The Bright Line, and Other Musings

There is a bright line in American political discourse, and sadly, it's increasingly being crossed by the left. I do not recall seeing or hearing it crossed by my friends on the right, but perhaps that's because the people on the right with whom I tend to associate don't lean toward the extremes of partisanship - even the ones who are straight-line party voters.

That bright line is the disparagement of voters on the basis of the candidate for whom they're voting/have voted. I first witnessed this during the Presidency of George W. Bush, when, with every new thing over which the left caught its collective hair on fire*, leftists on social media blasted anyone who voted for Bush. In fact, during Bush's second term, they'd flame away with, "You voted for him TWICE!!"

* My newest buzz-phrase is "hair on fire." Readers will tire of me using it, but I can think of no better way to describe the left's response to anything and everything President Trump does. It's actually quite amusing to watch, and it keeps the left off-guard: once the left catches its hair on fire over, say, Trump's comments in Helsinki regarding whether he believed Russia meddled in the 2016 election, all Trump has to do is threaten to pull the security clearances of liberal former intelligence officials, and Helsinki is but a distant memory, as a new hair-fire is ignited.

During the Obama administration, I saw numerous social media posts (and heard mainstream media commentators) that declared that anyone who disagreed with Obama was a racist. Let me say that I disagreed with virtually all of President Obama's policies, to the extent he had policies, and that I believed him to be a poor President. (Which I don't hold against the man personally; when elected he was far too inexperienced to hold the office. His primary experience to that point in his career was organizing communities and campaigning for office while missing the majority of state and national senate votes.)

Yet anyone who knows me, knows full well that I am no racist. I needn't elaborate; my record speaks for itself. No, I disagreed with President Obama on policy and principle, and my disagreement with him had nothing to do with the color of his skin.

Declaring someone a racist has become deserving of its own law, much as Godwin’s Law describes the tendency toward invocations of Hitler as a social media discussion grows in length. As with such invocations, it is nearly always unfounded, but unfortunately has become a favored arrow in the liberal quiver. However, it is an arrow bereft of feathers, destined to fall to the earth long before it reaches its mark.

Now the crossing of the bright line has taken on unprecedented proportion. If you voted for or support President Trump, you are castigated - or worse - by those on the left. A leftist was caught on camera slapping a "Make America Great Again" ball cap off the head of a teenager in a public setting. This was an adult, mind you, essentially assaulting a minor, and not caring that it was caught on camera.

Trump supporters have been asked to leave restaurants and accosted on airplanes. Worse, Trump administration officials have been harassed in restaurants - again, caught on tape - or, in the case of Sarah Sanders, have been asked to leave, simply because of who they work for.

This, friends, is discrimination. What would the left's reaction be if a conservative restaurateur asked someone to leave the restaurant simply because they worked for Planned Parenthood?

You got it - hair on fire.

I have to say that Secretaries Nielsen (who was accosted by shouting protestors while dining with her husband at a Mexican restaurant) and Sanders are far nicer than the Curmudgeon. I love Mexican food, and eat it often. If my wife and I were dining at a Mexican restaurant and were accosted by protestors because we're conservative, I'm afraid the protestors would be paying a visit to their proctologists to have chiles rellenos extracted from their arses.

And if a restaurant owner asked me to leave because of my political leanings, I'd let them know that I was going to sit back down in my chair, and not leave until I'd finished my meal, lest I rain hellfire and discrimination lawsuits down upon them until they were forced to close their doors. (Okay, maybe not - that's an invitation to find boogers in my food.)

But all joking aside, voting is a sacred right in America. Brave men and women have fought and died to secure that right for all of us. Millions of other people in other countries around the world would give anything for that right.

So here's the thing: the left claims to be all about respecting rights. And yet ... they don't respect the right to vote for anyone they didn't vote for.

This is serious business. No matter your political views, I will defend your right to vote for whomever you choose to the bitter end, and I will not disparage you for your choice. I may disagree with your candidate. I may even believe that candidate, if elected, is the worst President in history. But I will not hold you to account for that President's failings. You have the right to vote for whomever you choose, without me judging or criticizing you for it.

And so do I. So hate the President, if you must, but respect those who voted for him or her. If you can't do that, you obviously don't agree with the notion of free and fair elections in a democratic republic, so why not find another country to call home? Your hair will thank you for it.

*************************

Next hair-on-fire moment: the Trump administration announces that it's considering revoking the security clearances of a number of former intelligence officials, including Obama's CIA Director John Brennan and former DNI James Clapper.

The spark that ignited the left's hair was that this considered action supposedly arose from the fact that Clapper, Brennan et. al. disagree with President Trump, and have spoken publicly against his policies. Thus the left claims that it's a violation of their right to free speech.

First, it's nothing of the sort; no one has suggested that Clapper and Brennan should be banned from making statements against Trump and his policies, public or otherwise. They're free to say what they want, but words have consequences. Just as they did for Roseanne Barr, and many others who've said stupid, over-the-top things about people they didn't like. Losing one's security clearance does nothing to curb one's First Amendment rights.

Second, revoking their clearances has nothing to do with their mere disagreement with the President's policies. It has to do in part with the fact that they're engaging in the kind of irrational, over-the-top talk that indeed bears consequences. To wit: Brennan, after the Helsinki joint presser with Trump and Putin, accused Trump of treason.

This clearly indicates one (or both) of two things:

a) Brennan is ignorant of the threshold for treason, in which case he has no business having a security clearance at all, much less being director of the CIA.
b) Brennan is such an extreme partisan liberal that he is incapable of controlling his vitriol, and will go to any lengths to defame any President not of his own party.

Either way, he doesn't need - or deserve - a security clearance today.

Revoking these former officials clearances also has to do with the fact that they are now paid contributors to left-leaning cable "news" outlets, and are likely leaking information gained through their clearances to those outlets.

Talk about treason.

Look, there's no reason to grant open security clearances to former intelligence officials, regardless of their party affiliation or the administration(s) under which they served. If their successors need to consult them on matters they may have faced during their careers, they can be read in on a case-by-case basis. Thus, I'd be in favor of requiring that security clearances be relinquished by former intelligence officers as soon as they leave their positions, or maybe within a short period (like a month) thereafter.

Sure, Clapper and Brennan insist they haven't sought intel briefings since they left their posts.

But they could. And they could either leak them or use them for political (or financial) gain. Therein lies the problem.

*************************

Next up on the flaming-hair hit parade: the leaked tape of a conversation between Trump and his former attorney, Michael Cohen, regarding a payment to be made to a former Playboy model with whom Trump purportedly had an affair - long before he was even a candidate for office.

There's no evidence that such an affair happened; it's been alleged by the former model, but she hasn't pressed the issue to the extent a certain porn star (looking to revive her failing career) did. Nor is there evidence the payment was ever made.

But even if the affair happened, and even if the payment was made, so what?

According to renowned political expert Whoopi Goldberg, here's what: Trump lied about it, by denying that the affair ever took place or that he had knowledge of any proposed payment, which was refuted by the tape.

So let's see, Whoopi: one, you're outraged over the idea of a man being unfaithful to his wife. And you work in Hollywood?

And second, you take issue with a President not only having an affair, but lying about it.

Two words for you: Bill Clinton.

Now, lest the Curmudgeon be labeled a hypocrite, let me say that I do indeed have an issue with infidelity. I do not, however, believe that it's an automatic disqualifier for the highest office in the land.

If it were, not only would Clinton have not been President, but nor would JFK, Eisenhower, or probably most of our Commanders in Chief (not to mention other politicians).

I did have a problem with what Clinton did, but here's the distinction:

1. His affair took place while in office. (Big deal, you say - so did JFK's numerous dalliances.)
2. His affair took place IN the office - specifically, in the Oval Office. (Again, big deal - JFK's indiscretions took place in the White House as well.)
3. But - and here's the key difference - Clinton's infidelity was with a White House intern. As such, she reported up through the chain of command to her ultimate boss, the CEO of America.
4. Since Clinton's affair was with a subordinate, and took place in the workplace, it constitutes sexual harassment, which is a fireable offense for any executive, and is illegal.

Virtually every private-sector CEO's employment contract includes a moral turpitude clause. It states that if said CEO does anything immoral that would bring embarrassment to the firm (like the Lewinsky affair did to the U.S.), or breaks the law (such as sexual harassment laws), not only is the CEO subject to termination, but he or she forfeits any and all post-termination benefits: severance pay, deferred compensation, stock options, insurance ...

Oh yeah, and Secret Service detail.

Clinton committed a crime, while in office, on government property, against a subordinate. He was impeached (for lying under oath about it, another crime) but not removed from office.

Trump allegedly cheated on his wife while a private citizen, and allegedly agreed to have his lawyer pay her hush money.

Despicable? Yes. Impeachable? Absolutely not.

Whoopi Goldberg, you are a comedienne (and you used to be a funny one). If we want your political opinions, we'll ask for them. Until then, try being funny again. America could use a good laugh.

As for Cohen, he either directly or indirectly leaked information subject to the attorney-client privilege. He should be disbarred.

And he should be happy about it - if he'd been a Clinton lawyer, he'd be dead by now.

*************************

Regarding Goldberg and her idiotic TV show, "The View," who watches this drivel, anyway? (Okay, so I did, but just enough to catch the snippet where she said that Trump being caught in a lie about any knowledge of this alleged affair and payment "makes me happy.")

Really, these women opine on political matters they clearly don't understand (and it's not because they're women, so in the name of all that is holy do not accuse me of sexism; I can name many, many women who are extremely well-qualified to discuss and dissect political matters, but Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar aren't among them), then deftly jump over to dishing on the latest celebrity gossip, which seems better suited to their knowledge base. They should stick to opining about celebrities, and leave the weightier matters to those better versed in them.

Another example came on a similar show, "The Talk" (really, there's sufficient viewership to keep two of these inane wastes of advertising dollars on the air?). The "panel" was discussing Serena Williams' claims that she is subjected to more drug tests by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency than any other athlete. Ms. Williams claims that this is evidence of discrimination.

Really? Lance Armstrong complained of the same thing during his pro cycling career. He claimed he was subject to more tests than any other pro cyclist, and that he was unfairly subjected to tests that fell outside the times scheduled by the USADA, the same claims Williams is now making.

Armstrong is male. Armstrong is white.

And Armstrong was doping. Hey, where there's smoke ...

Sarah Gilbert, of "Roseanne" fame, who is one of the hosts of "The Talk," agreed that Williams was the target of discrimination. Referring to the testing protocols, she went on to say, "Look, I don't know how these things are set up ..."

Then stop right there. You just admitted you don't know what you're talking about, so shut up already, and stick to stuff you know about.

(Maybe of greater concern is how the Curmudgeon found himself watching bits of both "The View" and "The Talk" on the same day. My only defense is that my vacation rental house has a very limited selection of satellite TV channels.)

*************************

A final word about the hair-on-fire rhetoric of the left. Whether it's spewed forth by John Brennan, Whoopi Goldberg, Chuck Schumer, or just some random poster on social media, here's the plain truth:

When you lead with over-the-top rhetoric like, "Hitler," "racist," "treason," etc., you've lost the argument before it even had a chance to get started.