"This party is now defined by President Trump and his movement," said Andy Surabian, "an adviser to Great America Alliance, the 'super PAC' that is aiding primary races against Republican incumbents, quoted in "As G.O.P. Bends Toward Trump, Critics Either Give In or Give Up" (NYT).
Also quoted:
Laura Ingraham: “We’re not an element. We’re the party.... There’s no constituency for open borders, endless war and these international trade deals that are skewed against the United States.”
Steve Bannon: "This thing [Republicans like Jeff Flake have] got today doesn’t work, it doesn’t move with urgency... It’s very nice. But it’s a theoretical exercise. It can’t win national elections.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
107 comments:
It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative, who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, who is pro-immigration, has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican Party, the party that has so long defined itself by its belief in those things. sniffed Blake.
If you substitute "pro open borders" for "pro-immigration", Blake, you will see that one of these things is not like the others. And yeah, people are getting tired of being jobbed by unfavorable trade deals too, while we are at it.
They haven't beat McCain the grandstander yet. McCain still has his media cred.
"It can’t win national elections.” But it can win some local and state elections, enough to make the difference in Congress.
Everyone on the right needs to think strategically. I doubt they will.
Move open borders to the male/female problem and away from the sovereign nation application.
Ultimately it's still very difficult to go against the will of the people, a good populist understands this. For better or worse, Trump has succeeded in casting the anti-Trump Republicans as venal deep state establishmentarians whose interests aren't aligned with those of the common voter, in particular regarding immigration and trade. What's more the rotting corruption of the old regime is slowly being revealed, fake dossiers, payoffs, and collisions with Russians, the lot.
But Bannon is using that racist math which is also used by White Supremacists and favored by the KKK and the Nazis for Trump.
It was actually a double dose of conservative pleasure in Texas yesterday; not only did we lose Joe Straus, but his lackey, Byron Cook, also announced his retirement. And who is Byron Cook? Think Doug Stamper to Frank Underwood, and you'll get the idea. With the exception of the few remaining Texas Democrats, who are huddled together at a Houston Golden Corral plotting strategy, all Texas is rejoicing.
Open borders & bad trade deals for Americans are planks in the DNC platform. They have no place in Republican politics.
The establishment that's been hoping and praying the internal polling was as wrong like with Hillary! is finally capitulating.
I don't have a strong take on how AZ feels but Kelli Ward is now on my radar.
Women, children and Chuck most impacted...
The President sets the direction of the party. Always has been, always will be. That's because that person just won a national election, for those who can't figure out why.
The Republican Party is now the party of Trump and Trumpism. Those who wish it to be otherwise are no different than the three year-old throwing his spoonful of peas across the room yelling "NO!".
See, Corker, Bob; Flake, Jeff; McCain, John. For all intents and purposes, they have become the CWC, the Congressional White Caucus. They can hold meetings, and press conferences, and get emotive support from Mika and Joe, but they are no longer players in the national political debate. They held both Houses of Congress and couldn't come up with meaningful legislation. They let Lois Lerner walk, the SECSTATE destroy her e-mail without repercussion, the Uranium One deal happen, and the Iran deal get approved without a 2/3 vote.
The voters have moved on, and so should they.
Let the GOPe who sincerely believe in open borders and bad trade deals actually move to the other side. They will be offset by an overwhelming number of ordinary voters moving the other direction.
The most important issue during Republican primaries for the 2016 election was immigration policy. The last two candidates standing -- Trump and Cruz -- advocated the hardest line on that issue.
I had favored Walker and had thought he would win the nomination. He turned out to be the squishiest candidate on the immigration issue, however, and so he was the first candidate to quit the race.
I am a Republican who cares about many issues, but in 2016 I declared myself to be a one-issue voter on the immigration issue.
There is much about Trump that I do not like, and so I voted for Cruz in my primary election. However, I was ecstatic that Trump won the general election, and I have accepted all his faults since he began governing.
The US Government needs to establish control over immigration and to reduce immigration. It is our problem of top priority.
In this regard, our only hope is President Trump. After control over immigration is established, I might begin caring about Trump's conduct and about other issues.
"It can’t win national elections.” But it can win some local and state elections, enough to make the difference in Congress.
We have both houses of Congress right now and can't pass a bill because of these idiots. We run the committees and the FBI is stonewalling them when they ask for information to perform their oversight duties.
It doesn't seem to me that having a few extra Republicans who are part of the #resistance is a benefit to anyone but the #resistance.
The writing was on the wall during the GOP primaries in 2016. Open borders no more. Flake and Corker have bright futures as lobbyists.
Trump is a mad man. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. His presidency is going to end in a disaster. What that means for our country and for the world will be tragic.
Blogger Now I Know! said...
Trump is a mad man. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. His presidency is going to end in a disaster. What that means for our country and for the world will be tragic."
Planning on screaming at the sky on the anniversary of the election, NIK?
Thank you for the delicious shot of schadenfreude this morning.
Chuck will tell you that no Republican favors "open borders" It's just a very low priority to change the current "open borders" status quo. If I were a cynic, I might say that that is one way to tell people one thing, then do another! But I am not, I always take Chuck at his word because he is so smart and I am a "stupid miserable fuckwad." Hey, it's an improvement from the time he called me "dangerously mentally unbalanced."
Has anybody seen "Now I Know" and "America's Politico" in the same room?
Trump is a mad man. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
So you tell me what the collusion charge adds up to, what do you claim he did that Hillary hasn't been shown to have done?
Laura Ingraham: “We’re not an element. We’re the party.... There’s no constituency for open borders, endless war and these international trade deals that are skewed against the United States.”
Sorry, Laura.
Trump is talking about a DACA deal with Schumer and Pelosi.
Trump is accelerating the pace of military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa.
And if Trump is so fired up about helping General Motors, Ford and FCA, he ought to ask their executives what they think about NAFTA.
On health care, Trump said, "We have to cover everybody... everybody will be covered... the federal government will have to pay... lower copays, lower deductibles... we're going to have really great care." And he would accomplish that by "getting everybody in a room" and making great deals.
tim, you are a stupid miserable fuckwad because you accuse me of being a Democrat, a leftist and a closet supporter of Obama/Clinton.
Without any evidence whatsoever, other than he wants me to criticize them more (but mostly, I suspect, criticize Trump less).
I don't care about tim. I don't anything about tim and I don't want to.
I don't want you to criticize them more, I just don't understand why you always want to derail the thread when they are being criticized.
Let's say it is a thread on Hillary's malfeasance as SoS, your reaction can be summarized as "Attention must be paid to anything but this!" You might not consciously be trying to defend Hillary, but that would be any reasonable person's accounting of the sum of your actions on those threads, regardless of your professed intent, or even your real intent.
But this is a Trump thread, fire away!
Without any evidence whatsoever...
LOLOLOLOL!!!
Trump is talking about a DACA deal with Schumer and Pelosi.
To get everything else he wants on immigration in return. He was going to have to give them something. Isn't this the best possible outcome? And if he doesn't get it, it's Schumer and Pelosi who sent them home.
Trump is accelerating the pace of military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa.
Like he did with ISIS, which wiped them out, so we can come home rather than involve ourselves in an endless state of low-level war.
Now that I've shown you how to correct two of your statements, I will leave the rest of them for you as an exercise.
Now I Know! said...
Trump is a mad man. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. His presidency is going to end in a disaster. What that means for our country and for the world will be tragic.
Our country was already on a course for tragic disaster with the unsustainable spending and ever growing welfare system, uncontrolled immigration into a welfare state, the dumbing down of our kids, etc .
Trump was just a symptom of our profound problems.
Incidentally Chuck, I do appreciate your comments and almost always read them. I just don't always take them at face value.
Trump is a mad man. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. His presidency is going to end in a disaster. What that means for our country and for the world will be tragic.
When you run out of salient points to make, you're left screaming at clouds.
Trump is talking about a DACA deal with Schumer and Pelosi....
On health care, Trump said, "We have to cover everybody... everybody will be covered... the federal government will have to pay... lower copays, lower deductibles... we're going to have really great care." And he would accomplish that by "getting everybody in a room" and making great deals.
So why do you, McCain, Corker and Flake have a problem with him? Apparently he wants the same things you do.....
Poor chuck. So misunderstood. The problem with pure libertarians is they are for open orders but the welfare state cancels that as policy.
The Koch Brothers are pure libertarians. That may have affected Walker.
Can we all stop for a moment and give UnknownInga her proper respect?
She nailed everything about Russia's collusion in our last election except the name of the party.
"Has anybody seen "Now I Know" and "America's Politico" in the same room?"
Politico seems to have a sense of humor -- and I suspect, is actually a troll-within-a-troll.
Meanwhile the GOP, what ever that may become, is creating a bonanza for special interests like the banks and big corporations. We can look forward to unsafe drinking water and monopoly own media selling our personal data.
tim, you are a stupid miserable fuckwad
Another progressive GOPer goes postal while claiming not to care about his frequent target, whom he calls out by name over and over and over. Because he doesn't care. Uh huh. Try not to be such parody of a cartoon cutout of yourself, man. Sheesh.
I initially supported Rand Paul, then Ben Carson and then Donald Trump in the primary. Like Mike Sylwester, I was ecstatic that he won and not just because he defeated Hillary but because he also defeated the media, the polls and the pundits. Great times!
"The problem with pure libertarians is they are for open orders but the welfare state cancels that as policy."
I am a libertarian, although I don't know about my purity. I am theoretically open borders (meaning I think people should have free will to move about as they please) however, practically, that depends upon all states acting in conjunction with one another and fairly and we know that isn't the case. I am pro legal immigration and think that we need to have policies in place that favor legal immigration over illegal immigration.
Where were the Establishment Republicans when some poor shmucks who owned a pizza parlor in the middle of nowhere in Indiana almost got put out of business when they answered a hypothetical question about the morals of catering a gay wedding?**
The problem with all the "nice" Republicans is that they never, ever wanted to take the fight to the enemy. Yes, Trump is a flaming asshole, but as Lincoln said about the drunkard Grant "Gentlemen, I can't spare this man. He fights.".
** As if two gay men would ever have pizza at their reception. Talk about courting yer social ostracism..
"We can look forward to unsafe drinking water and monopoly own media selling our personal data."
Crony capitalism knows no party. Wasn't Hillary a favorite of Goldman Sachs?
Trump is clearly highly functional: successfully navigating the campaign , the media and to some degree Congress. You may not like his approach or direction but it's not "madness": this is lazy thinking. Everyone who disagrees with you is not simply stupid or evil or crazy.
"We can look forward to unsafe drinking water"
In municipalities dominated by Democrats, sure.
"and monopoly own media selling our personal data."
Also run by Democrats, by and large.
We can look forward to unsafe drinking water and monopoly own media selling our personal data.
I assume the "unsafe drinking water" is a shot at fracking, which has gotten us out from under the thumb of foreign producers of oil and has allowed us to cut our carbon and mercury emissions by unlocking huge supplies of natural gas, so whatever,
But where have you been on the selling of our personal data? All of those Silicon Valley billionaires are Democrats. Al Gore is on the board of Google!
But you are a college professor, so I am sure you are well aware of the nuances of your position, and just choose not to let us. in on them, amIright?
@RV,
Meanwhile the GOP, what ever that may become, is creating a bonanza for special interests like the banks and big corporations.
While what you say is true, RV, it's also true of the Democrats. One of the strongest bastions of blue votes & cultural power is the greater NYC metro area. The cash engine that drives that region is the financial services sector. They pay the lion's share of corporate taxes that fund the local governments of the region.
If the finance industry left the NE, or if the industry turned all its funding to the Republicans, it would take a yuuuuuge bite out of the east coast Democratic machine.
Everyone who disagrees with you is not simply stupid or evil or crazy.
Burn him! Heretic!
A year ago this week: Hillary Clinton so far ahead in polls that she 'doesn't even think about' Donald Trump anymore
Hahahahahahhha!
He's been in her head ever since.
I will be in Boston at the time of the "Scream at the Sky" event. I can take pictures and mail them to Althouse!
Hillary Clinton is so far ahead of Donald Trump in the race for the presidency that she no longer even feels the need to pay attention to the Republican nominee.
Buoyed by a double digit lead in some national polls, Mrs Clinton has said she is now looking past Mr Trump entirely, and will no longer counter allegations made by her rival.
"I don’t even think about responding to him anymore,” Mrs Clinton said when asked about Mr Trump’s charge that American media outlets are in cahoots with her presidential campaign.
Oh stop! You're killing me! It actually hurts to keep laughing!
YoungHegelian said...
Where were the Establishment Republicans when some poor shmucks who owned a pizza parlor in the middle of nowhere in Indiana almost got put out of business when they answered a hypothetical question about the morals of catering a gay wedding?**
The problem with all the "nice" Republicans is that they never, ever wanted to take the fight to the enemy. Yes, Trump is a flaming asshole, but as Lincoln said about the drunkard Grant "Gentlemen, I can't spare this man. He fights.".
** As if two gay men would ever have pizza at their reception. Talk about courting yer social ostracism..
What a stupid comment! Google-search the words Indiana, pizza, "National Review" (or "Weekly Standard," etc.), and you will find smart conservative writers, who later became varying degrees of "NeverTrump," who set the standard for arguments against the media critics of the Hoosier state.
Want an example? Here's Rich Lowry:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416196/defense-indiana-rich-lowry
Meanwhile, Mike Pence, in what I regard as the lowest moment of his political life, went on with George Stephanopoulos and just booted what should have been an easy defense of RFRA legislation. But Pence is just such a dummy on some issues, and that was certainly one:
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/gov-mike-pence-religious-freedom-law-29987447
I assume the "unsafe drinking water" is a shot at fracking
Probably Flint MI. Doubt they are thinking of the Animas River disaster.
On the BBC's panel discussion this morning a guest had a disclosure fresh from British Intelligence that the Lone Republican who started The Fake News Dossier to make Trump look like a Traitor with Russia was Jeb Bush. That was my guess too.
Now we await the withheld stuff on President Kennedy's killing in Dallas being released. Will a Bush turn out to be be the CIA's kill team's officer in charge, or will we only get pages 90% blacked out.
The trouble with unbelievable conspiracy theories about the Deep State is how many are turning out to be true.
@Chuck,
What a stupid comment! Google-search the words Indiana, pizza, "National Review" (or "Weekly Standard," etc.), and you will find smart conservative writers, who later became varying degrees of "NeverTrump," who set the standard for arguments against the media critics of the Hoosier state.
Chuck, do you ever calm down & take a breath?
I know very well that conservative pundits wrote about it. But, to quote Monty Python, "World War II. I was against it. I wrote a letter."
I meant who among ten Republican political class did anything about it? Did McCain? Did Flake? Who went before their constituents or on the floor of Congress & said "No, this will not stand." Who, Chuck?
If your idea of a "Republican pushback" consists of articles written in magazines read by none but the ideological faithful, then, Chuck, you deserve the shit you get subjected to here.
If your idea of a "Republican pushback" consists of articles written in magazines read by none but the ideological faithful, then, Chuck, you deserve the shit you get subjected to here.
10/26/17, 10:35 AM
That's exactly it. Like leftists, Chuck seems to think words = actions. If a NR pundit writes a column mocking PC, well, that's good enough.
Now I Know says Trump is a mad man. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. His presidency is going to end in a disaster. What that means for our country and for the world will be tragic
This would be a much more effective comment if you were to set your hair on fire and run around naked.
Vidoes would be great plus!
Top Men talked about it and wrote about it, YoungHegelian! How dare you expect more.
"you accuse me of being a Democrat, a leftist and a closet supporter of Obama/Clinton.
Without any evidence whatsoever"
Other than 95% of your comments here. Chuck wants to be taken neither seriously nor literally, much like the GOP of McCain/Romney.
So, Trump has been an instrument of political hygiene.
I assume the "unsafe drinking water" is a shot at fracking.
Well, the Democrats and the media tried hard to blame the lead in Flint’s water in the Republican governor, but that didn’t work. The culprits were the Drmocrats who ran Flint and abetted by Obama’s EPA.
Tim in Vermont: Has anybody seen "Now I Know" and "America's Politico" in the same room?
I thought NIK had been outed as having been "Once written" (as well as some other usernames). The latest name change appears to have marked her move into "unhinged" status.
I was making a joke.
Chuck: "tim, you are a stupid miserable fuckwad because you accuse me of being a Democrat, a leftist and a closet supporter of Obama/Clinton"
Nonsense. No one is accusing you being a "democrat".
You are clearly an "Accidental Leftist".
100% of the time.
"accidentally"
Why don’t Republicans seem to protest much? In public?
Some guesses:
1. It’s not covered usually in the news media
2. If covered, it’s under counted
3. If covered, the news media looks for somebody so they can confirm it’s white supremacists, even if one sign.
4. GOP types have jobs and don’t have the time
5. Lack of support from GOPe. GOPe is afraid of the mob...
6. GOP does not focus on grass root issues.
7. GOPe, Democrats, and Media vilified the tea party, so base won’t go to protests.
8. Fear of counter demonstrators getting physical
8. Fear of being called a Nazi / White Supremacists and losing job. this seemed to happen in Boston.
Republicans seem to have this focus it needs to be 100% perfect, or it can’t be supported.
Why?
My guess is the news media, Hollywood, and Democrats have always torn apart / slimed / verbally abused Republicans for the tiniest of things, and the GOPe reacts (has been trained) by attempting to be perfect morally, to avoid this.
Trump hits back and is not following the GOPe playbook. And he’s surviving and moving ahead.
With all the accusations and mud thrown at Trump I’m amazed he still standing, much less moving forward and fighting. And those who trump has fought are not going good. Amazing!
As I have said more than once, NR and the Standard, as media outlets, are about as relevant as Model Railroader. They are for hobbyists only.
Limbaugh and talk radio is better, because of immensely better reach, as also Fox, sometimes anyway. But in all cases they are deliberately limited by the media cartel, in broadcast and cable. Limbaugh, in spite of his built-in audience, was kept out of ESPN, couldnt get the better advertisers, etc. And where has the Republican political class been, in the muzzling of its media?
Beyond this there has been only ineffective messaging by the US right. Partly because of the MSM monopoly, partly because of a dreadful lack of political, rhetorical, and management skill by its political class.
Trump in contrast has innovated in a dozen ways. His was such a brilliant performance that even to this day his shocked opponents are lost in befuddlement. I dont see why this is so difficult to concede even if one is opposed to his policies. A realistic and rational partisan should be fine with crediting Rommel and Manstein and Yamashita for their abilities, indeed taking lessons from such masters, without conceding anything to their ultimate goals.
While I'm a yuuge Trump supporter I agree with Chuck on this one point. Republicans can't run a purity purge without taking a big risk of losing the Senate. If that happens the Trump agenda is dead, any economic legislation will be blocked, and Trump won't be re-elected. Bernie or some such will be president, and the ballgame is over.
"Trump is a mad man"
A common sense revolution run by a madman. Interesting times.
In re NR -
Besides being essentially a hobby magazine, its reputation is akin to a literary magazine. Which was too bad, as it published several excellent writers who were non-grata in the general press, such as Florence King. Still, thats what it was. It rode in the shadow of Buckley, a true celebrity, a true showman. NR was an appendage to Buckley.
And Buckley was significant only because he won for himself a true mass media venue in PBS, which was only possible as the MSM cartel had not yet formed into such an impenetrable fortress back in those days.
"This party is now defined by President Trump and his movement,"
In the USA, when a political party wins the presidency the president becomes the de-facto leader of that party. At least, that's how it's been almost since the founding of the Republic.
So, what's different this time? Perhaps "this party is now defined by President Trump and his movement" but, if so, (1) that's to be expected: he won the presidency, and (2) it's somewhat less true today than in the past, but, it would be peculiar indeed if the principle itself were to be wholly revoked.
Inga: "Trump is a mad man. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. His presidency is going to end in a disaster. What that means for our country and for the world will be tragic."
This is nothing but hyperbole and bullshit. If you and the rest of the "resistance" really believed Trump to be mad you would not be totally fixated on continually tightening the screws on him in the hopes of seeing him crack so as to hasten the disaster which you predict.
TiV: I was making a joke.
Sorry.
About the water, I am referring to how congress over-turned a rule restricting the ability of coal companies to dump mining debris into streams and other waterways, and Pruitt's rejection to ban the pesticide cholrlpyrifos and his start to overturn the clean power plan-- just a beginning of what may happen in the future. Of course Flint's problems reflect our neglect of an aging infrastructure from failing bridges to failing water pipes and are a result of indifference from both. parties.
Bannon doesn't sound stupid here.
Flint's problems reflect graft and incompetence in the Flint city government - no more than that.
The lead problem results from lead house service piping and house plumbing. The lead piping should be replaced, but I do not see why that should not be done by the home owners, just as I had to replace my polybutylene piping when it deteriorated and began to leak.
It’s amusing to see the concern by VR about big corporations which have been the principle beneficiaries of Tony capitalism, also know as fascism. Have you noticed who the big Democratic donors ares? Aside from Russia, of course which gave Bill and Hillary $145 million.
congress over-turned a rule restricting the ability of coal companies to dump mining debris into streams and other waterways,
Well, why should the EPA have all the fun?
Republicans can't run a purity purge without taking a big risk of losing the Senate.
A. Trump is not running a purity purge. He is happy to work with them and when they refuse to do so they leave the party of their own volition.
What's he supposed to say: Wait, don't go, just stay here and vote against my agenda?
B. The map for the Dems in the Senate is daunting. They are defending far more seats in far more hostile areas than the R's. It's fine to focus on the two-seat lead in this Congress, but it's irresponsible not to look at how likely it is that lead will increase in 2018.
buwaya: As I have said more than once, NR and the Standard, as media outlets, are about as relevant as Model Railroader. They are for hobbyists only.
You know that. I know that. Everybody seems to know that but LLRs.
Trump in contrast has innovated in a dozen ways. His was such a brilliant performance that even to this day his shocked opponents are lost in befuddlement. I dont see why this is so difficult to concede even if one is opposed to his policies. A realistic and rational partisan should be fine with crediting Rommel and Manstein and Yamashita for their abilities, indeed taking lessons from such masters, without conceding anything to their ultimate goals.
Interesting point, and I wonder if that inability has anything to do with the millenarian quality of contemporary "progressive" politics, with its ever more manic and simple-minded purity crusades.
It was (is?) common for men like Yamashita and Rommel to receive sympathetic belle ennemi treatment in mass market movies, etc. - hard to imagine similar non-condemnatory treatment of any current or historical designated enemy-of-progress not arousing the armies of the offended today, with demands for the usual public exorcism rituals. No time for objective examination here, people, we gotta burn 'em before they infect everything!
pacwest: "While I'm a yuuge Trump supporter I agree with Chuck on this one point. Republicans can't run a purity purge without taking a big risk of losing the Senate."
Given the facts on the ground now and where the populace is headed, not having some degree of a purity purge will guarantee a big risk of losing the Senate....and more.
The question is to what degree and how will the the republicans deal with this new reality?
"Rommel to receive sympathetic belle ennemi treatment in mass market movies, etc."
"The Desert Fox", 1951
A classic war movie.
Rommel at least got the belle ennemi treatment from his contemporary opponents in private as well. I wonder if there is anything like that, in any significant circles, re Trump. I don't see it as there hasn't really been a significant attempt to adapt to his tactics. Its just the "They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way." - Wellington.
Or so far anyway.
The Democrats/GOP need a Montgomery.
"Given the facts on the ground now and where the populace is headed, not having some degree of a purity purge will guarantee a big risk of losing the Senate....and more."
Murkowski first please. By any means necessary. Agree that if the LLRs refuse to acknowledge the change in populace sentiment they are committing suicide, but if it's an all for or against us campaign (which I think is what Bannon is proposing) the Trump wing is making a big mistake.
Okay, so TrumpWorld doesn't like me citing the fact that throughout the media landscape that I am in (the WSJ, NRO, WS, etc.) it is absolutely true that there was lots of pushback on the RFRA issue.
I'm sorry, that TrumpWorld is not the "reading" kind.
I guess that my next question is if you aren't satisfied with my media, what about your media? Did Breitabart stand up on RFRA? I don't know; Breitbart isn't my cup of tea. Did Limbaugh? Did the Hannity/Ingraham wing of talk radio say anything? The nutball cadre of Michael Savage, etc.? I honestly don't know.
But if "your" media was playing the story as you like, what's your complaint? Specifically? If your media didn't cover it the way you'd like, then why not gripe about them first and foremost? If your gripe is with your hated "GOPe", why not be specific about who should have said what? If any Republican politician folded like a cheap lawn chair, it was Pence.
I did note that no one defended the doofus performance of Mike Pence on ABC. I remember that week, and commenting to conservative legal friends that I could not believe that Pence went to law school, he was so bad in that questioning.
"This would be a much more effective comment if you were to set your hair on fire and run around naked."
What makes you think that's not already the case?
Given the facts on the ground now and where the populace is headed, not having some degree of a purity purge will guarantee a big risk of losing the Senate....and more.
Because... why?
Is John Barasso in Wyoming, with a 94.2% pro-Trump voting record (against a predicted 92% pro-Trump voting record) a guy who should be primaried? Is that a good use of resources?
Is risking the Arizona seat on Kelli "Chemtrails" Ward -- a loser to McCain in 2016 -- a good idea?
The hated Dean Heller in Nevada has a 90% pro-Trump voting record. That's a seat that Democrats really want. It's the same pro-Trump record as Mike Lee. Is this some kind of "real conservative" question? In what world is Mike Lee not a real conservative?
I feel a bit silly, putting good political strategy questions to the residents of TrumpWorld. I know that I should be talking about putting Hillary in jail, or "Obamacare" (since we've given up talking about Obama's birth certificate), or attacking the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate because that is what "Republican" voters want... uh, right?
Agree that if the LLRs refuse to acknowledge the change in populace sentiment they are committing suicide...
I don't want to be part of any circular firing squad. If the choice is a circular firing squad or letting Democrats mow you down alone, that's an easy one for me. I know who will be left standing after that.
Why don’t Republicans seem to protest much? In public?
I'll tell you why, at least from my perspective.
It doesn't work. It has no impact other than the intended audience of fellow grievance monsters.
Case in point:
I worked for an elected official in a very high position. At the state capital. In the Capitol Building. Several years.
One day, I got a phone call from a relative asking me about all the protests going on the steps of the Capitol Building that day.
My response? "What protests?" In all seriousness. We had more important things to do.
The protests simply aren't an effective tool for Republicans trying to get the attention of other Republicans. Voting works much better. And Democrats don't give a shit what Republicans have to say in the first place.
Oh, and we typically have jobs which prevent us from having the time to make huge puppets, signs, costumes and other attention-whoring props. Not to mention finding the time to get to said protest, protest and then return from said protest.
It's a waste of time. All of it.
Bluster, party of one, your table is now ready!
"it is absolutely true that there was lots of pushback on the RFRA issue.
I'm sorry, that TrumpWorld is not the "reading" kind."
I am afraid you misunderstand "Trumpworld". The NR's and Standards are and were well-read among, say, the Tea Party lot. And still are, for what its worth. All you have to do is check back through the enormous archives of, say, FreeRepublic, which has been active since 1998. The US right, whether populist or "conservative", is enormously well informed, reading everything, and especially its enemies.
The argument here is about effectiveness, structure and strategy.
The Right, the institutional Republicans and their funders, especially, simply did not put in any significant effort at creating a media alternative.
Relying on some little-read partisan journals and public policy foundations was pathetically out of touch with reality, toy soldiers against real ones.
Whatever else there is of the "Right", that actually was effective, was purely grass-roots and not backed by the big money that always turned up for elections. Limbaugh et al, and Breitbart, started on a shoestring, as entrepreneurial operations. Talk radio especially was truly grass-roots.
But no big money went into fighting the culture war. No political effort went into it. No big money went to buy ladies magazines, as Instapundit recommended a decade ago (just an example). No right-wing cabal bought ABC NBC or CBS. None funded John Milius.
"If your media didn't cover it the way you'd like, then why not gripe about them first and foremost?"
Because the MSM does what is in the interests of its owners, and will suppress whatever is inconvenient for them. They are the enemy, this is to be expected. Its like complaining that Pravda failed to cover the troubles of the Soviet state.
To expand,
None backed Limbaugh in his bids for sports teams (a very bully pulpit!), nor did they even fight back at ad boycotts for Fox, nor did Fox get funded to add actual newsroom-shoe-leather journalistic research organization to find its own stories, thats the expensive bit that keeps the MSM relevant.
On and on.
I feel a bit silly, putting good political strategy questions to the residents of TrumpWorld.
I feel silly reading them given Jeff Flake has admitted he can't win his home state's primary.
Perhaps the people of his state know more about him and his positions that we do. Perhaps they should decide who best represents their interest.
Perhaps we shouldn't pretend we can move people around the political chess board any way we'd like. Perhaps we should leave that for the self-delusional people in Washington DC and the media who cover them.
I don't know who can win and who can't in an individual state. What I do know is that a 90% pro-Trump voting record means nothing if the 10% are the hard votes required to move the country forward.
Perhaps some people would rather their legislators, part of a majority in both Houses, spend their time getting things passed rather than parsing Trump's Tweets? I can't blame them if they feel that way.
"The hated Dean Heller in Nevada has a 90% pro-Trump voting record."
You are being disingenuous here Chuck. Most of these votes are to appoint cabinet members and killing EPA over reach. That does not make him pro-Trump.
"Agree that if the LLRs refuse to acknowledge the change in populace sentiment they are committing suicide...
I don't want to be part of any circular firing squad. If the choice is a circular firing squad or letting Democrats mow you down alone, that's an easy one for me. I know who will be left standing after that."
I don't understand your metaphors. Are you saying to circle the wagons and defend the status quo in Congress? Bad strategy imo. As Drago points out, the status quo ain't what it used to be. But I will say that going for 110% compliance with the Trump agenda is just as suicidal for the party.
@Chuckie, purely out of curiosity, what makes you think that Kelli Ward will be the nominee now that Flake has officially flaked out (could not resist)? Would you not support Jan Brewer if she entered the race? How about Martha McSally? With the primary not taking place until the end of next August, there is plenty of time for someone other than Kelli Ward to throw their hat into the ring.
What should concern you, if you really were a lifelong Republican, are the polls showing that Flake was likely to lose to Kyrsten Sinema next year.
Silly me, I thought you actually paid attention to politics.
Also, Cookie, you keep focusing on the GOP Senatorial elections in 2018. The GOP might lose all three of Tennessee, Nevada, and Arizona, though Heller won six years ago with only 46% of the vote and might repeat that. Personally, I fancy the chances that the Flake and Corker retirements will put a Martha and a Marsha into the Senate as Republicans. But meanwhile:
In Florida, Rick Scott will be term-limited out of his governor's office and seems likely to go after Bill Nelson. Scott has very strong poll numbers thanks to his outstanding performance during Irma.
Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin won with only 51% of the vote despite Obama's coattails. Can she still win after the state went for Trump last year? Against that, who will be her opponent?
Joe Donnelly was very lucky to win five years ago -- his Tea Party opponent largely self-destructed. Indiana is a very Republican state so I hope he's got his post-Senate lobbying gig all lined up.
Claire McCaskill won handily five years ago, thanks to her own Tea Party opponent -- the (in)famous Todd Akin. Missouri has gotten redder since then, and if her opponent ties her to the antics of the student/faculty protesters at Mizzou, which wouldn't be hard, then she's toast.
I admire a man who lost the middle three fingers of his left hand but still earned a BS in musicology, however Jon Tester has won two close elections in 2006 and 2012, but Montana is one of the reddest states in the Union. He's vulnerable basically by definition.
The third reddest state in the Union is North Dakota, where Heidi Heitkamp is running for reelection. She won in 2012 the narrowest margin in any Senate race. Like Tester, she's vulnerable by definition.
Do not count on Smarmy Tim Kaine being reelected. His performance in the Vice-Presidential debate was not a plus for him, and coming out of the closet as a hard core gun-grabber was not smart in a state where the NRA national headquarters is located.
Deb Stabenow and Amy Klobuchar won pretty handily, but their states are trending purple. They're going to have to work if they want to come back to Washington, DC, except as a lobbyist.
But I do expect to see Joe Manchin reelected in West Virginia. He's been careful to distance himself from Reid, Schumer, and Hillary Clinton, and he was a very popular governor in his day.
The Democrats have raised a lot of money for senatorial campaigns next year, but they have 22 seats to defend. Do they assure themselves of bringing back Stabenow and Klobuchar with big buys in Michigan and Minnesota, at the risk of not spending enough in Florida, Wisconsin, Indiana, Montana, Missouri, etc.? Any true Republican paying any level of attention to politics should feel pretty sanguine about the US Senate after next year's elections.
@Chuckie, purely out of curiosity, what makes you think that Kelli Ward will be the nominee now that Flake has officially flaked out (could not resist)?
It's a great question. Kelli Ward might not be the nominee. I don't know. I don't know enough to even handicap the race. Flake's departure could change the entire equation.
What I do know is that with his House experience, Jeff Flake was by far the best candidate I knew of for Arizona. I won't get a vote in AZ.
What should concern you, if you really were a lifelong Republican, are the polls showing that Flake was likely to lose to Kyrsten Sinema next year.
After being hammered from the Trump/Bannon/Hannity/Limbaugh "wing." What Democrat in recent Senate history has ever faced such a rear-guard action?
You make a lot of good points about individual Democrat-incumbent seats, and you are quite right to do so. This ought to be a great cycle for R's. I don't want any Todd Akins, any Christine O'Donnells, any Sharron Angles.
After being hammered from the Trump/Bannon/Hannity/Limbaugh "wing." What Democrat in recent Senate history has ever faced such a rear-guard action?
I dunno. I don’t recall any Democrat Senator in recent times who went on TV to give a one-fingered salute to a sitting president from his own party. Do you?
Chuck asserts: What I do know is that with his House experience, Jeff Flake was by far the best candidate I knew of for Arizona. I won't get a vote in AZ.
Thank God for that!
Chuck, I'm finally putting the pieces together here. I'll bet you're a Mormon.
Big Mike said...
"After being hammered from the Trump/Bannon/Hannity/Limbaugh 'wing.' What Democrat in recent Senate history has ever faced such a rear-guard action?"
I dunno. I don’t recall any Democrat Senator in recent times who went on TV to give a one-fingered salute to a sitting president from his own party. Do you?
Fair point! The Dems do have that undying unity thing. (Makes us all wonder about Will Rogers' famous quote, "I'm not a member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat.") Some of us just cannot tolerate Trump's behavior. A Truther; a Vaxxer; a Birther. The "Republican" who insulted his way through the primary. The pussy-grabber. The former pro-choice, pro-single payer, Trump University fraudster.
"Of course Flint's problems reflect our neglect of an aging infrastructure from failing bridges to failing water pipes and are a result of indifference from both. parties."
Remind us again who was in charge (Congress and President) when NOW was protesting spending the stimulus on infrastructure because that was "too many jobs for big burly men!"
Oh, yeah.
Son you're just phoning in your lies.
Are dedicated Never Trumpers the antidisestablishmentarianists we learned about in grade school?
Chuck, you're in luck! Here's evidence of Trump grabbing a pussy!
https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/11/IMG_6303.jpg?w=798
Ah yes, LLR Chuck has lapsed back into "Accidental Leftist" spewing lefty talking points mode.
Accidentally.
Again.
Unexpectedly.
Dang it! That LLR can't catch a break!
I'm quite jealous that they get a "Helplessly Scream at the Sky" while we only get debates on "How to Manage Your Rino Senator". I've thought of going over to the nearest Republican suburb on November 4 and standing on the sidelines as a sort of cheerleader - I could have a megaphone and shout "Trump in 2020" whenever they seemed tired. But I can't find a Wisconsin venue. Anyhow, I don't understand why November 4 is the anniversary of the Glorious Election of 2016. An anniversary would be the day of the vote (November 7) or possibly the day Hillary conceded (November 8, 2:30 AM approx.). Maybe November 4 is the day the Screamers voted.
As for me and my house, on the anniversary (November 8) I'm going to pour out an inch of whiskey at 3 AM and toast Donald Trump just as I did on that very late and cold night that shone like brightest day. Only now I'll have so many more reasons.
What Democrat in recent Senate history has ever faced such a rear-guard action?
Joe Lieberman got run out of the party.
“Inga: "Trump is a mad man. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. His presidency is going to end in a disaster. What that means for our country and for the world will be tragic."
“This is nothing but hyperbole and bullshit. If you and the rest of the "resistance" really believed Trump to be mad you would not be totally fixated on continually tightening the screws on him in the hopes of seeing him crack so as to hasten the disaster which you predict.”
I have a very strong feeling Inga hasn’t commented on this thread.
FDR had his Fireside Chats,and Reagan was the Great Communicator. Trump is the Badass Boss Tweeter in Chief.
You make a lot of good points about individual Democrat-incumbent seats, and you are quite right to do so. This ought to be a great cycle for R's. I don't want any Todd Akins, any Christine O'Donnells, any Sharron Angles.
Problem is, you may say that any of them was superficially problematic in one way or another, but by sheer force of will surely you could have got one of them over? No you have to wash your hands Proclaim your purity not just get down in the mud and spend that money that you're taking in. You can't deliver, the hell with you. Produce!
Bad Lieutenant:
Excellent point. If a President Trump gets into the mud and starts attacking the Leftist candidates, it's very likely that marginal Republican (dare I wish, even conservative?) candidates will have the breathing space to make a misstep without it finishing the campaign?
If Trump calls on the MSM - local or national - to consider, for a moment, some new found PURPLE ELEPHANT, who but the sturdiest amongst them could resist closing their eyes and imagining?
Remember, the only hope the Democrats have is to sully the other candidates. Not a single one of them offers a hopeful assessment of the future. They are selling fear (and they always accuse others of their own strategies, which is the purple elephant strategy they pursue) and Trump, damn him to hell, keeps offering to MAGA.
Open borders makes no sense for either party and is at odds with core tents they say they are for. On the republican side, yes, open borders does allow for influx of cheap labor, and since they are for business and some businesses love cheap labor it helps them there. But it also drives up the cost of govt. everyone coming through now also needs some form of benefit which must be provided by govt. if the goal is to reduce govt spending, remove 15 million people requiring assistance of some sort, and you quickly see how govt could lower costs.
Repubs want to cut programs. Cut the number of people NEEDING the progrmans.that will also lower spending.
On the Democrat side, they are the ones that keep saying we need a minimum wage and a living wage. Yet they are the ones pushing for sanctuary cities and open borders the most. How do you get a living wage and raise the cost on labor while at the same time glutting the market with people looking for jobs? If you drive up labor costs it simply means fewer people get those jobs. But now we have more competition for fewer jobs. That means we reduce ability to give people those decent jobs and grow govt exponentially.
Not only that, the Dems want to go full socialized medicine. Will there be a cap on number of people allowed to partake of such largesse?
In SF they have such a housing shortage it’s impaxting their IT sector. Becaise no one can buy a house close to the job. If SF is a sanctuary city expect housing to get worse.
safety net only works if you have tight controls over the number of people in the safety net. Open borders not only breaks govt it also breaks the safety net. Bernie Sanders keeps talking about how wage gap is going up. But if you add millions of low skilled workers to mix every year, shouldn’t you EXPECT that to be the result?
People can call other people racist for opposing illegal immigration til the cows come home. But that’s simply becaise they refuse to address COSTS.
(Cont)so the sooner republicans get on board the closed border nationalistic model thst puts Americans first THE BETTER.
Post a Comment