We are the drain the swamp people

Regarding Supervisor Ken “Karen” Croken’s on-camera demeanor in the referenced Scott County Supervisor Board meeting  (video clip below) — was he making a statement to the community, just boorish, or perhaps verifying that his white male privilege was in check, . . . or  perhaps even present?   You decide.

Earlier this week the Scott County supervisors appointed Kerri Tomkins former Davenport alderwoman to fill the position of County Auditor.  The position was vacated in April by Democrat Roxanna Moritz who announced her departure in March, the announcement only two months into her term. The county supervisors have the authority to temporarily fill the vacancy until the next scheduled general election where the remainder of the partisan position’s term would be up for grabs. Doing so avoids holding a special election which would cost tens of thousands of dollars at a time when due to another key retirement in that office there would be no senior experienced deputy prepared to hold that election.

Voters do get to decide between candidates for the remainder of the four-year term in November of 2022.  That winner will hold the position for the two years remaining of the four-year term until after the general election in 2024 , the normal conclusion of the Scott County Auditor term. The decision to fill the vacancy was the responsible thing to do in spite of the hyperbolic (as if it were unprecedented) and hysterical protestations of the resident Karen, Democrat Ken Croken and his assertive but less “demonstrative” Democrat side-kick Brinson Kinzer.

Democrats still have the option of obtaining 9350 signatures (10% of votes cast in last general election) on a petition which would force a special election for the position.  It is reported that they are pursuing the petition drive which must be completed in 14 days.

What we find hyperbolic when not hypocritical is that Moritz, now departed under cloud of mishandling the most resent election processes, came to office after an interim appointment filled the same office vacancy (in reality it was essentially vacant for a lot longer, but that’s another story) created by the death of former multi-term Democrat Auditor Karen Fitzsimmons. Moritz, then a Scott County Supervisor herself, was the only one to oppose the interim appointment — we suspect on the basis she knew Fitzsimmons would not be likely to run again, wanted the position and either was disappointed or feared facing an incumbent (if not for herself, another Dem).

Interestingly the other Democrat Supervisor serving at the time (the board is made up of five persons elected in staggered terms) — Jim Hancock — voted for the interim appointment of Wes Rostenbach, the responsible thing to do. Democrat Moritz ran in the next general election, 2008, (in which Rostenbach declined to run). Moritz won and was reelected three times in the latter races against very weak if any opposition from Republicans.  Democrats know the position’s importance and think they own it (have for a long time).

Republican Kerri Tompkins has adequate credentials including project manager experience, public budget and accountability experience as a former Davenport Alderman.  Democrats offered no one as a substitute to be voted on by the Scott County Board of Supervisors at the meeting. They objected to the vote to fill the position for the partial term until the next general election hoping to delay until governing statutes would force a special election without them going through the drill of a petition process.

Given that it is tradition and appropriate to fill the position by appointment in these circumstances the community should dismiss their partisan crocodile tears. Democrats can have their shot at the position if they are successful in ginning up enough petition signators in the two weeks they have to gather them, winning the resultant special election, or actually finding someone credible to run in the next general election.

By the way, the hypocrisy of the Dems extends from their very recent maneuverings to have Republican Supervisor Maxwell’s seat declared vacant on the slimmist (slimiest) of pretexts. They wanted the seat declared vacant in order to be replaced in hurried fashion in order to be in a position to rely on Moritz’ remaining presence to vote to fill the trumped up vacancy on the Board prior to her departure. Dems would then be in majority position to appoint her successor.

These people are insufferable, and in Croken’s case, also foul, rude, oblivious, but hysterical in the process.  The video clips below show Croken either making a gesticular  testicular statement or just being boorish in crude indifference to the camera, his colleagues and the viewing public.  But it is funny.

Embedded above is a 30 second clip from the 45 minute or so special Scott County Supervisors  meeting for the purpose of filling the Scott County Auditor vacancy. Click on the arrow, wait to load and look closely. Supervisor Croken, insufferable throughout the meeting, is shown sitting, then standing up to walk off camera and returning a few seconds later to engage … himself.  The clip above shows him in an array with the other supervisors. The additional embedded clip is the same display focused on him.

The entire board meeting can be viewed at the official Scott County Board of Supervisor archived meeting site at this link.  The referenced clip begins at the 27’25” or so mark. If you watch the whole thing as we did  you will also be treated to Croken playing the white male shaming card  — as if Dems offered a woman and or a person of color and Republicans didn’t offer a female candidate.

Related reading :

https://westlibertyindex.com/stories/supervisors-to-set-vote-date-for-next-auditor,81227

https://www.wqad.com/article/news/politics/scott-county-democrats-detail-plan-to-force-special-election-for-county-auditor/526-0d65d432-c579-4844-8d65-8dc9b8245aa0

0

0

‘Juan Antonio’ is not just outnumbered on “The Five”…He’s outwitted, outthought , out maneuvered , and outclassed…for over 7 years…but now it’s over…mercifully.

Does anyone wonder how much Fox has paid Juan Williams to make a complete ass of himself, day in, day out…as a ‘host’ on The Five?

The “long Embarrassment”, though, is over for Juan. Wednesday, he announced that he was leaving as one of the ‘hosts’ of the popular FoxNews show, “The Five”.

He must be relieved, especially if he gets the same pay in his new Fox assignment in Washington D.C.

He must have been highly remunerated…having to go before Fox viewers and defend every stupid Progressive position, strategy, action, or thought…even the hapless Joe Biden. And he had to do it every weekday evening against 4 of Fox’s smartest, wittiest, most thoughtful, and eminently sensible.

It’s gotta take a toll on a man…Juan Williams is not a stupid person; in fact he is intelligent and perceptive, and has won well-deserved awards for his work on television documentaries and books he has written.

(Williams wrote a column for the Washington Post, however, defending Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, against sworn testimony by Anita Hill charging sexual harassment by Thomas.)

– An unlikely coincidence, Juan was soon fired from NPR (in 2010); he said some truth, which appears to be forbidden by NPR policy

– when he went directly to Fox after his firing, he got $2 million/year as a “contributor” ( a”big raise” for him he said)

– As a ‘host’ on “The Five”, he’s surely making much more.

– But, is it worth it? Every day, Williams must utter some unintelligible nonsense in response to very specific, truthful, trenchant, and witty comments from much cleverer ‘co-hosts’, including Gutfeld, Watters, etc. According to Fox, it plans to rotate liberal co-hosts until Wlliams’ permanent replacement is named. (You ‘spose Bob Beckel could ‘come back’? Juan replaced Beckel, a non-formidable Democrat hack, when the latter was apparently fired because of his alleged affinity for a more than occasional nip.)

Megan Albano, the Vice President of The Five and Weekend Programming, said in a statement that the network is “incredibly grateful” for Williams’ work over the years.

I guess we’re all “grateful”, Megan. dlh

0

0

“Haven’t had a president so fit and energetic since Jack Lalanne”*  ….dlh

“Most people, when they reach a certain age, let down and talk about what they used to do. Well, who gives a damn about what you used to do? It’s what you’re doing now.  Jack LaLanne
————————————————-

White House: Joe Biden So Physically Fit, He’s ‘Hard to Keep Up With’

The White House told reporters Monday that President Joe Biden is so physically fit, he is hard to keep up with.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki discussed Biden’s physical health on Monday after a reporter asked her about the president’s Peloton exercise bike. (The New York Times reported in January that Biden’s Peloton might not make it into the White House, as it posed a possible cybersecurity risk.)

Psaki did not reveal if Biden still uses the exercise bike at the White House.
“I will say I have nothing to read out on the president’s private exercise routine,” she replied. “I can tell you, having traveled with him a fair amount, sometimes he’s hard to keep up with.”

The Washington Post reported Monday that Biden had built-in routines that include a daily morning workout and sometimes has meetings with his personal trainer. The report also notes that Biden has an affinity for chocolate chip cookies, orange Gatorade, and Coke Zero.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden boasted of his physical health compared to then-president Donald Trump.

“Watch how I run up ramps and he stumbles down ramps, okay? C’mon,” Biden said to a reporter in September.

But questions about Biden’s physical health remain after he stumbled and fell repeatedly while struggling up the stairs of Air Force One in March.
Psaki has deflected questions several times about Biden’s physical exam, including at Monday’s press briefing.

“I know you’ve asked about this before, and it is something we will be doing,” she said, referring to answering those questions.
———————————

Jack LaLanne Feats and Honors

1954 Age 40: Swam the length of the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge underwater with 140 pounds of equipment, including two air tanks… an undisputed world record.

1955 Age 41: Swam, handcuffed, from Alcatraz to Fisherman’s Wharf in
San Francisco, CA.

1956 Age 42: Set a world record of 1,033 pushups in 23 minutes on “You Asked for It, a TV Show with Art Baker.

1957 Age 43: Swam the treacherous Golden Gate Channel, towing a 2,500-pound cabin cruiser. This involved fighting the cold, swift ocean currents that made the 1 mile swim a 6 ½ mile test of strength and endurance.

1958 Age 44: Maneuvered a paddleboard 30 miles, 9-½ hours non-stop from Farallon Islands to the San Francisco shore.

1959 Age 45: Completed 1,000 pushups and 1,000 chin-ups in 1 hours and 22
minutes. “Happy” is born and The Jack LaLanne Show goes nationwide

1974 Age 60: Swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman’s Wharf, for a second time handcuffed, shackled and towing a 1,000-pound boat.

BUT WAS NEVER NOMINATED FOR PRESIDENT BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY !!!!!
Reply Reply All Forward

0

0

• Is it a phenomenon of mass hysteria? (yes)
  
• Is it virtue signaling (yes)
• Is it intimidation (yes)
• Is it manipulative (yes)
• Who gains (follow the opportunity trail – billionaires, China, Clower-Priven champions, government  . . .)
• There are a lot of implications
• The bureaucrats will always claim — it would have been worse but for us  — as that is the last refuge of those control freaks trying to make themselves relevant
• What is behind business still requiring and or shaming regarding  mask wearing as ineffective as it is?
  
• The media has participated gloriously to make the scamdemic – what is in it for them, the usual suspects that is?

Let’s reflect in these and other questio0ns that come to mind in coming days.  Do let us know your thoughts

Here are two articles that are just excellent and worth your close reading and contemplation.

How Lockdowns Helped Hide The Plain Evidence That COVID-19 Isn’t A Good Excuse For Panic.
What’s obvious to many Americans about the response to the COVID-19 pandemic continues to escape the consciousness of the ruling class.

And from Kathleen McCarthy writing at the River City Reader locally is this excellent :

Still COVID Incurious?  

0

0

• Congresswoman, how about showing your independence from the compulsion to do stupid things to show your “independence”
• Pandering is not independence
• Don’t be a Leach on the district

Reading Marco Rubio’s scathing  commentary in opposition to the Democrats proposed  January 6th Commission Inquisition, informed by his years of seeing Democrats in operation – our congressperson Mariannette Miller-Meeks’  vote and comments in support of the bill to establish the commission is naive, pathetic, oblivious at best to Democrat motives and leverages they have built in to control and manipulate everything that goes into it and sees the light of day from it.

We tried finding an analysis from Miller-Meeks of the actual mechanics of the commissions operation but alas days into the controversy there is nothing at this writing  on her official web site regarding the matter. You can read of Miller-Meeks support in this Cedar Rapids Gazette article:   Miller-Meeks among small group of U.S. House Republicans backing Jan. 6 panel    You can also read this QCTimes /AP article with some comments from Chuck Grassley questioning the need and objectivity of the set-up.  In doing so note the tone of the article, this is the group that is going to report the results of the Democrat inquisition.   (more commentary below)

Fearsome junta strongman takes charge. No wonder Miller-Meeks voted to spend lots of time and money to see what makes this guy tick.

More thematic photos below Rubio commentary

Here are Rubio’s comments as reported and analyzed at  TownHall:

Marco Rubio Has Strong Words for January 6 Commission Bill: ‘This Is a Partisan Joke

The senator raised concerns where others have, in that “there’s plenty of attention already being paid to this,” with Rubio rebuking any claims that opposition amounted to a “cover-up.”

The bulk of Sen. Rubio’s opposition, though, came with concerns that the commission won’t be so bipartisan after all:

“So what is this about? I’ll tell you what this is about. The first thing that stood out to me — this is about politics. Here’s how. They have this thing that says in order to issue a subpoena, you need both the Republican and the Democratic side, evenly divided, to agree with it. But that’s not the point for politics; you don’t actually need the subpoena. All you need is a story out there saying, ‘Congressman so-and-so — they want to subpoena him or her, but they can’t because the Republicans are blocking it.’ And then the stories are going to be, number one, it creates this impression that maybe Congressman so-and-so did something wrong — why would they want to subpoena him? And number two, the story will be ‘Republicans are covering up the investigation into Congressman so-and-so.’

“So that’s what this is about: it’s about damaging Republicans. You don’t even need the subpoena; you just need the request for a subpoena to damage Republicans for blocking it and to damage that member of Congress or whoever it is simply because [you can ask leading questions like] ‘you want to look at them — why would you want to look at them unless they did something wrong?’ That’s what this is about. It’s about keeping the House majority in 2022 and winning elections and keeping this in the headlines.

“And by the way, it’s not evenly divided because the chairman of this commission has the power to hire all the senior staff and has special powers to overrule the decisions made by the other side and the vice-chair. This is a partisan joke.”

Kudos to Sen. Rubio for reading and analyzing legislation, whatever you think of his opposition. If only more politicians did this more often.

The bill passed the House on Wednesday by 252-175 and was soon after fast-tracked by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), though it’s not yet clear when it will be heard.
Recommended

The bill looks increasingly unlikely to get the necessary support from 10 Republicans. Even one of the seven senators who voted to convict former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, Rich Burr of North Carolina, signaled his opposition on Thursday.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) was particularly disappointed, as Burgess Everett reported for Politico in writing “Filibuster brawl amps up with GOP opposition to Jan. 6 panel.” Everett wrote:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), one of the filibuster’s strongest supporters in the Democratic Party, seemed aghast that his GOP colleagues are on track to block the bill.

“So disheartening. It makes you really concerned about our country,” Manchin said. Asked if that is an abuse of the filibuster: “I’m still praying we’ve still got 10 good solid patriots within that conference.”

The Washington Post is grouping Republican senators by their support of the commission. As of Friday night, four are categorized as “expressed openness,” 11 as “still considering,” 25 as “oppose,” and 10 as “unknown.”

Miller-Meeks may have missed these articles and photos but By George she will see to getting to the bottom of  those Jan.6 DC arsons and Trump instigated “deadly” “attacks on Democracy”Not Capitol Police building being fire-bombed by not Miller-Meeks “Insurrectionists”

Must be those Trump cultist insurrectionists at work

More reading here — https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/08/19/632158/US-Portland-protest-Multnomah-Building and here:
https://therepublicanballot.com/12-seattle-officers-injured-as-precinct-attacked-buildings-damaged-during-riot/

0

0

A few days ago we commented on the meat-grinder of the waning days of the Iowa legislative session  Iowa legislative season grinds to an end .  It is now over and distressingly we believe our concerns were not misplaced, however recognizing that some good things were accomplished.

That said, an important perspective is that Republicans in Iowa hold a trifecta in state government — having the governorship and both houses of the legislature all (supposedly) fairly conservative.  The Republicans “enjoy” an overwhelming margin in the Senate and a substantial margin in the House.  They had the power to do what is necessary in greater  furtherance of the Republican platform agenda AND developments since its formulation   consistent with Republican principles.

Of the three topics in the above referenced article we mentioned that were of particular concern,  here is our analysis (in part) of what transpired as regards progress in the ability to protect unborn human life from being snuffed out.

On Thursday the Iowa legislature passed what it officially called the “Life Amendment” — our big concern is not the LEGAL effect but that its wording is not conducive or burdens   the best chance of passage in a plebiscite.

Iowa failed to learn from Tennessee when it comes to what is an  ‘abortion neutrality’ amendment

Previously in this session, and more accurately, the basic “Life Amendment” proposal was titled “Abortion Neutrality Amendment”. The lead lobbying organization in support of it referred to it as such but is now referring to it as the “Protect Life Amendment.” It does not do that, it does not protect one unborn life in and of itself although if ultimately passed it presumably would create a legal basis for the legislature to statutorily regulate abortion at least to the extent permitted under a federal constitutional regime, if a legislature chooses to do so.

The Iowa wording eliminates any presumption that abortion must be funded by tax dollars which is what abortion advocates insist on when referring to abortion, which is an elective procedure that kills one patient as “health care.” But it should be well understood that the effect of the wording does not mandate any protection and implicitly permits the legislature to not regulate abortion and to fund it if it sees fit.

Referring to it as the Protect Life Amendment is then a PR ploy to some extent, the moniker is of mixed usefulness as a PR matter, and possibly counter productive in an effort to achieve sufficient support for passage. ‘Abortion neutrality” is more accurate, does not mislead pro-life support which is astute enough to know and support a key improvement over the current situation when they see it honestly portrayed.

Here is a link to proponent The Family Leader’s comments yesterday upon its passage (my comments continue below the link):

https://thefamilyleader.com/iowa-legislature-passes-life-amendment/

The proposed amendment reads: “Life. To defend the dignity of all human life and protect unborn children from efforts to expand abortion even to the point of birth, we the people of the State of Iowa declare that this Constitution does not recognize, grant, or secure a right to abortion or require the public funding of abortion.”

The wording passed both house of Iowa legislature — it does not need to be signed by the governor as it is a proposed constitutional amendment.

It must pass a second round in both houses with identical wording in a subsequent legislative year. The proposal is then presented to the people on a general election ballot. If passed by those people voting, it becomes part of the Iowa Constitution.

It is hard to unpack the implications of the wording in this brief memo. Please refer to my earlier communications regarding this matter circa April 6, 2021. However here are a few things in summation:

Proponents stated purpose leading up to this is that such an amendment is necessary to allow regulation of abortion after the Iowa Supreme Court found an unqualified right to abortion in the Iowa Constitution a few years ago. That is the effect of the just passed wording but not necessarily the overarching perception because of its lack of a simple clarification as proponents in Tennessee did in their successful effort to make the concept part of their state constitution.

Repeating, the wording does not protect or require the protection of any lives in and of itself. Nevertheless we believe it will give the impression to most people that it is a right to life / anti-abortion / pro-life/ restoration amendment that will impress many (arguably most voters), to the detriment of its passage, that it disallows any right to abortion in and of itself. That misconstrues but may be controlling if too many people become fixated on so called hard cases (aggravated by pro-abortion opposition and every media outlet in the state) without something to alleviate that tension.

Nothing in it assuages them or suggests the possibility of alleviating their fears (however misplaced, overwrought, ignorant) that the legislation is not an end of the right to abortion for any reason amendment. People with such concerns are crucial to passage.

Tennessee included the clarification that “The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend or repeal statutes regarding abortion.” That is what the effect of the Iowa wording is, but it was made clear to the people in Tennessee’s case leading to success. It is more honest and I believe more passable as such. It should have been included. Iowa had a compelling “focus group” to go by (Tennessee) and rejected its efficacy.

Of note is that the Iowa Supreme Court has undergone supposedly very significant personnel changes since their 2018 judicial atrocity finding a right to abortion in the Iowa Constitution. Why proponents have not been public, to my knowledge, about the best pro-life legislation to put before this new court, short of an amendment, or any implications, I do not know. True, the Iowa Supreme Court can go back and forth on the issue, but so can a legislature under this amendment.

We support the concept of the amendment but  hope the Iowa wording is not a triumph of the desire to make a pro-life statement (which we believe undergirds changes made as compared to the successful Tennessee effort) rather than concentrating on making a difference. Sober analysis ought to be undertaken as to whether the Iowa wording, now half passed by this legislature, is handicapped to its detriment and what ought to be done.

0

0

For a good time Biden always goes to the USCGA commencement.

This buffoon doesn’t realize it but he gets a big laugh when he shows up for an event. He’s invariably the slowest, dumbest, and most pathetic and weak-minded person in any room he appears.

Can you imagine…no, don’t, it is too depressing…what a joke our U.S. president is considered in the Kremlin, or in Teheran, or in any gathering of the Chinese Communist Party?

Here’s a guy who has a real future in ‘stand-up comedy’!

Joe Biden Snaps at Coast Guard Grads for Not Clapping at Applause Line He Plagiarized
(from Reagan and later Cheney)

Kyle Becker at  Trending Politics

President Joe Biden admonished Coast Guard graduates for not clapping for the president at his first speech at a service while in office. 

“I can only assume that you will enjoy educating your family about how the Coast Guard is, quote, ‘the hard nucleus around the Navy forms in times of war’,” Biden said.

The president was expecting it to be an applause line because that is exactly what Dick Cheney got when he used the phrase in a speech as vice president in May 2008. Except Biden botched it. This is what Cheney said:There’s a saying in your line of work — that the U.S. Coast Guard is the “hard nucleus about which the Navy forms in time of war.” (Applause.)

Biden was upset that the Coast Guard graduates didn’t appreciate his plagiarized line and so he gently lashed out at them.

“You are… you are a really dull class,” he said. “Now, come on, man. Is the sun getting to you? I would think you would have an opportunity when I say that about the Navy, to clap… but being here together—”

Biden’s remark, while colored in the left-wing press as a harmless ‘jest’, illustrates that Biden merely viewed the speech as a photo op. Contrast the press reaction with the widespread ridicule that Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush received when he told an audience, “Please clap.”

After the president admonished the Coast Guard graduates, a few scattered members of the audience clapped. This is an unusual reaction for a president so popular he was said to have received 81 million votes — the most in election history.

(Note: Some have credited Ronald Reagan with the line, “…the Coast Guard is the…”; he, too, it is reported received applause

What is it about Biden and the Coast Guard??

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/trump-biden-coast-guard-national-security-environment-climate-change-2020-us-election-b599191.html

https://thespectator.info/2020/11/15/smartmatic-voting-machines-chairman-of-the-board-peter-neffenger-named-to-joe-bidens-transition-team/

0

0

If this pathetic move doesn’t get her a primary,  it should.  The congressperson has all the charisma of Jim Leach.

House Dems Pass Jan. 6 Commission Bill with the Help of These 35 Republicans

0

0

Meat grinder seems the appropriate term in that important matters that could and ought to have been hammered out by assiduous communication among the legislators before and during the normal four month “season” are left to what amounts to the “leaderships” determination in extended weeks.

Do these guys and gals not pay attention to their responsibilities out of session? Is there no legislative whip structure or effective reticulation with dependable policy groups to get this stuff worked out coherently going into the session?

True, Iowa has a citizen legislature, a good thing, but lackadaisical part-time-career citizen legislature ought not to be the approach either, leaving so much to “leadership” at the end.

At this writing most legislators have been cooling their heels back home waiting to be called back (since their per diems and clerk funding ended) relying on “leadership” to deign to tell them what they say has been worked out.

The legislative process is not pretty during the regular session but in this time period it is essentially sausage grinding by leadership with citizens in the dark not knowing what goes in, producing pretty much a take it or leave it result when the bulk of the legislators are called back in. That results in having to vote on some ineffective impatient compromised crap, leadership’s crap, or otherwise ill-considered but “must do” stuff under pressure from interest groups with their lack of insightful leadership.

Three critically important matters near and dear to us may fall into this critique (we hope not but will see). They are issues revolving around the Iowa Constitution and the ability of the legislature to regulate abortion,  the matter of private funding of official election activities, and matters relating to mask and vaccine mandates or passports.

More on these in a latter post(s)

0

0

If you have  not read this latest Conrad Black article at American Greatness you must. We set it down below in order to ease reference to what we see as particularly insightful or otherwise important to emphasize points (set in bold black).  Doing so also gives us a framework to annotate a small bit of contention ( in blue) we have with one or two statements (in red) of our better, Lord Black.

Rage of the NeverTrumpers

May 18, 2021

Their fury now is designed to assuage their guilt. It will not succeed, even in that.
By Conrad Black

The apparent suicide plunge of U.S. Representative Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) appears to be the psychopathic backlash of NeverTrumpers who are starting to realize Donald Trump’s defeat in November and the allegations he was attempting to overturn the election by provoking an “insurrection” at the Capitol on January 6 do not bring back the Republican Party of the Bushes and McCain and Romney, as those families seem to imagine. This is only the first shoe dropping. It will soon be followed by the realization of the role the NeverTrumpers have played in shackling the country and the Western world to the unfolding disaster of the Biden presidency.

Like Brutus charging out of the Roman Senate on the Ides of March, 44 B.C., holding up two bloodied knives and expecting to be applauded after proudly shouting to a distracted group of observers that they had assassinated the tyrant, Cheney acknowledges she voted in support of the Trump Administration over 90 percent of the time, but that her reverence for the rule of law requires her to oppose the “Big Lie.” This lie, she insists, is that there is some question about the legitimacy of the election result. She also holds that there can be no question that Trump attempted to launch a violent assault on the vital processes of the U.S. electoral process by inciting the invasion and vandalization of the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Since—as with Brutus, who shortly had to flee Rome never to return—the majority of Republican voters are not persuaded of the fairness of the election or the effective and dispositive performance of the judiciary, or the anti-Trump take on January 6, Cheney is reduced to taking comfort from the efforts of the cheerleading choristers like Peggy Noonan, telling Cheney and Noonan’s readers that Trump really doesn’t represent many people and is fading quickly.

Reality Trumps Comforting Reassurances

There isn’t much evidence of this and, in any case, it should not be counted upon in the face of Joe Biden’s crumbling regime.

A very large number of Americans are disconcerted to see 80 percent of the gas stations in Washington, D.C. closed for lack of fuel, and the Russian thugs responsible for the closure dutifully paid their ransom money by the hacked pipeline’s owners. They are disconcerted by a 944 percent increase in April, year over year, in illegal entries across the southern border. They cannot fail to notice a 75 percent shortfall from projections of new jobs for April. Nor can they be assured by a rate of inflation, if properly calculated, of approximately 12 percent. This is the emerging level of performance by the new administration that will cause recollections of President Trump to become fonder rather than more censorious.

The Real Big Lie seeks to suppress the fact that all 29 of the lawsuits over the presidential election that addressed the integrity or constitutionality of the electoral counting process were left unadjudicated. They were not heard for process reasons: late filing, lack of time to hear them, the wrong defendant, the procedural finding that challenges had to begin at the lowest courts and wend their way upwards, or lack of standing to hear the cases. Most of these objections were spurious and cowardly. The fact is, the judiciary abdicated its duty as a coequal branch of American government. It presumably did so for political reasons as overturning a presidential election result would indeed have been extremely controversial.

It may have been, politically, the correct call—making it unlikely that there will be a serious effort to pack the Supreme Court. But that is not the role of the justices of all the courts involved—they have not been placed in their life-positions on the benches of the country’s highest courts to be politicians. That is the ultimate response to Liz Cheney’s tired and hypocritical pieties about the rule of law.

The Lamest Insurrection Ever

As for an insurrection, in the United States that would require control of the Armed Forces, the media, and much of the vast apparatus of the federal government. That’s what happens in the countries where there is a vulnerability to coups d’état.

Trump urged his followers, aggrieved as he and they were at what they all thought, with some reason, to be a tainted election result, to demonstrate “patriotically and peacefully.” He did not counsel and gave no support nor knew anything about the hooliganism that occurred. It would have gone nowhere if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser had paid any attention to the requests the chief of the Capitol Police made in the preceding days for reinforcements. It would be gratifying if the same self-elevated custodians of American political virtue had managed any comment at all on the “peaceful protests” of last summer, which killed at least 50 people, wounded more than 2,000 police, and caused billions of dollars in damage. Where was the rule of law then as the police were being defunded by the Democrats?

As emotionalism subsides, the grim facts of the Biden Administration’s incompetence and mendacity grow more onerous, degrading, and cringe-worthy, and the soufflé of Trump-hate settles, the absurdity and futility of the anti-Trump Republicans will become unimpeachably clear.

The frustrations of the Trump-haters in both parties now take the form of reproaching Republicans for wanting the former president to campaign for them in the midterm elections next year, and in reproaching the Trump supporters for causing the Republican Party to tear itself apart. This, too, is nonsense: those who want Trump‘s support in the midterm elections only do so because they realize how necessary it is to Republican victory, and the Republican Party is not tearing itself apart at all.

The ex-president is conducting himself with commendable restraint. His support is not declining appreciably and will not, especially as the screaming horror of the Biden presidency sinks in on its victim-electors. Meantime, Republican leadership is taking the position that there are legitimate concerns about the last election but there is no point in debating them further and all Republicans should focus on bringing their party back in the midterm elections and in 2024.

If an accurate summation, and we suspect it is,  “leadership” will miss the boat again.  “No point in debating them further”  referring to Trump supporters’ election concerns,  is pathetic. What do they think drives people to the polls?  Yes Biden’s record is horrific but why be silent about another outrage that leads people to the polls and voting in the most fraud-resistant method — in person on election day.

How deflating to be represented or lead by people who discount election integrity issues. Declining to debate a red-meat topic, undercuts  the seriousness of the charges, impliedly is weak and may be viewed as just more establishment cluelessness. It is not a mere rehash to point out the necessity of avoiding early voting by mail and to point out the Democrats fraudulent activities.  McCarthy and McConnell do not have the luxury of  widespread trust.

Cheney and her followers are not numerous or credible enough to tear anything but a marginal corner off the Republican Party as it moves in the direction Trump pointed it: pitching directly to blacks, Hispanics, and working and middle-class Americans. It is a winning formula on a rising trajectory, and it is not accessible to the McRomBush (and Cheney) Republicans as they disappear into the mists of the party’s less successful past.

There is an argument to be made for trying to persuade Trump to confer his benediction on another candidate who would thus be much indebted to him, and to do the necessary to make that candidate a unitary Republican figure. In this, Cheney inadvertently shows the way: the Trump policy with a less disruptive personality but with whom Trump is congenial.

Long before serious consideration needs to be given to the next presidential nominee, however, Trump will flex his muscles in the midterm elections next year. He will demonstrate that he is the only person in the country for whom 50,000 Americans will stand outdoors in raw weather to wait for the chance to see and listen to him. Unless he does something to damage his franchise, none of the other plausible Republican nominees will announce until Trump says that he will not run. If he does not say that, he will probably be renominated and reelected.

That is what drives the NeverTrumpers to these insane acts and utterances: in policy terms, he was very good and it is clear that his opponents wounded but did not kill him. In their mindless hate, they inflicted this terrible regime on the country. Their rage now is designed to assuage their guilt. It will not succeed, even in that.

0

0