A big tent need not include the outhouse

Spread the love

Democrats need to understand that we are a big tent party. In fact, we are THE big tent party.

So, when Colin Peterson, representing Congressional District 7 in Minnesota votes in favor of environmentally irresponsible mining, or against health care reform, or against sensible gun control, or against a woman’s right to choose, he looks like a Republican, acts like a Republican, and smells like a Republican, but we accept that because we are a big tent party and he represents a very conservative district.

When Colin Peterson votes in favor of mining-influenced labor at the expense of the regional environment that supports business and workers in the very important tourist industry, we somehow manage to accept that because we are a big tent party and we recognize that he is representing the anti-environmentalists who are apparently in the majority in his district.

But yesterday, Colin Peterson voted to protect Donald Trump from justice. He voted to place Donald Trump above the law.

If that vote is not a career ending vote with the Democratic Party, the the Democrats that choose to put Peterson up for election have a reckoning before them.

The big tent should not be a cover for rape or rapists. When Colin Peterson comes to the defense of Donald Trump he is supporting a rapist. The DFLers of the 7th District should not endorse a candidate who favors rape over the law.

The big tent should not include white supremacy. When Colin Peterson comes to the defense of the white supremacist in the White House, he is attacking every Minnesotan including those in his own district whether they realize it or not. The DFLers of the 7th district should not stand for this.

The big tent should not include criminal behavior. When Colin Peterson comes to the defense of a president whose associates are in prison for things that president himself is done, he is attacking the rule law and telling us that Trump is above the law, and thus, above all of us as, effectively, a dictator. The DFLers of the 7th district can not possibly think that Donald Trump is above the law. Right?

The big tent should not include people who throw our allies under the bus, and use the military as a political tool. When Colin Peterson comes to the defense of Donald Trump, he is throwing the military, our veterans, our national security and our foreign policy under the bus. Is this what the DFLers of the 7the district support?

The big tent does not include the Kremlin, or Vladimir Putin, or Russian foreign policy. When Colin Peterson comes to the defense of Donald Trump he joins an attempt to overthrow our democracy. He joins an attempt to end our civilization. He joins and attempt to ruin the futures for our children and grand children. I simply can not believe that the DFLers of Minnesota’s 7th district want to throw our democracy away.

There is no Democratic Party or DFL tent that includes Donald Trump and his followers. Colin Peterson is an accolade of Donald Trump. Colin Peterson carries Trump’s water. It is appalling that he represents the DFL.

I hereby call on Representative Colin Peterson to resign from the DFL and name himself as what he is: A Republican. Following his vote against progressing with an impeachment inquiry, he is no longer of sufficient moral standing to be a Democrat. There is no tent that includes him.

I’m hearing the “oh, but we are a big tent” excuse from many DFLers in the 7th district. Some seem to not realize that there are limits to that concept, and that opposing an impeachment inquiry is, at this point, beyond that limit. DFLers of Minnesota’s 7th district: now is the time for you to stand up for what is right. Endorse someone else, and if we lose the seat, so be it. But above all, stop trying to convince yourselves that we can’t win with a real Democrat. Maybe we can, maybe we can’t, but we never will if you don’t even try. And, if Colin Peterson is all you’ve got, it is not worth it. Put your shoulder to some other task and win there.

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

11 thoughts on “A big tent need not include the outhouse

  1. Yeah, un-effing believable. I’ve been too busy to search for what possible excuse the two Dems could have had for their votes, so I don’t know if they have tried to defend themselves or not.

    It isn’t surprising that every Republican voted against — when your election and future depends on keeping the worst people in the country on your side you don’t dare exercise anything resembling integrity or rational thought.

    1. Ya I heard, I think it was on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show, that they were waiting until all the evidence was in before deciding. That is a nice bit of gaslighting – there is already ample evidence. These two DINOs are putting their reelection chances ahead of country and constitution. They are oathbreakers.

  2. I think that is a good idea. Colin Peterson should switch to the Republicans. That would be great. Then he can win his seat again in 2020 in the 7th district and the Republicans can continue making Minnesota more purple.

  3. It’s not an impeachment resolution.
    https://twitter.com/i/status/1188933086387593217

    They are trying to conduct investigations contrary to House rules, where they can poison the jury pool with selective leaks, and not let the minority call witnesses or even question the witnesses that were called.
    Taylor’s opening statement was released, but not his cross-examination which the Republican members claim eviscerated his opening statement.
    Vindman’s questioning by Republicans was shut down by Schiff, again with GOP claiming it, but no transcript released.

    1. MikeN:

      I agree – the process is very unusual and problematic.

      In my view, Congress doesn’t even have oversight of Article II plenary matters – like foreign diplomacy. Of course, that only goes so far. For example if a President committed treason during foreign diplomacy, Congress could investigate and impeach.

      But what Trump did in that call is much less than treason.

      My analysis:

      What Biden did in 2016 in Ukraine was either wrong or not wrong. If wrong, then it is ok for Trump to ask for it to be investigated by Ukraine, as they have the facts about the prosecutor that Biden got fired, using the threat of withholding military aid to accomplish that. If not wrong – then what did Trump do wrong? He is just asking Ukraine to verify that Biden’s curtailment of the 2016 investigation of Hunter’s company was ok and proper. I don’t see the problem.

      Maybe the prosecutor was corrupt and it was ok for Biden to leverage foreign aide to get him fired. Maybe Biden had corrupt motives to get the prosecutor fired (to help Hunter). If what Biden did turns out to be ok – than how can Trump have a problem using foreign aid as leverage to get Ukraine to investigate matters related to the 2016 campaign? Even just to verify nothing wrong happened.

      The fact that Trump may benefit politically in 2020 because Biden is running has nothing to do with what Biden did in 2016, which may have benefited a company his son was on the board of.

      Maybe both Biden and Trump committed impeachable offenses by leveraging foreign aid for personal gain. In which case, Trump asking Ukraine to investigate is also ok.

      So far, what I have seen of the call doesn’t amount to what I would call a high crime or misdemeanor. It looks like normal foreign diplomacy to me. Using foreign aid as leverage is the norm, not an impeachable offense. What is unusual isn’t that foreign aid was used as leverage here – it is that Biden did the same thing in 2016 that Trump did in 2019, which is now being considered an impeachable offense by a partisan democratic house, and also that Biden (who arguably did the same thing) is now running against the President in the upcoming campaign. It is not as if Trump asked Ukraine to make stuff up to help him in his current campaign for reelection.

      Of course the House can impeach on a partisan vote – if they want.

      I think it will only garner Trump more support, and the Senate will acquit – but so be it.

      I am sure we will learn more about how this whole matter started in the first place. It looks to me like a group of never trumpers and resistance democrats embedded in the Trump administration worked directly with Schiff to whip this whole thing up, using Trump’s obsession with the 2016 democratic dirty tricks and his desire to have Ukraine investigate them against him when the opportunity arose. But we will see. I look forward to seeing all the contacts the so called whistleblower had with Schiff and his aides, and whether Schiff and his aides helped write the whistleblower complaint.

      So the entire process does look fishy to me.

    1. “What Biden did in 2016 in Ukraine was either wrong or not wrong. ”

      Well we know it wasn’t — he acted along with requests from the EU and other countries. The original investigator wasn’t doing the job, he was sitting on it: the replacement did proceed with the investigation. That came out long ago.

      But, since it’s rickA, the default realization reading the comment is that it will be a bald-faced lie, and yes, reading through his crap, nothing in it is true. (Just his usual bullshit “opinions”.)

    2. Everything that has come out of the depositions so far has made it obvious that Trump & his minions are even more corrupt and ignorant than I thought they were. And every criticism of the “process” is to me evidence that the process is a good one, though I’m sure that the Republicans wish that it wasn’t.

      The ridiculous Republican carping and whining about the process ignores the plain and simple fact that the investigative process is not subject to the same rules as the judicial process. The suspect(s) in a possible crime, don’t get to crossexamine the witnesses nor do they have any right to full disclosure of the evidence, for or against, as it is amassed. That’s what courts are for.

  4. The ridiculous Republican carping and whining about the process ignores the plain and simple fact that the investigative process is not subject to the same rules as the judicial process.

    Why should they worry about facts when it’s easier to say they’re being treated unfairly?

    1. No reason at all; so far it’s worked for them. Poor Republicans, how they suffer. First that nasty black man wouldn’t accept their agenda after he was somehow elected president, then they were criticized for inviting Russians to saturate Facebook with lies that led to a rich white man in the white house again, and now that poor Trumpkin is being harassed because he tried to encourage more of the same. Oh cry for us America, they weep.

    2. @ Tyvor

      that led to a rich white man in the white house again

      Nitpicking – there are some doubts about the ‘rich’ part. Well, richer than me, I agree, but that’s not much.
      Unless you count debts and an almost-supernatural ability to make other people pay for you…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.