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.
Day 114: COVID-19 Bill Kristol’s Fevered Dream
One of the most fearful aspects of COVID-19 is whether it could really deliver the presidency into the hands of Nancy Pelosi. This isn’t as farfetched as I truly wish it to be; both the President and the Vice President at ages 73 and 60 respectively are in an age range at higher risk. Both men’s vitality is evident so even if infected would not in and of itself trigger Bill Kristol’s fantasy. And this is just Kristol’s latest ploy. Earlier he was fantasizing about the 25th Amendment removal of Trump:
But Mike Pence has been stubbornly loyal, so now it is up to COVID-19 to make Bill Kristol’s dreams come true. No, an infection is insufficient, it has to be a full-blown case that renders both Trump and Pence truly done. Maybe that is why Nancy is carefully keeping herself outside of Washington. She can only dream her dark dreams from her redoubt in Napa. At 80 she is significantly more at risk of a very bad case of COVID-19 should she become infected.
But let’s step back and examine another route to the presidency for Nancy. Well, not the one who holds one hand and places the other on the Bible and takes the President’s oath, but the power behind the throne. Does anyone think that Biden will be doing anything should he succeed in taking up residence in the White House. I don’t, and I think 99.9% of Democrats don’t either. Do they take comfort that it would be Nancy pulling the strings? (I am assuming that if Biden wins the Presidency, the Democrats will hold the House.)
You say, what about Chuck Schumer? Has anyone else noticed that Nancy, not Chuck, is managing the Democratic caucus in the Senate? And even if the Democrats took over the Senate, Chuck will still be walking 5 paces behind Nancy. So in the Biden-Pelosi-Schumer trinity, Nancy rules supreme.
But what about that strong woman (of color?) that Biden has promised to pick as his VP? Won’t she have something to say about Nancy ruling the roost? After all, isn’t that gender-appropriate VP nominee the Democrat “insurance policy” for the November election lest voters worry about dottering Joe? Well, pretty much all the high profile women not named Michelle have already crashed and burned. Some of them have already lost to Joe meaning they have tested public acceptance and have been found wanting. Does Nancy even care who the Vice President is, if it isn’t Michelle? I don’t think so. She feels quite secure that she can manage anything she deigns important whatever Democrat sits in the Oval Office, so long as her name isn’t Michelle.
But what if Andrew Cuomo or some other Democrat governor becomes the presidential nominee after Sleepy Joe is pushed persuaded to step aside? That could be a problem for Nancy, and one of the reasons that I think Nancy will do everything to ensure that Joe stays on the ticket. Because it is her ticket if the COVID-19 crisis works out the way Nancy wants it to; not with Trump and Pence sidelined, but that the Democrats can depress the economy to get their 270 electoral votes.
That seems all right with Bill Kristol, even though he would prefer Nancy to accede to the presidency at an earlier date.
But Bill should remember that the dystopian future that he would abet, may not be kind to him. Becoming a made man in Nancy’s kingdom can be fraught with danger:
[Note: Links to all my COVID-19 posts can be found here.]
Published in General
Speaking of laughs, this document didn’t age well, especially when you use the ‘Find” function looking for instances of Bill Kristol’s name.
Why Neo-Conservatism Still Matters.
A Handy Guide to Writing the Never Trump Column.
The above is so dead-on accurate you’d think they have it stuck to the wall over The Bulwank’s doughnut table.
Bringing out his inner idiot?
Um, didn’t the Weekly Standard go bankrupt?
;-)
Yes, but there’s always a new sugar daddy in Washington.
Yes, but only if you are taking the “correct” take on things.
So, does that mean that the Bulwark is pulling in more donor revenue than the Weekly Standard did?
They have no print publication, so it’s cheaper. No printing costs, no distribution costs. All they need is a cruddy little office and some computers. And donors with deep pockets. I don’t know, did the Weakly Standard depend on Ad Revenue? Or did they have no ads? Paid subscriptions?
By the way, will The Bulwank be apologizing to governors Kemp and deSantis for their smear job? You think they’re just anti-Trump, but they’re blatantly anti-conservative. Trump draws most of their fire, but they have turned against most of the country’s conservatives.
Why doesn’t the Bulwank allow comments on their articles? What are they afraid of?
Why does the Bulwank continue to peddle lies?
Is that why they don’t allow comments? Because their lies would be exposed?
You are quoting “The Federalist”? The Federalist has gone well over the Trump edge.
The Weekly Standard was murdered. The staff at The Weekly Standard tried to buy it, but the owner opted to dismember The Weekly Standard for its subscription list.
However, the death of The Weekly Standard lead to the creation of two new platforms, with Bill Kristol and JVL going to found The Bulwark, and Steven Hayes going on to found The Dispatch with Jonah Goldberg. All in all, two for the price of one!
As a charter subscriber to The Weekly Standard, yes they had ads and yes they had paid subscribers. Of note, after The Weekly Standard was murdered for its subscribers list, I immediately requested a refund which I received.
Given that you are so fond of calling The Bulwark The Bulwank, I can’t say that I blame them for not providing a platform for Trumpists.
On occasion one of my fellow Ricochetti will take umbrage at an article at The Bulwark, and I will do my own analysis of the article. You are free to post about an alleged “lie” at The Bulwark. My only request is that you cite a specific article and not make a blanket statement.
Well, the one that jumped right off the page was the lie that the President asked Russia to hack Hillary’s e-mails. Anyone who believes that is an idiot, and anyone who says that is a liar. It’s even worse than the Charlottesville lie.
But if they didn’t lie about the President regularly, they wouldn’t have anything to say.
They’re afraid. They know they’re lying and they don’t want anyone calling them on it. I hate liars with the head rot fury of a thousand churning buns.
No, it was Cap’n Kristol and Charlie Three Wives who founded The Bulwank. JVLast is just one of the liars on staff.
Please provide the hyperlink to the exact article.
Please cite the exact article.
My, such hatred of others and the need to create names.
BTW, Trump, Newt and Rush all have had three wives. Something about glass houses and throwing rocks.
I saw this from John Solomon’s great (newish) site linked at Ace of Spades:
That’s the same Marie Yovanovich whose lying impeachment testimony @garyrobbins gushed over here:
Can anyone recall any other Presidential Impeachment Witness ever getting a standing ovation for lying to Congress under oath?
FIFY.
The scurvy cur* who procured her lying sworn testimony in the impeachment circus lied to the American people for years about having highly classified proof. The guy who comes out of this deserving a standing ovation is Devin Nunes.
*(See “Honorable” in the Devil’s Dictionary)
Okay, this article has 31 paragraphs. https://thebulwark.com/taking-obamagate-seriously/ As you know, even when I have the permission of The Bulwark to reprint their article, under the CoC, I am not allowed to simply reprint it here. So my challenge is for you to identify the specific paragraph of this article which is a “lie.” Is it paragraph 1? Or 11? Or 17? Or 29?
It’s starting to look like a football diagram … which is sort of appropriate, since the goalposts keep moving on the demand for attribution on the original statement.
@garyrobbins, take your fingers out of your ears, open your eyes and stop humming and saying “I can’t hear you”. You are entitled to your beliefs. We get that. But just give up the pretense that there was a legitimate reason to do to Trump and his allies what they did and are doing. You don’t need to “accept” the President. But don’t pretend that there is some legal basis for what has been going on, that there was some highly principled basis for a coup.
All I am asking of you is specificity. I am a lawyer. When cross-examining a witness, you have to lay a foundation, which you have so far refused to do. If you have a specific paragraph that you want to pick a bone with, then name it. But if you want to just throw all of the spaghetti against the wall and hope that some will stick, you can count on me to call you on that.