Skip to main content

House Republicans Find More Rakes to Step On

 

Republicans are nothing if not tenacious. The idea that you should never back down, for any reason — no matter how idiotic it makes you look — is now core to the GOP brand.

If you’re a Republican, you must train yourself to be oblivious to embarrassment and impervious to irony. There is no lie so shameless that you won’t tell it — and sell it — with a totally straight face.

You bring canned answers to questions you weren’t asked, and no answers to those you were. You sidestep every attempt to pin you down, and you’re never wrong about anything.

But the downside is starting to show. The more Republicans cling to this bull-headed mendacity, the more ridiculous they look. And ridicule might just be the key to the next election.

Whatever one thinks of George Stephanopoulos, his professional take-down of toxic congresswoman Nancy Mace was instructive. She’d been foolish enough to step outside the Fox bubble — to engage with an actual journalist for once — and he prodded her repeatedly to answer a simple question: Having been outspoken about being raped as a teenager, how could she possibly endorse a known rapist for president?

Mace launched into her tired repertoire of deflections, evasions, and outright lies, and she became increasingly frantic to turn it back on Stephanopoulos, to make it about how he was “shaming” her in public. But George was having none of it. He kept repeating the question, and with each deflection she came across as meaner, stupider, and even more despicable.

But Mace is just a sideshow. The main event — ground zero for GOP ridicule— is James Comer’s House Committee on Finding Something (Anything!) to Impeach Joe Biden With.

They’re not having a good year. Comer’s hearings were always a made-for-Fox event. They started with Trump’s insistence that it was very unfair that he’d been put through two impeachments, while Biden hadn’t even had one. This is what passes for logic in the Republican party these days, and his stooges on the committee enthusiastically agreed.

They’d already harassed Biden’s son Hunter for over four years, their vicious allegations never once producing an iota of actual evidence. But while they were able to keep the innuendo about Hunter in the headlines, even in the mainstream media, they never laid a glove on Joe.

For them, it was a bad look from the start, and the ridicule was already ramping up. But you can’t say they didn’t have ample opportunity to walk away.

They could’ve walked away when their so-called witnesses began tanking, one after the other, in embarrassing fashion, leaving Comer to come up with absurd explanations, which he isn’t very good at.

They could’ve walked away when Hunter and his lawyer Abbe Lowell spun them in circles, exposing their lies as Russian disinformation going back at least to the 2020 election.

They could’ve walked away when their star “bombshell” witness, Alexander Smirnov, was exposed as both a liar and a Russian asset, and was then arrested.

They could’ve even walked away when the Democrats started turning the hearings upside-down. Eric Swalwell, with deft facetiousness, used his time to ask Hunter if his father was running any hotels “where foreign nationals spent millions,” or if his father ever employed family members in the Oval Office, or whether anyone in his family had ever received “41 trademarks from China,” and so on. It was perfect political theater, the kind Republicans only wish they could stage, the kind that requires a certain feel for objective reality to pull off.

But still they refused to give up. They waded ever deeper into the muck, behaving in ways that, once upon a time, would have ended their careers immediately. Yet they persisted, stepping on rake after rake.

So by the time the Democrats on the committee invited Lev Parnas to testify, the rake was right there for everyone to see. And they stepped on it anyway.

We all remember Parnas, right? He was Rudy Giuliani’s operative charged with scouring Eastern Europe for dirt on Joe Biden. The idea was to find, from Biden’s past, hard evidence of his corruption in Ukraine — even if they had to make it up. Parnas said they made it up.

He was also involved in the famous “perfect” phone call, where Trump squeezed Zelensky to get him to announce a phony investigation into the Bidens.

All this got Trump impeached and Parnas imprisoned. But not before Parnas provided the FBI with the whole sordid story of Giuliani’s efforts to smear Biden on behalf of Trump.

Parnas was released last September. He has seemingly renounced his dark past — think Michael Cohen — and has been singing to the authorities. And yes, he has a book he wants to sell. But he has warned House Republicans, in writing, that their probe into the Bidens is a “wild goose chase,” which is demeaning to geese (I would’ve called it a ‘shitshow’ myself).

So why, when Parnas was invited by the Democrats to appear, did alarm bells not go off in those feeble Republican brains? Why did they not cancel that day’s hearing on any pretext they could cook up? We’ll never know.

What we do know is that Lev Parnas, on the record and under oath, took a blowtorch to the entire impeachment scam, calling it out for what it was: an ongoing Russian intelligence operation.

In his opening statement, he verified things we’ve always known, but wondered if we’d ever hear:

“The only information ever pushed on the Bidens in Ukraine has come from one source and one source only, Russia and Russian agents.”

He then proceeded to finger a rogue’s gallery of Trump stooges who were “doing the bidding of the Russians” — including Bill Barr, Devin Nunes, Ron Johnson (“He was our guy in the Senate”), Pete Sessions (sitting there in that very committee room), and Sean Hannity (which caused Fox to cut off its coverage mid-hearing).

That the GOP’s slide into fascism is being greased by Russian disinformation is hardly new. But it’s still shocking to hear it in the context of these deeply fraudulent hearings.

Yes, there’s a lot to ridicule in today’s Republican party, and I believe that ridicule will be a valuable weapon in, hopefully, bringing them down. So I’m all in favor of hounding them without mercy.

But underneath the buffoonery, they are bullies with power, and they’re still out to take your lunch money.

So make fun of them, yes, but watch them very carefully.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...

Yet Another Mole in Need of Whacking

  I n a week when Israel attacked Iran, Trump invaded Los Angeles, four million Americans took to the streets, and a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, the news from the arcane world of digital advertising probably didn’t make it to your list of big concerns. By the time I’m done, it probably still won’t. But in this miasma of Trumpish distractions, it’s often hard to figure out what we’re being distracted from . It’s a constant game of whack-a-mole, and last week, we got the first inkling of yet another mole that will require whacking. Warning: This will take a while to explain, and might cause mild-to-severe boredom. Proceed at your own risk: As we’ve seen, the Trump gang has recently extorted large corporate law firms into defending its pet causes, an ongoing story still developing. Now, apparently, they are trying to do something similar with large advertising agencies. The immediate focus is on the approval, or not, of a major merger between two of...

Uncertainty is Ready for its Closeup

E very day, we learn a little more about the way the Trump junta operates. We might sum it up with the phrase “Shoot first, ask questions later,” but this is not entirely accurate. They do indeed shoot first, mostly with executive orders that are breathtaking in their over-reach, malicious intent, and criminal shortsightedness. But they don’t so much ask questions later, as they send stupid lawyers into court to defend stupefyingly illegal behavior. They tend to fail, but even in failure, the confusion they create works wonders for them. On what must be several dozen fronts since January, MAGA operatives looking to subvert the government have done so, first by launching whatever harebrained scheme they’ve come up with, then by watching for the fallout. The fallout could be in the form of a court ruling, or howls of protest from the victims, or even from Democrats calling them out. But the point is that they depend on that first launch to shake things up, to flo...