppose a Pitiful-Deal-NRD-600resolution against the Iran deal. All three are often on the opposite side of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).Cannot fix RINOS

However, Jones — a former Democrat — appears to be facing a primary challenge against veteran Republican operative Taylor Griffin next year, which could make a defection on Iran politically risky. Griffin came within six points of ousting Jones last year, and he criticized the lawmaker earlier this summer for being “just not a good conservative.”

Spokespeople for Massie and Amash said in recent days that the lawmakers had yet to settle on a position. A spokesperson for Jones did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The White House is not expecting any GOP support for the deal, but would surely not hesitate to use even a single Republican vote as evidence of bipartisan backing.

Yet there are risks in touting any GOP support, given opposition from top Democrats such as Sens. Bob Menendez (N.J.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.) — the likely next Senate Democratic leader — as well as Reps. Eliot Engel (N.Y.) and Brad Sherman (Calif.).  “Even if one or two Republicans do vote for the deal, it really matters very little because it is now virtually certain that the deal will be voted down by significant, bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress,” said Jamil Jaffer, a former top aide to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and current director of George Mason Law School’s Homeland and National Security Law Program.

By voting it down, lawmakers will be “sapping the deal of all political credibility, and making it clear to European companies that they ought wait until at least November 2016 before taking any action to start trading with Iran,” he added.Picture4

This story was updated at 5:36 p.m.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: