Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Illusory Honor: A Missing Apology
I don’t begrudge anyone a belief that much of Donald Trump’s manner can be off-putting (to put it gently). Nor was I ready in January 2017 to debate those who believed Donald Trump’s temperament might make for an unsuccessful tenure in the White House.
However, a personal aversion to Donald Trump was never a justification for believing (wishing) that he was an agent of the Kremlin or that his election was the result of foreign malfeasance. We now know with certainty that those allegations were false and that Trump’s enemies in the federal government, Democratic Party and news media corruptly developed and promoted this false accusation to ruin an innocent man and destroy a duly-elected president.
Given that the Republican NeverTrumpers invariably assert or imply their own moral superiority over those who defend and support Donald Trump (which we deplorables presumably do out of a lack of perception, insight, good taste and/or moral fiber) and cite their own unwavering adherence to principle, shouldn’t they be apologizing about now for endorsing and abetting this immoral attack on the President?
NeverTrumpers did not merely abet the myth of high-minded professionalism on the part of James Comey and Andrew McCabe et al. (Remember when our betters assured us that the FISA applications and the “dossier” all independently verified?) but they questioned the patriotism of those of us who dared to question the actions of those we now know with certainty to be utterly corrupt partisan hacks. Shouldn’t there be some high-minded mea culpa for allowing partisanship or anti-Trump sentiments to give support to a lie and wrongful accusations?
I recall reading exhortations on Ricochet that I should “read the report” (as if many of us Ricochetti had not already waded through the Mueller excretion) and that if I did I would see overwhelming evidence of obstruction. I did not find any such evidence of obstruction. Oddly enough, not even Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi thought to conclude those Mueller obstruction speculations in the impeachment bill so I guess they did not find obstruction either. If one makes accusations that not even Adam and Nancy would make, one is way over one’s skis, morally speaking.
The supposed certainty of Russian collusion and obstruction is currently replaced by the odd fiction that a “high crime” can be constructed out of being hesitant to give aid money to a corrupt regime without some proof of anti-corruption efforts such as looking into the Ukrainian role in the 2016 election (no, it was never “debunked”), the Ukrainian role in the creation of the suspect account of a Russian hack of the DNC and re-opening the probe that Joe Biden corruptly pressured them to shut down. The farce hinges on a rather strained fictitious vision of Mr. Trump’s state of mind such that lawful acts become high crimes if motivated by bad thoughts.
Our betters’ addiction to bringing down Donald Trump at all costs has debased the national political discourse far more than the entirety of presidential tweets.
No one expects honor on the part of Schumer or Pelosi and certainly not Adam Schiff. But aren’t the GOP NeverTrumpers better than that? In fact, aren’t they better than the rest of us on the right? So how come they have not stepped up and done the right thing and apologized? How will we deplorables ever get morally elevated if the NeverTrump GOP elite does not set a good example?
Published in General
The question was both rhetorical and insincere which does not alter the fact that your answer was correct.
And here at the end we have the NeverTrumpers insisting that they get another bite at the apple. They want witnesses at the Senate trial in what I assume will be a vain hope that something, anything will come out that will scuttle Trump. And they couch this effort to hand our enemies information that can further be distorted and lied about to damage the President as a moral imperative!
Pisspants and scoundrels! An apology won’t be nearly enough!
Preach, brother!
I must say at this point I was badly mistaken in my earlier support for Mitt Romney when he ran for POTUS. I was in Utah at that time and with my LDS family I had assumed, since Romney had been called to important leadership positions in the Church, that he was surely solid on right to life issues. Contrary evidence has come to my attention recently that would show me my mistake. I had never really researched his political positions when he was in Massachusetts. I didn’t support him in Utah for the Senate. My acquaintances in Utah have called on Romney to explain but if the information is accurate it is clear that he has adapted his positions on right to life of the unborn to fit his political environment. I’d like not to hear anymore about President Trump’s moral character until there is something to talk about.
A while back, I was listening to a podcast with David French and Alexandra DeSanctis, in which they talked about abortion.
And I realized that while they were, indeed, opposed to abortion, for them the fight against it had to be decorous.
Merely expressing their opposition, usually in venues like conservative magazines or podcasts, where they were preaching to the converted, satisfied them completely. They did not feel the need to actually do anything about it.
Never Trumpers are pure intellectuals in that sense. They are content to explain why socialism will be a disaster, even as it takes over.
P.S.: Ironically, I restarted my NR subscription just to get the “Against Trump” special issue. The difference between a former, anti-Trump conservative (like me) and a current anti-Trump conservative is that the the former are capable of learning from experience.
There’s an article about Juanita Broaddrick in a recent issue of The Atlantic. It’s relatively evenhanded, by liberal standards. However, it states that “some conservatives” doubt Broaddrick’s story of being raped by Bill Clinton.
And whom does The Atlantic present as an example of those “some conservatives”? The loathsome George Conway.
I watch the Nielsens regularly to see cable news ratings. I can assure you the numbers are far higher than fewer than a million. Below are recent numbers posted from Mediaite:
According to data from Nielsen, Sean Hannity crushed the field with a monstrous overall audience of 4,246,000, along with 752,000 in the advertiser-coveted adults 25-54 demographic. Perhaps benefitting from the end of the day’s proceedings in the Senate coming just before the start of her show, Laura Ingraham scored a strong second in the overall category with 3.93 million. Her 649,000 in the key demo trailed only Hannity and Tucker Carlson — who posted 679,000 in that category. Carlson was third in total viewers with 3.73 million.
But on Wednesday night, everyone was a ratings winner to some degree. CNN and MSNBC stuck with their gavel-to-gavel coverage of the trial, and saw gains across the board. From the 7:22 resumption of the proceedings until the 9:43 p.m adjournment, MSNBC pulled down an audience of 2.47 million viewers — with 450,000 in the 25-54 category. CNN, during that same window, averaged 1.48 million overall and 429,300 in the demo.
The post-trial programming also scored. Rachel Maddow brought 2.99 million viewers to MSNBC on Wednesday night, with 593,000 of them falling in the 25-54 demo. And CNN’s Chris Cuomo brought in 1.53 million viewers, with 427,000 in the demo. Those numbers for Cuomo and Maddow far outpace their regular viewership.
The epitome of the grifter Republican. Famous only because of his wife, and because the press thinks it’s awesome to put him on display because of how much they hate her.
Greg Gutfeld says America’s husbands all owe George Conway a debt. Because, no matter how bad they are, he makes them look good!
Nice try @oldbathos, but I do not think she meant what you appear to think she meant.
Probably not. It was a kneejerk response because I get that a lot.
I’m sure you meant it in the same light-hearted manner as my comment was intended.
Thank you, but I don’t think he construed my comment to be anything other than a love for his political point of view. We can all use a bit of levity these days.
I remember reading that George Stephanopolis traveled to that hotel to see if her story was credible. He found it was and we never heard a word from him.
I believe it. One thing the Left does well is stick together.