What Part of ‘Loyal’ Opposition Do You Not Understand?

 

The leaders of each of the two parties from both the Senate and House of Representatives, and the chairs and ranking minority members of both the Senate Committee and House Committee for intelligence, form the “Gang of Eight.” They often are informed by the Executive of developing matters that may result in US actions abroad. Speaker Pelosi has complained that Trump did not consult her in advance of the assassination of Soleimani. But what of her actions in the past few years suggest that she would not use advance information to frustrate Executive action?

You might believe that disrupting an Executive action is the right thing to do for the country. But the most important “right thing to do for the country” is to respect the constitutional authority granted by the people to the President. This Pelosi does not, and will not do. Thus, the justified suspicion that providing the Speaker with any advanced information could result in an action of partisan advantage even to the detriment of national interests.

No doubt Nancy, in her private moment on her knees in prayer to G-d, observes a hierarchy of interests that place nation above the Democrat Party. Right.

The notion of a loyal opposition is that we may disagree regarding the best way to make our nation strong and hale, but we put that objective ahead of partisan advantage. When Democrats and their allies are calling for an economic recession (and the resultant harm to millions of Americans should that happen) as a means to levering Trump out of the White House, in what way can that be seen as a loyal opposition?

#TheResistance is fundamentally anti-American at this point: (1) Trump has done nothing demonstrably criminal or unusual in the conduct of his office, and (2) Trump’s policies have led to demonstrable improvements in the lives of average Americans. There is nothing loyal about #TheResistance. It would be foolish of Trump, and arguably malfeasance, to consult the Speaker on anything in which he has constitutional authority to act. That is Nancy’s fault, not Trump’s.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 31 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    If I’m not mistaken, Obama kept a tight lid on the Bin Laden raid before the attack.

    There’s no question in my mind Pelosi and the Dems would tip off the Iranians something was up, hopefully resulting in a failed attack by Trump.

    The Dem pols might hold their tongues, but all it takes is one radical staffer.

    When we invaded Grenada, we found a draft Congressional report on Grenada that had been passed to the Marxist government (for approval) by a staffer for Ron Dellums.

    Don’t forget (as Peter Robinson noted a decade ago) Ted Kennedy’s communications with the Soviets in the run-up to the 1984 election. That was a quid pro quo proposal with a foreign government the progressive Democrats had no problem with attempting.

    Yeah, but Teddy Kennedy could get away with murder.

    In the inverted world of progressivism, the Soviets were the good guys in the Cold War; just as the communists were the good guys in Vietnam.

    Though they’ve temporarily morphed into the bad guys, because if the Soviets weren’t the bad guys historically, it makes the progressives freaking out over Trump’s alleged collusion with Putin difficult to understand if you’re trying to wage a PR game with the voters

    The Soviets were socialists, and therefore peace-loving by definition.

    The Russians today are not socialists, and therefore evil by definition.

    This explains the otherwise incomprehensible policy of the Democratic Party, to treat today’s Russia as a greater threat than they did the Soviet Union.

    • #31
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.