I'm going to combine two unrelated posts into one, because.
1. I'm in the middle of reading the McCullough biography of Truman, and was watching Thanksgiving episodes of West Wing last night, and I realized something that bears on our current political situation. I realized that whether in fiction or in real life the "quid pro quo" is part of virtually all aspects of the presidency. Especially the executive branch and more especially foreign policy. WWII was literally ended with a quid pro quo, "If you surrender unconditionally, we'll stop bombing you". It makes me wonder why more presidents haven’t been impeached.
2. Thanksgiving day, in OK. A patrol officer stops into a local Starbucks and orders coffee for the people working as dispatchers on the holiday. When he looks at the spot on the cup where a name should be, his reads “Pig”. For all the crap that people on the right take for all sorts of things, I’ll be willing to bet that this flies under the radar and is met with silence from the left.
5 comments:
This is a problem with semantics. To say there was a quid pro quo doesn't really speak to what the left is hoping to achieve. When Trumpworld says there was NO quid pro quo, what is meant is really quite simply that there was nothing unethical or immoral about any arrangement between the two presidents...nothing that wasn't routine in such dealings. But in the call itself, there was nothing in the transcript that even rose to a quid pro quo if the Ukraine president was unaware that aid was on the line.
The left is so incredibly desperate to find fault in Trump that would justify removing him from office, that they are definitely in the realm of the deranged. We see that here in the blogs.
BTW, I read that McCullough book, as well as his book on John Adams and his book "1776". Good stuff all.
My wife just mentioned the Starbucks story today. I didn't ask her what her source was, but it took me a bit to remember that I saw it here. Shameful to say the least, but quite routine for the left these days.
It’s an attempt to imply that a quid pro quo is somehow inherently wrong. In reality it’s simply one tool in the toolbox of politicians.
I’ve read all 3. I enjoyed 1776, but it’s such a small slice of the founding that there are some better options. The Atkinson trilogy should be excellent when it’s finished.
Adams was very interesting as well. Truman was enjoyable because of the information about early KC history. I was honestly a little surprised by everything that Truman was involved in and how pivotal his presidency was.
As far as the Starbucks/pig incident, I just saw that a rival company has reached out to offer free coffee for an extended period of time and the leftists are all more annoyed with that than with the pig incident that started everything.
Not surprised. The leftists all buy into the very crap that Colin Kaepernick was selling.
The Adams book was turned into an HBO series that I thought was very good, with one exception...it made more out of a relationship between Adams and one of his sons that I didn't recall from the book. Probably taking dramatic license, but it was totally unnecessary.
I just finished Brian Kilmeade's book, "Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans". A fairly quick and enjoyable read.
Thanks I’ll check it out.
I think that what I’m most surprised by when reading biographies of the founders is that they all had significant flaws. I guess that makes it that much more impressive that they accomplished what they did.
Post a Comment