I am using writings I posted on Mac's Back Porch in 2015 as my rear view mirror. I am following the old adage of letting history be my guide, and I am looking back at a time when a morally and intellectually bankrupt Republican Party that had nothing to offer in the way of legislation tried to use ludicrous allegations and spurious investigations to discredit and vilify Democrats and the Democratic Party. While history does not tell us what will happen, it does tell us what to look for and the likely results of certain courses of action.
When a political party has no viable policies or proposals all it has left to sell is fear and loathing. And how do you stir up fear and loathing? You do it with witch hunts and inquisitions!
Can You Benghazi?
In his Sept 30, 2015 article, “Kevin McCarthy's Truthful Gaffe About Benghazi” E. J. Dionne Jr. wrote:
“Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the likely successor to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a 'strategy to fight and win.'
He explained: 'Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable (sic). But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.'”
In Making this stunning admission Representative Kevin McCarty added to the infamy a Senator named Joe attached to the McCarthy surname. I say “stunning admission” only in that it was unbelievably foolish for a high ranking Republican to actually say this out loud and in public! It is rather fitting, however, for a guy named McCarthy to confirm what everyone who was paying the slightest attention already knew about the Benghazi inquisition.
Can You Say Planned Parenthood Hearings?
Alright, lets take a deceptively edited film that was surreptitiously shot (or is that shat) by an unscrupulous anti-abortion group, add some outrageous accusations and lies to it, and start another grand inquisition based on the deceptions. Go ahead, Carly Failurina and her ilk will praise it; they will never question it - at least not in public. And make sure that the witnesses you call find it almost impossible to answer what are supposed to be questions about it because you are constantly interrupting them, usually with absurd accusations. Here are just a few examples of how the alleged planned parenthood hearings are being conducted by the Republican inquisitors.
As Kimberly Truong wrote in Mashable:
During the testimony of Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, Representative Chaffetz (R. Utah) “...presented a slide claiming that Planned Parenthood's money spent on breast exams has been reduced, while money spent on abortions increased.
Though he claimed that the slide came straight from Planned Parenthood's annual reports, Richards' lawyers told her otherwise, after she said she'd never seen the slide.
'My lawyers just informed me that the source of this information is Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group. I would check your source,' she said.”
I might add here that the chart was as deceptive as one would expect given its source.
In the following exchange between Ms Richards and grand inquisitor Gowdy, Esq., Mr. Gowdy makes us all wonder what the hell he was taught in law school!
"'I appreciate the way you like to frame the issue — that you're the reasonable one and those of us who have a contrary position are not reasonable,' Gowdy said. 'That's exactly the last answer you gave.'
When Richards argued that he was twisting her words, Gowdy interjected: 'It's not always what you say, just sometimes what you mean,' seeming to wink his right eye at her."
If someone had said that to a witness Mr. Gowdy was representing and he did not start hurling objections such as “badgering the witness, misrepresenting the evidence, and assuming facts not in evidence,” he would be guilty of legal incompetence or malpractice. How the hell did he know what she meant? Is he the Amazing Kreskin?
I do not doubt that the MAGA Republicans will disgrace themselves as did Darrell Issa ,Trey Gowdy et al., but I also believe that the caveat below is as applicable today as it was in 2015.
I think the biggest problem with the hearings, however, is that few people could watch them and even fewer did watch them. What this means is that most of the people who are interested (and there are too few who are) will depend on what the lame stream media chooses to report. I have already been subjected to how absurd that is by KTLA this morning. Those dumb asses were actually characterizing as a new revelation an email from Hillary in which she said terrorists attacked the complex at Benghazi. The confusion over what was being reported to Hillary and others directly after the attack is well documented and has been discussed ad nauseam. The reports were contradictory and this email added nothing new! My point is that what happened at Hillary's hearing is less important than what people think happened. So keep a close eye on the lazy slugs of the lame stream media who know that dramatic sound bites will allow them to sell more beer than complex facts will! (emphasis added)
I might add here that the dishonesty of using false equivalencies to promote what too many news organizations claim is “fair and balanced” coverage is almost mind boggling. Our representatives on the committees allegedly conducting the investigations should follow the example Elija Cummings set by raising enough hell to shine some light on the absurdities and lies of the inquisitors.