The Jury Talks Back

3/19/2019

Devin Nunes Sues Everyone, Including His Mom*

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 7:08 am

Devin Nunes has taken the very wise and not at all boneheaded step of filing a whiny lawsuit against Twitter and a bunch of troll accounts:

Stung by obscene and pointed criticism, Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, said he was suing Twitter and three users for defamation, claiming the users smeared him and the platform allowed it to happen because of a political agenda.

The complaint, which Fox News reported was filed in Virginia on Monday, seeks $250 million in damages. In making his case, Mr. Nunes, a loyal ally of President Trump and the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, repeated several common Republican complaints that Twitter has repeatedly denied: that it censors Republicans, “shadow bans” their accounts and actively helps their opponents.

Though absorbing criticism comes with the territory for politicians, the complaint described the objectionable tweets from the three users as something “that no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life.”

One of the defendants is Liz Mair, who stands accused of runnning certain troll accounts including one named “Devin Nunes Mom.”

Devin Nunes has always been a national joke. It’s just that, thanks to his own stupid actions, a lot more people are getting it now:

What surprises me about this — although it probably shouldn’t — is that the guy is still on Twitter. Fair warning: if any of you mooks ever sues me for oppressing your precious free speech rights here, guess what the first thing I’m doing is? That’s right: banning you.

But I’m sure the lawyers advised against it: it will just play into his narrative and so forth.

Ah well. This is a perfect example of why I blog less lately. The stories, and the people the stories are about, are self-parodizing. Even as we speak, the President of the United States has taken to social media to call the husband of one of his top communications aides a “total loser” — and all I can think is: ha, won’t it be fun to watch her answer questions about that! Meanwhile the national debt stands at over $22 trillion, we live in a world where nothing is being done about the spread of weapons that could end the human race, and we have apparently lost all popular understanding of the importance of free markets that have lifted millions upon millions out of poverty. But at least we have our bread and circuses, hur hur, and so in the end — well, I’d have a snappy final line, but sorry, I gotta go check Kellyanne’s Twitter feed see ya

*No, Devin Nunes, you litigious dullard, I am not actually saying that you are suing your actual mom.

48 Comments »

  1. Thank you for this post, Patterico.

    When I first heard Nunes was suing twitter, I must confess I was delighted. Twitter actually is hyper political, and applies rules with glaring inequality while saying they don’t. I was thinking this might be tortable under false advertizing laws, or perhaps even under public utility laws. I thought that, at least, the discovery phase would prove entertaining.

    Then I had a glance at Nunes’s lawsuit. Just… wow. My first thought was “Somebody needs to stop drinking the kool-aide”.

    Nunes did not merely shoot himself in the foot here. He took careful, deliberate aim, and then unloaded the while dang clip into it.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 3/20/2019 @ 1:07 am

  2. CJ, I admire your ability to be open minded and to not let your initial opinions cloud your judgment. I think you and Patrick have that in common.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/20/2019 @ 6:33 pm

  3. Thank you, DRJ!

    I admire you for the same. It actually comes easy for me; I learned a long time ago that being open to the idea I’m wrong can save me a lot of grief. An example is when I work on one of my vehicles; I may well start with an idea of what’s wrong firmly in mind, but if I see contrary evidence, well, I’m not going to insist on continuing to change out the radiator if I find the leak is in a coolant hose instead. :)

    As for our host, I’ve seen him flip on an issue when new facts emerge, and it’s one of the reasons I like it here.

    I also think it’s sad that this acknowledgment of objective reality is rare these days.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 3/20/2019 @ 8:24 pm

  4. Edit to the above; my final line was NOT referring to Patterico, but rather the the world in general. (Note to self: in text, placement matters.)

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 3/20/2019 @ 8:27 pm

  5. I tend to be more stubborn about letting ideas go until I am convinced they are wrong. I think many conservatives are like that. It is good not to be too changeable but it is not good to be too stubborn.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/21/2019 @ 11:43 am

  6. I left this comment in the Open Thread at the main website:

    The Conway soap opera interests me. It could be an elaborate plan for attention engineered by the Conways and Trump. It could be the opposite — spontaneous, unfiltered, and unplanned, with both Trump and husband George tweeting their thoughts as they have them. I certainly think Trump does that but my guess is this is a debate the Conways have been having for some time.

    What do you do when you disagree with your spouse about something you think is very, very important? Most couples find a way to agree or at least to reach detente, but what if you can’t?

    DRJ (15874d) — 3/21/2019 @ 11:03 am

    Any thoughts?

    Comment by DRJ — 3/21/2019 @ 11:45 am

  7. I left this comment on the front side:

    After reading Allahpundit’s take on the Conway marriage fiasco, I still don’t know if they’re in on it together or it’s a publicity stunt to divert attention from Trump or Mueller or whatever.
    What I am absolutely clear about, however, is that these two morons have 4 children together, and they clearly don’t give a crap about them or the embarrassment and humiliation they will have to endure because of the selfish, idiots they have for parents. They need to swallow a heaping spoonful of STFU and consider the very real risk of hurting and alienating their children to score cheap political points. Shame on both of them.

    With that, I think that whether it’s an elaborate plan hatched up with Trump or just a couple being publicly nasty toward one another, it’s terribly damaging to the children involved. And humiliating. Both scenarios would demonstrate an extraordinary of self-centered interests that supersede a parent’s concern for the well being of their children. Both scenarios also demonstrate an incredible lack of disrespect for either the public at large, or a wife, a husband, and a president. All of it is nasty.

    Comment by Dana — 3/21/2019 @ 4:34 pm

  8. What do you do when you disagree with your spouse about something you think is very, very important? Most couples find a way to agree or at least to reach detente, but what if you can’t?

    This is so hard. Everyone who has been married any length of time has run into at least one thing where it’s caused tremendous division and negative feelings toward their partner because of the belief in their view being the right view to have regarding a specific situation. Especially if it involves the children. We have learned, after much trial and error and prayer and tears, that being will to compromise is a fine art form to be mastered in marriage, but to do so requires a solid commitment to that greater than us – God. We seek Him for direction, for hearts to remain soft and yielded toward one another, and trust that there is an answer. We discuss, debate, try not to be angry, go to our separate corners and regroup and remind ourselves that we are ultimately on the same side, with the same goal in mind. The question is just how to best get there. It takes a tremendous willingness to serve the marriage rather than oneself, or even one’s mate. The marriage is an entity unto itself and it’s a question of what is best for that covenant. It can be a real bear at times. Over the years, after the hashing it out and realizing we are on opposing sides of an issue, we have just had to back off and work it out individually through prayer and reflection, and come to a point where we are willing to put self-interest second. That seems to be what breaks the stalemate, that coming back together in peace and a heart willing to compromise, or even go with the other’s preference. It’s not throwing in the towel, or giving up, or throwing up the hands in frustration. It’s a calm understanding that we are willing to do what is best for the marriage first, and that everything follows that. Whether it involved kids or finances or job decisions, etc. There is a necessary order to resolving these divisions.

    Comment by Dana — 3/21/2019 @ 4:42 pm

  9. I would add that the stronger willed the couple is, the harder it is to navigate these minefields. But if one endures, although life will still be filled with those horribly difficult decisions, our understanding of the process, and what is going on (sanctification) and what God requires of us (to walk humbly with our God), will ease the struggle.

    Comment by Dana — 3/21/2019 @ 4:45 pm

  10. Are you saying it is destructive to the marriage and/or children for spouses to publicly disagree? Kellyanne isn’t Trump, she is his employee. Does George have to stay publicly silent about the President as long as she works there?

    It may be wise not to jeopardize her job but how does it threaten their marriage if they both have strong and independent careers, as they seem to have?

    Comment by DRJ — 3/21/2019 @ 5:18 pm

  11. I don’t really care about Mr. and Mrs. Conway. I do wonder though if their public spatting (whether staged or not) is negatively impacting their 4 children (who are not yet independent of their parents). In my experience, the last thing kids want (when they hit a certain age) is to have any public attention on them. And the Conways seem determined to do just that because of their own selfishness. Also, if it is really a source of friction between them, again this would be negatively impacting the kids to know that everyone knows about it.

    Yes, I think it can be destructive for kids in this case. No kid wants their parents to fight, let alone fight in the public eye. I think if they had their kids best interest at heart, they’d keep their fight about Trump behind closed door. In the end, what good has it done? Has Trump changed because of it? Will he? No and no. They are both free to do this in public, of course. All I’m saying is they may be paying a bigger price doing so than it’s worth.

    Comment by Dana — 3/21/2019 @ 6:07 pm

  12. Kids get embarrassed about a lot of things, not just what their parents say but also how they act and even what they wear. Maybe they would benefit from having parents who deal with and even disagree about important issues.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/21/2019 @ 6:24 pm

  13. To me, the point is that it involves important issues. I don-t see the point of parents arguing publicly about something petty. Maybe this strikes some as a petty argument and I can see that point of view. But if George really believes what he is saying, this is an important issue.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/21/2019 @ 6:27 pm

  14. if we take their actions at face value, aren’t both parents standing up for what they believe?

    Comment by DRJ — 3/21/2019 @ 6:57 pm

  15. My take on the Conways is.. confused. Oh, and uninformed.

    I have no idea what Kellyanne has said on this, I have heard nothing. I am aware of a couple of attacks George has made on Trump.

    First question; what is George Conway’s profession? Per google, it looks like he’s an attorney, not a political commentator.

    As for Kellyanne Conway, she’s a political counselor to Trump, and sometimes spokesman (and former and perhaps future campaign manager).

    So, George is notable only because he’s married to Kellyanne, and he’s using this notoriety to attack her boss.

    My read at the moment is that one spouse publicly attacking the other’s boss these are grossly opportunistic attacks, enabled solely by his wife’s position, and thus defacto attacks on her career. This strikes me as incredibly offensive and disgusting behavior toward his spouse.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 3/21/2019 @ 8:31 pm

  16. Can you tell me how this public squabbling has made a change for good? Do you think it has changed any minds? Do you think it’s been for the general betterment of government or Americans that Trmump is now focusing on it? Have you learned anything about the president that we didn’t already know?

    Comment by Dana — 3/21/2019 @ 8:35 pm

  17. Arizona CJ, here is the latest:

    n the interview, Conway spoke at length about the household tensions over her administration work, with her husband openly questioning the president’s mental health and Trump publicly attacking him as a “loser” on Twitter.

    “This is new,” she said. “And what is also new is not supporting the agenda of the president and my work there, because when George took himself out of contention for a top job in the Department of Justice almost two years ago he put out a statement – that many in the media refuse to cover now – that we decided as a family … it is not the right time for us both to have big jobs in the federal government … and that he still supports the president, the work of the administration and his quote, wonderful wife.

    “I appreciate the president defending what he thinks is unfairness, I’ll leave that up to him, but I was raised in a household of strong Italian Catholic women who taught me you air grievances like that in private. So it is very surprising to see it be so public.”

    She continued: “[The president] is protective of me, that’s what people really should take from this. I’m not being asked to choose between my marriage and my job, Donald Trump has never made me feel that way. I know George is quoted recently as saying ‘I wish she didn’t work there’.”

    Asked if her husband wants her to step down, Conway replied: “Certainly, but what message does that send?”

    Conway also dinged those in the media who have speculated on her and George’s relationship, saying: “The media is getting into a very dangerous area in discussing people’s marriages.”

    The counselor to the president closed out the interview by describing herself as “business as usual,” despite the swirling controversy.

    “Really, until this week, this was my private life, not my professional life. George is not Bob Mueller… he is not Rod Rosenstein, he can’t act on those tweets in a way,” she said.

    Comment by Dana — 3/21/2019 @ 8:49 pm

  18. We’ve learned about the diagnosis of mental disorders and that Trump is doing his best to show they fit.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/21/2019 @ 8:49 pm

  19. We already knew about his instability. I am referring specifically to the Conway spat.

    Comment by Dana — 3/21/2019 @ 8:52 pm

  20. That is part of her husband’s points.

    As for contradictory and embarrassing households, the Trumps make the Conways look like pikers. How does Melania show her face at a Be Best event given her husband’s actions and statements? Maybe spouses can do different things and still stay married.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/21/2019 @ 9:01 pm

  21. However, if you think calling the President mentally unhinged is simply a marital spat then I can understand why you don’t think it is appropriate. But if he is sincere and given that he actually knows Trump, perhaps he feels it is important to say what he thinks.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/21/2019 @ 9:09 pm

  22. I didn’t say I thought it was simply a marital spat. I am saying that we already knew that about Trump. IOW, Conway isn’t revealing anything about the president that we didn’t already know. Further, to what end does he keep doing this? Does he think anything is going to change the fact that Trump is the sitting president? Does he think he’s going to get his wife- a Trump advisor – to change her mind and see the light? So I ask: to why end?

    I think it’s fone if Conway voices his opinion, and it’s fone if Kellyanne gives interviews about as linked above. My concern is, to what end, and at what price?

    Comment by Dana — 3/21/2019 @ 9:29 pm

  23. Oh gosh, overlook my typos please. On phone and it’s a tiny keyboard.

    Comment by Dana — 3/21/2019 @ 9:30 pm

  24. Maybe George Conway’s goal is to expose what he thinks is important about Trump’s character and pressure GOP leaders, officials and supporters to stand up to him. I disagree that “we” (if you mean most people) know who Trump is. Most people see him as a celebrity who is known for an opulent, wealthy lifestyle.

    FWIW if this is an act, I don’t think it is something Trump wants. Trump would never sign on to a plan that calls him mentally ill. George and Kellyanne might have planned this if she wants to find a way out of the White House or they think her job might limit their futures in the GOP. Or it could simply be an example of spouses disagreeing about politics, but we notice this one because of their closeness to Trump.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/22/2019 @ 5:56 am

  25. As for their kids, they have two politically connected parents. I’m sure they have heard many political discussions and disagreements at home and have seen both parents talk politics on TV. I doubt this worries them about their parents but they probably have questions about Trump.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/22/2019 @ 6:28 am

  26. Kellyanne has been quoted as saying about her husband’s comments:

    “It’s unusual for George, who people know as a very private person, who really hasn’t weighed in on many different matters over the years,” she added.

    I take her at her word for now. Thus, I think George is doing this because he thinks it is important and needs to be said.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/22/2019 @ 6:35 am

  27. Kellyanne is a terrible person. She represents everything that is wrong with Trump worshipping culture. Zero honesty and grasping for power above family and all decency.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/22/2019 @ 7:14 am

  28. I doubt this worries them about their parents but they probably have questions about Trump.

    Kids being kids, I don’t think they have questions about Trump. I think they wish their parents would stop being so embarrassing.

    Look, I think the die is cast: nothing, but nothing can change the minds of Trump loyalists. Likewise, nothing will change the minds of us who believe Trump is unhinged. And as far as Republican politicians being pressured by Conway, I think it’s laughable. They have no shame, and have demonstrated over and over that when push comes to shove, they will roll over because they want to be re-elected and stay in the good graces of the GOP. (There are a few exceptions. I like how newly-elected Dan Crenshaw has pushed back on Trump while naming him (unlike those who push back but refuse to directly name him).

    Comment by Dana — 3/22/2019 @ 8:46 am

  29. How does anything change if people don’t speak out, Dana? Kellyanne is a hired gun but Trump is counting on everyone to think there is no point to standing up to him.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/22/2019 @ 8:53 am

  30. It is interesting about kids, though. I was raised seeing parents publicly disagree about politics. Both were conservative but they still had strong opinions about how to be conservative, and I don’t think it ruined my psyche or my life. I always thought it helped me see different points of view and grasp adult issues sooner.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/22/2019 @ 8:59 am

  31. This assumes that the most effective way of speaking out is by getting in a Twitter feud with Trump. I complain about Trump focusing on dumbbass stuff on Twitter, so I can’t sign off on this. I think Conway, who is clearly an insightful, well educated political insider would reach far more people with solid, fact-supported arguments on the pages of the NYT or WaPo or WSJ. And they would welcome his contributions. A continual examination of Trump, his policies, their corrosive impact on America, etc. The president is the gift that keeps on giving. Plenty of material on which to expound.

    By engaging in Twitter wars, it diminishes the advancement of solid arguments and concerns about Trump. But given space limitations and the tendency of the medium for snarky asides and juvenile tit-for-tats, I think he’s being self-limiting. I’d rather see him be more effective in his warfare.

    Comment by Dana — 3/22/2019 @ 9:02 am

  32. Also, DRJ, your parents weren’t public figures and didn’t use the most public of mediums to work out their disagreements. That adds a level of focus on the kids that generations of public figures’ families before would have never experienced to the same degree.

    Political disagreements around the dinner table inside the confines of one’s home and with one’s family are entirely different than public feuding.

    Comment by Dana — 3/22/2019 @ 9:06 am

  33. Dana, I said my parents’ disagreements were public, not private, but I certainly concede that our public level was lightyears different than the Conways.

    However, as a conservative, I believe it is up to parents, not society, to decide what their marriages and their kids can handle. The Conways can decide whether their kids can handle their father’s tweets and their mother’s press conferences. I imagine the kids get a lot more grief in metro DC private or public schools about their mom than about their dad. But I certainly don’t think Kellyanne should have refused her job if she felt her family and kids could handle it. Given that, I suspect George’s behavior is a piece of cake for this family.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/22/2019 @ 11:52 am

  34. George’s point is that Trump is unstable. Twitter is the only way to engage Trump directly and get a response from Trump, as opposed to a response from a press secretary or lawyer. Further, Trump is not a thoughtful person who thinks in complex ideas or essays. Twitter is his medium, so engaging him there makes sense.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/22/2019 @ 11:58 am

  35. Yes, he’s unstable, but we already knew that. I fail to see how the Twitter engagements are beneficial. All Conway has done has provoked Trump into paying attention to the criticism instead of more constructive things. Also, Trump is not engaging per se – he is throwing another tantrum because he’s being criticized. What’s new. Again, I don’t think this is the most effective way to forcefully criticize the president and encourage the GOP to grow a spine. I think the pages of big media outlets is the way to go. Conway can certainly do as he chooses, and it is always good to hold a politician’s feet to the fire. I just think there are more effective, broad based ways of doing it. But maybe Conway’s goal is just to be a constant thorn in Trump’s side, reminding him that he is not fooling anyone (other than his blind loyalists).

    The Conways can decide whether their kids can handle their father’s tweets and their mother’s press conferences. I imagine the kids get a lot more grief in metro DC private or public schools about their mom than about their dad.

    Of course they can – and should be the ones making the decisions concerning their kids. I don’t know who they get more grief about. If they were already getting grief because of their mom being in Trump’s administration, we can be sure with public feuding, the grief has increased. I hope it’s worth it in the end.

    FWIW, I tend to be very private about my family, and therefore it’s disturbing to me to see a family (who is already in the public spotlight) go balls to the wall with their public feuding. Trump wouldn’t be worth it to me to air my marital discord concerning him. I would choose another venue in which to make my political views known. Another venue that wouldn’t include my spouse or kids.

    Comment by Dana — 3/22/2019 @ 12:43 pm

  36. By engaging in Twitter wars, it diminishes the advancement of solid arguments and concerns about Trump. But given space limitations and the tendency of the medium for snarky asides and juvenile tit-for-tats, I think he’s being self-limiting. I’d rather see him be more effective in his warfare.

    You mean like what happened to this lengthy article about conservatism, Trumpism, and the alt-right that will be completely ignored because of a few words from the Instapundit and a tweet by Nick Searcy? Sorry, but the days where “solid arguments” matter are gone.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/22/2019 @ 8:04 pm

  37. If you believe the days where solid arguments matter are gone, then it makes perfect sense that you see Conway’s efforts on Twitter as productive.

    I just don’t see those days as gone. With the ascension of a terrifically bad leader anywhere, there has always remained a remnant of individuals who still pursue truth, value founding principles, and resist heavy-handed authoritarianism and nuttery when it makes its appearance on the national stage. Also, Instapundit and Searcy’s “caution to readers” actually speak to the warnings of the Bulwark article in some part, no?

    I see an inconsistency when, on one hand you ask me: How does anything change if people don’t speak out, Dana?,” yet at the same time tell me that the days of “solid arguments” are gone while linking to an article from The Bulwark – a publication that recently debuted with this mission statement:

    The Bulwark is a project of the Defending Democracy Together Institute. DDTI is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to preserving America’s democratic norms, values, and institutions, and educating the public on conservative principles like rule of law, free trade, and expanding legal immigration.

    Clearly, not everyone believes that the days where “solid arguments” matter are gone.

    Comment by Dana — 3/23/2019 @ 9:15 am

  38. There has to be a meaningful remnant of believers that start to question Trump. Our current populace and leaders don’t care. Virtually all of the GOP has embraced Trump. What is more likely to change their minds, a scholarly article or Trump governing stupidly on Twitter?

    It could be that he will plunge us into war, a recession, or a nuclear confrontation. Or it could be he will say and do even more incredibly stupid things on Twitter and enough people will say Basta! I vote for the latter.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/23/2019 @ 1:59 pm

  39. DRJ, you are ignoring that The Bulwark is made up of a meaningful remnant of believers. This is what happens when people who question, collectively act. The writers are the current populace and they obviously care about the state of affairs.

    Also, it’s not necessarily and either/or proposition. He is unhinged, therefore we have no idea what he will actually do versus what he will shoot his mouth off about.

    Comment by Dana — 3/23/2019 @ 2:11 pm

  40. IOW, with media outlets like The Bulwark just now coming online in response to the demise of the GOP and the current president’s behavior speaks directly to a meaningful remnant of believers. Not just in word, but in deed as well. Also, site’s like this one and others online demonstrate that there is indeed a very meaningful remnant of believers.

    Because Trump waffles on what he says and what he does, and is lead by his emotions rather than sound reasoning (unless he is strenuously urged and convinced otherwise), what he does is always a crapshoot.

    Comment by Dana — 3/23/2019 @ 3:05 pm

  41. I am the one who linked a Bulwark article so I am familiar with that website. I am also the one who pointed out how quickly the mainstream/Trump political bloggers dismissed it. Have you seen it quoted or linked anywhere else? I also doubt many people read that website.

    Patterico has had influence in the past when others quoted and linked his ideas. That is how ideas make a difference. Conservatives don’t get quoted or linked now so how will conservative opinions get noticed enough to change things?

    Comment by DRJ — 3/23/2019 @ 5:35 pm

  42. Of course I know it was you who linked to the article at The Bulwark. It seems like you are resisting acknowledging that the new publication is the direct result of meaningful remnants taking action because of Trump. Pro-active people still exists.

    Honestly, I haven’t had time to look around and see if the piece has been linked elsewhere. I’ll take your word that it hasn’t. That could be due to it still be in its nascent stages, not a big readership yet, or that it is a result of there no longer be an interest in dissenting voices. I don’t know. I do know that Christian Vanderbrouk, who wrote the article, has a bit of a reputation in offending people on both sides of the aisle (mostly on the right), so it’s also possible that his reputation precedes him.

    Comment by Dana — 3/23/2019 @ 6:29 pm

  43. I am sorry I exasperate you but you even call them “remnants” of conservatives. There is a point when they are just a few lonely voices, not The Resistance, and look at how few GOP political leaders oppose Trump — on anything but The Wall, ironically, the one thing I want!

    Someday conservative thought will be important again but I don’t think it will be until Trump is discredited or loses an election.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/23/2019 @ 6:57 pm

  44. I’m not exasperated. It’s a subject worth exploring and I’m glad for the opportunity to do so.

    I think a large part of the problem is, on both sides of the aisle, is that the pendulum has made a sizable lurch since Trump has been in office. The left has swung hard left. The right has swung hard right. Both have revealed dangers to this transition. I believe the pendulum is always in motion and that it will eventually swing back toward a more reasonable position. But, if the GOP leadership does not wake up and grow a collective spine, the motion could be impacted and slowed. While I obviously disagree with the new hard left (AOC, Talib, etc.) that are seemingly now in control of the party, or will be soon, I admire that these newcomers are not backing down in their beliefs. They hold a tenacious belief that their leftist ways are best, and to hell with the old guard always hedging their bets. Obviously it’s difficult to govern with such absolutist views and they terribly misguided, but the backbone is admirable.

    Comment by Dana — 3/23/2019 @ 7:03 pm

  45. Trump and the GOP are consumed by ambition and a love of power that overcomes principles, and that is virtually impossible to stop with reason or arguments.

    Did you read the article by Richard North Patterson? Reading that made me want to know what Mueller’s report says about Jared.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/24/2019 @ 6:45 am

  46. Trump and the GOP are consumed by ambition and a love of power that overcomes principles, and that is virtually impossible to stop with reason or arguments.

    Let me explain why I say this. Trump supporters believe he has principles — ideas he stands for 100%. That has to be things he campaigned on. According to Fox News, Trump has done some but still has several in limbo or dropped, including his signature issues the Wall and ending ObamaCare. If he really wanted to do these things, he would have started on Day One of his Presidency when he had a GOP Congress, not on Day One of his re-election campaign with a lame-duck Congress or soon to be Democratic-controlled House.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/24/2019 @ 8:39 am

  47. We know the GOP political leaders like symbolic votes. Now we know Trump does, too.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/24/2019 @ 8:41 am

  48. Dana, I want to make sure you know that I appreciate and want to read conservative arguments by people like you, Patterico, and places like The Bulwark. My point is that the people who like Trump’s approach to politics probably won’t change their minds based on conservative arguments. If Conway’s tweets make Trump appear to his supporters like a political blowhard, they might respond. Call it fighting fire with fire.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/24/2019 @ 12:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview


Powered by WordPress.