The majority of me wanted to talk about taking a former president to the woodshed this week. Unfortunately, there's been a filibuster.
Senator Yertle may not be majority amphibian anymore, but as long as he's making bubbles, he's still the smartest creepy crawly in the swamp. Let's face it, new top frog Shumer is but a pollywog in comparison.
The good senator from Kentucky has always been rock solid in his opinion of the infamous senate filibuster: He is for it and he is against it. How, you might ask, can he have those differing opinions at the same time?
He doesn't, silly!
He is for the filibuster right now because he's no longer the Senate majority leader. He was against the filibuster when he was Senate majority leader and he wanted to get billionaire tax breaks passed and his Supreme Court nominees confirmed.
I know some of you think they were Donald Trump's nominees, but please. Dr. Frankenstein brought the monster to life and he'll find a way to kill it in the most obvious way he can blame Democrats.
Early conjecture that Yertle might support the impeachment process was naive at best. He knows there are exactly no right votes for Republican senators on the impeachment question. A vote to impeach will kill half his colleagues in the next primary. A vote to acquit will kill the other half in a general election.
So Yertle was all in when Kentucky's junior Senator Poodledoo forced the suggestion that, although impeachment is called for in the constitution, this impeachment was unconstitutional no matter that the fraud was still in office when the House voted to impeach.
Five Republicans were brave enough to pass the entry level Constitutional Law test, but the signal is clear that there is not the needed number of votes to convict Trump. Might be a good time to remember one definition of insanity is repeating the same action expecting a different outcome.
Maybe instead of putting us through more bad and pointless political theater, the Democratic leadership will pull a fast one. Sidestep an impeachment trial and push censure of the former president and any legislator supporting the uprising.
Censure would be quick and clean with far less political theater. The truth is, beside making it impossible for Trump to run for office again, there's not much impeachment can do.
On the other hand, being convicted of breaking real laws in an actual court comes with real consequences. If a person incites an overthrow of an election, no matter their office, are they immune from prosecution? That's a good legal question.
But no matter, the wolves in the legal system have been circling Donald Trump for quite a while. Maybe best to just let them do the job. He won't have much time or resources to run for office once they're through. And isn't that the whole point of this impeachment process in the first place?
Did you see how I sidestepped the filibuster to still take up the woodshed question? Let's just hope Shumer and company are so nimble.