The first alternative title for today’s post was “On Becoming Kim Peek.”  Peek (1951-2009) was the savant after whom screenwriter Barry Morrow fashioned Dustin Hoffman’s character in the movie Rainman.  I often use clips from a BBC documentary titled The Real Rainman to demonstrate Carl Jung’s principle of synchronicity.  Peek had an amazing talent for finding the connection between seemingly unrelated facts or events.

When I woke up this morning, I had a Kim Peek moment or should I say moments because I started making numerous connections associated with yesterday’s testimony by former FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.  So get ready.  This is going to be all over the place.  I only hope it makes more sense than Senator John McCain’s questioning of Mr. Comey.

Which brings me to the second alternative title for today’s post, “The Charge of the Lite Brigade,” an obvious play on the narrative poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson published on December 9, 1854.  In the Tennyson version, “light brigade” refers to cavalry consisting of lightly armed and lightly armored troops on horseback.  Today’s version substitute’s the work “lite,” an adjective denoting a product which tends to be less profound or advanced.  Thus the “lite brigade” is the perfect moniker for most members of the 115th Congress.

But Jung implores us not to stop at that first coincidence; to look for a deeper connection.  And lo and behold, Tennyson’s poem was documenting the Battle of Balaclava during the (drum roll) CRIMEAN WAR.  Two new connections: Russia/Crimea and “Balaclava” a seemingly made-up, nonsense word.  Thus, the third alternative title, “The Battle of Covfefe.”  But the real reason I chose “The Charge of the Light Brigade” as the metaphor for a post mortem on the Comey hearing are the following lines in verse #5.

Cannon to the right of them.
Cannon to the left of them.

Observing most members of the Senate intelligence panel and how other Senators spun Comey’s responses, I realized there was a different threat posed by this”lite brigade.”

Idiots to the right of us.
Idiots to the left us.

Three examples immediately come to mind.  First is Republican James Risch of Idaho.  In defense of the liar-in-chief, Risch focused on Comey’s recollection that Donald Trump had used the word “hope” as opposed to “order” when suggesting Comey should drop the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.  Now if Trump had been having dinner with his wife (what are the odds of that?) and said, “Melania, I hope Comey understands Mike Flynn is a good guy and gives him some slack on this Russia thing,” I could buy that.  But in the context of previous discussions when Trump had demanded Comey’s loyalty, hoping to make something go away is no mere suggestion.  That’s like saying, “Rocco needs to swim with the fishes,” is a suggestion that Rocco be given an all-expense paid vacation at the Oahu Hyatt where he can enjoy their dolphin experience. (Yes, I know, dolphins are mammals, not fish.)

Second is Republican Marco Rubio of Florida.  His conversion to the better side of the force, as documented in yesterday’s post, was short-lived.  One can only imagine Rubio received a call on Wednesday night informing him, “If you ever want to be the leader of the dysfunctional Republican party, you better stop making sense as you did on Wednesday.” So, as hard as it is to admit, Trump was right.  Marco is little, but not in physical stature.  Instead he exhibits little consistency, little values and little courage.

Last, but not least, I turn to the idiots on the left.  This morning, CNN New Day host Alisyn Camerota asked Democrat Virginia Senator and 2016 vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine what he thought of Comey’s justification for the July 2016 press conference at which he announced the outcome of the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.  Comey had explained that the meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch (his boss) on the tarmac in Arizona compromised the perception that the e-mail investigation was being carried out without political interference.  Kaine’s response? “I thought that was pretty much irrelevant in the hearing yesterday. 2016 is over. This is about 2017.”

If Kaine really believed that and wanted to help the cause, here is what he should have said.

While I might still disagree with what Director Comey said at the July 2016 press conference I can understand the position he found himself in.  And his willingness to share that experience only adds to the veracity of his concern and uneasiness about his interaction with the president.  Whether right or wrong, it is clear Jim Comey, when confronted with what he perceives as a moral dilemma, acts in what he believes is in the best interest of the FBI and the nation.  You don’t have to agree with him all the time.  But he’s consistent.

I know Democrats have criticized the media for suggesting there is a moral equivalency between the behavior of both parties.  But when Tim Kaine evades a reasonable question as he did this morning, he opens the door for those kinds of comparisons.  If Democrats want to argue Sean Spicer or Sarah Huckabee Sanders are defending the indefensible from the White House press room podium, fine.  But if Democrats want to establish there is no moral equivalency, they need to acknowledge indefensible actions in their own camp.  Otherwise, American voters will continue to ask why they should trade one party’s “malarkey” for the other’s.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP