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.
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
I’m not against Cruz and Hawley, but right now Rand Paul seems to be handling the situation more deftly.
I thought there were four to begin with, but only two were politically active . . .
See Federalist Number 10. A representative owes to their constituents their good judgment, not their reflexive vote. Cheney is firmly doing the right thing. There may be a huge consequence of not being re-elected, but until then Cheney is a free agent to follow her judgment. This is foundational to the structure of our Republic, on the order of the non-violent transfer of power every year since the Constitution was ratified.
Why am I not surprised that you are ignoring my points? What about “balancing” (my word) is reflexive? Part of good judgement is recognizing when a personal desire for camera FaceTime conflicts with the wishes of the vast majority (not some) of one’s constituents, causing the balance to tilt to the will of the people one represents.
Throw in betraying her leadership position as #3 in the House without even bothering to discuss this with colleagues and we begin to see how self-serving Cheney’s desire to go with the wind favoring impeachment is.
See Federalist Number 10. Ultimately, Cheney only owes her good judgement to the people of Wyoming. She is not a robot who must conform to poll numbers.
You have a point here. But the Republication Party in the House and Senate deemed this to be a vote of conscience and to not whip the vote. She may loss her #3 leadership position. On the other hand, the Republican Party may also lose its chance to win control over the House in 2022 if they become the Trump Party, despite Trump losing by 7 million votes, and then ignoring the will of the national electorate.
You are simply repeating yourself and ignoring what I wrote in response. I’ve seen this movie before. I’m done.
I’m OK with that as long as her constituents kick her out of office for good.
I just heard Mark Steyn say that a recent poll says that if there is a third party, the current GOPe is the “third” party, being less popular than the other two.
That is a big problem these days.
Did you happen to hear Carlson’s discussion of HR1? If it passes, the GOPe will never win another national election. Trump would have vetoed it. ’nuff said.
Gary never gets into the dynamics of anything like this or even public policy and economics except in the most general sense. This didn’t matter 30 years ago.
It does today?
That’s my whole point. Of course it does.
People like Gary think the structure of society and the economy and the government are the same as they were 40 years ago. Same thing with the Democrat party. It’s not like that.
That was what I thought you meant. And, yes, the NTs live in a dream world. Or they follow “reporters” such as Major Garrett. 60 Minutes was not broadcast on the local CBS radio outlet, so they broadcast Garrett’s podcast instead. It was on as background noise when I heard him talk about Trump inciting violence. The same sort of nonsense I hear from Gary. If you heard Trump’s speech he said that the crowd would peacefully demonstrate after walking to the capitol building. Garrett cut off Trump’s words so that peacefully was not heard. It’s call lying-by-editing. Just the sort of thing one expects from CNN/PBS/NPR/MSNBC …
I’d vote for him if he’s the nominee. Or Ted, if he’s the nominee. I’d even vote for either to become the nominee.
Same here.
I HAVE voted for Ted Cruz to be the nominee.
But it’s particularly compelling to watch Rand Paul speak about leftist incitement to violence since he has personally been mobbed, waylayed (lost a piece of lung), and shot at.
Rested,Tested and Ready for battle?!
This guy?!
There was an interview with that loser where the subject of what he had wanted to achieve came up. Most politicians would have mentioned some legislative achievement. Or even preventing the passage of some disastrous piece of legislation. Boner is at least honest. All he said he ever wanted was to occupy the most powerful position he could. Since the presidency was not a viable option, he “settled” for Speaker of the House. Think about it. He personifies the GOPe. All they want is the trappings of office. They don’t see anything that needed to be fixed. They just want to be in charge, and they wonder why we hold them and the party in contempt.
From the Bad Orange Man to the Worse Orange Man.
Isn’t Boehner supposed to be back in Ohio hawking weed?
The Fedralist papers are not laws. They may be the intent, but things have long changed. Cheney should be ousted . . .