The progressives that hate Liz Cheney are as bad as the MAGA people that hate her. They are both absolutely childish and getting high off the same social media algorithm drugs. I don't have to agree with 100% of her policy position to respect the sh*t out of her. She clearly is a patriot. Everything else is a distant for me, a Chicago-based Democrat voter.
The progressives that hate Liz Cheney are as bad as the MAGA people that hate her. They are both absolutely childish and getting high off the same social media algorithm drugs. I don't have to agree with 100% of her policy position to respect the sh*t out of her. She clearly is a patriot. Everything else is a distant for me, a Chicago-based Democrat voter.
Exactly my position. Support her in the primary. If she is the Republican nominee, work for the Dem, but if we lose I'll be disappointed, not terrified.
Agreed. In fact, I probably disagree with Cheney 98% of the time and despise many of the right-wing talking points she willingly engaged in. But to say Cheney is worse than Stefanik is Glenn Greenwald moronic. Cheney is exercising courage in going against her party (how many Democrats in congress would sacrifice their political careers if it came to it?) on a fundamental, no, "the fundamental" issue of our times.
You brought up the death threats as something over and above that Cheney and Kinzinger were experiencing and I brought up that Democrats are experiencing those too.
Just the fact of Cheney has taught this old Democrat a great deal about priorities and political courage. She'll have a prominent place in history if we emerge from this moment intact. You go, girl!
Arguments of Free Will and Determinism seem lost to this generation. It is odd that some of those who are champions of civil right are often at the same time so deterministic, as if rights are contingent on an inability to control oneself, тАЬLeopards cannot change their spots.тАЭ Identity is fixed, and so too thought, forever. And yet, the most fluid expression of authenticity is to change oneтАЩs mind, but the Determinists out there simply wonтАЩt have it. A criminal is forever thus, so too a political adversary, no chance ever of rehabilitation, or parole.
Taunting me, or anyone else here, is not going to move your point forward one centimeter. The vote in the House was on strict party lines. You might well ask why no Democrats voted against it, but you will not. The vote in the Senate also missed the mark, but you rush to single out one person as responsible for all failure. Others here pointed out the size and scope of the legislation, which is something to consider. It may or may not have been overreach, but there were things in it that bill, such as the creation of a federal holiday, redistricting and campaign finance which may have been best treated in other legislation. All of this, recall, when the matter of closing a loophole in the 1871 legislation, which Trump and his minions were exploiting, went untended. The loophole still has not been fixed, and now the Supreme Court in its next session may end up rendering this moot. In the meantime, Liz Cheyney is quite seriously trying to defeat a cult of personality which is infecting the Republican Party. She has my support for that.
I asked a question, which you refuse to answer. Cheney is doing no such thing. She is just offended by Trump's manner. She has spent her life trying to advance white supremacy and Christian nationalism. Pretending she hasn't is why we are where we are
You surely know the old "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". As long as the enemy is those who would end our democracy, on that issue, Liz is my friend.
But, so what? She's not pretending to be a Democrat. I think since she has ruined her career, lost her standing in her party and faces violence against her and her family shows amazing amount of courage. If she were a witness against a mob boss who she had once worked for, she would be considered brave and honest. And that's exactly what Trump is, a crime boss. He hurts anyone who goes against him and licks the boots of anyone (Putin) who is more disreputable than him. And Fox News aids and abets him. There is no organization more anti democracy than Fox News.
Actually, that's not the definition of "patriot," Mr. Mccrary--in fact it has nothing to do with the term, which can applied to nationalistic monarchists and fascists. I'm sure you know that.
Cheney's vote against the John Lewis act does not by any stretch make her stance on voting rights the same as Thurmond's. The toxic threat to voting right comes from the MAGA forces she is fighting.
Those in Congress are generally wealthy, and people who are very wealthy are less likely to be motivated by the prospects of a salary. Her daddy can't get her the jobs that seem to motivate her, which involve elected office. She gave up something she values--a party leadership position--and accepted waves of opprobrium from those whose support she had depended on.
You can lob easy smoke bombs all you like, but attitudes like the ones your expressing are bad tactics for achieving the goals your statements suggest.
I don't know Dems who hate Cheney. I do know some who disagree with some of her politics, but isn't that okay? Healthy disagreements shouldn't be discouraged. I hate partisanship, but not everyone is going to agree with you.
Maybe try sending her a voting rights bill that isn't almost 800 pages?
The Glass-Steagall act of the Great Depression was 35 pages long and managed to keep banks in check until the Clinton admin overturned it in order to allow banks to "invest" at the risk of the US taxpayers. Not a good idea, was it? A much weaker version of Glass-Steagall was hurriedly put into its place. Written by two of the worst offenders in that 2008 debacle, the replacement, the Dodd-Frank bill, is/was 8843 pages long and does little. C'mon.
What I'm getting at is that so many of these wonderful Democrat Party *ideas* are written into thousands of pages. Why? it takes months of non-stop reading even get through that many pages! These bills mean well, of course, but they are loaded with many other totally unnecessary and unrelated political "wishlist" items that get a free ride on the elegant intent of the basic thrust of the idea. These yummy items are hidden inside these hundreds and thousands of pages. Not fair! This practice also makes the GOP look bad in the headline-based news media we all inhabit (and which Dem Party likes.) "GOP appears to be rejecting the Dems grand idea!"when in fact many are objecting to the masses of little unrelated stuff within the huge bill. Stuff that ultimately costs all of us a lot of money, stuff that is complicated and specific to so many other unrelated issues and is also hard to manage. Inflation comes naturally when we need to print out more money than we have. It's all debt anyway so heavily tax, ultimately cost us more in interest.
I'm desperately afraid of the new GOP Taliban forming around so-called "ProLife" yet am worried sick that the Dems will do it again with Roe.
In this climactic moment they SHOULD be quickly passing a lot of short tight bills, 15 pages that even a few GOP's can branch over to. Start with something simple like "protect the rights of people to buy contraceptive medicine". Then add another short sweet bill like abortion illegal unless "death of the mother" (one tiny bill) or how going on the offensive with an idea to include men in the various punishments. Seek shared responsibility for the creation of an embryo, register all the DNA of people whose sperm fertilizes the act (privacy laws now mean nothing! Use it against them.)
But no. I am already seeing the 100% reliance on female outcry, petitions, protests, and donation requests (that donate to what exactly?)
Back to length of DP bills: Complicated bills are hard to monitor and afford. The most recent example was the Covid relief bill where something $163billion went unaccounted? That's what the Washington Post reported a month ago. No one is spending 3 months reading these vast treatises except people looking for loopholes and new ways to make a sneaky buck. What do you expect?
100%, Gunny. These bloated omnibus bills are horrendous. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Democrats do not push any number of small, simple, single issue bills that have widespread support. Let Medicare negotiate drug prices, make the age of 21 the minimum to buy a rifle, require universal background checks for gun purchases, allow abortion up to 15 weeks with an exception for the life of the mother past that, raise taxes on people making over a million dollars a year, etc, etc. They might be able to peel off enough Republican votes to actually get something done and, if not, have popular issues to run on against them in the next election.
Does she? Or does she refuse to vote for the voting omnibus bill the House Democrats are pushing? IтАЩm fine with a maximal voting rights bill but a conservative position that itтАЩs too big is fair.
Without getting into the specifics of any particular bill about any particular topic, voting against a bill does not necessarily mean opposing the topic of the bill.
Still missing the point, huh? I am only responding to your false implication that a specific vote is equivalent to the legislator's position on the topic.
I made no such claim. For example, in some states, citizens can write legislation and with enough signatures, get it put on the ballot. Almost without exception these propositions are so poorly written that they should be voted down even by, and maybe especially by people who avidly support the goal of the proposition. The unintended consequences of a poorly written law may be worse than no law at all. I am not talking about Cheney or VRA at all.
Liz Cheney represents Wyoming. It's her JOB to defend Wyoming industries and to bring the views of her constituency to Washington. Wyoming is a tiny group of people relative to the US population, so she's a lot closer to the people that she reps than say, my congress critter. Would she be as strong a defender of extraction and fossil fuels if she repped Hawaii? It doesn't seem fair to pile on when somebody is taking their job seriously.
The Democrats on the Committee made the deliberate, and very smart, decision to make Liz Cheney the most visible member. They knew her "effective" way of talking would make it much more likely that people on the right would accept as truth what is coming out of the hearings.
I disagree with your inference, if I am reading it correctly, that Democrats as a group are not as effective as Republicans.
But that seems to be the belief of many on the Bulwark.
We really need to rebrand all the diff parties. The Greens are Putin loving fools, the Libertarians are worse, the Republicans don't really exist anymore, And they're left with: Maga-heads, Religious Extremists who want an all White christian nation (lower-case because they are not recognizable as actual Christians), True Conservatives (like Liz and the good folks here at The Bulwark), and NRA ammo-sexuals)... and perhaps a hybrid or two on the edges?
The Left is just as fractured: Extremists, Progressives, Liberals, and Traditional Democrats (like Joe Biden), and some weird concoction of Manchinema? WTF are they?
I wish JVL would start a contest here: Rename all the Parties!!! Then we vote on them. The winners get... BOOKS by Bulwark authors!
I guess I don't quite agree. Yes, Rep Cheney is incredibly effective. But I believe they're putting her out front for a reason: The people on the left don't need to be convinced. There are, however, people on the center-right who are perhaps reachable. They *may* listen to her, when they very likely wouldn't listen to Adam Schiff or another elected Democrat.
Because the Dems had the good sense to realize that making the Republicans the face of the committee would lend it more credence with other Republicans. Please give Chairman Thompson, Adam Schiff, and Jamie some credit, thank you very much.
No, Purple, it speaks volumes about the intelligence of the 1/6 Committee's Democratic leadership, who were wise to make a hard-right Republican their prosecutor-in-chief. It was a brilliant strategy that Democrats don't usually employ, and good for them for being willing to sit back and watch Liz do her thing.
Cheneys are masters at political knifework, and it shows here. Nothing less will do in the march to destroy the tyranny of Trumpism.
Dems are running this investigation damn near perfectly. Republicans are only good at running their mouths. Trump and the GOP rage-spittle prove how well this DEMocratic plan is working.
I agree. The only real stumble was the drawn-out opening statements that were rather yawn-worthy. Unfortunately that wasted the first part of a prime time chunk of time and probably caused more than a few to watch or do something else. The rest has been masterful.
YouтАЩre right. Opening statements for this kind of hearings should be short, sweet, dynamic, and short again. Duck Wolf would have done it perfectly ЁЯШО Rest has been stellar.
I'm afraid it was, Deborah. Purple slimed the Democrats on the committee--the ones doing all the quiet heavy lifting on the investigations end--by saying that the Republican was the only one doing anything worthwhile. That is not remotely true. Liz Cheney is doing a marvelous job as the power forward of this team. But the team of Democrats is feeding her the ball again and again so she can slam-dunk the information to the public.
Purple's slime was ridiculous and not remotely true.
Yes, Deborah, actually the statement was in conflict! . Purple was stating that she's the only one on the committee who has been effective. He was saying that either because he's ignorant of what th 1/6 members themselves say about it (including Liz); OR he was saying it just to be mean-spirited and trying to "own" the Libs. It was a jackassed thing to say. Because it was spreading false information. I hope Charlie takes it down. I need The Bulwark to keep things True and Factual.
After listening to the montage of vile, vitriolic threats received by Kinzinger, itтАЩs a reminder of an under-the-radar remark by one Republican, that the reason Trump survived two impeachments is because members of Congress feared for their lives and the lives of their families if they voted to impeach, even as they wanted to vote Yes.
We are officially a banana republic. The environment of political violence is impossible to ignore. It has stealthy negative effects, like inhibiting good people from political participation.
Chilling. No wonder IтАЩm afraid to put a bumper sticker on my car.
SheтАЩs better - Magiie was strident and inflexible in spite of her awesome vision for the UK and her steely leadership through various crises - Liz is startlingly honest and willing to admit mistakes or errors (same sex marriage)
Hatcher had no basic humanity. Cheney does. Hatcher was on an ego trip to try to outdo Queen Elizabeth in glamour and gravitas. Cheney just wants he countryтАЩs commitment to democracy back.
Someone at least understand some of the colloquialisms if not the accentтАж or mayhap you are from these rocky shores yourself with a name like yours - more than a bit of the Irish in you.
The progressives that hate Liz Cheney are as bad as the MAGA people that hate her. They are both absolutely childish and getting high off the same social media algorithm drugs. I don't have to agree with 100% of her policy position to respect the sh*t out of her. She clearly is a patriot. Everything else is a distant for me, a Chicago-based Democrat voter.
Hey, I respect her, but her politics are abhorrent to me. IтАЩm rooting for her not, and looking forward to rooting against her in the future
Exactly my position. Support her in the primary. If she is the Republican nominee, work for the Dem, but if we lose I'll be disappointed, not terrified.
Not *quite* as bad; they are somewhat less well-armed
Agreed. In fact, I probably disagree with Cheney 98% of the time and despise many of the right-wing talking points she willingly engaged in. But to say Cheney is worse than Stefanik is Glenn Greenwald moronic. Cheney is exercising courage in going against her party (how many Democrats in congress would sacrifice their political careers if it came to it?) on a fundamental, no, "the fundamental" issue of our times.
She's as bad.
Totally agree. It's one thing to go against your party and your voters, but she and Kinzinger are facing death threats and threats to their families.
And teachers faced death threat ls fir enforcing mask mandates.
And the Democrats aren't also facing death threats and threats to their families?
I'm sure they are. So?
You brought up the death threats as something over and above that Cheney and Kinzinger were experiencing and I brought up that Democrats are experiencing those too.
Sooooo . . . . I don't know? ;)
Anyway, how's your day so far?
No, death threats yet. So far so good.
It only matters if far righties like Cheney face them
Just the fact of Cheney has taught this old Democrat a great deal about priorities and political courage. She'll have a prominent place in history if we emerge from this moment intact. You go, girl!
She deserves that place in history. I, too, am an тАЬold DemocratтАЭ and I agree wth everything youтАЩve said.
Totally agree.
She courageously takes the same stand on voting rights as Strom Thurmmond and courageously voted for Trump in 2016?
Arguments of Free Will and Determinism seem lost to this generation. It is odd that some of those who are champions of civil right are often at the same time so deterministic, as if rights are contingent on an inability to control oneself, тАЬLeopards cannot change their spots.тАЭ Identity is fixed, and so too thought, forever. And yet, the most fluid expression of authenticity is to change oneтАЩs mind, but the Determinists out there simply wonтАЩt have it. A criminal is forever thus, so too a political adversary, no chance ever of rehabilitation, or parole.
So, she flipped on voting rights protections? Got proof of that?
Taunting me, or anyone else here, is not going to move your point forward one centimeter. The vote in the House was on strict party lines. You might well ask why no Democrats voted against it, but you will not. The vote in the Senate also missed the mark, but you rush to single out one person as responsible for all failure. Others here pointed out the size and scope of the legislation, which is something to consider. It may or may not have been overreach, but there were things in it that bill, such as the creation of a federal holiday, redistricting and campaign finance which may have been best treated in other legislation. All of this, recall, when the matter of closing a loophole in the 1871 legislation, which Trump and his minions were exploiting, went untended. The loophole still has not been fixed, and now the Supreme Court in its next session may end up rendering this moot. In the meantime, Liz Cheyney is quite seriously trying to defeat a cult of personality which is infecting the Republican Party. She has my support for that.
I asked a question, which you refuse to answer. Cheney is doing no such thing. She is just offended by Trump's manner. She has spent her life trying to advance white supremacy and Christian nationalism. Pretending she hasn't is why we are where we are
You surely know the old "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". As long as the enemy is those who would end our democracy, on that issue, Liz is my friend.
She supports democracy for some, but not for all.
She supports our Democracy and the peaceful transfer of power. That's good enough for me.
She does? That's why she opposes guaranteed voting rights for Black Americans?
Jeezis H. Keerist! Do you not understand the threat that we face at this moment and the value of what Liz is doing in the face of it?
Nursing grievances over other political differences is irrelevant now. Focus, for God's sake.
Voting rights restrictions based on race is fat more than a political grievance
Voting rights won't matter if they don't bother to count the votes or throw them out if they don't like the results.
I would like to strip the rights of those who phoned into Kinzinger's office. Wouldn't you?
I would like to strip the hide off of their backsides. Their parents taught them better than this.
But, so what? She's not pretending to be a Democrat. I think since she has ruined her career, lost her standing in her party and faces violence against her and her family shows amazing amount of courage. If she were a witness against a mob boss who she had once worked for, she would be considered brave and honest. And that's exactly what Trump is, a crime boss. He hurts anyone who goes against him and licks the boots of anyone (Putin) who is more disreputable than him. And Fox News aids and abets him. There is no organization more anti democracy than Fox News.
A patriot supports voting rights for everyone.
She's rich and her daddy can get her any job she wants What did she lose?
Actually, that's not the definition of "patriot," Mr. Mccrary--in fact it has nothing to do with the term, which can applied to nationalistic monarchists and fascists. I'm sure you know that.
Cheney's vote against the John Lewis act does not by any stretch make her stance on voting rights the same as Thurmond's. The toxic threat to voting right comes from the MAGA forces she is fighting.
Those in Congress are generally wealthy, and people who are very wealthy are less likely to be motivated by the prospects of a salary. Her daddy can't get her the jobs that seem to motivate her, which involve elected office. She gave up something she values--a party leadership position--and accepted waves of opprobrium from those whose support she had depended on.
You can lob easy smoke bombs all you like, but attitudes like the ones your expressing are bad tactics for achieving the goals your statements suggest.
I would belive he pretended to support her views when it was convenient.
I don't know Dems who hate Cheney. I do know some who disagree with some of her politics, but isn't that okay? Healthy disagreements shouldn't be discouraged. I hate partisanship, but not everyone is going to agree with you.
Why does a person's difference of opinion have to do with patriotism?
How is she a patriot when she refuses to vote for voting rights protections?
Maybe try sending her a voting rights bill that isn't almost 800 pages?
The Glass-Steagall act of the Great Depression was 35 pages long and managed to keep banks in check until the Clinton admin overturned it in order to allow banks to "invest" at the risk of the US taxpayers. Not a good idea, was it? A much weaker version of Glass-Steagall was hurriedly put into its place. Written by two of the worst offenders in that 2008 debacle, the replacement, the Dodd-Frank bill, is/was 8843 pages long and does little. C'mon.
So, the length of the legislation was the problem? That means she authored a shorter version and put that on the floor?
Why did she vote to confirm Judtices who were openly hostile to the Votibg Rights Act? It's almost like she only wants some people voting
What I'm getting at is that so many of these wonderful Democrat Party *ideas* are written into thousands of pages. Why? it takes months of non-stop reading even get through that many pages! These bills mean well, of course, but they are loaded with many other totally unnecessary and unrelated political "wishlist" items that get a free ride on the elegant intent of the basic thrust of the idea. These yummy items are hidden inside these hundreds and thousands of pages. Not fair! This practice also makes the GOP look bad in the headline-based news media we all inhabit (and which Dem Party likes.) "GOP appears to be rejecting the Dems grand idea!"when in fact many are objecting to the masses of little unrelated stuff within the huge bill. Stuff that ultimately costs all of us a lot of money, stuff that is complicated and specific to so many other unrelated issues and is also hard to manage. Inflation comes naturally when we need to print out more money than we have. It's all debt anyway so heavily tax, ultimately cost us more in interest.
I'm desperately afraid of the new GOP Taliban forming around so-called "ProLife" yet am worried sick that the Dems will do it again with Roe.
In this climactic moment they SHOULD be quickly passing a lot of short tight bills, 15 pages that even a few GOP's can branch over to. Start with something simple like "protect the rights of people to buy contraceptive medicine". Then add another short sweet bill like abortion illegal unless "death of the mother" (one tiny bill) or how going on the offensive with an idea to include men in the various punishments. Seek shared responsibility for the creation of an embryo, register all the DNA of people whose sperm fertilizes the act (privacy laws now mean nothing! Use it against them.)
But no. I am already seeing the 100% reliance on female outcry, petitions, protests, and donation requests (that donate to what exactly?)
Back to length of DP bills: Complicated bills are hard to monitor and afford. The most recent example was the Covid relief bill where something $163billion went unaccounted? That's what the Washington Post reported a month ago. No one is spending 3 months reading these vast treatises except people looking for loopholes and new ways to make a sneaky buck. What do you expect?
100%, Gunny. These bloated omnibus bills are horrendous. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Democrats do not push any number of small, simple, single issue bills that have widespread support. Let Medicare negotiate drug prices, make the age of 21 the minimum to buy a rifle, require universal background checks for gun purchases, allow abortion up to 15 weeks with an exception for the life of the mother past that, raise taxes on people making over a million dollars a year, etc, etc. They might be able to peel off enough Republican votes to actually get something done and, if not, have popular issues to run on against them in the next election.
So, she opposed massive spending bills and tax cuts by Trump?
Cheney is in the House. The House does not vote to confirm Justices.
Does she? Or does she refuse to vote for the voting omnibus bill the House Democrats are pushing? IтАЩm fine with a maximal voting rights bill but a conservative position that itтАЩs too big is fair.
So, she's proposed a counter that guarantees voting rights fully as the Voting Rights Act did?
How is it "fair" to oppose guaranteed voting rights for call Americans?
Without getting into the specifics of any particular bill about any particular topic, voting against a bill does not necessarily mean opposing the topic of the bill.
So, she authored or co-sponsored which Bill to re-instate the 1965 VRA?
Still missing the point, huh? I am only responding to your false implication that a specific vote is equivalent to the legislator's position on the topic.
Provide proof Cheney supports a new version of the VRA. She voted against a new version, which you claim doesn't mean anything
I made no such claim. For example, in some states, citizens can write legislation and with enough signatures, get it put on the ballot. Almost without exception these propositions are so poorly written that they should be voted down even by, and maybe especially by people who avidly support the goal of the proposition. The unintended consequences of a poorly written law may be worse than no law at all. I am not talking about Cheney or VRA at all.
Yep
YouтАЩre proving my original point, Paul.
It's not a fair position to oppose the Voting Rights Act. It's a racist position
Liz Cheney represents Wyoming. It's her JOB to defend Wyoming industries and to bring the views of her constituency to Washington. Wyoming is a tiny group of people relative to the US population, so she's a lot closer to the people that she reps than say, my congress critter. Would she be as strong a defender of extraction and fossil fuels if she repped Hawaii? It doesn't seem fair to pile on when somebody is taking their job seriously.
Your point about her being closer to the people she reps is just factually untrue
I wish Democrats could express themselves as clearly as Cheney does.
It speaks volumes that the 1/6 Committee largely contains Democrats, and the most effective and visible member is a Republican.
The Democrats on the Committee made the deliberate, and very smart, decision to make Liz Cheney the most visible member. They knew her "effective" way of talking would make it much more likely that people on the right would accept as truth what is coming out of the hearings.
I disagree with your inference, if I am reading it correctly, that Democrats as a group are not as effective as Republicans.
But that seems to be the belief of many on the Bulwark.
We really need to rebrand all the diff parties. The Greens are Putin loving fools, the Libertarians are worse, the Republicans don't really exist anymore, And they're left with: Maga-heads, Religious Extremists who want an all White christian nation (lower-case because they are not recognizable as actual Christians), True Conservatives (like Liz and the good folks here at The Bulwark), and NRA ammo-sexuals)... and perhaps a hybrid or two on the edges?
The Left is just as fractured: Extremists, Progressives, Liberals, and Traditional Democrats (like Joe Biden), and some weird concoction of Manchinema? WTF are they?
I wish JVL would start a contest here: Rename all the Parties!!! Then we vote on them. The winners get... BOOKS by Bulwark authors!
I guess I don't quite agree. Yes, Rep Cheney is incredibly effective. But I believe they're putting her out front for a reason: The people on the left don't need to be convinced. There are, however, people on the center-right who are perhaps reachable. They *may* listen to her, when they very likely wouldn't listen to Adam Schiff or another elected Democrat.
Well-said, thank you.
Because the Dems had the good sense to realize that making the Republicans the face of the committee would lend it more credence with other Republicans. Please give Chairman Thompson, Adam Schiff, and Jamie some credit, thank you very much.
No, Purple, it speaks volumes about the intelligence of the 1/6 Committee's Democratic leadership, who were wise to make a hard-right Republican their prosecutor-in-chief. It was a brilliant strategy that Democrats don't usually employ, and good for them for being willing to sit back and watch Liz do her thing.
Cheneys are masters at political knifework, and it shows here. Nothing less will do in the march to destroy the tyranny of Trumpism.
Dems are running this investigation damn near perfectly. Republicans are only good at running their mouths. Trump and the GOP rage-spittle prove how well this DEMocratic plan is working.
I agree. The only real stumble was the drawn-out opening statements that were rather yawn-worthy. Unfortunately that wasted the first part of a prime time chunk of time and probably caused more than a few to watch or do something else. The rest has been masterful.
YouтАЩre right. Opening statements for this kind of hearings should be short, sweet, dynamic, and short again. Duck Wolf would have done it perfectly ЁЯШО Rest has been stellar.
But what Purple said wasnтАЩt in conflict at all with your statement.
I'm afraid it was, Deborah. Purple slimed the Democrats on the committee--the ones doing all the quiet heavy lifting on the investigations end--by saying that the Republican was the only one doing anything worthwhile. That is not remotely true. Liz Cheney is doing a marvelous job as the power forward of this team. But the team of Democrats is feeding her the ball again and again so she can slam-dunk the information to the public.
Purple's slime was ridiculous and not remotely true.
Yes, Deborah, actually the statement was in conflict! . Purple was stating that she's the only one on the committee who has been effective. He was saying that either because he's ignorant of what th 1/6 members themselves say about it (including Liz); OR he was saying it just to be mean-spirited and trying to "own" the Libs. It was a jackassed thing to say. Because it was spreading false information. I hope Charlie takes it down. I need The Bulwark to keep things True and Factual.
That is a purposeful strategy by the Committee
Thank you. That comment raised my BP by 30 points.
hahahaha!! I had to delete my first response.
After listening to the montage of vile, vitriolic threats received by Kinzinger, itтАЩs a reminder of an under-the-radar remark by one Republican, that the reason Trump survived two impeachments is because members of Congress feared for their lives and the lives of their families if they voted to impeach, even as they wanted to vote Yes.
We are officially a banana republic. The environment of political violence is impossible to ignore. It has stealthy negative effects, like inhibiting good people from political participation.
Chilling. No wonder IтАЩm afraid to put a bumper sticker on my car.
We are supposedly an "anocracy," according to CIA criteria. In layman's terms I think it means were headed for trouble.
I listened to those recordings thinking wondering how many firearms those folks might have.
I think of her as our Maggie Thatcher.
SheтАЩs better - Magiie was strident and inflexible in spite of her awesome vision for the UK and her steely leadership through various crises - Liz is startlingly honest and willing to admit mistakes or errors (same sex marriage)
Hatcher had no basic humanity. Cheney does. Hatcher was on an ego trip to try to outdo Queen Elizabeth in glamour and gravitas. Cheney just wants he countryтАЩs commitment to democracy back.
Thatcher's policies caused a lot of pain and disruption, but I think Britain desperately needed her at the time.
BTW, with that username who you have to be from Newfoundland, right?
Someone at least understand some of the colloquialisms if not the accentтАж or mayhap you are from these rocky shores yourself with a name like yours - more than a bit of the Irish in you.
A British friend says that people who vilify Thatcher generally don't know or disregard what a bad state Britain was in before she became PM.
If the US was in a "malaise" in the seventies, the UK was suffering from clinical depression.
Losing an empire by penstroke does that