Monica Crowley Bows Out After Accusations Of Plagiarism
[guest post by Dana]
Monica Crowley, recently appointed by President-elect Donald Trump to a key national security communications job, said Monday that she would relinquish the post amid multiple allegations of plagiarism.
Crowley, who has been named senior director of strategic communications at the National Security Council, said in a statement that “after much reflection,” she had decided to remain in New York and “will not be taking a position in the incoming administration.”
“I greatly appreciate being asked to be part of President-elect Trump’s team and I will continue to enthusiastically support him and his agenda for American renewal,” Crowley said in the statement, in which she made no mention of the plagiarism charges.
Further:
The publisher of a 2012 book by Crowley said last week that it will stop selling copies until she addresses allegations of plagiarism. Crowley, a conservative pundit, is also under fire for allegedly plagiarizing passages in her PhD dissertation at Columbia University.
Patterico reported on the plagiarism allegations here.
While they may not have Crowley to kick around in this administration, obviously, a possible future-run as vice-president is not out of the question. Seriously, though, Crowley should address the accusations head-on in order to clear her once-good name and reputation. It is up to her to clarify or explain, if she can, and then let her supporters and detractors decide for themselves about the plagiarism allegations. That she chose not to, is telling.
–Dana
Crowley should address the accusations head-on in order to clear her good name and reputation. It is up to her to clarify or explain, if she can, and then let her supporters and detractors decide.
Dana (023079) — 1/16/2017 @ 12:02 pmApparently no excuses, guilty as charged. She can still work for CNN, though…
Colonel Haiku (6dd99d) — 1/16/2017 @ 12:02 pmI “tweaked” Patrick on this in the post about the arrest of the wife of the Orlando shooter, only because this post wasn’t up yet.
But, in a serious vein, I hope in some small way it cause him to re-examine the presumptions he’s pushing forward in all his anti-Trump posts.
I don’t have any problem with that POV, and I simply challenge it when I think there are errors or weaknesses in his analysis — as I’ve done in his defense of CNN’s story.
I think the bigger issue that is causing the chaffing by some here in response to his posts is the presumption he buries in them that the Trump supporters here cannot make distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable conduct by Trump and his nascent administration.
In the case of Crowley, when the facts came to light, she was pretty much condemned here, like everywhere else. I don’t think it was necessary to pull out the pitchforks and torches at the moment of her exposure in order to condemn her.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/16/2017 @ 12:08 pmIt’s disappointing to see Crowley avoid explaining herself. I know some will say she didn’t want to become a distraction and take focus away from the new administration but I think that’s just an excuse. I’m sure her current employers would like this addressed, one way or the other, given her lack of credibility now.
Dana (023079) — 1/16/2017 @ 12:09 pmfox news propaganda sluts they burn bright but they burn quickly
my heart hurts for this woman
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/16/2017 @ 12:15 pmBowing out was the professional and ethical thing for her to do. Whether it was her choice or someone forced her to, there are apparently too many outstanding questions about her writing to allow her to be a front stage asset to the new administration at least right out of the gate. It is sad, though when a vocal, strong and effective soldier for conservative issues is damaged by personal failings. I felt the same way about Gen. Petraeus’ fall. What a waste of talent.
elissa (377b6d) — 1/16/2017 @ 12:19 pm@ SWC,
Well, shame on those presuming. Why not directly go to the source and ask if that is what he is doing?
If some (including you?) believe that Patrick “buries in” his posts that Trump supporters cannot make distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable conduct by Trump and his nascent administration, then what a shame that such a low opinion of him is held by members of the commentariat. How would those same Trump supporters feel if they presumed such an equally low opinion of them was being held by Patrick? Oh. Wait.
It would be good for all of us to remember that Patrick has made it very clear from the get-go, repeatedly, that he understood/understands, and accepts as reasonable the argument that many here voted for Trump because, simply, he was not Clinton.
Also, exactly when is the moment to condemn one who is being tapped to serve on a new administration and has just been publicly exposed by allegations of plagiarism?
Dana (023079) — 1/16/2017 @ 12:19 pmI would like to hear from Trump supporters ( meaning the ones who voted Trump because the only other option was Hillary, not those whose first choice was Trump ) if they concur with SWC’s assessment.
Dana (023079) — 1/16/2017 @ 12:42 pmThe description you gave of “Trump supporters” is not accurate. You described me and I was a Cruz supporter until Trump got the nomination, then I was a “Trump voter” because the other option was Stinky.
So which do you want Trump supporters or Trump voters?
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 1/16/2017 @ 12:51 pm@Rev’m Hoagie:The description you gave of “Trump supporters” is not accurate.
On the nose. The issue in a nutshell.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:18 pm==Also, exactly when is the moment to condemn==
The key word you have used here is “condemn”, Dana. A post bringing early attention to the plagiarism claim, offering some proof, expressing discomfort with the Crowley appointment, expecting that commenters will opine how it will/should be handled by the transition team and allowing those commenters to express their POV before assuming or accusing them of being mindless shills would be another way of handling the issue in a thread. I believe that is the way the old Patterico would have handled the issue.
In your unquestioned loyalty and what I know is your sincere desire to defend Pat, I am sorry to say that you may be enabling a destructive behavior rather than helping him, Dana. And you are one of the very few people I think he trusts right now. Regardless of the actual content, the new post up from Patterico just now is not the sober, thoughtful, persuasive, carefully worded “Always Trust Content from Patterico” email it to your friends type of serious offering that many of us have been coming to his site for, for years to consider and jawbone.
And yes. For what it’s worth I concur with SWC’s assessment.
elissa (377b6d) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:19 pm“New Project Veritas: “DisruptJ20,” A Collection of Leftwing Hate Groups, Caught on Video Conspiring to “Shut Down” Inauguration and Inaugural Events
—Ace
One of the plans includes setting of butyric acid stink bombs in the Deploraball’s ventilation system.
Mischief? Well, it wouldn’t be mischief if people, mistaking the bitter chemical smell for a lethal chemical terror attack, panicked and fled the ball and wound up trampling people.”
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/367912.php
Colonel Haiku (6dd99d) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:19 pmDana — LOL. You think there’s been any question about Patrick’s contempt for Trumps supporters in the posts he’s been putting up??
And his attribution of the shortcomings in Trump and the administration to anyone in the comments who expresses 1) disagreement with him, or 2) support for Trump’s administration???
Re Crowley, she was condemned by pretty much everyone here, including myself.
But Patrick’s original post on the subject included a snarky challenge to find a way to defend Crowley in a bunch of unworthy categories he himself created.
Frankly, when I wrote my post I ignored the categories and simply gave my first-pass at the allegations against her in the CNN story.
He then belittled my comment, with sarcastic snark at the idea that I actually made an effort at an earnest response.
Frankly, and this is for him and everyone else reading, that response by him put me on edge a bit in my later writings on other topics, and I gladly at this point take on the lead of challenging his POV.
Not because I have a problem with his POV, I’m having more and more difficulty with his attitude towards those that don’t wholly embrace his POV.
And whether he agrees or not — or cares or not — RedState is rapidly working itself to the fringe conservative NeverTrumpForever movement REGARDLESS of how much the Trump ADMINISTRATION is taking on the trappings of a very typical conservative political operation.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:20 pmI admit that in my comments above I was not distinguishing in my head between “supporters” and “voters”.
I was in the latter category between the convention and the election.
As the Administration has begun to take shape, and campaign rhetoric has moved to policy reality, I’m moving more into the former category.
Feel free to classify yourselves.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:26 pmI pretty much agree with swc’s take and Hoagie’s, as well, as I was a Cruz supporter, voted for him in the California primary, and voted for Trump on 11/8 because SOMEONE needs to push back against this nonsense. I’d add that defending “stories” from the likes of CNN is a fool’s errand. But that’s just my opinion.
Colonel Haiku (6dd99d) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:27 pm@Dana: Patrick “buries in” his posts that Trump supporters cannot make distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable conduct by Trump and his nascent administration
That he thing he did, twice, with Crowley’s plagiarism? It wasn’t buried. He listed of a set of defenses, declared them all illegitimate in advance, and dared his commenters to espouse them for his lulz.
And then did it a second time.
And then in another post says he’s going to put nothing but “Trump his awesome” here and save his real content for RedState.
Come on, Dana.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:27 pmNever been a fan of Red State and don’t expect to become one. Not my cup of tea.
Colonel Haiku (6dd99d) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:29 pmHoagie,
Let’s go with “voters,” which is what I intended to say. My apologies for not being more careful.
Dana (12c908) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:32 pmI guess “buried” was an inexact way for me to phrase my point.
I wasn’t intending to suggest that he tried to hide it from view.
Only that his sarcastic and dismissive comments in advance of any comments that disagree with him are put in the middle or near the end of his posts, and serve to discredit anything in the comments which fit his advance description.
Which he then points out in his own responses in the comments.
Basically he’s trolling the people that make the site a positive experience, and in at least one very high profile way he’s run one off.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:32 pm12. Too Bad the infamous FAN MAN is no longer on the terrestrial earth. I could also see one these mooks trying a similar stunt. http://www.badlefthook.com/2013/11/6/5072846/20-years-ago-fan-man-crashed-bowe-holyfield-ii
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:37 pmGiven that you are typically a concise writer, my comment was based on the belief that you did mean that P intentionally hides it from view. Which is to assume a big negative about him. Thanks for clarifying.
Dana (12c908) — 1/16/2017 @ 1:41 pmNo, Patrick does not hide things from view:
“He criticized Trump. Swarm him.”
That was pretty obvious.
I made the comment on the other recent thread,
a serious comment,
I am interested in a follow up by our host concerning the CNN got it right post, whether he still thinks CNN was running a legitimate story, or whether it was part of an attack with little “there” there.
And I hope you and DRJ and any others do not think some of us have animus against him. i don’t, anyway.
There are people here losing perspective, big time. If it is me, fine.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/16/2017 @ 2:10 pm==I would like to hear from Trump supporters ( meaning the ones who voted Trump because the only other option was Hillary, not those whose first choice was Trump ) if they concur with SWC’s assessment.==(Dana)
==I admit that in my comments above I was not distinguishing in my head between “supporters” and “voters”.==(SWC)
Actually, in thinking on this for a while I am unclear on why that distinction even matters at this point four days away from the inauguration. I am unclear why defining the moment of rapt commitment to Donald Trump, versus achieving a grudging acceptance of Donald Trump, versus voting for him only because not doing so was a vote for Hillary, matters a hill of beans with respect to his appointments and how his administration is assessed now and going forward.
I also have been wanting to mention–and perhaps this is a good time–that I hope all the moderate or right leaning Californians and Illinoisans (just for example) who sincerely asked “why bother voting for president in this blue state when I dislike both candidates and Hillary has the electoral votes locked up anyway”? have learned that votes do make a difference–at least where feeding teh narrative is concerned. The BS about but, but, but, she won the popular vote is aided by every (non prog) voter who did not vote at all or cast a meaningless and useless protest vote.
elissa (377b6d) — 1/16/2017 @ 2:26 pm@ elissa,
This is disappointing coming from you, elissa. Given that I don’t get paid to post here, I have no hesitation in pointing out where I disagree with our host, and have done so in the past. With that, I also happen to firmly believe that it is indeed possible for intelligent people to have different views on an issue, and those differing views being viable. Finally, I’m but unquestioning loyal to just one man, and it’s the one to whom I said “I do”.
With that, what I am trying to discern in whether, in all of this strife, is if the issue is one of tone or one of content? Or a mix of both?
Dana (023079) — 1/16/2017 @ 2:27 pm@MD in Philly:And I hope you and DRJ and any others do not think some of us have animus against him. i don’t, anyway.
I hope they can tell the difference, between animus and disagreement, and I am not convinced they can or choose to make that distinction.
As far as Patterico goes, as I said before, I hope he take the time to think about he wants this place to be and how he wants to get it there. Maybe he’ll want it to be something that I want to be part of, and I’ll help him to do that. Or if he wants it to be something that doesn’t interest me, then we’ll part kindly. But things are probably not going to get much better until that happens.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/16/2017 @ 2:29 pm@Dana:what I am trying to discern in whether, in all of this strife, is if the issue is one of tone or one of content? Or a mix of both?
I gave you some examples from the last few days. So did others. Maybe you could start with them. It’s easier when you have specifics in mind.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/16/2017 @ 2:30 pmI like that there is disagreement here and that we are free to vent it and try to work through in in this venue. We are iron sharpening iron. I think it’s healthy as it challenges our own perceptions and points of views. While it may not cause us to change minds, it often helps validate currently held views. This all speaks to the uniqueness of the American body politic.
I try not to be personal, whether it’s taking comments personally or attacking the personal in return. And I really try not to be passive-aggressive, a “skill” at which I unfortunately, excel. It is not always easy, but it helps to bear in mind that we are all just fallible individuals, none better than the other, none more special in God’s eyes or with any more worth than our fellow commenters. Personal egos and self-importance are a big whatever in light of honesty and respect.
And given that everything is temporal in this life, I’m not going to get too exercised about the recent friction. This too shall pass.
Dana (023079) — 1/16/2017 @ 2:37 pmI am sorry I disappointed you Dana by daring to be honest. It is clear that Pat views you as a trusted and loyal colleague and ally. To answer your question I think in some cases it is both the content and the tone of many posts which are ruining the spirit of community here. I think many people who care deeply about both Patterico and this site are trying to express this in many ways as they know how on a continuum that goes from gentle to belligerent. I do not think that this cri de coeur is being heard. I don’t think what’s at issue here is, as you seem to believe, “intelligent people having different views on an issue” and debating them. That said, I will not put you on the spot by asking if you fully read Patterico’s “two stories” post from earlier today. I will not put you on the spot by asking you to publicly say what you thought about it both content and tone-wise.
elissa (377b6d) — 1/16/2017 @ 2:54 pm@elissa: I will not put you on the spot by asking you to publicly say what you thought about it both content and tone-wise.
I will. Dana, what did you think about the specific examples we listed above?
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/16/2017 @ 2:56 pmMaybe it’s just as well. If her plagiarism had not been a distraction, those tight dresses and six-inch heels would have been.
I never condemned poor Monica. I mocked her. Mockery is all plagiarism rates.
nk (dbc370) — 1/16/2017 @ 2:57 pmIt’s pretty simple: you might be able to get away with plagiarism in your dissertation, as long as you don’t do anything to make people start to scrutinize your past work. Dr Crowley is only 48 years old; she’s got a lot of now-trashed professional life ahead of her.
There are only so many ways to say things, so some short passages could appear to be plagiarism, by accident, but that hasn’t been Dr Crowley’s problem.
The Dana who can see the obvious lesson (1b79fa) — 1/16/2017 @ 3:26 pmMonica Crowley Bows Out After Accusations Of Plagiarism…
…and in 20 years, will be elected Vice President of the United States of America.
“Follow the Yellow Brick Road…” – ‘The Wizard of Oz’, 1939
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/16/2017 @ 3:32 pm“I also have been wanting to mention–and perhaps this is a good time–that I hope all the moderate or right leaning Californians and Illinoisans (just for example) who sincerely asked “why bother voting for president in this blue state when I dislike both candidates and Hillary has the electoral votes locked up anyway”? have learned that votes do make a difference–at least where feeding teh narrative is concerned. The BS about but, but, but, she won the popular vote is aided by every (non prog) voter who did not vote at all or cast a meaningless and useless protest vote.”
– elissa
To the contrary, I would argue that those non-voters or protest voters have done an invaluable service to our political dialogue by keeping Trump from attaining a popular vote majority. It’s not “BS” to think that the winner of a popular vote should win an election, even though it’s not the way our system is currently arranged – nor is it BS to think that the winner of an electoral college vote should win an election. But there should be a national debate on this point, at this juncture, and Trump’s failure to win the popular vote, coupled with his great unpopularity, lay the foundation for that national debate.
Leviticus (70ca80) — 1/16/2017 @ 3:33 pmR.I.P. EUGENE A. CERNAN, COMMANDER, APOLLO 17, LAST MAN TO WALK ON THE MOON.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 1/16/2017 @ 3:33 pmOf course, I had to type out my collegiate papers using an actual typewriter, printing directly on paper. I didn’t have one of them new-fangled word processor thingamabobs where I could go back and correct stuff, and add quotation marks and other fancy punctuation.
The elderly Dana (1b79fa) — 1/16/2017 @ 3:33 pmDCSCA wrote:
She will be the running mate for 2024 Republican Presidential nominee Senator John Blutarsky.
The movie fan Dana (1b79fa) — 1/16/2017 @ 3:37 pm“33. It’s not “BS” to think that the winner of a popular vote should win an election, even though it’s not the way our system is currently arranged – nor is it BS to think that the winner of an electoral college vote should win an election”
Yes it is. It is BS.
Same reason why the World Series winner is not determined by whichever team scored the most total runs in seven games. Its because the winner is whoever wins the most individual CONTESTS, not the most runs/votes.
Anybody who seriously claims to think the popular vote is the logical way to determine the President is either ignorant or being willfully ignorant.
Gee, maybe the winner should be whoever wins the most counties, or the most states.
So, anyway, good luck on convincing 3/4ths of the states to agree that California and New York should pick the President.
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 1/16/2017 @ 3:58 pmHeh, you can argue away, Leviticus, for all the good it will do. Maybe, possibly, within your lifetime the electoral college will be changed by constitutional amendment but it certainly will not happen in my lifetime. Competent Presidential campaigns know from day one that their sole mission in life is to get 270 electoral votes. Period end discussion. Presidential campaigns which manage to lose the electoral college but win the popular are particularly mock-able and inept. Near the end Hillary, for example, spent time in Chicago and New Orleans to beef up her popular vote because while she was sure she’d get the electoral win, she was worried DJT might get the national popular vote and it would “look bad”. The irony is that had she spent a little more face time just up the pike from Chicago in Wisconsin and Michigan she might be president elect. The irony is thick, is it not? It is one of my favorite stories of the whole election. And that Donna Brazile was a key player in it makes it all the better.
http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/report-hillary-clinton-wasted-millions-in-new-orleans-chicago-trying-to-win-popular-vote/
elissa (377b6d) — 1/16/2017 @ 3:58 pmPeople can think what they want. Our system uses the electoral college. That’s reality. Winning the popular vote and a $1.95 will get you a good cup of copy and the support of teh fever swamp lefties.
Colonel Haiku (6dd99d) — 1/16/2017 @ 4:05 pmit must feel so good to be one of the people what hounded this sleazebag plagiar-woman from public service
it must feel so damn good
like you just wanna clench down on that feeling and never let it go
but even now
the waves of pleasure
the thrill
the heady zesty shivers
recede
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/16/2017 @ 4:19 pmI don’t think Joe Biden plagiarized a book, or a thesis needed for a graduate degree. I do think people overreact toward this, or to resume enhancement,
If this gets discovered late enough, it doesn’t disgrace someone:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/11/us/boston-u-panel-finds-plagiarism-by-dr-king.html
Sammy Finkelman (0cf810) — 1/16/2017 @ 4:23 pm“Presidential campaigns which manage to lose the electoral college but win the popular are particularly mock-able and inept. Near the end Hillary, for example, spent time in Chicago and New Orleans to beef up her popular vote because while she was sure she’d get the electoral win, she was worried DJT might get the national popular vote and it would “look bad”. The irony is that had she spent a little more face time just up the pike from Chicago in Wisconsin and Michigan she might be president elect. The irony is thick, is it not?”
– elissa
I agree with these points, most definitely. Of course, as to your other points, we are not constrained to discussing what is – we can (and should) discuss what should be. I, for one, hope that the Electoral College is eliminated by constitutional amendment (or successfully nullified by the National Popular Vote Movement) during my lifetime.
Leviticus (70ca80) — 1/16/2017 @ 4:27 pmall that would’ve accomplished this time is doing a diseased criminal stinkypig all up in it
flagrantly
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/16/2017 @ 4:29 pmDADDEH!
what’s a three doller beeyul?
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/16/2017 @ 4:30 pmAw, we know how soft-hearted and gallant you are towards women, happyfeet. Sir Galahad could have taken lessons from you.
nk (dbc370) — 1/16/2017 @ 4:30 pmi’m a pip and a jim dandy bofe
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/16/2017 @ 4:32 pmelissa (377b6d) — 1/16/2017 @ 3:58 pm
That would not have been enough. Without Michigan [16] and Wisconsin [10] Donald Trump would still have had 280 Electorsl votes. Hillary did pay a lot of attention to Nevada [6] where she banked a lot of votes, and New Hampshire [4] which she carried. Had she not carried them, Donald Trump could also have lost Pennsylvania [20] and still had 270 electoral votes, although we now are acutely aware it might not have stayed at 270.
Hillary Clinton also went after Omaha, Nebraska, [1 Electoral vote] but lost. She went after close states and districts. She thought, though, that some blue states were not close, that in fact were.
Well, she worried about Michigan in the end, when Donald Trump was encouraging people to rescind their early votes. This could be done in Michigan:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/01/early-absentee-voters-can-still-change-ballots-in-at-least-four-states.html
and may have accounted for his victory there – I don’t know the number of early votes that were changed. He was also doing this in Wisconsin but he deadline there was a bit earlier. In Pennsylvania there was very little early voting, and, in any case, a person could replace it by going to the polls on Election Day. Trump apparently considered Minnesota out of reach and the deadline for cancelling your early vote also was even earlier: November 1.
Michigan was decided last but Donald Trump had 290 Electoral votes without Michigan, and more than one, or even two, states would have had to have their results reversed in a recount for her to win.
The surprise was like that of Harry S Truman in 1948 – that means it was not a complete surprise to all people.
Sammy Finkelman (0cf810) — 1/16/2017 @ 4:48 pmOh gawd, has somebody been in the liquor cabinet? It’s awfully early and tomorrow is a work day.
elissa (377b6d) — 1/16/2017 @ 4:49 pmugh
happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/16/2017 @ 4:55 pmTucker Carlson just flustered Jehmu Greene – DNC Chair candidate – to distraction. Funny, informative AND entertaining.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/16/2017 @ 6:13 pmThe lovely Mrs Clinton paid some attention to the Keystone State near the end of the campaign. No one anticipated that she would lose Pennsylvania, but somewhere, someone in the campaign must’ve said, you know, we need to put more effort there.
According to the polls we knew about, she should have been campaigning in North Carolina and Florida; who ever figured she’d lose Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin?
Maybe the clue was the fact that it had been conceded that Ohio was going for Mr Trump. I thought that his lead in Ohio might have really meant something, but I didn’t pursue it further. My bad.
The Dana in Pennsylvania (1b79fa) — 1/16/2017 @ 6:52 pm@ elissa,
elissa, there is no reason to alogogize. I didn’t mean to seem bitchy, if that’s how it sounded. I respect you as a commenter and know you speak your mind with honesty and in good faith.
Dana (023079) — 1/16/2017 @ 8:11 pmDana in PA,
everybody and their brother and sister should have expected a significant “shy tory” effect, the only question was how much
Clinton and co should have realized how great her negatives were and not assumed anything
she and co should have learned what all the repubs had learned, to underestimate trump was to lose to him
One arrogant and proud was humbled,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/16/2017 @ 8:26 pmstay tuned for what is next.
I like the idea of weaponized PhD theses.
There a just a few names of global warming pushers that pop up over and over again.
papertiger (c8116c) — 1/16/2017 @ 9:21 pmCan’t believe temperature records are the first thing they faked.
Take out about five of them and the theory dies due to lack of proponents.
I am disappointed that so many commenters here don’t seem to grasp Pat’s main animus has little to do with DJT per se. It’s about the fundamental broken-ness and structure in our culture/polity – the worst being the lying liars who comprise the GOPe (establishment). DJT is a symptom. He is not, and never was, the disease.
I have discerned anger from Pat in that so many basically good folks – much as most of all y’all – did not see that Cruz was the best hope to actually attack the rot. Anger and emotion (WELL-earned!) carried the day over reason. The result is we are about to have an apprentice celebrity ostensibly running things.
I fully admit that my misgivings about DJT have not been met with his performance as PEOTUS. He’s done a fine job exposing the lunacy of the Left. He also has not changed a single law or regulation. This has been great fun. Friday brings great responsibility.
If y’all believe that DJT will have the inclination and the resolve it will take to force piranhas like McConnell and the House and Chamber of Commerce boys to re-pour foundations, you are tragically mistaken.
Similarly, it’s a true shame for anyone to cast aspersions on Pat for insisting on principled, not personal, solutions to our grave illnesses.
Finally…I have been a yooge fan of Monica Crowley from the time she was Nixon’s secretary/researcher. I’ve been very pleased to see her make a name for herself in the years following RN’s death. You dang well best believe I am holding her to a higher standard! I am disappointed she did not choose to either fight the charges with gusto, or immediately withdraw from her appointment. RN taught her better.
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 1/16/2017 @ 10:36 pmI have discerned anger from Pat in that so many basically good folks – much as most of all y’all – did not see that Cruz was the best hope to actually attack the rot.
This is true only of a few of us. I voted Cruz in the primary and so did many others here, commenting lately, who are perceived as pro-Trump.
Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/16/2017 @ 11:19 pmA whole lot of us,
Me included,
Had Cruz as our 1st through 10th choice,
And we are fed up with it all too.
From what I recall, there were only a few who were actually for Trump during primary time
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/17/2017 @ 4:21 amThere may have been a lot of dialogue from them
But they were few
Our Philadelphia physician wrote:
P’raps you meant few of them here, but it’s pretty obvious that there were a lot more than few of them overall.
As I’ve said before, I’m not all that happy that Donald Trump will be the next President, but I am absotively, posilutely overjoyed that Hillary Clinton will not be.
The Dana who can count (1b79fa) — 1/17/2017 @ 6:42 amOur Philadelphia physician wrote:
Donald Trump is a tough, hard-driving man, and while a lot of people hate him, a lot of people like him as well. Ted Cruz is a tough, hard-driving man, but he lacks Mr Trump’s charisma, and few people actually like him. As President, Mr Trump will be able to work better with the Congress than Mr Cruz ever would have been able to.
Ted Cruz belongs on the Supreme Court, not in the White House.
The realistic Dana (1b79fa) — 1/17/2017 @ 6:46 amTrump’s primary numbers were 13.6 million, less than one-fourth of his general election votes.
nk who can also count (dbc370) — 1/17/2017 @ 6:47 amYes, counting Dana,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/17/2017 @ 7:13 ambut isn’t here all that matters 😉
Donald Trump only got majorities, or maybe only won, in contested Republican primaries in states that had both closed primaries and small Republican parties whose candidates invariably lost. Massachusetts, New York and so on like that.
He would endeavor to say something in line with what had become accepted among many people who listened to conservaive talk radio, that others would neither follow nor argue with. Nobody could outdo him and none of the other Republican candidates cared to argue or perhaps knew how to. Some wanted to inherit hissupporters when he dropped out. So he came across to some people as honest and the total opposite of a RINO, and determined to do things.
Sammy Finkelman (0cf810) — 1/17/2017 @ 7:24 am“55.I have discerned anger from Pat in that so many basically good folks – much as most of all y’all – did not see that Cruz was the best hope to actually attack the rot.”
Except that Cruz would not have beat Clinton.
I really liked his position to get rid of ethanol requirement. But he was never going to beat Hillary in the election.
Frankly, there’s too damn many Republicans that think the alternative to Trump was some staunch conservative. It wasn’t. It wasn’t Hillary vs. Reagan Reborn — it was Hillary vs. somebody who stood a good chance of beating Hillary. And that was Trump.
“Similarly, it’s a true shame for anyone to cast aspersions on Pat for insisting on principled, not personal, solutions to our grave illnesses.”
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 1/17/2017 @ 8:14 pmIt doesn’t matter how great your policies are if you don’t get elected.
Winning the election is the first necessary thing.