In one corner, we have the abject stupidity and amateur White House led by Donald Trump. In the opposing corner, we have the Democratic Party still searching for a reason why Hillary Clinton was not made president in January with an array of reasons proffered that neglect one glaring one: she sucked. To show how these two world collide, let’s look at two recent drama du jours from the White House- first, the firing of FBI Director James Comey.
On the Trump side, perhaps the most telling sign that we are dealing with either the Keystone Cops or a new rendition of the Marx Brothers was the White House was reportedly caught flat-footed regarding the backlash they received regarding the firing of Comey. When one fires the head of an investigative agency with an active investigation against one’s campaign and associates of that campaign- especially as a federal grand jury was issuing subpoenas- it is, even in the best of lights, bad optics and perception.
Someone in a previous article on this subject by one of our front page writers stated, “So its just perception…” In Washington politics, perception is everything so- yes- it is perception and the perception is bad. This writer is not yelling “cover up” by some since there is likely little, if anything, to cover up. That does not make the perception of cover up any less troublesome.
If Comey was such a detriment to the credibility of the FBI given the reasons outlined in the letter that fired him, then perhaps January would have been the time to carry out this action.
Which brings me to the Democratic corner in this controversy. Very recently, Hillary Clinton stated that if the election were held on October 27th, she would be president today. That means that the Comey letter to Congress of October 28th reopening the investigation into her e-mails was her purported reason for her loss. Comey reopened the investigation- which lasted for a grand total of seven days.
What new information came to light? Was it the result of Russian interference because if so that would mean that Comey and the FBI were duped by the Russians in which case he deserved to be fired? Regardless, blaming the Comey letter for Clinton’s loss runs counter to the claims that Russian interference is responsible for her loss which would mean that all these investigations and hearings are a sham. Or was it sexism and misogyny, or racism? Or voter suppression? Or any other of the many reasons and excuses offered by the losing side which mysteriously leave out the fact they fielded a more flawed candidate than the eventual winner?
One would have to think that the Comey letter is what they think was most important. Why else would lead Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to say that he lost confidence in Comey? Or for Maxine Waters to say he “has no credibility?” Of for Bernie Sanders saying it would be good if he stepped down? The Washington Post ran an editorial saying Comey was not doing his job and should resign.
Skip ahead four months and one would think that the soul of Richard Nixon has possessed Donald Trump. Suddenly what Democratic leaders were calling for very recently becomes a “crisis in American democracy” when Comey is actually let go. The Trump administration was acting stupidly in this move while the Democrats have acted hypocritically.
The second example is the travel ban. No matter the merits, one has to agree that the roll out was ham-handed. The opposition had telegraphed their strategy of legal opposition well in advance and the administration’s response was less than acceptable. Further, the initial order appeared to catch the DHS and TSA off guard providing ample sob stories for the media to trot before the cameras.
The reason offered by the administration was that the countries on that list were either state sponsors of terrorism (Iran) or countries that were so devoid of governmental control that a vetting system was lacking or absent. Everyone can agree that countries like Syria, Yemen and Somalia fit those criteria to some considerable degree.
On the Democratic side, most of their opposition to US involvement in any of these countries is that we do not know who our friends and foes are in those countries. In other words, there is likely no functional government with which to side. Practically every day on a variety of Leftist websites, for example, writers rail against US involvement in Yemen. Thus if there is a lack of a functional government, there must necessarily be a lax or absent vetting system for people leaving those countries. The US lacks a serious presence in many of these countries to help carry out that vetting process because the situation on the ground is so dangerous.
The point is the Left concedes the very rationale proffered by Trump with the travel ban and uses that very same rationale to advance their non-interventionist policy.
Both these examples illustrate stupidity, naivete, or an amateur White House (or a combination of all three) juxtaposed against a hypocritical Democratic Party lacking principle. Neither are what our Founders had in mind when they laid the foundation for our government.