3 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
HoyaGoon's avatar

To say nothing of the dodging of the issue employed by Congressional R leadership. When asked if Obama was a Muslim (because, that would be wrong apparently?), you would never get a straight-forward response from Boehner, McConnell, Ryan, McCarthy, et al. that no he wasn't, and/or that it was irrelevant, but instead an artful "I have no reason to believe he is" or "I take him at his word that he is a Christian". In other words, NEVER deny or refute it--and thus incur the wrath of the base--but instead give a weaselly answer that does not stake you to the position, but leaves open the *possibility* it is true.

In short, it was a perfect dry-run for the evasion they would employ with Trump's tweets

Expand full comment
Midge's avatar

Thanks for naming names. Looking at the sources, back then, I would not have recognized the names named as important parts of the GOP coalition. That stuff seemed fringe to a lot of us then, leftovers of Buchananism 1.0 instead of harbingers of Buchananism 2.0. Mocking Buchananism as the senile grandpa who couldn't remember to pull his pants up from his ankles after excusing himself was even a pastime among more cosmopolitan members of the GOP. Oh, our hubris back then!

In particular, the California GOP was a state party losing power, and growing more fringe in the process. A GOP optimist at the time would have said California was evidence Buchananism was no longer going to work. Plus, "Hey, it's California. It's not like the rest of the US. People are crazy there," was a common right-wing trope at the time. In retrospect, this trope seems strategic, doesn't it?

Expand full comment