I could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.
I could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.
10 comments:
Really? I wonder what in good conscience prevented her from simply voting "no"? "Present" is a vote I find hard to stomach.
I can appreciate that some people could find Trump’s conduct unbecoming and suspect, enough to not justify a ‘no’ (at least on the first article); but also realize that a pure partisan ‘yes’ in th face of bipartisan opposition is too damaging to national unity to contemplate.
I can't. Splitting the articles, sure. Voting for censure, if anyone had had the guts to propose one, and you buy the argument that there's something wrong with instigating an investigation into money-laundering, because candidates and their relatives have some kind of unofficial immunity? OK. "Present"? Never.
Interesting tweet. I've seen reported (only once, and I wonder why) that Gabbard also said she could not vote against impeachment because she considered that Trump must be removed, and that left her, she said, with voting Present.
From her statement on her vote:
I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.
I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.
I disagree with her vote, but I have no problem with her rationale.
Eric Hines
What I'm seeing there is an inability to light on any rationale. She thinks he was wrong, but the process for removing him is too partisan and divisive? But he was wrong, so she can't vote not to remove him, either. So she just refuses to vote. This is not someone who should be running for the job of chief executive.
I see her as moving to campaign for his removal via the ballot--which is where the decision to remove or retain for one more term belongs.
Especially since the Progressive-Democrats have already announced their intent to try to undo our choice in the next Congress should Trump get reelected.
Eric Hines
I'm not sure there's much solidity here. She wants to take a middle ground of some sort and thinks the process, including her own party's part has been partisan. She settles on this. It shows some principle, but perhaps not good advisors who could go over making a better statement with her. I think it is overall a good thing, I wish it had been better.
Democrats seldom have defectors, and it will be interesting what happens going forward.
Perhaps it's a sort of recusal- I mean she was voting on the impeachment of her potential opponent in the election.
To be clear, I think it's more likely a kind of waffling meant to let people see what they want in her- the blank screen upon which people people project their hopes, a la Obama.
@ douglas - that makes some sense. Perhaps it is a better choice than I thought politically, even though it doesn't hold up logically.
Post a Comment