Sen. Jeff Flake’s opposition to President Trump is all words and little action, but he is at least willing to go farther than any of his colleagues. He went on the Senate floor today an excoriated the administration for their untruthfulness, comparing them to dictatorships around the world. His speech is worth a read.
The part that strikes me most was when Flake talked about the Russia probe. He not only took the president to task for referring to the investigation as a “hoax,” but he pointed out that there hasn’t been a single cabinet meeting to discuss how to protect the country from future interference in our elections.
To be very clear, to call the Russia matter a “hoax” – as the president has many times – is a falsehood. We know that the attacks orchestrated by the Russian government during the election were real and constitute a grave threat to both American sovereignty and to our national security. It is in the interest of every American to get to the bottom of this matter, wherever the investigation leads.
Ignoring or denying the truth about hostile Russian intentions toward the United States leaves us vulnerable to further attacks. We are told by our intelligence agencies that those attacks are ongoing, yet it has recently been reported that there has not been a single cabinet-level meeting regarding Russian interference and how to defend America against these attacks. Not one. What might seem like a casual and routine untruth – so casual and routine that it has by now become the white noise of Washington – is in fact a serious lapse in the defense of our country.
Flake’s speech leaves me feeling empty. If Trump is such a treat to democracy, why did Flake help him weather the political storm he is in by voting for the tax bill? If the president is utterly failing and leaving a serious lapse in the defense of our country, why should he be allowed to remain in office?
Flake didn’t actually provide any guidance in this speech. He said to his fellow senators “let us resolve to be allies of the truth—and not partners in its destruction.” But how are they supposed to be partners in supporting the truth while the leader of their party is bent on its destruction? Surely it isn’t by helping him sign bills. It can’t be by carrying out half-hearted investigations of the Russian matter.
I don’t want to look a gift-horse in the mouth, but this pony ain’t up to snuff. I’m glad that Flake vigorously defended the press and that he explained why the Russia investigation is about more than making excuses for losing an election. I’m always supportive of anyone who wants to extol the value of honesty and the destructiveness of lies. I agree that our institutions are under siege and need to be defended even if they also need reforms.
But the one thing that needed to be said didn’t get said.
In Shakespeare’s dramatization of the events, Brutus explained to the Romans why he killed Julius Caesar:
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar’s, to him I say, that Brutus’ love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
—Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;
as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I
slew him.
We have more civilized procedures for removing a leader who has become a threat to our form of government, but it should be obvious that it does little good to stand up in the Senate and say that someone wants to turn us all into bondsmen and smash the free press if they then go back to work the next day and help that person achieve their legislative agenda. Either the threat is real and must be urgently addressed or it’s not real and Sen. Flake is engaging in hyperbole.
So, yes, this was a fine speech. But words without actions aren’t impressive. Flake won’t tell us what we should do, what his fellow senators should do or even what he intends to do. The next time Sen. Flake gets incensed enough to make a big speech on the Senate floor, he should have some answers to those questions. And he should stop voting with the president on anything that might strengthen his position.
Cicero, he is not.
Sen. Flake certainly finds Trump distasteful and dangerous to the Republic but as long as he signs off on the GOP’s hideous legislative agenda then there’s no need to act against Trump. Nobody in the GOP actually cares about Trump’s threat to the country. I think most of them actually secretly admire Putin’s degradation of the Russian political culture.
Flake’s speech leaves me feeling empty. If Trump is such a treat to democracy, why did Flake help him weather the political storm he is in by voting for the tax bill? If the president is utterly failing and leaving a serious lapse in the defense of our country, why should he be allowed to remain in office?
If Trump is such a threat why did Republicans and Democrats alike vote to give Trump more spying powers? Flake is as fake as they come. Talk is cheap. Taking action is the true test of character. Flake has none.
. . . nothing”
. . . keeping the Shakespearian theme going
$20 says he wants to run for president in 2020 and thinks this will burnish his image.
Agreed. He will be the normal moral Christian to challenge the normal moral Mormon.
Precisely.
Thank you.
AG
All poo
No moo
“… why did Flake help him weather the political storm he is in by voting for the tax bill?”
Because to Republicans who don’t like Trump, his “weathering the political storm” was incidental to their support for the tax bill. The same question could be asked of McCain and others, with the identical answer. The obvious conclusion is that Republicans of whatever stripe love this tax bill, Trump or no Trump.
And this fits with another theory that has been percolating for months — namely, that all Republicans, including those that dislike Trump, have held back from criticizing him because unified support for Trump was necessary to get their tax bill.
It was even hypothesized that once that was done, some might even drop the pretense — and maybe Flake’s speaking out now proves the point. (Although how many more will follow suit remains an open question. I’m not holding my breath.)
It also explains why Trump’s approval rating, having reached its lowest point ever, is now showing a very significant bounce. This bounce began about December 18th, which is when the tax bill passed. I believe those who suddenly took a more positive view of Trump are Republicans and some independents, who are responding not to any change in Trump but to the tax bill victory — because Trump himself has certainly not changed. (“Nothing succeeds like success.”) Support for his immigration policies seems to be much less unified.
Agreed. The exact same Tax Bill would have happened under President JEB!, Little Marco, Cruz, or insert any of the remaining 2016 candidates here.
I think Flake’s anger is more about Trump fucking up what should have been a Republican legislative golden age as they had everything lined up to nullify all progressive legislation passed since the FIRST Roosevelt was in office.
Worse Trump is creating an oppositional electoral wave that will probably render those of his friends not retiring unemployed.
The poll bounce is more likely Republicans happy that something got done that is making liberals cry. It will probably go away soon unless Republicans find a way to punch brown people through an immigration bill.
The graph I keep up of the inflation adjusted DOW looks like a parabola. Going up much too quickly and accelerating. I wonder how happy they will be when it crashes. This is what happens, you know. Piranha-like greed just before the end.
But I don’t expect someone like Flake to vote against what he believes is good policy just because Trump backs it. It’s an absurd standard. Flake is a conservative Republican. Him supporting conservative policies is not interesting or surprising.
Now, Flake is still a phony because he could still hold Trump accountable. For example, Corey Gardner’s marijuana stances are noticeably different than how he tries to hold Trump accountable. The language and actions are different. Etc. In other words, it is possible to vote for parts of “Trump’s agenda” because it is conservative, and still use your Senate powers to try to hold the president to account. Flake just says pretty things and votes in favor of Trump’s agenda without actually wielding power.
What Seabe said.
What Flake said on my TV this morning is exactly this. Flake is a fucking conservative to the core. He is going to support conservative policy. He doesn’t give a fuck who supports it if it’s a conservative policy. Trying to paint him as some liberal fantasy as some Republican hellion and rebel is just ignorant. The man would suck the s@#t out Trump’s ass if it furthered a conservative dream.
Republicans=party of hypocrisy.
Remember when Trump starting campaigning and the Republicans all hated him and weren’t afraid to say so? Why, Lindsay Graham said Trump should go to hell! And then lo and behold, Sen Graham is putting around the golf course with Trump! Best Buddies! Until the infamous meeting when it was supposed to be Trump and Graham and Durbin finalizing the immigration and DACA plans. Uh oh, guess who’s chastizing Trump now?
Trump simply vocalizes the hate-filled thoughts that Republicans have. They would shake hands with the devil to get the deals they wanted, and got, and that devil is Trump.
Sorry, Republicans, you signed on the dotted line. Your souls were sold and you can’t plead ignorance to get them back. Here’s hoping you all go down in flames!
But I saw Graham with Durbin on the news last night calling Trump a liar and Durbin defending Graham. I’m not a Durbin fan as many of you know. But I have to hand it to him on how he handled that news conference. Courtly, visibly angry, but refusing to sink to Trump’s level, defending a fellow Senator in the tradition of the Senate even though he was from the other side of the aisle. Senatorial. Classy. Good job Senator. I may even vote for you next time even though you thought saving our jobs was too petty for you. I didn’t vote for you last time, Tammy Duckworth did and I was glad to reward her with my vote. Maybe that was punishment enough, Tammy did save our jobs. Or was it all kabuki? Never mind. We can only place our bets based on the cards we see.
Flake’s last name is appropriate. Vote to kill ACA? Check. Tax robbery? Check. He’s banking on the fact that whomever follows Trump is going to look like Abraham Lincoln (or at least that’s why our “media” will try to convince us of), and Flake has dreams of where his memory will be located on the Mall.
Just remember: Jeff Flake is Mitt Romney with one-third less ambition.
Great speech. We listened to all of it then asked ourselves why did he vote as he did?
Every day I say how much more of this mind boggling hypocrisy can we take?
BTW, I hope everyone will be showing up on Saturday for a Women’s March wherever you live. We cannot have Trump crowing about low turnout. I am faced with difficult weather in the area so will settle for a local march rather than a regional one. Being with 100+k like-minded people is inspiring, but if getting there is dangerous I’ll forego the inspiration.
Well, if you are upset at Flake- what about the 18 Senate Democrats and 65 house Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi) who just voted to give Trump and Sessions the power to spy on Americans without a warrant on their say so, which is not subject to any review?
Honestly, Flake being an opportunistic hypocrite is almost small potatoes in comparison. If Trump is a mortal threat to our democracy (I vote yes), why enable him in any fashion? And don’t you think the Republicans will just throw this hypocrisy right back into Democrats faces when Democrats start talking impeachment or 25th amendment solutions?
Flake is a fake and a phony:
“Retiring Senator Jeff Flake says impeaching Donald Trump isn’t ‘the direction to go'”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jeff-flake-donald-trump-republican-sena
tor-impeachment-us-president-remove-campaign-a8019551.html
“Mr Flake told Republicans it was time to stop allowing Mr Trump to get away with ‘reckless, outrageous and undignified behaviour’, suggesting that the President’s actions ‘were dangerous to democracy’.”
And yet…
“Mr Flake responded: ‘I don’t think any of those remedies are justified, I really don’t. High crimes, misdemeanours, people talk about impeachment on the left, I don’t think that’s the direction to go. Nor do I think the 25th amendment is either.'”
Flake is either the biggest coward there ever was, or he’s just a poseur, hoping that history will be just as dumb as he is and fall for his “principled” act. I have more respect for those cretins who openly support Trump than this phony. He adds zero value…
‘reckless, outrageous and undignified behaviour’ isn’t “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Revolution slips easily into the Terror as both French and Russian history tell us. Law isn’t some arbirary rule book that can be taken up and put down at a whim. Law is what separates Society from Anarchy, civilization from the jungle.
I wonder how many people don’t know where the beef thing comes from? It was a bit before my time so I had to look it up a while back.
I’m old enough to know — a series of Wendy’s commercials from 1984.
Of course, it helped that I had worked for the fast food chain already. Yes, I know how their chili is made and I’ll still eat it.
There are various ways to look at what is going on; everyone has their favorite. Here is mine.
When an institution (such as, oh, say, just to take a wild and random example, the United States Congress) is seen to fail to defend its prerogatives, that institution becomes ridiculous and ineffective.
Congress, beginning (if not sooner!) with its first failure to defend its prerogative to declare war, has repeatedly (tho’ once would have been enough) and overtly shirked its defined responsibility/authority under the 1787 Constitution.
It is today completely unthinkable for Congress to suddenly reassert its defined authority. No one expects it to happen; much of the abdicated authority has dissipated altogether and the rest has been seized by other actors.
One concrete result is the polls showing Congress with an approval rating of (in one case) 9%. Polls are of course quite meaningless, but even a flailing gesture can be evocative.
A less tangible result is that the 1787 Constitution has effectively been abrogated and is no longer in force. Some of its provisions — those that are prescriptive, rather than proscriptive — are still being adhered to out of inertia, but it is impossible to imagine any of its provisions being enforced against any remotely serious opposition. That regime is over. It has ended. It will have no defined successor, as there is no way to muster the kind of overwhelming supermajority — the effective unanimity — that alone could legitimate a successor. The “convention of states” will make no difference to this: its findings and actions will be viewed as utterly illegitimate by 50% of the country, and at that point, it doesn’t even matter which 50%.