, 11.23.2019 09:11 AM

KINSELLACAST 87: democracy, democrats and the first reading of Age of Unreason!


  1. Peter says:

    Your point about the importance of, or even the duty to, accept the results of an election that your team lost would have been obvious to almost everyone for most of my life, but today it needs to be repeated repeatedly. Down south, the total refusal of the Dems to accept the results of 2016 has led them into one desperate fevered gambit after another that has distorted their policies and steadily alienated independent voters who have no use for Trump. Up here, as much as I sympathize with the West’s frustration, I’m getting a little tired of hearing them fulminate on the basis of little more that they don’t have as many people as Central Canada.

    Churchill said it best. The glory of democracy does not lie it the hope that the people will make the best decisions, it lies in the dark truth that all the alternatives are so much worse.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      Sorry, but you are off-track on this one. The main Democratic contention has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimacy of the American president. See Bush vs. Gore, where Democrats did not start a civil war to oust Bush — and won’t be doing so to ditch Trump. Voters and only voters get to render that verdict — not Democratic politicians, operatives or party members. And 99% of Democrats know and agree with that. House Impeachment, if it comes about, is in no way a means to an absolute end otherwise known as ouster. Everyone going in knows perfectly well that Trump is the next Clinton — who gets to at least finish out his term of office.

      • Peter says:

        I disagree. There is no one Dem “contention”, but in any event, I was using the term loosely to mean Dem politicians, their base and their media backers. Since 2016 there has been a non-stop stream of voices challenging the election, his mental competence, his loyalty to the country, his respect for the constitution, etc., etc., etc. Granted opposition parties oppose, but in this case the Dems have talked themselves into opposing him automatically whatever he says or does, which has led them to take strange adversarial stances like paranoid McCarthyite Russophobia, opposing détente with North Korea, being totally at sea on immigration and basically reducing their positions and election strategies to little more than repeated cries of Orange Man Bad. Major media outlets on their side have abandoned any pretense of independence or objectivity. The “resistance” has become a one-issue cause, and it’s starting to be evident the general public doesn’t like it. Do you think the recent steady rise in his approval ratings and decline in support for impeachment is because independents are becoming Trumpites?

        Obama got much of the same treatment, although not quite this fevered. The point is that whoever is in the White House, almost half the country has come to believe they owe him or her no respect for the office, no presumption of good faith or loyalty, no deferral to baseline constitutional arrangements and that there is no matter of state more important than getting rid of him/her. I took Warren’s comments to be challenging that thinking, and I agree with him.

    • The Doctor says:

      Peter, you’re unfairly caricaturizing the position of Democrats on the 2016 election. The fact that Russian interference occurred — which is backed up by the evidence and the conclusions of Trump’s own intelligence officials — does not mean that Democrats don’t accept the results of the 2016 election.

      Yes, there are some Democrats who “refuse to accept the result”, but you have offered no evidence whatsoever of what that faction represents relative to Democrats and Democrat-leaning voters. I personally loathe Trump, but I accept that he won the election according to the rules governing US Presidential elections.

  2. Dork in East York says:

    Warren, I’m curious: If Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination, would you volunteer for them?

  3. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    Presidential popularity comes and goes and is primarily based on the economic health of the United States. That’s what ultimately moves the numbers either toward re-election or predictable loss.

    Impeachment managers, whether Democrat or Republican inevitably become singularly focused on the matter at hand and the country decides throughout the entire process. That’s what happened to Republicans when Americans found their case wanting and Clinton’s approval rating went up 10%.

    That’s exactly what’s happening to Democrats — Trump’s number average against impeachment, among independents, is now at 59%, and 46% with the public at large.

    The case for impeachment must, by its very nature, be clear, compelling and convincing — that’s what moved the country in the Nixon impeachment. Citizens gradually came around, regardless of party affiliation or non-affiliation, and found merit as outlined in the Senate hearings’ evidence. And Republican office holders also were moved by the evidence.

    So, the Senate trial, if it occurs, can potentially move mountains across public opinion. To assert that the 55-45 thing is carved in stone since Obama is incorrect. It likely is transitory in nature — public opinion will ultimately go where the evidence leads, or doesn’t lead.

    The average American changes opinion based on current events. Presidents have received polling bounces, some of a transitory nature throughout recent history: GHWB with a 90% approval rating after the First Gulf War, who went on to lose his re-election bid; GWB with 92% after 9-11-01; even BO following the bin-Laden raid with 69% support on terrorism.

    Thus events and presidential performance ultimately are the deciding factors — not the singular focus of the party in power that initially manages an impeachment process in the House of Representatives. Nixon sunk Nixon; Clinton didn’t sink Clinton; Trump: could quite easily go either way based on Trump’s conduct as president. And the American public will largely line up behind the evidence’s conclusions, or lack thereof. The people get to decide — and will, by a margin likely far greater than 50% of Americans.

  4. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    The case for impeachment must, by its very nature, be clear, compelling and convincing — that’s what moved the country in the Nixon impeachment. Citizens gradually came around, regardless of party affiliation or non-affiliation, and found merit as outlined in the HOUSE hearings’ evidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *