Friday November 22, 2019

Latest Poll

strict warning: Non-static method view::load_views() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 864.
strict warning: Non-static method view::db_objects() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/includes/view.inc on line 1417.
strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 744.
strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_node_status::operator_form() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::operator_form(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/modules/node/views_handler_filter_node_status.inc on line 13.
strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_style_default::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_style_default.inc on line 24.
strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:c29b9b6e1a636b50dfd13efa2b5a3844' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'IMPEACHMENT: November 11, 2019\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Lowry.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" />\nIf the impeachment effort isn’t taking the nation by storm, the Democrats have an answer — blame it on Latin.\n THE USE of a Latin term, quid pro quo, is now thought to be a damper on the impeachment cause because it sounds complex and technical. \n Latin is one of the great legacies of the Roman Empire, influencing languages across Europe and giving us scientific, medical and legal terms that heretofore had been thought perfectly fitting. That was before Democrats felt they needed a more emotive phrase to characterize President Donald Trump’s conduct in the Ukraine controversy, and especially one that denotes a more grave offense. \n Democratic Rep. Jim Himes, from Connecticut, made the case on “Meet the Press” over the weekend: “When you’re trying to persuade the American people of something that is really pretty simple, which is that the president acted criminally and extorted, in the way a mob boss would extort somebody, a vulnerable foreign country, it’s probably best not to use Latin words to explain it.” \n There’s a lot to unpack here. The first problem is that Ukraine is not nearly as simple, or as dramatic, as Democrats first hoped. It doesn’t have something memorable and inherently attention-grabbing at its heart, like the Watergate break-in or the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. It involved a pressure campaign on the Ukrainians that — once examined closely — was complicated, ambiguous and highly contested within the administration. No matter what word is applied to it — even the plainest, non-Latinate English word — this isn’t going to change. \n Another problem is that it wasn’t criminal. Impeachment doesn’t require a crime, but it helps, since a criminal offense represents a bright line. The best card that Republicans had against Bill Clinton in their impeachment push in the 1990s was that he had flagrantly violated the law by perjuring himself repeatedly. Democrats wish they had Trump on similar violations. In their absence, they are attempting to create the impression of rank criminality, via metaphor. \n This is why they want to shift to the terms “extortion” or “bribery” — and throw in references to mob bosses.\n IT CAN’T be that squeezing a foreign power is a criminal act, though, or every American president would be guilty of crimes in the course of the horse-trading of routine statecraft. \n In his infamous “get over it” press conference, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney cited the Trump administration cutting off aid to Central American countries as another example of a foreign-policy quid pro quo. The president wanted those countries to tamp down on migration, an important Trump political goal. If bringing such pressure to bear is inherently illegitimate, this, too, was an impeachable offense. \n So the extortion and bribery metaphors prove too much. What makes the Ukraine matter different, and blameworthy, is the object of Trump’s pressure campaign. He wanted an investigation that touched on Joe and Hunter Biden. This was improper because it involved a mingling of presidential powers and U.S. resources with a goal that was, largely, personal and political in nature (although Hunter Biden’s lucrative arrangement with the Ukraine energy company Burisma while his dad was the point man on President Barack Obama’s Ukraine policy was indeed indefensible). \n Once we are talking about an improper use of lawful powers, then things are less lurid and more complicated than a mafia-land crime. And once you factor in that the Ukrainians ultimately got their funding without investigating anyone or announcing an investigation into anyone, the picture is even less clear.\n IMPEACHMENT and removal of a president requires a national consensus to get the two-thirds vote to convict in the Senate. This is why the Democrats need more than wrong and troubling and worthy of congressional investigation, a standard they’ve amply met; they need shocking to the conscience, which they aren’t going to meet on anything like the current universe of facts. \n This is the political reality — in English, Latin or any other language.\n', created = 1574410609, expire = 1574497009, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:c29b9b6e1a636b50dfd13efa2b5a3844' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:88bc67f6c20e4976c68424a0947aceed' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'NATIONALISM: November 8, 2019\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Lowry.gif\" />\nIf there’s one thing that elite opinion tends to agree about on the left and the right, it’s that nationalism is a very bad thing. If anything, this view has become even more entrenched as nationalism has demonstrated its potency in recent years, from the election of Donald Trump to Britain’s vote to leave the European Union.\n WHEN President Trump first openly embraced the term “nationalist” at a 2018 campaign rally, commentators reacted in horror. Patriotism is about love, nationalism about hate, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opined. Trump, insisted Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, is “normalizing a hateful political philosophy that is contrary to our deepest-held beliefs.” \n As I write in my new book, “The Case for Nationalism,” this reflexive hostility to the concept is ill-informed and an attempt to deem nationalism a swearword and end all discussion on that basis. \n At its most basic, the scholar Azar Gat writes, nationalism is “the doctrine and ideology that a people is bound together in solidarity, fate, and common political aspirations.” Historian Anthony Smith described the national ideal as “a belief that all those who shared a common history and culture should be autonomous, united and distinct in their recognized homelands.” \n A key contention of nationalism is that a nation has its rights and claims. This is a thread that runs through the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address and the Atlantic Charter. A nation has the right to break off from larger sovereignties in the cause of self-determination (see, for instance, 1776), and to remake its regime or foundational governing rules (see, for instance, 1789). \n So if a nation’s rights and interests are being trampled, loyalty to the nation, i.e., nationalism, may require treason against the government, the object of patriotic loyalty. As Michael Lind explains, “Governments should serve nations, not nations governments.”\n WHEN Europe went off the rails in the early 20th century, nationalism as such didn’t cause its crash so much as social Darwinism, militarism and the cult of charismatic leadership. The aftermath of World War I added its own poison. \n Regardless, American nationalism — which encompasses such diverse, rightly beloved figures as Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt — is not to be feared. As with so many other things about this country, it is more benign than the versions to be found in Europe and other places around the world. \n This is true for a number of reasons. First, we are the inheritors of an Anglo-American tradition that has profound respect for the individual and the rule of law and is a fundamental part of our national identity. \n The sheet anchor of American sovereignty, the U.S. Constitution, makes it clear that authority ultimately resides with “we the people of the United States.” The Constitution also happens to be a durable mechanism of self-government and itself an object of patriotic loyalty and national pride. \n Finally, the United States was never infected with the dream of universal empire that Europe inherited from Rome and that has lingered on in differing forms from Charlemagne to the European Union. \n The rise of Donald Trump has pushed the left further away from respect for nationalistic attitudes and even patriotic symbols. Democrats — and the country — would be much better served if they countered Trump’s nationalism with a version of their own. \n On his own side of the aisle, Trump has made Republicans more nationalistic. Still, much of the party is quietly uncomfortable with this. If Trump loses in 2020, the party’s establishment may try to snap back to its pre-Trump disposition of relative indifference to nationalism.\n YET, IF there’s one clear political lesson from the long history of nationalism in this country and elsewhere, it is that a party interested in moving people and selling a program should make some sort of an appeal to it — even if conventional wisdom insists it is foolish and wrong.\n', created = 1574410610, expire = 1574497010, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:88bc67f6c20e4976c68424a0947aceed' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:98e03c7828ae6a499c00913ce3a3aafc' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'At issue this week...    Impeachment  by Rich Lowry\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Lowry.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" />\nRepublicans have had trouble mounting an effective defense on Ukraine because they haven’t put down their stakes on the most defensible ground.\n COMPLAINTS about House Democrats’ less-than-transparent impeachment process, though justified, were clearly perishable once Democrats adopted more regular proceedings. The contention that President Donald Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president was “perfect” was never going to withstand scrutiny. The line that there was “no quid pro quo” has become steadily less plausible as more testimony has emerged suggesting that Trump withheld security aid to Ukraine in the hopes that Ukraine would announce an investigation into the 2016 election and the gas company Burisma and/or Joe and Hunter Biden. \n The best defense Republicans can muster is that nothing came of it. An ally was discomfited and yanked around for a couple of months before, ultimately, getting its defense funding. \n All of this bears some resemblance to Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice during the Mueller investigation. He hated the investigation and wanted it to go away, and even plotted against it, but at the end of the day, Robert Mueller did his work. More specifically, the Ukraine mess is lot like Trump’s order, or purported order, to then-White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller. After drama, internal contention and tragicomedy, nothing happened. \n One of the hallmarks of the Ukraine maneuverings last summer is confusion about what U.S. policy was, and who was making it, and how determined they were to get the Ukrainians to agree to investigations. This is a symptom of the back channel represented by Rudy Giuliani operating on a separate track from official channels, but also of a legitimate dispute about the U.S. approach toward Ukraine until the very end, when the defense funding was released on Sept. 11. \n According to Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor, security assistance didn’t come up in a meeting between then-national security adviser John Bolton and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Aug. 27, two weeks before the funding was released. \n When Vice President Mike Pence visited and met with Zelenskiy on Sept. 1, he didn’t mention the investigations. \n In Taylor’s telling, as late as early September, Ukrainian officials were asking why the funding was being withheld, and their U.S. counterparts couldn’t tell them. \n Meanwhile, the hold was widely opposed within the U.S. government. As Taylor put it, “At every meeting, the unanimous conclusion was that the security assistance should be resumed.” Indeed, officials at the center of Ukraine policy were scheming against the scheme to get Ukraine to commit to the investigations.\n THE REJOINDER to all this is that the furtive and ambiguous nature of the interaction with the Ukrainians may well point to a cognizance of its impropriety. \n True enough, but the offense here shouldn’t be exaggerated. It’s not as though Trump was asking the Ukrainians to frame anyone, or give him bags of cash, or buy advertisements in swing states. The sought-after announcement of an investigation into Burisma, a company with a demonstrably shady past, wouldn’t have constituted an investigation into Joe Biden, or even an investigation into Hunter Biden. \n Trump surely would have used such an announcement to argue that Hunter Biden is corrupt, but you might have noticed that Trump is arguing that Hunter Biden is corrupt, regardless. \n Special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker has said he had a relatively relaxed attitude toward the hold on the funding. “I believed the decision would ultimately be reversed,” he said in his opening statement. “Everything from the force of law to the unanimous position of the House, Senate, Pentagon, State Department and NSC staff argued for going forward, and I knew it would just be a matter of time.”\n HE WAS right. You might say it never should have gotten to that point. What you can’t say is either that the money was ultimately kept from the Ukrainians, or that they opened an investigation of the Bidens.\n October 31, 2019\n', created = 1574410610, expire = 1574497010, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:98e03c7828ae6a499c00913ce3a3aafc' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:44bd7249586cd5fe5b14acb2107e82f8' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'IMPEACHMENT: October 31, 2019\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Lowry.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" />\nRepublicans have had trouble mounting an effective defense on Ukraine because they haven’t put down their stakes on the most defensible ground.\n COMPLAINTS about House Democrats’ less-than-transparent impeachment process, though justified, were clearly perishable once Democrats adopted more regular proceedings. The contention that President Donald Trump’s phone call to the Ukrainian president was “perfect” was never going to withstand scrutiny. The line that there was “no quid pro quo” has become steadily less plausible as more testimony has emerged suggesting that Trump withheld security aid to Ukraine in the hopes that Ukraine would announce an investigation into the 2016 election and the gas company Burisma and/or Joe and Hunter Biden. \n The best defense Republicans can muster is that nothing came of it. An ally was discomfited and yanked around for a couple of months before, ultimately, getting its defense funding. \n All of this bears some resemblance to Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice during the Mueller investigation. He hated the investigation and wanted it to go away, and even plotted against it, but at the end of the day, Robert Mueller did his work. More specifically, the Ukraine mess is lot like Trump’s order, or purported order, to then-White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller. After drama, internal contention and tragicomedy, nothing happened. \n One of the hallmarks of the Ukraine maneuverings last summer is confusion about what U.S. policy was, and who was making it, and how determined they were to get the Ukrainians to agree to investigations. This is a symptom of the back channel represented by Rudy Giuliani operating on a separate track from official channels, but also of a legitimate dispute about the U.S. approach toward Ukraine until the very end, when the defense funding was released on Sept. 11. \n According to Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor, security assistance didn’t come up in a meeting between then-national security adviser John Bolton and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Aug. 27, two weeks before the funding was released.\n WHEN VICE President Mike Pence visited and met with Zelenskiy on Sept. 1, he didn’t mention the investigations. \n In Taylor’s telling, as late as early September, Ukrainian officials were asking why the funding was being withheld, and their U.S. counterparts couldn’t tell them. \n Meanwhile, the hold was widely opposed within the U.S. government. As Taylor put it, “At every meeting, the unanimous conclusion was that the security assistance should be resumed.” Indeed, officials at the center of Ukraine policy were scheming against the scheme to get Ukraine to commit to the investigations. \n The rejoinder to all this is that the furtive and ambiguous nature of the interaction with the Ukrainians may well point to a cognizance of its impropriety. \n True enough, but the offense here shouldn’t be exaggerated. It’s not as though Trump was asking the Ukrainians to frame anyone, or give him bags of cash, or buy advertisements in swing states. The sought-after announcement of an investigation into Burisma, a company with a demonstrably shady past, wouldn’t have constituted an investigation into Joe Biden, or even an investigation into Hunter Biden. \n Trump surely would have used such an announcement to argue that Hunter Biden is corrupt, but you might have noticed that Trump is arguing that Hunter Biden is corrupt, regardless. \n Special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker has said he had a relatively relaxed attitude toward the hold on the funding. “I believed the decision would ultimately be reversed,” he said in his opening statement. “Everything from the force of law to the unanimous position of the House, Senate, Pentagon, State Department and NSC staff argued for going forward, and I knew it would just be a matter of time.”\n HE WAS right. You might say it never should have gotten to that point. What you can’t say is either that the money was ultimately kept from the Ukrainians, or that they opened an investigation of the Bidens.\n', created = 1574410610, expire = 1574497010, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:44bd7249586cd5fe5b14acb2107e82f8' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:e3f37a7c79f081fe8edc686f4d83896d' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'CALIFORNIA: October 28, 2019\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Lowry.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" />\nCalifornia is staying true to its reputation as the land of innovation — it is making blackouts, heretofore the signature of impoverished and war-torn lands, a routine feature of 21st-century American life.\n MORE THAN 2 million people are going without power in Northern and Central California, in the latest and biggest of the intentional blackouts that are, astonishingly, California’s best answer to the risk of runaway wildfires. \n Power — and all the goods it makes possible — is synonymous with modern civilization. It shouldn’t be a negotiable for anyone living in a well-functioning society, or even in California, which, despite its stupendous wealth and natural splendor, has blighted itself over the decades with misgovernance and misplaced priorities. \n The same California that has been the seedbed of world-famous companies that make it possible for people to send widely viewed short missives of 280 characters or less, and share and like images of grumpy cats, isn’t doing so well at keeping the lights on. \n The same California that has boldly committed to transitioning to 50 percent renewable energy by 2025 — and 100 percent renewable energy by 2045 — can’t manage its existing energy infrastructure. \n The same California that has pushed its electricity rates to the highest in the contiguous United States through its mandates and regulations doesn’t provide continuous access to that overpriced electricity. \n California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has to try to evade responsibility for this debacle while presiding over it, blames “dog-eat-dog capitalism” for the state’s current crisis. It sounds like he’s referring to robber barons who have descended on the state to suck it dry of profits while burning it to the ground. But Newsom is talking about one of the most regulated industries in the state — namely California’s energy utilities that answer to the state’s public utilities commission. \n This is not exactly an Ayn Rand operation. The state could have, if it wanted, pushed the utilities to focus on the resilience and safety of its current infrastructure — implicated in some of the state’s most fearsome recent fires — as a top priority. Instead, the commission forced costly renewable energy initiatives on the utilities. Who cares about something as mundane as properly maintained power lines if something as supposedly epically important — and politically fashionable — as saving the planet is at stake?\n MEANWHILE, California has had a decadeslong aversion to properly clearing forests. The state’s leaders have long been in thrall to the belief that cutting down trees is somehow an offense against nature, even though thinning helps create healthier forests. Biomass has been allowed to build up, and it becomes the kindling for catastrophic fires. \n As Chuck DeVore of the Texas Public Policy Foundation points out, a report of the Western Governors’ Association warned of this effect more than a decade ago, noting that “over time the fire-prone forests that were not thinned, burn in uncharacteristically destructive wildfires.” \n In 2016, then-Gov. Jerry Brown actually vetoed a bill that unanimously passed the state Legislature to promote the clearing of trees dangerously close to power lines. Brown’s team says this legislation was no big deal, but one progressive watchdog called the bill “neither insignificant or small.” \n On top of all this, more people live in remote areas susceptible to fires, in part because of the high cost of housing in more built-up areas. \n There shouldn’t be any doubt that California, susceptible to drought through its history and whipped by fierce, dry winds this time of year, is always going to have a fire problem. But there also shouldn’t be any doubt that dealing with it this poorly is the result of a series of foolish, unrealistic policy choices.\n CALIFORNIA’S overriding goal should have been safe, cheap and reliable power, a public good so basic that it’s easy to take for granted. The state’s focus on ideological fantasies has instead ensured it has none of the above.\n', created = 1574410610, expire = 1574497010, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:e3f37a7c79f081fe8edc686f4d83896d' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:c037590ac11d224fbe0fbcd1b1056f4b' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = 'IMPEACHMENT: October 24, 2019\n<img alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Lowry.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" />\nRepublican senators will soon be receiving an invitation to tear apart the GOP ahead of the 2020 elections, and they are going to decline to accept it.\n IT’S A trope of pro-impeachment commentary that it should be simple for Republican senators to swap out President Donald Trump, who puts them in awkward positions every day, for Vice President Mike Pence, an upstanding Reagan conservative who could start with a fresh slate in the runup to the 2020 election. \n This only flaw in this scenario is that it is entirely removed from reality. \n If Senate Republicans vote to remove Trump on anything like the current facts, even the worst interpretation of them, it would leave the GOP a smoldering ruin. It wouldn’t matter who the Democrats nominated for 2020. They could run Bernie Sanders on a ticket with Elizabeth Warren and promise to make Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez secretary of the treasury and Ilhan Omar secretary of defense, and they’d still win. \n A significant portion of the Republican Party would consider a Senate conviction of Trump a dastardly betrayal. Perhaps most would get over it, as partisan feelings kicked in around a national election, but not all. And so a party that has won the popular vote in a presidential election only once since 1988 would hurtle toward November 2020 divided. \n How does anyone think that would turn out?\n A LOT of Trump supporters are going to want to blame the Republican establishment even if Trump loses in 2020 with the backing of the united party apparatus. Imagine what they will think if a couple of dozen Republican senators decide to deny him the opportunity to run for reelection, without a single voter having a say on his ultimate fate. It’s hard to come up with any scenario better designed to stoke the populist furies of Trump’s most devoted voters. \n Trump himself isn’t going to get convicted by the Senate and say: “Well, I’m a little disappointed, to be honest. But it was a close call, and Mike Pence is a great guy, and I’m just grateful I had the opportunity to serve in the White House for more than three years.” \n He won’t go away quietly to lick his wounds. He won’t delete his Twitter account. He won’t make it easy on anyone. He will vent his anger and resentment at every opportunity. It will be “human scum” every single day. \n And it’s not as though the media is going to lose its interest in the most luridly telegenic politician that we’ve ever seen. The mainstream press would be delighted to see Trump destroyed, yet sad to bid him farewell. The obvious way to square the circle would be to continue to give Trump lavish coverage in his post-presidency. He’d be out of the White House but still driving screaming CNN chyrons every other hour. \n In other words, Trump’s removal wouldn’t be a fresh start for Pence and the GOP; it would be more like getting stuck in the poisonous epilogue of the Trump era, awaiting the inevitable advent of the Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg era. \n All of this is why the “cracks in the Republican Senate” coverage is so ridiculous and overwrought. It depends on the idea that GOP senators -- who, it is true, are continually frustrated by Trump’s controversies -- are on the verge of engineering their party’s own destruction. \n It’s possible to come up with a scenario in which Ukraine developments are much worse than imaginable right now, and Trump’s support craters, even among Republicans. Then, you might have GOP senators voting to convict. This is just another path to the immolation of the party in 2020, though; there’s no way it would snap back from a Nixonian meltdown at the top in less than a year.\n IN SHORT, Mike Pence might be elected president one day, but it’s not going to be while presiding over a party that has just jettisoned Donald Trump.\n', created = 1574410610, expire = 1574497010, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:c037590ac11d224fbe0fbcd1b1056f4b' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:1cd77f7184da2bafaa6a089469bc2384' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<div id=\"fb-root\"></div>\n<script>(function(d, s, id) {\n var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];\n if (d.getElementById(id)) return;\n js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;\n js.src = \"//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=452921018151594\";\n fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);\n}(document, \'script\', \'facebook-jssdk\'));</script><div class=\"fb-like-box\" data-href=\"http://www.facebook.com/conservativechronicle\" data-width=\"275\" data-colorscheme=\"light\" data-show-faces=\"true\" data-header=\"true\" data-stream=\"false\" data-show-border=\"true\"></div>\n', created = 1574410610, expire = 1574497010, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:1cd77f7184da2bafaa6a089469bc2384' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '5:26776aa5ca60f6f8eb4e7f92178ff26e' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.

Rich Lowry

11/19/2019 - 9:29pm

Rich Lowry

IMPEACHMENT: November 11, 2019 If the impeachment effort isn’t taking the nation by storm, the Democrats have an answer — blame it on Latin. THE USE of a Latin term, quid pro quo, is now thought to be a damper on the impeachment cause because it sounds complex and technical. Latin is one of the great legacies of the Roman Empire, influencing languages across Europe and giving us...

‘Nationalism’ shouldn’t be a dirty word

By: Rich Lowry 11/12/2019 - 10:22pm

NATIONALISM: November 8, 2019 If there’s one thing that elite opinion tends to agree about on the left and the right, it’s that nationalism is a very bad thing. If anything, this view has become even more entrenched as nationalism has demonstrated its potency in recent years, from the election of Donald Trump to Britain’s vote...

The best defense for President Trump

By: Rich Lowry 11/06/2019 - 11:53am

At issue this week... Impeachment by Rich Lowry Republicans have had trouble mounting an effective defense on Ukraine because they haven’t put down their stakes on the most defensible ground. COMPLAINTS about House Democrats’ less-than-transparent impeachment process, though justified, were clearly perishable...

The best Trump defense

By: Rich Lowry 11/03/2019 - 8:29pm

IMPEACHMENT: October 31, 2019 Republicans have had trouble mounting an effective defense on Ukraine because they haven’t put down their stakes on the most defensible ground. COMPLAINTS about House Democrats’ less-than-transparent impeachment process, though justified, were clearly perishable once Democrats adopted more regular...

California can’t keep the lights on

By: Rich Lowry 11/02/2019 - 3:29pm

CALIFORNIA: October 28, 2019 California is staying true to its reputation as the land of innovation — it is making blackouts, heretofore the signature of impoverished and war-torn lands, a routine feature of 21st-century American life. MORE THAN 2 million people are going without power in Northern and Central California, in the latest and...

The problem with President Pence

By: Rich Lowry 10/29/2019 - 9:10pm

IMPEACHMENT: October 24, 2019 Republican senators will soon be receiving an invitation to tear apart the GOP ahead of the 2020 elections, and they are going to decline to accept it. IT’S A trope of pro-impeachment commentary that it should be simple for Republican senators to swap out President Donald Trump, who puts them in awkward...

Skip to Main Content Area

Latest Poll

Rich Lowry

Conservative Chronicle

User Menu