Republicans, Also Republicans
Republicans: who cares whether Barr’s letter about the Mueller report was misleading? The 400+ page report itself came out a couple of weeks later, including the very executive summaries Mueller wanted Barr to release. As long as the substance comes out eventually, it doesn’t matter at all what the public’s initial impression of it was!
Also Republicans: I can’t believe the headline on this news article about the Mueller report didn’t say he found no collusion! Sure, the article says it, but it should have been in the headline! It doesn’t matter that the substance is in the article because the public’s initial impression comes from the headline!
Thanks to DRJ for the analogy.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
Actually, most Republicans (Trump supporters) are not saying Barr’s letter was misleading. Where are you getting that idea?
You, and folks like DRJ and other Trump-critics have been saying that.
whembly (f68468) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:20 pm…gah… posted previous post too quickly. I also meant to post this:
I think the disconnect here was that I saw Barr wrote that initial memo as if he was a prosecutor. That is, describing the principle conclusions and not really “airing out” the subject of the investigation’s dirty laundry. Whereas Mueller and his team wanted much more… which, and I feel like I’m repeating myself, Barr gave every opportunity for Mueller to review his initial memo to Congress and chose not to participate.
In a typical case, prosecutor don’t air out the findings of an investigation unless it merited indictments.
But, in this case, we can agree that it’s anything “but typical”. Thus, you can see Barr’s rationale (which he stated so during his confirmation) in releasing as much as he can to the public due to obvious public interests.
Furthermore, its obvious by now that Mueller and his team wrote this report with the expectation that it would be released for the public…(in which they also didn’t document exculpatory information in some cases) hence the “snitty” memo to Barr.
And again, Barr offered Mueller to review/work together with in Barr’s initial memo. He chose not to participate… so, that’s on him… not Barr.
If Barr really wanted to favorably spin this for Trump… he’s doing a crappy job as he released the whole dang report, sans redaction. This report isn’t flattering to Trump…at all.
whembly (f68468) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:26 pmRepublicans: Barr’s report is a fair summary.
Critics: Well, we read the report differently, so why do you defend Barr’s misleading summary?
Republicans: What misleading summary?
Critics: THIS ONE!!! There and there and THERE!!!
Republicans: I guess you are operating from different assumptions or something.
Critics: SO! You defend lying!!!
And then the discussion degenerates.
I’ll look again at comment 100 and see if I’m right.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:26 pmGay post.
Dejectedhead (e3c65a) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:34 pmBarr’s memo wasn’t misleading, although some of the capsule summaries by partisans were. He sad quite clearly that Mueller listed a number of possible acts of obstruction of justice and gave arguments pro and con both on the law and he facts. He just didn’t name them.
Barr didn’t want to release the executive summaries that Mueller prepared ahead of the full report evidently because he felt that that was misleading, and because he thought they needed to be examined for possible redactions.
Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:35 pmSports Report:
Patriot Games
Rule of Men – 440
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:37 pmRule of Law – 0
@3 you should day trade. or spend time at the tables in Vegas.
Jokes aside; open question, how was the summary misleading? Can anyone explain it in something approximating clear simple language.
Frosty Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:41 pmYou can’t please everyone.
nk (dbc370) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:45 pmACKSHUALLY I didn’t say they did. I said they argued that it doesn’t matter because initial impressions are meaningless. (Except of course when a Big Media headline omits info favorable to Trump that is contained in the article. Then, the misleading first impression is super-important!)
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:47 pmBut a truly meaningful and insightful comment by you!
Last one you’ll make for a while, of course. Hope it was worth it!
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:48 pmAnd some never.
Groucho Marx singing “I’m Against It”.
nk (dbc370) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:48 pmAh… I gotcha now Pat. Sorry! It’s the double standard you’re pointing out here.
You’re not wrong there…
whemby (f68468) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:50 pmWhat does someone hope to accomplish by saying “Gay post” other than looking stupid and annoying the host? Anything?
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:50 pmI don’t even want to know. Only that it is a ban worthy post.
whemby (f68468) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:51 pmI think a fair assessment was made in the Jury only thread. Barr knew that Mueller’s report was going to be spun to within an inch of its life by the Democrats and the media, and he got his own spin in first.
nk (dbc370) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:54 pmIf the newspaper wanted to slam Trump, they would have left the “no conspiracy” finding out of their stories entirely, Instead, they included it, while writing headlines that omitted the “no conspiracy” finding. Totally kosher, under the standard set by “as long as the facts come out eventually, first impressions don’t matter” Republicans.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:54 pmBarr’s letter was about as believable as if Janet Reno wrote a 4 page summery of the Ken starr investigation into Bill Clinton…
The Conservative Curmudgeon (c118b3) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:06 pmHow was the summary misleading? Can anyone explain it in something approximating clear simple language?
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:10 pmRead Benjamin Wittes’s excellent article. He lays it all out here.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:11 pmForget that azra turk was the third or fourth bureau asset that approached the campaign
Narciso (71ac81) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:17 pmI guess that makes me Those Other Republicans.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:17 pmI think a fair assessment was made in the Jury only thread. Barr knew that Mueller’s report was going to be spun to within an inch of its life by the Democrats and the media, and he got his own spin in first.
Agreed, nk. And this is a tough case. Ideally, I would like the Attorney General of the United States to remain more impartial, and not try to spin the report on behalf of his boss. Leave that to the White House Counsel or some other minion.
On the other hand, I get the dual complaint of Trump supporters that (1) there is no way a Janet Reno, Eric Holder, or Loretta Lynch would have played fair where her/his/her boss was concerned so why hold Republican Administrations to that standard and (2) the media is almost completely aligned against this Administration so they would have spun it against Trump too. I guess you can make an argument that AG Barr is merely leveling the playing field, but again, I find it distasteful that Washington has sunk to this level.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:18 pmGOOP?
(Grand Old Other Party)
Dave (1bb933) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:20 pmWittes doesn’t embarrass easily, I guess he gets if from his boss goldsmith to threw yoo and Haynes and bybee under the bus
Narciso (71ac81) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:26 pmI’ve read Witt’s lawfare article and I have to say… I disagree with a lot of his points as it reads like someone doing his best interpret the whole ordeal in the worst possible way.
But that’s where we are in the political divisiveness these days… do you all find that tiring?
whemby (f68468) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:28 pmFrom Benjamin Whitte’s essay which the host recommends:
It has been catastrophic. Not in my memory has a sitting attorney general more diminished the credibility of his department on any subject.
Ironic that this comes on the very same day that Real Clear Politics published an interesting story about the infamous Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting, based supposedly upon her leaked closed-door testimony to Congress. As the author of the story points out, Ms. Lynch’s testimony is very self-serving and while the imbroglio may indeed be almost entirely Bubba’s fault, it could also be that Ms. Lynch readily played along and the two of them worked to protect Hillary from a perjury trap. It certainly defies belief that he spent 20 minutes on the plane and only talked to her for 10 minutes, and then only about grandkids, golf, and Janet Reno’s health.
JVW (54fd0b) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:33 pmMaybe she hid in the bathroom for 10 minutes hoping he would go away?
As to Barr’s summary…didn’t it say that no constitutional doctrine was involved in the decision to not prosecute POTUS for obstruction? Doesn’t that contradict Mueller’s statement in his report that the OLC ruling that Presidents can not be prosecuted while in office was an important factor in his decision not to prosecute?
Kishnevi (d22255) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:39 pmIf only Barr’s wife was named Martha; then history would not only rhyme, but harmonize.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:41 pm@25 Sometimes it’s humorous until you realize there’s an entirely different alternate reality that people slip into with Trump issues.
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/2/2019 @ 8:59 pmI’m shocked, SHOCKED to fine people wouldn’t believe someone who wrote a 19 page memo to audition for the Attorney General job saying the president can not be indicted.
The Conservative Curmudgeon (c118b3) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:00 pmIs that you Rick wilson:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/bill-barr-is-going-to-expose-spygate-and-the-democrat-media-russia-collusion-complex-is-panicking/
Narciso (71ac81) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:09 pm‘Totally kosher, under the standard set by “as long as the facts come out eventually, first impressions don’t matter” Republicans.’
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/2/2019 @ 7:54 pm
How about the “as long as the true source of the pee dossier comes out eventually, first impressions don’t matter” standard set by prosecutors composing FISA applications? Kosher?
Munroe (27e7c6) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:14 pmWilliam A. Jacobson is a very intelligent, perceptive, and perspicacious person.
nk (dbc370) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:19 pm— Now there’s something you don’t see every day, Chauncey.
nk (dbc370) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:24 pm— What’s that, Edgar?
— The wife of a high-ranking Obama DOJ official putting together a fake dossier about Russian hookers peeing on Trump’s bed and sending updates of her work to her husband.
— Oh, I don’t know, Edgar. It coulda just been pillow talk.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-white-house-counsel-emmett-floods-letter-to-attorney-general-barr-on-mueller-report
Jeez… Emmit Flood did t pull any punches.
whemby (f68468) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:41 pmAcross the pond, the Tories are being walloped because May’s 39 billion pound ransom of red chief didnt satisfy anyone
Narciso (71ac81) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:52 pm*didn’t
whemby (f68468) — 5/2/2019 @ 9:52 pmRIP Peter Mayhew, aka Chewbacca
Dave (1bb933) — 5/2/2019 @ 10:02 pmThis is a very snarky post, and I didn’t like it. I think it’s neither fair nor particularly clever. I dislike most about it that it refers to “Republicans” collectively and without differentiation, thereby, at a minimum, implying that all Republicans can be accurately described as holding both sets of views parodied by the host, which indeed are inconsistent with each other. Unstated in the snark — but I’m sure our host will agree when pressed — is the possibility that some Republicans might reject one or both formulations.
I’m a Republican who rejects both. I’ve adequately expressed my own views, I think, in a series of comments to the recent post on the parallel website “The Jury Talks Back,” if anyone’s interested.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:18 amNo collusion its over move on. Ilhan omar and aoc are waiting.
lany (043b16) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:52 amThe question I would ask Mueller – How did you get the uranium to Russia, suitcase or backpack?
mg (8cbc69) — 5/3/2019 @ 3:19 am@ kish, who asked (#27):
Nope. Read it again.
What follows is my paraphrase, but I can quote it chapter & verse at full length if you’d like
As part of its description of the Mueller report and summary of the report’s principal conclusions, Barr’s letter referenced the part of the report in which Mueller had referenced the OLC opinion. This is a signal to the reader: Mueller’s report focuses on the OLC opinion. That’s fair notice, and it was good for Barr to include this in his letter: One can’t accurately describe the report’s principal conclusions — even holding it to the standard of “less than an executive summary of the full report, which Barr’s letter never purported to be — without at least mentioning that the OLC opinion might have had some role in Mueller’s principal conclusions.
Having read the report now, however, I’ll tell you: Like Barr, I can’t figure out what Mueller meant in his attempt to describe the way in which the OLC opinion might have influenced Mueller’s decision not to reach ultimate conclusions on obstruction in his report. Trying to boil Mueller’s discussion of the OLC opinion down into a cogent sentence or two is beyond my abilities; without further illumination from Mueller (which Barr sought, and which Muller declined to give), Barr and Rosenstein decided that having referenced and flagged it for later consideration when the full report came out, they would moot the issue of the OLC opinion for purposes of their own decision-making, as Mueller’s former and current bosses, on the ultimate issues regarding obstruction.
My one-sentence paraphrase of what the Barr letter says about the OLC opinion, in other words is:
Mueller clearly believes the OLC opinion had something to do with his thinking in declining to make the same sort of decision regarding obstruction as he had with respect to conspiracy with the Russians, but regardless, we view further consideration of the OLC opinion as a waste of time right now, since we, Barr and Rosenstein, as the guys at the top of the pyramid in the DoJ, have independently looked at the evidence and will indeed make a call in Trump’s favor on the ultimate issues of a potential criminal obstruction of justice argument.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 3:53 amThe OLC memo says the DoJ couldn’t constitutionally prosecute a sitting POTUS. Barr’s letter says, yeah, so noted, and so noted that Mueller referenced in his report as having an impact on his decision not to decide on obstruction. But, as Barr’s letter goes on to say, the OLC memo — which is about prosecutions, not pre-prosecution investigation and analysis — isn’t operative here, so we’re going to dispense with any further discussion about whether we coulda mighta done a prosecution that we’ve already decided we wouldn’t ever try to do anyway, based on this evidence.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 3:59 amI have heard a truly idiotic argument — elsewhere, not on this blog, at least in these terms — that Barr and Rosenstein acted outside their authority in resolving the obstruction issues at this post-special counsel report stage in the overall investigation. Some say, “Oh, they should have sent this back to Mueller and demanded that he resolve obstruction as definitively as he resolved conspiracy with the Russians.” Others say, “Since this is the POTUS under consideration and since the OLC opinion says he can’t be prosecuted in office, Barr should have refused to resolve the obstruction issues and left it to Congress to do that through impeachment proceedings.”
Balderdash. Nonsense on stilts, both arguments.
Yes, to comply precisely with the regs, Mueller ought to have reached an ultimate conclusion on obstruction. But every conclusion he reached has always been subject to reversal by the AG, and the AG likewise can pick up his subordinate’s unfinished work and finish it himself rather than sending it back over and over with an “Incomplete” notation. Not just the special counsel regs, but the entire administrative structure of the DoJ, as established by statute, regulations, and policies, give the Attorney General that right with respect to any U.S. Attorney’s conclusions, and under the regs, that’s how the special counsel’s conclusions are also to be treated.
Nor does anything in Barr’s & Rosenstein’s decision to shut things down at DoJ interfere with Congress’ ability to pursue further investigations and/or impeachment based on obstruction of justice. For that matter, Congress isn’t bound by anything in Mueller’s report or Barr’s letter regarding conspiracy with the Russians either. Nothing in the Constitution stops the Congress from impeaching and removing a POTUS based on wild rumors and scandalous lies, provided a House majority and a Senate supermajority are convinced they’re “high crime & misdemeanorish” enough.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 4:18 amBy the way, that OLC memo is something of a self-exploding unicorn. It will never be tested in court, because to get to court in the first place, the DoJ would already have had to abandon the policy.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 4:21 amOh, I don’t need to be pressed to acknowledge that some — although fewer and fewer! — Republicans might reject both formulations.
I’m glad to see you reject both, Beldar. You’re something of a bellwether for the group of conservatives (and Republicans!) I still respect. That said, I have noticed that the Mueller report has caused more and more Republicans to support Trump. As I noted at the Jury, even David French and the editors at National Review agree that the controversy over Barr’s spinning of the Mueller report is a nothingburger. I feel increasingly as though “Republicans” by and large represent opinions I disagree with. Watching Ted Cruz mock the idea that a distortion of the report could matter when the report itself came out a few weeks later, I realized that I had much more in common on this particular issue with Pat Leahy and Dick Durbin, who were asking Barr how he could possibly have failed to mention the Mueller letter when asked by Crist.
That said, Pat Leahy and Dick Durbin will vote to smear good judges and confirm awful ones every time, and Ted Cruz will vote for and support the good judges every time. So let’s not get carried away here. I haven’t changed; I just despise the Republican president even more after the issuance of the Mueller report than ever before.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/3/2019 @ 4:42 amYes, but the administration, including Barr, has made it clear that they won’t cooperate. For example, Nadler wants McGahn to testify. The administration is making noises about executive privilege. Someone asked Barr whether he thought it appropriate or OK for McGahn to testify and Barr said that’s a call for Trump. The Senator said that executive privilege had been waived and Barr said “we” haven’t waived executive privilege.
Excuse me? “We”?
That ain’t a call for Bill Barr. (It’s also bullshit, as privilege most certainly has been waived as to the matters discussed in the report.) But in his head, Bill Barr is on the team. He’s on the Trump train.
He embodies what Trump wanted from Comey: loyalty.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/3/2019 @ 4:48 amThat is an understatement, at least in the immediate term. And thank you for the rest of this generous response.
Leahy is a douchebag, though, and his questions were douchebag “beating your wife” questions fed to him by a staffer. They were improper impeachment, argumentative questions that conflated concepts deliberately to create false impressions. When Barr said, accurately, that Trump and his administration had cooperated with the investigation, Leahy reeled off his list of naughty things Trump did, snarling, “Was this cooperating? Was that?” The problem was that the naughty things on the list — e.g., Trump’s instructions to McGahn to tell Rosenstein to rein in Mueller — weren’t things Trump or his administration did for the investigation. That Trump did other bad things at other times doesn’t remotely prove that Barr is being dishonest in saying that Trump and his administration cooperated with the investigation. One can falsely slander a special counsel while still cooperating with his investigation, and that’s certainly what Trump did to Mueller. Leahy knows this; he doesn’t care. How could you identify with this malignant snake?
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 4:56 amCongress can impeach Trump for not cooperating with its investigation, if the votes are there.
Trump accurately calculates that there won’t be, not between now and 2020.
You’re right about Barr being mistaken about privilege. What he was probably thinking was, “Mueller, under the regs, is part of the control group within DoJ, such that giving Mueller access to executive privileged-communications isn’t a waiver.” That was part of the rationale and part of the stipulations when the WH counsel were turning over witnesses & documents without objecting.
The waiver came when Barr put the Mueller report into the public domain. They’ll lose their waiver arguments, if indeed they make them (they might think better) in any court proceeding in which Congress seeks to compel production.
But they have a lot of other arguments, they’ve got all kinds of standing and jurisprudential arguments to hide behind — plenty to string Congress out through Nov. 2020.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:01 amI think it’s a subject-matter waiver, too. They might still be able to claim investigative privilege, separately from any attorney-client or executive privilege, on a lot of the underlying materials from the Mueller investigation that the Dems want. But Trump’s executive privilege ship has sailed.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:03 amFor non-lawyers: By “subject-matter waiver,” I meant, in contrast to a “communication-specific waiver.”
By releasing the full Mueller report (as redacted) into the public domain, then as to any communications as to which Trump might have otherwise been protected by executive privilege (typically documents and memos), Trump’s AG has waived the administration’s right to assert executive privilege as to those specific communications. And the release was so comprehensive as to justify follow-up inquiries into the general subject matter of those documents. So let’s say there’s a memo McGahn wrote to Sekulow which discusses whether a particular Trump tweet might compromise his future defense. Let’s say McGahn let’s Mueller — a fellow member of the executive branch — have a copy of that memo.
Further assume Congress has subpoenaed the memo, or otherwise gotten before a court its demand that the Administration release the memo, and the Trump administration objects on grounds that the memo reflects executive deliberations previously kept secret that qualify for executive privilege against compelled disclosure.
If the gist of that memo has been quoted or referenced in the Mueller report, a judge would likely rule that by letting the public know that gist already, Trump’s forfeited the privilege to keep it from being produced now to Congress. (Specific-communication waiver.) And further, that so much else has been produced that the waiver should be construed to include the entire subject matter. So now Congress gets to see all the memos about whether tweets might jeopardize Trump’s defense. And to ask the author and recipient(s) of these memos all about that subject, too, in follow-up questioning. (Subject-matter waiver, much more serious.)
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:14 amHere’s where I think the analogy falls apart. Barr chose to summarize the Mueller findings in a certain way. One could argue that he didn’t need to issue a summary, but the political pressure after 2 plus years of waiting was on him to get something out quickly. By the way, if Mueller’s team had complied with Barr’s request to complete the redaction process in advance, Barr could have released the report earlier. Anyway, if Barr’s summary varied from Mueller’s choice of emphasis, that was something the public could decide on after the report came out. A difference of opinion between two opposing parties. The problem with misleading headlines is that the party who creates the headline is the same party who publishes the article. For people who skim headlines (unfortunately a large number), the assumption is that the article will back up what the headline says. That’s the problem.
Gothamite (a686ed) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:20 amAgain, show me the man who says he’s no hypocrite and I’ll show you a hypocrite.
JSkorcher (4fd3ce) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:36 amBeldar,
I think your frustration is understandable but IMO it should be directed at the Republicans who have stayed in the Party and changed to support Trump. Every week brings a new example and, depending on your perspective, that is the good news or the bad news. From my perspective, the GOP has a lot of JSkorcher’s happy-to-be-hypocrites.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:06 amYeah, well, I don’t want to see JSkorcher’s and I’m not showing him mine, either.
nk (dbc370) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:18 amBut unlike the cynical JSkorcher, I don’t think everyone is a hypocrite, least of all you, Beldar. Please consider whether it is possible that as your concerns about the Trump-led GOP increase (a concern I share as a Texan who values conservative government), it is leading you to be defensive about things where no insult was intended to you.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:19 amYou and I are in good company as we’re Those Other Republicans, a definite minority in the GOP.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:21 amBeldar, regarding the OLC, it wasn’t as if Mueller operated in a vacuum. He was under the supervision and direction of the Deputy AG, which would include how to proceed under the umbrella of that DOJ opinion. It seems like the one person who is having issues with it is the latecomer to the party, Barr.
One more thing, Beldar. I will happily acknowledge that everything Barr has done and written may be based on what he thinks the law requires him to do and write. I don’t know his motivations or intent. Maybe he reads the law exactly the way you do, and he is acting in what he views as the most principled manner. But it is also possible he is under intense pressure to please Trump and/or to resolve problems that he *may* view as hurting his Party/country. Politics does that to people, even to the best-intentioned of people.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:31 amCynicism is the resulting sum of idealism plus years of real world experience and serious and honest self inspection. I know, that latter part may sound hard for those who lack cynicism and hypocrisy to believe. May even cause coffee to pass through the nose, yet there it is.
JSkorcher (4fd3ce) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:33 amI dont consider Nixon to be any kind of marker, except an indicator of class disgust, Kennedy like Clinton and Obama could get away with anything and increasingly did, LBJ did despite his credentials because he had the right mindset.
Narciso (09b0bf) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:35 amNow this game is played by romney and company against moore and cain, I guess they learned their lesson,
Narciso (09b0bf) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:44 amNew post explaining in detail how Barr has trashed his credibility.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:49 amRead my new post. Watch the clip I embedded. If you think ordering an aide to deliver a message to Sessions to unrecuse, shut down the investigation, and declare Trump did nothing wrong is consistent with cooperating with the investigation — well, then you and Bill Barr agree!
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:51 amWe all have lived our lives, JSkorcher, and learned lessons along the way. It is called being human.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:52 amWe know now for instance this was not hunts first rodeo in political surveillance he had done it against Goldwater because needs must.
Narciso (09b0bf) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:54 amAll animals are human. Some are just less human than others. Hanlon’s Razor, selectively applied.
JSkorcher (4fd3ce) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:01 am?
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:11 amSounds like a PETA lawsuit.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:12 amApropos of nothing, did you know that George Orwell’s 1984 was an allegory about the gold standard? It’s true.
JSkorcher (4fd3ce) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:15 amNo it was his experience with the BBC coupled with a critique of Burnham.
Narciso (09b0bf) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:17 amAh, the Guyanese politician. Yes, yes. Of course I knew this all along. Just forgot for a moment.
JSkorcher (4fd3ce) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:21 amNo James Burnham fmr trotskyite editor at national review consultant to the company.
Narciso (09b0bf) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:24 amAuthor of the real suicide of the west, which goldwater took as an ur text.
Narciso (09b0bf) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:27 amJK, of course.
JSkorcher (4fd3ce) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:29 amI am grateful for what you taught me, Skorcher, but not impressed with your hostility.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:36 amMy hostility, your condescension. We’d make a great team. Where were you when I was single?
JSkorcher (4fd3ce) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:38 amWe stand at a crossroads in 2020, everything we ever were cam be wiper away with a compliant press a complicit educational institution and even key corporate leaders,
Narciso (09b0bf) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:40 amEspecially with key corporate leaders. There’s a commonality twist Orwell and Burnham in that regard, insofar as from whence their youthful suspicions of capitalism grew.
JSkorcher (4fd3ce) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:45 amTwixt not twist. Stupid corporate spellchecker.
JSkorcher (4fd3ce) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:46 amZuckerberg Dorsey Bezos Carlos slim they are of one mindset on most things omidyar and singer are not that far apart.
Narciso (09b0bf) — 5/3/2019 @ 7:53 amChamber feared he was joining the losing side, in witness, the bolsheviks are much more ruthless and determined.
Narciso (09b0bf) — 5/3/2019 @ 8:00 amI am very sorry you feel I am conescending, JSkorcher. That is not my intent. If I felt that way about people here, why bother to talk to anyone? I don’t see the point to feeling superior to people on the internet — people I don’t even know. That makes no sense to me. My goal is to connect with people at a place I like.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 8:07 amNow you’ve made me curious: Are you projecting? Do you feel that way about me?
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 8:22 amSigh…don’t ever change, baby. Don’t ever change.
For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: ‘It might have been!’
JSkorcher (7e58ac) — 5/3/2019 @ 8:36 amWhatever your motive, I am glad t o learn things here and I appreciate the things I’ve learned from you and others. This website always gives me something interesting to think about.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 8:38 amOk. I guess you will share your insights about me someday.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 9:07 amBeldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 4:56 am
At least he asked the questins himself, unlike the way the House Committee wanted it,.
It’s the House committee members that are chicken, not Barr. Usually, memers of Congress preer to grandstand.
Of course, most of them would not be able to ask improper argumentative questions that conflated concepts deliberately to create false impressions in a somewhat convincing manner. For that, you need a lawyer who specializes in that. Without counsel asking the questins, some questions would be more likely to backfire.
I think they also didn’t want to take political responsibility for the questions, and it could be also that no all the Democratic House Judiciary Committees members wanted to play this game.
And some might even ask quesitons that interfere with the narrative, including ones that were too anti-Trump, as happened in the Senate. Nadler probably doesn’t want things said that the House leadership doesn’t want to be said.
Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6) — 5/3/2019 @ 9:13 amBut you neglect to conclude the same about Muller and his team of leftist attack dogs including those that worked for Clinton?
NJRob (4d595c) — 5/3/2019 @ 9:20 amI am swimming waaay outside my legal depth here, but why couldn’t a court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the AG to do his job?
Does the existence of discretion preclude that? (And is the discretion available in this case de jure or de facto?)
It seems to my naïve mind like the AG could say “we decided not to indict POTUS because (applying the same standards we would to any other case) we have determined there is insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction”.
But saying “we decided not to indict POTUS because he’s POTUS” is not a proper exercise of discretion. The constitution does not give the president any immunity from prosecution. In fact, it says:
Note that impeachment does not create any new legal jeopardy (“shall not extend further than to removal from Office” – removal from office and disqualification from future office-holding are the *only* consequences), and that such jeopardy is explicitly acknowledged as existing after impeachment. So the liability to indictment, etc must perforce have existed before impeachment as well.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/3/2019 @ 9:23 amI guess you will share your insights about me someday
Oh, let’s just share the mystery for now…because…
There’s a place for us,
Somewhere a place for us.
Peace and quiet and open air
Wait for us somewhere.
There’s a time for us,
Someday a time for us.
Time together with time to spare,
Time to learn, time to care.
Someday, somewhere
We’ll find a new way of living,
We’ll find a way of forgiving,
Somewhere.
There’s a place for us,
A time and place for us.
Hold my hand and we’re halfway there
Hold my hand and I’ll take you there,
Somehow, someday, somewhere.
Someday, somewhere
We’ll find a new way of living,
We’ll find a way of forgiving,
Somewhere.
There’s a place for us,
JSkorcher (7e58ac) — 5/3/2019 @ 9:30 amA time and place for us.
Hold my hand and we’re halfway there
Hold my hand and I’ll take you there,
Ok. I guess you will share your insights about me someday.
Beldar has given us a tutorial for dealing with the “insights” of the JSkorchers who drop by, DRJ.
nk (dbc370) — 5/3/2019 @ 9:55 am45. Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 4:21 am
But a president could raise it (or he reasoning behind it) as a defense if indicted, and it could also be raised at an earlier stage, like against subpoena, in which he would say it must be quashed because he can’t be indicted, and DOJ or whoever would say even with the policy he could be supoenaed.
There are sometimes odd paths where something could wind up getting tested in court.
There are practical problems with indicting a sitting president, not legal problems.
89. Dave (1bb933) — 5/3/2019 @ 9:23 am
That’s pretty much what AG Barr did say on March 24.
Mueller, on the other hand, declined to evaluate whether or not, absent this policy, Trump should be indicted. He could have accepted the policy, and recommended impeachment as an alternative; or he could have for arguments’s sake, disregarded the policy, and said even without that policy Trump should not be indicted. The one thing he couldn’t do was just go ahead and indict him, because he [Mueller] was a subordinate official.
What Mueller said was he didn’t want to say “we decided not to indict POTUS because of this OLC memo that says {OTUS can’t be indicted because he’s POTUS,” so he decided not to try to figure out whether or not he wanted to indict him in the first place!!
I suppose there was a staff dispute, both on whether or not to make a determination, and what that determination should be if they did.
Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6) — 5/3/2019 @ 10:03 amI do agree with Barr on this, Patterico, and the clip you included in your new post was exactly the video I’d already seen.
It’s possible, I believe, to cooperate with the investigation while simultaneously bad-mouthing the investigator. It’s possible to cooperate with the investigation while simultaneously seeking to abort it.
I am not defending Trump for bad-mouthing the investigator or for trying, unsuccessfully, to abort the investigation. To the contrary, I think that was very bad behavior.
I interpreted “cooperating with the investigation” to mean, “Did Trump comply with the investigators’ requests of him?” Not “did Trump ever do anything, unrelated to the investigators’ specific requests to him, which might have aborted the investigation or bad-mouthed the investigator?” Different questions produce different answers. I’m focusing on Trump’s interactions with the investigators, you’re focusing on his interaction with others.
I’m still unpersuaded, but I’ve explained myself so many times as clearly as I can that if you’re not persuaded, I accept that I’m unlikely to persuade you.
Can Barr be fairly accused of interpreting the question narrowly? Yes. Was his narrow interpretation nevertheless accurate, even if you think it’s Clinton-level quibbling? I think it was accurate.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:14 pm@ Dave: Courts won’t mandamus an official to perform an act that involves discretion. The petitioner’s right must be clear and nondiscretionary. Mandamus would nevertheless be one way to get the issue addressed in the OLC memo — can the DoJ indict or prosecute a sitting POTUS? — before the courts. Another might be some sort of declaratory judgment action brought on behalf of members of Congress, combined with a request for a mandatory preliminary injunction. But the cleaner, clearer, and more traditional way to test whether the DoJ can indict or prosecute a sitting POTUS would be for the DoJ to do so, with the expectation that the POTUS would raise in a motion to dismiss the same constitutional arguments examined and ultimately accepted by the OLC memo.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:18 pmIs Barr engaging in Clintonian quibbling, Beldar?
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:23 pmJSkorcher,
Don’t call me baby. It is inappropriate and, coupled with your last comment, makes you look weird. I suspect you have a purpose. I hope you will rethink it.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:26 pm@ DRJ: I do not think there is any realistic possibility of a new party forming to replace the current GOP. The last time that happened was in the 1856 and 1860 election cycles when the GOP itself replaced the Whigs. I therefore place my hopes, in our two-party system, on the post-Trump GOP.
When Trump is gone, I do not want it said that while he was POTUS, the GOP was “his party.” Every time that is said, or every time someone implies (as I think this post does by using a broad brush without qualification) that all Republicans are unified behind Trump on every issue, I intend to be a very squeaky wheel. I intend to tell my grandchildren someday, “Go read those back issues of the comments on Patterico’s Pontifications, where your grandpa was one of the stalwarts who refused to abandon the GOP and leave it to Trump and his barbarians.”
I don’t think it’s too much to ask that in making sweeping pronouncements about what “Republicans” do, careful writers like you, or our host, include a qualifier or two to account for Republicans like me, and when you repeatedly decline to include such qualifiers, I do indeed feel slighted and offended. Worse, I think those who paint with such broad brushes weaken their own advocacy by giving such offense needlessly.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:28 pmBarr is engaging in some degree of parsing and quibbling and spin. I don’t think it rises to the level of being “misleading.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:30 pmNJRob,
I don’t know what Barr’s motives are because I haven’t seen enough from him that helps me know if he is acting national/legal interest or based on Trump/Party/personal motives. I have read his summary letter and Congressional testimony, and they seem to have mixed motives.
But I have seen Mueller’s work — his final report — and I think it indicates he handled his assignment in a thorough, fair and impartial manner.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:32 pmI respect that position, and you may be right about Barr but I don’t trust him. But I think you are heroically and honorably tilting at windmills about the GOP. I admire you for sticking to your beliefs but it is Trump’s Party for now, Beldar.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:43 pmIn fact, I think more and more Republicans are starting to like and enjoy what Trump has done. His get even mentality is something that Republicans have adapted to quickly.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:48 pmTrump gave people hope for change.
mg (8cbc69) — 5/3/2019 @ 1:54 pm@101 I’m not sure this is a new thing. I think as long as Mueller was out there like Forrest’s cavalry there was always some need to keep everything Trump visibility at arm’s length. The less risk of Trump being impeached the more you’ll see R’s being willing to be seen engaging.
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:03 pmSee, Beldar? This isn’t your Party anymore. Your best hope is that the Texas version can hang on, but the national version has changed.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:09 pmI wish you would think of yourself as a conservative instead of a Republican, Beldar. Conservatives are risk-averse and embrace tradition, so we don’t change except for good reasons. Similarly, we believe in fiscal and social stability and values. But IMO Republicans have a more uneven record on these issues, and tt is easy to forget in Texas where there isn’t much daylight separating Republican ideas and conservative ideas. The GOP will never again be like Texas.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:18 pmPatterico,
While I certainly reject #2, I’m not sure about #1, as I don’t have the same certainty you do that Barr wildly mischaracterized the Mueller report. Therefore I might be inclined to call slight quibbles I have “a nothingburger”, where if I thought the report was a wild fabrication I would have a different attitude.
A question: Do you think that your analysis, or reaction to what you have read, is affected to a great degree by the fact that you are a lawyer? Might the laymen in the GOP reasonably have different reaction due to their, um, inattention to legal details you consider important?
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:18 pm“His get even mentality is something that Republicans have adapted to quickly.”
That is a mischaracterization. It’s not the getting even, it’s more that he’s willing to push back, not take it on the chin time after time, which has been the Republican MOP for decades.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:23 pmDon’t call me baby. It is inappropriate
How about I call you Francis? Is that ok? As in lighten up Francis?
Look, if you want to engage on the point of hypocrisy, I’m game. Cries of “hypocrite” and “liar” are very week arguments. This should be obvious to those who engage in serious debate with an honest attempt to see the other person’s point of view. The principle of charity, I believe it’s called. I have yet to find a serious argument about a serious, moderately complicated or complex subject that if viewed from any number of perspectives cannot be construed as hypocrisy or a lie. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t highly hypocritical people nor dangerous liars. This is a major poison of our politics. Hold an argument up to the light and twist it around a certain way and the prisms of hypocrisy spray out like a rainbow.
Some from either side of the political spectrum could call Orwell and Burnham hypocrites and liars. The arguments are there. But in the greater context of each man’s contributions, such would be a waste of time. For the accusers and everyone else.
JSkorcher (ab5d02) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:25 pmBeldar (#97),
This. The GOP aligns with Trump today because it is convenient. In 2000, it aligned with Bush, in 2008 with McCain and in 2012 with Romney. None of these were permanent, not even W’s party, which ceased to be that around August 2008.
I hope to have more than a protest vote against Trump in the GOP primaries. But sooner or later, Trump will pass from the scene. I am a little more worried about Pence than Trump, from this administration btw.
But come the day Trump is gone, the party will get to reinvent itself yet again. Only those people who’ve weathered the storm will have a seat at the table though.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:29 pmHaiku,
I am fine with calling it a push-back mentality, but Trump calls it getting even so I don’t see how it can be wrong.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:38 pmDRJ–
What is “conservative?” I can make a case that a “New Deal Democrat” is conservative. Hubert Humphrey, for example.
What is conservative about school vouchers, or repealing the “death tax”, or even overturning the 50yo Roe decision — something that many women born since 1970 would consider radical? What is conservative about wanting to deconstruct the immense power of the federal government? It’s been that way for almost 100 years.
Liberal vs conservative is old thinking. Today’s axis is about statism, and how much, or how little you want of it. To me, the liberal/conservative argument is about HOW to apply the state’s power, who to favor when you do it, and how fast this power should increase.
Not at all interested in that game.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:40 pmI figured you would follow up. Now I am conscendending, uncharitable, and need to lighten up. I still hope you will rethink this but … is that about it or is there more?
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:41 pmKevin,
Ok.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:42 pmOk, as in ok you are “not interested in that game.” I wasn’t suggesting a game and it wasn’t directed at you, but I understand you don’t approve.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:45 pmI wish I had a nickel for everytime someone disagreed with me here!
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:46 pmWait, I take that back. It makes me sound a tad light-hearted and that is not in my playbook. Right, JSkorcher?
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:48 pmActually, Kevin M, I think you are (kind of) proving my point. The Party and ideological labels don’t fit people across the nation. They never did completely but there were some common themes that held ideologues and/or Party members together, but those ties are fraying. We are more likely to see regional or state alliances. So Utah residents may care more about religion than Vermont residents, and Californians care more about environmental issues than Texans. I think that is where we are now.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:53 pmperhaps what Trump brings to the table for many is a rebuilding of that national kinship for his supporters.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 2:55 pm‘Burn the village to save the village.’
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/3/2019 @ 3:11 pmI would say the conservative angle on Roe is constitutional originalism and federalism. It is not about individual liberty, since the rights of two people are implicated in what is effectively a zero-sum scenario.
The other specific issues you mention boil down to individual liberty (= conservatism) vs. statism (= liberalism), AFAIC.
Dave (26d9bf) — 5/3/2019 @ 3:37 pmDRJ
That interpretation of getting even depends on what Trump was thinking in that instance.
Was it getting even in the drive-by shooting way, or was it getting even by restoring the point of equilibrium (pushing back).
My opinion is that Trump (like me again, I’m Presidential!!) Trump is imprecise in his language and is perfectly comfortable using phrases like “getting even” the interpretation of which depend on mood.
While we are talking, I’d like your opinion Cruz’ interaction with Barr.
steveg (e7a56b) — 5/3/2019 @ 3:49 pmI think Barr smiled and laughed in part because Cruz was providing relief from the hectoring, but also because Cruz was playing a lawyer on TV by spinning a tale and then saying “and if that is their argument…”
Did Cruz make any sort of point that I missed? Thanks.
there was no prima facie legal basis for this investigation, that has become quite clear,
https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2019/05/03/kneeling-and-chained/
narciso (d1f714) — 5/3/2019 @ 3:51 pm#120 One of the parties gets a little more of the zero sum than the other
steveg (e7a56b) — 5/3/2019 @ 3:54 pmindeed:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/mueller-moans-media-misleads.php
narciso (d1f714) — 5/3/2019 @ 4:03 pmOUT: Mueller Report/Treason/Collusion/Obstruction
IN: Trump Will Weaponize the Federal Government And Use It To Destroy Democrat Opponents
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/3/2019 @ 4:26 pmWe’ll just have to agree to disagree about that. To me, an effort to abort an investigation is almost by definition the antithesis of cooperating with it. I see you have a different definition (which I am about to address). But I am just laying down my own personal marker here: in my view, a definition of “cooperation” that can embrace “an effort to undermine or abort” distorts the meaning of the word “cooperation” beyond any meaning the word can plausibly bear.
Let’s run with that definition of cooperation, understanding that I disagree with it.
Didn’t the investigators ask Trump to sit down for an interview? And didn’t he decline?
I am not asserting that he was *wrong* to do so. Whether that decision of his was right or wrong is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether he “fully” cooperated.
And in many respects he did cooperate. But in some respects — even if we place to one side the many attempts to have Mueller removed or shut down the investigation — he did not. So in my view, his cooperation — and there was much cooperation, to his credit — was not full.
And so I think that Barr’s claim that Trump “fully cooperated” is wrong and misleading, even under your (in my view) novel definition of cooperation.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:06 pmPerils of discussion in too many places, but if you’re talking about me I’m guessing you missed that I already did that. I’ll hunt it down.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:08 pmI didn’t say *all* Republicans believe the things I said in the post — or, well, anything. There is literally no proposition that I believe *all* Republicans (or *all* Democrats) believe. If your feelings are hurt because you’re reading something into my post that I didn’t say and didn’t mean, consider the fact that I didn’t say it and the possibility (which I am now telling you is a certainty) that I didn’t mean it.
https://patterico.com/jury/2019/04/30/mueller-barrs-letter-did-not-fully-capture-the-context-nature-and-substance-of-muellers-report/comment-page-3/#comment-409057
Patterico (80580f) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:18 pmWhen I get to a computer I plan to moderate Haiku and JSkorcher at a minimum. If they want to apologize for getting personal in the meantime I will take it into account.
Patterico (80580f) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:19 pmThe threat of getting stampeded by Republicans rushing to denounce, did we not have two years of this with flake and cotton and McCain, did we not have defacto denunciation with Collins and Murkowski on obamacare?
Narciso (d9a428) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:25 pmI apologize for taking offense to Gryph’s characterization of AGOTUS William Barr as a Trump “bootlicker” and calling him “chump” in response to his “champ”. It was uncalled for on my part.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:27 pmCol – Trump needs to continue to expose these lifetime teat suckers from both parties.
mg (8cbc69) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:44 pmGood news for the country is usually bad news to Democrats… and the reverse is also true…
“What planet are the Democrats on?
I ask that question for two reasons. First, because the 2020 Democratic presidential front-runner happily ignores China, America’s preeminent threat. Second, because Democrats seem determined to destroy an economic model that is producing record benefits to individuals in society — and in particular to the lower-income workers they claim to support.
Consider the latest unemployment data released Friday. Alongside an increase in productivity of 3.6%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that the unemployment rate fell to 3.6% over the first quarter 2019. That’s the lowest rate since we first landed on the moon. And that 3.6% matching speaks to an economy that is growing, dynamic, and moral. Consider that the data also shows Hispanic unemployment is now at just 4.2%. Aside from static year-on-year changes in (still very low) unemployment for blacks, and a 0.2% year-on-year increase in unemployment for teenagers, the economy is boosting employment for every listed demographic subset.
Yet Democrats say that Trump’s economy is somehow immoral. When they aren’t trying to assign credit for it to Obama, they claim that it punishes the middle class and the poor. And so, rather than doubling down on the economic fortune we now find, Democrats are pledging to shred Trump’s corporate tax reforms, escalate regulation, and increase state control in the economy.
This is insane.
Why don’t Democrats ask themselves why it is that only teenage or youth unemployment is increasing. Might it be due to state and local minimum wage laws pricing out of the workforce those with the least skill? Democrats don’t want to hear the answer to that.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-economy-proves-democrats-are-presently-on-another-planet
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:48 pmsteveg,
I got mixed up and put my answer on the wrong thread and the wrong website. Twice as bad! Here is my comment:
And here is a link to the original comment. I hope you don’t mind but I am lazy and don’t want to hunt down and repeat the links again.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:50 pm132… yep, mg, agreed.
Deep Teaters
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/3/2019 @ 5:50 pmDRJ
You have always treated me with graciousness, a word I associate with you… lazy? Not so much.
Thank you
If you have not seen Cruz talk to Barr, you should pass.
The only reason to check it out would be to see the entire “hearing” as nothing more than a partisan sparring match rather than as a search for any kind of truth. If you do look at Cruz’ time, I think you’ll see that both Cruz and Barr know this is nothing but a partisan contest and are behaving accordingly
steveg (e7a56b) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:15 pmThank you, steveg. Kind words are always nice to hear but especially today. I also appreciate the advice. Congressional hearings do seem pretty theatrical now. I wish they wouldn’t do that. There are many times when knowledge and information can make a difference in government and in our lives. They are public servanta and IMO they waste their power when they only care about their own status and publicity.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 6:21 pmLook, I got a life to live and things to do and… I’m tired and wanna go to bed. Y’all play you games however you want to make your on-the-fly rules, but I was only interested in the subject of hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of the calling out hypocrisy when…whatever…it was DRJ at #64 who took it personal with:
“It is called being human.”
Play your passive aggressive games as you wish. I tried to drag things back to the subject of ideas at #108, even earlier at #78/79, but DRJ wasn’t interested. In those ideas anyway. Why it’s almost like she was baiting me to get me banned. But I’m sure that thought never ever ever entered her mind.
JSkorcher (ab5d02) — 5/3/2019 @ 8:07 pmNow I understand. You are irritated about the analogy that prompted the post. You see it as a post about hypocrisy, even though no one used the word until your comment 53, and perhaps you infer from the post that I want to talk about hypocrisy and hypocrites.
Meanwhile, since I did not write the post and my involvement in the idea for it was peripheral, I never connected any of that to me. I thought you were just generally discussing hypocrisy (which, by the way, I still think hypocrisy is something we humans do).
I wasn’t baiting you at all. I was trying to caution you and stop you.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 8:28 pmDRJ
I don’t know how I would handle grandstanding followed by character assassination then finished with a question mark.
I do know I wouldn’t be able to dignify it as a search for the truth.
I remember the late 60’s when my dad first told me why he was so upset at the politics of the day. He felt no one cared about the kids dying in Vietnam, they cared about their politics and put that first.
My dad is a very principled religious man who feels that truth and honesty before God should never take second place. He is a realist and he knows what goes on when pigs wrestle, but his despair is that there are not members from both parties who step up together bound by honor to truth… be it good bad or ugly for the home team.
I’m the black sheep cynic of the family.
steveg (e7a56b) — 5/3/2019 @ 8:48 pmI remember my parents being very upset about politics during the Vietnam years, too. Those were hard years and everyone knew someone who served, was wounded, or died. Sometimes it feels like that is when we became so politically polarized.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/3/2019 @ 8:53 pmI have reviewed your history, JSkorcher, to see if this is an aberration or whether there is a history of abusive conduct by you. The verdict is decidedly the latter. Let’s not call it a ban. Let’s call it indefinite moderation, until and unless I happen to change my mind or you change your attitude.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/3/2019 @ 9:20 pmI gave JSkorcher two weeks off only recently. He’s had his warning and now he’s attacked DRJ. Not the actions of someone who wants to stay here.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/3/2019 @ 9:23 pmMy God. The commenters at Hot Air are idiots. Very abrasive idiots.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/3/2019 @ 9:31 pmSeriously, the commenters here — including most who support Trump — are head and shoulders above those Hot Air commenters. Good grief.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/3/2019 @ 9:32 pm@58. Believe we have a fairly good mindset on Baghdad Barr’s ‘motivations and intent.’ All you have to do is review his ‘interview memo’ making a pitch for the gig and subsequent actions. Trump didn’t know him from squat. The immediacy of the now is mere short term is theatre.
Suspect Barr sees Trump as an easy mark to move his own agenda- one he has championed in other administrations. Barr is using him as a means to an end– another ‘allegiance ruled by exepdience’ “Von Brauner” type to move that agenda; to strengthening the Executive. And that has great appeal to authoritarian and corporate types like Trump.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/3/2019 @ 10:07 pmHot Air gets a lot of deliberate trolls who post with Fakebook accounts. It’s impossible to carry on a conversation there and they destroyed the comments section by switching to Fakebook.
NJRob (4d595c) — 5/3/2019 @ 10:10 pmI get Beldar’s position, DRJ, because I came around to it and re-joined the GOP last November. I’d rather fight for our kind of conservatism from within the party than from the outside, mainly because I think there’s a better chance to effect change from that position.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/3/2019 @ 10:25 pmIMO, the only change effected by remaining in Donald Trump’s Republican party is normalizing Donald Trump.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:21 amI was five years old in 1966, and my favorite show on television was Batman. So that year my mother handmade me a Batman costume for Christmas. She bought a children’s costume sewing kit that had patterns, fabrics and instructions. It must have taken her weeks to put it all together, measuring, cutting and sewing, but she did an excellent job. To a kid, this was about as close to a real Batman outfit you could get.
Basically, it was a grey sweat suit with a yellow and black bat emblem on the chest. It came with a blue cape, cowl, shorts, gloves, and boots (actually covers with elastic bands to be worn over sneakers), and a yellow utility belt with pouches, filled with all sorts of nifty gadgets, including a Batarang (a rubber bat tied to fishing wire). She also made a Robin costume for my little brother, but he was barely three, just learning to walk, not yet ready to be a crime fighting partner, still he looked the part.
Back then Christmas was a special day, for us kids. Wake up in the morning to a decorated tree with flashing lights and open presents. I put my outfit on immediately and became Batman. Then a short walk, a few hundred yards, over to my maternal grandparents’ house, for more presents. They were Catholics and staunch Republicans. Oh, look, it’s Batman! That’s right, I am Batman. While we were there, my grandfather pounded his fist on the table and said, “The Democrats are ruining the country!” This sounds like a job for Batman.
It was a longer walk, about three blocks, over to my paternal grandparents’ house, for more presents. They were Protestants and fierce Democrats. Oh, look, it’s Batman! That’s right, I am Batman. While we were there, my grandfather pounded his fist on the table and said, “The Republicans are ruining the country!” Now, this really sounds like a job for Batman.
The Democrats and the Republicans are both ruining the country? It’s like the Penguin and the Joker working together! This is a job for Batman! So I patrolled the streets of San Antonio (actually only a few blocks) as Batman, looking for Democrats and Republicans to stop from ruining the country, keeping America safe. Of course, I outgrew my Batman outfit in a few short years, and as I matured, I realized that the criminals I had been searching for were my grandparents! Whom I loved.
This is where I think American politics is at this point–two criminal parties, battling back and forth, with a public desperately wanting to find a superhero. He or she is not to be found, and so the rot will continue in both parties and throughout the body politic, until such time as it becomes evident that the ongoing is unacceptable.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 5/4/2019 @ 8:11 amWhat a terrific story and metaphor, Gawain’s Ghost, and I don’t really have to imagine your Batman costume. I ordered and made a similar costume for my Batman-loving son.
Further, while I sincerely applaud Beldar’s and Paul’s resolve and wish them well (especially at the local and state levels), I agree with your conclusion: “… the rot will continue in both parties and throughout the body politic, until such time as it becomes evident that the ongoing is unacceptable.” How can the collective “we” agree on things when we can barely talk to each other? There are times in history when the only answer is to let the collective passions and hysteria pass.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/4/2019 @ 9:07 am149. I left the Republican party long before Trump’s ascendancy, though I have felt quite vindicated in the past three years.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/4/2019 @ 9:41 am@ Patterico: Re your #126: I wrote a comment specifically addressing the subject of Trump’s cooperation a couple of days ago, in which I also specifically discussed Trump’s refusal to sit for an interview as the only respect in which Trump didn’t voluntarily cooperate, which discussion ended with the observation that Mueller, apparently with the concurrence of Rosenstein and then Barr, decided not to press the question of an interview, which they could have done through a grand jury subpoena. I assume you didn’t see that comment.
Re your #128: When one headlines a post “Republicans, Also Republicans,” and then throughout it discusses “Republicans,” without ever a single qualifier, the reader may properly assume that you meant all Republicans. All I’m asking is that as a careful writer, to avoid giving offense and accusing people like me falsely, you include at least one qualifier somewhere in such a post. We’ve discussed this before; but you persist in grabbing that big broad paintbrush for reasons I genuinely don’t understand if I accept — as I’m inclined to do, were this not such a repeat problem — your assurance that you’re not addressing or accusing all Republicans.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/4/2019 @ 10:09 amBeldar,
I am curious how far you think authors should go. I can likely be considered an evangelical, and I am fine with being considered one. Each time a post here criticizes evangelicals for hypocrisy about Trump, should I expect every post to specifically say that not all evangelicals do this?
Or should I assume that if I don’t do it, the post isn’t talking about me?
DRJ (15874d) — 5/4/2019 @ 10:52 amI am in favor of using the right-sized brush to tar the correct target, rather than a too-broad brush that also tars the innocent.
I expect more care and precision in brush selection from good writers of integrity than I expect from hacks. My expectations of our host that he use care in selecting the size of his tar-brush are very substantial. If I thought he was incapable of being more discriminating, I wouldn’t bother to be offended; that I know he in fact is capable makes the repeat episodes of carelessness more aggravating.
Your expectations may vary, but I’m damned tired of being tarred carelessly.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/4/2019 @ 11:09 amIt sounds like you see this as a special case at a website with a host that matters to you. I think you matter to him just as much.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/4/2019 @ 11:22 amThe problem of using an overbroad brush is particularly acute in a post like this one, whose title and entire rhetorical point depend upon lumping all Republicans into a single undifferentiated pot, as a predicate to accusing those in the pot of being hypocritical.
It is exactly such a post that ought be most careful.
Beldar (fa637a) — 5/4/2019 @ 11:29 amWorking up a long comment in response. Hang on.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 11:30 amI can’t say I agree. I don’t think the reader can properly assume I mean all of any group unless I say the word “all.” Otherwise there is no difference between “Republicans” and “all Republicans” and the word “all” would not need to exist as an adjective, since any sentence containing the word “all” as an adjective would have the same meaning whether it contained that word or not.
Further, while I’m not going to get offended about it, to the extent that you were genuinely puzzled about what I meant, I have explicitly said this to you:
So now — assuming you don’t think I’m lying there — you know how I feel. You also know that 1) I believe the word “all” has a meaning, 2) I didn’t use that word in this post as an adjective modifying “Republicans,” and 3) I have told you that my use of the term “Republicans” does not intend to convey the concept “all Republicans” but rather “Republicans as a general rule, understanding that there are exceptions, as there always are, when one considers almost anygeneralization.”
With all of that understood, let’s look at your remaining apparent complaint: that I am not being careful enough to explicitly state that not all Republicans feel this way. Since it’s not a question of what I actually believe but how I’m saying it, I’m going to have to guess at your complaint, and here is my good faith guess: that you’re concerned that an objective bystander, not having seen my caveats in the comments, and carelessly ignoring the fact that I didn’t use the word “all,” might conclude that I mean literally “all.” Every one.
Or, to put it another way that might strike closer to your concern, I can understand what it’s like to be in a group and have someone tar that group by attributing to a group a belief that the member does not hold. It’s annoying, and that is the annoyance I think you are feeling. If someone said: “Trump critics want to impeach Barr” I can see raising my hand and saying: “I’m a Trump critic and I have said Barr’s testimony was misleading but that calling it a crime or suggesting impeachment is appropriate is a typical Democrat overreach.”
But the degree to which it’s fair to take offense at a generalization about a group, especially when the generalization does not contain the word “all,” is, I suggest, a function of how accurate the generalization is.
Consider, as a concrete example, the following statements:
The first statement is a fair generalization. The second is not.
If one implies the word “all” into these statements, they are both technically inaccurate. I’m quite sure there was at least one Communist in history who disagreed with the notion of public ownership of the means of production, even though that is the central tenet of this philosophy. But the word “all” is not there in the sentence. And in any event, the first statement is a fair general expression of the beliefs of the group called Communists, even if isolated members disagreed.
The second statement is a gross overgeneralization, and I’d argue that it’s largely false. Even Trump supporters often recognize that the man is immoral — not always, but often — and not all Republicans are Trump supporters. To say, whether using the word “all” or not, that Republicans think Trump is moral would be such a gross and inaccurate generalization that I would not ever sanction someone saying that.
So where on this spectrum do the statements in this post lie? It may be that there’s a solid contingent of folks like you, Beldar, who remain Republicans but who disagree with the assertions that this post attributes to Republicans. It may be … but I can find no evidence of it. Can you point me to any? When David French, Jonah Goldberg, the editors of National Review, and just about anyone else from the right I can find online seem to be arguing that the nature of Barr’s initial representations and characterizations of the Mueller report do not matter because we have the full report, I don’t think it’s an unfair generalization to say “Republicans” say that. And sure, there might be some here and there who don’t, just like there might be some Communists who disbelieved in public ownership of the means of production, or some Democrats who think government should be as limited as possible. But if I say “Communists believe in public ownership of the means of production” or “Democrats believe in larger government to solve many societal issues” do I really have to caveat a statement like that every time, lest some outlier in the group feel that I am tarring them with an overly wide brush?
And in a pithy post like this, even if such a qualifier were appropriate, I am having a hard time seeing where to insert the qualifier. How would one rewrite this post in a manner that you would find appropriate?
So, to me, although I see you expressing great offense, I think that once I have clarified that I do not believe *all* Republicans think this way, the opportunities for justified offense (and I am not a fan of the concept of taking offense generally anyway) narrow considerably: to situations where I, the host and author of the posts, know that I am being unfair in using the general term “Republicans” but use it anyway.
And I don’t think we’re there, as I have taken great pains to explain here at great length. I say: if you’re determined to be offended about this particular post then the burden is on you to show me public examples of Republicans taking issue with the views I have attributed to “Republicans” in this post.
That said, I will take your general point, that you would like me to be more careful about opinions I attribute to “Republicans” generally, under advisement. It’s certainly not my intention to offend you, as I hope is apparent, if nothing else by my taking considerable time on this Saturday morning to lay out my thoughts at length.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 11:59 amWhen I say:
I’m quite sure I’m wrong, technically. There is probably one, somewhere, who is not.
Probably.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 12:00 pmI realize you feel strongly about this Beldar, and I doubt anything I say will sway you, but I agree with DRJ.
Moreover, political parties are organizations that people voluntarily choose to affiliate themselves with. By continuing to identify yourself as a Republican you have chosen to associate yourself, by name if nothing else, with the positions and practices of the party and its members.
You’ve made clear your disagreements on various issues, and nobody has directly accused you of the attitudes Patrick was trying to criticize in this post. Thus, I respectfully disagree that you have cause for complaint in this case.
To take a more extreme example, if we criticize communists (as political movement) for the countless crimes and atrocities communists are rightly criticized for, do we have to note each time that there are people who consider themselves communists but disclaim the things done by Stalin, Mao, Castro, Maduro, etc? I believe that anyone who identifies themselves as a communist has chosen to carry that baggage.
And likewise (although the weight of the baggage is not comparable) anyone who chooses to identify themselves as a Republican (or Democrat, or whatever). To put it bluntly, it is you who has wielded the paintbrush upon yourself, and Patrick has merely described the color of the paint.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/4/2019 @ 12:07 pmHeh.
Indeed, I have seen Beldar comment there in the past, under his real name, although I doubt he still does so…
Dave (1bb933) — 5/4/2019 @ 12:13 pm162. I am also a former Hot Air commenter. That place has gone so far down the toilet lately, and I blame Facebook in toto.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/4/2019 @ 12:18 pmI don’t understand this oft-repeated assertion (that Facebook is responsible).
Why do toxic trolls need Facebook to ply their trade? Anyone with (or without) a Facebook account can post here too.
The problem IMO is total lack of moderation (and that explains why this site, with much more aggressive enforcement, maintains at least a veneer of civility).
Dave (1bb933) — 5/4/2019 @ 12:25 pmI disagree with Dave, who I think takes the meaning of membership too far. His basic argument is that every time you apply a label to yourself, you voluntarily indicate your support for every bad action taken by that group. That is an unfair standard that would make principled membership in almost any large group impossible.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 12:26 pmIt has gotten way worse since the institution of the Facebook protocol, and in addition virtually every post is overrun with spam about working from home.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 12:27 pm#145
I knew if I stuck around here long enough I’d look good
steveg (e7a56b) — 5/4/2019 @ 12:28 pmI agree with this, and I think that as online commentary has devolved in the era of Trump, aggressive enforcement is more and more necessary. Trump superfans don’t like it because there is a strong correlation between Trump superfandom and rude behavior, so aggressive enforcement of minimal levels of civility means less Trump boosterism. But nobody would look at this site and say it is devoid of support for Trump. It certainly has more of a balance of views than those held by the general readership of conservative sites, which are by and large far more supportive of Trump. This is in small part because of the aforementioned enforcement, but in far larger part due to the self-deportation of butthurt people who dislike reading Trump criticism. But I am proud of the fact that we still have a mix of opinion here and a level of civility. That has NOT been easy in the current environment.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 12:30 pm168. I credit our host largely with that civility. The for-profit “conservative” blogs all seem to be nothing but a collective echo chamber these days.
Gryph (08c844) — 5/4/2019 @ 12:36 pm#165
That is an important distinction. I’m searching for the proper word… conversely? When a Bernie supporter shot up the congressional baseball practice it would be unfair to the rest of the Bernie supporters who would never dream of doing that kind of thing.
Imagine how prolific false flag operations would be if everyone bought into that thinking
steveg (e7a56b) — 5/4/2019 @ 12:37 pmNo, that’s not what I meant and (I think) not what I said. I acknowledged Beldar as a specific counter-example, as well as my hypothetical progressive who believes communism and state terrorism are not synonymous.
I meant that when you associate yourself with a group, you are not entitled to an apology when people criticize that group for its words or deeds, without reference to you personally, merely because the criticism is inapplicable to you.
Dave (543145) — 5/4/2019 @ 1:15 pmHere is a good example of taking one’s distaste for a President and misapplying it.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/asians-harassed-by-thugs-for-wearing-maga-hats-were-north-korean-defectors/
steveg (e7a56b) — 5/4/2019 @ 1:20 pmPolitical homelessness and apostasy has made me realize they were always that way.
It’s much harder to notice when you agree with everyone else…
Dave (543145) — 5/4/2019 @ 1:23 pmI’m still processing the news that all communists don’t believe in the public ownership of the means of production given that it’s actually the dictionary definition. Are we assuming there are some people claiming to be communists who don’t have access to a dictionary or actual communists?
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/4/2019 @ 1:29 pmThe point about all the advertising spam on HotAir is well-taken, and certainly facilitated by Facebook.
I pretty much tune that stuff out. An annoyance to be sure, but I don’t think it would prevent intelligent discussion.
In other words it’s a symptom of the problem, not the cause.
Dave (543145) — 5/4/2019 @ 1:36 pmI’m still processing the news that all communists don’t believe in the public ownership of the means of production given that it’s actually the dictionary definition. Are we assuming there are some people claiming to be communists who don’t have access to a dictionary or actual communists?
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/4/2019 @ 1:29 pm
For now, though it still has value. If you want to find out where someone lands on the TDS spectrum you can say loud and proud that Trump was exonerated by Mueller. If you get a loud and proud ‘amen brother’ in response he might also believe in qanon. Any other response will require further steps to determine which type of unreconstructed communist you’re dealing with.
frosty48 (6226c1) — 3/29/2019 @ 2:22 pm
Davethulhu (9847a2) — 5/4/2019 @ 1:44 pmI did, which is why I was puzzled to see you express agreement with Barr’s statement that Trump “fully cooperated” as defined thusly:
The investigators requested that he sit for an interview. He refused to comply. He had a privilege not to and his refusal was almost certainly wise — but again, the question here is not whether he acted wisely but whether he “fully cooperated” defined as fully complying with the investigators’ requests of him. You, in your previous comment, acknowledged that Trump did not comply with this request, so I can’t see how you think Trump “fully cooperated” or complied — even under your cramped definition of cooperation, which embraces efforts to shut down the investigation entirely.
Your point that Mueller did not press the point does not mean that Mueller did not make the request. Barr briefly asserted this in his testimony, saying Mueller didn’t seek an interview, and then paused, thought better of it, and corrected that to say Mueller didn’t press the point. OK, but he asked. And Trump did not fully cooperate.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 1:59 pmI know, right? But I’m confident it’s true. In fact, I’m certain plenty of people thought the public ownership of the means of production was stupid, but called themselves Communists because it was easier to stay out of the gulag and to get government benefits that way.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 2:01 pmAnd others no doubt convinced themselves that the most effective way to change the party’s trajectory was from within…
Dave (1bb933) — 5/4/2019 @ 2:11 pmDavethulhu, good point. Apparently, per frosty, the dictionary definition of a Communist has now changed to not believing in Trump’s total exoneration by Mueller!
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 2:13 pmNow I feel like you’re just needling Beldar.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 2:14 pmI suppose, in a playful way. Trump’s GOP is hopefully more amenable to democratic change than the Stalin-era CPSU.
On the other hand, IMO people of good will (like Beldar) who choose remain in political organizations led by the morally bankrupt should weigh carefully whether they are doing more harm than good by providing tacit/indirect support to what they oppose.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/4/2019 @ 2:53 pmThe idea of how to change organizations interests me.
Some organizations like the Boy Scouts stand for specific values. As values change over time, the organizations and their members have to decide if they still fit. Working from within seems exactly the way to go in those cases.
But political parties don’t stand for specific values, instead they are a reflection of their members values. They change freqyently, even every 4 years, as their national leaders embrace new platforms and values (often in response to public sentiment). With groups like this, is power really exercised from within or is it equally or more reacting to placate outside pressure?
DRJ (15874d) — 5/4/2019 @ 2:53 pmOk, as in ok you are “not interested in that game.” I wasn’t suggesting a game and it wasn’t directed at you, but I understand you don’t approve.
The “game” is the who-is-more-conservative thing, when the whole idea of “conservative” is subjective in the extreme. Can someone who demands a balanced budget and wants the federal government limited, but has no issue with early abortions, be conservative? How about someone who is dead set on Biblical morality but doesn’t care about deficits?
And again, would someone who just wants to protect the New Deal be conservative?
We need better labels, this one is used up. Statist, Federalist (wrt the Society), Libertarian, Apolitical, New Dealer, Environmentalist, Socialist — all these convey more information than “conservative”, liberal” or even “progressive.” Where do you put someone who calls themselves “LGBT Conservative” or “Christian Liberal”?
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:11 pmI think you are (kind of) proving my point.
Or maybe not seeing it. I’ll look around.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:13 pmTrump’s ability to hijack the party, while flaunting open contempt for every virtue it claimed to hold dear, would seem to argue strongly for the latter.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:14 pm@150. Less the Batman Joker and Penguin— more ‘F-Troop‘ comes to mind…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkUNuMD8pc
“I think we lost. Where the heck-are-we?” – Hekawi Indian Tribe Chief Wild Eagle [Frank de Kova] F-Troop, ABC TV 1965-67
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:16 pmAnd so I think that Barr’s claim that Trump “fully cooperated” is wrong and misleading, even under your (in my view) novel definition of cooperation.
Do you feel that allowing Cohen to testify without asserting privilege was co-operative? How about not asserting executive privilege when aides were called upon? I guess if “fully cooperated” means “did absolutely everything we asked of him including a confession”, then you’re right. But there is at least a reasonable argument otherwise.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:21 pmMy God. The commenters at Hot Air are idiots. Very abrasive idiots.
Instapundit has gotten pretty bad, too. There are people there calling for a White Nation. Not a lot, but they exist. Thankfully you can mute people.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:23 pmIMO, the only change effected by remaining in Donald Trump’s Republican party is normalizing Donald Trump
In the mathematical sense, exactly correct.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:25 pmOnce upon a time, I worked with a guy who called himself a socialist and wore a Mao cap to work as often as not. However, he took umbrage with the word “Communist” as Stalin, he said, had betrayed the Revolution. Whatever that meant. Then he would go on about the differences between Trotskyism and Maoist thought, why Real Socialism had never been tried, but to tell you the truth I had lost interest completely.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:34 pmPolitical homelessness and apostasy has made me realize they were always that way.
From time to time we are all politically homeless. Trump’s base was homeless for quite some time, and he used that to great effect. Now there are other opportunities, both within and without the GOP (there’s a giant political ecosystem between the two major parties, what if someone tried to fill it?).
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:39 pmCool! I get to redefine words now. I’ve got a list. I’ll be right back once I find it.
Frosty, Fp (b409f3) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:43 pmTrump superfans don’t like it because there is a strong correlation between Trump superfandom and rude behavior
I think you oversimplify. There is a large correlation between supporting Trump and long-pent-up anger with the status quo. That seething anger leads to the rude behavior towards advocates of that status quo.
Pretty sure that, had there been the same media available, you would have seen the same thing from Reagan supporters circa 1982, versus doctrinaire liberals. Oh, wait, there was. I was on Compuserve then and can tell you it was so.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:45 pmI imagine there are young folks calling themselves “socialists” who would be upset if they had to pay high taxes, or if their stock options became worthless due to their firm being rolled into a co-op.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:50 pmI would say it’s not “pent up anger with the status quo,” but rather “pent up resentment against progress”.
The status quo (ca. 1970) is what they want to bring back.
Dave (1bb933) — 5/4/2019 @ 3:55 pmA month or so ago, HotAir linked to another one of the “interview college students and then air a montage of the ones who say dumb stuff” YouTube productions.
In this one, they interviewed students to see if they would support a system in which students who did well in their classes would have their grades lowered to improve the grades of students who did less well.
Needless to say, “GPA socialism” was not a big hit…
Dave (1bb933) — 5/4/2019 @ 4:04 pm@196. The youngsters never experienced 1964. Eventually, what goes around does come around.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 5/4/2019 @ 4:04 pmDRJ #141
My dad would do a short prayer and have one of us kids say grace for the food before every meal he was home for.
steveg (e7a56b) — 5/4/2019 @ 4:18 pmMy dad always would ask God for his blessings and wisdom upon the President…. as I grew up from overhearing the adults talking, I knew dad hadn’t liked Kennedy’s morals, he didn’t like LBJ or Nixon that way either, he thought Ford was a good guy in a tough place… my first vote was for Jimmy Carter. I thought dad would feel the same. Carter taught Sunday school, devout, Navy man…. Dad told me he thought Carter was the type of leader who gets good men killed, and dad told me that regardless of his own opinion, to pray for Carter every day.
As of today dads favorite Presidents are Ike, Reagan, and he adores GWB. We haven’t talked much about Trump but I do know that when Hillary spoke at my nieces college graduation dad brought earplugs and a book
Your Dad and my Dad would have really gotten along.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/4/2019 @ 5:02 pmAnd I still say the grace he taught me at every family dinner.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/4/2019 @ 5:03 pmI think you missed the part where we were saying *you* had done that, frosty.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 5:35 pmMmmmm, no, I think there are plenty of people who just like the fact that he is rude and emulate him, and/or (in more cases) use him as justification for their already existing rudeness.
I’m hardly a fan of the status quo — the deficits and debt in particular. Plenty of Trump supporters are rude to me regardless.
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 5:38 pmBeldar,
Having also been taken to task by you for using “Republicans” in what you believed too generalized a fashion, and now reading similar concerns expressed by you concerning P’s use of “Republicans,” I would like to know when is it appropriate to use an identifier without having to qualify only a select portion, or without having to stipulate not those who think X, Y, and Z? I ask because when I consider any political group, there are always exceptions and subsets within (Libertarians (small l), Democrats (progressive, liberal), Republicans (Goldwater R’s, Trump loyalists, Conservatives (sometimes)), etc. Is there any group where one does not need to first qualify precisely of whom they are speaking?
Dana (779465) — 5/4/2019 @ 6:10 pm(continued)…
As a guest contributor, I am unclear on the “rules” concerning the use of umbrella descriptors. While you are a Republican, should there always be an asterisk stating “but not a Trump supporter” or would something like Republican Revivalist be more accurate? Also, if you feel that it is a writer’s responsibility to be that exact when addressing Republicans, do you feel likewise about Democrats? Finally, if you would indulge me, what would such a post title look like to you (given that the goal is to catch a reader’s attention with a smart, pithy preview of what’s to come)? Can you give us an example?
Dana (779465) — 5/4/2019 @ 6:17 pm133.
More important, nominees, or potential nominees, to the Federal Reserve Board are coming under the kind of personal attack, and getting the kind of oppositionn research published in newspapers, that has hitherto been reserved for Supreme Court nominees, or potentially successful candidates for the United States Senate.
Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6) — 5/4/2019 @ 6:46 pmAnd in many respects he did cooperate. But in some respects — even if we place to one side the many attempts to have Mueller removed or shut down the investigation — he did not. So in my view, his cooperation — and there was much cooperation, to his credit — was not full.
And so I think that Barr’s claim that Trump “fully cooperated” is wrong and misleading, even under your (in my view) novel definition of cooperation.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/4/2019 @ 7:10 pm174. Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/4/2019 @ 1:29 pm
I don’t know what the dictionary definition is, and it doesn’t matter becasuse it is not accurate if it tied to an ideology or government. Communists are people blindly support whatever the ruling party in the Soviet Union wants/ed them to do, or it’s descendant parties. It has to do with dishonesty, “boring from withi” and crimes and support of the people doing that.
As for communists believing in the public ownership of the means of production is concerned, that hasn’t been the position of the Communist Party of China, even in theory, since the mid-1980s.
You want a name? Deng Xiaoping. Although I think he was better known at the time as Teng Hsiao Ping.
Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6) — 5/4/2019 @ 7:13 pmDave (1bb933) — 5/4/2019 @ 2:11 pm
Up to about 1937, possibly, and really 1932-4.
It was not a democracy, although it claimed to be, but that (Lenin called it democratic centralism) was another lie. Bernie Sanders has a little bit of this belief in party loyalty. Which may account for the fact that he’s never really officially joined the Democratic Party. (he actually seems to be halfway in and halfway out. He had to agree to some sort of membership to run in the primaries.)
Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6) — 5/4/2019 @ 7:20 pmHmm. It seems to me that Beldar could use an ally here, so I’ll go on the record with the fact that I have, and have always had, “Land of Lincoln” on all my cars’ license plates. The motorcycles’ too.
nk (dbc370) — 5/4/2019 @ 7:20 pmIn the United States, both parties, but especially the Democratic Party, are becoming cults, at least on the national level.
Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6) — 5/4/2019 @ 7:21 pmYou have the heart, mind and soul of the perfect defense counsel, nk.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/4/2019 @ 7:59 pmIt’s ridiculous to join a party. It’s even more ridiculous to expect anyone to give a rat’s ass if you leave.
Munroe (e751f4) — 5/4/2019 @ 8:02 pmSo you agree Barr testified falsely when he said Trump cooperated fully, rcocean?
Patterico (115b1f) — 5/4/2019 @ 8:18 pmNk, that just means you are not some fanboy of a sport team/college and/or prefer to simply write checks to your favorite causes. Besides, anybody living in Illinois whose forebears came after 1865 usually get caught mumbling “Fargin Lincoln”, usually with the old country’s accent.
urbanleftbehind (166e4c) — 5/4/2019 @ 8:40 pm@208 You, and our host, are using your own definition for a term. In the post that was pulled back from the past I was attempting humor and my sarcasm in this thread wasn’t an attempt to defend any sort of serious redefinition. There’s obviously nothing to prevent anyone from using whatever definition they like but it seems odd for some of the same people who want to debate the usage of collusion vs conspiracy and exonerate, etc. to then seriously embrace a fluid definition of something like communism. That last sentence wasn’t directed at you personally since I don’t keep track of who lands where on which debates. It’s just a general observation. This was the point of my original post. It wasn’t meant to be a rabbit trail into the definition of communism. If a word can be used inconsistent with its definition in a post about how parsing and semantics are important it tends to undermine the larger argument, even if just a little bit.
Bringing up an old post where I attempted some humor that used the same word doesn’t really address the underlying criticism.
To your other point; what a person calls themselves and what they actually are can be separate things. If I’m being generous I would call myself humorous, wise, intelligent, insightful, and humble not to mention dangerously attractive and fabulously wealthy. As for the Chinese, I would argue that, economically, they’re implementing a system closer to fascism than communism. Socialists will argue when you point out that nazi has socialist in the name. Antifa isn’t really anti-fascist. I don’t think the Chinese have changed the underlying definition of the word by keeping the same name and switching economic policies.
Frosty, Fp (7540e9) — 5/4/2019 @ 8:53 pmI’m hardly a fan of the status quo — the deficits and debt in particular.
Yeah, well, that’s not what they were angry about. I won’t bore you with the recap — what Charles Murray said.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/5/2019 @ 1:23 amIt’s ridiculous to join a party. It’s even more ridiculous to expect anyone to give a rat’s ass if you leave.
I agree with the last part, even though I quit the GOP the3 same day our host did, and did not vote for the nominee. But, having seen Trump beat my expectations (I had him pegged as a 2, and he’s somewhere around 5), and seeing the utter dog’s breakfast that is passing for thought in the Democrat Party, it is important the the winner of the 2020 race not be a Democrat. Very important.
So, if my only effective choice, in a state not named California, is Trump or the Malthusian/Marxist-to-be-named-later, I will vote for Trump. If someone in the middle runs in the general election, and they have a chance, I’ll vote for them. If, please God, a serious GOP challenger emerges, I will walk precincts for them.
Kevin M (21ca15) — 5/5/2019 @ 1:32 amOf course, if “Fully” means 100%.
rcocean (1a839e) — 5/5/2019 @ 5:50 amI echo your notion that words mean what people/societies want them to mean. But I think our earlier debates happened because words like conspiracy and exonerate have legal meanings as well as dictionary definitions. Thus, in discussions about legal issues such as the Mueller Report, it is not surprising to see people (especially lawyers) argue that the precise legal meanings matter. Meanwhile, words like collusion and communism only have dictionary definitions so their uses may be less precise.
DRJ (15874d) — 5/5/2019 @ 6:58 amThe definition of “full cooperation” I have seen during the course of Mueller’s investigation is pleading guilty and becoming a government witnesses against other defendants to Mueller’s satisfaction, so, yeah, Trump absolutely did not cooperate fully.
nk (9651fb) — 5/5/2019 @ 7:10 amTrump’s refusal for a face-to-face interview aside, Barr can only maintain that Trump was “fully cooperating” by maintaining his stand that Trump didn’t obstruct justice, but there are six instances in the Mueller report where Trump did obstruct justice, thus falling well short of “fully cooperated”. It’s only one reason of many why Barr is a partisan hack.
Paul Montagu (7968e9) — 5/5/2019 @ 8:49 am