It's bad enough that our country is awash with MAGA warriors who worship Donald Trump in all his racist glory. But my bigger disappointment has always been with the mainstream Republicans who have caved in to MAGA nation.
My touchstone for this is National Review, which has long represented mainstream conservatism and was famously anti-Trump in 2016. They know perfectly well just how toxic Trump is, but they've mostly given up on doing anything about it.
Don't get me wrong. They're still technically anti-Trump, some writers more than others. But in terms of where they put their energy they might as well be full-blown supporters.
Vaccines? They're in favor of people getting vaccinated, of course. Don't you dare suggest otherwise. But when it comes to putting pixels on a screen, you won't see much in the way of criticism of Tucker Carlson. Instead you'll see opposition to mandates, snarky stuff about liberals and their mask obsessions, and attacks on the CDC.
The 1/6 insurrection? It was a travesty. But in The Corner you mostly hear from Andy McCarthy and others doing their best to derail any congressional investigation. It's totally unconstitutional, you see.
The Big Lie about election fraud? Very unfortunate. But does that mean they support any concrete action to prevent Trumpies from overturning election results they don't like? Nope. And Democratic attempts to do something about it are uniformly attacked as partisan efforts to destroy the Republican Party.
In other words, NR is anti-Trump—in theory—but has basically adopted all of Trump's talking points. It's a paper-thin difference.
Assuming anyone cares, the NR response will undoubtedly be to point to the occasional pieces that go after Trump in a genuinely concrete way—which means supporting something that risks hurting the Republican Party. Maybe an essay from maverick Kevin Williamson. Or a wonky piece from Ramesh Ponnuru, NR's intermittent truthsayer.
But overall, they've basically decided that Trump is a reality to be accepted, not a danger to be fought. And that goes for nearly everyone else in the Republican Party too.
Well said. Rich Lowry is a hypocrite.
Lowry's not a hypocrite. He's a weasel.
No, it's just all the bloodflow to his brain got diverted to his penis when Sarah Palin winked at him thru the teevee at the 2008 Vice Presidential Debate.
Man can't think straight now.
So, doesn't this justify democrats seeing Republicans as actually trying to destroy the country?
Trump is a reality to be accepted, not a danger to be fought.
Hell, he's an asset for them, at least to some degree. After all, he -- and all the cult-promoting politicians in the same mold -- will pass and sign whatever legislation the plutocracy desires, and they'll monkeywrench election administration so they and others get elected regardless of the will of the voters.
The downside is that he motivates Dems to vote too, but as noted the votes may not matter if they arrange things right.
Hell, he's an asset for them, at least to some degree....he...will sign whatever legislation the plutocracy desires...
I don't buy this. Any standard issue Republican presidential candidate does the plutocracy's bidding. That's why their Republicans!
It's not as if the GOP had enormous difficulty winning elections before Trump's arrival: The elections of 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010 and 2014 were all highly successful for them. And what has happened since his arrival? A weakish 2016 win (very short coattails), followed by a disastrous 2018 election, followed by another disastrous election in 2020 (I believe Trump's the only president in US history to preside over losses of both houses of Congress en route to only holding the executive branch a single term for his party). All this against the backdrop of scant policy achievements.
The 2016 election featured objectively strong fundamentals for the GOP and they were running against a mediocre Democrat—but they nonetheless very nearly blew it, so inept was Trump. I think it's clear a Scott Walker or Marco Rubio would have won much more convincingly. I believe even Ted Cruz (hate on him all you want, but he's a highly Nixonian, machiavellian non-idiot) would have performed more strongly than Trump.
No, the commanding heights of the Republican Party would love to see the back of Donald Trump. They're simply stuck with him for the time being, is all, and they're trying to make the best of a bad situation.
That's why they're Republicans!
Ugh. All I want for Christmas is an edit feature on Drum's blog.
Hell I'd prefer disqus to Word Press - never mind an edit feature
But we are "stuck" with what KD decided when he created this blog.
I always liked Disqus.
Oh, I'm not saying he's ideal -- thus my qualification -- or even the best available for Republicans. I agree that, if it could be made as though he never existed, they'd prefer that.
But that's not the present situation. To fight him would be to tear the party apart -- a "cure" far worse than the disease. And from their point of view, the "disease" ain't actually all that bad, precisely because as you note, he's a doctrinaire Republican when it comes to policy. They're getting what they want out of an office-holder. I submit that, for them, it's a win.
> To fight him would be to tear the party apart
Ironically, he’s going to damage the party even if the vast majority kowtows to him. He can’t forget a slight, no matter how minor - it gnaws away at him and drives him to seek revenge. In the coming campaign, Democrats should constantly replay the videos of Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell decrying Trump’s role leading up to January 6; it will keep GOP infighting going
ETTD.
Once again, what Trump does is mostly not really new. The main governing part of the Republican party, that is the big-business wing, made the deliberate decision in the 60's and 70's to take over support of racism from the Southern wing of the Democratic party. This included the Southern version of religiosity, which is closely tied to racism. Although the support of racism was initially not blatant, the targeted people (white racists everywhere) got the message. The message got more and more explicit, especially after Obama was elected. This set things up for Trump, who was probably not initially supported by the big-money right (for example by Fox News) because it was thought by almost everyone (including me) that he had little chance, rather than because of major objection to what he said. Also he made fake "populistic" promises, such as raising taxes.
The Republican "intellectuals" are not really changing principles in supporting Trumpism - they've always supported the basic strategy. But even now they may not favor Trump himself because he has always had negative ratings. They would like somebody smoother and more competent.
I largely concur. Even during that "heated" primary, most of the condemnation was about tone rather than content.
In the present, I wonder about what the vampire council wants. I would have assumed they'd prefer not to run a candidate who can (as of now) serve a max of one more term. In the long game, giving up a potential incumbency election in 2028 seems like a real bad idea, especially given Biden's shaky approval and poor legislative outlook.
I feel like if I were an R operative, the game would be to bribe Trump into sitting it out and endorsing Ron DeSantis or whomever. But maybe the old apparatus is too weak to shift the river.
Please, those "racists" are a large part of the globalist movement. They invented the council of foreign relations and set the stage for global supply chains, maybe their "racism" is self serving. Not my fault morons fall for it.
Exactly
Drum, Trump is 3/4 jewish. Cohn the homo and Lindenbaum were his mentors. He is a con man. All cons end. The problem for Republicans is what happens after it is over???? Trump frankly has done little better than Buscho and less good then Reagan the traitor(and I will agree on the fact which caused his betrayal).
Your obsession over him represents the problem. You don't see the con. It's everything bozo.
Don't feed the troll.
Elsewhere: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/10/21/politics/house-republicans-vote-yes-steve-bannon-contempt-of-congress/index.html
Three things at play:
1. By & large, those who stood against El Jefe in January 2021 in the impeachment vote want to see Bannon compelled to testify;
2. where there were deviations from that line, I assume district polling was of greater importance (save Valadao, who I believe is in a Clinton-Biden riding);
3. if these GQP say we must compel Bannon & elide specious claims of privilege now, that means they can ask later for Hunter Biden to testify (on a separate issue from January 6th), & have it have a veneer of bipartisania.
The real surprise is more GQP didn't support Bannon contempt decision, as El Jefe already threw him overboard. Again.
As pointed out in another post
Trump will be 78 in 2024. He will be 82 in 2028.
He believes he's the greatest thing in business and because of our reliance on TV to tell us the truth many Americans believe what he says and never question it.
He will dies sooner, rather than later and history will be a cruel judge of him. His wealth is declining rapidly. His legal troubles are mounting. Being President was only a delaying action for his financial problems. He used his office to delay investigations into his business dealings and uses politics as a way to raise money for his financial struggle. He likes those who side with him and have 100% faith in him. He likes NO ONE else.
Because of his attitude of "Only I can fix things" he has set up his kids for failure. No one of his kids will be successful on their own. They don't wield the same power over the American People or within the republican party. As long as he lives he is a force within the party. The problem is becoming apparent - the republicans are planning for life without him, He doesn't like it - his supporters hate the thought - and the "Trump affect" on the republican party will remain in flux until he dies.
They kiss his ring for now.
But that too will end