From The New York Times:
WASHINGTON —
President Trump plans to address an annual rally of anti-abortion
demonstrators on Friday in Washington, in what would be the first
appearance by a sitting president at the March for Life, one of the
movement’s marquee events.
. . .
No
president has personally attended the march in its 47-year history.
Past Republican presidents might have been inclined to attend, but
either on the advice of staff or their own instincts saw it as a step
too far and instead showed their support in less visible ways, like
through remote messages or by meeting with activists.
Mr.
Trump, who once called himself “very pro-choice,” has until now
addressed the group only remotely and welcomed some marchers at the
White House.
His impeachment trial continues. There is absolutely no connection. There is absolutely no connection. There is absolutely ...
I wonder if anyone will change his or her mind about attending.
Pence was there live last year, and I believe Trump sent a recorded message. No, not surprising that he wants to be seen in front of as many adoring crowds as possible as the doomed impeachment trial drags.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, these are not pro-life marches, imo. They are "We want to make sure you can't have an abortion" rallies.
A busload of kids and sponsors usually goes to the DC march from here. This year I didn't hear anything about it. I think the problems that happened at last year's march must have scared some people off. It should have; they always get stuck in a blizzard if nothing else.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the marches convince anyone who isn't already convinced. I think an event such as the one Jim P. assisted with is probably more effective.
I regret that the pro-life movement has become wedded to the Republican party. And the Democratic party bears much responsibility for that.
Scheduling a rally in January strikes me as a good way to limit participants.
DeleteYes, Democrats have driven many constituent groups into the arms of the GOP over a variety of issues starting with the flight of the Dixiecrats over civil rights couched as "states rights" during the Johnson administration, Vietnam in the Nixon administration, "welfare queens" in the Reagan administration, and the rising clout of politically active fundamentalist/evangelicals pushing Christian values that condemned Clinton's sexual peccadilloes and lauded Bush II as "moral." The Democrats's increasing reliance on "identity issues" also alienates voters. I think Bernie has tried to pull the party away from identity politics and back to economic justice for all.
I don't know what percentage of the electorate are single-issue pro-life or anti-abortion voters, but the likely resignation of RBG between now and 2024 is going to ramp up the rhetoric.
Even if Ginsberg retired -- and Justice Marhall managed to stay on for years post mortem -- they already have the five votes they need. The question is, do they have the guts?
DeleteDo they? I thought Roberts was a wild card.
DeleteJust curious: Can the court reverse an earlier decision on its own? Or does the court have to wait for a case that challenges the earlier decision in some way?
It does need a case. But there are a lot, including Louisiana, which I think they have already accepted, on which it could hang a Roe reversal.
DeleteI am sorry to say, I've followed the impeachment proceedings very little. I typically have no time to watch television during the daytime. Once or twice I've walked past a television that was on, and it was Adam Schiff or Jerrold Nadler talking, presumably making their prosecutorial case. I'm sufficiently shallow that I find that uncompelling television.
ReplyDeleteI've seen a few television evening news segments on the day's events, and I'm vaguely aware that there are negotiations still ongoing about the process.
I'm not saying all this to brag about my unconnected-ness; I have a mild feeling that it's deplorable, or at least regrettable. At the same time, I've noticed that I'm generally at least a little more plugged in than a lot of the people I talk with in my local area, so my thought/fear is, if it's made this little impression on me, it might be even worse for other people.
Jim, I haven't followed the actual proceedings, either. I do check in once on awhile with some news sources I sort of trust. I think you are right that few people are watching the actual proceedings. Some get their interpretation of it from some very partisan and biased sources. I have no patience with the ones who think it's all a big joke, just an attempt to undo the election of 2016.
DeleteI've heard some globs (1-2 hours) over the past three days. My main reaction agrees with Lindsay Graham, who still isn't as dumb as he decided he has to act: The Democrats are over-trying their case.
DeleteThe transcript of the perfect phone call and the timeline of Trump decisions and Guiliani actions -- all of which are available -- don't need 24 hours to be presented to any senator willing to do his or her duty. Aside from Lisa Murakowski, I doubt there are any such in the jury.
I've had it on until the "highlight reel" at 7 p.m. I tune in and out. It is soporific, especially if you watched the House testimony.
DeleteDemocrats have no gift for succinctly defining each article of impeachment, explaining clearly why it rises to the level of impeachment, and referring briefly to evidence already collected by the House and entered into the trial record.
Arguments Democrats should have been hitting hard and often:
1. The reason some Democrats talked impeachment before Trump was even elected was because of his egregious behavior and support of patently false conspiracy theories like the birther movement. The fact that many Democrats didn't even want to give him a chance goes beyond partisan politics and speaks to his moral turpitude and unfitness for office.
2. Enough with the "we can't overturn an election" argument. Trump did not win the popular vote. In fact, Hillary won a slim majority. So he doesn't belong in there to begin with.
3. Re letting the American people decide what to do with Trump in November: If you have a felon slated to start a prison term in November, you don't use that as an excuse to let him rob banks with impunity until that time.
Democrats will spend days boring people senseless, and when Trump is exonerated, the the electorate will see the Democrats as ineffectual blow-hards, and Trump will be re-elected.
I think Bolton, Tillerson, Mattis, and others who could speak to Trump's crimes but remained silent will have a lot to answer for.
Nadler is in now offering some interesting historical arguments about obstruction of Congress. With a listen.
DeleteRe: Bolton, Tillerson, Mattis, et.al., needing permission to obey a subpoena, nobody else is following the rule book, why should they hold themselves bound? Let the chips fall where they may.
DeleteDH asked me a while back if I was going to vote for Senator Ben Sasse in November. I replied that it depended on who was running against him, and that I'd have to think about it. Fast forward to today. For about the 5th time he has referred to the impeachment proceedings as a "clown show", and has said that they have failed to prove that there was an impeachable offense. He lost me. He is treating it like a joke and being willfully and invincibly ignorant. There is no way in h£ll I'm voting for him.
Yes, I have been disappointed in Sasse. I liked him for awhile.
DeleteJean condensed what's wrong with the D's 24 hours into three points. I'd add to her point 2 than any time a president is impeached and removed from office (which hasn't happened yet) a previous election is overturned. The Constitution specifically provides for overturning elections; it's called the impeachment clause. Sheesh.
DeleteAnd I would add a 4: The Rs are plain lying when they say no "crime" has been laid at Gen. Bonespur's feet. There are several in the charges; The GAO found one, for example. But, in fact, a civil tort or criminal misdemeanor or felony is NOT a requirement for impeachment because of that word "high" before crimes and misdemeanors. It means, inter alia, that the crime is against the office itself, namely its misuse. Murder wouldn't usually be impeachable; running a shakedown would be.
And I agree with both of you that Mattis et al should follow the maxim "If you see something, say something." There is no honor in remaining a dummy while the big dummy ruins the country.
And about Sasse, now I have another dilemma. There is a guy primarying him. Because he feels that Sasse is a disloyal Republican who isn't sufficiently devoted to El Presidente. This guy comes across as dumber than a box of rocks. So, do I play the long game and vote for the moron in the primary, in hopes that he will defeat Sasse, because he will be easier for the Democrat (whoever that ends up being) to beat in November? On the other hand, we could end up with a Repub who is worse than Sasse. Who isn't so bad policy wise for the state, it's just that he's playing his own long game in a pretty cynical way. I'm pretty sure he's got his eye on a 2024 run for president.
DeleteKatherine, vote Sasse. He is more likely to correct course if/when Trump leaves office. Write him a letter telling him what you think of the toadying.
DeleteGood idea, Jean.
DeleteTom: Add #5--The #$@!! "transcript" of the Ukraine call is not a verbatim transcript, but a WH reconstruction of the call. It is subject to skepticism. Even when controlling the info, the effing idiots left in the "do us a favor" language that started the whole mess. At least Nixon had the sense to erase his tapes.
DeleteQuoth he at the rally yesterday:
ReplyDelete"They are coming after me because I am fighting for you and we are fighting for those who have no voice. And we will win because we know how to win. (Applause.) We all know how to win. We all know how to win. You’ve been winning for a long time. You’ve been winning for a long time."
Winners don't have to march. But 34 soldiers with traumatic brain injury after the Iranian strike provoked by his drone assassination is "No one was injured, Sir" in Trump lexicon.
Anyhow, I looked it up on https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Trump+tweets -- which is a searchable data base of Trump Tweets.
Trump has mentioned abortion in 10 Tweets out of 45,350 since 2015, only seen of them since he was elected. His prolife credentials about equal his military credentials.
He's the last of the golden-tongued orators, for sure. Of course he's using the pro-life movement. But they're also using him, for one reason, SCOTUS justices. He's already delivered two of them, now hoping for a trifecta.
Deletehttps://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2020/01/trumps-visit-complicated-march-for-lifes-pro-woman-theme/
DeleteTrump’s visit complicated March for Life’s pro-woman theme
Charles C. Camosy Jan 25, 2020