It is interesting that we on day 3 of the 4th impeachment of a President in our history, and not a single comment on this thread.  

I assume that's because nobody believes any opinions will change, and the Republicans afraid of Trump and his base will ignore the obvious and vote to acquit.  

 rgio wrote:
 
When Mitch stakes out a position, you know where the momentum lies.

 steeler wrote:
 
The race is on.  With Mitch on board now...the rats are running for the portals.

She was staking out an anti-Trump position before January 6. Now it is solidified. Frankly, I am surprised more potential 2024 candidates have not done so. She now appears to be in the vanguard. 

U.S. Representative Cheney says will vote to impeach Trump

She's so running for president. The locals around here call her a RINO along with her dad, so she might have trouble if some Tea Party nob gets in the race in 2022. But anyway, it's weird to be cheering her.
 

 kurtster wrote:

From Tuesdays State of the Union address:


If the administration believed that, wouldn't they celebrate Mitt's apparent relationship with his creator?  Trump defends the right to practice religion in publicly funded institutions, but if that reflection leads to your not agreeing with him, you are to be punished and ostracized?  

Since you are"bumping" old comments, somewhere here in the past few weeks I asked you if you really trust Trump.  Deep down, you do believe Trump to be an honest, good, solid, religious guy? 

If Romney was secure in his faith, one would think it unnecessary to cite it as a justification for acting.

"My administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the constitutional right to pray in public schools," he said. "In America, we don't punish prayer. We don't tear down crosses. We don't ban symbols of faith. We don't muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith, we cherish religion, we lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the glory of God."

Ah, I see that you have since edited your post while I was composing this reply, no matter ...

Warning ... rant on.

If you want to put it that way.

You labeled it; partly why I saw no need to respond. Also because my previous posts already had addressed points you had made about Romney’s motivations and his references to his faith and his sworn oath.

However, I see it more, as being a politician, trying to have his cake and eat it, too. If Romney was secure in his faith, one would think it unnecessary to cite it as a justification for acting. Senator Collins cited her conscience and stopped at that. So Trump is correct. He did use his faith as a crutch as I see it.

As I said in previous posts, Romney did not reference God or his faith as telling him to vote to convict. Rather, he stated that the sworn oath to be impartial in serving as an impeachment juror was made under God and he was going to honor that oath of impartiality. He then explained why his review of the evidence led him to the conclusion he had reached. I am not religious, so I do not make references to a faith or God, but many people do without being accused of using either as a crutch — which implies weakness of an individual in need of cover. Trump made numerous references to God in his SOTU. Lastly, I do not understand your comment about having his cake and eating it, too.

Based upon my limited religious indoctrination up to 7th grade that was conducted at Thousand Oaks Baptist Church in Berkeley, California which is across the street from Thousand Oaks Elementary School that I attended from K to 3, the same school which the terrified little girl Kamala Harris was forced to go to when the democrats foisted busing upon the city, I'll attempt to pose this metaphor.

Irrelevant personal background information.

Romney, being the politician that he first and foremost is, wants to be the hero, the holiest of the holy and shame everybody else with a tactic from the progressive left with his use of blatant virtue signaling. Romney was attempting to do what the wise old King Solomon wisely refrained from doing ... cut the baby in half. In doing so, he sneeringly and self righteously raised himself above everyone else.

Much ranting here. I will try to decipher. Sure, Romney is a politician, with all that entails. So are all the other Senators. I would say that there obviously are motivations for these Senators to vote along party lines on controversial issues when the parties’ positions are diametrically opposed. We do not get much more controversial than this impeachment. So the pressure to vote with party would be strong on both sides. Bucking that, as Romney did, subjected him to what I previously predicted would be a torrent of abuse. The condemnations of GOP Senators pale in comparison. Is that counterbalanced by praise Romney is receiving from Democrats? Perhaps, but I do not see it as of equal volume and especially not of equal consequence for him. What he did make clear in his floor speech was he did consider how history would view him because of this vote. So, yes, that is a personal calculation, but don’t we want a Senator to consider how history will view his or her actions?


And the left is also trying to use Romney's "courageous and selfless act"™ to shame all the repubs in the same process, challenging their personal faith as nothing more than hollow, hypocritical and phony.

The Democrats are pointing to Romney’s vote. There is political gain in that, sure, but that does not mean Romney did not vote his conscience and based on impartial deliberation. I have not seen attacks on the personal faiths of GOP Senators. I have seen them attacked as voting party line.

You or someone else cited Romney's overt and apparently genuine sincerity as proof enough of his religious convictions ...

I said he sounded sincere in making the statement from the floor. And I said his reasoning behind his vote to convict made sense to me. I did not say either of those proved his religious bonafides. And, see my earlier part of this post response in which I describe how Romney cited his faith in explaining his determination to honor the oath of impartiality — not as the basis for his vote. An important distinction.

I'll up the Groucho quote with this one ...

Politics is show business for ugly people.
Paul Begala

imho, you've been inside the Beltway too long ...

This comes up a lot in political debates everywhere. It is a bullshit phrase devoid of relevance.

Now it's your turn, to tell me that I am delusional and hopelessly blinded by my knee jerk partisan ways.

rant off.

 steeler wrote:
 

Operative words in your whole statement.  The singularity is what will come back to bite you.

Getting lost in the debate about Romney’s motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.

I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romney’s vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats “fawning” over Romney because of that vote?

The vindictiveness of Trump and many of his supporters should be the focus. Romney. Manchin, Schiff, Vindman, Sondland, Yovanovitch . . .

 steeler wrote:
 

More concern?  No.  Concern?  Yes.  Best to reread what I wrote.  This fawning only makes Trump stronger.  Everyone saw the evidence and make their own subjective opinions on what it means to them,  Romney is no different.   I think you underestimate the craving for authenticity which is a powerful driving force in this country right now.   It gives both Sanders and Trump their strength.   I am not talking about truth,  you can be an authentic liar and Trump has that down to a science.

Getting lost in the debate about Romney’s motivations and trustworthiness is whether his vote for conviction was correct based on the evidence presented and his explanation of how he saw that evidence.

I also am wondering why Trump and his supporters are so enraged by Romney’s vote if it is easily dismissed as just a sore loser trying to get back at Trump. That outrage and the calls for retribution seem to be way over the top. Yet we should be more concerned about Democrats “fawning” over Romney because of that vote?