So, the Democrats' policies are their number one concern, yet they can't name one specific policy they don't like. Why are we paying attention to unserious people like this?
So, the Democrats' policies are their number one concern, yet they can't name one specific policy they don't like. Why are we paying attention to unserious people like this?
As a conservative Republican, I can certainly name Democratic policies I don't like. But could a Trumper? I doubt it. Wait...Democrats are WOKE! That's it. That's why they're bad.
Seriously, I hate that Trump and his supporters have turned my Republican Party into the Stupid Party.
We pay attention because they are the тАЬbaseтАЭ of the republican party and they can re-elect DJT for a second and democracy destroying presidency. This problem is not mysterious, it is very simple. After 30+ years of the dis-information industry spreading its bile, hiding behind the First Amendment, we no longer have a тАЬwell informedтАЭ electorate. We keep wringing our collective hands about what to do but the answer is, and always has been, to regulate all media to insure that lies, conspiracy mongering, character assassination, hate speech and innuendo are not available as тАЬnewsтАЭ or opinion. The First Amendment was not created as a poison pill to eventually destroy the republic.
The complexity of the world's economics and politics is one cause of this. Rather than develop opinions on issues by studying them, it is much easier to pick a team and just back whatever they say.
Because they vote, and there is no requirement to do so with actual knowledge of issues. And because they represent the future, that if enough of them get involved and successfully push their agenda, the rest of us will have to live with it, for years to come. It is more than just low-information voting taking place. It is a pronounced lack of critical thinking skills -- something that a good liberal arts education instills and a finance degree cannot buy.
It's about the importance of primary sources too. You can tell that woman had no respect for primary sources. She bases her opinion on other people's opinions. We editors have never been so devalued and underemployed, which is a shame because we're sorely needed out there.
You might appreciate "The Death of Expertise" (Tom Nichols, I think). His recounting of how college freshman treat PhD professors is sad and revealing. They think googling something gives them equal standing...
Most of the people that I encounter in my retirement have no concept of what is a primary source. They think itтАЩs the source that they use the most (regardless of it being secondary). I explain until IтАЩm blue in the face, but to no avail. The only real success that I ever had on the issue was with my students. They got itтАжwhich gives me hope. But my relatives, neighbors, and even some old friends, just donтАЩt get itтАжwhich gives me headache.
I read this over the weekend: "Rather than interrogating ideas, systems, and economic incentives before deciding on the political approach to achieving effective solutions, most people decide on their politics and group identity before deciding what works." Too many people focus on ideology first and only then consider possible solutions. And we wonder why we get ineffective government.
I actually was impressed that someone asked her "like what policy" that is more than any member of our free press asks a current GOP member of Congress.
Yes, it seems most of the press is still too consumed with bothsiderism. I also have experienced "I'm not happy with the way the country's going" or "Biden's making everything worse" . But they can't name a damn thing bad.
As far as the media, Nicole Wallace gets it. Brianna Keillor gets it. Mehdi Hasan gets it. We need attack dogs, folks that realize truly what the consequences are if we lose to trumpmania and facism.
Additionally, I think David Frum's comment about Proverbs 26 with dogs, vomit and fools also pertains to all of trumps followers and definitely republican leaders/enablers.
Lastly, I am starting to be concerned(actually have been concerned) that this iteration of the USA will go down in history as a very impressive attempt at liberal democracy, but with a hidden fatal flaw regarding holding the leaders and powerful to account. The constitution depended too much on "people of good faith and intentions, and the power of public shame over wrong doing.
And also possibly because of the timing of her birth, the USA could not overcome the prejudices and privileges of the people she was constituted of. It could be that we are just a stepping stone, an in between level necessary to get to where society and government ultimately need to be for true long term security and happiness over the generations.
I am not saying we shouldn't fight for what's right. I'm not quitting. It just seems that waaaay more people than I expected are willing to give up freedom for the security of keeping the future the same as the past.
I think this is correct (I hadn't thought of it being the constitution as opposed to the mythical "social contract" more generally): The constitution depended too much on "people of good faith and intentions, and the power of public shame over wrong doing.
Breanna Marsh cannot name any economic policies that "just are not good" because the Biden economy is doing very well. Low unemployment. Continued job creation. Declining inflation. Recession avoided (so far). For starters. I have two takeaways: if the economy was bad, Breanna would be shrieking about it all day long; maga is a cult that has no interest in anything that happens in the real world.
This is off topic but it is important - I agree with your post except for the word тАЬshriekingтАЭ. It is a verb exclusively used in ways that (usually unconsciously) are derogatory to woman. ItтАЩs like the adjective shrill. You never hear it to describe the speech of men. Shrill and shriek are only used when the speaker is putting women down. It attacks the woman not the argument. It is always ad hominem argument used when a woman speaker is being passionate and forceful, frequently in a legislature. Men when passionate are forceful, strong, powerful. Women when passionate are often described as shrill and shrieking, especially when the writer disagrees with what the woman says. It is a form of subconscious sexism frequently used by people who donтАЩt understand the sexist implications.
I'm a man and I describe men as shrill or shrieking. I recall just recently calling a right-wing Youtube movie critic known as the Critical Drinker increasingly shrill about his constant complaints about wokeness in movies. I just easily found this headline. San Antonio News : Shrill, Combative Donald Trump Jr. Riles Up the Base at San Antonio Campaign Rally. I'm sure people do misuse the word as you say, but I disagree with the idea that no one should say it. That's ceding the term to people who misuse it and I don't care to give them that power over my linguistic choices.
Thank you. IтАЩm a retired reporter in Canada and at one point, I covered federal politics in Ottawa. Back then there were few women Members of Parliament and the women MPs that were there had to be strong to be heard. One such was Sheila Copps. Just about every time she spoke in Parliament reporters used the word тАЬshrillтАЭ to describe her speech. As there got to be more women MPs and more women reporters, the use of the word declined. It is refreshing to hear the adjectives тАЬshrillтАЭ and тАЬshriekingтАЭ are no longer applied just to women. They are good descriptive adjectives. Maybe the time has come when they can be reclaimed for universal use no longer associated with misogyny. IтАЩll take progress where I find it.
They don't know what's happening in the real world. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, etc. never provide real news about Trump, Biden or Republicans. There is zero intellectual curiosity. These people never check out any facts. They just parrot right-wing tropes. Biden crime family, terrible economy, Trump won and is being persecuted by the deep state. I live with a cult member and I can tell you that she never pursues reality. Trump says he was entitled to the documents because of the Presidential Records Act and the cult swallow it hook, line and sinker. I suggested to my brain-addled partner that she look up the Presidential Records Act because Trump was completely misrepresenting what it says. Of course, she will never verify anything.
I agree. Rs just cannot resist being pejorative, hurtful, dishonest. Mind boggling.
Even without the "I will kill you all" Trump platform gleefully adopted by the GOP, Biden needs to "stay the course" until Europe is safe again at least temporarily. That one reason gives him my vote. Of course there are multiple other One Reasons too... Voting Straight Dem Ticket now. Because few or none of Rs can be trusted to do what they are elected to do.
Voting straight ticket is a lazy way to approach our balloting. Take the time to understand the platforms of each candidate you will vote for. Having an "R" after your name doesn't automatically make you a bad person, and having a "D" after doesn't imply that you are inherently good.
Examples? Would you consider Joe Manchin a true blue (pardon the pun) Democrat? What about Sinema (prior to leaving the party) or Rep Cuellar? From the "R" side you have Adam Kinzinger who seemed to side with his constituency (and his internal moral code) over the Party. You might not always agree with Mitt Romney, but, he too, most often sides with his voters and follows his conscience rather than march in lockstep with the Rs. Or consider Larry Hogan as an example.
Schumer wouldn't be Majority Leader right now without Manchin and Sinema, which means much of Biden's policy agenda, and many appointments, also would not have happened.
I used to think like this. I've changed my mind. Here's why: You cannot trust a GOP majority to do the job it is meant to do as opposed to wasting our money playing childish games comprised of lies and hate and vengence. And every R elected is a step farther away from returning the GOP to being an actual responsible political party. Today's Rs need to be gone and R voters need to understand that in today's dangerous and complex world, those elected to high office need to be of high moral character, need to have some relevant experience, and need to be honest. Today's Rs do NOT fit that bill overall, so I will not vote for the best of them, because having them in the Majority is too destructive. Dear heaven, a half dozen or more of them HELPED the J6 MOB!!! And are still in OFFICE!!!
So, no. Voting against the Party of Hate until further notice because it is the only way to stop it!
So, IOW, your proposal is to vote against *anyone* with an "R" after their name because the Party is so corrupted. But, at the same time, you seem to feel that they can self-correct without voting for a decent R who would add to the efforts to clean up their act.
While every MAGAdroid claims to be a Republican, not all Republicans are MAGA. By your criteria someone like Adam Kinzinger should not serve in the House solely based on what his Party affiliation is, and that people like Joe Manchin or Henry Cuellar should be seated based on the D after their names.
I'm not trying to insult you, or implying that you are wrong in your beliefs, disagreement (and then compromise) is the very essence of a democracy - or in our case, a Constitutional Republic. I just believe that there are still some decent Repubs running for a political office, at the local, state and national levels, and these people deserve some support if the New GOP is to retain any semblance of a viable party with a future in American politics.
Sadly, yes. Because having Adam and Liz helped give Rs the majority, where they can do more damage (though they did remarkable damage in the minority too), and the only way to stop the Gohmerts and Hawleys is to stop the Rs from winning or stealing elections and giving themselves the majority despite their unpopular views and minority numbers overall. This should only take 8 years if it was really done right.
And they need a shock treatment, imho!
PS: R state legislatures are doing a TON of damage to voting rights nationwide too!!!!
Again, you would deny a normie the chance to work within the Republican Party in trying to resurrect the ruins we now see. The only way, IMO, to restore any integrity to the New GOP is to replace the Psychiatric Facility Escapee Caucus members with Republicans who understand the concept of legislation for the good of the entire country, and aren't just there to own the Libs and practice political theater targeting their rabid base. (These people do exist.) If the centrist wing of the New GOP is voted out of swing districts, all that will remain are the MAGAdroids from safe districts, and this will assuredly kill the Party.
Please do not interpret this as a push to vote R, but to consider looking at a moderate Republican rather than just voting Democrat since Dems can be extremists, too.
It really isn't imperative to vote out all Republicans to make the Dems the majority in the House, but it is essential for the Republicans to remain a viable party while ridding themselves of the bomb throwers. If there is no voice from the opposition then there is no real democracy. The only way that voice will be heard is by voting for them - should their position statements meld with your own stance.
I said it before, and I will say it again: just because you have a D after your name doesn't automatically make you one of the good guys. and having an R doesn't make you a villain.
Max, I don't know if it was intentional, but I am offended that you appear to castigate me as being a low-info voter: "I have and continue to educate myself on whatтАЩs going on[,]" as have I for done the same since '72 - and as I suggest in my post: I "Take the time to understand the platforms of each candidate [I] will vote for."
IMO, most newbies running for a political office join the party that is dominant in the jurisdiction in which they wish to run. In many cases the party chosen was/is an expediency and not necessarily representative of the true convictions of the potential candidate.
My political history is not as an independent throughout. I was a Repub - I even served two years on my county's Republican Steering Committee - until 1986 when the stench of Neocons no longer just wafted out of Reagan's WH but flowed freely. I became a libertarian - in the non-pejorative sense as seen in the 20th Century. Since the early 2000s I have followed Conservative Liberalism (for those that think that this is not a thing try googling it).
I have not, nor do I plan to, vote without researching the candidates' positions in relation to my own, nor do I vote for propositions without understanding both the short and long term ramifications. I just believe that in order to take a responsible position it behooves one to do some digging prior to voting. (IMO, it was a lack of research both at the primary and at the general election levels that gave us the Apricot Arthropod. Even a simple look at his stances should have shown that there was no way he was qualified to be POTUS.)
"YOU started the convo by accusing anyone voting one party down the ballot as being too lazy to do research. And as I said, I read political article/books every day and see the Republican Party growing worse and worse which tells me IтАЩm unlikely to ever vote for any R for the rest of my [sic]."
If you did the research and still vote straight ticket, then you are an exception to the rule. A predominant number of people, from either major party, believe that pulling the lever (or filling in a bubble on a ballot) for all candidates from one's tribe is the sound way to vote. It is these people who I would refer to as low-info - or no info - voters. I have no problem with you, or anyone else, who, after educating themselves of their various options, still thinks it is in their best interest to vote D or R all the way up and down the ballot.
As for the supposed leadership of the New GOP, especially in the House, it does show an incredible lack of desire to push back against the Apricot Arthropod: just like MyKevin, Scalise, Stefanic, Jordan, Comer... spend all of their time and energy defending the indefensible while ignoring their constituencies. When it comes to MTG and her dick pics, I've previously said that she should be sitting in a holding cell in the DC jail for violating laws in 46 states and DC regarding the use of revenge porn - and since she did not have approvals from either person in the pic that's exactly what her goal was, to seek revenge on anyone named Biden on behalf of the Tangerine Tyrant.
"As to R тАЬnewbiesтАЭ, they either cede their power to whatever the experienced Rs demand or they have no seat at any table." At the national level, and to some extent the state level, you are correct that the newbies need to kowtow to the senior members (both in time serving in Congress and age) if they want to propose any legislation and get it to move. But I know a good number of Rs who have run and been elected at the local level who are in vocal opposition to the MAGAdroids and all of their tendencies to force their minority beliefs on the rest of us. These are the politicians who, in a few years, likely will be aiming for either state or national positions. They stand no chance to make a difference if they don't get some support from the home front.
FWIW, I have very strong feelings towards keeping our democracy alive and kicking, and that, in a nutshell, is why I think it is necessary to support non-MAGA Repubs in their quest to restore the New GOP to a sustainable, viable party.
BTW, as I look back over the last twenty years at least, I can count on one hand the number of Repubs I have voted for, and none were running at the national level. There are still some decent Republicans and they need the help of everyone if they are to take back their Party from the alt-right extremists.
I also believe that a third party needs to be established, but not in '24. Any third party candidate for POTUS will most likely draw a few Ds and Rs, but will ultimately hand the WH to the MAGAdroids. And most definitely, no one from the No Labels group should be allowed on any ballot until they show us who their biggest donors are - most of which seems to be Republican dark money.
This, too, will be my final response. In a democracy, or a Constitutional Republic, a difference of opinion is both expected and welcome. The right to have your say by how you vote is one of the highest freedoms we enjoy - unless you live in a ruby red state trying to disenfranchise your voice illegitimately.
I do not begrudge you your stance on straight party voting. You seem to have done your proverbial homework (even though it is not for me to say in a one to one dialog like this), and have come by your opinions honestly. I am not being condescending, I admire anyone willing to put in the time to have an informed opinion.
In the long run, you are not my target audience when I refer to those who vote blindly for their preferred tribe. IDK if you read the WaPo but there is a sub-demographic of commenters there that just repeat the major talking points of a story, putting what they consider key phrases in all caps, bold or both, sign off - almost always in all caps here - "REMEMBER VOTE ONLY BLUE IN 24" and then sit back to count the likes.
Anyway, I sincerely wish you luck on keeping Ohio at the very least purple and surviving JD Vance. BTW, my family originally hailed from NE Ohio; mostly Cleveland and Youngstown.
After watching the excellent clip you provided, I spotted another vid off to the right: Dan Goldman questioning the two IRS "whistelblowers" a couple weeks ago. He makes the same point regarding Joe and Hunter, but in detail and with reference to documents and testimony.
My son assured me his girlfriend voted ЁЯЩД I'm going to try and tell them (someone on Substack said this) when they don't vote then the other guy's vote counts twice?
Take the smart ones. The ones who ought to know better. The ones who would have recoiled against any of the stuff Trump does on a daily basis if it was done by a Democrat. Strap them in a chair. Hold their eyelids open and just make them watch and listen to their chosen candidate. Pick a speech. Any speech. (My recommendation would be the "frankly we did win this election" speech, but any will do.) Repeat until they come around.
I am highly pessimistic of the prospect of injecting reality into them.
The urgent task to me is to awaken the oblivious to the danger and rally them to confront it. It is urgent that the decent and sensible of all political leanings and none at all тАУ the Bulwark community writ large тАУ come together to do this.
The Open Letter in Defense of Democracy was a wonderful document.
The worst part is the Republican party is actively selecting future leaders steeped in ignorance with this "anti-woke" crap, and then your party ends up with nothing but MTGs and Lauren Boeberts and George Santos types in office.
At which point they will still refuse to hold a post-mortem to try to figure out how they got so screwed up in the first place. They will, in the end, decide that it wasn't anything that they did wrong - because in their minds they didn't do *anything* wrong - and that the American electorate just don't know what's good for them. They will double down on their efforts to turn this country into one with good "Christian" ethics, with them being the arbiters of what is good or bad based on their misinterpretation of the New Testament. They will not rest until they have turned us into a theocracy and with all of us who disagree interned in re-education camps until we learn our lesson.
I remember after they lost seats in the House and Senate after the 2012 election, at CPAC they held a "post-mortem" forum on why they couldn't attract more Latino voters. Besides the people on the stage, it looked like about 12 people showed up.
They've needed a post mortem since Trump got elected in 2016.
Agree. But, I contend that they will still not hold a post mortem after they (hopefully and likely) lose again in '24. The New GOP is not able to hold a true introspection any more than the Apricot Arthropod could.
As Lord Buckley said about the Cabeza de Baca (тАЬThe GasserтАЭ) expedition throughout North America in the early 16th century: тАЬThey didnтАЩt know where they was going, but they knew where they was wasnтАЩt it!тАЭ
So, the Democrats' policies are their number one concern, yet they can't name one specific policy they don't like. Why are we paying attention to unserious people like this?
Because unfortunately, their votes count just as much as ours.
As a conservative Republican, I can certainly name Democratic policies I don't like. But could a Trumper? I doubt it. Wait...Democrats are WOKE! That's it. That's why they're bad.
Seriously, I hate that Trump and his supporters have turned my Republican Party into the Stupid Party.
Good question!
because they vote?
We pay attention because they are the тАЬbaseтАЭ of the republican party and they can re-elect DJT for a second and democracy destroying presidency. This problem is not mysterious, it is very simple. After 30+ years of the dis-information industry spreading its bile, hiding behind the First Amendment, we no longer have a тАЬwell informedтАЭ electorate. We keep wringing our collective hands about what to do but the answer is, and always has been, to regulate all media to insure that lies, conspiracy mongering, character assassination, hate speech and innuendo are not available as тАЬnewsтАЭ or opinion. The First Amendment was not created as a poison pill to eventually destroy the republic.
Because they vote.
We're paying attention because the crime is still "in progress."
The complexity of the world's economics and politics is one cause of this. Rather than develop opinions on issues by studying them, it is much easier to pick a team and just back whatever they say.
Because they vote, and there is no requirement to do so with actual knowledge of issues. And because they represent the future, that if enough of them get involved and successfully push their agenda, the rest of us will have to live with it, for years to come. It is more than just low-information voting taking place. It is a pronounced lack of critical thinking skills -- something that a good liberal arts education instills and a finance degree cannot buy.
It's about the importance of primary sources too. You can tell that woman had no respect for primary sources. She bases her opinion on other people's opinions. We editors have never been so devalued and underemployed, which is a shame because we're sorely needed out there.
You might appreciate "The Death of Expertise" (Tom Nichols, I think). His recounting of how college freshman treat PhD professors is sad and revealing. They think googling something gives them equal standing...
Yes, I loved both of Nichols books. He's got a real "get off my lawn" energy that I appreciate. (I'm not kidding. Someone has to be the curmudgeon.)
Agreed.
Most of the people that I encounter in my retirement have no concept of what is a primary source. They think itтАЩs the source that they use the most (regardless of it being secondary). I explain until IтАЩm blue in the face, but to no avail. The only real success that I ever had on the issue was with my students. They got itтАжwhich gives me hope. But my relatives, neighbors, and even some old friends, just donтАЩt get itтАжwhich gives me headache.
I read this over the weekend: "Rather than interrogating ideas, systems, and economic incentives before deciding on the political approach to achieving effective solutions, most people decide on their politics and group identity before deciding what works." Too many people focus on ideology first and only then consider possible solutions. And we wonder why we get ineffective government.
Because they vote silly!
I actually was impressed that someone asked her "like what policy" that is more than any member of our free press asks a current GOP member of Congress.
Yes, it seems most of the press is still too consumed with bothsiderism. I also have experienced "I'm not happy with the way the country's going" or "Biden's making everything worse" . But they can't name a damn thing bad.
As far as the media, Nicole Wallace gets it. Brianna Keillor gets it. Mehdi Hasan gets it. We need attack dogs, folks that realize truly what the consequences are if we lose to trumpmania and facism.
Additionally, I think David Frum's comment about Proverbs 26 with dogs, vomit and fools also pertains to all of trumps followers and definitely republican leaders/enablers.
Lastly, I am starting to be concerned(actually have been concerned) that this iteration of the USA will go down in history as a very impressive attempt at liberal democracy, but with a hidden fatal flaw regarding holding the leaders and powerful to account. The constitution depended too much on "people of good faith and intentions, and the power of public shame over wrong doing.
And also possibly because of the timing of her birth, the USA could not overcome the prejudices and privileges of the people she was constituted of. It could be that we are just a stepping stone, an in between level necessary to get to where society and government ultimately need to be for true long term security and happiness over the generations.
I am not saying we shouldn't fight for what's right. I'm not quitting. It just seems that waaaay more people than I expected are willing to give up freedom for the security of keeping the future the same as the past.
I think this is correct (I hadn't thought of it being the constitution as opposed to the mythical "social contract" more generally): The constitution depended too much on "people of good faith and intentions, and the power of public shame over wrong doing.
The answer would be the policy based on Marxism, socialism, fascism, and anti-Christianism.
Breanna Marsh cannot name any economic policies that "just are not good" because the Biden economy is doing very well. Low unemployment. Continued job creation. Declining inflation. Recession avoided (so far). For starters. I have two takeaways: if the economy was bad, Breanna would be shrieking about it all day long; maga is a cult that has no interest in anything that happens in the real world.
This is off topic but it is important - I agree with your post except for the word тАЬshriekingтАЭ. It is a verb exclusively used in ways that (usually unconsciously) are derogatory to woman. ItтАЩs like the adjective shrill. You never hear it to describe the speech of men. Shrill and shriek are only used when the speaker is putting women down. It attacks the woman not the argument. It is always ad hominem argument used when a woman speaker is being passionate and forceful, frequently in a legislature. Men when passionate are forceful, strong, powerful. Women when passionate are often described as shrill and shrieking, especially when the writer disagrees with what the woman says. It is a form of subconscious sexism frequently used by people who donтАЩt understand the sexist implications.
I'm a man and I describe men as shrill or shrieking. I recall just recently calling a right-wing Youtube movie critic known as the Critical Drinker increasingly shrill about his constant complaints about wokeness in movies. I just easily found this headline. San Antonio News : Shrill, Combative Donald Trump Jr. Riles Up the Base at San Antonio Campaign Rally. I'm sure people do misuse the word as you say, but I disagree with the idea that no one should say it. That's ceding the term to people who misuse it and I don't care to give them that power over my linguistic choices.
Thank you. IтАЩm a retired reporter in Canada and at one point, I covered federal politics in Ottawa. Back then there were few women Members of Parliament and the women MPs that were there had to be strong to be heard. One such was Sheila Copps. Just about every time she spoke in Parliament reporters used the word тАЬshrillтАЭ to describe her speech. As there got to be more women MPs and more women reporters, the use of the word declined. It is refreshing to hear the adjectives тАЬshrillтАЭ and тАЬshriekingтАЭ are no longer applied just to women. They are good descriptive adjectives. Maybe the time has come when they can be reclaimed for universal use no longer associated with misogyny. IтАЩll take progress where I find it.
They don't know what's happening in the real world. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, etc. never provide real news about Trump, Biden or Republicans. There is zero intellectual curiosity. These people never check out any facts. They just parrot right-wing tropes. Biden crime family, terrible economy, Trump won and is being persecuted by the deep state. I live with a cult member and I can tell you that she never pursues reality. Trump says he was entitled to the documents because of the Presidential Records Act and the cult swallow it hook, line and sinker. I suggested to my brain-addled partner that she look up the Presidential Records Act because Trump was completely misrepresenting what it says. Of course, she will never verify anything.
I agree. Rs just cannot resist being pejorative, hurtful, dishonest. Mind boggling.
Even without the "I will kill you all" Trump platform gleefully adopted by the GOP, Biden needs to "stay the course" until Europe is safe again at least temporarily. That one reason gives him my vote. Of course there are multiple other One Reasons too... Voting Straight Dem Ticket now. Because few or none of Rs can be trusted to do what they are elected to do.
Exactly.
"VOTE DEM ALL DOWN THE BALLOTS"
-----
Voting straight ticket is a lazy way to approach our balloting. Take the time to understand the platforms of each candidate you will vote for. Having an "R" after your name doesn't automatically make you a bad person, and having a "D" after doesn't imply that you are inherently good.
Examples? Would you consider Joe Manchin a true blue (pardon the pun) Democrat? What about Sinema (prior to leaving the party) or Rep Cuellar? From the "R" side you have Adam Kinzinger who seemed to side with his constituency (and his internal moral code) over the Party. You might not always agree with Mitt Romney, but, he too, most often sides with his voters and follows his conscience rather than march in lockstep with the Rs. Or consider Larry Hogan as an example.
Bottom line: vote the *person*, not the Party.
fnord
Schumer wouldn't be Majority Leader right now without Manchin and Sinema, which means much of Biden's policy agenda, and many appointments, also would not have happened.
I used to think like this. I've changed my mind. Here's why: You cannot trust a GOP majority to do the job it is meant to do as opposed to wasting our money playing childish games comprised of lies and hate and vengence. And every R elected is a step farther away from returning the GOP to being an actual responsible political party. Today's Rs need to be gone and R voters need to understand that in today's dangerous and complex world, those elected to high office need to be of high moral character, need to have some relevant experience, and need to be honest. Today's Rs do NOT fit that bill overall, so I will not vote for the best of them, because having them in the Majority is too destructive. Dear heaven, a half dozen or more of them HELPED the J6 MOB!!! And are still in OFFICE!!!
So, no. Voting against the Party of Hate until further notice because it is the only way to stop it!
So, IOW, your proposal is to vote against *anyone* with an "R" after their name because the Party is so corrupted. But, at the same time, you seem to feel that they can self-correct without voting for a decent R who would add to the efforts to clean up their act.
While every MAGAdroid claims to be a Republican, not all Republicans are MAGA. By your criteria someone like Adam Kinzinger should not serve in the House solely based on what his Party affiliation is, and that people like Joe Manchin or Henry Cuellar should be seated based on the D after their names.
I'm not trying to insult you, or implying that you are wrong in your beliefs, disagreement (and then compromise) is the very essence of a democracy - or in our case, a Constitutional Republic. I just believe that there are still some decent Repubs running for a political office, at the local, state and national levels, and these people deserve some support if the New GOP is to retain any semblance of a viable party with a future in American politics.
fnord
Sadly, yes. Because having Adam and Liz helped give Rs the majority, where they can do more damage (though they did remarkable damage in the minority too), and the only way to stop the Gohmerts and Hawleys is to stop the Rs from winning or stealing elections and giving themselves the majority despite their unpopular views and minority numbers overall. This should only take 8 years if it was really done right.
And they need a shock treatment, imho!
PS: R state legislatures are doing a TON of damage to voting rights nationwide too!!!!
Again, you would deny a normie the chance to work within the Republican Party in trying to resurrect the ruins we now see. The only way, IMO, to restore any integrity to the New GOP is to replace the Psychiatric Facility Escapee Caucus members with Republicans who understand the concept of legislation for the good of the entire country, and aren't just there to own the Libs and practice political theater targeting their rabid base. (These people do exist.) If the centrist wing of the New GOP is voted out of swing districts, all that will remain are the MAGAdroids from safe districts, and this will assuredly kill the Party.
Please do not interpret this as a push to vote R, but to consider looking at a moderate Republican rather than just voting Democrat since Dems can be extremists, too.
It really isn't imperative to vote out all Republicans to make the Dems the majority in the House, but it is essential for the Republicans to remain a viable party while ridding themselves of the bomb throwers. If there is no voice from the opposition then there is no real democracy. The only way that voice will be heard is by voting for them - should their position statements meld with your own stance.
I said it before, and I will say it again: just because you have a D after your name doesn't automatically make you one of the good guys. and having an R doesn't make you a villain.
fnord
Kinzinger and Cheney voted for and supported Trump in 2020.
They need to be made a rump party until they figure their shit out.
Max, I don't know if it was intentional, but I am offended that you appear to castigate me as being a low-info voter: "I have and continue to educate myself on whatтАЩs going on[,]" as have I for done the same since '72 - and as I suggest in my post: I "Take the time to understand the platforms of each candidate [I] will vote for."
IMO, most newbies running for a political office join the party that is dominant in the jurisdiction in which they wish to run. In many cases the party chosen was/is an expediency and not necessarily representative of the true convictions of the potential candidate.
My political history is not as an independent throughout. I was a Repub - I even served two years on my county's Republican Steering Committee - until 1986 when the stench of Neocons no longer just wafted out of Reagan's WH but flowed freely. I became a libertarian - in the non-pejorative sense as seen in the 20th Century. Since the early 2000s I have followed Conservative Liberalism (for those that think that this is not a thing try googling it).
I have not, nor do I plan to, vote without researching the candidates' positions in relation to my own, nor do I vote for propositions without understanding both the short and long term ramifications. I just believe that in order to take a responsible position it behooves one to do some digging prior to voting. (IMO, it was a lack of research both at the primary and at the general election levels that gave us the Apricot Arthropod. Even a simple look at his stances should have shown that there was no way he was qualified to be POTUS.)
fnord
Max,
"YOU started the convo by accusing anyone voting one party down the ballot as being too lazy to do research. And as I said, I read political article/books every day and see the Republican Party growing worse and worse which tells me IтАЩm unlikely to ever vote for any R for the rest of my [sic]."
If you did the research and still vote straight ticket, then you are an exception to the rule. A predominant number of people, from either major party, believe that pulling the lever (or filling in a bubble on a ballot) for all candidates from one's tribe is the sound way to vote. It is these people who I would refer to as low-info - or no info - voters. I have no problem with you, or anyone else, who, after educating themselves of their various options, still thinks it is in their best interest to vote D or R all the way up and down the ballot.
As for the supposed leadership of the New GOP, especially in the House, it does show an incredible lack of desire to push back against the Apricot Arthropod: just like MyKevin, Scalise, Stefanic, Jordan, Comer... spend all of their time and energy defending the indefensible while ignoring their constituencies. When it comes to MTG and her dick pics, I've previously said that she should be sitting in a holding cell in the DC jail for violating laws in 46 states and DC regarding the use of revenge porn - and since she did not have approvals from either person in the pic that's exactly what her goal was, to seek revenge on anyone named Biden on behalf of the Tangerine Tyrant.
"As to R тАЬnewbiesтАЭ, they either cede their power to whatever the experienced Rs demand or they have no seat at any table." At the national level, and to some extent the state level, you are correct that the newbies need to kowtow to the senior members (both in time serving in Congress and age) if they want to propose any legislation and get it to move. But I know a good number of Rs who have run and been elected at the local level who are in vocal opposition to the MAGAdroids and all of their tendencies to force their minority beliefs on the rest of us. These are the politicians who, in a few years, likely will be aiming for either state or national positions. They stand no chance to make a difference if they don't get some support from the home front.
FWIW, I have very strong feelings towards keeping our democracy alive and kicking, and that, in a nutshell, is why I think it is necessary to support non-MAGA Repubs in their quest to restore the New GOP to a sustainable, viable party.
BTW, as I look back over the last twenty years at least, I can count on one hand the number of Repubs I have voted for, and none were running at the national level. There are still some decent Republicans and they need the help of everyone if they are to take back their Party from the alt-right extremists.
I also believe that a third party needs to be established, but not in '24. Any third party candidate for POTUS will most likely draw a few Ds and Rs, but will ultimately hand the WH to the MAGAdroids. And most definitely, no one from the No Labels group should be allowed on any ballot until they show us who their biggest donors are - most of which seems to be Republican dark money.
fnord
This, too, will be my final response. In a democracy, or a Constitutional Republic, a difference of opinion is both expected and welcome. The right to have your say by how you vote is one of the highest freedoms we enjoy - unless you live in a ruby red state trying to disenfranchise your voice illegitimately.
I do not begrudge you your stance on straight party voting. You seem to have done your proverbial homework (even though it is not for me to say in a one to one dialog like this), and have come by your opinions honestly. I am not being condescending, I admire anyone willing to put in the time to have an informed opinion.
In the long run, you are not my target audience when I refer to those who vote blindly for their preferred tribe. IDK if you read the WaPo but there is a sub-demographic of commenters there that just repeat the major talking points of a story, putting what they consider key phrases in all caps, bold or both, sign off - almost always in all caps here - "REMEMBER VOTE ONLY BLUE IN 24" and then sit back to count the likes.
Anyway, I sincerely wish you luck on keeping Ohio at the very least purple and surviving JD Vance. BTW, my family originally hailed from NE Ohio; mostly Cleveland and Youngstown.
fnord
Enjoy this clip of Brianna Keiler, whose name I likely misspelled.
https://youtu.be/YgqJpq4-4XU
Way to go, Brianna! That was sweet, thanks for sharing!
After watching the excellent clip you provided, I spotted another vid off to the right: Dan Goldman questioning the two IRS "whistelblowers" a couple weeks ago. He makes the same point regarding Joe and Hunter, but in detail and with reference to documents and testimony.
Goldman has become my favorite member of Congress.
Smart, articulate, and unceasingly willing to expose the ignorance/stupidity of ReTrumplican't backbenchers.
Mine too!
I think she uses two 'l's. The clip is great, Sessions loses bigly; I'm surprised he stayed with it as long as he did.
Because they're influencing millions of other people to follow a lunatic and turn our government into a private retribution arm.
We need to pay attention to them. We need to engage them and inject some reality into them, however we can.
I can't get my millennial kids to vote. I just keep on them and they genuinely just don't care. ЁЯТФ
My wife keeps pushing our son to register. I think he will before November of 24, but I'm not betting the farm on him actually voting.
My son assured me his girlfriend voted ЁЯЩД I'm going to try and tell them (someone on Substack said this) when they don't vote then the other guy's vote counts twice?
You could go full Clockwork Orange on them and I donтАЩt think you could inject reality into them
If I was in charge, that would happen.
Take the smart ones. The ones who ought to know better. The ones who would have recoiled against any of the stuff Trump does on a daily basis if it was done by a Democrat. Strap them in a chair. Hold their eyelids open and just make them watch and listen to their chosen candidate. Pick a speech. Any speech. (My recommendation would be the "frankly we did win this election" speech, but any will do.) Repeat until they come around.
The real question is how many of them there really are and where are they electorally?
I am highly pessimistic of the prospect of injecting reality into them.
The urgent task to me is to awaken the oblivious to the danger and rally them to confront it. It is urgent that the decent and sensible of all political leanings and none at all тАУ the Bulwark community writ large тАУ come together to do this.
The Open Letter in Defense of Democracy was a wonderful document.
We need more like it, insistent and relentless.
https://www.thebulwark.com/an-open-letter-in-defense-of-democracy/
ThatтАЩs a tall order. IтАЩve tried. It wasnтАЩt family. It was futile and didnтАЩt end well.
"Why are we paying attention to unserious people like this?"
Because they are moving the country from liberalism to fascism, and they are making progress?
The worst part is the Republican party is actively selecting future leaders steeped in ignorance with this "anti-woke" crap, and then your party ends up with nothing but MTGs and Lauren Boeberts and George Santos types in office.
At which point they will still refuse to hold a post-mortem to try to figure out how they got so screwed up in the first place. They will, in the end, decide that it wasn't anything that they did wrong - because in their minds they didn't do *anything* wrong - and that the American electorate just don't know what's good for them. They will double down on their efforts to turn this country into one with good "Christian" ethics, with them being the arbiters of what is good or bad based on their misinterpretation of the New Testament. They will not rest until they have turned us into a theocracy and with all of us who disagree interned in re-education camps until we learn our lesson.
fnord
I remember after they lost seats in the House and Senate after the 2012 election, at CPAC they held a "post-mortem" forum on why they couldn't attract more Latino voters. Besides the people on the stage, it looked like about 12 people showed up.
They've needed a post mortem since Trump got elected in 2016.
Agree. But, I contend that they will still not hold a post mortem after they (hopefully and likely) lose again in '24. The New GOP is not able to hold a true introspection any more than the Apricot Arthropod could.
fnord
Isn't that the truth?
Because we have a 2 party system/norm even if one of the parties is batshit crazy.
"Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?" "Whaddaya got?"
тАЬWe donтАЩt go anywhere, man. We just go!тАЭ
"We're lost! But we're making good time!"
As Lord Buckley said about the Cabeza de Baca (тАЬThe GasserтАЭ) expedition throughout North America in the early 16th century: тАЬThey didnтАЩt know where they was going, but they knew where they was wasnтАЩt it!тАЭ