I’m trying to summarize this memo that has the GOP all a-twitter. Let’s see if I got it straight.
Our intelligence agents knew Carter Page was in deep with the Russians, had given speeches in Russia about how great Russia was, and was suspected to be a Russian agent. 
They knew he was also working with the Trump campaign and was probably involved with deals between the campaign and Russia. They had already been following him and had a legitimate warrant to do so.
Their job is to gather information from whatever sources they can. They got a hold of a document that had information first gathered by Republicans trying to stop Trump and then Democrats trying to stop Trump. They used that information to obtain a second legitimate warrant. And then a third.
I think that’s it.
The GOP claims that the investigators looking into this and suspecting Trump of being a part of this were “biased” and therefore the investigation into this conspiracy should be suspended because it’s all made up (despite the fact that we already have people who have pled guilty).
Nowhere do I see any claim that the information in the document was incorrect or that the warrant wasn’t justified.
As for bias, allow me to say that I work with police officers every day, and when they have a suspect, yes, they tend to be “biased” against them. That’s kind of their job.
So. Can someone please tell me what all the fuss is about? What am I missing?
The extreme right wing of the Republican party demands purity. If you’re not radically conservative, you’re as bad as a Democrat. They’ve scared the GOP so much that reasonable members of the party are afraid to stand up to them. If it wasn’t for the Electoral College, gerrymandering and voter suppression, they would have destroyed the party by now. If nothing else, they’ve reduced the reputation of the GOP to the point where it’s at the lowest it has ever been.
And in many cases, they’ve lost because of it. Just take Roy Moore for an example. He won the Republican primary over a more moderate Republican after attacking him mercilessly, because the crazy right can’t stand anyone who might compromise. And this led to their ultimate defeat to a liberal Democrat in the general election, in Alabama of all places.
Demanding absolute purity from your candidates, rejecting anyone who isn’t as far to the extreme as you wish, and demonizing any of your own candidates who aren’t perfect is not a winning solution.
And too many Democrats haven’t learned that lesson.
In 2016, I was a Bernie supporter but I spent much time criticizing other Bernie supporters who constantly attacked Hillary, spreading lies and libel from various memes (many of which came straight from the Russians, giggling at how easy it was for us to help them).
What’s wrong with saying, “We have two good candidates here, but I prefer one over the other for these reasons”? Why do we decide that if you’re not completely on our side, you’re the enemy?
That doesn’t mean we can’t criticize our own; it doesn’t mean we can’t talk about their faults and encourage them to change their positions on issues where we disagree. But outright attacks on our own? How does that help us win in the long run?
We’re all on the same team ultimately and while we may disagree on some minor thing, we’re in agreement 80% of the time. Destroying each other and thus allowing the other party to win gives us someone we agree with 0% of the time.
And sometimes, maybe only 60% is all we’re going to get. Some states and districts are so red that we have to have moderates on our side or we’ll never win. Better to have a Democrat in there we agree with 60% of the time than a Republican we agree with 0%.
Ronald Reagan once joked that the 11th Commandment was “Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of any Fellow Republicans.” Maybe Democrats could learn something from the Gipper.
Our previous first draft contest (“band names“) gave us some hilarious responses. This time, I asked for the first draft of movie titles, and here’s some of my favorites and the ones that got the most “likes” (in no particular order except me first):
Michael A. Ventrella:
Savannah Luther:
Esther Friesner:
Brandon E. Kumm:
Jay Pennington:
Terri Lynn Coop:
Pam Smith:
Daniel Persons:
Rachelle Stein:
Eric Hamilton:
David Edward Martin:
Jesse Hendrix:
Glenn Haumann:
Marcus Dark:
Rebecca Morris:
James Ryan:
Carl Montano:
Jason Harris Vichinsky:
Steve Vaughan:
Andrew Sugermeyer:
Michael Engler:
Maria Solly Engler:
Jason Leon:
Sarah Adams:
Susie Guarino:
Mike Guarino:
Kevin Irwin:
Donald Smith:
Michael Kaspszyk:
Sorry I couldn’t post them all! Be a friend of mine on Facebook for the next one.
The new Marvel movie “Black Panther” looks great from all the previews. I’m looking forward to it, as are many fans of a good superhero film.
But you watch — as soon as it is released, you’re going to see articles from Hollywood types acting surprised that a film with an almost-entirely black cast is so popular with white audiences as well.
I still remember when Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing” was out, and I was reading articles from Hollywood “experts” saying that it was an “urban” film (that’s their code word for “black” — as if there are no white people living in urban areas) and that white audiences couldn’t relate to the film.
As it was, I lived not far from the neighborhood where that movie was filmed. I can guarantee you that I could relate more to the people in that movie than I ever could to some white British aristocrats in 19th century England, yet no one ever says “White people can’t relate to ‘Pride and Prejudice.'”
In any event, what we really want are good movies. I don’t have to be black to enjoy a movie with black characters any more than I have to be Jewish to enjoy a Woody Allen movie or an animal to appreciate “Zootopia” or a hobbit to appreciate “Lord of the Rings.” And I think, despite what Hollywood executives may think, most Americans feel that way.
But just watch out. The articles acting surprised at the film’s success will soon be here.
ventrellaquest.com 