Five aides to Van Drew resign ahead of his formal switch to GOP

[mystery-ak]

Five aides to Van Drew resign ahead of his formal switch to GOP
By Sylvan Lane and Aris Folley - 12/15/19 08:10 PM EST

Five top staffers to freshman Rep. Jefferson Van Drew (D-N.J.) resigned Sunday, citing the freshman lawmaker’s decision to join the Republican Party after a meeting with President Trump.

In a letter to Allison Murphy, Van Drew’s chief of staff, the senior aides wrote that Van Drew’s pending jump to the GOP “does not align with the values we brought to this job when we joined his office,” adding that they were “saddened and disappointed by his decision.”

The resigning staffers included deputy chiefs of staff Justin O’Leary and Edward Kaczmarski, legislative director Javier Gamboa, communications director Mackenzie Lucas and legislative staff assistant Caroline Wood.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/474671-five-aides-to-van-drew-resign-ahead-of-his-formal-switch-to-gop

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Five aides to Van Drew resign ahead of his formal switch to GOP
By Sylvan Lane and Aris Folley - 12/15/19 08:10 PM EST

Five top staffers to freshman Rep. Jefferson Van Drew (D-N.J.) resigned Sunday, citing the freshman lawmaker’s decision to join the Republican Party after a meeting with President Trump.

This proves a theory I have, or rather an analogy I hold between President Trump and another leader who mesmerized others with his piercing eyes, extraordinary oratorical power, and dark charisma.

I don't know if we have any history buffs on the forum, but in the early part of the last century there was a European leader who convinced people to do terrible things.  I'm not going to dignify him by mentioning his name, but I think you know who I'm talking about.  Some people still use this man for philosophical questions like "If you could go back in time would kill this man as a baby because he was so evil?"  I could never do that because I would fear he might convert me, even as a baby, with his hypnotic gaze.  It's why I won't watch Trump rallies too. /sarc

This is a political move to keep a DINO in power in a district that prefers RINOs, and I do not disagree with Van Drew one bit.  He is a representative who represents his constituents.  I am sure his staff keeps him informed of the opinions of the voters who are calling him nonstop.  Van Drew will be restaffed with other moderates soon.   Publicly declaring a restaffing is a smart plan and the defection has likely been long anticipated by Pelosi.   Van Drew could have announced this when Pelosi announced impeachment hearings, or when the rats were hiding the meetings behind closed doors, or a dozen other time when the story would have made a bigger impact or seemed more like the point Van Drew opened his eyes.  Not a couple days before he has to go on record with a historic vote that has already been accepted by all but the dreamers.

Prayers for the dreamers.

[mystery-ak]

DCCC offers jobs to Van Drew staffers who quit after boss' party switch
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/474707-dccc-offers-jobs-to-van-drew-staffers-who-quit-over-boss-party-switch

[catfish1957]

DCCC offers jobs to Van Drew staffers who quit after boss' party switch
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/474707-dccc-offers-jobs-to-van-drew-staffers-who-quit-over-boss-party-switch

AOC is hiring Tampon Fetchers if any are interested.

[Cyber Liberty]

AOC is hiring Tampon Fetchers if any are interested.

Does the gig offer a Benefits Package?

[PeteS in CA]

I'm sure the lack of Resister-moles will far outweigh the brief inconvenience.

[mountaineer]

"Piercing eyes"?
Try cutting the pills in half.

[Gefn]

Sigh. Some days I think N.J. really deserves Snooki

[Wingnut]

Does the gig offer a Benefits Package?

Mydol and the morning after pill with no co-pay?

[Jazzhead]

In a letter to Allison Murphy, Van Drew’s chief of staff, the senior aides wrote that Van Drew’s pending jump to the GOP “does not align with the values we brought to this job when we joined his office,”

Of course not.  Those values include unflinching partisanship, including with respect to whether the People have the right to choose their own leaders.   Van Drew will soon face re-election as a Republican, and his constituents will be able to either punish or reward him for it.  Not so the rest of us - if the Dems have their way,  we will be denied our right to render a verdict on the Trump Presidency,  because the Dems believe it is too "dangerous" for us to retain that right.   Those are the values of fascists,  so kudos to Rep.  Van Drew for recognizing they're incompatible with his.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Of course not.  Those values include unflinching partisanship, including with respect to whether the People have the right to choose their own leaders.   Van Drew will soon face re-election as a Republican, and his constituents will be able to either punish or reward him for it.  Not so the rest of us - if the Dems have their way,  we will be denied our right to render a verdict on the Trump Presidency,  because the Dems believe it is too "dangerous" for us to retain that right.   Those are the values of fascists,  so kudos to Rep.  Van Drew for recognizing they're incompatible with his.

@Jazzhead

I'd really like for a lot of these Democrats to be asked how they intend to respond if Trump is re-elected, and how voters should respond.  Should they accept the results of the election, or should they do anything they can to destabilize his Presidency and remove him from office?

We know they almost all believe the latter.  I wonder how many of them would be willing to say that publicly at this point.  And if they don't have any obligation to abide by the results of an election they don't like, then neither should we.

It's funny -- the Democrats like to claim that Trump threatens our democratic system, yet their actions in refusing to accept the results of an election are far more of a threat than anything Trump has been accused of doing.

[AllThatJazzZ]

Five aides to Van Drew resign ahead of his formal switch to GOP

Five more jobs created by Donald Trump.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Not so the rest of us - if the Dems have their way,  we will be denied our right to render a verdict on the Trump Presidency,  because the Dems believe it is too "dangerous" for us to retain that right.   

@Jazzhead Republican's have had ample opportunities to rebuke the Crook-In-Chief.  They have failed our country.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead Republican's have had ample opportunities to rebuke the Crook-In-Chief.  They have failed our country.

Last time I looked @Once-Ler ,  Republicans (and other citizens) only have the chance to rebuke or otherwise render a verdict on the President once every four years.   I hope to render my rebuke with my vote in the GOP primary, although at this point my main target of approbation is the GOP itself because no one credible has had the courage to stand up and oppose him.  (Sanford has, it appears, already withdrawn).   

I do not look forward to the choice I'll likely face in the fall of 2020.   But where we differ is that,  while we both have our issues with Trump,  I do not see him as an existential threat.   He's a noisy "Red Tory" populist,  who enjoys annoying the piss out of folks.  Is he a crook?  Even if he is like you say,  why can't the people decide?   It's the Dems who want to subvert the Republic with calls for denying me and millions of others the right to decide for ourselves what to do about Donald Trump.  It's cancel culture, writ large and directed squarely at our Constitution's design of popular sovereignty, and the legislative and executive as co-equal branches.    That, sir, is the threat that overcomes my revulsion.   Trump is no threat to the Republic (heck, he's been a true friend to my 401(k)).    The Dems?   If the people let them get away with this madness, there'll be no going back.     

[Mesaclone]

@Jazzhead Republican's have had ample opportunities to rebuke the Crook-In-Chief.  They have failed our country.

Or, perhaps, we've looked at all the "facts" surrounding the impeachment charade...and the 3 year plot to overthrow a legitimate electoral process...and refuse to let that kind of treasonous and utterly disingenuous tactic succeed. Further, perhaps, we have observed the incredible economic turnaround this nation is undergoing and have witnessed the president's extreme efforts...against tremendous opposition both internal and external...to secure our borders, fix broken trade deals, defend our core constitutional rights (arms, speech, etcetera).

The man has governed like a Reagan and/or a Thatcher. Flawed yes, but powerfully conservative in his agenda. Like all first term presidents, he has been partially successful...and has not achieved every goal put forth in 2016. But any shortcomings have not been due to a lack of fight or focus...some things simply can't be achieved in less than 3 years (building a wall for example) and will require extended commitment.

Those who have failed our country are those who've supported this attempted coup...either by active support or simply through silent complicity. The President, at long last, has stirred even the most complacent Republicans...see the Turtle...to FINALLY fight back against the disingenuousness, treachery, and blatant partisanship of the Left.

Who else could have sparked that kind of renewed will to resist the Left?

[Jazzhead]

Or, perhaps, we've looked at all the "facts" surrounding the impeachment charade...and the 3 year plot to overthrow a legitimate electoral process...and refuse to let that kind of treasonous and utterly disingenuous tactic succeed.

Right on, @Mesaclone.   To the Democrats, our tradition of self-governance is too "dangerous".  Screw that!     

[Mesaclone]

Right on, @Mesaclone.   To the Democrats, our tradition of self-governance is too "dangerous".  Screw that!   

The name of the guy in the White House is almost irrelevant to this situation...if ANY party is rewarded for an attempt to overthrow an election via "deep state" manipulations aimed at provoking an impeachment process that is entirely partisan...our constitution becomes a three legged stool with one leg in the midst of disintegration. I would be appalled by this process if it were aimed at a Dem President no less than I am today...the stability of this nation is centered on our acceptance of the results of the electoral process. Undermine that, and no President...Representative...or Senator...is legitimately in office. No Republic can stand should that become the accepted case.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Last time I looked @Once-Ler ,  Republicans (and other citizens) only have the chance to rebuke or otherwise render a verdict on the President once every four years.   I hope to render my rebuke with my vote in the GOP primary, although at this point my main target of approbation is the GOP itself because no one credible has had the courage to stand up and oppose him.  (Sanford has, it appears, already withdrawn).   

I do not look forward to the choice I'll likely face in the fall of 2020.   But where we differ is that,  while we both have our issues with Trump,  I do not see him as an existential threat.   He's a noisy "Red Tory" populist,  who enjoys annoying the piss out of folks.  Is he a crook?  Even if he is like you say,  why can't the people decide?   It's the Dems who want to subvert the Republic with calls for denying me and millions of others the right to decide for ourselves what to do about Donald Trump.  It's cancel culture, writ large and directed squarely at our Constitution's design of popular sovereignty, and the legislative and executive as co-equal branches.    That, sir, is the threat that overcomes my revulsion.   Trump is no threat to the Republic (heck, he's been a true friend to my 401(k)).    The Dems?   If the people let them get away with this madness, there'll be no going back.   

@Jazzhead, it is amazing to me how the Democrats have squandered utterly any chance at winning over a voter like you.  You detest Trump, but their own radicalism has chased away voters who might otherwise have considered them.  And the worse the polls get for them on impeachment, the nastier and more extreme they get in an effort to bludgeon people over to their point of view.  They simply do not see that it is that very stridency that is losing them votes.  It's a rather remarkable example of political blindness.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The name of the guy in the White House is almost irrelevant to this situation...if ANY party is rewarded for an attempt to overthrow an election via "deep state" manipulations aimed at provoking an impeachment process that is entirely partisan...our constitution becomes a three legged stool with one leg in the midst of disintegration. I would be appalled by this process if it were aimed at a Dem President no less than I am today...the stability of this nation is centered on our acceptance of the results of the electoral process. Undermine that, and no President...Representative...or Senator...is legitimately in office. No Republic can stand should that become the accepted case.

Completely agree, @Mesaclone .  The absolute core of the democratic bargain is that we all are willing to abide by the results of an election, and the left/Democrats broke that.  That's the bottom line in all of this.  I think a lot of swing voters sense that, and it is driving them towards a guy they might otherwise love to vote against.

The Democrats have managed to create a narrative in which if you want to preserve respect for the results of elections -- the core of democracy -- you have to vote for Trump.  That's a breathtaking degree of political incompetence.

[Jazzhead]

Completely agree, @Mesaclone .  The absolute core of the democratic bargain is that we all are willing to abide by the results of an election, and the left/Democrats broke that.  That's the bottom line in all of this.  I think a lot of swing voters sense that, and it is driving them towards a guy they might otherwise love to vote against.

The Democrats have managed to create a narrative in which if you want to preserve respect for the results of elections -- the core of democracy -- you have to vote for Trump.  That's a breathtaking degree of political incompetence.

Well said, @Maj. Bill Martin .   There is nothing more important to our collective future than to stand up and defend the principles of self-governance and abiding respect for the will of the people as expressed in elections.   The Dems' behavior this time around is far worse than Bush-Gore,  where at least they had the germ of an argument that the election results were in dispute.   Trump, however, won fair and square (indeed, in a Electoral College landslide),  and yet the Dems have turned on its head the tradition of the loyal opposition, rooted in respect for the sovereignty of the electorate,  and instead have condemned from the outset the peoples' verdict as illegitimate.   That attitude, if rewarded, will be fatal to our Republic.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Well said, @Maj. Bill Martin .   There is nothing more important to our collective future than to stand up and defend the principles of self-governance and abiding respect for the will of the people as expressed in elections.   The Dems' behavior this time around is far worse than Bush-Gore,  where at least they had the germ of an argument that the election results were in dispute.   Trump, however, won fair and square (indeed, in a Electoral College landslide),  and yet the Dems have turned on its head the tradition of the loyal opposition, rooted in respect for the sovereignty of the electorate,  and instead have condemned from the outset the peoples' verdict as illegitimate.   That attitude, if rewarded, will be fatal to our Republic.

I thought it was bad enough when they started the day of the election calling for his removal, either via impeachment or the 25th Amendment.  But now, you're actually hearing rumbling this early that they won't respect the results of the 2020 election if he wins.  I can't imagine their rhetoric getting any better during the heat of the campaign next spring and summer because their base will demand it.  The litmus test for Democrats may become something pretty damn close to "will you accept Trump as President, or not?"  Even if the candidates themselves demur from going that far, it's going to be a prevalent attitude among some in the media, and the louder voices on the left.

I'd always figured Trump for a one-term President because anyone not-named Hillary should be able to beat him.  But the more shrill the Dems get, the more people they're going to scare into voting for Trump.  And it may end up being enough for him to win.

I suppose that will be when things may get (insert Chinese proverb) very interesting.

[sneakypete]

That's good news. It means there will be no Dim spies in his office.

[sneakypete]

@Jazzhead

I'd really like for a lot of these Democrats to be asked how they intend to respond if Trump is re-elected, and how voters should respond.  Should they accept the results of the election, or should they do anything they can to destabilize his Presidency and remove him from office?

 

@Maj. Bill Martin

Hello!

They are already doing what they are going to be doing then,and have been since the day he was elected.

[Jazzhead]

I thought it was bad enough when they started the day of the election calling for his removal, either via impeachment or the 25th Amendment.  But now, you're actually hearing rumbling this early that they won't respect the results of the 2020 election if he wins.  I can't imagine their rhetoric getting any better during the heat of the campaign next spring and summer because their base will demand it.  The litmus test for Democrats may become something pretty damn close to "will you accept Trump as President, or not?"  Even if the candidates themselves demur from going that far, it's going to be a prevalent attitude among some in the media, and the louder voices on the left.

I'd always figured Trump for a one-term President because anyone not-named Hillary should be able to beat him.  But the more shrill the Dems get, the more people they're going to scare into voting for Trump.  And it may end up being enough for him to win.

I suppose that will be when things may get (insert Chinese proverb) very interesting.

That question urgently needs to asked of the Dem candidates at their next debate:  If you should happen to lose the election and Trump should win,  will you accept the verdict of the voters?  And will you urge your supporters to accept the verdict of the voters?      

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That question urgently needs to asked of the Dem candidates at their next debate:  If you should happen to lose the election and Trump should win,  will you accept the verdict of the voters?  And will you urge your supporters to accept the verdict of the voters?    

They'll say "if it is a fair vote", but then define what is fair so subjectively that they'll be guaranteed to back out of it later.  Although some of them might be bold enough to to claim that the process is so tainted that they already know it won't be a fair vote, and so they won't support him.