Effuses Michael Gerson, in the final sentence "History will accept only one Jan. 6 narrative. This committee has it" (WaPo).
I'm reading that only because the headline bothered me so much that I felt that I needed to know how any educated, intelligent person could say such a thing. What a static, impoverished view of history! He seems to have it mixed up with propaganda — specifically, the propaganda of a totalitarian state.
But I got distracted by the gooey fawning over Cheney. "She was calm, methodical, factual and morally grounded...."
Anyway... here's what Gerson says about history: "There is only one narrative about Jan. 6 that history will accept: the evidence meticulously gathered and presented by the House select committee." Huh?
We will see what historians will write when they have the long perspective, see a fuller context, and it no longer has to do with the outcome of elections. What is being written now is not history. Not that history itself isn't biased, distorted, and incomplete. But it's got to be far superior to what the "select" committee is piecing together.
পোস্টগুলি
৮০টি মন্তব্য:
Historians? They only figure things out when it's too late. How long did it take to get it "right" about Woodrow Wilson? Margaret Sanger?
Gerson and "objective truth" might need to be introduced if they ever happen to meet through happenstance.
A (Democratic, political party) government making protesting the government a crime.
Soap opera women can feel secure in the narrative they're living in, is all he's saying. There will be soap opera history, and there's only one because it's an archetype. Pure good vs pure evil.
Well she's replaceable in Congress. Unelectable Liz is just auditioning for a spot on MSNBC.
Here's something from an Althouse Post in 2014:
ADDED: I've hardly noticed Michael Gerson over the years, though he's been a WaPo columnist since 2007. I've got 3 post tagged with his name (and 21 with George Will's). I tend to think that a liberal newspaper like The Washington Post will have relatively bland conservative columnists, and I'd always thought of Will as innocuous, but the standard of noxiousness is low/phony when liberals are judging conservatives.
Gerson has been notable for attacking Trump (he called his soul a "trackless wasteland") cheerleading for open borders and wars, and attacking Conservatives/Republicans he doesn't like as racists/bigots/homophobes/etc.
IOW, he's a Bushie. Unpopular, mediocre, dishonest, and beloved by liberals. As for Cheney, She's notable for her unlikable smugness. And a complete lack of gravitas and superior intelligence. She's basically gotten famous by (1) being a Cheney and (2) hating TRump.
Next stop for Cheney: MSNBC
Effuses Michael Gerson, in the final sentence "History will accept only one Jan. 6 narrative. This committee has it" (WaPo).
============
Monday 6/10/2022 is the second instalment of the narrative for history.
should not the committee be etching all this in stone?
Democrats are covering up for Nancy Pelosi's deliberate failures. She shutdown security so the FBI could manufacture an "insurrection" and then the Dems could impeach Trump toute suite and then create a kangaroo court to malign Republicans.
"I'm reading that only because the headline bothered me so much that I felt that I needed to know how any educated, intelligent person could say such a thing."
Because he is a leftist.
Full stop.
They are really all in on this January 6 nonsense. I wonder if it will be a federal holiday next year. Feast of the Magi AND the One Party State
It isn't the job of historians to guide people through the present, and even if it was nobody who matters will pay them (us) any attention.
There's a notion about--it's never brought out clearly but seems to be a subtext in a lot of discussion--that if only historians would do their jobs better, then the American voters would understand the issues and candidates and make better decisions.
I've always found that a laughable misreading of our culture and system of government--in other words, howlingly ignorant. Most Americans HATE history and historians, when they think of them at all.
Gerson, of course, is a Bushite hack.
They are betting on restricting historians to the documents they choose, and maybe they will redefine history to ignore primary sources when the go against the narrative as established.
Michael Gerson is a patronizing, pompous ass. Any questions?
Serious Question
Did he ever give Any reason, why the House version is the 'one history will accept'?
I'm assuming that that is Literally, just wishful thinking? Or did he give ANY Reason? Any At ALL?
Even MORE Serious Question
Could Lizard Cheney win a seat, in her home state, of North Virginia?
They're going to pick Liz as running mate to whomever is the dem nominee in 24.
How can Gerson possibly believe that all of the relevant facts are in? I sincerely find myself wondering what on earth the Capitol Police were thinking, and what on earth the trespassers thought they were achieving, and who was responsible for inducing them to undertake this moronic Children's Crusade.
’…specifically, the propaganda of a totalitarian state.’
Bless their hearts.
I predict some kinder revisionism about Trump. But not for a hundred years.
God how they hate him. Almost Napoleonic, the way it divides people. Yet Trump didn't even have a war.
Sounds like 'Famous Last Words' to me.
A trial is supposed to elicit the truth by both sides presenting evidence, not opinions, to an unbiased jury and engaging in a thorough and sifting cross examination of the other side's witnesses. Where are opposing counsel presenting evidence and testimony and engaging in cross examination of the "prosecution's" case? Why, Nancy was afraid of any counter to the Narrative already decided upon. As Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men, "Truth? You can't handle the truth!"
Nobody respects a turncoat. Nobody.
WaPo is getting desperate and writing even more outlandish clickbait headlines, but they work.
Any historical version has to include the trials and convictions American citizens with no prior history of crime, given months and years in prison sentences for disorderly conduct.
Can we agree that a political faction that insists that there is only one acceptable opinion on the issues that face us, and only one acceptable interpretation of events, can't be called "liberal"?
"Fascist" works.
Buckwheathikes: "Nobody respects a turncoat. Nobody."
Au contraire. Those who falsely portray themselves as "true conservatives" on blogsites while advancing every democratical narrative and hoax conspiracy love FakeCon Pelosi-lap-poodles like Cheney.
We've had/have a couple of those at Althouse blog.
Mr Wibble: "They're going to pick Liz as running mate to whomever is the dem nominee in 24."
It's too much to hope for....
Any historical version has to include the trials and convictions American citizens with no prior history of crime, given months and years in prison sentences for disorderly conduct.
And of course the 100 or so that have sat in prison for a year or more without bail or trial.
how any educated, intelligent person could say such a thing
First, you make the error of conflating educated and intelligent.
Then you make the second error of not recognizing a hack in a hack publication when you read one.
Ten, twenty, fifty years from now, no one will even be able to explain what "the big deal" is about any of this.
Nothing about the Trump-hate is rational. Yes, they can show he is an obnoxious blowhard, but then what? Nothing.
I must say it's hilarious that the Cheney family are now in the good graces of the progressive Soviet American Left.
The WaPo is a few things: Democrat party propaganda.
and - a place where lying liars who lie... lie.
More pandering to her followers.
"He who controls the present controls the past."
"Not that history itself isn't biased, distorted, and incomplete. But it's got to be far superior to what the "select" committee is piecing together."
Wagering that history is going to be kind to Trump doesn't sound like a very good investment.
Mike of Snoqualmie said...
Democrats are covering up for Nancy Pelosi's deliberate failures. She shutdown security so the FBI could manufacture an "insurrection" and then the Dems could impeach Trump toute suite and then create a kangaroo court to malign Republicans.
============
so as addendum to the dictum >>> Pelosi did not want an incipient crisis go to waste!
Liz Cheney's performance in the first public hearing of House Jan 6 Investigative Committee, was much more complex and elegant than a simple lawyerly approach toward trying Trump for his attempted government overthrow.
When she invoked her allegory of the image of the Capitol Rotunda filled with armed men, presidential statues and the painting of Washington resigning his commission, voluntarily relinquishing power, and handing control of the Continental Army back to Congress - which Ronald Reagan described as a miracle since he had never witnessed any other kind of transfer. But, of course, Dutch Reagan never met Mafia Don Trump.
With this imagery, Cheney attempted to invoke the mantle of Reagan, unquestionably our generation's political icon. In doing so, she attempted to make our Constitutional Republic a religion again, something worth defending. At the very least, she provided folklore/mythology on which she can rebuild the GOP.
When the Lost Cause narrative was found to have been winning all along it was time to call out the Loaded Dice narrative.
I would say Liz Cheney has proven herself dominable, replaceable, and is sinking fast.
Gerson has proven himself a nitwit.
@Lem at 8:37. You are exactly right. One of the most shameful episodes in our history.
What changes would you make to the Committee narrative:
1. President Trump engaged in a massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information to the American public claiming the 2020 election was stolen from him.
2. President Trump corruptly planned to replace the Acting Attorney General, so that the Department of Justice would support his fake election claims.
3. President Trump corruptly pressured Vice President Pence to refuse to count certified electoral votes in violation of the US Constitution and the law.
4. President Trump corruptly pressured state election officials, and state legislators, to change election results.
5. President Trump's legal team and other Trump associates instructed Republicans in multiple states to create false electoral slates and transmit those slates to Congress and the National Archives.
6. President Trump summoned and assembled a violent mob in Washington and directed them to march on the US Capitol.
7. As the violence was underway, President Trump ignored multiple pleas for assistance and failed to take immediate action to stop the violence and instruct his supporters to leave the Capitol.
Missing from all the coverage is the ineptness of the Capital Police ...
Lawmakers considered changes five years ago and periodically over the past 15 years. Yet they left the Capitol Police largely impervious to public scrutiny, despite its ample funding and its prominent presence at the seat of U.S. government.
The force of about 2,100 sworn officers, which patrols a hallowed but tiny area, boasts a $516 million budget. That is more than twice the spending on police in Atlanta, 1½ times the spending in Detroit and approaches the $545 million budget for the District of Columbia, budget documents show. Yet reports by the force’s Office of Inspector General, tasked with rooting out waste and fraud, are kept under wraps. The Capitol Police, like Congress, are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
With big budget but little accountability, long-troubled Capitol Police face questions after siege
gadfly: "Liz Cheney's performance in the first public hearing of House Jan 6 Investigative Committee, was much more complex and elegant than a simple lawyerly approach toward trying Trump for his attempted government overthrow"
LOL
Liz Cheney is now the Leader Of The FakeCons For Soviet Show Trials To Assist Democratical Political Prospects.
There is a palpable desperation in the continued transparent lies by Althouse resident lefties gadfly, Left Bank et al.
There is clearly recognition on their part, severely limited though they may be, at some level that the latest russia collusion hoax dead enders have already completely failed in Sham-Peachment 4: Grandson Of The Spirit Of Sham-Peachment I, II & III.
With the purposeful and planned destruction of our nation by these lunatic lefties now no longer up for debate and recignized by vast swaths of the electorate, I suspect these BlueAnon Buffoons will soon be taking their already completly debunked narratives to "11".
And its why 1 or more conservative justces on the SC will likely be whacked by an FBI-known "Lone Wolf" (wink wink) while severe lockdown measures and corrupted vote by mail cheats will be relaunched in time for November (Hey, that Monkeypox and its previously unknown capacity for airborne transmission sure showed up at an interesting time, didnt it?)
"Nothing about the Trump-hate is rational. Yes, they can show he is an obnoxious blowhard, but then what? Nothing."
It's coldly rational. He was promoted by the DNC, Clinton campaign, and their media allies to sow chaos in the Republican primaries. When that spectacularly backfired, he was demonized by these same entities for political advantage and also to cover up what happened in 2016 (including in the Democratic primaries). By focusing on Trump, all the decision makers to the left of center have avoided the question of what happened in 2016 and how they all ended up shackled to Clinton (and now the same regarding 2020 and Biden).
History will say that they didn't do enough to save us from the impending catastrophe.
Gadfly at 12:24-
"With this imagery, Cheney attempted to invoke the mantle of Reagan..."
What Cheney succeeded in doing was invoking the image of Quisling.
The GOP is disgusted with her. Leftists will ride her until she is of no use to them (6 months or so), then leave her in the ditch.
Fortunately for her, she is wealthy, and being a bitter wealthy old woman is better than being a bitter poor old woman.
Gadfly at 12:24-
"With this imagery, Cheney attempted to invoke the mantle of Reagan..."
What Cheney succeeded in doing was to invoke the mantle of Quisling.
Republicans are disgusted with her. Leftists will ride her until she is no longer useful, about 6 months, then leave her in the ditch.
Fortunately for her, she is wealthy, and being a wealthy bitter old woman is better than being a poor bitter old woman.
"Next stop for Cheney: MSNBC"
She has most of the requisite features. Nominally an "R". Hates Trump to the point of delusion. But, Lordy, what a dullard. even when spewing the exact language beloved by the hard left she's a snooze fest.
Any TV career is, IMO, doomed to terminally low ratings. Hope they pay her a ton.
“Effuses Michael Gerson, in the final sentence "History will accept only one Jan. 6 narrative. This committee has it" (WaPo).”
Nope. Because the Dems will lose control over the core evidence come January. They can make it seem like an insurrection by cherry picking evidence, cherry-picking video, then editing it. But come January, the Republicans will retake the House in particular, by likely a very large margin. They will be gunning for payback, and at the top of the list will very likely be discrediting the J-6 committee and it’s work, and the easiest way to start would be to release all of the source documents, the 14k hours of video, etc, that Pelosi is sitting on. That they so heavily shaded the truth, by ruthlessly controlling the source documents, and not providing Republicans with a chance to defend themselves, the Dems are very likely going to look far, far worse that the J-6 protesters, before it is all done.
I was hoping the article was going to be about Liz Taylor or even the British queen.
Gerson was a Bushman. In Cheney he relives all of his lost hopes and failed dreams.
Bush-era conservatism begins to look like a cult, a rump tied together by personalities, family connections, hypocrisy and pretensions.
To be honest, Cheney is probably the only person on the committee I have much respect for. The political motives for the Democrats are obvious, regardless of whether the topic for investigation is legitimate or not. They sacrifice nothing for their actions and, in fact, will likely be rewarded for their efforts. Cheney's political career is over. She'll never be a Democrat - she's not a liberal (or even a bit left of center AFAIK) and no RINO.
For the good of the country, she could have made more Republican participation a condition for her own, but she didn't do that and that would be my biggest complaint. Yes, the resulting hearings would have been chaotic, but democracy can be messy at times, right?
There are bigger questions here for me, namely, how do I sort out in the present those political figures who will disappoint me in the future? I include people from both parties.
Is every Democrat (except Sinema and Manchin) on board with the Pelosi/Schumer clown posse? Didn't any of those Demmies own or manage a business? Are none of them classical liberals? Have none of them friends across the aisle? Those 32 Dems currently in swing districts--how do they rationalize their party's policies to their voters?
And the GOP--WTF? Is Donald Trump really your beau-ideal of a statesmen? Trump had a lot of good policies--remember how things were right before the pandemic--but note: he presided over loss after loss, first, the House of Representatives on 2018. Then the presidency in 2020. Then the Senate in 2021. Trump would render harsh judgment on anyone other than himself with such a record. He'd start with "loser" and go on from there. But GOPers like Cheney and Gerson and their kind really are disgusting in their sappy cravenness to the gods of the Swamp.
Here is the thing that Republicans across the board need to recognize: Donald Trump never figured out how to prevail in DC, and he never figured out how to win over people who doubted his character. It isn't going to get better from here. His post-election behavior from 2020 through today shows that he hasn't learned much from his political failures. Unless something changes, he is unelectable. His tweets were undignified and insulting--it was like having Don Rickles as Commander-in-chief. If there are better angels in his nature, he has never let them out.
Cheney and Gerson are giving comfort to the enemy (Pelosi, Schumer and their ilk and the media/tech machine that tries to bend reality), so they deserve nothing but contempt.
The GOP needs to move on. Donald Trump's re-election is not the hill to die on. We have two generations that have been mis-educated by our schools and universities. We can no longer live by lies. The government needs to get out of the way. Prosperity it is at hand. We need to talk sense to the American people, because the Democrats certainly are not.
This is what the fall of an illegitimate Regime looks like.
Blogger Amadeus 48 said...
And the GOP--WTF? Is Donald Trump really your beau-ideal of a statesmen?
We don't need any more stupid lawyers and "statesmen."
We need someone who actually does things and knows how to do things.
You people need to get over your love of people who say pretty shit and don't actually do anything.
Our current situation results from well coifed mediocrities who get into careers as politicians because they can't do anything else being supported by people like you.
You need to overcome this limitation. You are not better than Trump. You are not smarter than Trump. You don't belong to a better tribe than Trump or the people that support him.
You are just another schlub putting on airs.
"History isn't fact. It's narrative, one carefully curated and shaped. Under the pen strokes of the right scribe, a villain becomes a hero, a lie becomes the truth." ~ Foundation TV show, season 1, episode 1 intro
""She is our indomitable, irreplaceable, unsinkable Liz.""
I think it is absolutely Hilarious that they picked the Cheney family to adopt as the Regime mascots.
It is so perfect to just ram a finger in the eye of the Bernie Bros and the Anti-War No-Blood for Oil fascist left.
Nothing could more fully encompass the complete lack of any definitive Principles of the Democrat Regime.
They are purely driven by hatred and a will to power and this move just makes it clear and obvious to everyone.
Democrats are just shitty people.
Question--Does Liz Cheney just own that one blue dress or does she have a closet full of them? I know she is trying to highlight her blue eyes, but isn't that dress a bit ratty by now? So mediocre, she is.
I had a colleague who owned six identical navy blue suits, so he never had to worry about what to wear that day, and he couldn't mix up the wrong pants with the wrong jacket.
Achilles--
You are a stubborn, pseudo-populist loser that glories in defeat. You love losers. You spew your nonsense from your man-cave without any accountability. You try to bully others by calling them names. You are easily conned by a blustering real estate promoter from New York. Do you have a large cache of coins from Franklin Mint?
As to Trump, he did a lot of things by executive order that the ultimate DC King, Slow Joe Biden, undid by executive order immediately. No reasonable person could call that winning. Trump never got control of the executive branch, and the military did not carry out his orders and laughed at him behind his back. The FBI and the CIA plotted against him, and it worked. And he drove people to the polls to vote against him by the millions. Yeah, let's nominate him again. That's the ticket! Maybe he can work that "Georgia magic" across the nation in 2024.
To quote a schlub putting on airs, you are just another schlub putting on airs.
Mutaman said...
"Not that history itself isn't biased, distorted, and incomplete. But it's got to be far superior to what the "select" committee is piecing together."
Wagering that history is going to be kind to Trump doesn't sound like a very good investment.
First, you assume there will be "history" still written after the left destroys the economy. The contrast between the Biden regime and Trump will be so stark that historians will wonder how the 2020 fraud could have been accepted by so many.
Here is the thing that Republicans across the board need to recognize: Donald Trump never figured out how to prevail in DC, and he never figured out how to win over people who doubted his character.
In other words, he trusted the patriotism of his own party. I agree.
How could anyone be so naive?
Amadeus: "And the GOP--WTF? Is Donald Trump really your beau-ideal of a statesmen?"
Compared to who?
You can always write in Jeb Bush if that floats your boat.
I am weary of these generic "statesmen" who are so much better than Trump.
Amadeus, you've written alot of words that are just a rehash of the 6 years of complaints from the non-fighting, lose respectfully, make sure to always compliment the democratical wing of the republican.
So, assuming I didnt miss it somewhere, tell us again who you think the dream candidate is for the republicans? Or do you not dare become too specific?
I'd rather see De Santis than Trump. Trump, like FJ Biden, is TOO OLD.
We will not get through the next half-decade with gerontocrats at the helm. A country of 350mill has got to have better options than old, resentful, and vengeful leaders, whatever their other sterling qualities might be.
Mr Wibble: "They're going to pick Liz as running mate to whomever is the dem nominee in 24."
It's too much to hope for....
Drago,
My dream is Buttigieg/Cheney versus Trump in 2024.
DeSantis has already made clear he will not run if Trump runs.
So, excluding DeSantis, where is this dream republican "statesman" who will fight the dems/left while McConnell's bought and paid for arse helps the establishment institutions undermine this dreamy mythical non-Trump "statesman"?
Don't hold back now. Romney II perhaps? No? Is he too busy marching with BLM...but in a wonderful "statesmanlike" way?
Isn't there a McCain alum that could run? Oh, right. They are all hardcore dems now (spoiler: they always were)
Those were the 2 "acceptable" candidates before Trump...but Trump was the problem.
Gee, tell me more.....
Trial by adversary with each side presenting actual evidence and actual witnesses subject to cross examination and an impartial Jury is what the Demo-owned MSM wants eliminated so they ca pick the winning narrative. One more right gone with the wind.
DeSantis or Pompeo. Both are better choices than Trump. Others will emerge if these two fall short.
I don’t get Michael K’s comment about Trump naively trusting the patriotism of his own party. That seems like a non sequitur. How did his party fail to show patriotism? When did Trump recommend a patriotic act that members of the GOP declined? Are you suggesting the GOP members of Congress did something wrong on riot day? Didn’t the riot assure that any debate about electoral votes would be squelched? Most of the GOP voted to acquit in the phony impeachment trial. Are you suggesting that Pence assert powers that he didn’t have to implement John Eastman’s dunderheaded plan?
The outcome of the 2020 election was outrageous because Trump lost an election that he could have won if he had run a smarter race. But he didn’t run a smarter race, did he? He did the same old things, and he lost. And then he did the same old things in Georgia and two senators lost elections that they could have won.
The 2024 race should be easily winnable by the GOP. Let’s win it.
Maybe Dave Blaska can chime in again, and tell us how we're all wrong about Liz Cheney.
Ashli Babbit?
"The 2024 race should be easily winnable by the GOP. Let’s win it."
The 2020 race would have been easily winnable by Donald Trump, if the Democrats hadn't stolen it. What makes you think they won't steal the next one? This time, they'll tell the mules to turn their phones off.
When did Trump recommend a patriotic act that members of the GOP declined?
============
!Building Wall?
My dream is Buttigieg/Cheney versus Trump in 2024.
Who's the top and who's the bottom?
"I needed to know how any educated, intelligent person could say such a thing."
And did you find out? I'd like to think he's being blackmailed, but I suspect he's merely being paid.
Michael K
"The contrast between the Biden regime and Trump will be so stark that historians will wonder how the 2020 fraud could have been accepted by so many."
"I respect Attorney General Barr so I accepted what he was saying."
Ivanka Trump (Under oath)
WILLIAM BARR: "I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations, but they were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were influencing a lot of people, members of the public, that there was this systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn’t count, and that these machines, controlled by somebody else, were actually determining it, which was complete nonsense. And it was being laid out there. And I told him that it was crazy stuff and they were wasting their time on that and it was doing grave disservice to the country."
Under oath
Liz is definitely the top, Yancey. And I hear she has an outstanding collection of strap-ons.
Just in case you'd like to know, here's what actually happened on Jan 6th.
Nothing is ever really settled in history, but those who believe that there is only one side to every question will assume that history will think the same. It's strange, though, for somebody to assume that history has only one answer at a time when every former truism about American history is being overturned.
For the love of God, stop saying that the Democrats are going to put a renegade Republican on their ticket. The party left is more powerful than it's been in decades, and they won't stand for it. Wyoming is the least populated state in the union, and Liz isn't a big vote getter. She'll have a soft landing into a cushy DC position, but she won't be anybody's VP candidate.
I didn’t have much hope for the 1/6 committee considering the Boy Scout Garland will never take any action. But if the committee hearings are triggering the rest of the right wing universe the way it’s affecting the nut case crackers who post at Althouse, they must be doing something right.
Amadeus 48: "DeSantis or Pompeo. Both are better choices than Trump. Others will emerge if these two fall short."
Again, DeSantis has already clearly stated he would not run if Trump runs.
Further, there is zero chance Pompeo holds the populist republican vote, nor the working class vote, nor the % of latino/black vote that Trump would garner.
And no, no other candidates are going to magically appear out of mist.
This is the reality of the situation. The ones who seem to understand this the best are the dems, which explains the never ending show trial.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন