Letters, Dec. 1
It’s the Republicans, stupid
Everyone is lamenting the dysfunction and partisanship in Congress and the country, yet few seem to correctly point out the obvious root cause of the discord, the Republican Party. And no, it doesn’t cut both ways.
Democrats have never in the history of this country comported themselves like these fools. The party of being willfully stupid has enabled a religious-like sect of the electorate that has been brainwashed to follow the party line no matter what, even if your lying eyes and existential reality tell you otherwise.
The congressional GOP has shown itself incapable of passing significant legislation with its asinine, intransigent cabals like the Freedom Caucus, and its gaming of the system with the Hastert Rule and Moscow Mitch’s hijacking of regular order in the Senate. And finally they have enabled and blindly support the most corrupt, inept, money-grubbing, hate-mongering president in the history of the country.
Trump is guilty on all counts, and impeachment and removal should be a no-brainer but for the equivocation, false-equivalence, double-talk and downright refusal of the GOP Congress to confront the truth, and what’s worse is that all around him are also complicit in his betrayal of the American people and Constitution.
Misled by the press
Thanks to Rob Schlapfer for stating that Alan Journet crossed the line when he asserted his Republican opponents were evil. How do people become so hateful? In part, I blame the press.
Consider the treatment of the press in regard to Sondland’s testimony during the House impeachment hearing. In the beginning, Sondland said there was a quid pro quo. During cross examination he stated: I presumed a quid pro quo. Toward the end Sondland admitted that no one told him there was a quid pro quo.
Also, Sondland testified he had called president Trump asking what he wanted concerning Ukraine. President Trump replied “I want nothing!” “I want nothing!” He wanted no quid pro quo.
So, in the beginning there was, during the middle there was based on assumptions, then at the end there was no quid pro quo. So, testimony by the star witness started as a bombshell, fizzled, and ended as a dud. How did the press treat Sondland’s testimony?
Headlines: Sondland testifies there was a quid pro quo. No mention of his presuming. Downplays the phone call. The truth: The press misled the readers.
The AP has misled others besides Alan Journet, so sad.