Cheney: Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong Tactics

 

Wrong War. Wrong Time. Wrong Tactics. I think that’s emblazoned on the Cheney Family Coat of Arms. No one needs more evidence of that than the drama that has just played out in the House GOP Conference. But I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury her.

Liz Cheney may be a book-smart woman. But she and her supporters have been awfully stupid since January. Maybe that comes with believing that power is your birthright and not something to be earned from the people you are supposed to represent. Liz Perry – she’s been Mrs. Philip Perry for 28 years now – clings to her father’s name like a hereditary title. It is the source of her power. She was made the Chair of the House Republican Conference in January 2019 despite the fact that she had only been in the House for a single term. In her four years in the House, she has never proposed legislation that had been signed into law. So, the Cheney name is all she really has.

But who needs personal accomplishments? She went straight from college into a job at the State Department. (Who doesn’t?) Then came law school and a high-profile lobbying job with the “consulting” firm led by Richard Armitage. With her father’s election as Vice President, it was back to State. In other words, she took all the obvious career paths that most of her Wyoming constituents take.

And now, she has become a “hero” to the Left and the disgruntled establishment for fighting an internecine war with her party and her constituency. Because of her name recognition, she is one of those politicians who has never really had to engage in retail politics – climbing the greasy pole from local office to local office, working your way to state government, before trying the national stage – and all while building coalitions and creating political capital. Like so many others before her, the smartest person in the room also becomes the dumbest.

What Liz and her supporters cannot seem to come to grips with (or by nature they are oblivious to) are these basic facts:

  1. You may win future elections without Donald Trump but you will not win them without his supporters. His constituents are your constituents. A mainstay argument of the anti-Trump crowd is the former President’s “underperformance” compared to the GOP House and Senate candidates. Even if that’s true, the proportion of voters that supported both greatly outweighs the difference. And for someone like Cheney, she underperformed Trump by some 8,000 votes.
  2. Whether you’re a politician or a pundit, the near-universal response to the allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election has been stupid. Not just stupid, but mind-numbing levels of stupid. A working democracy depends upon a mountain of faith that the process is on the up-and-up. If 40 percent of the American public believes the 2020 elections were fraudulent, that is not a Donald Trump problem. That is an existential problem for the Republic and therefore it is your problem. The proper response should have been, “We know that there are doubts and we are going to do everything we can to allay these fears.” Instead we got, “You people are stupid. Shut the hell* up and go away.” Unfortunately, that toothpaste can’t go back in the tube. Donald Trump may fade away but the result of the glee so many take in attacking his supporters will not.
  3. We all know the phrase, “The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.” It’s mainly used as an argument on race relations and the “dumbing down” of standards. But it applies everywhere. How you treat people will eventually alter their trajectory. If you constantly accuse someone falsely of bad conduct, if you prosecute them for your own political gain, they will eventually take the attitude that they will live down to the accusations. I mean, if you’re going to do the time, why not actually do the crime? And so it is with January 6. There were six deaths surrounding the events of that day, five of them medically induced. The only unnatural death was that of Ashley Babbitt at the hands of a Capitol Hill Police officer. However, if the politicians and the pundits continue their accusations of “armed insurrection,” they will eventually get one. They may see it as an opportunity to finally “deal” with Trump supporters, but that is a beast that, once unleashed, may not be as easy to control as they think. The second American Civil War would not look like the first one. Forget Gettysburg, think Beirut. And Northern Ireland. And Syria. And this crusade SecDef Austin is waging against his own troops is the epitome of stupid. When the shooting starts, loyalty is not going to be decided by a uniform.

Originally, Liz Cheney moved to Wyoming to claim her hereditary title in the US Senate. Her plan in 2014 was to stab another Republican – incumbent Senator Mike Enzi – in the back. (Anyone sense a pattern here?) When it became obvious that she on course for an embarrassing spanking in the primary she backed off and settled for the state’s at-large House seat two years later. Now, she is reduced to being one ineffectual vote among the minority. Maybe Joe Biden will reward her loyalty with a return trip to the State Department as US Ambassador to Iraq.

*Not the word I wanted to use.

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 269 comments.

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

    Gary Robbins: Ricochet is a conversation, not a cross-examination. 

    Nor is it a pulpit. They only one failing to converse here is you. I ask questions, you answer them, you ask questions, I answer them. That’s how conversations work. You are not interested in that. You want to preach like closing statements to the jury.

    Gary Robbins: It is inappropriate to refer to Liz Cheney as Mrs. Perry.  Many women keep their maiden names.  She is entitled to do so, and is entitled to have you respect her choice.  

    Why is the truth inappropriate? I thought you were all about “truthiness.” And no elected official gets to demand anything from me not directly tied to the power of their office. But speaking of disrespect, did Leader McConnell give you permission to call him “Cocaine Mitch?” 

    • #91
  2. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins: Ricochet is a conversation, not a cross-examination.

    Nor is it a pulpit. They only one failing to converse here is you. I ask questions, you answer them, you ask questions, I answer them. That’s how conversations work. You are not interested in that. You want to preach like closing statements to the jury.

    Let’s start over.  Please ask me a question.

    Gary Robbins: It is inappropriate to refer to Liz Cheney as Mrs. Perry. Many women keep their maiden names. She is entitled to do so, and is entitled to have you respect her choice.

    Why is the truth inappropriate? I thought you were all about “truthiness.” And no elected official gets to demand anything from me not directly tied to the power of their office. But speaking of disrespect, did Leader McConnell give you permission to call him “Cocaine Mitch?”

    I understand that Mitch found it to be funny, and raised $70,000 selling t-shirts with the Cocaine Mitch theme.  https://time.com/5593273/cocaine-mitch-shirts/

     

    • #92
  3. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    If not for Daddy, we wouldn’t know who she is.

    • #93
  4. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Gary Robbins: I understand that Mitch found it to be funny, and raised $70,000 selling t-shirts with the Cocaine Mitch theme. 

    Well, you call Mrs. Perry and see if she objects. And if she does, you have her call me. That way I will get to tell her what I think of her personally. And I will still call her Mrs. Perry, a women of no accomplishment who has milked her father’s name for everything that it’s worth.

    • #94
  5. DrewInTherapy Member
    DrewInTherapy
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DrewInTherapy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    I see that this post has been elevated to the Main Feed. I will try to respond more fulsomely.

    Hmm. If I were EJ, I’d remove it from the Main Feed so that you aren’t given the wider audience.

    That is his prerogative. All he has to do is alter one word of his original post, and boom, it goes back to the Member Feed.

    Yes. I know. I’ve done it when you ruined one of my Main Feed posts.

    • #95
  6. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Gary Robbins: Let’s start over.  Please ask me a question.

    What do specifically object to in the three enumerated points in the original post?

    • #96
  7. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins: I disagree.

    Shock. Which of the three major points of the piece do you disagree with, counselor? That you’re in such a substantial majority that you can win elections without Trump supporters? Or that being a bunch of arrogant asses is preferable to acknowledging and assuaging doubt? Or that people will not eventually live down to your opinion of them?

    Posting Mrs. Perry’s remarks is not an argument or a coherent rebuttal.

    Put simply, Liz Cheney right now is the most direct path to restoring the Party of Reagan.

    Non-responsive. EJ asked you a direct question. Three of them in fact. I’ll just ask one.

    Can Republicans win elections without Trump supporters, yes or no?

    Likely not. However, Liz Cheney was a Trump supporter in the 2016 and 2020 election and she opposed the first impeachment. It was Trump’s Big Lie and then the 1/6 riot that caused her to break with Trump. While I am a NT, as in Never Trumper, Liz Cheney and a bunch of other Republicans are NAT’s, or “Never Again Trumpers.”

    Gary, I appreciate the straightforward answer. I don’t agree with your comment about “the big lie,” but that’s a topic for a different post. The question in my mind is how to move forward without losing supporters of DJT. I don’t think it’s by constantly saying they were duped or other such things. Probably the best way is to ignore what DJT says/said and to move forward with his policies. And fight the Dems at every turn.

    That’s just my opinion. YMMV.

    • #97
  8. DrewInTherapy Member
    DrewInTherapy
    @DrewInWisconsin

    • #98
  9. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins: Put simply, Liz Cheney right now is the most direct path to restoring the Party of Reagan.

    No she’s not. Because she’s not interested in that in the slightest. Not one person in your orbit of admiration is interested in Reagan.

    Counselor, you have to answer the questions. Evasion is not allowed. You can’t change the reality by ignoring it. This is not a situation where you can make a hit-and-run appeal to authority. Because Mrs. Perry has no authority. She is not respected and her opinions to not carry the weight you believe they do.

    If I am wrong, and you believe that I am, deal with the substance of each and every one of those arguments. You can ignore me all you want on your posts. But when you post in mine, have the decency to deal with the issues at hand in your own words.

    Ricochet is a conversation, not a cross-examination.

    Your ratio of points thrown out versus what you are willing to actually debate and support in discussion is terrible. Nobody is even close.

    For better or worse, I am an apostate, as I do not agree with the overwhelming majority of others at Ricochet. That tends to spark a bunch of people demanding that I answer this or that question. I decline to play “squirrel” and to run down each and every question. I am sorry if that disappoints you, but that is the way that it is.

    Also, RufusRJones, I want to thank you for referring me to “Principles First.” I joined their “Rally for Liz” yesterday with 450 other people on a Zoom call. It was great!

    You continually make accusations and when they are decisively refuted, you continue to assert them. Enough said.

    • #99
  10. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    I am going to take them one at a time:

    1. You may win future elections without Donald Trump but you will not win them without his supporters. His constituents are your constituents. A mainstay argument of the anti-Trump crowd is the former President’s “underperformance” compared to the GOP House and Senate candidates. Even if that’s true, the proportion of voters that supported both greatly outweighs the difference. And for someone like Cheney, she underperformed Trump by some 8,000 votes.

    True.  To a point.  The problem with Trump is that he drove away a bunch of reliable Republican voters among women, the young, the suburbs and the better educated.  We gained some voters, especially in rural, but Biden gained many more voters in the suburbs.  A bunch of Republicans vote for the party every election, election after election.  They voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney, but with Trump many of these tried and true Republicans would not vote for Trump.  Reagan had the genius to add Reagan Democrats, Biden has a bunch of Biden Republicans.  Yes, to win in the future, most of the voters for Trump would be needed for the next Republican to win.  We also need to peel away the Biden Democrats just as Bill Clinton peeled away the Reagan Democrats by portraying himself as a more moderate Democrat.  See “safe, legal and rare” and Clinton’s sister souljah moment.  Perhaps Cheney could win back Biden Democrats by breaking sharply with the 1/6 riot.  [Editor correction]

    You are using fuzzy math as to your claim that Cheney underperformed Trump by some 8,000 votes.  Trump had 193,559 votes, Biden had 73,491, for a 120,068 difference.  Cheney had 185,732 votes, and the Democrat had 66,576 votes for a 119,156 difference.  So, Trump, who was running for President had only a 912 vote larger difference than Cheney.  That’s pretty nominal.

    • #100
  11. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I am going to take them one at a time:

    1. You may win future elections without Donald Trump but you will not win them without his supporters. His constituents are your constituents. A mainstay argument of the anti-Trump crowd is the former President’s “underperformance” compared to the GOP House and Senate candidates. Even if that’s true, the proportion of voters that supported both greatly outweighs the difference. And for someone like Cheney, she underperformed Trump by some 8,000 votes.

    True. To a point. The problem with Trump is that he drove away a bunch of reliable Republican voters among women, the young, the suburbs and the better educated. We gained some voters, especially in rural, but Biden gained many more voters in the suburbs. A bunch of Republicans vote for the party every election, election after election. They voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney, but with Trump many of these tried and true Republicans would not vote for Trump. Reagan had the genius to add Reagan Democrats, Biden has a bunch of Biden Republicans. Yes, to win in the future, most of the voters for Trump would be needed for the next Republican to win. We also need to peel away the Biden Democrats just as Bill Clinton peeled away the Reagan Democrats by portraying himself as a more moderate Democrat. See “safe, legal and rare” and Clinton’s sister souljah moment. Perhaps Cheney could win back Biden Democrats by breaking sharply with the 1/6 insurrection.

    You are using fuzzy math as to your claim that Cheney underperformed Trump by some 8,000 votes. Trump had 193,559 votes, Biden had 73,491, for a 120,068 difference. Cheney had 185,732 votes, and the Democrat had 66,576 votes for a 119,156 difference. So, Trump, who was running for President had only a 912 vote larger difference than Cheney. That’s pretty nominal.

    Math challenged. 193,559 is greater than 185,732. 

    • #101
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    insurrection

    I remember when you said you wouldn’t use that term any more.

    • #102
  13. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Gary Robbins: You are using fuzzy math as to your claim that Cheney underperformed Trump by some 8,000 votes.

    Nothing fuzzy about it. Trump and Cheney were on every single ballot together as the entire state is a single House district. He got 8,000 more votes than she did. The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats means absolutely nothing.

    • #103
  14. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
      A bunch of Republicans vote for the party every election, election after election.  They voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney, but with Trump many of these tried and true Republicans would not vote for Trump.

    And I was one of them, although I didn’t vote for Romney or McCain. I wanted Romney in 2008 ( he fooled me) but McCain didn’t fool me. By 2012, I was souring on the whole GOP  especially after the Tea Party rejection. I haven’t voted for a Democrat since Bill Bradley ran for the Senate in NJ.( I saw him play basketball. I was a low info voter back then. ) But will I vote for whoever comes next in 2024? It depends.

    If I smell a rat, I will abstain. There are millions like me. It’s a distinct trend. You don’t need Frank Luntz to tell you that.

    It isn’t as simple as you postulate – that a given candidate can win suburban women and keep the millions Trump brought in or, like me, brought back

    • #104
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Franco (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    A bunch of Republicans vote for the party every election, election after election. They voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney, but with Trump many of these tried and true Republicans would not vote for Trump.

    And I was one of them, although I didn’t vote for Romney or McCain. I wanted Romney in 2008 ( he fooled me) but McCain didn’t fool me. By 2012, I was souring on the whole GOP especially after the Tea Party rejection. I haven’t voted for a Democrat since Bill Bradley ran for the Senate in NJ.( I saw him play basketball. I was a low info voter back then. ) But will I vote for whoever comes next in 2024? It depends.

    If I smell a rat, I will abstain. There are millions like me. It’s a distinct trend. You don’t need Frank Luntz to tell you that.

    It isn’t as simple as you postulate – that a given candidate can win suburban women and keep the millions Trump brought in or, like me, brought back

    The proof would seem to be in the pudding:  Trump got more votes in 2020 than in 2016, even allowing for possible machinations where Trump votes didn’t counts as whole votes.  How much of that expansion of the base – which so many claim didn’t happen at all – might be lost if the next GOP candidate goes back to pandering to people with more money than sense?

    • #105
  16. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

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

    Question 2.  I have twice started my answer and then lost it, the second time after a half hour of writing, so I will be more brief.

    1. Whether you’re a politician or a pundit, the near-universal response to the allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election has been stupid. Not just stupid, but mind-numbing levels of stupid. A working democracy depends upon a mountain of faith that the process is on the up-and-up. If 40 percent of the American public believes the 2020 elections were fraudulent, that is not a Donald Trump problem. That is an existential problem for the Republic and therefore it is your problem. The proper response should have been, “We know that there are doubts and we are going to do everything we can to allay these fears.” Instead we got, “You people are stupid. Shut the hell* up and go away.” Unfortunately, that toothpaste can’t go back in the tube. Donald Trump may fade away but the result of the glee so many take in attacking his supporters will not.

    I don’t so much think that people who believe that there was fraud are “stupid.”  I believe that they have intentionally be lied to over and over again.  My sainted mother doesn’t know who to believe and she is a Registered Nurse.  This is a huge problem.  People have been lied to over and over again.  There have been 60+ lawsuits before 90+ judges and not a single vote was changed.  A.G. William Barr said that the Department of Justice could find no fraud.  In Georgia, there was both a hand recount and a machine recount that changed nothing.  So the issue has been litigated into the ground.  I don’t think that people are stupid, I think that it is time to hold the liars accountable:

    Shame on Trump for the Trump Big Lie, and on members of my party who won’t call him on the Trump Big Lie.

    Shame on the Republican AG’s and the members of congress who signed on to the Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit.  

    Shame on the 139 Representatives and 8 Senators who voted to not confirm the Electoral College Votes.  

    Shame on the lawyers who spread the Trump Big Lie; I hope that they are all disciplined by their bar associations for filing b.s. with the court. 

    Shame on the Arizona State Senate and State Senate President Karen Fann. 

    Nixon had the decency to go away.  Trump lacks that basic love of country.   

    _____________________________

    Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954.  In February and March of 1956, a document commonly called the “Southern Manifesto” was signed by 19 Senators and 82 Representatives in opposition to “forced racial integration,” calling Brown “a clear abuse of judicial power,” and pledging to use “all lawful means” to have it be reversed.  The signers included all of delegations of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, most of the members of Florida and North Carolina, and several members of Tennessee and Texas. 

    This was a shameful period in our country’s history.  These members of Congress bore a stain as people who had signed the Southern Manifesto, just as members of the Senate bore a stain who did not vote to censure Joe McCarthy.  The signers of The Southern Manifesto have that noted in their obituaries.  There were a few members from the South who did not sign “The Southern Manifesto.”  History has been kind to them for standing up to popular sentiment.  They included Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, and future Speaker Jim Wright.

    I believe that someday, the Republican AG’s and the members of congress who signed on to the Trump Big Lie will be held accountable, and that their memory will be scorned like the members of congress who signed the Southern Manifesto who gravely injured our country.  Shame on them.

    • #107
  18. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    I haven’t read the comments yet but I just want to say this first: I like to bring “the best of the web” on any topic to the Member Feed when I find it out there, in this case it was already here.

    Excellent.

    • #108
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Just to clear up one point:  my benighted mother is also a Registered Nurse.  Color me unimpressed.  Of course there are specialties requiring a great deal of skill and knowledge, and the kindness and other attributes are priceless.  But I learned a long time ago that a Registered Nurse doesn’t have to be a mental powerhouse.

    • #109
  20. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    EJHill: That is an existential problem for the Republic and therefore it is your problem.

    For the record, that may very well be the first proper use of that term on Ricochet since 2016.

    • #110
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    philo (View Comment):

    EJHill: That is an existential problem for the Republic and therefore it is your problem.

    For the record, that may very well be the first proper use of that term on Ricochet since 2016.

    Sounds like ad copy:  “Ricochet.com: occasionally using the word ‘existential’ correctly, since 2021!”

    • #111
  22. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    There have been 60+ lawsuits before 90+ judges and not a single vote was changed. 

    FWIW, most of those suits were tossed on standing and other technical issues. Very few, if any, proceeded to the presentation of evidence for OR against.

    One thing that is true is that many changes were made to the election laws and procedures by State Courts or members of the State Executive, not by the State Legislatures as required by the Constitution. I personally think this is much more problematic than anything else.

    But that’s all in the past.

     

    • #112
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    There have been 60+ lawsuits before 90+ judges and not a single vote was changed.

    FWIW, most of those suits were tossed on standing and other technical issues. Very few, if any, proceeded to the presentation of evidence for OR against.

    One thing that is true is that many changes were made to the election laws and procedures by State Courts or members of the State Executive, not by the State Legislatures as required by the Constitution. I personally think this is much more problematic than anything else.

    But that’s all in the past.

     

    At least for SOME people…  :-)

    • #113
  24. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Question 3 is as follows:

    1. We all know the phrase, “The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.” It’s mainly used as an argument on race relations and the “dumbing down” of standards. But it applies everywhere. How you treat people will eventually alter their trajectory. If you constantly accuse someone falsely of bad conduct, if you prosecute them for your own political gain, they will eventually take the attitude that they will live down to the accusations. I mean, if you’re going to do the time, why not actually do the crime? And so it is with January 6. There were six deaths surrounding the events of that day, five of them medically induced. The only unnatural death was that of Ashley Babbitt at the hands of a Capitol Hill Police officer. However, if the politicians and the pundits continue their accusations of “armed insurrection,” they will eventually get one. They may see it as an opportunity to finally “deal” with Trump supporters, but that is a beast that, once unleashed, may not be as easy to control as they think. The second American Civil War would not look like the first one. Forget Gettysburg, think Beirut. And Northern Ireland. And Syria. And this crusade SecDef Austin is waging against his own troops is the epitome of stupid. When the shooting starts, loyalty is not going to be decided by a uniform.

    First, the last time the Capitol was over-run was in the War of 1812.  Yes, bombs have gone off and people were shot in the House Gallery, but the last time the Capitol was over-run was in 1812.

    Second, Ashley Babbitt was trying to make a forced entry into a secured space.  I have little sympathy for her and great sympathy for law enforcement members who were injured.

    Third, I am greatly concerned about our country falling apart.  I recommend David French’s book “Divided We Fall” which outlines a less violent and a more violent division of our country.  

    Fourth, imagine this scenario.  Trump runs in 2024.  He loses by 10 million votes, but the electoral college is closer due to population shifts.  Trump loses by 293-245 electoral college votes.  Arizona has 11 electoral college votes.  Georgia has 16 electoral college votes.  As in 2020, Trump loses Arizona by .3% and Georgia by .2%.  The elections are certified.  But the Arizona and Georgia Legislatures both vote to overturn the election results.  If so, Trump wins by 272-266 electoral college votes.  The Republicans have bare majorities in the House and Senate.  They confirm the votes of the Legislatures and not the people of those states.  What would happen then?  Would I take up arms?  I don’t know.  Would I refuse to pay my taxes?  More likely.  Would lots and lots of people withhold their taxes?  Probably so.  What happens if our creditors call their loans?  We are greatly blessed by being a continental country.  What happens if the three West Coast States of California, Oregon and Washington secede?  The United States is worth far more as a united country than the sum of its parts.  Trump is playing with dynamite.  Do I think that after the Trump Big Lie he would be willing to take a chance on destroying this country to “win” himself?  Yes I do.  

    • #114
  25. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    insurrection

    I remember when you said you wouldn’t use that term any more.

    And I remember when he reluctantly swore off “Charlottesville”…for about three minutes.

    • #115
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Fourth, imagine this scenario. Trump runs in 2024. He loses by 10 million votes, but the electoral college is closer due to population shifts. Trump loses by 293-245 electoral college votes. Arizona has 11 electoral college votes. Georgia has 16 electoral college votes. As in 2020, Trump loses Arizona by .3% and Georgia by .2%. The elections are certified. But the Arizona and Georgia Legislatures both vote to overturn the election results. If so, Trump wins by 272-266 electoral college votes. The Republicans have bare majorities in the House and Senate. They confirm the votes of the Legislatures and not the people of those states. What would happen then? Would I take up arms? I don’t know. Would I refuse to pay my taxes? More likely. Would lots and lots of people withhold their taxes? Probably so. What happens if our creditors call their loans? We are greatly blessed by being a continental country. What happens if the three West Coast States of California, Oregon and Washington secede? The United States is worth far more as a united country than the sum of its parts. Trump is playing with dynamite. Do I think that after the Trump Big Lie he would be willing to take a chance on destroying this country to “win” himself? Yes I do.

    Why assume that something like that would happen, absent evidence of election fraud?

    As I’ve posted earlier/elsewhere, I could accept an HONEST Biden victory, because I’m quite content with people getting what they think they want, and vote for, good and hard.  But the 2020 election stinks to high heaven, and being “certified” doesn’t really settle anything, it’s just a legal formality.

    Oh, and if you think the capitol was “overrun” on Jan 6, especially anything like 1812, well….

    • #116
  27. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    First, the last time the Capitol was over-run was in the War of 1812.  Yes, bombs have gone off and people were shot in the House Gallery, but the last time the Capitol was over-run was in 1812.

    That was also the last time it happened. 

    • #117
  28. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Conclusion.

    Everybody has the issue that is the most important to them.

    Some of my deeply and profoundly Catholic Pro Life friends say that that if the most important issue for them.

    Some of my friends in the very rural parts of our country believe that the Second Amendment is the most important issue for them.

    The country club set want a thriving economy, and to heck with social issues.

    Many people want a strong national defense.

    All of those are important.  But they are not fundamental to me.  What is important to me is The Rule of Law.  That is more fundamental to me than being Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Pro-Business or being Pro-Defense.  Liz Cheney said “I am a conservative Republican, and the most conservative of conservative principles is reverence for the rule of law.”  That is the hill that I am willing to die on.  That is why Liz Cheney was speaking to me last night when she said after relating how she had seen elections and democracy in other countries:

    “God has blessed America, Mr. Speaker, but our freedom only survives if we protect it. If we honor our oath taken before God in this chamber to support and defend the Constitution if we recognize threats to freedom when they arise. 

    “Today we face a threat America has never seen before. A former president, who provoked a violent attack on this capital in an effort to steal the election, has resumed his aggressive effort to convince Americans that the election was stolen from him. He risks inciting further violence. Millions of Americans have been misled by the former president, they have heard only his words, but not the truth. As he continues to undermine our democratic process, sowing seeds of doubt about whether democracy really works at all.

    I am a conservative Republican, and the most conservative of conservative principles is reverence for the rule of law.

    “The Electoral College has voted. More than 60 state and federal courts, including multiple judges the former president appointed, have rejected his claims. The Trump Department of Justice investigated the former president’s claims of widespread fraud and found no evidence to support them. The election is over. That is the rule of law. That is our constitutional process. Those who refuse to accept the rulings of our courts are at war with the Constitution. Our duty is clear. Every one of us who has sworn the oath must act to prevent the unraveling of our democracy.

    “This is not about policy. This is not about partisanship. This is about our duty as Americans. Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar. I will not participate in that. I will not sit back and watch in silence, while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the former president’s crusade to undermine our democracy.

    “As the party of Reagan, Republicans have championed democracy, won the Cold War, and defeated the Soviet communists. Today, America is on the cusp of another Cold War, this time with Communist China. Attacks against our democratic process and the rule of law empower our adversaries and feed Communist propaganda that American democracy is a failure. We must speak the truth, our election was not stolen, and America has not failed.

    “I received a message last week from a Gold Star father who said said standing up for the truth honors all who gave all. We must all strive to be worthy of the sacrifice of those who have died for our freedom. They are the patriots Katharine Lee Bates described in the words of ‘America the Beautiful’ when she wrote ‘Oh beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self, their country loved, and mercy, more than life’.

    “Ultimately, Mr. Speaker. This is at the heart of what our oath requires, that we love our country more. That we love her so much that we will stand above politics to defend her. That we will do everything in our power to protect our Constitution and our freedom that has been paid for by the blood of so many. We must love America so much that we will never yield in her defense. That is our duty.”

    • #118
  29. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    insurrection

    I remember when you said you wouldn’t use that term any more.

    I didn’t say it, I don’t believe.  I believe I was quoting someone else.

    • #119
  30. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins: You are using fuzzy math as to your claim that Cheney underperformed Trump by some 8,000 votes.

    Nothing fuzzy about it. Trump and Cheney were on every single ballot together as the entire state is a single House district. He got 8,000 more votes than she did. The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats means absolutely nothing.

    In every single election, the Presidential Race gets the absolutely greatest number of votes.  The next race, Governor or Senator gets the second most number of votes.  Finally, when you get down to dogcatcher, lots of people simply don’t vote.  

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