I'm a little late to this, but George W. Bush gave a speech on 9/11:
George W Bush on 9/11: "We have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders but from violence that gathers within ... they are children of the same foul spirit and it is our continuing duty to confront them." pic.twitter.com/TGvHoCbjJV
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 11, 2021
This is all very fine, and I'm glad to see Bush denounce the violent Trumpist wing of the Republican Party even if he didn't actually name them. Unfortunately, this is nowhere near enough.
The actual Trumpistas themselves I can almost feel some empathy for. They are largely old, poorly educated, and feel like they have genuine grievances. They are wide open to being conned, and Trump, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing media machine is happy oblige them. To a large extent, these folks oppose vaccines and believe the election was stolen because that's what they're being told—over and over and over.
The people I have a real problem with are the non-insane Republicans. These are the ones who don't like Trump and understand that he's dangerous. But they aren't willing to do the only thing that might rid the party of Trumpism: vote for Democrats.
Not forever. Just temporarily until their party gets the message that it needs to purge Trump and his influence if they want to win elections.
I don't expect anyone to become a liberal. Or to like Democrats. I just want them to hold their noses and vote D for a little while on the grounds that a few years of liberal governance is better than allowing the Republican Party to permanently become a party of Trumpism. The old notion that Trumpism is bad but fundamentally harmless was never really justified, but after "Stop the Steal" and January 6 and now the season of vaccine madness, it should be obvious that it's not harmless at all. It's dangerous and will likely get more dangerous over time.
But there's no way to clean up the Republican Party by words alone. As long as they're winning elections, they'll keep doing what they're doing. So vote D. Just for a little while.
Objection, Kevin! Assumes facts not in evidence: that there *are* non-insane Republicans.
They are sometimes referred to as RINOs.
You really think Mitch McConnell is insane, or Ron DeSantis?
Such people (and there are many like them) are some of the most deeply cynical bastards on the planet. But they're far from insane.
Psychopathically vulgar?
Amoral is a better description.
I like to think of myself as one of the people to whom Kevin is referring.
The problem I see with your idea is that these so-called "sane Republicans" still voted for Trump, still supported his policies, and still loved his SCOTUS nominations. As far as I can see, their "sanity" is only a show for the media.
Kevin Faulconer, who is running for California Governor seems to fit your description of “sane Republicans” perfectly:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/us/kevin-faulconer.html
It will be interesting to see how many votes Faulconer gets.
He got Drum's vote!
Faulconer says he voted for Trump. How can anyone claim that is "sane"?
And on the most pressing issue of the day:
"But you can’t mandate your way out of Covid-19. So I do not support mandates or bans, either way."
Fact is, we cannot make our way out of Covid-19 without mandates. He would immediately make the crisis much worse. Faulconer would be a terrible, terrible choice for governor of California.
Rereading, I understand you are not advocating voting for Faulconer.
Though a week ago Kevin did.
I suppose Kevin’s idea was that if the recall were successful a Republican would win the governorship and that a Mitt Romney would be preferable to a Donald Trump.
In my own view the Democrats should have put Barbara Lee in the running and urged a no vote on the recall and Lee for Governor should the recall be successful. Because fuck you Republicans, you wanted a recall, you got a recall.
Yes, that's me. I supported almost all of Trump's policies and liked his judicial (SCOTUS and otherwise) nominations. But, Trump is obviously a disgrace and should not be president.
Or the supposed sane Republicans could at least have the decency to not vote if voting Republican is the only other option in their minds.
Unless and until the constitution gets changed from equal to proportional representation in the Senate Republicans are going to dominate.
Yes, prior to 1978 that equal representation helped Democrats but that time isn't coming back. And even if it change to helping Democrats it still isn't democracy.
Exactly. Either that, or abolishing the Senate. Back in the mists of antiquity (1912), New Mexico set its constitution to parallel the US Constitution, with a senate that gave a senator to each county. Apparently, county lines were not redrawn - or at least, not redrawn for long. In the 1950s, the Supreme Court objected and ruled that NM senate districts had to be drawn to equalize representation, which is how it still works to this day. The county lines remain fixed.
Not that the current Supreme Court would ever do such a thing. We got the undemocratic Senate in order to convince the slave states to join the fledgling United States of America. Same deal with the 3/5 compromise and 2nd amendment. The slave-holding (now Jim Crowing) south has corrupted this country from Day One and tried to tear it apart when it didn't get its way.
The Supreme Court cannot rule the present Senate as unconstitutional as the constitution specifically defines the present Senate make up. The Senate was not intended to be a Democratic institution but rather to represent the states, particularly the rights of the slave states. The filibuster, on the other hand, is not based on law but relatively recent Senate tradition. Elimination of the filibuster would be a big step forward.
most states were slave states in 1787. only mass. had ended it completely, though pa. had limited it. but yeah, the senate was intended to represent state's interests, which is why they were elected by state legislatures rather than by popular vote.
Yes but in some states slavery was clearly on the decline and the state economies did not depend upon slavery. I suppose one should more accurately argue that states where the economies were dependent upon plantations were the ones who demanded the 3/5ths compromise, the Senate and the 2nd amendment.
States like New Jersey and New York had slavery or de-facto slavery right up to the civil war even though it was outlawed. In New Jersey existing slaves weren't freed until the Civil War, in New York they had a servitude condition that wasn't called slavery but it was nearly as bad.
There’s no legal impediment to abolishing the senate or the electoral college. If history has taught us anything it’s that the Supreme Court is a political institution and it can do whatever it wants. There’s nothing stopping the Democrats from expanding the court and having those new justices do both things.
Cool. We can go full banana republic…
If there’s no rules, there’s no rules.
There's a problem with that. The Constitution contains an EXPLICIT prohibition against changing the "equal suffrage" of each State in the Senate.
This cannot be changed without a wholesale adoption of a new Constitution.
Or an amendment.
As you may have noticed, the constitution is not a self enforcing or capable of a fixed, easily knowable interpretation. The constitution can be changed by five justices of the Supreme Court and if they say that Wyoming isn’t entitled to a senator, then it gets no senator. Or Wyoming and Montana could be defined as agricultural enclaves and not entitled to any congressional representation.
This cannot be changed without a wholesale adoption of a new Constitution.
Not so.
It can be changed if there's enough consensus that A) an amendment repealing the equal suffrage clause is legitimate (so that it would no longer apply) and then, B) getting enough votes in Congress and enough state legislatures to enact said amendment.
(That's not to way we couldn't jettison this constitution and adopt a new one; we could do that, too).
There is no law of nature that says the low population states have to be dominated by Republicans. The Democrats need to put some work into turning a few of the low population states Democratic.
Yes. I feel like the Democratic Party has turned away from huge parts of this country. I get it, it's difficult to overcome the Republican dominance in all of those less populated states, but ruling and governing isn't supposed to be easy and, in a system like ours, you actually have to appeal to enough different areasd and different people if you actually want to win under the rules as written. For years and decades now, it feels like Democrats have given up on that and instead, all we hear about is how the rules need to be changed.
I don’t disagree with your argument but even if Wyoming, for example, we’re the most reliable of blue states, there’s still no good reason why a place with fewer people than the city of Santa Monica should get two senators. The system is simply unjustifiable.
"They are largely old, poorly educated, and feel like they have genuine grievances."
Since their "genuine grievances" essentially boil down to the fact that the US is not absolutely and perpetually controlled by a minority of straight, white, Christian men (preferably rural) just like them, I have no empathy or sympathy for them or those (like Kevin) who do.
These people feel disenfranchised because nothing ever happens in their town like they see on tv all the time, and if it does it freaks them out.
Essentially, they're bored and forgotten.
Which is why I would be in favor of giving them all the opiates they need to kill themselves
They haven't done it with the guns yet, so opiates will only help if they're sent out with their disability checks.
There are plenty of Republicand who fit your characterization. There are also plenty that don't -- there are plenty who have dealt with economic insecurity and lack of opportunity for years and decades. Those are the ones we need to reach and we're doing a piss poor job of it.
It goes way beyond this simple oversimplification, though. IIRC one of the sub-groups that shifted most strongly to Trump (from HRC) was "northern non-religious working class whites." (They were a key 2016 difference-maker in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and the red Maine district).
This is just one of all the downsides that comes with still using an outdated Constitution that cannot handle a multiparty situation
A comment from a Swede accustomed to democracy version 3.0
You're right. The geographically districted, winner-take-all elections model will lead to two dominant political parties. Near impossible for any other parties to join in.
Canada, which is about to have an election, has "geographically districted, winner-take-all elections" but there are four parties with significant representation in the Canadian Parliament and a fifth with two members.
It's true that there are only two parties that have ever managed to form the government, but minority governments are common and require the governing party to pay some attention to the smaller parties. There have also been occasions when a third party managed to become the second party for one term. So far, no third party has managed to become the first party, or even hold second party status, but it is still clearly possible "for other parties to join in".
Are you sure about that? I recall that in Harper Government at one point the NDP was the official opposition and the PQ at another after the Liberals lost big in the election that swept Harper in. Also Harper was from the old Reform Party which took over the old Progressive Conservative party to become the Conservative party.
I sure hope Trudeau wins the snap election he called. We need both Canada and the US fighting COVID to keep it under control on the continent. Well also Mexico but it's would be worse to have Canada also run by anti COVID crazies.
Erin O'Toole & Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador can be populists together & work from right & left to fuck Biden up.
well we'll just go get us a new one, then. thanks for letting us know that life is just perfect in sweden, the only place on earth where never is heard a discouraging word — except from the sweden democrats.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-11/the-far-right-is-ready-to-claim-a-slice-of-real-power-in-sweden
You are behaving in a very American way, trying to analyze a foreign nation and a foreign political system you don’t understand simply by reading one article of questionable quality.
We are the only Nordic country that has kept these people out of influence and if we had an election today they still would be out of influence.
…. what you are doing is called deflection and is commonly used by people who are out of arguments
You are behaving in a very American way, trying to analyze a foreign nation and a foreign political system you don’t understand
And you are behaving in a very Swedish way, trying (not very successfully) to analyze a foreign political system you don't understand.
What will happen if a third party, let’s say a much needed Green Party is trying to run a third candidate in all elections?
Or if the Democratic Socialists are doing it just as similar parties are doing in countries honoring a more modern version of democracy?
… it’s a basic question and you don’t need to answer because the answer is obvious.
One can find countries still using a first past the post system that has succeeded in making it work sufficiently but your stubbornness to stay in the 18th century is not allowing for any progress. Biggest problem is probably to allow dishonest politicians who are in power to set the rules for their own re-elections something that someone accustomed to true democracy is a little dumbfounded over
This is why I posted my comment. Please correct me if my analysis is wrong
I stand with my comment to our friend Mudwall. An article without doing an analysis of his own is proof of ignorance
Gonna be interesting how they take the lesson of California, assuming a Newsom wipeout. California is the future of the US, ethnically speaking, and Trumpism is a big loser here.
We already know Elder is throwing doubt on the integrity of the election (hey, great way to boost your E-Day turnout, genius). But that's not going to get any traction. How a loss is spun might depend on how the vote goes for the replacement governor. Did most Dems leave that choice blank? If so, then Elder could end up with a large plurality (40% to 50%). But if he's below 30%, then it's easier to see that Newsom trounced him. If a Dem nobody like Paffrath comes close to Elder or beats him, it's even worse for the R's.
Not familiar with CA law, but if the recall is unsuccessful, will they even bother counting those votes and releasing those results?
I assumed so ... though I don't know for sure.
When there are competing props on the ballot and one overrides the other, CA publishes the vote for each. Same should apply here, I'd think. This is a public election, not the Oscars where only the winners are declared.
But, not to keep beating the same dead horse, even if demographics are destiny our political system doesn’t allow for majority rule. There are structural elements (senate and electoral college) and innumerable power plays available to a ruthless, unprincipled minority (gerrymandering, voter suppression, ability of state legislatures to determine elections against the will of the majority).
What I think you’re missing is that the reasons why Republicans can’t win statewide elections in California don’t really apply elsewhere. They are leveraging their power in state legislatures to basically immunize themselves from the popular vote.
And they are tepidly opposed by a weak and feckless national Democratic Party, so if you put the two together, you get a Republican Congress in 2022 and, by hook or by crook, a re-elected Donald Trump in 2024.
Of all the speeches on 09/11/21, I thought Bush's was wonderful. Also, he was the right messenger to say to America, look folks...there are a whole lot of potential Domestic Terrorists out there just waiting to do us harm and we need to open our eyes to that fact and take action. Imagine if Biden or Kamala Harris gave this speech, it would have gone over like a lead balloon when they got to the part saying that we have people inside our borders that are not all that dissimilar to the terrorists from other countries that want to do us harm.
I say this as someone who is undeclared but leans heavily on the Democratic side of the fence, that Bush, a Republican, gave the best speech this past Saturday.
There are plenty of criticisms of Bush's "come to Jesus" moment. He never acknowleged his own complicity in building and encouraging the vicious partisan divisions that he now apparently deplores. Yeah, good words, but if you remember the Bush Junior years, he's just a retconning hypocrite.
I think he's genuinely remorseful about his catastrophic tenure.
He stumped for Brett Keggerator to win Senate approval in 2018.
Who among us is without beer? Let him try to remember what happened that one night so long ago.
You mean the guy who lost the election but still was handed the keys to the Oval Office. The guy who started a war against Iraq for no reason at all just be because he could, a war that destabilized the region and pawed the way for IS and subsequently the refugee crisis we Europeans had to handle (or more precisely some of us , one of my Sweden’s finest moments)
… and in the end did he crash world economy.
Is that guy all of a sudden a wise and responsible older statesman just because he said something that was totally obvious to everyone with two functioning brain cells
A comment from a dumbfounded Swede
Better late than never. Support people doing the right thing, even if belatedly
I would prefer if he started with asking for forgiveness for all his sins…
Or, as a bare minimum, saying that he was wrong back then.
The problem with your logic is that they have been told that Democrats, liberals and Progressives are the enemy and will bring about communism. They're a hopeless bunch and maybe Covid will allow Darwin to work his magic!
NO, it's the other guy who's CrAZy!!!
/s
There are ten people in a lifeboat. The tide is taking the lifeboat towards some rocks, and one of the people is a seasoned sailor who knows that if, and only if, at least 8 of the 10 start rowing that the rowers can defeat the tide and avoid being smashed on the rocks.
Four people refuse to stop praying to their alleged god for thanks at getting off the sinking ship and pick up an oar.
None of this is new, but for decades the main plan of the six people in my hypothetical who have examined a situation and tried to come up with the best policy was to work on converting two of the four via sound discussion and reason.
Today, however, the four are simply not going to be convinced. There are no "sane" members of the four (ideally, at least two) who can be swayed.
Kevin's post unfortunately makes the mistake that in a country of 300 million a couple of Repubs who are not insane means that of the 43% that something like ten percent are not insane. Its an incorrect assumption and its what led to the 2016 loss.
The problem is that its really, really hard to accept the reality that 43% of the population is nuts. But its true.
And there is no equivalent. Dems aren't for a particular policy just because Republicans are against it. That is not how Dems roll. Period.
An excellent analogy, I would add that time is running out and those rocks are fast approaching. When do you start throwing people overboard?
But in the analogy you still need 2 of the folks to row to save the boat. If you throw all four overboard you are toast. If you throw one off does that convince the other three? Would it take two thrown overboard? Or will they keep on praying knowing that they too are going to be thrown overboard or crash against the rocks because that is God's Will?
All of the, what I thought were non-insane Republicans that I know personally have drunk the kool-aid. They either like the tax cuts or like the judges, or just plain like owning the libs.
Sure, there are somewhat sane republicans. They don't want to see America turned into an authoritarian hellscape full of incel terrorists, but they also would rather have that than what Biden is offering.
The Economist just had an issue devoted to their perceived threat of the illiberal Left. Sure, you can complain about cancel culture - it can be a bit annoying. But a bunch of college kids protesting Taco Tuesday is nothing compared to Jan 6. That is what passes for sanity on the right. You can always justify your own side by making up a slippery slope argument for the other side.
" But a bunch of college kids protesting Taco Tuesday is nothing compared to Jan 6. That is what passes for sanity on the right."
Very true and well said.
We just have to acknowledge that those Republicans who prefer Trump to zealous kids protesting as they have for centuries aren't that sane to begin with.
What's to protest about Taco Tuesday???
Heartburn? I can't handle spicy food like I used to in my youth. Oh well make mine without the pickled jalapenos please...
Somehow Kevin didn’t take his own advice a week ago, when he told us that he turned in his ballot. He voted no to the recall and then voted for the “sane” Republican, Faulconer instead of any of the 9 Democrats.
Do as Kevin says, sane Republicans (if any of you still exist). Not as he does, apparently.
https://sfist.com/2021/08/25/meet-the-nine-democrats-listed-on-the-gavin-newsom-recall-ballot/
Good point.
I realize this is an appeal to "winnable" R's to do the least, vote for the D candidate.
But I take exception to the idea there are "non-insane" Republicans. They have gone the way of the dodo, not to be seen again. There are no more "sane" Republicans than there are sane Branch Davidians or sane members of the People's Temple. The sane ones are not those hiding until the storm of insanity blows over. The sane ones are those who already found the door marked Exit. How can you be sane and belong to a political party that's insane? You can't. If you haven't left by now, you have forfeited any right to the description "non-insane."
The country was here long before the Republican Party got its start. It'll be here long after the party is gone. It's long past time to move on. The sooner the remnants of the R party are swept away, the sooner a new mainstream right-center will emerge.
Former GOP NH state rep switches parties.
https://twitter.com/ChazNuttycombe/status/1437837801253445639?s=20
Yesterday he was among the insane. Today he chose to be sane. It's that easy.
Technically, you're correct. The Republican Party was not established until 1856. But it had predecessors with the same general theories of governance as that 1856/60 party which nominated Abraham Lincoln did: high tariffs, national improvements, opposition to the expansion of slavery.
The antecedents were the Federalists who coalesced around John Adams in 1796. They were followed by the Whigs after Andrew Jackson decimated the Federalists in 1828. The Whigs splintered north and south in the early 1850's with the rise of the American National party or "Know-Nothings". The Republicans swept up the mess, adding those who favored ending slavery where it already existed.
Some of us have. Just not as many as you wish.
The real problem is the political party duopoly.
In this environment your alternatives are to vote against your will or throw away your vote.
I was raised, by Democratic parents, in suburban WI: this was an Obama to Trump district. Many of my parent's friends are Republicans. A couple months ago, I was out visiting my parents, and we had several neighbors over for a BBQ.
I suggested that the current Republican party was sick with a Trump like disease: time to vote for reasonable Democrats. I got back 'so you support Defund the Police?' 'You like looting on Michigan Ave?' You believe all white people are racist?'
While my sample is small and not representative of all Republicans, I doubt Trump cost the GOP ANY of my parent's neighbors.
The GW Bush era was no different. Bush led the party of torture and extraordinary rendition. Your Republican friends were always insane, Trump just lets them say it out aloud.
The GW Bush era was no different
Nor the GHW Bush era: Willie Horton.
Nor the Reagan era: Philadelphia, Mississippi and welfare queens.
Nor was the Nixon era: law and order.
(Not sure about Ford, he seemed pretty decent).
Ah but the other eras were mere whispers and couched wording. Trump didn't bother with any pretense whatsoever.
l also grew up in WI.
But as I really haven't had the opportunity, isn't what you got back rather easy to respond to?
I would grant that the third one is tough because before someone could answer whether they believe all white people are racist you need a common definition of what constitutes being a racist, and we don't have that.
Suppose you said, to them, the equivalent, which is "so you support machine gunning people trying to swim across the Rio Grande?"
I just picked something that (a) Trump actually said, and (b) that had no chance of actually happening -- because I don't care how many Dems are elected the police are not going to be defunded.
No but COVID will cost them.
Kevin: "Non Insane Republicans need to bite the bullet and vote D"
Also Kevin: Votes for a Republican as a fallback in the California Recall Election.
'They are wide open to being conned, and Trump, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing media machine is happy oblige them. To a large extent, these folks oppose vaccines and believe the election was stolen because that's what they're being told—over and over and over.'
Get back to me when that justifies violent insurrection... and it isn't just the most extreme cases- everywhere they are breaking up proper government, screaming, intimidating, and generally destroying Civil discourse in order to literally endanger themselves, their children and everybody else.
I do not feel sorry for the fool that is driving us all off the cliff. I want to punch him senseless and take the wheel.. Because he is already senseless to the point of being a danger to himself and others. That is where we are...
I heard One-eyed Dan Crenshaw is reorganizing the Yung Americans for Freedom into a Magajugen.
You're talking to the same guys who have placed party above country since Newt Gingrich became A Thing. You really think there is a chance in hell that they'll vote D? How would they get their judges and tax cuts?
I'd argue it went back further - Nixon got the Vietnam peace talks delayed so as to deny LBJ a foreign policy win.
Well, to me that's not enough. As a former Republican, I voted straight ticket Democrat in 2016 and 2020. I'll do the same in every election in the foreseeable future. However, I can no longer be a Republican for the same reason George Will can no longer be a Republican. I have not joined the Democratic Party, but I plan too.
I can't see being associated in any way with the Republican Party. Being a Republican and voting Democrat for a few years is too weak of a message. Just change parties - that is the strongest message of all. Normal policy considerations are secondary when the republic itself is under threat.
As George Will has noted, the GOP has become a 'cult' of Trump. Thus, Bush's speech will be dismissed. Anyone who opposes Trump will be dismissed. Only Trump and his sycophants matter.
The education shift -
In 2000:
50% of R voters had college degrees
39% of D voters had college degrees
In 2020:
40% of R voters had college degrees
53% of D voters had college degrees
This has happen in France for the last few years where an informal coalition vote again the National Front of Marine Lepen.
How long will it hold? I dont know.
Unfortunately, Bolloré ( a billionaire) noticed Fox news "success" formula and has launch a TV format where talking heads spend their time spewing hate.
very disturbing.
Wait... Didn't you just tell us to mark a Republican as the replacement for Newsom if Newsom got recalled?
The fallacy in your argument is that you think there are non-insane Republicans. Anyone continuing to use that brand for themself is insane.
Hairless cats, celibate Venusians, and the Undead should also vote for Democrats. They all need to grow the hell up.