The word "defiant" is based on the root "fi" — which means "faith." The oldest meaning has to do with renouncing faith — such as renouncing allegiance to the king and declaring hostility or a state of war. But it's long meant to challenge and resist power openly.
In the Liz Cheney situation, she's losing her own position of leadership as the group chooses a different leader. I don't think complaining about losing the support of the group is defiance. The group always had power to pick the leadership it wants, so the allegiance remains the same, to a process of choosing leadership. Is Cheney saying there's something wrong with that? She just thinks they're making the wrong choice.
It's funny that all the press outlets are choosing the same word, "defiant," when it's not the right word. I understand that the word is often used loosely, just to mean staunch and feisty, but when everyone picks the same loosely applicable word, there's something fishy.
But what's fishy? I think it's a desire on the part of the press to imbue Cheney with some sort of righteous entitlement to leadership. They have allegiance to her. They feel defiant. By rights, she ought to lead the Republicans. That's not factually true, of course. I'm spelling this out to expose it as ridiculous.
ADDED: "No one outside of Wyoming, except Peggy Noonan, cares a whit about Liz Cheney. The question is whether the NeverTrumpers, abetted by the Democrats, can kill Trump’s chances of a political resurrection" — writes Conrad Black, in "Liz Cheney and the ‘Big Lie’/When the No. 3 House Republican gets the high jump this week, the real loser will be the attempt to suppress any real examination of what happened in the last election" (American Greatness.)
पोस्ट्स
४ टिप्पण्या:
Temujin writes:
Yes, Democrats love Lynn Cheney this week and maybe even since November. She's been adamantly and vocally against Trump since most of his Presidency. But only since November did Democrats feel like they could use her, much as they use any anti-Trumpsters. Look how they placed The Lincoln Project on a pedestal and funded it with millions of dollars (and continue to do so) even though it is populated by people you would not allow in your home without a follow-up tent bomb disinfectant.
Lynn Cheney is Dick Cheney's daughter. Do I need to say anything more? That Democrats play like they respect her, admire her, or even pull for her just a tiny bit is completely disingenuous. They hate her. And not just in a bad tweet sort of way, but in a progressive Democrat type of hate- where they want to kill you and all of your ancestors and remove your name from any historical records.
Lynn Cheney is wrong. But she's allowed to be wrong, to have her own opinion, and to speak out. I'd rather we have dozens of politicians who are consistent in what they believe and profess, even if I want them voted out, than the schlubs we currently have (with a handful of exceptions) who will say anything to anyone at any time to make sure they stay in office. All the while working against their own party.
At least with Lynn Cheney, she knows the direction the party has gone or is going, and she disagrees. Not so sure about Kevin McCarthy, Mitch McConnell, etc. They play both sides. I want Cheney out of that leadership position and I love that they're talking about Elise Stefanik as the person to step into that slot. Change. It's time. People keep talking about Trump being gone, but his influence is right up front and in your face today as this vote takes place.
DaveL writes:
The apparent enthusiasm for Elise Stefanik is interesting. The "leader" of the new National Populist wing of the GOP (Ryan Girdusky) wrote that Liz Cheney, aside from being anti-Trump, supports most of Trump's policies. Elise Stefanik is, according to him, someone who has become a supporter of Donald Trump the person (which is usually enough to get into his inner circle), but her history is that she votes against his policies. He says she is "Pro-Amnesty, Pro-Paris Climate Accord, No Wall, Pro-Equality Act, Pro-Obamacare, Anti-oil drilling" and "Anti Trump's tariffs.")
I think this is interesting because a lot of the GOP leadership is more "centrist" than the GOP right wing. McConnell, Macarthy, et al. Stefanik may be pro-Trump but is not pro-Republican. Not quite a Lincoln Project Democrat in disguise, but perhaps a RINO. The GOP is undergoing an under-reported split between their center and their right-populists.
Temujin continues:
What I like about Elise Stefanik is that she's willing to fight. Lynn Cheney is as well, and I liked that about her. But I cannot accept her inability to see how much Trump actually got done in his short time. She refused to accept actual results. That's a problem. Elise was willing to stick her neck out and fight for Trump when many others (see Lynn Cheney) were not. Go back to the impeachment shows for some of that detail. She may not a good pick in the eyes of the Club for Growth. But I have to tell you, I used to use them as a guide for me. That gave us mealy mouthed leadership who talked a great story but did not back it up with action. So, we'll see what happens with Elise.
Two other points. Most Republicans do not expect their politicians to all be cookie-cutter thinkers across all issues (unlike, say...Progressives). The media tends to portray Conservatives as one type of person having one type of thought. Nothing could be further from reality. We have brains enough to know that every one of our politicians is a risk, and we have to weigh out that risk based on what we see as a priority from our point of view. I think she'd do fine.
The comment that "The GOP is undergoing an under-reported split between their center and their right-populists.", seems to leave out the last 12-15 years. Remember the Tea Party, and the way everyone tried to denounce them, just as everyone is working to pile on Elise Stefanik today? The imminent demise of the Republican Party has been a talking point seemingly forever. Even as Democrats are barely hanging on to either the House or the Senate.
Charles emails:
I read the entire Conrad Black piece. What garbage.
He says that the election cases “were not actually adjudicated.” You and I, Professor Althouse, both know that statement is legal bunk. Conrad Black seems to think that if a case isn’t tried to a jury, it isn’t “adjudicated.” Conrad Black, whose knowledge of US law has rendered him a criminal, must think that if a case is dismissed through summary judgment or other judicial action, it “isn’t adjudicated.” We both know what legal idiocy that is.
Black claims that in Michigan, where I practice law and have been a registered Republican poll watcher at the TCH Center, and where Conrad Black has rarely if ever visited, Black claimed “Trump’s lawsuit in Michigan over failure to allow access to his observers was ruled moot because it was filed late. That was when we saw people applauding as Republican observers were evicted and plywood placed over the windows. The judge also ignored a recent ruling requiring surveillance of all drop boxes installed after October 1.”
No; there was no “plywood.” The windows were covered by people who felt threatened by Republican poll watchers who were not allowed into a counting room, who were pounding on the glass. Two Republican observers were “evicted” for bad behavior with regard to COVID precautions. Otherwise, the full compliment of Republican observers were inside the TCF Center as allowed. The entire time. Some Republicans were denied entrance to the TCF Center because there was already a full compliment of credentialed Republican observers and the room was at its allowed limit. Black deceptively tried to convey that the room had no Republicans in it, which is a lie.
As for “drop boxes” in Michigan, I honestly don’t even know what Black is talking about. I will bet that he doesn’t either. Nor would the person who wrote the column for Black. I follow the Michigan cases closely. I have practiced in courtrooms in front of most of the judges who figured prominently in the adjudication of these cases. Including the Court of Appeals judge, Cynthia Stevens, who sat as a Court of Claims judge for the lawsuits brought against the State of Michigan. There was no allegation that any unmonitored drop boxes in Michigan resulted in fraudulent votes or vote counts for or against Trump or Biden.
Finally there was this howler from Conrad Black: “Liz Cheney has unwittingly helped to clarify the issues arising from last year’s election. The country must decide that it was an entirely fair and unquestionable election and that Trump was trying to incite insurrection on January 6 or it must acquiesce in the possibility that he will return as president. “
Bullshit. My claim, and Liz Cheney’s claim, and the entire sentient world’s claim, is that Trump is wrong when he claims that the election was “stolen.” Trump made “stolen” the marker for this debate. Liz Cheney has never claimed that there might be ways to improve election security, or that the 2020 election might have featured some irregularities. She claimed, as I do, that Trump’s claim of a “stolen” election is a lie. And Black avoids the issue.
But what would anyone expect from Conrad Black? He supports Trump with the zeal that one might expect after Trump pardoned Black for his federal crimes. Without that pardon, Black had been deported from the US as an immigrant felon, and had been barred from re-entry.
I hadn't read the whole article and didn't mean to look like I endorsed it. I only wanted to quote that one sentence. And I'm publishing this comment without checking whether it fairly represents the article or is justified.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा