An under-discussed aspect of the Flynn affair that goes hand in hand with Mitch McConnell stonewalling the SCOTUS appointment:
President Obama was elected for a four year term.
Republicans act under the presumption that only their administrations are legitimate.
President Obama was elected for a four year term.
Republicans act under the presumption that only their administrations are legitimate.
The Republican defense of Flynn is that he was just getting things lined up for the incoming administration, but the incoming administration *was not in power*. President Obama was picked, by voters, to lead the country for four years. Twice.
The Republicans try to create an equivalency with President Obama, in his first term, saying he'd have more flexibility after the election.
But he was already president when he said that. And he was president after the election.
But he was already president when he said that. And he was president after the election.
And even if he'd lost, there would have been a period of months after the election and before the next term where he'd still have been president.
Grover Norquist, outlining the M.O. for the GOP after Clinton, said they could hold power permanently by winning by any means possible, and when that failed, simply making it impossible for Democratic governments to function.
And we see that in the way that Republicans regard the transition of power. A Democrat in office is treated like a placeholder. A Republican who is not in office expects to be able to set policy.
CN: Ableist language and imagery.
The idea of a "lame duck" is an old one in politics, referring to a politician or political body that still holds office for a set term ending after they've already been voted out.
The idea of a "lame duck" is an old one in politics, referring to a politician or political body that still holds office for a set term ending after they've already been voted out.
The notion here is that a duck that has an injured wing might not be dead yet but will be soon, because it can't escape from hunters or predators.
Often when applied in the abstract and hypothetical the term is meant to suggest that there's an understanding that such politicians are just there to perform the necessary functions of the office, not make big moves, because the people have spoken.
But if you pay attention to, for instance, when the news talks about a "lame duck session" of a GOP-held state government that's about to turn over the reins of power to Democrats, it's about the fifty-eleven things they're doing to ram their agenda through and sabotage the Dems.
The reporting on these sessions reflects the right-wing bias of media: journalists as a whole don't act like there's anything unusual about outgoing GOP setting fire to things because obviously from a tactical standpoint that makes sense.
But Democrats who try to do anything... wow, they're violating those norms. There's like a gentleman's agreement or something, right? This just isn't done.
