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. ЁЯШЙЁЯН╗
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. ЁЯШЙЁЯН╗
(Correct!)