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. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Liz Cheney, blah blah blah.

    What about the countries laughing at us because our recent elections don’t hold a candle to theirs, and wouldn’t even pass our own State Department’s standards for how honest and fair elections are to be conducted in other countries we’re involved with?

    Law is nothing without truth and  honesty, and “certifying” a bad election only makes it worse.

    • #121
  2. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Dear EJHill,

    It took me a nearly three hours to compose Comments 100, 107, 114, and 118 in response to your request in comment 96.  It was exhausting.  Looking at the responses, what I got was a bunch of sniping at me about math, and being strip-quoted [chided] by some special friends.  This was an interesting experiment, and I think that it shows the weakness of long-form responses.  I will interested to hear your response to my comments 100, 107, 114 and 118 to see if we can create a conversation out of this.

    Gary

    • #122
  3. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    @garyrobbins You keep speaking of “the great lie” as if you keep repeating that phrase, the 40% will believe you eventually.  And that’s your problem and Liz’s problem, too. Because it’s not a solution to anything.

    We’re spending money in this country like drunken sailors, but there is not a dollar that wouldn’t be better spent if an independent audit and investigation of the irregularities of the 2020 vote were to happen. Because with all the shenanigans of the last four years, of federal agencies lying to the FISA court, of federal officials colluding against a duly elected President, how do you convince these people the results were legit? By ignoring that main question with flowery speeches on what you believe future generations will say or do is just an unserious way of dealing with a very serious problem.

    The patient has a wound with arterial spray going everywhere  and you’re suggesting two aspirin and a look-see in the morning. That’s why nobody can take her (or you) seriously. The fraud may or not be real. All you have to do is support a legitimate effort to prove it. And when you don’t do that, when you’re seen as a roadblock, then you’re ratcheting the fears to 11 and beyond. It’s almost as if some people like the division and see it as their road to power.

    • #123
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    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.

     

    That’s not you quoting someone else.

    • #124
  5. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    EJHill (View Comment):

    @ garyrobbins You keep speaking of “the great lie” as if you keep repeating that phrase, the 40% will believe you eventually. And that’s your problem and Liz’s problem, too. Because it’s not a solution to anything.

    But was investigated.  Georgia was recounted twice.  No change.  AG Barr found not substantial fraud.  60+ lawsuits before 90+ judges.  I don’t believe there is always another crazy conspiracy theory of Trump’s (or Q-Anon) to run down like bamboo in Arizona ballots.

    We’re spending money in this country like drunken sailors, but there is not a dollar that wouldn’t be better spent if an independent audit and investigation of the irregularities of the 2020 vote were to happen.

    I fully agree that we are spending like drunken sailors.  But my point is that we already did that.  Georgia recounted twice.  AG Barr.  60+ lawsuits.  90+ judges.  Arizona State Senate.  

    Because with all the shenanigans of the last four years, of federal agencies lying to the FISA court, of federal officials colluding against a duly elected President, how do you convince these people the results were legit?

    I get this.  But those are federal agencies, and the elections were run by the 50 states and DC.  I see no evidence of fraud in the 50 states and DC.

    By ignoring that main question with flowery speeches on what you believe future generations will say or do is just an unserious way of dealing with a very serious problem.

    I think that the serious problem is that people are believing the Trump Big Lie.  I fear that the only way to knock that down is when Trump gets cross-examined in his upcoming trials.  

    The patient has a wound with arterial spray going everywhere and you’re suggesting two aspirin and a look-see in the morning.

    Pack the wound.  Now.  Get to the hospital.  But after you get a second, third and fourth opinion, maybe it is time to acknowledge that Trump has not made his case of election fraud.

    That’s why nobody can take her (or you) seriously.  The fraud may or not be real. All you have to do is support a legitimate effort to prove it. And when you don’t do that, when you’re seen as a roadblock, then you’re ratcheting it the fears to 11 and beyond. It’s almost as if some people like the division and see it as their road to power.

    If I didn’t think that the issue was fully investigated, it would be different.  Arizona Governor Doug Ducey is hated by Trump for certifying the election.  But what was he to do when the counts were all certified and there was no evidence of fraud.  Georgia’s Governor and Secretary of State are both Republicans and did their job.  There was a hand-recount and a machine recount.  And still they are hated by Trump.  Pence’s job was purely ministerial, and Trump hates on Pence for doing his job.  

    Thank you for commenting.  I will look forward to hearing from you again.

     

    • #125
  6. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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.

    That’s not you quoting someone else.

    You are right.  I was wrong.  I was typing quickly.  I will correct.

    I think that this is the first time I made that mistake after calling it the Capitol riot for some 50 times.  Thank you for your help.

    • #126
  7. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Let’s say I give you a million dollars – all in one dollar bills. But I tell you that there are counterfeits in there and if you spend any of those you’ll be arrested. How many times do you have to count them before you find the counterfeits?

    Of course, that’s a trick question. Because a recount is not an examination for fraud. It’s just counting. You could count them and recount them as many times as you like but it wouldn’t separate the legitimate from the criminal. Coming up with the same answer is not proof of anything.

    Nor is a dismal of a law suit. It’s a judgement of whether the court wants to hear the case. It’s not evidence of anything else. As Justice Thomas pointed out, if the courts had dealt with this when the rules were being rewritten by people without the authority to rewrite them, how much misery could we have avoided?

    Ultimately, this is my criticism: Cheney is not doing the country, her party or herself any good by the way she’s conducting herself. When she voted for impeachment she handily won a vote of confidence from the conference. But she couldn’t help herself. While the Democrats want to run roughshod over us she wants to continue to debate Trump. Well, there will plenty of time to do that before 2024. But she insists on the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong tactics. And that’s why she lost her position. And her past track record – her track record, not her father’s – didn’t give her the clout or the privilege of doing it her way.

    • #127
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    EJHill (View Comment):
    Let’s say I give you a million dollars – all in one dollar bills. But I tell you that there are counterfeits in there and if you spend any of those you’ll be arrested. How many times do you have to count them before you find the counterfeits?

    Of course, that’s a trick question. Because a recount is not an examination for fraud. It’s just counting. You could count them and recount them as many times as you like but it wouldn’t separate the legitimate from the criminal. Coming up with the same answer is not proof of anything.

    And, neither is “certifying.”

    Nor is a dismal of a law suit. It’s a judgement of whether the court wants to hear the case. It’s not evidence of anything else. As Justice Thomas pointed out, if the courts had dealt with this when the rules were being rewritten by people without the authority to rewrite them, how much misery could we have avoided?

    Ultimately, this is my criticism: Cheney is not doing the country, her party or herself any good by the way she’s conducting herself. When she voted for impeachment she handily won a vote of confidence from the conference. But she couldn’t help herself. While the Democrats want to run roughshod over us she wants to continue to debate Trump. Well, there will plenty of time to do that before 2024. But she insists on the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong tactics. And that’s why she lost her position. And her past track record – her track record, not her father’s – didn’t give her the clout or the privilege of doing it her way.

     

     

    • #128
  9. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Let’s say I give you a million dollars – all in one dollar bills. But I tell you that there are counterfeits in there and if you spend any of those you’ll be arrested. How many times do you have to count them before you find the counterfeits?

    How many counterfeit ballots have been found.  Anywhere? 

    I recall that under the Uniform Commercial Code, the rule with counterfeits is that whoever has the counterfeit is stuck with it.  If a bank takes in a counterfeit, they are stuck with it.  Whoever has with the counterfeit is stuck with it.  The benefit of this rule is that people are more careful before they receive money.  

    Of course, that’s a trick question. Because a recount is not an examination for fraud. It’s just counting. You could count them and recount them as many times as you like but it wouldn’t separate the legitimate from the criminal. Coming up with the same answer is not proof of anything.  

    But how many counterfeit ballot have been found?  I don’t remember any.  When people vote, there is a count of how many people voted.  How often in the 2020 election was there a different number of ballots and the number of people who voted?  I haven’t heard of any at all.  

    Nor is a dismal of a law suit. It’s a judgement of whether the court wants to hear the case.

    Clearly you aren’t a lawyer.  The judge can’t just say that he or she doesn’t want to hear the case.  It doesn’t work that way.  There is a Court Reporter and if a judge declared that he didn’t want to hear evidence, there would be a quick reversal.  

    It’s not evidence of anything else. As Justice Thomas pointed out, if the courts had dealt with this when the rules were being rewritten by people without the authority to rewrite them, how much misery could we have avoided?  

    Ultimately, this is my criticism: Cheney is not doing the country, her party or herself any good by the way she’s conducting herself.

    Cheney said that she didn’t believe Trump.  Trump kept lying.  The press asked politicians if Trump was lying and the Kevin McCarthy disappeared while Cheney said that she believed that Trump was lying.  The remedy is for Trump to stop lying, not for Cheney to stop telling the truth that Trump is lying.

    When she voted for impeachment she handily won a vote of confidence from the conference. But she couldn’t help herself.

    No, the problem is that Trump would not let it go and tell people what a great president he was, he kept insisting that the 1/6 riot that we all saw really wasn’t a riot.  Trump kept saying the Trump Big Lie.  People asked politicians.  They avoided.  Cheney simply told the truth.  But now Cheney has been unleashed.  Trump will lie.  Cheney will say that Trump is lying.  Other Republicans will be asked if Trump is lying or Cheney is lying.  They won’t be able to dodge anymore.  Too bad.  The remedy is for Trump to stop lying.

    While the Democrats want to run roughshod over us she wants to continue to debate Trump.

    We could have resolved this back in 2017.  When Trump struck out at Jeff Flake or Bob Corker, other members of the Senate should have spoken up.  When Mark Sanford had relatively mild criticisms of Trump’s spending, then the rest of the Republican Conference should have stood up for him.  

    Whenever Trump posted a stupid tweet, members of congress should have reacted.  Each time members of congress lied and said that they “hadn’t heard” of Trump’s tweet, they were letting him get away with stuff.

    When Trump made emergency declarations to shift money to build the wall which had not been appropriated, then that emboldened Trump.  When Congress did not enforce their subpoenas, they emboldened Trump.   

    Well, there will plenty of time to do that before 2024. But she insists on the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong tactics. And that’s why she lost her position. And her past track record – her track record, not her father’s – didn’t give her the clout or the privilege of doing it her way.

    She is a member of congress, and she has the right to say that Trump is lying whenever she is asked by the press.  The remedy is for Trump to stop lying. 

    • #129
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Clearly you aren’t a lawyer.  The judge can’t just say that he or she doesn’t want to hear the case.  It doesn’t work that way.  There is a Court Reporter and if a judge declared that he didn’t want to hear evidence, there would be a quick reversal.  

    Oh please.  They have code words, stuff like “no standing” before something bad happens, and “moot” after it happens.

    • #130
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    She is a member of congress, and she has the right to say that Trump is lying whenever she is asked by the press.  The remedy is for Trump to stop lying. 

    Also, the leadership has the remedy of removing her from leadership, and the voters have the remedy of removing her from office.

    • #131
  12. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    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.

    This. There is a strong case to be made and he is not making the right case. Zuckerberg and the Democrat law fair created huge bias and a staggering amount of ballots without any chain of custody.

    • #132
  13. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    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!   

    I knew you would like it. You think exactly like those guys. Anything you write up about it I would be pretty interested.

    I just thought of something. I don’t think they have a social media forum outside of Twitter.

    • #133
  14. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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?

    Ryan Gidursky seemed pretty good on Buck Sexton last night on this topic. The podcast is free. I think the actual MAGA policy expands the vote. The trick is to be more like Ron DeSantis in demeanor.

    • #134
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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?

    Ryan Gidursky seemed pretty good on Buck Sexton last night on this topic. The podcast is free. I think the actual MAGA policy expands the vote. The trick is to be more like Ron DeSantis in demeanor.

    It’s a start, but so much of what seemed to “sour” the more-money-than-sense vote was media lying about Trump’s policies and actions.  They’ll do the same with DeSantis or anyone else, so what brings them back?

    • #135
  16. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    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.  

    Can you ***for once*** say something about ***public policy*** along these lines? Why is Socialism and populism such an issue right now?

     

    • #136
  17. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    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.” 

    This isn’t really my bag, but when you look at what happened to Flynn, Carter page, etc. Zuckerberg, Perkins Coui I think the problem is much bigger than your Trump issue. 

    • #137
  18. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    EJHill (View Comment):

    @ garyrobbins You keep speaking of “the great lie” as if you keep repeating that phrase, the 40% will believe you eventually. And that’s your problem and Liz’s problem, too. Because it’s not a solution to anything.

    We’re spending money in this country like drunken sailors, but there is not a dollar that wouldn’t be better spent if an independent audit and investigation of the irregularities of the 2020 vote were to happen. Because with all the shenanigans of the last four years, of federal agencies lying to the FISA court, of federal officials colluding against a duly elected President, how do you convince these people the results were legit? By ignoring that main question with flowery speeches on what you believe future generations will say or do is just an unserious way of dealing with a very serious problem.

    The patient has a wound with arterial spray going everywhere and you’re suggesting two aspirin and a look-see in the morning. That’s why nobody can take her (or you) seriously. The fraud may or not be real. All you have to do is support a legitimate effort to prove it. And when you don’t do that, when you’re seen as a roadblock, then you’re ratcheting the fears to 11 and beyond. It’s almost as if some people like the division and see it as their road to power.

    Excellent.

    • #138
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    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.”

    This isn’t really my bag, but when you look at what happened to Flynn, Carter page, etc. Zuckerberg, Perkins Coui I think the problem is much bigger than your Trump issue.

    For all his talk about “rule of law” I don’t see many calls for those destroying evidence etc, to be sent to prison.

    • #139
  20. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Well, there will plenty of time to do that before 2024. But she insists on the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong tactics. And that’s why she lost her position. And her past track record – her track record, not her father’s – didn’t give her the clout or the privilege of doing it her way.

    She is a member of congress, and she has the right to say that Trump is lying whenever she is asked by the press.  The remedy is for Trump to stop lying. 

    She should have resigned from her leadership position first. She’s doing it the wrong way for personal gain.

    • #140
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    kedavis (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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?

    Ryan Gidursky seemed pretty good on Buck Sexton last night on this topic. The podcast is free. I think the actual MAGA policy expands the vote. The trick is to be more like Ron DeSantis in demeanor.

    It’s a start, but so much of what seemed to “sour” the more-money-than-sense vote was media lying about Trump’s policies and actions. They’ll do the same with DeSantis or anyone else, so what brings them back?

    100% true.

    • #141
  22. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    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!

    I knew you would like it. You think exactly like those guys. Anything you write up about it I would be pretty interested.

    I just thought of something. I don’t think they have a social media forum outside of Twitter.

    I don’t know.  

    • #142
  23. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    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.

    Can you ***for once*** say something about ***public policy*** along these lines? Why is Socialism and populism such an issue right now?

    I don’t like socialism or populism.  I like capitalism.  I frankly don’t know what you are looking for when you ask about “public policy”?

    • #143
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    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.

    Can you ***for once*** say something about ***public policy*** along these lines? Why is Socialism and populism such an issue right now?

    I don’t like socialism or populism. I like capitalism. I frankly don’t know what you are looking for when you ask about “public policy”?

    Put simply, socialism is government control of the people.  Populism is people in control of the government.  Why do you have a problem with that?

    • #144
  25. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Well, there will plenty of time to do that before 2024. But she insists on the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong tactics. And that’s why she lost her position. And her past track record – her track record, not her father’s – didn’t give her the clout or the privilege of doing it her way.

    She is a member of congress, and she has the right to say that Trump is lying whenever she is asked by the press. The remedy is for Trump to stop lying.

    She should have resigned from her leadership position first. She’s doing it the wrong way for personal gain.

    Lynn Cheney was elected as Conference Chair in 2018.  She won re-election in 2020.  She did not anticipate that an incumbent American President would create a riot on January 6th while she was in her second term as Conference Chairman.  Personal gain?  She has lost her leadership position, not for telling the truth after January 6th; even Kevin McCarthy told the truth after the 1/6 Capitol Riot.  The difference is that McCarthy lack testicular strength and caved to Trump thereafter, and Liz Cheney stayed the course.  That’s why I call her America’s Margaret Thatcher.  The lady’s not for turning.

    • #145
  26. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    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.

    Can you ***for once*** say something about ***public policy*** along these lines? Why is Socialism and populism such an issue right now?

    I don’t like socialism or populism. I like capitalism. I frankly don’t know what you are looking for when you ask about “public policy”?

    There are structural issues that are causing huge problems today. Either the government has to stop doing something, start doing something, or civic society has to start doing something. 

    This is why so many people want MAGA policy and are skeptical of the traditional GOP.

    • #146
  27. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    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!

    I knew you would like it. You think exactly like those guys. Anything you write up about it I would be pretty interested.

    I just thought of something. I don’t think they have a social media forum outside of Twitter.

    I don’t know.

    I don’t think they do anything outside of gathering membership and having their annual convention. The management / board of directors list is totally secret except for Mayo.

    Mayo had a bunch of tweets about how they operate, yesterday. They got $90,000 from somewhere to start, but now they don’t take in or spend much money on anything.

    • #147
  28. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    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.

    Can you ***for once*** say something about ***public policy*** along these lines? Why is Socialism and populism such an issue right now?

    I don’t like socialism or populism. I like capitalism. I frankly don’t know what you are looking for when you ask about “public policy”?

    Put simply, socialism is government control of the people. Populism is people in control of the government. Why do you have a problem with that?

    I don’t buy that distinction at all.  I see Populism as being too doggone close to Socialism.

    • #148
  29. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Personal gain?  She has lost her leadership position,

    She’s making a great big scene to get a MSNBC contract or something like that. I mean that broadly. 

    • #149
  30. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    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.

    Can you ***for once*** say something about ***public policy*** along these lines? Why is Socialism and populism such an issue right now?

    I don’t like socialism or populism. I like capitalism. I frankly don’t know what you are looking for when you ask about “public policy”?

    Put simply, socialism is government control of the people. Populism is people in control of the government. Why do you have a problem with that?

    I don’t buy that distinction at all. I see Populism as being too doggone close to Socialism.

    If you keep supporting what you are supporting you are going to get one or the other good and hard.

    • #150
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.