Much has been made of President Obama’s failure to attack Syria after he stated that the use of chemical weapons by Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria would cross a “red line.” After a thousand people were killed a year later in a Sarin attack, the administration waffled and eventually accepted a deal in which Assad, assisted by Russia, would voluntarily relinquish massive amounts of chemical weapons. That never happened, and congressional Republicans simultaneously bashed Obama for his failure while withholding their support for an attack in Syria.

We now have to acknowledge that the same congressional Republicans, and all Americans, need to define a “red line” of their own when it comes to their support of President Donald Trump.

Let me be clear. I am a Democrat. I am a Liberal. I have never voted for a Republican save for voting for McCain in the 2000 presidential primary and Snyder in the 2010 gubernatorial primary. Both of those votes were defensive measures against an eventual President George W. Bush in the former instance and an eventual Gov. Pete Hoekstra in the latter.

Despite my partisan leanings, I never considered impeachment an imperative during the administrations of Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43. And I am on record during my campaign not supporting impeachment of Trump until the events of the last few weeks that clearly show the president of the United States soliciting a foreign leader to aid his own re-election efforts. I never considered what line would have to be crossed in order to fully support impeachment, but much like Justice Potter’s definition of obscenity expressed in 1964, I knew it when I saw it.

Now it is time to consider what line must be crossed for supporters of President Trump to consider his having committed a “high crime (or) misdemeanor,” or at a minimum to determine what line he must cross to no longer earn their support.

At an Aug. 23, 2017, town hall in Muskegon, our own Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Zeeland) was explicitly asked this question. His answer, a low bar for disavowing someone, was that Trump would have to “break the law” in order for Huizenga not to support him.

I may not be the best messenger to convince Trump supporters that he is not worthy. My disdain for precandidate Trump began when he pushed the birther narrative that President Obama was not born in this country, and was reinforced by his campaign launch in 2015 where he denigrated Mexican immigrants as rapists and murderers. It was furthered by the publication of the Access Hollywood tape where he admitted to sexual assault, and has been continually supported by his actions as president.

From Muslim ban(s) to support of Nazis to separation of children from their parents at the border, I have had the opportunity to reaffirm my opposition to the current president on a near-daily basis. On policy, I have opposed him, as I have opposed the last three Republican presidents, based on his disdain for environmental protections, assault on affordable health care and tax policy that favors the ultra-wealthy and large corporations.

I assumed that my Republican neighbors differed with me on these wide-sweeping issues of policy, but perhaps we could agree on breaking of the law to be a disqualification to occupy the highest office in the land.

But now I genuinely ask the question of the many Republican, conservative and evangelical readers of this paper: Where is your Red Line?

You are clearly OK with the president espousing explicitly racist views. You are OK with banning a group of individuals entry to this country based upon their religion. You are OK with the indefinite separation of children from their families and the mistreatment of those children while in captivity. You are OK with fewer people having access to affordable health care and the ever widening income and wealth gap that was exacerbated by the tax cut of 2017. You are even OK with the diversion of U.S. Air Force transport to spend our money at a resort owned by the president.

But is blatantly breaking the law OK?

Huizenga has gone back on his word that a violation of the law would be his breaking point – his “Red Line,” so to speak. In the face of a clear violation of Federal Election Commission laws banning the solicitation of assistance from a foreign government in a federal election, Huizenga is towing the Trump party line. Instead of expressing concern for the content of the conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian president, he is attacking Speaker Pelosi for pursuing the only constitutionally sanctioned action put in place to deal with a president who has broken the law and abused the power of his office.

Are tax cuts enough? Are judges enough? Is the SCOTUS enough?

Huizenga’s Red Line has shifted. Where is yours?

(4) comments




What a wonderful commenting system - the Politician/Community Columnist falsely claimed that President Trump supports Naz*s but when I use that word in my response my comment is rejected for profanity. WTFO?


I don’t believe your question deserves an answer, since it is premised on a list of lies about President Trump: (1) It was the Hillary campaign in 2007 that adopted the strategy that Obama was foreign and a Muslim; (2) the President said, correctly, that some illegal immigrants crossing the border were criminals; (3) President Trump has disdain for environmental regulations not based on science or overreach the authority of federal bureaucrats; (4) the President has attacked portions of the Obamacare disaster that forced all Americans to purchase a product, and drove up the cost of healthcare; (5) President Trump did not ban Muslims – he wanted extreme vetting of immigrants from countries that had a history of terrorism that had already been identified by Obama; (6) the President’s tax cuts benefited 82% of middle class Americans; (7) President Trump did not and does not support National Socialists – he merely recognized there were good people on both sides of the Charlottesville decision to remove historical statues; (8) the President does not espouse explicitly racist views – like those expressed by Democrat Representatives in ‘The Squad’, Maxine Waters, Eric Holder or Gov. Northam; (9) President Trump does not indefinitely separate children from their families – he has, however, continued Obama’s policies; (10) the President’s tax cuts lowered taxes on corporations, small business, and individuals, and benefittd all three – corporations have shareholders, including pension funds, labor unions, and individuals and they benefit as well; and (11) there was no ‘diversion’ – the accommodations for the trip were booked through the Defense Travel System and in Scotland, only two hotels had rooms for a one night stay for that many people and the Trump corporation hotel was cheaper.

Where is your ‘Red Line’ on truth-telling? It appears to be the same as ‘Pencil Neck.’


Thank you Vlad...

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.