Trump's "insurrection" is all the news these days, but I've been surprised by the vice president. When Trump told him to go overthrow the Electoral College vote, he refused. There was nothing in the Constitution that would allow for such an action and Pence stood on his vow to defend the Constitution. When Trump urged his fans to march on the Capitol (not raid it; march on it), he included a label of "coward" for his previously reliable vice president, and the crowd chanted "Hang Pence." When it was clear that the vice president was in danger, Trump dutifully ... remained silent. With figurative knife still protruding from Mike Pence's figurative back, the president's figurative fingerprints clearly visible on it, Pence opted to ... refuse to evict the president with a 25th Amendment approach. Instead, he chose to meet with the president and have a "nice conversation." What is it that enables Pence to "remain steadfast in his devotion to Trump"?
Mike Pence defies the logic of the media, his detractors, and even most of his supporters because Mike Pence marches to the beat of a different drummer. It isn't "devotion to Trump" or even to the Constitution. Mike has a higher calling. He serves Jesus. Trump's cowardly accusation of cowardice doesn't even approach the truth. Mike walks with great courage in the service of God. That means that his yes must be yes (Matt 5:37) and the Constitution must be defended because he said he would. That means that he must "honor the emperor" (1 Peter 2:17) even if the "emperor" is a jerk and only the president because that's what Mike is commanded to do.
Mike Pence has gotten lots of bad press of late, both from the media (no surprise there) and from the right. Genesius Times skewered him with the headline "Mike Pence only gets 1 piece of silver for his betrayal" and slandered him "for his betrayal of President Donald Trump and the US Constitution," neither of which occurred. Mike has stood for Christ. Like the little drummer boy of song, Pence has offered what he has to His Savior, and he's done it with respect, gentleness, and courage. And the world around him doesn't know what to do with that.
7 comments:
I don't believe Trump used those words with regard to what he wanted Pence to do. I could be wrong, but if not, it's a rather mainstream media-type of misrepresentation...or snark, I suppose. He would not have been in conflict with the Constitution if he chose not to count the Electors from states that ran their election contrary to the laws for doing so as established by the states' legislatures. In those cases, because they did not follow the rules, no election took place to "overthrow".
Now, I won't deny he's one who is not shy about his faith. But that doesn't mean he was correct in his understanding of what he was entitled to do as President of the Senate, as described in the link I provided in an earlier post. His "betrayal" wasn't necessarily intentional, but it was a betrayal in a sense.
And while I admire the guy for his steadfastness with regard to his faith, he has shown a bit of a spine problem in the past that could've arisen again with regard to this issue. As Indiana governor, he caved on a bill that would have gone a long way toward protecting those who weren't down with the LGBT agenda. I don't recall the exact details, but I do remember my great disappointment that he didn't stand firmly in that situation. There was pressure upon him then. There was pressure upon him on the day he had to count those votes and I believe he caved to it again.
I'm not sure what words you believe Trump didn't use. The "coward" term was documented. (Some are saying he used a much more offense and crude term alluding to a part of the female body that is also a synonym for "cat".) It isn't a media myth. And I'm well aware that you believe the side that argues that the President of the Senate can refuse to count electors even though I can't find a single thing in the text that says so. And, yes, Pence betrayed Trump ... by choosing to stand on a higher moral ground than the president would allow. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he feels no real compunction to take the higher moral ground.
Pence is a much better man that Trump deserves as his VP. The problem is that Trump doesn't understand the type of character and commitment that would lead Pence to prioritize his oath of office over loyalty to Trump. This is exacerbated by the fact to too many have bought into the "by any means necessary" mantra of the left as adopted by Trump, to understand that sometimes the ends don't justify the means.
Stan,
OK. I've found what you reference. But again, let's look at the point. Trump believed, and not without good reason, Pence could have refused to count Electoral ballots from states that ignored their own election laws. Pence chose not to do so. Whether Pence was acting cowardly or not is one thing...given he caved to pressure as Indiana governor with regard to religious protection legislation..., Trump is free to hold his opinions as is anyone else and to simply criticize without considering all reasons for doing so isn't a good idea. You reject Trump's opinion, or at least the manner in which he expressed it. That's fine. See? You can have your opinions, too.
I don't see standing for election integrity is not a higher moral ground, especially given all the evidence for the lack of it that cost him and election, and America the president it very likely wanted.
Nice. "Pence hasn't always stood valiantly for the right, so he never can and Trump, who hasn't always stood valiantly for the right should have been listened to even though it's not clearly in the Constitution because democracy is more important than the Constitution."
Craig,
I can handle the notion that Pence is a more moral person than Trump. But the issue here isn't whether or not he respects Pence's dedication to his oath, but whether he believes Pence acted completely in accordance with it and came to a proper conclusion about his course of action.
I totally disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that the Texas lawsuit against Pennsylvania lacked standing. It is clear that Texas and the several states that joined the suit see Pennsylvania's rejection of state law as harmful to all those outside the state whose votes were very possibly overwhelmed by those which just a short time prior would have been rejected as invalid, and still would be if it didn't mean four more years of Trump. But I don't pretend (without evidence) they acted properly in so ruling. Both they and Pence may well have felt they were doing their jobs as the felt proper. Disagreeing...especially given the consequences of their decisions...is not the least bit wrong, and calling them out isn't either, regardless of the crass manner in which it was done.
I would also not regard either of these situations as examples of "by any means necessary", as if the opposite decision by either Pence or SCOTUS would be unlawful, immoral or in any way wrong.
I' glad you can "handle" the reality that Pence is "more moral" than Trump. It's not a particularly high bar to clear.
Ultimately, what Trump thinks about Pence doesn't matter as much as whether Pence is willing to violate his oath of office or not. Remember, the oath is to the constitution, not to POTUS.
Post a Comment