NY Times Super Excited About Senate Trial Not Being About GOP Party Loyalty Or Something

The Editorial Board is squeeing over ultra squishy Lisa Murkowski, calling her the conscience in the Senate….but, then they and other Democrats used to think that Ted Kennedy, who left a woman to slowly drown while he worked on his alibi, and Robert Byrd, a former high ranking KKK member, were consciences in the Senate

A Stirring of Conscience in the Senate

(many many paragraphs attempting to defend the way the House held it’s impeachment theater)

But Mr. McConnell’s pledge to place the Senate at the president’s service puts other Republicans in an awkward spot — at least those still interested in maintaining a modicum of independence or integrity. And this week, a thin crack in conference unity appeared.

In an interview that aired on Christmas Eve, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told an Anchorage TV station she was “disturbed” by Mr. McConnell’s pledge to coordinate with the president’s legal team. It would be wrong to “prejudge” this matter, she said. “To me, it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense.” Mr. McConnell, she lamented, had “further confused the process.”

Ms. Murkowski is known for her independence and has proved unafraid to buck her party and her president, including opposing the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court last year. That said, her criticism should not be taken as a sign that she will vote to remove Mr. Trump. Ms. Murkowski has also criticized the House’s impeachment inquiry as flawed and rushed.

No one likes her.

But in a Republican Party so cowed by this president, with most lawmakers too timid to question even his most grotesque behavior, Ms. Murkowski’s expression of concern sets her apart. The senator is sending a message, to her constituents as well as to Mr. McConnell, that she does not want to be viewed as a rubber stamp for a preordained acquittal. She takes her public duty more seriously than party loyalty, and she can be pushed too far.

If only more of her colleagues felt the same.

Right, right. Where’s the NYT editorial about party loyalty in the House? I don’t remember any editorials praising Reps. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey for voting against the silly articles of impeachment, and Tulsi Gabbard for voting present, bucking party loyalty in what was a foregone voting conclusion. What will the Times have to say about any Democrats who vote against impeachment in the Senate? You know the vast majority have already made up their minds to vote for impeachment.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “NY Times Super Excited About Senate Trial Not Being About GOP Party Loyalty Or Something”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    As a pundit said, the Senator may be worth listening to, “She won on a write-in vote where the voters had to write “Murkowski”!

    So the “jury” has announced it is going to coordinate with the defendant?

    • formwiz says:

      Murki is no different than Pancho Vanilla.

      The latest spawn from a family of political crooks. Just trying to see if she can find an excuse to go with the Demos.

      Cocaine Mitch will set her straight.

    • Hoss says:

      You act like the House didn’t pull a complete kangaroo court shit-show.

      She’s what’s wrong with politics being the family business.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10954 access attempts in the last 7 days.