The Commish
Footballguy
There was a significant amount of empathy on display as well. They may not have cared ultimately but they took the time to understand issues from other points of view
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The future of the Republican Party: Wipeout? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
>>I’ve spent the past several months in an ongoing conversation with Romney as he’s navigated a Washington that grows more hostile by the day. Before arriving in the Senate, Romney nurtured a pleasant delusion that he could somehow avoid being defined by his relationship with Trump. He had his own policy agenda to advance, his own vision for the future of the Republican Party. He would use his platform to take a stand against Trumpism, while largely ignoring Trump himself. When I would speak with his friends and allies in Utah during last year’s campaign, there was often a certain dilettantish quality in the future Senator Romney they envisioned—a venerable elder statesman dabbling in legislation the way a retiree takes up tennis.
Instead, Romney has emerged as an outspoken dissident in Trump’s Republican Party. In just the past few weeks, he has denounced the president’s attempts to solicit dirt on political rivals from foreign governments as “wrong and appalling”; suggested that his fellow Republicans are looking the other way out of a desire for power; and condemned Trump’s troop withdrawal in Syria as a “bloodstain on the annals of American history.”
Trump has responded with a wrathful procession of personal attacks—deriding Romney as a “pompous ###,” taunting him over his failed presidential bid in 2012, and tweeting a cartoonish video that tags the senator as a “Democrat secret asset.”
These confrontations have turned Romney into one of the most closely watched figures in the impeachment battle now consuming Washington. While his fellow Republicans rail against “partisan witch hunts” and “fake whistle-blowers,” Romney is taking the prospect of a Senate trial seriously—he’s reviewing The Federalist Papers, brushing up on parliamentary procedure, and staying open to the idea that the president may need to be evicted from the Oval Office.
In the nine years I’ve been covering Romney, I’ve never seen him quite so liberated. Unconstrained by consultants, unconcerned about reelection, he is thinking about things such as legacy, and inheritance, and the grand sweep of history. Here, in the twilight of his career, he seems to sense—in a way that eludes many of his colleagues—that he’ll be remembered for what he does in this combustible moment. “I do think people will view this as an inflection point in American history,” Romney tells me.<<
The Atlantic
Instead, Romney has emerged as an outspoken dissident in Trump’s Republican Party. In just the past few weeks, he has denounced the president’s attempts to solicit dirt on political rivals from foreign governments as “wrong and appalling”; suggested that his fellow Republicans are looking the other way out of a desire for power; and condemned Trump’s troop withdrawal in Syria as a “bloodstain on the annals of American history.”
Trump has responded with a wrathful procession of personal attacks—deriding Romney as a “pompous ###,” taunting him over his failed presidential bid in 2012, and tweeting a cartoonish video that tags the senator as a “Democrat secret asset.”
These confrontations have turned Romney into one of the most closely watched figures in the impeachment battle now consuming Washington. While his fellow Republicans rail against “partisan witch hunts” and “fake whistle-blowers,” Romney is taking the prospect of a Senate trial seriously—he’s reviewing The Federalist Papers, brushing up on parliamentary procedure, and staying open to the idea that the president may need to be evicted from the Oval Office.
In the nine years I’ve been covering Romney, I’ve never seen him quite so liberated. Unconstrained by consultants, unconcerned about reelection, he is thinking about things such as legacy, and inheritance, and the grand sweep of history. Here, in the twilight of his career, he seems to sense—in a way that eludes many of his colleagues—that he’ll be remembered for what he does in this combustible moment. “I do think people will view this as an inflection point in American history,” Romney tells me.<<
The Atlantic
Last edited by a moderator:
apalmer
Footballguy
Well, since Mitt has apparently already taken the Judas title, what does that leave for Kasich--Benedict Arnold, maybe?
rockaction
Footballguy
Just the...glowing language used lets you know which is the side of the virtuous and just -- the one side, of course, the author shares with his readers and with Romney. This is like the hagiographies to Mueller.SaintsInDome2006 said:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well right (Mueller aside) and the author says as much, which is a thing in itself. IIRC Romney even outed his twitter handle in this piece. Romney wanted this out there and at this time.
rockaction
Footballguy
It's the breathless language that I suppose makes me laugh the hardest. If this guy were covering him in 2012, the tone and vocabulary would be completely different. It's a big 180 from laudatory to hostile, and I've seen it so many times from the media it's like old hat to me.
supermike80
Footballguy
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Mitt didn't out his twitter handle. He clumsily mentioned that he had a secret account, obliviously assuming that he was so clever that no one in the world could possibly figure out the username. Ashley Feinberg figured it out in about an hour.
apalmer
Footballguy
When circumstances and issues change, reasonable people can change their views and their support. The issues being discussed in 2012 are different than the issues in 2019. Because the press praised Charles Lindbergh in 1927, does that mean they should have praised his support of Hitler in 1941? Should those who praised Nixon for his China policy in 1972 not have criticized him in 1974? Should those who opposed John McCain in 2008 not be allowed to praise him for his vote on Obamacare in 2017?
rockaction
Footballguy
Of course. But that misses my point. My point was that the press is always there with hagiographies of Republican public service provided one uses one's experience to criticize the current and dominant trend within the party. This has been going on, breathlessly, since Goldwater found himself uncomfortable with Reagan's religious right. All of a sudden, he who was going to nuke Daisy was the only one not talking crazy on the right.
Same playbook, different decade, same breathless coverage of a Republican straying from the pack.
Whether Romney is correct or not is not the question. I'm simply making a point about how the coverage goes in the press.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
So is that pronounced kanus?
Is there a story there to read? Link only seems to have a headline...
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Great article on this subject, from a conservative perspective, from National Review over the weekend:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/what-do-republican-voters-want/
The writer identifies 3 types of Republicans that will be competing for control of the party after 2020:
Traditional conservatives: limited government, low taxes, socially conservative (but this latter is not stressed)
Nationalists: Anti-immigration (focused especially on anti illegal immigration), isolationist, anti-elitist
Socially liberal conservatives: fiscally conservative but libertarian on social issues, also more welcoming to science related issues like climate change, pro free trade.
It seems to me that during the Trump era the first two groups basically allied together in order to defeat both the third group and Democrats. But now that alliance is fraying somewhat (thanks in large part to Trump’s mercurial personality.)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/what-do-republican-voters-want/
The writer identifies 3 types of Republicans that will be competing for control of the party after 2020:
Traditional conservatives: limited government, low taxes, socially conservative (but this latter is not stressed)
Nationalists: Anti-immigration (focused especially on anti illegal immigration), isolationist, anti-elitist
Socially liberal conservatives: fiscally conservative but libertarian on social issues, also more welcoming to science related issues like climate change, pro free trade.
It seems to me that during the Trump era the first two groups basically allied together in order to defeat both the third group and Democrats. But now that alliance is fraying somewhat (thanks in large part to Trump’s mercurial personality.)
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I'm trying to find the link to the piece I saw this weekend, but a majority of Republicans polled, in terms of scientific credibility, believe the president more than they do the scientific community. By a pretty wide margin, too. If those polls are accurate, the socially liberal wing is not a very strong part of the GOP.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I get annoyed by the term "fiscal conservative". There is nothing cautious or conservative about ignoring huge deficits.
[scooter]
Footballguy
It seems to me that there's less of a consensus in regards to social libertarianism among Republicans. Some are tolerant of marijuana; some are tolerant of gambling and/or other vices; some are tolerant of LGBT; some are tolerant of secularism. But few are tolerant of all those things. And there's no correlation between any of those categories and science.
This is where I once thought I identified with them a bit, but I'm not sure any survived the trump era. If I thought a candidate genuinely supported this mindset, I'd be tempted to vote for him/her, but I can't vote Republican again for at least a generation. They've stood idly by during the most corrupt administration ever and that can't be forgiven.
There's nothing wrong with the term. The only problem is trying to find a modern politician that is worthy of applying it to.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
The poll I saw was pretty amazing: something like three quarters of Republicans would believe Donald Trump over the consensus scientific community if there was a difference of opinion between the two. To put this into a seasonal context, it's like your cousin with a doctorate in history was coming to your house for Thanksgiving but you dismissed his thoughts on politics because Drunk Uncle Fred sounded so sure of himself.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t believe it.
President Trump is under attack right now and a lot of Republicans are rushing to his defense out of loyalty to the party, tribalism, wanting to defeat the liberals, etc. So they’ll say they’re loyal on this stuff too. Once Trump is out of the picture, opinions on a lot of this stuff will, I believe, revert to what they were before.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Or maybe after 13 years (after Donald Jr.) or 21 years (after Ivanka) or 29 years (Eric). And after that, we'll have to see what Baron is up to.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
We can only dreamJuxtatarot said:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Oh Lindsay...
When thinking the guy was going to just compliment him...he talks.
When the man brings up Trump...ight, Imma head out.
When thinking the guy was going to just compliment him...he talks.
When the man brings up Trump...ight, Imma head out.
timschochet
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I agree we need two parties but why does the opposition party have to be the Republican Party? The two major parties can be the Bernie/Warren/AOC types versus the more moderate Dems.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Lol...why? You think two parties which ignores 50 percent of the population would work? That would only lead to a third party which would be successful.
Obama reams the Republican Party here. This is how the party to which I once belonged has become the party of hypocrites.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uLjOyyriFYs
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uLjOyyriFYs
sho nuff
Footballguy
I think he is staying smart and will remain that way and not endorse til there is a candidate chosen...and at that point will actively be campaigning for that person. I think he can make a huge difference in some places to energize voters for the Dem candidate. If Pete wins the nomination...will Obama campaigning help energize the black voters for him?
Lol...too #######g funny. You say that as if the Democratic Party isn't full of hypocrites.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Unfortunately this YouTube clip at this same event doesn’t show where Obama ridiculed Republicans for being outraged about the national debt when he was President and not at all concerned about it when it has grown with President Trump
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
The Commish
Footballguy
Seems about right. Good news is, they were all over Obama for not helping New Orleans in a timely manner after Katrina....can't get ALL of them right...come on dude!
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Jeff Van Drew offers his "undying" support for Donald Trump.
- Trump's M.O. is public announcements and as to his own he wants and demands public statements of loyalty.
- Trump's M.O. is public announcements and as to his own he wants and demands public statements of loyalty.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The author doesn't have an answer for this and I am not sure anyone does. But I do think the impeachment process offers a chance in the Senate, just as the Russia investigation and the impeachment brought forward Amash perhaps there is a Republican who might break, at least on the rules. If there is, and hopefully that's what Pelosi is working on, then put them forward as someone the Dems can work with not just in this but in other things. Leaders are made by difficult times, not born. [::wishful thinking::]
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Referring to MT's 11/23 post quoted above, I don't think the Republican Party is really interested in "governing." Less governance is kinda at the heart of the rapacious capitalism that they admire so much.
BigJim®
Footballguy
Any easy way to locate the fiscal conservatives would be electing a Democratic president. They'd come out in droves. It won't be reflective of how they actually acted under a Republican president, but they'd come out in droves.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm not sure....if the details of the new nafta are accurate, they are signing up for the exact opposite, which is kind of surprising in a not surprising way.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Of that list there was a time a year or two back I would have considered Nikki Haley but her recent comments as a strong Trump supporter have turned me off. As of now any Republican who has not been critical of this President will not be getting my vote
BladeRunner
Footballguy
[scooter]
Footballguy
ba dum tssIf you think that's bad, you should see the leading Democratic candidates today.
Similar threads
- Poll
