The National Review is all in for Trump, so they probably wrote that article to discredit Liz Cheney and reduce any influence she might have in helping Harris. Most people who are pro-Harris know that Cheney is her opposite policy-wise. The message actually is “Liz Cheney disagrees with Harris on policy but agrees with Harris that Trump …
The National Review is all in for Trump, so they probably wrote that article to discredit Liz Cheney and reduce any influence she might have in helping Harris. Most people who are pro-Harris know that Cheney is her opposite policy-wise. The message actually is “Liz Cheney disagrees with Harris on policy but agrees with Harris that Trump is too dangerous to vote for”. Having someone diametrically opposed to Harris’s policies say they’re voting for her to stop Trump gives permission to other Republican voters to vote for Harris to stop Trump. The National Review article won’t convince anyone who isn’t already convinced. TNR doesn’t understand the dynamics.
I don't believe that was NR's motive. The author of the article is very very anti-Trump. As are many of the NR writers. A majority, I would say. NR does not impose ideological uniformity
Interesting. I’m pretty sure Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of TNR is pro-Trump, or at least, anti-Harris. I am not aware of anyone at TNR being “very very anti-Trump”. In any event, I skimmed the article and disagree with whatever the premise is supposed to be. I’ve been opposed to Roe v Wade since it came out. It was decided right before I started law school, and we discussed it as being the result of a liberal USSC making up a “right” that didn’t actually exist under the 14th amendment (the right to privacy, which then gave you a right to abortion). It was a bad decision, badly decided, and ripe for being overturned given the right justices on the Court. That said, I agree with Cheney that throwing abortion back to the states has resulted in some draconian laws that unduly put women’s lives at risk. Any abortion law that has no exceptions whatsoever, not even for life of the mother (and also rape or incest, which are reasonable even if you believe life begins at conception, as I do) is a step too far. I watched Cheney talk about this in one of her interviews and felt she was truthful and sincere. That the TNR writer doesn’t understand the evolution of her thinking, or that her fear of a second Trump presidency is so great that she feels the need to actually campaign for and with Harris, is unfortunate. He’s entitled to his opinion but I disagree with him. Only MAGAs will agree with his thinking, imho. For the audience of those sit-downs, it wouldn’t have mattered even if she had been asked that question. It’s a nothing burger.
The National Review is all in for Trump, so they probably wrote that article to discredit Liz Cheney and reduce any influence she might have in helping Harris. Most people who are pro-Harris know that Cheney is her opposite policy-wise. The message actually is “Liz Cheney disagrees with Harris on policy but agrees with Harris that Trump is too dangerous to vote for”. Having someone diametrically opposed to Harris’s policies say they’re voting for her to stop Trump gives permission to other Republican voters to vote for Harris to stop Trump. The National Review article won’t convince anyone who isn’t already convinced. TNR doesn’t understand the dynamics.
I don't believe that was NR's motive. The author of the article is very very anti-Trump. As are many of the NR writers. A majority, I would say. NR does not impose ideological uniformity
Interesting. I’m pretty sure Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of TNR is pro-Trump, or at least, anti-Harris. I am not aware of anyone at TNR being “very very anti-Trump”. In any event, I skimmed the article and disagree with whatever the premise is supposed to be. I’ve been opposed to Roe v Wade since it came out. It was decided right before I started law school, and we discussed it as being the result of a liberal USSC making up a “right” that didn’t actually exist under the 14th amendment (the right to privacy, which then gave you a right to abortion). It was a bad decision, badly decided, and ripe for being overturned given the right justices on the Court. That said, I agree with Cheney that throwing abortion back to the states has resulted in some draconian laws that unduly put women’s lives at risk. Any abortion law that has no exceptions whatsoever, not even for life of the mother (and also rape or incest, which are reasonable even if you believe life begins at conception, as I do) is a step too far. I watched Cheney talk about this in one of her interviews and felt she was truthful and sincere. That the TNR writer doesn’t understand the evolution of her thinking, or that her fear of a second Trump presidency is so great that she feels the need to actually campaign for and with Harris, is unfortunate. He’s entitled to his opinion but I disagree with him. Only MAGAs will agree with his thinking, imho. For the audience of those sit-downs, it wouldn’t have mattered even if she had been asked that question. It’s a nothing burger.
Here is one of many many pieces Charles Cooke has written blasting Trump:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/national-review-charles-cooke-donald-trump-2024_n_6231906de4b020d1596d73a7
Not sure why you would doubt my simple and easily-demonstrated assertion that he is very anti-Trump. ????