Saturday, September 30, 2023
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor
LPR Agrees with this New York Times "news analysis" -- Speaker McCarthy lacks the will to confront House Democrats

March 5, 2023 --



On Speaker McCarthy Lacking the Appetite to Defend the Constitution:

The response from East Palestine, Ohio to former president Trump's recent relief visit to the toxic-fume stricken town. -- saying that Mr. Trump's "all heart" -- is easy enough to explain: the man is a mensch. (That explains why he drove three and a half hours in a driving snowstorm from Manhattan to Long Island to pay a shiva (condolence) call on attorney David Friedman on the loss of his father -- when the snow fell too heavily for Friedman's neighbors to pay their respects.)

And the obverse is clear, too. The reason President Biden has yet to visit the stricken Ohio town? -- being a mensch is beyond Biden. But, then, meschlichkeit is beyond the capabilities and qualities of most pols, particularly if one settles on this definition of the term: a propensity when various alternatives arise of doing the right thing.

In this context, the example of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy comes to mind. Luke Broadwater, writing in the February 23 New York Times, with Jonathan Swan, left readers with the impression, I believe, that Mr. McCarthy, more often than not, will do what he considers the safe thing, not the appropriate thing (I here use "appropriate" to defuse any possible political inference from the phrase "doing the right thing."

In their February 23 Times article, Broadwater and Swan have this to say of the new House speaker:

"Mr. McCarthy has shown little appetite for the kind of aggressive public re-litigation of what happened [Jan. 6] that some of his colleagues have called for, but he is sensitive to the dangers of angering his hard-core base by seeming to drop or disregard the matter."

It would not, I think, be a mistake to infer that Timesmen Broadwater and Swan have concluded when it comes to difficult issues of policy and politics, the "appetite" of Mr. McCarthy will go no further than doing the safe thing. And in this instance, doing the safe thing for the speaker was simply turning over the Jan. 6 videos to Tucker Carlson and his staff (notwithstanding the howls g emitted from congressional Democrats and cited in the Broadwater/Swan story.)

Broadwater and Swan, further in the article, note Rep. Taylor-Greene's sharp criticism of the treatment of detained-pending-trial Jan. 6 defendants, observing, in this "news analysis" --"But Mr. McCarthy has not shown the same passion of his right flank for re-examining Jan. 6 -- an issue that some of his advisers view as a political loser [emphasis added]-- and, thus far, he has had little interest in dedicating limited staff resources to doing so."

This question should come to the mind of Ms. Taylor-Greene, who with Reps. Gosar and Gohmert, visited the incarcerated-for years-on end of Jan. 6 defendants, pending trial: what, if anything, has Mr. McCarthy said, much less done, to call attention to the deplorable treatment of detained Jan. 6 defendants? (Hint: probably zilch.) Or do his "advisers" - whoever they are -- consider such protest also "a political loser?" And share Hillary Clinton's view that Trump voters are "deplorables?"

It is scarcely likely that the speaker's "advisers" are MAGA Republicans. A MAGA Republican , I believe it is fair to say, would be concerned that apparently Speaker McCarthy has "little appetite" for appointing a select committee to investigate how his predecessor and her selected members of the un-American Jan. 6 subcommittee ran roughshod over traditional and orderly House committee procedures, including the flagrant abuse of the terms of the House resolution by which the Jan. 6 selected committee was organized.

Mr. Broadwater, in colloquy in the February 20 Nw York Times, with the lead Jan. 6 investigator, made it clear how that "committee" was not a House committee in any sense of the term,
but merely a presenter to the American people of a political narrative it sought to impose on the country. And to think that courts of law have given solemn and approving consideration to the Pelosi political narrative -- that is to say, propaganda, constituting, certainly, a mockery of all processes by which democratic government is carried out.

In their February 23 Times "news analysis" on Speaker McCarthy's turning over the Jan. 6 videos to Tucker Carlson and his staff, Broadwater and Swan pointed out that Mr. McCarthy has not created a select committee to probe the Capitol Hill swarm-over on the sixth day of January, 2021.

How about a select committee with subpoena powers with the chair -- say Rep. Harriet Hageman -- to investigate the transformation of the time-honored House committee process into a device more resembling a Star Chamber than a committee of representatives honoring their oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?

One need go no further than Broadwater and Swan on Mr. McCarthy's mindset on that score. There will be no select committee to defend the Constitution from attack by the Star Chamber forces of the left who would undermine our democratic system, because the new Speaker with his obscure advisers see stalwart defense of the Americal spirit of freedom, including representative democracy, as "a political loser." For them, our system is all about fundraising, for the sake of, well, fundraising.

What our democratic system needs most of all, today, is for the House majority to hold the rogue Democrats of the 117th Congress to acoount -- and, it seems to LPR,, the best way to do that is to void all actions taken by the Un-American Jan. 6 Select Committee of the 117th Congress, including the subpoenas that continue to assault patriotic Americans.

Meanwhile, behold, indeed, the expanding swamp. And Rep. Taylor-Greene, who now can't praise Speaker McCarthy highly enough, should expect that, within a year, he will break her dear political heart.