Thank You, Peggy Noonan

 

I had just wandered through a generally so-so observation about patrician and plebeian elements in our present political situation. I was not sure that I had made my points clear enough for the normal pleb to grasp fully (we are generally too preoccupied with life’s minor distractions such as rent, food, and selecting the right brand of beer).

But one can always count on their betters to provide. So Peggy Noonan was kind enough to write a Wall Street Journal piece that explains it much better than I. She, of course, is an established member of the GOP Order of Patricians and her concern was about the unwashed plebs generally known as Trump voters. Hope among her fellow elitists was that more and more of this group would abandon the notion of the former president seeking the office again in 2024, that support for him would fade and he would pass from the public’s eye. As it is turning out, that simply isn’t happening. In fact, it appears to some that their numbers might even be growing.

This is so despite the continuous dumping on the former president. Or maybe even because of it. The latest anti-Trump production is turning into a huge disappointment. It actually seems to have the opposite effect intended. Interest in the show trial sometimes called the J6 hearings has been weak and far below what was hoped for. In fact, it is probably having the opposite effect. Only the most gullible or pre-disposed believe in them and for the rest they are far too transparent. For most, they leave the distinct impression of Star Chamber episodes intended not to learn anything but to influence an election by removing a leading candidate. Plebs must be protected from their limited intellects by narrowing their choices to only acceptable options.

In any case, Trump is actually increasing in support from this sideshow. So a fresh approach in pleb management has shown its face recently. That is to agree that the plebs do have some real concerns and that maybe the down and dirty Trump demeanor helped to create attention for them. But now he has served his purpose and it is time for candidates with smoother edges to carry the banner. For the moment, they are even willing to accept some candidates who might be a little “Trumpy” themselves as long as they are not the original. For the moment, that is.

But in the end, the real call will be for “reasonable” candidates who can hopefully worm their way into those “purple” vote without really confronting the matters that will change us as a nation and having to win a thoughtful and passionate argument for Liberty. You know, the kind of candidates who made Trump possible in 2016, the kind who knows in his (or hers, or …..) heart that something can be worked out to get us by if the patricians were left to bargain among themselves.

Noonan knows enough to begin every con job with a compliment, sort of. She is impressed that every Trump voter does love America even if it is “not always been a fully thought-through love but it’s generally fully felt”. She even concedes that this is “admirable”, even if the thought process was so incomplete. So plebeian. If it got any more simple-minded, it would be on my level.

A little deeper into the piece one is able to get a clearer picture of the patrician view of those millions upon millions of the GOP base who are so regularly called on by the party elites but rarely listened to. She tries to reinforce the Dem contention that Trump was told by all reasonable and sane people that the 2020 election was fair and square but he chose to listen instead to a collection of “kooks, crooks and freaks” which was not hard to find since “Trumpworld has more than most”.

Her appeal to wayward plebs is to drop Trump or lose the shining chance to dominate in the coming elections. Everything is so very bad that just about any Republican will surely win. Any except, of course, Trump. “Only Trump” would lose.

But the truth is as soon as Trump can be eliminated, the patricians will begin to try and thin out any of the other non-conformists with plebeian tendencies. Before the discussion is over they will hope to be back to the old standard GOP patrician because they could win “in the middle”. You know, that legendary middle where gun rights can be narrowed, where new entitlements have been created, where “comprehensive” immigration reform lives, where government dollars represent educational concern, where … Oh, hell my simple mind and stubby fingers are over-loaded … You can fill in the rest.

What is so desperately needed is a clear, objective American agenda for all, with disregard for who you are speaking to. The principles of the Founding and the principles which build successful lives will reach all levels of society.

The great swath of middle America that I have spoken of very much feels the loss of our Constitution even if the patricians don’t. The party elites have yet to realize that MAGA is not a Trump thing. It is a grassroots American plebeian thing. Trump simply put a slogan behind it and then did his best to implement it.

The Peggy Noonans still talk and act as if this was about a loose-mouthed billionaire and not the saving of the republic as founded. But they do sense the shift away from them and that is what they hate, what they fight against. If Trump is at the head of the column or not is hardly the central question. The real question is the uncompromising direction of the column.

We might be in a dangerous position with our future but more and more I believe that the people who will make the long-term difference have finally realized that the damage done to us by the “warriors” on their side, it is not near the problem as the damage done by the cowards and blinded on ours. Hopefully, Noonan will save her condescension for her own kind.

By the way, if any of you fellow plebs actually want to read the Noonan column you will find it behind a paywall. Unless you have the devious computer skills to bypass “the wall”, you will have to take my word for the content of the piece. Otherwise, you can join me in some simple plebeian pleasure as I take off these smelly socks, let the air hit these more than smelly feet, pour three, possibly four fingers in a cup, and soak up the quiet of an evening that has finally begun to cool.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 375 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    The first three witnesses testifying today are Republicans. All of these three voted for Trump in the election. One of them, Arizona Speaker Rusty Bowers appeared with Trump.

    Gosh, how about going after both Black Lives Matter and Trump?

    How about getting your priorities right?

    Better yet, how about apologizing to Ole Summers for all the turds you keep dropping on his post? Start your own you [Self Deleted].

    For better or worse the comments tothis post left the initial premise of the post. I am just following the conversation.

    As someone has already pointed out comment #5 derailed the post.

    Exactly.  This is like the driver who drove the car off the road blaming the road.

    • #301
  2. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing. … It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second. Sad.

    Not long ago I wondered aloud (well, in typed commentary) about how much latitude a Member could buy here (i.e. with some unknown number of empty $500 gift memberships to funnel needed cash to the host). I still wonder.

    P.S. I wish he would at least learn how to use the “paste as plain text” function when executing yet another conspicuous threadjacking.

    That “I still wonder” part really was sarcasm…now, six pages of inanity later, I think it is clear that someone certainly believes he is entitled to unlimited latitude. I’m not sure he is mistaken.

    Witness this full day of boldly dropping turds onto a quality post authored by a respectable and respected member. Quite a display of  uninhibited aggressive trolling! The question is: Is this the the new normal or does he just enjoy a temporary power as the accounting department waits for all those pretend $500 gift membership  credit card charges to process?  Either way, it says a lot about him…and our hosts. 

    • #302
  3. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    The first three witnesses testifying today are Republicans. All of these three voted for Trump in the election. One of them, Arizona Speaker Rusty Bowers appeared with Trump.

    Gosh, how about going after both Black Lives Matter and Trump?

    How about getting your priorities right?

    Better yet, how about apologizing to Ole Summers for all the turds you keep dropping on his post? Start your own you [Self Deleted].

    For better or worse the comments tothis post left the initial premise of the post. I am just following the conversation.

    As someone has already pointed out comment #5 derailed the post.

    Exactly. This is like the driver who drove the car off the r    oad blaming the road.

    The lack of self-awareness is astonishing . . . and apparently contagious. 

    • #303
  4. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing. … It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second. Sad.

    Not long ago I wondered aloud (well, in typed commentary) about how much latitude a Member could buy here (i.e. with some unknown number of empty $500 gift memberships to funnel needed cash to the host). I still wonder.

    P.S. I wish he would at least learn how to use the “paste as plain text” function when executing yet another conspicuous threadjacking.

    That “I still wonder” part really was sarcasm…now, six pages of inanity later, I think it is clear that someone certainly believes he is entitled to unlimited latitude. I’m not sure he is mistaken.

    Witness this full day of boldly dropping turds onto a quality post authored by a respectable and respected member. Quite a display of uninhibited aggressive trolling! The question is: Is this the the new normal or does he just enjoy a temporary power as the accounting department waits for all those pretend $500 gift membership credit card charges to process? Either way, it says a lot about him…and our hosts.

    Maybe it’s just lashing out because his own Peggy Noonan post only has 86 comments, and still only 5 “likes.”  Since the 17th.

    • #304
  5. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    The first three witnesses testifying today are Republicans. All of these three voted for Trump in the election. One of them, Arizona Speaker Rusty Bowers appeared with Trump.

    Gosh, how about going after both Black Lives Matter and Trump?

    How about getting your priorities right?

    Better yet, how about apologizing to Ole Summers for all the turds you keep dropping on his post? Start your own you [Self Deleted].

    For better or worse the comments tothis post left the initial premise of the post. I am just following the conversation.

    As someone has already pointed out comment #5 derailed the post.

    Exactly. This is like the driver who drove the car off the road blaming the road.

    The post was about Peggy Noonan’s column in the Wall Street Journal.  Comment #5 deals directly with that column and quoted from that column and opined about those portions.  

    Disagreeing with someone is not the derailing of a post, unless there is now a policy that no one may disagree with a post.

    • #305
  6. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    kedavis (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing. … It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second. Sad.

    Not long ago I wondered aloud (well, in typed commentary) about how much latitude a Member could buy here (i.e. with some unknown number of empty $500 gift memberships to funnel needed cash to the host). I still wonder.

    P.S. I wish he would at least learn how to use the “paste as plain text” function when executing yet another conspicuous threadjacking.

    That “I still wonder” part really was sarcasm…now, six pages of inanity later, I think it is clear that someone certainly believes he is entitled to unlimited latitude. I’m not sure he is mistaken.

    Witness this full day of boldly dropping turds onto a quality post authored by a respectable and respected member. Quite a display of uninhibited aggressive trolling! The question is: Is this the the new normal or does he just enjoy a temporary power as the accounting department waits for all those pretend $500 gift membership credit card charges to process? Either way, it says a lot about him…and our hosts.

    Maybe it’s just lashing out because his own Peggy Noonan post only has 86 comments, and still only 5 “likes.” Since the 17th.

    I represent a minority point of view.  However Ricochet does not engage in Stalinist requirements for conformity, does it?

    • #306
  7. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing. … It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second. Sad.

    Not long ago I wondered aloud (well, in typed commentary) about how much latitude a Member could buy here (i.e. with some unknown number of empty $500 gift memberships to funnel needed cash to the host). I still wonder.

    P.S. I wish he would at least learn how to use the “paste as plain text” function when executing yet another conspicuous threadjacking.

    That “I still wonder” part really was sarcasm…now, six pages of inanity later, I think it is clear that someone certainly believes he is entitled to unlimited latitude. I’m not sure he is mistaken.

    Witness this full day of boldly dropping turds onto a quality post authored by a respectable and respected member. Quite a display of uninhibited aggressive trolling! The question is: Is this the the new normal or does he just enjoy a temporary power as the accounting department waits for all those pretend $500 gift membership credit card charges to process? Either way, it says a lot about him…and our hosts.

    Maybe it’s just lashing out because his own Peggy Noonan post only has 86 comments, and still only 5 “likes.” Since the 17th.

    I represent a minority point of view. However Ricochet does not engage in Stalinist requirements for conformity, does it?

    You’ve made it clear in the past that you don’t (usually) “ride your hobby horse” (as someone put it) through a post until it’s gotten to the Main Feed.  Which this one has.

    • #307
  8. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing. … It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second. Sad.

    Not long ago I wondered aloud (well, in typed commentary) about how much latitude a Member could buy here (i.e. with some unknown number of empty $500 gift memberships to funnel needed cash to the host). I still wonder.

    P.S. I wish he would at least learn how to use the “paste as plain text” function when executing yet another conspicuous threadjacking.

    That “I still wonder” part really was sarcasm…now, six pages of inanity later, I think it is clear that someone certainly believes he is entitled to unlimited latitude. I’m not sure he is mistaken.

    Witness this full day of boldly dropping turds onto a quality post authored by a respectable and respected member. Quite a display of uninhibited aggressive trolling! The question is: Is this the the new normal or does he just enjoy a temporary power as the accounting department waits for all those pretend $500 gift membership credit card charges to process? Either way, it says a lot about him…and our hosts.

    Maybe it’s just lashing out because his own Peggy Noonan post only has 86 comments, and still only 5 “likes.” Since the 17th.

    I represent a minority point of view. However Ricochet does not engage in Stalinist requirements for conformity, does it?

    You’ve made it clear in the past that you don’t (usually) “ride your hobby horse” (as someone put it) through a post until it’s gotten to the Main Feed. Which this one has.

    And your point is?

    • #308
  9. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    The first three witnesses testifying today are Republicans. All of these three voted for Trump in the election. One of them, Arizona Speaker Rusty Bowers appeared with Trump.

    Gosh, how about going after both Black Lives Matter and Trump?

    How about getting your priorities right?

    Better yet, how about apologizing to Ole Summers for all the turds you keep dropping on his post? Start your own you [Self Deleted].

    For better or worse the comments tothis post left the initial premise of the post. I am just following the conversation.

    As someone has already pointed out comment #5 derailed the post.

    Exactly. This is like the driver who drove the car off the road blaming the road.

    The post was about Peggy Noonan’s column in the Wall Street Journal. Comment #5 deals directly with that column and quoted from that column and opined about those portions.

    Disagreeing with someone is not the derailing of a post, unless there is now a policy that no one may disagree with a post.

    Self-serving.  The O/P’s post took an entirely different slant than your (unnecessary) introduction of Noonan’s 1/6 comments.  In fact, it would have been easily possible for you to debate his premise without reproducing any of Noonan’s column, something that you had already done elsewhere.   Once you opened the 1/6 door, people would certainly disagree with your slanted takes.

    • #309
  10. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing. … It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second. Sad.

    Not long ago I wondered aloud (well, in typed commentary) about how much latitude a Member could buy here (i.e. with some unknown number of empty $500 gift memberships to funnel needed cash to the host). I still wonder.

    P.S. I wish he would at least learn how to use the “paste as plain text” function when executing yet another conspicuous threadjacking.

    That “I still wonder” part really was sarcasm…now, six pages of inanity later, I think it is clear that someone certainly believes he is entitled to unlimited latitude. I’m not sure he is mistaken.

    Witness this full day of boldly dropping turds onto a quality post authored by a respectable and respected member. Quite a display of uninhibited aggressive trolling! The question is: Is this the the new normal or does he just enjoy a temporary power as the accounting department waits for all those pretend $500 gift membership credit card charges to process? Either way, it says a lot about him…and our hosts.

    Maybe it’s just lashing out because his own Peggy Noonan post only has 86 comments, and still only 5 “likes.” Since the 17th.

    I represent a minority point of view. However Ricochet does not engage in Stalinist requirements for conformity, does it?

    No, that’s all been used up for June by the Committee.

    • #310
  11. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing. … It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second. Sad.

    Not long ago I wondered aloud (well, in typed commentary) about how much latitude a Member could buy here (i.e. with some unknown number of empty $500 gift memberships to funnel needed cash to the host). I still wonder.

    P.S. I wish he would at least learn how to use the “paste as plain text” function when executing yet another conspicuous threadjacking.

    That “I still wonder” part really was sarcasm…now, six pages of inanity later, I think it is clear that someone certainly believes he is entitled to unlimited latitude. I’m not sure he is mistaken.

    Witness this full day of boldly dropping turds onto a quality post authored by a respectable and respected member. Quite a display of uninhibited aggressive trolling! The question is: Is this the the new normal or does he just enjoy a temporary power as the accounting department waits for all those pretend $500 gift membership credit card charges to process? Either way, it says a lot about him…and our hosts.

    Maybe it’s just lashing out because his own Peggy Noonan post only has 86 comments, and still only 5 “likes.” Since the 17th.

    I represent a minority point of view. However Ricochet does not engage in Stalinist requirements for conformity, does it?

    You’ve made it clear in the past that you don’t (usually) “ride your hobby horse” (as someone put it) through a post until it’s gotten to the Main Feed. Which this one has.

    And your point is?

    Something about attention.

    • #311
  12. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    The first three witnesses testifying today are Republicans. All of these three voted for Trump in the election. One of them, Arizona Speaker Rusty Bowers appeared with Trump.

    Gosh, how about going after both Black Lives Matter and Trump?

    How about getting your priorities right?

    Better yet, how about apologizing to Ole Summers for all the turds you keep dropping on his post? Start your own you [Self Deleted].

    For better or worse the comments tothis post left the initial premise of the post. I am just following the conversation.

    As someone has already pointed out comment #5 derailed the post.

    Exactly. This is like the driver who drove the car off the road blaming the road.

    The post was about Peggy Noonan’s column in the Wall Street Journal. Comment #5 deals directly with that column and quoted from that column and opined about those portions.

    Disagreeing with someone is not the derailing of a post, unless there is now a policy that no one may disagree with a post.

    Self-serving. The O/P’s post took an entirely different slant than your (unnecessary) introduction of Noonan’s 1/6 comments. In fact, it would have been easily possible for you to debate his premise without reproducing any of Noonan’s column, something that you had already done elsewhere. Once you opened the 1/6 door, people would certainly disagree with your slanted takes.

    Since the OP attacked Peggy Noonan’s column, it felt it was only fair to let her words speak for herself.  

    Noonan’s column deal at length with the 1/6 riot.  If memory serves, I was not the first to assert that 1/6 has harmed Trump.

    It is unfortunate that my “special friends” have taken Ole Summer’s OP off the rails.  

    It is time for me to go to work.

    Blessings.

    • #312
  13. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    The amount of material excerpted in an earlier post appearing here from the paywalled editorial is beyond any reasonable interpretation of fair use and is, in effect, stealing. … It appears that the first usage was allowed to stand on the site, so now we get a second. Sad.

    Not long ago I wondered aloud (well, in typed commentary) about how much latitude a Member could buy here (i.e. with some unknown number of empty $500 gift memberships to funnel needed cash to the host). I still wonder.

    P.S. I wish he would at least learn how to use the “paste as plain text” function when executing yet another conspicuous threadjacking.

    That “I still wonder” part really was sarcasm…now, six pages of inanity later, I think it is clear that someone certainly believes he is entitled to unlimited latitude. I’m not sure he is mistaken.

    Witness this full day of boldly dropping turds onto a quality post authored by a respectable and respected member. Quite a display of uninhibited aggressive trolling! The question is: Is this the the new normal or does he just enjoy a temporary power as the accounting department waits for all those pretend $500 gift membership credit card charges to process? Either way, it says a lot about him…and our hosts.

    Maybe it’s just lashing out because his own Peggy Noonan post only has 86 comments, and still only 5 “likes.” Since the 17th.

    I represent a minority point of view. However Ricochet does not engage in Stalinist requirements for conformity, does it?

    You’ve made it clear in the past that you don’t (usually) “ride your hobby horse” (as someone put it) through a post until it’s gotten to the Main Feed. Which this one has.

    And your point is?

    Pretty obvious, isn’t it?  You didn’t get attention with your own post, so you’re tromping all over this one.

    • #313
  14. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    The first three witnesses testifying today are Republicans. All of these three voted for Trump in the election. One of them, Arizona Speaker Rusty Bowers appeared with Trump.

    Gosh, how about going after both Black Lives Matter and Trump?

    How about getting your priorities right?

    Better yet, how about apologizing to Ole Summers for all the turds you keep dropping on his post? Start your own you [Self Deleted].

    For better or worse the comments tothis post left the initial premise of the post. I am just following the conversation.

    As someone has already pointed out comment #5 derailed the post.

    Exactly. This is like the driver who drove the car off the road blaming the road.

    The post was about Peggy Noonan’s column in the Wall Street Journal. Comment #5 deals directly with that column and quoted from that column and opined about those portions.

    Disagreeing with someone is not the derailing of a post, unless there is now a policy that no one may disagree with a post.

    Self-serving. The O/P’s post took an entirely different slant than your (unnecessary) introduction of Noonan’s 1/6 comments. In fact, it would have been easily possible for you to debate his premise without reproducing any of Noonan’s column, something that you had already done elsewhere. Once you opened the 1/6 door, people would certainly disagree with your slanted takes.

    And they did.  Which is why his own post only has 86 comments, and 5 “likes.”

    • #314
  15. AMD Texas Coolidge
    AMD Texas
    @DarinJohnson

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    In case you missed Vice Chair Liz Cheney today:

    I don’t believe that I have ever missed Liz Cheney

    • #315
  16. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Since the OP attacked Peggy Noonan’s column, it felt it was only fair to let her words speak for herself.

    You already did that elsewhere in a highly questionable manner.  If you disagree with the O/P, many people here do it directly.  Point, counterpoint.

    Noonan’s column deal at length with the 1/6 riot. If memory serves, I was not the first to assert that 1/6 has harmed Trump.

    The O/P’s main point was directed at Noonan’s overall patrician take.  It had little to do with 1/6.  You steered things in that direction.

    It is unfortunate that my “special friends” have taken Ole Summer’s OP off the rails.

    This is simply wrong, and unbelievably so in view of the fact that #5 is there for all to see.

    • #316
  17. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    AMD Texas (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    In case you missed Vice Chair Liz Cheney today:

    I don’t believe that I have ever missed Liz Cheney

    Unless it’s [Married With Children joke that the mods probably wouldn’t like].

    • #317
  18. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    In case you missed Vice Chair Liz Cheney today:

    Please clap.

    Jeb Bush to audience: 'Please clap' - CNN Video

    • #318
  19. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

     I listened to Mark Levin today because he had Alan Dershowitz on and the subject was the January 6th hearings. It was informative.

    • #319
  20. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    I heard an observation by former GOP Representative Denver Riggleman who was a staff member for the January 6th Committee.  

    Elections are won on the margins.  The target audience of the January 6th Committee is not hard-core supporters of President or hard-core woke Democrats.  The target audience is that 3-5% of the electorate who decides elections.  If 3-5% of the electorate flips from supporting Trump to never again supporting Trump, then, as a practical matter, Trump will either not be nominated, or if he is nominated, will lose in a general election.

    By sheer dint of repetition, Trump has created a fog (a) that the election may have been stolen, (b) that he had nothing to do with the rioters, or (c) that the rioters were engaged in ordinary public discourse.  The January 6th Committee hearings have irrevocably altered that reality for some 3-5% of the electorate who voted for Trump last time, but now will not vote for him again.  

    In November 1972, Nixon carried 49 states, beating McGovern 61-38%.  In August 1974 Nixon resigned.  The Watergate hearings had a huge impact on the electorate, with a drip-drip-drip effect.  

     

    • #320
  21. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I heard an observation by former GOP Representative Denver Riggleman who was a staff member for the January 6th Committee.

    Elections are won on the margins. The target audience of the January 6th Committee is not hard-core supporters of President or hard-core woke Democrats. The target audience is that 3-5% of the electorate who decides elections. If 3-5% of the electorate flips from supporting Trump to never again supporting Trump, then, as a practical matter, Trump will either not be nominated, or if he is nominated, will lose in a general election.

    By sheer dint of repetition, Trump has created a fog (a) that the election may have been stolen, (b) that he had nothing to do with the rioters, or (c) that the rioters were engaged in ordinary public discourse. The January 6th Committee hearings have irrevocably altered that reality for some 3-5% of the electorate who voted for Trump last time, but now will not vote for him again.

    In November 1972, Nixon carried 49 states, beating McGovern 61-38%. In August 1974 Nixon resigned. The Watergate hearings had a huge impact on the electorate, with a drip-drip-drip effect.

     

    And you’re still claiming that the 1/6 “Committee” is of equal status?

    Shameful.  Especially for a “lawyer.”  But then again, [standard response the mods have said to stop using].

    • #321
  22. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I heard an observation by former GOP Representative Denver Riggleman who was a staff member for the January 6th Committee.

    Nobody cares.

    • #322
  23. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I heard an observation by former GOP Representative Denver Riggleman who was a staff member for the January 6th Committee.

    Elections are won on the margins. The target audience of the January 6th Committee is not hard-core supporters of President or hard-core woke Democrats. The target audience is that 3-5% of the electorate who decides elections. If 3-5% of the electorate flips from supporting Trump to never again supporting Trump, then, as a practical matter, Trump will either not be nominated, or if he is nominated, will lose in a general election.

    By sheer dint of repetition, Trump has created a fog (a) that the election may have been stolen, (b) that he had nothing to do with the rioters, or (c) that the rioters were engaged in ordinary public discourse. The January 6th Committee hearings have irrevocably altered that reality for some 3-5% of the electorate who voted for Trump last time, but now will not vote for him again.

    In November 1972, Nixon carried 49 states, beating McGovern 61-38%. In August 1974 Nixon resigned. The Watergate hearings had a huge impact on the electorate, with a drip-drip-drip effect.

     

    And you’re still claiming that the 1/6 “Committee” is of equal status?

    Shameful. Especially for a “lawyer.” But then again, [standard response the mods have said to stop using].

    I believe that Trump is an existential danger to the Republic and the Republican Party.  Both Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger blew up their careers to protect the Republic and the Republican Party.  Good for them; they are patriots.  So am I.

     

    • #323
  24. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I heard an observation by former GOP Representative Denver Riggleman who was a staff member for the January 6th Committee.

    Elections are won on the margins. The target audience of the January 6th Committee is not hard-core supporters of President or hard-core woke Democrats. The target audience is that 3-5% of the electorate who decides elections. If 3-5% of the electorate flips from supporting Trump to never again supporting Trump, then, as a practical matter, Trump will either not be nominated, or if he is nominated, will lose in a general election.

    By sheer dint of repetition, Trump has created a fog (a) that the election may have been stolen, (b) that he had nothing to do with the rioters, or (c) that the rioters were engaged in ordinary public discourse. The January 6th Committee hearings have irrevocably altered that reality for some 3-5% of the electorate who voted for Trump last time, but now will not vote for him again.

    In November 1972, Nixon carried 49 states, beating McGovern 61-38%. In August 1974 Nixon resigned. The Watergate hearings had a huge impact on the electorate, with a drip-drip-drip effect.

     

    Apart from this BS, I would be interested to hear your take on what Alan Dershowitz and Mark Levin had to say about your beloved committee. Honestly, I doubt you have the constitutional chops to take them on but it still would’ve been interesting.

    • #324
  25. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I heard an observation by former GOP Representative Denver Riggleman who was a staff member for the January 6th Committee.

    Elections are won on the margins. The target audience of the January 6th Committee is not hard-core supporters of President or hard-core woke Democrats. The target audience is that 3-5% of the electorate who decides elections. If 3-5% of the electorate flips from supporting Trump to never again supporting Trump, then, as a practical matter, Trump will either not be nominated, or if he is nominated, will lose in a general election.

    By sheer dint of repetition, Trump has created a fog (a) that the election may have been stolen, (b) that he had nothing to do with the rioters, or (c) that the rioters were engaged in ordinary public discourse. The January 6th Committee hearings have irrevocably altered that reality for some 3-5% of the electorate who voted for Trump last time, but now will not vote for him again.

    In November 1972, Nixon carried 49 states, beating McGovern 61-38%. In August 1974 Nixon resigned. The Watergate hearings had a huge impact on the electorate, with a drip-drip-drip effect.

     

    Apart from this BS, I would be interested to hear your take on what Alan Dershowitz and Mark Levin had to say about your beloved committee. Honestly, I doubt you have the constitutional chops to take them on but it still would’ve been interesting.

    Of course not, remember, [standard response the mod have told me to stop using].

    • #325
  26. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    “Liz Cheney is not in a mood to take any prisoners here.”  Former U.S. Attorney.

    • #326
  27. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I heard an observation by former GOP Representative Denver Riggleman who was a staff member for the January 6th Committee.

    Elections are won on the margins. The target audience of the January 6th Committee is not hard-core supporters of President or hard-core woke Democrats. The target audience is that 3-5% of the electorate who decides elections. If 3-5% of the electorate flips from supporting Trump to never again supporting Trump, then, as a practical matter, Trump will either not be nominated, or if he is nominated, will lose in a general election.

    By sheer dint of repetition, Trump has created a fog (a) that the election may have been stolen, (b) that he had nothing to do with the rioters, or (c) that the rioters were engaged in ordinary public discourse. The January 6th Committee hearings have irrevocably altered that reality for some 3-5% of the electorate who voted for Trump last time, but now will not vote for him again.

    In November 1972, Nixon carried 49 states, beating McGovern 61-38%. In August 1974 Nixon resigned. The Watergate hearings had a huge impact on the electorate, with a drip-drip-drip effect.

     

    Apart from this BS, I would be interested to hear your take on what Alan Dershowitz and Mark Levin had to say about your beloved committee. Honestly, I doubt you have the constitutional chops to take them on but it still would’ve been interesting.

    It was on at 7 pm my time and I missed it.  I’ll try to find it repeated on or on his site.  Considering the way it was put together, I’m sure there are a number of well-reasoned due process arguments.

    • #327
  28. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I heard an observation by former GOP Representative Denver Riggleman who was a staff member for the January 6th Committee.

    Elections are won on the margins. The target audience of the January 6th Committee is not hard-core supporters of President or hard-core woke Democrats. The target audience is that 3-5% of the electorate who decides elections. If 3-5% of the electorate flips from supporting Trump to never again supporting Trump, then, as a practical matter, Trump will either not be nominated, or if he is nominated, will lose in a general election.

    By sheer dint of repetition, Trump has created a fog (a) that the election may have been stolen, (b) that he had nothing to do with the rioters, or (c) that the rioters were engaged in ordinary public discourse. The January 6th Committee hearings have irrevocably altered that reality for some 3-5% of the electorate who voted for Trump last time, but now will not vote for him again.

    In November 1972, Nixon carried 49 states, beating McGovern 61-38%. In August 1974 Nixon resigned. The Watergate hearings had a huge impact on the electorate, with a drip-drip-drip effect.

    Apart from this BS, I would be interested to hear your take on what Alan Dershowitz and Mark Levin had to say about your beloved committee. Honestly, I doubt you have the constitutional chops to take them on but it still would’ve been interesting.

    It was on at 7 pm my time and I missed it. I’ll try to find it repeated on or on his site. Considering the way it was put together, I’m sure there are a number of well-reasoned due process arguments.

    Dershowitz spent some time talking about the distinction between “unlawful“ and “illegal“. Not being formally trained in the law myself I probably missed most of the subtleties. Levin did basically say that Pennsylvania was a mess because of the way they chose their electors in 2020. He repeated his previous arguments and as far as I could tell said nothing new on the subject. The key phrase there I guess is Article II of the constitution. It is pretty clear that Levin does not have a lot of respect for either John Roberts or Amy Coney Barrett.

    EDIT: It also seemed that he regards crazy Lizzie with utter contempt, and seems to feel the same way about that crybaby Kinzinger.

    • #328
  29. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    “Liz Cheney is not in a mood to take any prisoners here.” Former U.S. Attorney.

    Troll.

     

    • #329
  30. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD
    @DonTillman

    Professor Dershowitz provides a lesson:

    Any questions?

    • #330
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.