What Would Buckley Say?

 

National Review is not only the birthplace of the Never Trump movement, but also the “Reagan, Never Again” Reform Conservative movement. National Review without William F. Buckley isn’t National Review.

I don’t blame NR for publishing its famous “Against Trump” issue. They thought, with good reason, that Trump would push the Republican Party to further to the left than even another Bush. At the time of that issue, Trump might have actually been further to the left than he was by the time he became President.

When Trump governed as a conservative, some of the writers at NR became more sanguine about the Trump Presidency. Just like many of us at Ricochet, they changed their minds. Rich Lowry even expressed regret at having published the “Against Trump” issue. 

Now, National Review contracted TDS in a big way. You won’t find a kind word about Trump anywhere unless it’s from a guest writer like VDH or Conrad Black. 

Also, they have been silent on the voter fraud issue, which ought to matter even if there wasn’t enough to change the result. Maybe they think they will be mistaken for capital building rioters. They should relax.

I can only guess at what Buckley would think about Trump, and would likely guess wrong.

Buckley was a bit of an intellectual bad-a** in his day, and was friends with Reagan and Limbaugh when they weren’t socially acceptable. How would he have reacted to Trump? Your guess is as good as mine.

Also, what would he think of National Review today? Athwart history, anyone?

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 142 comments.

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

    National Review just published an excellent editorial which I think sums up the current debate, “This We Believe.”  https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/this-we-believe/?fbclid=IwAR36LnxB3A7FrvuocwYLG37fM_um6uA21CkHEIt53MT7QAfkbKUVcDxiSM8

    Under the Code of Conduct I am unable to simply reproduce this editorial.  However, I will leave you with the first two paragraphs:

    “High among the things American conservatism seeks to conserve is our country’s political inheritance from our founding, an inheritance that makes it possible for us to be a free, prosperous, decent, and self-governing society.

    “That work is unending and sometimes arduous — because the inheritance is complex and often misunderstood, because the threats to it are many and varied, and because conservation is rarely reducible to resisting change. Our claim is not that the Founders were perfect but that they were wise, and that we need to fit the times to the Constitution more than the other way around.”

    What I like about this is that it returns to first principles.  I believe that the above is what WFB would say if he were still alive.

    • #91
  2. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Answer the question.

    You can’t be serious. 

    • #92
  3. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Columbo (View Comment):
    The problems at NR started with the intolerance of Jason Steorts being made the philosophy of all NR. Mark Steyn reports.

    For heaven’s sake, that was eight years ago. And Steorts objected to a joke, not the column, which you’ll note is still up. And didn’t Trump himself – what’s the word – evolve on the same-sex marriage issue?

    • #93
  4. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    For heaven’s sake, that was eight years ago. And Steorts objected to a joke, not the column, which you’ll note is still up.

    Should that joke have been beyond the pale?

    • #94
  5. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):
    The problems at NR started with the intolerance of Jason Steorts being made the philosophy of all NR. Mark Steyn reports.

    For heaven’s sake, that was eight years ago. And Steorts objected to a joke, not the column, which you’ll note is still up. And didn’t Trump himself – what’s the word – evolve on the same-sex marriage issue?

    About the time I stopped reading and supporting. What a coincidence! I had spent almost a quarter-century writing checks to help out. Used to be a great learning tool/magazine. I even saved some of the issues. 

    • #95
  6. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Jon1979 (View Comment): …Cheney miscalculated…

    I suspect this is a fundamental misunderstanding of her actions. I see it as she both accelerated the long planned transition to her next gig and greatly increased the size of the paycheck she will [be] getting once there. She will be having the last laugh.

    • #96
  7. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    philo (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment): …Cheney miscalculated…

    I suspect this is a fundamental misunderstanding of her actions. I see it as she both accelerated the long planned transition to her next gig and greatly increased the size of the paycheck she will [be] getting once there. She will be having the last laugh.

    Liz relying on the kindness of liberal Democrat strangers for future gigs in Washington would run into the latent problem of her branding as a Cheney, which to a ton of angry progressives on the left, still sets them off in the same way saying the words “Niagara Falls” did in that old vaudeville routine. She could serve as one of the House impeachment managers next month, and it wouldn’t matter — Cheney would likely be stuck in the same Purgatory that brands like Starbucks are, where no matter what they do that seemingly jibes with what people on the left want, they’re always on the outs with the angry left side of the coalition that will never love them (and in the case of Antifa riots like the one in Seattle last week, actively search out Starbucks to destroy because of that hatred for the name).

    • #97
  8. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment): …Cheney miscalculated…

    I suspect this is a fundamental misunderstanding of her actions. I see it as she both accelerated the long planned transition to her next gig and greatly increased the size of the paycheck she will [be] getting once there. She will be having the last laugh.

    Liz relying on the kindness of liberal Democrat strangers for future gigs in Washington would run into the latent problem of her branding as a Cheney, which to a ton of angry progressives on the left, still sets them off in the same way saying the words “Niagara Falls” did in that old vaudeville routine. She could serve as one of the House impeachment managers next month, and it wouldn’t matter — Cheney would likely be stuck in the same Purgatory that brands like Starbucks are, where no matter what they do that seemingly jibes with what people on the left want, they’re always on the outs with the angry left side of the coalition that will never love them (and in the case of Antifa riots like the one in Seattle last week, actively search out Starbucks to destroy because of that hatred for the name).

    It won’t be liberal Democrat entities that pay her bills…

    • #98
  9. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):
    The problems at NR started with the intolerance of Jason Steorts being made the philosophy of all NR. Mark Steyn reports.

    For heaven’s sake, that was eight years ago. And Steorts objected to a joke, not the column, which you’ll note is still up. And didn’t Trump himself – what’s the word – evolve on the same-sex marriage issue?

    Guess comments like Columbo’s might harm the market for future cruises?

    • #99
  10. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    philo (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment): …Cheney miscalculated…

    I suspect this is a fundamental misunderstanding of her actions. I see it as she both accelerated the long planned transition to her next gig and greatly increased the size of the paycheck she will [be] getting once there. She will be having the last laugh.

    Liz relying on the kindness of liberal Democrat strangers for future gigs in Washington would run into the latent problem of her branding as a Cheney, which to a ton of angry progressives on the left, still sets them off in the same way saying the words “Niagara Falls” did in that old vaudeville routine. She could serve as one of the House impeachment managers next month, and it wouldn’t matter — Cheney would likely be stuck in the same Purgatory that brands like Starbucks are, where no matter what they do that seemingly jibes with what people on the left want, they’re always on the outs with the angry left side of the coalition that will never love them (and in the case of Antifa riots like the one in Seattle last week, actively search out Starbucks to destroy because of that hatred for the name).

    It won’t be liberal Democrat entities that pay her bills…

    So, no Pierre Omidyar cash, like with The Bulwark, then?

    • #100
  11. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):
    The problems at NR started with the intolerance of Jason Steorts being made the philosophy of all NR. Mark Steyn reports.

    For heaven’s sake, that was eight years ago. And Steorts objected to a joke, not the column, which you’ll note is still up. And didn’t Trump himself – what’s the word – evolve on the same-sex marriage issue?

    Guess comments like Columba’s might harm the market for future cruises?

    Dan McLaughlin, who’s been part of the ‘soft’ #NeverTrumpers at NR, had an interestingly ambiguous post today that started off sounding like it was going to be another chastening of those who support Trump, but seemed to pivot midstream to the reality that the #NeverTrump crowd is in the minority in the GOP, and walking away from the party because of that is the wrong thing to do:

    Disagreement with one man should not mean abandoning the broader ties of party, forged by common principle.

    Beware, as Burke would, the counsel of despair: the argument that conservatives in American politics should abandon the only party in which they could have any effect, simply because the work is hard, the company sometimes uncomfortable or even hostile, and the attainment of goals frustratingly elusive. That lesson should be heeded by conservatives of every stripe, from classical liberals to populists, from religious conservatives to libertarians, from constitutionalists to free-marketers. We can respect those who mostly stand with us, even when they stand apart on occasion on their principles, or against ours. We are not angels, and are not made for the work of a world of angels. That means, in the long run: Choose a side.

    In contrast to this, the hardcore #NeverTrump crowd either still thinks they can purge the Trump supporters from the GOP and go back to telling everyone what to do, or they’re so embittered by their loss of influence, they want the total destruction of the Republican Party. That’s Bulwark/Lincoln Project land, and NR is nowhere near that territory.

    • #101
  12. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

     

    In contrast to this, the hardcore #NeverTrump crowd either still thinks they can purge the Trump supporters from the GOP and go back to telling everyone what to do, or they’re so embittered by their loss of influence, they want the total destruction of the Republican Party. That’s Bulwark/Lincoln Project land, and NR is nowhere near that territory.

    I generally agree, but I’m not sure that I buy the “nowhere” part.  McLaughlin himself had a recent column in which the inflammatory title was actually changed, but the substance of which was that conservative=s are now free (free at last!) to express themselves in the absence of Trump.  It veered seriously close to Bulwark land.

    • #102
  13. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

     

    In contrast to this, the hardcore #NeverTrump crowd either still thinks they can purge the Trump supporters from the GOP and go back to telling everyone what to do, or they’re so embittered by their loss of influence, they want the total destruction of the Republican Party. That’s Bulwark/Lincoln Project land, and NR is nowhere near that territory.

    I generally agree, but I’m not sure that I buy the “nowhere” part. McLaughlin himself had a recent column in which the inflammatory title was actually changed, but the substance of which was that conservative=s are now free (free at last!) to express themselves in the absence of Trump. It veered seriously close to Bulwark land.

    McLaughlin, like Lowery or Liz Cheney, overreacted to the idea that they might be able to keep Trump out of the 2024 field, and at least in the case of the two guys at NR, now seem to be having second thoughts, either based on self-awarness that they made a major mis-step by giving into their base feelings about Trump, or based strategically on where this would have to take them intellectually in the upcoming days (“Patrick Leahy is a perfectly legal substitute for John Roberts, and there’s no problem if he serves as both judge and juror!“).

    There’s no coming back from endorsing a Democratic Party show trial. In contrast, the Bulwark/Lincoln Project types would have no problems with that, and would follow it up with “And then lets impeach Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley!” as part of their salted earth plans for the GOP that rebuffed their brilliance for the cretinism of Donald Trump)

    • #103
  14. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):
    The problems at NR started with the intolerance of Jason Steorts being made the philosophy of all NR. Mark Steyn reports.

    For heaven’s sake, that was eight years ago. And Steorts objected to a joke, not the column, which you’ll note is still up. And didn’t Trump himself – what’s the word – evolve on the same-sex marriage issue?

    Guess comments like Columba’s might harm the market for future cruises?

    Dan McLaughlin, who’s been part of the ‘soft’ #NeverTrumpers at NR, had an interestingly ambiguous post today that started off sounding like it was going to be another chastening of those who support Trump, but seemed to pivot midstream to the reality that the #NeverTrump crowd is in the minority in the GOP, and walking away from the party because of that is the wrong thing to do:

    Disagreement with one man should not mean abandoning the broader ties of party, forged by common principle.

    Beware, as Burke would, the counsel of despair: the argument that conservatives in American politics should abandon the only party in which they could have any effect, simply because the work is hard, the company sometimes uncomfortable or even hostile, and the attainment of goals frustratingly elusive. That lesson should be heeded by conservatives of every stripe, from classical liberals to populists, from religious conservatives to libertarians, from constitutionalists to free-marketers. We can respect those who mostly stand with us, even when they stand apart on occasion on their principles, or against ours. We are not angels, and are not made for the work of a world of angels. That means, in the long run: Choose a side.

    In contrast to this, the hardcore #NeverTrump crowd either still thinks they can purge the Trump supporters from the GOP and go back to telling everyone what to do, or they’re so embittered by their loss of influence, they want the total destruction of the Republican Party. That’s Bulwark/Lincoln Project land, and NR is nowhere near that territory.

    I don’t know an NeverTrump person who believes that they can purge Trump voters and Trump supporters.  It appears to me that at most, the NeverTrumpers like The Lincoln Project and The Bulwark are focused on Trump, and his closest ring of sycophants, like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, and in Arizona, Representatives Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, and twice Senate Primary Loser Kelli Ward.    

    But there are many Republicans who I could and would support.  For example, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey went to Trump rallies and voted for Trump.  But he was never a Trump sycophant.  I would have had no problem voting for Doug Ducey for the 2022 Senate race.  However because Ducey did his duty in certifying the Biden victory in 2020, Trump has turned on Ducey, and a Trump aligned Republican Convention censured Ducey, who the next day said that he would not be running for the 2022 Senate seat. 

    Idiots.  The state convention censured the two term governor who was the best bet to beat Mark Kelly in 2022.  What were they thinking?  I certainly am never going to vote for Trump sycophants like Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs and Kelli Ward for Senate in 2022.  I will vote against them in the primary and then in the general election.

    • #104
  15. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):
    The problems at NR started with the intolerance of Jason Steorts being made the philosophy of all NR. Mark Steyn reports.

    For heaven’s sake, that was eight years ago. And Steorts objected to a joke, not the column, which you’ll note is still up. And didn’t Trump himself – what’s the word – evolve on the same-sex marriage issue?

    Guess comments like Columba’s might harm the market for future cruises?

    Dan McLaughlin, who’s been part of the ‘soft’ #NeverTrumpers at NR, had an interestingly ambiguous post today that started off sounding like it was going to be another chastening of those who support Trump, but seemed to pivot midstream to the reality that the #NeverTrump crowd is in the minority in the GOP, and walking away from the party because of that is the wrong thing to do:

    Disagreement with one man should not mean abandoning the broader ties of party, forged by common principle.

    Beware, as Burke would, the counsel of despair: the argument that conservatives in American politics should abandon the only party in which they could have any effect, simply because the work is hard, the company sometimes uncomfortable or even hostile, and the attainment of goals frustratingly elusive. That lesson should be heeded by conservatives of every stripe, from classical liberals to populists, from religious conservatives to libertarians, from constitutionalists to free-marketers. We can respect those who mostly stand with us, even when they stand apart on occasion on their principles, or against ours. We are not angels, and are not made for the work of a world of angels. That means, in the long run: Choose a side.

    In contrast to this, the hardcore #NeverTrump crowd either still thinks they can purge the Trump supporters from the GOP and go back to telling everyone what to do, or they’re so embittered by their loss of influence, they want the total destruction of the Republican Party. That’s Bulwark/Lincoln Project land, and NR is nowhere near that territory.

    Oh now he tells us. 

    • #105
  16. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

     

    In contrast to this, the hardcore #NeverTrump crowd either still thinks they can purge the Trump supporters from the GOP and go back to telling everyone what to do, or they’re so embittered by their loss of influence, they want the total destruction of the Republican Party. That’s Bulwark/Lincoln Project land, and NR is nowhere near that territory.

    I generally agree, but I’m not sure that I buy the “nowhere” part. McLaughlin himself had a recent column in which the inflammatory title was actually changed, but the substance of which was that conservative=s are now free (free at last!) to express themselves in the absence of Trump. It veered seriously close to Bulwark land.

    Remember how Trump abridged their free speech for four years? What a monster. 

    • #106
  17. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

     

    In contrast to this, the hardcore #NeverTrump crowd either still thinks they can purge the Trump supporters from the GOP and go back to telling everyone what to do, or they’re so embittered by their loss of influence, they want the total destruction of the Republican Party. That’s Bulwark/Lincoln Project land, and NR is nowhere near that territory.

    I generally agree, but I’m not sure that I buy the “nowhere” part. McLaughlin himself had a recent column in which the inflammatory title was actually changed, but the substance of which was that conservative=s are now free (free at last!) to express themselves in the absence of Trump. It veered seriously close to Bulwark land.

    McLaughlin, like Lowery or Liz Cheney, overreacted to the idea that they might be able to keep Trump out of the 2024 field, and at least in the case of the two guys at NR, now seem to be having second thoughts, either based on self-awarness that they made a major mis-step by giving into their base feelings about Trump, or based strategically on where this would have to take them intellectually in the upcoming days (“Patrick Leahy is a perfectly legal substitute for John Roberts, and there’s no problem if he serves as both judge and juror!“).

    There’s no coming back from endorsing a Democratic Party show trial. In contrast, the Bulwark/Lincoln Project types would have no problems with that, and would follow it up with “And then lets impeach Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley!” as part of their salted earth plans for the GOP that rebuffed their brilliance for the cretinism of Donald Trump)

    Nah.  Impeachment of a sitting U.S. Senator is not possible under the constitution.  Recall of a sitting U.S. Senator is likewise not possible.  Unless there is a tape recording of them literally plotting with the rioters, the Senate will not be able to reach the 2/3 vote needed to expel U.S. Senator.  (The last Senator who was forced to resign was, I think, Bob Packwood of Oregon in 1999, who the Senate Ethics Committee had recommended expulsion.)  But neither Cruz nor Hawley will ever become President of the United States.  

    • #107
  18. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    I think that Liz Cheney will do fine.  She would make an excellent Secretary of Defense in any Non-Trump Republican Administration.  Liz Cheney is a very conservative person; the only twist with her is that she would not close her eyes to Trump’s involvement in the January 6th Trump Riots.  

    • #108
  19. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that Liz Cheney will do fine. She would make an excellent Secretary of Defense in any Non-Trump Republican Administration. Liz Cheney is a very conservative person; the only twist with her is that she would not close her eyes to Trump’s involvement in the January 6th Trump Riots.

    That and her loony speech justifying her betrayal of her fellow Republican congresspersons and her constituents.  

    • #109
  20. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    What will NeverTrumpers like me do with Trump out of office.  First, draw the line against him ever being elected again.

    Second, unlike the last two cycles where I contributed half of my money to Democrats, I have contributed only to Republicans this cycle, starting with the Brave 10 in the House, and the Senators, like Lisa Murkowski, who support conviction in the Senate.  (If any of them is defeated in their primary, I will likely give to the Democrats in those races.)

    Third, I will also be contributing to the Republican Accountability Project which is raising money to defend Representatives and Senators who have rejected Trump and are being attacked by him.  Here is a short paragraph about the Republican Accountability Project:

    Sarah Longwell, the executive director of the Republican Accountability Project, an anti-Trump group, said she and her colleagues planned to raise and spend $50 million to defend the 10 pro-impeachment House Republicans in primary contests and attack those who voted to object to the Electoral College results after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. She said the group would aim to defeat Mr. Jordan in an Ohio Senate primary if he runs against an establishment-minded Republican.  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/25/us/politics/trump-portman-ohio-sarah-sanders.html?fbclid=IwAR3IFbAERAfDJ_TGlG2-0mwsWCxnTj_OQ0FYOHV5fiEaXEY3m6LDn82HJfg

    I still haven’t given to The Lincoln Project since the fall, out of a respect for the strong views of my fellow Ricochetti.

    • #110
  21. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    What will NeverTrumpers like me do with Trump out of office. First, draw the line against him ever being elected again.

    Second, unlike the last two cycles where I contributed half of my money to Democrats, I have contributed only to Republicans this cycle, starting with the Brave 10 in the House, and the Senators, like Lisa Murkowski, who support conviction in the Senate. (If any of them is defeated in their primary, I will likely give to the Democrats in those races.)

    Third, I will also be contributing to the Republican Accountability Project which is raising money to defend Representatives and Senators who have rejected Trump and are being attacked by him.

    I still haven’t given to The Lincoln Project since the fall, out of a respect for the strong views of my fellow Ricochetti.

    This is an irrelevant comment.  For maximum irritation, I recommend making it into a post.  Then people will at least read the title.  Probably.

    • #111
  22. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that Liz Cheney will do fine. She would make an excellent Secretary of Defense in any Non-Trump Republican Administration. Liz Cheney is a very conservative person; the only twist with her is that she would not close her eyes to Trump’s involvement in the January 6th Trump Riots.

    That and her loony speech justifying her betrayal of her fellow Republican congresspersons and her constituents.

    Humm.  I looked for her “loony speech” on YouTube but could not find one from January 2021.  Here is her written statement:

    “On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic.

    Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

    I will vote to impeach the President.”

    Hoyacon, as a lawyer, you realize that the duty that a Representative or Senator has to their constituents is to exercise their own independent judgment.  See Federalist Number 10.  Therefore, inherently, Liz Cheney did not betray her constituents.  When there is a new copy of “Profiles in Courage” Liz Cheney very well may be in it.

    • #112
  23. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Jon1979 (View Comment):

     

    McLaughlin, like Lowery or Liz Cheney, overreacted to the idea that they might be able to keep Trump out of the 2024 field, and at least in the case of the two guys at NR, now seem to be having second thoughts, either based on self-awarness that they made a major mis-step by giving into their base feelings about Trump, or based strategically on where this would have to take them intellectually in the upcoming days (“Patrick Leahy is a perfectly legal substitute for John Roberts, and there’s no problem if he serves as both judge and juror!“).

    There’s no coming back from endorsing a Democratic Party show trial. In contrast, the Bulwark/Lincoln Project types would have no problems with that, and would follow it up with “And then lets impeach Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley!” as part of their salted earth plans for the GOP that rebuffed their brilliance for the cretinism of Donald Trump)

    Nah. Impeachment of a sitting U.S. Senator is not possible under the constitution. Recall of a sitting U.S. Senator is likewise not possible. Unless there is a tape recording of them literally plotting with the rioters, the Senate will not be able to reach the 2/3 vote needed to expel U.S. Senator. (The last Senator who was forced to resign was, I think, Bob Packwood of Oregon in 1999, who the Senate Ethics Committee had recommended expulsion.) But neither Cruz nor Hawley will ever become President of the United States.

    What’s legally possible and what’s viewed as rhetorically viable to mold public opinion and punish their enemies are two different things for The Lincoln Project types. Remember, they hate anyone who supported Trump so much, they’re not just trying to get Cruz and Hawley out of office (they both have terms through 2024), they’re also trying to mimic James Carville from 1999 and get Bibi Netanyahu bounced as Israeli prime minister.

     

    • #113
  24. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    But neither Cruz nor Hawley will ever become President of the United States.

    We should do our best to get Cruz elected, though. Never say never. 

    • #114
  25. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that Liz Cheney will do fine. She would make an excellent Secretary of Defense in any Non-Trump Republican Administration. Liz Cheney is a very conservative person; the only twist with her is that she would not close her eyes to Trump’s involvement in the January 6th Trump Riots.

    I’m not an expert on this type of thing, but a lot of people are really tired of the neocon stuff.

    • #115
  26. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that Liz Cheney will do fine. She would make an excellent Secretary of Defense in any Non-Trump Republican Administration. Liz Cheney is a very conservative person; the only twist with her is that she would not close her eyes to Trump’s involvement in the January 6th Trump Riots.

    That and her loony speech justifying her betrayal of her fellow Republican congresspersons and her constituents.

    Humm. I looked for her “loony speech” on YouTube but could not find one from January 2021. Here is her written statement:

    “On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic.

    Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

    I will vote to impeach the President.”

    Hoyacon, as a lawyer, you realize that the duty that a Representative or Senator has to their constituents is to exercise their own independent judgment. Therefore, inherently, Liz Cheney did not betray her constituents. When there is a new copy of “Profiles in Courage” Liz Cheney very well may be in it.

    I am not an expert on this, but I think the issue is she should have resigned her leadership position before she talked like that.

    • #116
  27. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I think that Liz Cheney will do fine. She would make an excellent Secretary of Defense in any Non-Trump Republican Administration. Liz Cheney is a very conservative person; the only twist with her is that she would not close her eyes to Trump’s involvement in the January 6th Trump Riots.

    That and her loony speech justifying her betrayal of her fellow Republican congresspersons and her constituents.

    Humm. I looked for her “loony speech” on YouTube but could not find one from January 2021. Here is her written statement:

    “On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic.

    Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

    I will vote to impeach the President.”

    Hoyacon, as a lawyer, you realize that the duty that a Representative or Senator has to their constituents is to exercise their own independent judgment. Therefore, inherently, Liz Cheney did not betray her constituents. When there is a new copy of “Profiles in Courage” Liz Cheney very well may be in it.

    My profession is irrelevant.  Anyone who understands the concept of representative government  should realize that someone in Congress has a duty to balance constituent wishes and personal preferences.  Cheney represents the most pro-Trump state in the country.  Against that backdrop, her personal preference for grandstanding is irrelevant.  It takes zero courage to say “I don’t care what you think, people of Wyoming,” zero courage to use one’s position as a House leader to completely ignore one’s colleagues, and zero courage to blow with the prevailing wind.   

     

    • #117
  28. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    She said the group would aim to defeat Mr. Jordan in an Ohio Senate primary if he runs against an establishment-minded Republican.

    Gary, since Portman is retiring I want you to give money to John Kasich for Senate.

    • #118
  29. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Second, unlike the last two cycles where I contributed half of my money to Democrats,

    Everything moves towards communism all of the time.

    • #119
  30. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

     

    This guy runs the supposedly civics-minded Never Trump types.

     

     

     

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.