This Is What We Want

This article was written by Alex Andrasik from Yates County. It was first published on The Brackish Line at

PelosiProud to be a Democrat tonight.  Proud, for the first time in a minute, to be an American, too.  We’ll see how long that lasts.

As the dust clears and we all breathe in to consider what’s next, I’m seeing a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking of the whole impeachment process.  (Ugh, sports metaphor.)  People are wondering what political price we’ll pay for going through with this.  There’s fear that this will energize the Trump base more than it does ours.

I happen to be optimistic on that front.  A friend of mine said it well when she pointed out that Trump voters are Trump voters.  Trumpers gonna Trump.  There’s no turning them from the dark side at this point.  But there are a heck of a lot of Americans who might not identify as “political” but who feel like the rule of law is pretty important, when you get down to it.  This will play well with them.

Plus–can’t Democrats get energized too?  Why is it always about what energizes the Right, and only ever about what depresses and demoralizes the Left?  We don’t just lose in every situation, you know.

But I think we need to look past all that politics stuff.  This is about showing that actions have consequences.  This is about holding the line.

Regardless of whether it was “good” or “bad” politically, impeaching Donald Trump was the right thing to do.  And isn’t that what we’re always saying we want from our leaders?

Posted in Impeachment | Leave a comment

Bad Arguments


House Democrats got their historic day. They now own the first impeachment in American history that had no bipartisan support, only bipartisan opposition. They now own the first impeachment that contains no criminal violations, only political disputes.–White House

These arguments are false:

  1. Because some say DJT was impeached for no good reason, impeachment of a future President for no good reason is justified.
  2. Impeachment of DJT betrays those who elected him, even though voters know more about him now than they did then.
  3. The only legitimate remedy for a corrupt President is the next election.
  4. A conspiracy of Republican politicians to defend a Republican President no matter what makes impeachment illegitimately partisan.
  5. If some have long favored impeachment, that makes it illegitimate.
  6. Only crimes justify impeachment.
  7. Giving DJT the option to defend himself presumes his guilt.
  8. Lies only matter if one has sworn to tell the truth.
  9. Laws only need be obeyed after reaffirmation by the courts.
  10. DJT is exonerated if not removed by the Senate.

If we are to be a nation of laws, we must reject these arguments.


Posted in Trump | Tagged | 4 Comments

DJT should be removed from office

truthI have not wanted DJT as President even before he was elected by a minority of the voters. Here are some reasons:





  • Unjustified attacks on Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John McCain, G.H.W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and many others.
  • Birtherism
  • Lies
  • Attacks on NATO
  • Association with MBS, Putin, Kim, Netanyahu, and other unworthy leaders.
  • Attacks on immigrants.
  • Characterization of Mexicans as rapists
  • Attacks on judges.
  • Unqualified appointees.
  • Nepotism.
  • Tolerance of hate groups.
  • Politically motivated attacks on FBI and other intelligence agencies
  • Racism.
  • Doesn’t read or listen.
  • Violation of the Emoluments Clause
  • Stonewalling and cover-up.
  • Proposed cuts to Medicare, SS, and other needed government programs.
  • Cuts to SNAP.
  • Hostility to “dreamers.”
  • Hostility to transgender persons.
  • Religious bias.
  • Careless use of insecure communications devices
  • Nepotism
  • Tariffs
  • Appointment of judges suspected of harboring bias
  • Cruelty toward immigrant families, especially children
  • Border wall.
  • Denial of Climate Change
  • Tax cuts for the rich.

What did I omit?



Posted in Trump | 9 Comments


Redundant verbage:

  • Breaking news (news)
  • Duly elected (elected) ; the qualifier is necessary because the election is suspicious.
  • Tax payer dollars (money); mostly borrowed money these days
  • Hard working taxpayer (taxpayer)
  • struggling dairy farmers (dairy farmers)
  • Beloved Christmas movie (Christmas movie)
  • Common sense (what I think)
  • We will never forget… (it is already mostly forgotten)
  • I am honored (I welcome the publicity)
  • Bipartisan (There is at least one blue-dog Democrat who agrees with me)

Are there others?

Posted in Campaigning | Tagged | 1 Comment

Early voting in NYS

punditLWVNYS Early Voting Survey Report

During New York State’s first ever early voting election period, the League of Women Voters of New York State conducted a survey to study voters’ experiences. Over a two-week period, the League collected 1,791 survey responses from voters residing in 54 counties throughout New York State. Survey responses were overwhelmingly positive.

• More than 93% of voters who responded stated that they would vote early again, 3% responded that they would consider voting early again, and only 1% stated that they would not vote early again.
• 96% of respondents said they found information about early voting easily with most (26%) stating that they found information about early voting from print media or by word of mouth (20%).
• 89% of respondents waited only 0 to 5 minutes to vote early, 10% waited between 5 and 15 minutes, and only 1% waited 15 minutes or more.
• Most counties utilized new voting equipment (electronic poll books and/or ballot on demand printers). Four counties did not use this new technology. Voters appreciated the modernized equipment and found that problems with
the electronic poll books and ballot on demand printers were resolved relatively quickly.
• 60% of respondents voted early because they wanted to try early voting, 28% said early voting worked better for their schedule, and 13% of respondents said they would have been unable to vote on Election Day.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Tom Reed on impeachment — sequel

argument“I get frustrated where there is a sense of normalization that the congressman brings and that our concerns about Trump and the things that are happening are, its not that big of a deal, and you’re fine, stop worrying about it. I find that very unsatisfying and sometimes disingenuous when we bring up concerns that we have. He kind of just pats us on the head and off you go,” says Amie Acton, resident of Alfred Station, N.Y.

Ashley Cafaro reports for WENY: “Congressman Tom Reed held a town hall style meeting Monday night in Corning, and things got a little heated. ”

As usual, Tom Reed promotes his views, dismisses relevant facts, and mocks his constituents.

With respect to Ashley Cafaro’s report:

1, “Smoking gun” isn’t in The Constitution.
2, “Never previously done” doesn’t mean not currently justified.
3. Impeachment, rather than waiting for the next election, is the constitutional remedy for a rogue President.
4. Impeachment is favored by half the country, not only a “small group of legislators.”

The Trump Administration scrambled to justify Trump’s actions, which they feared were illegal, after the fact. Similarly, Tom Reed struggles to justify Trump’s misfeasance, which he long ago made up his mind to excuse no matter what.

Posted in Reed's Views, Trump | Tagged | 1 Comment

Tom Reed on impeachment

Impeachment is taking up … the airwaves and taking up the oxygen in the room. As I have publicly stated, and I’ll state here again, I do not support the impeachment process. I do not support the inquiry.–Rep. Tom Reed

Tom doesn’t favor investigation because he already knows there is no wrongdoing to find. He explains:

High crime, when you look at the constitution, are crimes that are generally subject to things like penalty of death (and) bribery in regards to selling out state secrets for personal financial gain. Those are the types of impeachable offenses that are envisioned in the constitution.

Tom’s argument is this:

  1. Only certain crimes justify impeachment.
  2. Those crimes can’t be proved.

These points are weak. There is nothing in The Constitution to justify the first; The Constitution pointedly leaves the question of what justifies impeachment open. Tom does list bribery, but then must ignore the fact that bribery (making military aid dependent on a favor) did occur. This second point is also weak because Tom would not look for evidence even of the crimes he says would justify impeachment.

David Graham, writing for The Atlantic, gives three arguments Republicans use:

  1. The president did nothing wrong.
  2. The president did something wrong, but it’s not an impeachable offense.
  3. The president did nothing wrong, but his advisers did. 
Tom Reed has taken the second position. About this Graham writes:
This is perhaps the simplest position to argue, since it allows members to concede that something is rotten without having to actually take the drastic step of backing impeachment.
Tom does leave himself wiggle room–he allows that bribery might justify impeachment and might some day choose to see that bribery did occur.


DAVID A. GRAHAM is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers U.S. politics and global news.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment