Perhaps he’s addressed the transparency problems associated with his previous telephone conference calls, but maybe not:
“Senator Heller has employed this one in the not so distant past. It goes like this. Have a telephone conference call from which questions are solicited from the public. However, the fog descends almost immediately. Are the questions pre-screened? There’s no way to know with absolute certainty, but someone has to be taking the calls like a radio call-in broadcast so chaos doesn’t happen. Thus, it isn’t too hard to imagine that some pre-screening is happening.
These town halls can also be re-cycled. The contact with the constituent begins with “You are invited to participate in Senator Sludgepump’s telephone town hall. If you have a question for the Senator press (number) and give your name and address…)
It doesn’t take too many conversations to figure out that if Constituent A heard the town hall on Monday evening, and Constituent B heard the same town hall on Tuesday evening, then we can assume people have been listening to a canned recycling of a political campaign pitch. Hardly a town hall.”
Therefore, a person would be excused from being a little skeptical about the current iterations of Senator Heller’s open mic nights. Thanks to the Nevada Independent we have a taste of the latest town hall:
“Asked why he supported Trump after the president reportedly called some African nations, Haiti and El Salvador “s**hole” countries, described his forceful sexual advances in an Access Hollywood tape and called outlets such as the BBC “fake news,” Heller told the caller that she probably supported Democratic presidents with similar problems.”
This is nothing more than a thinly disguised “kill the messenger” motif. Don’t like the message, then play the Whataboutit” card — what about Clinton (inserting the foil of the day) to which one might add what about — Grover Cleveland? Warren G. Harding? Franklin D. Roosevelt? Thence comes the exceptionally vague pivot:
“What I’m trying to do is get issues done. That’s what I’m looking for is what’s best for the state of Nevada, and whether I’m standing behind the president or whether I’m standing in right field, it doesn’t matter. Literally doesn’t matter.”
I’d assert Senator Heller is, indeed, standing out in right field, but that’s beside the point. One unfortunate way to translate this Hellerian side step is to assume he means that no matter the moral depravity of the occupant of the White House Heller will support anyone who advocates what Heller believes is in the best interest of the state of Nevada.
The problem is that the reprobate in the Oval Office doesn’t have any clear ideological principles. How Heller can divine precisely what the administration’s position is on any given topic is beyond most analysts. We might guess that the administration proposals on immigration range from “a bill of love” to “build a wall.” We might guess that the issues related to banking run the gamut from “take care of the middle class” to “let bankers be bankers.” And so on.
It should matter to Senator Heller, and to any other citizen of Nevada (and the other 49) whether or not the administration has the moral fiber necessary to inform the proposed policies. Moral fiber tends to filter out the self-serving, the grifting, and the unconscionable — without the filter there’s little space left for anything other than the moral relativism of pure opportunism. Surely this is not what Senator Heller has in mind?