"But it’s now mainstream for Republicans to always put party first." No Bill, it has been mainstream for 20 years. It kills me that you continue to run cover for "normie" Republicans - they are all the same. They are for whatever brings the party power and control. Full stop.
"But it’s now mainstream for Republicans to always put party first." No Bill, it has been mainstream for 20 years. It kills me that you continue to run cover for "normie" Republicans - they are all the same. They are for whatever brings the party power and control. Full stop.
Thanks for posting this. It’s been a long time since 1993 when Gingrich told Republicans to demonize their opponents; to stop working with Democrats and that power is the only thing that matters. And the Republicans have taken this to heart, becoming more against good legislation if it is offered by a Democrat. 15 years ago McConnell basically said he won’t support any legislation from Obama to make him a one term President. And McConnell proved this as ACA, written by Republicans and implemented by a Republican Governor didn’t receive a single Republican vote, despite many, many concessions made to appease them.
Certainly since Newt Gingrich was Speaker, but the Bulwark does not do exhaustive background checks. Opposition to Trump and support for democracy--and a commitment to critical thinking-?--are the only items on the list.
Don't know that it is fair to say "The Bulwark does not do exhaustive background checks" when this comment comes from a single author, and I doubt that the editors, publishers and assorted leaders proof-read everything one of their trusted writers emits. The proof-reading/background checking is the responsibility of the person who signs the article.
Doesn't your initial comment "Certainly since Newt Gingrich...." hold someone's feet to the fire as being inaccurate (in your eyes)? I also do not understand who your mean as "we" do not hold....
I'm not trying to pick a nit with you, just understand your apparent criticism.
I'm a labor Democrat who was among the first to subscribe to the Bulwark. I was not entirely comfortable with that, being that the Bulwark's founders were Bill Kristol and other neo-cons, but I saw the need for a tactical alliance. In an emergency--house on fire, someone drowning--the imperative is to act and be effective. When I wrote "we," that was my observation of how things have gone. I do not think of myself as a comments monitor, as in "In polite society, we always place the salad fork on the left." (right?)
Tom, I never, to my recollection, voted for an R, and even refused to hang my UC Diploma because it was signed by Ronnie R. I started with the Bulwark to have an "R" view of TFG before he was TFG, just a brash, fouI-mouthed, misogynist riding down a gold-plated escalator because a good friend here in Germany commented that all of my arguments and "facts" were coming from NYT et al. So I looked for an "R" take and landed here. I liked the attempt at balance, the civility and the encouragement of similar dialogue enough to become a Founder.
That by way of my background and my feeling a need to "stand up" for the "gang". I see that your initial comment was actually two, separate thoughts which I took as one. I now understand your "limitation" to their "list". Whether I agree to limit it to those three points is fodder for another time. 😉🍻
Yes, that's the main idea, but one of the supporting reasons - "it’s now mainstream for Republicans to always put party first" - is flawed, so it weakens the main idea.
I agree with the point that the Republican Party is polluted, corrupted, disrupted. I, too, disagree with framing this as a recent development. I see the rot starting with Nixon, continuing with Reagan, reaching a glorious climax with Trump.
I totally get that from the post - my point is this is not a "new" aspect of the Republican party. It has been deeply polluted for decades. The way it was written was as though this is a new and unforseen development with "normie" Republicans when this has been out in the open since Obama.
Except that Bill saw the light years ago and was a founder of The Bulwark. I do not understand why he continues to convey the actions and behaviors of Republicans as "new." It fosters this idea that we are at the start of the fight for liberal democracy, where we are surprised by people's positions, when we know the fight for liberal democracy is really at a do or die stage.
Yeah, he also deeply contributed to the mess. Arguably that's hus lifework ( neocon hawk gives Irak and Afghanistan, Reaganism gives pandering to the racist/nativist wings for votes, he also sank the public healthcare option under Clinton) . The asterisk is his wiki entry would be the Bulwark. Good for him, but it does not outweigh the way he paved the road to extremism with the other "normies"
What I consider to distinguish new from old GOP is that the new GOP declares victory regardless of any actual counting of votes, and does not forswear political violence. Historical policy disagreements pale in comparison.
"But it’s now mainstream for Republicans to always put party first." No Bill, it has been mainstream for 20 years. It kills me that you continue to run cover for "normie" Republicans - they are all the same. They are for whatever brings the party power and control. Full stop.
Thanks for posting this. It’s been a long time since 1993 when Gingrich told Republicans to demonize their opponents; to stop working with Democrats and that power is the only thing that matters. And the Republicans have taken this to heart, becoming more against good legislation if it is offered by a Democrat. 15 years ago McConnell basically said he won’t support any legislation from Obama to make him a one term President. And McConnell proved this as ACA, written by Republicans and implemented by a Republican Governor didn’t receive a single Republican vote, despite many, many concessions made to appease them.
Certainly since Newt Gingrich was Speaker, but the Bulwark does not do exhaustive background checks. Opposition to Trump and support for democracy--and a commitment to critical thinking-?--are the only items on the list.
Don't know that it is fair to say "The Bulwark does not do exhaustive background checks" when this comment comes from a single author, and I doubt that the editors, publishers and assorted leaders proof-read everything one of their trusted writers emits. The proof-reading/background checking is the responsibility of the person who signs the article.
I think you're reading me wrong. My sense of the Bulwark is that this is an emergency and we do not hold peoples' feet to the fire about the past.
Doesn't your initial comment "Certainly since Newt Gingrich...." hold someone's feet to the fire as being inaccurate (in your eyes)? I also do not understand who your mean as "we" do not hold....
I'm not trying to pick a nit with you, just understand your apparent criticism.
PS: "Certainly since Newt Gingrich" I took to be agreeing with you, at least in part.
I'm a labor Democrat who was among the first to subscribe to the Bulwark. I was not entirely comfortable with that, being that the Bulwark's founders were Bill Kristol and other neo-cons, but I saw the need for a tactical alliance. In an emergency--house on fire, someone drowning--the imperative is to act and be effective. When I wrote "we," that was my observation of how things have gone. I do not think of myself as a comments monitor, as in "In polite society, we always place the salad fork on the left." (right?)
Tom, I never, to my recollection, voted for an R, and even refused to hang my UC Diploma because it was signed by Ronnie R. I started with the Bulwark to have an "R" view of TFG before he was TFG, just a brash, fouI-mouthed, misogynist riding down a gold-plated escalator because a good friend here in Germany commented that all of my arguments and "facts" were coming from NYT et al. So I looked for an "R" take and landed here. I liked the attempt at balance, the civility and the encouragement of similar dialogue enough to become a Founder.
That by way of my background and my feeling a need to "stand up" for the "gang". I see that your initial comment was actually two, separate thoughts which I took as one. I now understand your "limitation" to their "list". Whether I agree to limit it to those three points is fodder for another time. 😉🍻
(Correct!)
"The Republican mainstream is deeply polluted." That's the whole point of the piece.
Yes, that's the main idea, but one of the supporting reasons - "it’s now mainstream for Republicans to always put party first" - is flawed, so it weakens the main idea.
And it has been for 20 years. You guys just didn’t want to see/acknowledge it.
I agree with the point that the Republican Party is polluted, corrupted, disrupted. I, too, disagree with framing this as a recent development. I see the rot starting with Nixon, continuing with Reagan, reaching a glorious climax with Trump.
Right I think Bush 1 and Romney were normal and while wanted to do right by the country, but not enough Republicans wanted what they were selling.
I totally get that from the post - my point is this is not a "new" aspect of the Republican party. It has been deeply polluted for decades. The way it was written was as though this is a new and unforseen development with "normie" Republicans when this has been out in the open since Obama.
But if long-time normie Republicans now see the light, they do.
Except that Bill saw the light years ago and was a founder of The Bulwark. I do not understand why he continues to convey the actions and behaviors of Republicans as "new." It fosters this idea that we are at the start of the fight for liberal democracy, where we are surprised by people's positions, when we know the fight for liberal democracy is really at a do or die stage.
Really well said, Jeff.
Yeah, he also deeply contributed to the mess. Arguably that's hus lifework ( neocon hawk gives Irak and Afghanistan, Reaganism gives pandering to the racist/nativist wings for votes, he also sank the public healthcare option under Clinton) . The asterisk is his wiki entry would be the Bulwark. Good for him, but it does not outweigh the way he paved the road to extremism with the other "normies"
What I consider to distinguish new from old GOP is that the new GOP declares victory regardless of any actual counting of votes, and does not forswear political violence. Historical policy disagreements pale in comparison.