https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/1554819745874051072?s=20&t=OEamcN0rkbIrSSFCmdponA I’m sorry but Joe Walsh sums up what happened to Peter Meijer and whose to blame for it. It’s a Biden +8 seat that WILL flip to the democrats and thus make it more likely that we keep the House of Representatives and prevent its institutional destru…
https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/1554819745874051072?s=20&t=OEamcN0rkbIrSSFCmdponA I’m sorry but Joe Walsh sums up what happened to Peter Meijer and whose to blame for it. It’s a Biden +8 seat that WILL flip to the democrats and thus make it more likely that we keep the House of Representatives and prevent its institutional destruction from 2 years of crazy MAGA Republican rule. Was Peter Meijer going to switch parties? Because unless he was then a democrat winning that seat is a better outcome for America then him winning. As a Democratic Party operative and activist, it’s very funny to hear people tell us to be ashamed of ourselves when we are ruthless, when most of the time these same people deride us for being weak and feckless. If you’re mad about Peter Meijer losing, then place the blame where it belongs, on REPUBLICAN primary voters. They are the ones who voted for John Gibbs, not the clever hardworking strategists at the DCCC and “associated” Super Pacs. It’s about the majority. Now that being said I do hope Liz Cheney wins her primary, as it is a Republican at large seat in deep red Wyoming. Nuance matters people!
Indeed. And how did the Democrats intervene? Not by promoting Gibbs but by truthfully exposing his craziness. Yes, they knew that meant the GOP would love him, but honestly, who's fault if that? GOP should own their voters and stop their crybabying.
This seat will not flip. Gibbs is no fool and has the Youngkin calibration down. And unless you have actually been in West Michigan recently, you can have no idea how vicious and angry the red areas are.
Meijer did not lose because the Dems (immorally and stupidly) wasted money pushing Gibbs. He lost because the people have already seceded in their hearts from the America of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Reagan. They want the America of Trump and Berlusconi and Orban. And they will not be denied.
I should also mention, in 2020 Meijer pretty convincingly defeated the same Dem challenger (Hillary Scholton) by 53 to 47. A little more than 53. The district is a little different today, but despite Grand Rapids and Muskegon county, the out county areas are redder than Lady MacBeth's hands, and the base out there has a guy on the ballot who is talking their walk, and has Sauron's endorsement. And the strategy for Hillary (who is by no means a good smash-mouth politician, more like the very nice principal you want running your kids' elementary school) is going to have to be to get Trump on the ballot to gin up the blueish discomfort with fascism of the ill-mannered sort -- but Trump on that ballot will also fire up the rural hoi polloi.
We will see. Hope I'm wrong and you are right. Hilary is pretty liberal for West Michigan. She's going to be tarred with the brush of wanting open borders because she wanted to reform immigration. She is going to be hit as a groomer because she has supported LGBT rights. and uses terms like "LGBT+" on her website. The gun lobby is going to go crazy on her. She was crushed by Meijer last time, 53 to 47.
On the plus side, I haven't heard any defund the police foolishness. But that she doesn't say it or believe it won't stop anyone from painting her as having said it.
It also used to be the state where Moderate republicans and Democrats managed to both push their own political programs and still work together for a set of broadly shared goals.
That's a red herring and you know it. The DCCC obviously didn't oppose Meijer because they thought he would be an untrustworthy "moderate" but because they preferred to bet the farm on a Trumpist lunatic losing to a Democrat in the general election. That's not only dishonorable given their vaunted appeal to democratic ideals, it's political malpractice given the inevitable risks of any campaign. Perhaps the DCCC should donate to Donald Trump since of course he has no chance to defeat Joe Biden or Kamala Harris in a rematch.
Or maybe they just think that the difference between someone who votes to put a lunatic in charge of the House and someone who is a lunatic isn't actually different enough to warrant a distinction. For as bad as Gibbs is, at least he's honest with voters about who he is. Something Meijer can't say.
In that case they should have kept their dollars to themselves rather than waste them on a frivolous endeavor while betraying their own purported ideals.
Which ideals in particular? Because again, they don't agree with you that Meijer is some stalwart defender against Trumpism. And they have plenty of data points to back them up.
This is just wicked. The opposite of 'weak and feckless' is not kneecap your allies and shoot prisoners. The opposite of 'weak and feckless' is to play fair, be prudent (don't give money to crazies), and make the stronger moral case for your candidate and your party. I don't think you are a wicked person, Casey, to be fair. But you are playing with a wicked and Straussian hand. That's not okay. Please do better.
If "running a 100% honest attack ad about your one-time fellow-traveler's primary opponent" (because Meijer is *not* an ally) is enough to kneecap that fellow-traveler, he had bigger issues he probably should have been addressing.
Am I reading here that running ads which enumerate a candidate's positions and actions is immoral, kneecapping allies, and shooting prisoners? These ads - did they offer lies as truth? Did they paint their opponents as evil and sub-human?
Exploiting your opponents' weakness is not immoral. Republicans are the opponent. We live in the postMAGA world now. You can say it's stupid, or counter-productive to promote the weakest candidate, but the (to me, petty) moral outrage belongs in yesterday, before MAGAtimes.
I think the issue is a little different. The adds pushing Gibbs were targeted not at the general electorate which might be moved thereby toward the non-coup party, but at the deepest red meat-eaters in the MAGA-addled Republican base. The intent and effect was to get them fired up, into their pickups and out to the polling places.
In short: the Dems effectively donated money to amplify MAGA enthusiasm and committment --with negligible countervailing benefit in the general election. Those Gibbs voters are not going to stay home in November, and they aren't going to be lukewarm about their guy.
Effectively all the DNC did with that money was poke a stick into the hornets' nest.
This basically is helping Trump punish his political enemies — and it only cost him $5000! That’s a deal. It sends a message that just like Republicans, Democrats will do anything to win. Poof goes any swing voters who want to argue that dems have the moral high ground - plus some of their votes across the country. Also, one more Republican impeached punished — giving MAGA one more win. How is any of this smart? Plus what if Gibbs wins? Crazy candidates win surprisingly. Like in recent memory.
Hmm, it's a tough call and you seem to be acting the purist in a very impure environment. What's the point of leading by example when there's a 0% chance that the folks that need to take heed will do so? Yes, one's own moral choices should be internally driven, but we're talking about politics and the broader country, not whether you should steal that cookie when no one is watching.
If you could go back in time and kill 18-yr-old Hitler, would you?
You are very close to the same argument evangelicals made about supporting Trump, as in yes, one's own moral choices should be driven by a desire to emulate Christ, but we are talking about politics.
To be clear, I'm not pushing that argument, merely considering the conundrum.
But, anyhow, I'm not sure it's the same. At least not for all evangelicals. Many seem to think there's no problem: Trump is part of God's plan, so there's no point in considering if there's anything bad about Trump.
It's for the segment that feel like they're selling their souls that things getting interesting. Then you get into categorical comparisons, as well as degree. E.g. the former: is dirty pool in politics the same as promoting a politician with distinctly evil personal traits? E.g. the latter: is lying about a Whitehouse fling the same as lying about a stolen election?
The "Trump is God's plan" idea comes from the teaching that God can use evil men for His own good purposes. However, evangelicals that support Trump have distorted the teaching to mean that it is okay for Christians to help put an objectively evil man in power and then hope God will use him for God's good purposes. They also have reversed the direction of God's will. They are not supposed to substitute their own desires for God's will. Furthermore, the free will aspect of the gospel is that people are free as individuals to choose or reject "God's saving grace" and the commandments that accompany that grace. Christians are not supposed to legislatively or judicially impose those commandments on society as a whole without the explicit buy-in of that society. Nor are they supposed to attribute to God the "commandments of men." The book, "Kingdom Coming: the Rise of Christian Nationalism," documents the corrupted Gospel a number of influential evangelical preachers have been teaching for decades. Jesus' condemnation of such teachers is very strong.
I pretty much agree with you on those points, but they're largely tangential to my preceding comment. Religion can be stretched every which way, at least by many. That doesn't mean it's right or good.
"God's morals can't be understood by we mere humans."
Probably my fav catch-all: "God works in mysterious ways".
I certainly respect your view. It's also my default starting point for most things.
OTOH, the joke about the driver of the Pinto asserting his right-of-way against the double semi comes to mind. Principles won't do you much good if you're dead.
This is dishonest of you. Who are you trying to fool, dude? From MSNBC: "The advertisement masquerades as an attack ad, but it explicitly drives home Gibbs’ own messaging by linking him to Trump and indicating that he’ll continue to back Trump’s policy agenda in Washington — all without landing any substantive criticisms other than to label him “too conservative”".
... said every Republican who voted for Trump in 2016 who thought Democrats didn't play fair and were happy to have an orange vulgarian take over the party because he could fight. This is just dumb strong man ethics pretending to be virtuous. You're better than this, Max.
Cunning is what Joe Manchin just did. This is more like giving Trump lots of free ad time on major news networks based on the idea that a crazy Republican candidate can only be good for Dems.
"It's called politics"? So ... everything Trump and Republicans do is okay because it's called politics. You've lost your way my friend. I feel bad for you.
Re Wyoming - just read the results of a bill back in 1950s that passed in Congress. What absolutely surprised me was the fact that Ds held both Senate seats! (One of them for almost 20 years.) And the Wyo House member was also a D.
Sorry, I was researching the National Western Stock Show in Denver from 1/13/50 on, so I was just skimming everything else. The "D"s shown with the WY Congressmen just caught my eye. I did a really quick skim now and didn't see it. But I did check the list of WY senators on the Senate website to confirm: https://www.senate.gov/states/WY/senators.htm. BTW, it's amazing how many of the 1950 issues sound like ours! Truman battling Congressional Rs for control of the House (yeah, they were playing games back then too), a general who took some freezer gifts being investigated by Rs (once they did care about conflicts of interest and integrity), Taiwan's independence (this was just after the Communists took control in China), flooding in the Midwest, bigots murdering black children, etc., etc. Biggest difference - you could disagree with conservative Rs, but for the most part, they had integrity and decency. Of course, every single one of them are RINOs.
What? Sorry, disagree. Most of the Dems were still the FDR New Dealers. If you mean the southern Dems, they were a small part of the party, which is why they abandoned the Dems after the Civil Rights activism of the 60s and headed to the Rs..
Yes and no. The Dixiecrats were the first Dems to head to the Republicans followed by Dixiecrat-adjacent Dems all over the country. The result is that today the deplorables call the GOP their political home. The tares are choking out the wheat.
Truman in general and on average had good approvals, but he had a low point that was lower than even Trump's lowest point. Checking the news, the cause was his nationalizing the steel industry. He thought the Korean 'war" was sufficient justification, but SCOTUS said no.
I want to emphasize your comment that the REPUBLICAN primary voters are the ones who voted for John Gibbs. For everyone blaming the Democrats, I keep replying that I live in this district and trust me, the only signs I saw for John Gibbs were in the yards of people who obviously solid (and daresay I say extreme based on all their other yard signs) Republicans.
I sometimes read "the dispatch" for free, just for David French's writings. I read comments there because I am curious what their readers think. They are supposedly sane republicans, right?
I tell ya. The majority of the comments can be categorized in these two.
1. The republican candidates are batshit crazy, but the democrats are destroying this country, so I have to vote for the republicans.
2. Both sides are equally batshit crazy and bad, so....
2-1. The democrats are also responsible for Trump being elected to POTUS. (My head exploding!)
If this is any indication, the majority of the right still think whoever has "R" next to the name is better than any democrat. So what i am trying to say is that whichever way you look at it, GOP has a voter problem!
I subscribed to the Dispatch for a while. I’d say there are quite a few Democrats too, and a decent number of “I was once Republican but never again” types. But yeah, quite a few anti-antis too
Casey Marlow is correct. Sykes, Carpenter, et al love to criticize the Ds for being inept at politics (and yes, funding the worst of the R MAGA candidates is a risky strategy), but when it pays off -- hopefully here -- Ds will have been innovative risk-takers who held their nerve and killed (metaphorically speaking) the beast. Kinda like Rs. Who knew? Apply the Tom Nichols Democracy test: Is this candidate going to vote against Kevin McCarthy as speaker? Will this candidate caucus with pro-democracy voters in the House? No? Support the the D, even if it means giving money to ensure the craziest candidate is elected. Risky, with a huge payoff if it works.
If I could “heart” this more than once I would. And to the people saying that Meijer was a “good” Republican, my response is that the only good Republican is a defeated one because the Republican Party is rotten to the core.
And to the folks who use Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger as examples of good Republicans, my response is that, while they are indeed Conservatives, they are no longer Republicans, as the Republican Party excommunicated them.
Which outcome do you think is the better way to save our country from its current existential peril:
A) Democrats never lose an election ever for the rest of time; or
B) The Republicans regain some semblance of sanity and commitment to democracy?
Personally, I find strategy A to not really be an effective solution, because a single badly timed recession or scandal can derail it, and even if they pull it off it still might not work - an insurgency can take over a country without actually winning any elections after all. I will grant that ultimately it is on Republicans and not Democrats to make strategy B happen, and yet by promoting Gibbs over Meijer Dems are actively sabotaging strategy B. Short sighted at best.
C. Dems win HARD, the Republicans collapse, and are replaced by whatever is next. Bring on the 7th party system.
A sane Republican party is a unicorn at this point. The foundation is rotted, and the right has spent decades catering to the worst impulses of their base. What's left to salvage but nostalgia at this point? GOP delenda est.
One of the good features of the two party system that people forget: Hypermajorities always break into faction or give rise to a new challenger. the fall of the Fedralists made space for the Whigs, just as the Whigs demise proved fertile (and free) soil for the growth of the GOP.
This is a false choice. When have we seen signs of the Republicans gaining some semblance of "sanity?" Or a commitment to democracy? The signs are all in the opposite direction at the moment.
Neither strategy is a good strategy. Neither is actually a strategy, TBH. These fall more under the heading of "I hope" (in both cases depending upon where you stand).
At some point the GoP is likely to regain control. Regaining control (and what they do with it afterwards) is what is going to make or break the GoP.
In the worst case, they regain control, turn authoritarian, rig elections, run rampant with corruption (especially if Trump and his bunch are still around), turn non-whites and non-straights, and non-Christians into second class citizens.... and people put up with it for several years before things blow up. At which point the current GoP will be effectively destroyed--the problem being that they destroyed the country in the process.
Best case--kind of similar to the worst case, but a little less visibly authoritarian and a little less open about non-whites (and other-ly gendered) being second class citizens. A bit more subtle about using the coercive power of government (and calling it freedom and liberty).
The GoP survives in the second case and a crappy status quo that is more crappy than what we currently have continues. Wealth disparity will continue to skyrocket (because that is kind of the point--that is what the rich people behind this are after) and the National-Christian-Conservative movement will continue to try and regulate people's morality and sexuality and personal behavior. LOTs of people will get "canceled."
And people will put up with it, probably for a long period of time (years, maybe even decades) until some geopolitical event (or climate collapse) puts paid to it.
The first is much messier and violent in the short term.
The second is messier and more violent over the long term--but for the initial stages it will only be those "other people" that are taking it in the shorts.
The GoP will return to "sanity" only through the collapse of their own efforts through their success in getting power (and trying to do what they say they want to do) or through being soundly trashed and losing power in something approaching the "normal" political process.
They are very unlikely to lose significant power through the normal political process, given how this country works. The Dems are always 1 election away from getting thrown out... and each election until the GoP regains control will be fraught with all of the issues we face now (only increasingly worse over time).
Our politics need restructuring badly, but the only people capable of doing it are unwilling to do so because they are the beneficiaries of the current system.
The whole fraud thing would be a moot point in most cases without the EC. It would be VERY hard to commit fraud on a level that overcomes a 3-7 million vote deficit and get away with it in a popular election.
There are a number of other steps that could reduce political extremism.
Corporations and the rich could be better citizens. Voters could become better voters.
But none of those things are going to happen and so we will get the slow rolling disaster, instead--because it is easier to enjoy the current benefits and kick that can down the road.
"B) The Republicans regain some semblance of sanity and commitment to democracy?"
I have yet to see any evidence that electing Meijer would do anything to bring this about. This far, the closest I've seen is JVL's argument that if a disaster happens, you want to be absolutely certain you have people on hand who will do the right thing. But a look at his record before and after those three weeks in January do not suggest a man who is a profile in courage. How is anyone sure he would have come through if it happens again?
Meanwhile, I know for a fact Meijer would have acted to damage sanity and commitment to democracy in a manner at least as dangerous. Every vote for Kevin McCarthy as Speaker is a vote for letting the nuts within the party free to hold their own evidence-free "election fraud hearings" over the next two years.
If my only two choices are stage 4 cancer or Covid, I guess I'll take the Covid, but I'm not going to pretend it's a beneficial choice, and if "not suffering from a horrible disease comes up," I'm going to go for that.
You are attributing too much responsibility on the democrats for Meijer losing, and to “fix” the Republican Party. Republican voters are the issue here, and they have to be the ones who have to fix themselves. Short term, beating the crap out of them electorally is the quickest way to get them to reconsider sanity and democratic norms. But when up against authoritarians, you HAVE to think short term, and take actions that maximize positive potential outcomes. The nature of authoritarianism makes long term planning difficult. But back to the issue with Michigan-3! With abortion being on the ballot in Michigan this year, a radical election denying MAGA lunatic is very unlikely to win a Biden +8 district. This is a house seat with will flip to us, very much increasing our chances of keeping the house. A democrat flipping a house seat is a much much better outcome than a “moderate” republican whose been abandoned by his party, keeping it. Democrats really didn’t sabotage option B, you’re just upset at the cynicism that must be considered when fighting against authoritarianism.
It would be redundant for me to add to this comment thread, because Casey, Charles, and Catie have said it so well. I will just quote one of them: "...the only way the Republican Party gains some semblance of sanity is for them to lose and lose and keep on losing (likely for several election cycles.). It's the only lesson that will teach them."
I think the only way the Republican party gains some semblance of sanity is for them to lose and lose and keep on losing (likely for several election cycles). It's the only lesson that will teach them.
Eventually the cowards who are going along to get along will get tired of losing and finally stand up to the craziness. Then they can start rebuilding.
My "ill-framed" question was meant to remind the comment section that winning races is not the ultimate goal here, and if it comes at the cost of further radicalizing the Republicans then it's not worth it.
Republicans have shown that they cannot govern without Dems leading the way, and furthermore unless the Dems have an effective check on their power, the present GOP welcomes authoritarianism. Winning races may not be the ultimate goal, but it is definitely the goal for the next few cycles.
https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/1554819745874051072?s=20&t=OEamcN0rkbIrSSFCmdponA I’m sorry but Joe Walsh sums up what happened to Peter Meijer and whose to blame for it. It’s a Biden +8 seat that WILL flip to the democrats and thus make it more likely that we keep the House of Representatives and prevent its institutional destruction from 2 years of crazy MAGA Republican rule. Was Peter Meijer going to switch parties? Because unless he was then a democrat winning that seat is a better outcome for America then him winning. As a Democratic Party operative and activist, it’s very funny to hear people tell us to be ashamed of ourselves when we are ruthless, when most of the time these same people deride us for being weak and feckless. If you’re mad about Peter Meijer losing, then place the blame where it belongs, on REPUBLICAN primary voters. They are the ones who voted for John Gibbs, not the clever hardworking strategists at the DCCC and “associated” Super Pacs. It’s about the majority. Now that being said I do hope Liz Cheney wins her primary, as it is a Republican at large seat in deep red Wyoming. Nuance matters people!
Indeed. And how did the Democrats intervene? Not by promoting Gibbs but by truthfully exposing his craziness. Yes, they knew that meant the GOP would love him, but honestly, who's fault if that? GOP should own their voters and stop their crybabying.
I agree, and I also think that Meijer’s inability to stand his ground after the impeachment vote hurt him from both sides.
While I don't like this strategy for it's long term effects, you nonetheless make a compelling case.
This seat will not flip. Gibbs is no fool and has the Youngkin calibration down. And unless you have actually been in West Michigan recently, you can have no idea how vicious and angry the red areas are.
Meijer did not lose because the Dems (immorally and stupidly) wasted money pushing Gibbs. He lost because the people have already seceded in their hearts from the America of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Reagan. They want the America of Trump and Berlusconi and Orban. And they will not be denied.
I should also mention, in 2020 Meijer pretty convincingly defeated the same Dem challenger (Hillary Scholton) by 53 to 47. A little more than 53. The district is a little different today, but despite Grand Rapids and Muskegon county, the out county areas are redder than Lady MacBeth's hands, and the base out there has a guy on the ballot who is talking their walk, and has Sauron's endorsement. And the strategy for Hillary (who is by no means a good smash-mouth politician, more like the very nice principal you want running your kids' elementary school) is going to have to be to get Trump on the ballot to gin up the blueish discomfort with fascism of the ill-mannered sort -- but Trump on that ballot will also fire up the rural hoi polloi.
It's a +8 Biden district. Gibbs isn't winning.
We will see. Hope I'm wrong and you are right. Hilary is pretty liberal for West Michigan. She's going to be tarred with the brush of wanting open borders because she wanted to reform immigration. She is going to be hit as a groomer because she has supported LGBT rights. and uses terms like "LGBT+" on her website. The gun lobby is going to go crazy on her. She was crushed by Meijer last time, 53 to 47.
On the plus side, I haven't heard any defund the police foolishness. But that she doesn't say it or believe it won't stop anyone from painting her as having said it.
It's our job to deny them.
It also used to be the state where Moderate republicans and Democrats managed to both push their own political programs and still work together for a set of broadly shared goals.
That's a red herring and you know it. The DCCC obviously didn't oppose Meijer because they thought he would be an untrustworthy "moderate" but because they preferred to bet the farm on a Trumpist lunatic losing to a Democrat in the general election. That's not only dishonorable given their vaunted appeal to democratic ideals, it's political malpractice given the inevitable risks of any campaign. Perhaps the DCCC should donate to Donald Trump since of course he has no chance to defeat Joe Biden or Kamala Harris in a rematch.
Or maybe they just think that the difference between someone who votes to put a lunatic in charge of the House and someone who is a lunatic isn't actually different enough to warrant a distinction. For as bad as Gibbs is, at least he's honest with voters about who he is. Something Meijer can't say.
In that case they should have kept their dollars to themselves rather than waste them on a frivolous endeavor while betraying their own purported ideals.
Which ideals in particular? Because again, they don't agree with you that Meijer is some stalwart defender against Trumpism. And they have plenty of data points to back them up.
This is just wicked. The opposite of 'weak and feckless' is not kneecap your allies and shoot prisoners. The opposite of 'weak and feckless' is to play fair, be prudent (don't give money to crazies), and make the stronger moral case for your candidate and your party. I don't think you are a wicked person, Casey, to be fair. But you are playing with a wicked and Straussian hand. That's not okay. Please do better.
If "running a 100% honest attack ad about your one-time fellow-traveler's primary opponent" (because Meijer is *not* an ally) is enough to kneecap that fellow-traveler, he had bigger issues he probably should have been addressing.
Am I reading here that running ads which enumerate a candidate's positions and actions is immoral, kneecapping allies, and shooting prisoners? These ads - did they offer lies as truth? Did they paint their opponents as evil and sub-human?
Exploiting your opponents' weakness is not immoral. Republicans are the opponent. We live in the postMAGA world now. You can say it's stupid, or counter-productive to promote the weakest candidate, but the (to me, petty) moral outrage belongs in yesterday, before MAGAtimes.
I think the issue is a little different. The adds pushing Gibbs were targeted not at the general electorate which might be moved thereby toward the non-coup party, but at the deepest red meat-eaters in the MAGA-addled Republican base. The intent and effect was to get them fired up, into their pickups and out to the polling places.
In short: the Dems effectively donated money to amplify MAGA enthusiasm and committment --with negligible countervailing benefit in the general election. Those Gibbs voters are not going to stay home in November, and they aren't going to be lukewarm about their guy.
Effectively all the DNC did with that money was poke a stick into the hornets' nest.
This basically is helping Trump punish his political enemies — and it only cost him $5000! That’s a deal. It sends a message that just like Republicans, Democrats will do anything to win. Poof goes any swing voters who want to argue that dems have the moral high ground - plus some of their votes across the country. Also, one more Republican impeached punished — giving MAGA one more win. How is any of this smart? Plus what if Gibbs wins? Crazy candidates win surprisingly. Like in recent memory.
Hmm, it's a tough call and you seem to be acting the purist in a very impure environment. What's the point of leading by example when there's a 0% chance that the folks that need to take heed will do so? Yes, one's own moral choices should be internally driven, but we're talking about politics and the broader country, not whether you should steal that cookie when no one is watching.
If you could go back in time and kill 18-yr-old Hitler, would you?
You are very close to the same argument evangelicals made about supporting Trump, as in yes, one's own moral choices should be driven by a desire to emulate Christ, but we are talking about politics.
To be clear, I'm not pushing that argument, merely considering the conundrum.
But, anyhow, I'm not sure it's the same. At least not for all evangelicals. Many seem to think there's no problem: Trump is part of God's plan, so there's no point in considering if there's anything bad about Trump.
It's for the segment that feel like they're selling their souls that things getting interesting. Then you get into categorical comparisons, as well as degree. E.g. the former: is dirty pool in politics the same as promoting a politician with distinctly evil personal traits? E.g. the latter: is lying about a Whitehouse fling the same as lying about a stolen election?
The "Trump is God's plan" idea comes from the teaching that God can use evil men for His own good purposes. However, evangelicals that support Trump have distorted the teaching to mean that it is okay for Christians to help put an objectively evil man in power and then hope God will use him for God's good purposes. They also have reversed the direction of God's will. They are not supposed to substitute their own desires for God's will. Furthermore, the free will aspect of the gospel is that people are free as individuals to choose or reject "God's saving grace" and the commandments that accompany that grace. Christians are not supposed to legislatively or judicially impose those commandments on society as a whole without the explicit buy-in of that society. Nor are they supposed to attribute to God the "commandments of men." The book, "Kingdom Coming: the Rise of Christian Nationalism," documents the corrupted Gospel a number of influential evangelical preachers have been teaching for decades. Jesus' condemnation of such teachers is very strong.
I pretty much agree with you on those points, but they're largely tangential to my preceding comment. Religion can be stretched every which way, at least by many. That doesn't mean it's right or good.
"God's morals can't be understood by we mere humans."
Probably my fav catch-all: "God works in mysterious ways".
Hitler? You just did that? Seriously?
It's not an argument until someone brings Hitler in, right? :-)
Heh, no, the point was where's the tipping point between personal morals and societal utility?
I think if there is that sense that Dems have to justify that sense of bad faith they feel deep down in terms of the wickedness of the other guys, then that's too far. I think this is a pretty good compass to go by. But also if the phrase 'two clever by half' is in any way applicable, we have also probably gone too far. Check it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/03/democrats-face-blowback-after-boosting-far-right-michigan-candidate/
I certainly respect your view. It's also my default starting point for most things.
OTOH, the joke about the driver of the Pinto asserting his right-of-way against the double semi comes to mind. Principles won't do you much good if you're dead.
That isn't the situation we're in. That's why you aren't allowed to jump to "what if they were Nazis". They aren't.
Basically the ad: John Gibbs - Pro-insurrection, pro-mass shooting, pro-dead mothers.
That's an attack ad. It's not a pro-Gibbs ad.
Please read today's JVL newsletter. He goes deep into the Meijer situation.
This is dishonest of you. Who are you trying to fool, dude? From MSNBC: "The advertisement masquerades as an attack ad, but it explicitly drives home Gibbs’ own messaging by linking him to Trump and indicating that he’ll continue to back Trump’s policy agenda in Washington — all without landing any substantive criticisms other than to label him “too conservative”".
... said every Republican who voted for Trump in 2016 who thought Democrats didn't play fair and were happy to have an orange vulgarian take over the party because he could fight. This is just dumb strong man ethics pretending to be virtuous. You're better than this, Max.
Cunning is what Joe Manchin just did. This is more like giving Trump lots of free ad time on major news networks based on the idea that a crazy Republican candidate can only be good for Dems.
Nothing cunning about this. Not cunning, immoral, publicly ugly, and highly risky are all red flags for things not to do in politics.
"It's called politics"? So ... everything Trump and Republicans do is okay because it's called politics. You've lost your way my friend. I feel bad for you.
Re Wyoming - just read the results of a bill back in 1950s that passed in Congress. What absolutely surprised me was the fact that Ds held both Senate seats! (One of them for almost 20 years.) And the Wyo House member was also a D.
Ds also held the Deep South until the Reagan Era when the Repubs became the party of racism.
What bill?
Sorry, I was researching the National Western Stock Show in Denver from 1/13/50 on, so I was just skimming everything else. The "D"s shown with the WY Congressmen just caught my eye. I did a really quick skim now and didn't see it. But I did check the list of WY senators on the Senate website to confirm: https://www.senate.gov/states/WY/senators.htm. BTW, it's amazing how many of the 1950 issues sound like ours! Truman battling Congressional Rs for control of the House (yeah, they were playing games back then too), a general who took some freezer gifts being investigated by Rs (once they did care about conflicts of interest and integrity), Taiwan's independence (this was just after the Communists took control in China), flooding in the Midwest, bigots murdering black children, etc., etc. Biggest difference - you could disagree with conservative Rs, but for the most part, they had integrity and decency. Of course, every single one of them are RINOs.
Dems is 1950 were the Republicans of today. And vice versa.
What? Sorry, disagree. Most of the Dems were still the FDR New Dealers. If you mean the southern Dems, they were a small part of the party, which is why they abandoned the Dems after the Civil Rights activism of the 60s and headed to the Rs..
Yes and no. The Dixiecrats were the first Dems to head to the Republicans followed by Dixiecrat-adjacent Dems all over the country. The result is that today the deplorables call the GOP their political home. The tares are choking out the wheat.
Truman in general and on average had good approvals, but he had a low point that was lower than even Trump's lowest point. Checking the news, the cause was his nationalizing the steel industry. He thought the Korean 'war" was sufficient justification, but SCOTUS said no.
I want to emphasize your comment that the REPUBLICAN primary voters are the ones who voted for John Gibbs. For everyone blaming the Democrats, I keep replying that I live in this district and trust me, the only signs I saw for John Gibbs were in the yards of people who obviously solid (and daresay I say extreme based on all their other yard signs) Republicans.
I sometimes read "the dispatch" for free, just for David French's writings. I read comments there because I am curious what their readers think. They are supposedly sane republicans, right?
I tell ya. The majority of the comments can be categorized in these two.
1. The republican candidates are batshit crazy, but the democrats are destroying this country, so I have to vote for the republicans.
2. Both sides are equally batshit crazy and bad, so....
2-1. The democrats are also responsible for Trump being elected to POTUS. (My head exploding!)
If this is any indication, the majority of the right still think whoever has "R" next to the name is better than any democrat. So what i am trying to say is that whichever way you look at it, GOP has a voter problem!
Correction, Mentally defective voter problem.
There are actually quite a few libs there, like me...lol...some of the conservatives complain about it all the time...lol
I subscribed to the Dispatch for a while. I’d say there are quite a few Democrats too, and a decent number of “I was once Republican but never again” types. But yeah, quite a few anti-antis too
Huh, I didn't notice any of those in the comments, though the principles have talked about or referenced some of them
"Obliviously solid," you say...?
Casey Marlow is correct. Sykes, Carpenter, et al love to criticize the Ds for being inept at politics (and yes, funding the worst of the R MAGA candidates is a risky strategy), but when it pays off -- hopefully here -- Ds will have been innovative risk-takers who held their nerve and killed (metaphorically speaking) the beast. Kinda like Rs. Who knew? Apply the Tom Nichols Democracy test: Is this candidate going to vote against Kevin McCarthy as speaker? Will this candidate caucus with pro-democracy voters in the House? No? Support the the D, even if it means giving money to ensure the craziest candidate is elected. Risky, with a huge payoff if it works.
Thanks I appreciate your kind words in this case it’s not that risky tho thankfully
If I could “heart” this more than once I would. And to the people saying that Meijer was a “good” Republican, my response is that the only good Republican is a defeated one because the Republican Party is rotten to the core.
And to the folks who use Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger as examples of good Republicans, my response is that, while they are indeed Conservatives, they are no longer Republicans, as the Republican Party excommunicated them.
In my view, better to have "good Republicans" as governors, to veto craziness, and QMAGAnon Republicans in federal elections come November.
"Good Republicans"
No such thing right now.
No, a Republican who would veto a nihilistic state elections measure would be a good Republican.
Oh, has any of them done that yet?
Which outcome do you think is the better way to save our country from its current existential peril:
A) Democrats never lose an election ever for the rest of time; or
B) The Republicans regain some semblance of sanity and commitment to democracy?
Personally, I find strategy A to not really be an effective solution, because a single badly timed recession or scandal can derail it, and even if they pull it off it still might not work - an insurgency can take over a country without actually winning any elections after all. I will grant that ultimately it is on Republicans and not Democrats to make strategy B happen, and yet by promoting Gibbs over Meijer Dems are actively sabotaging strategy B. Short sighted at best.
C. Dems win HARD, the Republicans collapse, and are replaced by whatever is next. Bring on the 7th party system.
A sane Republican party is a unicorn at this point. The foundation is rotted, and the right has spent decades catering to the worst impulses of their base. What's left to salvage but nostalgia at this point? GOP delenda est.
One of the good features of the two party system that people forget: Hypermajorities always break into faction or give rise to a new challenger. the fall of the Fedralists made space for the Whigs, just as the Whigs demise proved fertile (and free) soil for the growth of the GOP.
How are those the only two choices? Especially when the first is framed in all or nothing terms, and the second is nuanced?
This is a false choice. When have we seen signs of the Republicans gaining some semblance of "sanity?" Or a commitment to democracy? The signs are all in the opposite direction at the moment.
Neither strategy is a good strategy. Neither is actually a strategy, TBH. These fall more under the heading of "I hope" (in both cases depending upon where you stand).
At some point the GoP is likely to regain control. Regaining control (and what they do with it afterwards) is what is going to make or break the GoP.
In the worst case, they regain control, turn authoritarian, rig elections, run rampant with corruption (especially if Trump and his bunch are still around), turn non-whites and non-straights, and non-Christians into second class citizens.... and people put up with it for several years before things blow up. At which point the current GoP will be effectively destroyed--the problem being that they destroyed the country in the process.
Best case--kind of similar to the worst case, but a little less visibly authoritarian and a little less open about non-whites (and other-ly gendered) being second class citizens. A bit more subtle about using the coercive power of government (and calling it freedom and liberty).
The GoP survives in the second case and a crappy status quo that is more crappy than what we currently have continues. Wealth disparity will continue to skyrocket (because that is kind of the point--that is what the rich people behind this are after) and the National-Christian-Conservative movement will continue to try and regulate people's morality and sexuality and personal behavior. LOTs of people will get "canceled."
And people will put up with it, probably for a long period of time (years, maybe even decades) until some geopolitical event (or climate collapse) puts paid to it.
The first is much messier and violent in the short term.
The second is messier and more violent over the long term--but for the initial stages it will only be those "other people" that are taking it in the shorts.
The GoP will return to "sanity" only through the collapse of their own efforts through their success in getting power (and trying to do what they say they want to do) or through being soundly trashed and losing power in something approaching the "normal" political process.
They are very unlikely to lose significant power through the normal political process, given how this country works. The Dems are always 1 election away from getting thrown out... and each election until the GoP regains control will be fraught with all of the issues we face now (only increasingly worse over time).
Our politics need restructuring badly, but the only people capable of doing it are unwilling to do so because they are the beneficiaries of the current system.
The whole fraud thing would be a moot point in most cases without the EC. It would be VERY hard to commit fraud on a level that overcomes a 3-7 million vote deficit and get away with it in a popular election.
There are a number of other steps that could reduce political extremism.
Corporations and the rich could be better citizens. Voters could become better voters.
But none of those things are going to happen and so we will get the slow rolling disaster, instead--because it is easier to enjoy the current benefits and kick that can down the road.
"B) The Republicans regain some semblance of sanity and commitment to democracy?"
I have yet to see any evidence that electing Meijer would do anything to bring this about. This far, the closest I've seen is JVL's argument that if a disaster happens, you want to be absolutely certain you have people on hand who will do the right thing. But a look at his record before and after those three weeks in January do not suggest a man who is a profile in courage. How is anyone sure he would have come through if it happens again?
Meanwhile, I know for a fact Meijer would have acted to damage sanity and commitment to democracy in a manner at least as dangerous. Every vote for Kevin McCarthy as Speaker is a vote for letting the nuts within the party free to hold their own evidence-free "election fraud hearings" over the next two years.
If my only two choices are stage 4 cancer or Covid, I guess I'll take the Covid, but I'm not going to pretend it's a beneficial choice, and if "not suffering from a horrible disease comes up," I'm going to go for that.
You are attributing too much responsibility on the democrats for Meijer losing, and to “fix” the Republican Party. Republican voters are the issue here, and they have to be the ones who have to fix themselves. Short term, beating the crap out of them electorally is the quickest way to get them to reconsider sanity and democratic norms. But when up against authoritarians, you HAVE to think short term, and take actions that maximize positive potential outcomes. The nature of authoritarianism makes long term planning difficult. But back to the issue with Michigan-3! With abortion being on the ballot in Michigan this year, a radical election denying MAGA lunatic is very unlikely to win a Biden +8 district. This is a house seat with will flip to us, very much increasing our chances of keeping the house. A democrat flipping a house seat is a much much better outcome than a “moderate” republican whose been abandoned by his party, keeping it. Democrats really didn’t sabotage option B, you’re just upset at the cynicism that must be considered when fighting against authoritarianism.
It would be redundant for me to add to this comment thread, because Casey, Charles, and Catie have said it so well. I will just quote one of them: "...the only way the Republican Party gains some semblance of sanity is for them to lose and lose and keep on losing (likely for several election cycles.). It's the only lesson that will teach them."
I think the only way the Republican party gains some semblance of sanity is for them to lose and lose and keep on losing (likely for several election cycles). It's the only lesson that will teach them.
Amen.
It may take a generation for the insanity to be erased, as Trump devotees die off.
Exactly. @Mingus Khan sets up a false choice above. The actual path is the Dems win for the next six to eight cycles until the Rs return to sanity.
And how will they return to sanity when there is no one left in their party who is sane?
Eventually the cowards who are going along to get along will get tired of losing and finally stand up to the craziness. Then they can start rebuilding.
Then what was the point of your ill-framed question in the first place?
My "ill-framed" question was meant to remind the comment section that winning races is not the ultimate goal here, and if it comes at the cost of further radicalizing the Republicans then it's not worth it.
Republicans have shown that they cannot govern without Dems leading the way, and furthermore unless the Dems have an effective check on their power, the present GOP welcomes authoritarianism. Winning races may not be the ultimate goal, but it is definitely the goal for the next few cycles.
By losing so many times that they have to resign themselves to keep losing or back off their extremely toxic policy positions.
If they're too detached from reality to do that, they deserve to keep losing.
That is kind of the point. They will basically run the exact same ad that they ran for the GoP primary--maybe even spiced up a bit.