Donald Trump has ALWAYS ‘done what he had to do’ for HIMSELF and his OWN Good…
Remember ….
Donald Trump did a hostile takeover of the Grand ole’ Party…
A lot of Republican lawmakers are NOT Trump’s friends…
They have supported him thru fear for their jobs from voters back home
“I have to do what I have to do.”
That was President Donald Trump on Monday, resurfacing in public following one of the most turbulent weeks of his presidency — and perhaps the first when congressional Republicans really let their frustrations show.
Even after he backed down on holding next year’s G-7 summit at his Doral resort in South Florida in the face of GOP objections, Trump signaled anew that he has no plans to change his approach. But increasingly, his insistence that he is right is turning off Republicans on Capitol Hill…
…
“But two things they have: They’re vicious and they stick together,” he said, sounding almost like a sports coach giving a pep talk rather than a commander in chief. “They don’t have Mitt Romney in their midst. … You never see someone break out.” That ignores several Democrats who have voiced support only for an impeachment inquiry or have said they still need more information to make a decision…
…
Political observers say there are cracks in the Republican-Trump alliance.
“The thing about tipping points is you never know you’re in one, until you’re actually in one,” said Ken Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Are we at least likely moving toward a tipping point? It’s more likely today than it was a few months ago.”
David Brady, a political science professor at Stanford, said all signs point to a fed-up GOP caucus, suggesting Trump keeps putting himself in a more and more precarious position.
“If the entire Congress, and especially Republicans, had an anonymous ballot vote today, he would be gone,” Brady said. “They’re tired of the ups and downs and all of the shenanigans.”…
Donald Trump , showing his true insensitivity to race goes there….
Conjuring memories of racially motivated murders and drawing an immediate bipartisan backlash, President Donald Trump on Tuesday described House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry as a “lynching.”
Trump made the statement in a morning tweet that began with a warning that “if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights.”
Then, for reasons that remain unclear, he opted to poke unhealed wounds from America’s difficult — and bloody — racial history, writing: “All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching. But we will WIN!”
Note….
With Trump twisting in the wind?
What’s the hurry to have a House vote on impeachment?
Update….
Joe Biden denounced President Trump’s comparison of the ongoing impeachment inquiry to a “lynching,” but in a 1998 interview, the then-senator from Delaware also invoked the term in reference to impeachment, calling it a “partisan lynching,” CNN reports….
image…President Donald Trump makes remarks during the inaugural meeting of the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council with Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy Joe Grogan, left, and council Executive Director Scott Turner in the Cabinet Room at the White House in April. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images file photo)
And what will Republicans do about it?
Except say they ate “concerned” and go on supporting this embarrassment of a President.
Or they can go the Lindsey Graham route and just agree that yes, this rich white guy being held accountable for hos actions is indeed beibg “lynched”.
I guess that’s one way to get back up in that orange ass.
Link
http://nypost.com/2019/10/22/lindsey-graham-agrees-with-trump-says-impeachment-is-a-lynching/
Let’s go instead the Adam Kinzinger (also quoted in the link) route.
Needless to say, what Trump said was despicable and inaccurate (and in no way related to claim that Clarence Thomas made about a “high-tech lynching” which was very aptly explained by him.)
If Trump is impeached in the House, he will have the right to a full legal defense in the Senate per the Constitution. The consequences of the vote have no bearing on his right to live or to his personal freedom. He would simply be out of a job. He’s fired plenty of people himself to know that sometimes that has to happen.
He just really, really, really does not want to be impeached because of ego. The Democrats who fought this kicking and screaming for so long should keep that in mind.
I agree on the ego worry that would also put him in the history books next to guy who attended his last wedding with his wife ….
Bill Clinton…
You realize rhe entire Democratic Party aside from oddballs like Tulsi Gabbard are now for impeachment.
Why are you telling at Democrats because some were slow to get to the party when Republicans are either in their PJs for the night or are too afraid to RSVP?
I had to work on most of you here to bring you around.
I was for it months ago!
I think I should be honored for being the first to take this stance in the sidebar
Well good for you.
Thank you for the GFY.
When they say that to me at HHR, it means something else.
Except for Pelosi who wasn’t and still isn’t but is being dragged into it….
As Jack has pointed out?
Lindsey will only go but so far out on a limb against Trump before scurrying back
Graham is getting it from both ends.
Reportedly, Rush Limbaugh is on the air blasting Graham for not doing more to save Trump and insisting that Graham is afraid to do so because an investigation will reveal massive corruption by… John McCain.
Graham will fall back into line quickly.
He’s still “ suspect” among the Republicans in S.C. which is totally dominated by Trumpists.
There are several candidates who want to oppose him in the primary,among them John Warren ,who was runner up in the Republican Gubernatorial primary in 2018.
They have been stymied because of Lindsay’s full devotion to the Leader.Any hint from Trump that he isn’t too pleased with Graham could find him facing a real opponent in the primary.
Well there’s your shining example of why I think Trunpism won’t simply gplo away in the GOP–Rush Limbaugh.
He has been ginning up Republicans for almost 30 years.
Each prominent national GOP politician got a little bit closet to full embrace of Rush and his Dittoheads–but they always kept their distance. Until Trump. Suddenly these folks didn’t have to rein it in anymore. No more racial dog whistles–now they had bullhorns.
No shirt no shoes? No problem!
People like Limbaugh were shaking up the Coke bottle for years. With Trump it finally opened up. How do you get the soda back in and have it be as it was before?
Limbaugh’s ratings are a shell of what they used to be.
He’ll turn on Trump in an instant once Trump is gone just to try to keep relevant.
Despite all these largely irrelevant “what if’s?”
The odds of Trump being removed from office are extremely remote (less than 5% or so in my view)
And in the highly unlikely event he is?There will be a massive Civil War in the Republican Party.To believe that the”base” will meekly accept the ouster of their Leader ,with over 20 Republican Senators joining in ,is preposterous.There will be recriminations galore, possibly a Trump Third Party candidate, denunciations of those who voted to remove him, Fox News personalities condemning the party traitors nightly, etc etc.
Quite a show it would be.
Since It won’t happen ,anymore than the other “what if’s,” it remains nothing but idle speculation.
Either it is right for America or it’s not.
I would say greater than 5%.
I am absolutely detecting some more cracks in the Republican Party and fatigue over defending Trump and concern about where it may lead. How fast this may spread or how far it may go is unknown, but the ship is sinking and it doesn’t matter how the holes first got there.
Democrat partisans ought to rejoice in this as observers. Not sure why some people don’t want to.
Again though, don’t lose sight of the big picture. He still has to face the voters if he “survives.”
And I disagree that whenever Trump leaves office, for whatever reason, that there will be a lot of people who will still “fight” for him.
He will be old news then. He can’t “stop the liberals” merely by his Twitter. People will have moved on to the next phase of the “battle.”
Yeah all these Trumpites out there are just going to be warm and fuzzy all over that over twenty Republican Senators voted to remove their hero.
Sure.
Look we all know that you desperately want to believe that when Trump exits the scene he will be quickly forgotten and that his millions of followers will meakly fade into the woodwork ,only to come out every couple of years to pull the Republican lever.
It’s a nice thought for you.I believe it is totally erroneous.Trump has fundamentally reshaped the Republican Party which will now contain a Trumpist faction for the foreseeable future.
As to the matter of impeachment effecting his reelection?Sure it will ,but that’s a whole separate issue from his forcible removal.
If he is acquitted ,then he will resume his place as Leader of the Republican Party and incumbent President.He will Likely lose the election and then the factors I mentioned above will come into play as his supporters denounce the “Deep State” the media, the “libruls,” and yes the Republicans for his defeat.
And yes there will be Hell to pay in the Republican Party for “letting down” the great Leader.
Once Trump has gotten rid of his usefulness, he serves no purpose. People will kick him when he is down to make themselves feel better.
Yes, he has some die-hards that are personally loyal to him. Those people were not exactly a huge part of the Republican base *before* he came around.
Most others just tolerate him and believe they have no choice but to be wedded to him. Some will defend him until the end, but when it’s over, it’s over and it’s on to the next fight.
Of course you have to believe that.
Yes Trump going quietly into that Good Night….
Ah yes I see it now..”this is where the cowboy rides away “ playing in the background.
Like I said ,
“Wishful Thinking.”
Eric Trump 2024!
Get them Libruls”
Oh and in the above?You are a “librul.”
To me this is Political Science 101 or Sociology 101. I do have a bit of a background in both. It seems very self-evident that Trump is a symbol more than a cause.
Very few people feel a personal loyalty to him. Many feel a public responsibility to defend what he represents (which as we know is about opposing what others represent).
This is the role he is in now. People have been trying to knock him off that role from Day 1. It may work. It may not. We have a Constitution and a democratic process to honor above all else.
But when it’s over for Trump, it is going to be O.V.E.R.
People who got Trump tattoos on their skin and who travel to attend his rallies will likely continue to pine for him but the “average Republican” will try to act like he never even existed.
Partisan Democrats will miss having him as a foil.
Yeah, Eric Trump is going to pick up the mantle. You really believe that.
The danger is giving Trump far too much political credit than he deserves. He thinks he has “started a Revolution” and “won the biggest victory ever,” Those things are not true.
Above all else, he got lucky in 2016, especially in regards to whom his opponent was.
Luck always runs out. New developments always arise. Even if he lives to be 120, very few people are going to be saying, “let’s find out what Donald Trump thinks we should do.”
I believe that you are living in a dream world of your own creation.
You blithely ignore that these “hostages” as you call them voted for Trump to be the nominee of their party.
He wasn’t forced on them.
You blithely ignore that 80+% of Republicans Approve Of his performance ,even with all these facts that he has apparently engaged in numerous impeachable offenses, that he lies with abandon ,that he is crude and hateful.
They laugh at it,revel in it.
They have had numerous opportunities to turn on him .They haven’t .They won’t.
Because he is them and as a Republican you simply don’t want to face any of this .Better to label them “hostages.” They really didn’t mean to do all this.Maybe some “mysterious force” made them.
And so you play out this fiction here.
Have at it.
Don’t Expect me to take it seriously.
Trump won the nomination with a distinct minority of Republican votes. Of course, many non-Republicans also were allowed to participate in the process. He won the nomination with far less popular support than any nominee previously in any major party. Those are facts. It is also true that his opponents should have coordinated better and the contest could have lasted longer than it did, but that is another issue.
Any of the 19 Republicans who ran that cycle would have gotten backing to the hilt by Republicans in the GE. Far more than Trump actually got in the general election in fact.
His approval rating currently among Republicans seems pretty low historically, but again, you are missing the big picture.
They are defending him *now* because they need him *now.* (at least they think they do) When it is over and they no longer need him, it’s a far different story.
What I am saying is that in the past couple of weeks, there are some rumblings of resistance within the party. It may be cloaked in Syria policy or being upset at what Mulvaney said or the Doral G-7 or “lynching.” As I said, I don’t know how fast it might spread or how far it might go. Too many variables. It’s pointless to deny them though. The evidence is there.
Somebody who has despised Republicans publicly for over 50 years should actually not pass up the opportunity to enjoy the fracturing. It doesn’t make you any less of a Democrat to do so.
Amusingly ,even you concede that removal after impeachment is along shot.
If all you are saying is true?Why is it a long shot ?They should be glad to be rid of him,right?
Inadvertently ,you have answered these questions:”They think they do.”See. you are admitting that Republicans still “believe ” in Trump.
Accordingly, all that you say is merely what You believe ,not what most Republicans believe.You admit it in the above statement.
You Want to believe that at some point they will “come to their senses.”
My view?They are acting the way they are because they Want to believe in Trump and those who would try to destroy their hero?Will not be looked kindly upon and that includes not just “libruls” but any Republicans that aid them.
I do not believe a lot of people actually “believe” *in* Trump. They just know they don’t believe in what his opponents believe.
Hence, they are stuck with him in an awkward marriage of necessity.
But couples get divorced after many years together all the time.
It’s a “long shot” because it has never happened before in American history.
As I have said, Republican politicians will follow voters in terms of the polls because political survival is paramount to politicians.
I have also said that Republican or Republican leaning voters feel they have to stand by Trump now in order to oppose the liberals.
Maybe something breaks through to shake that all up or maybe not. But that is about Trump being in office *now.* Once he is not, it’s a very different story. He is no longer worthy of their efforts.
But I think it’s possible he gets removed. It’s also think it’s possible he quits. Those are speculative though. The way he is acting recently, in increasing ways, other things could happen to, such as the 25th.
What should be more common-sense is that none of this is going to serve him well for his reelection attempt.
Divisions in his “base” are becoming more apparent. Democrats should feel good about that, not try to resist shifting attitudes because you want the same ideological Helter Skelter you have believed in since Vietnam.
I’m “resisting “nothing.
I want to see the bastard defeated.
I think he will be.
I don’t think he will be removed at an Impeachment trial.
Nor do I think his defeat will have little effect on the Republican Party as you do.
You seem to think that everything will revert to how it was in the preTrump days.I don’t. I think that the Republican Party will be involved in a major Civil War complete with recriminations ,denunciations,etc.
However I do agree that for now.All this is speculative.
So I will leave it at that.
Fine, you want him to be defeated.
Can you admit that you would also want to see him impeached and convicted first? Or even more than you want to see him defeated?
That doesn’t make you any less of a Democrat. You can still back one of them in the election if he is gone.
The problem is that it would involve Republicans turning on him and you seem to not be willing to come to terms with that. (That is what happened to Nixon pretty late in the game. Far more people want Trump removed from office now than wanted Nixon removed at this stage of the game)
I think we may be headed to political “Civil War” in both parties, but Donald Trump won’t be the primary dividing line for Republicans. Yes, the populism issue goes beyond him and that will eventually to be settled.
He may be used as a cautionary tale towards those who risked capital to defend him.
In other words if someone disagrees with your “perspective “it is “hurting their brain.”
Yeah that’s it.
Don’t disagree with your”perspective “and soothe your brain.
What a damn joke.
Unsurprising though.
He doesn’t like to be disagreed with.
Figure of speech. Not trying to be offensive or flippant about health matters in general. I’ll retract the metaphor.
However, I think there is a difference in the willingness to try to at least understand someone’s viewpoint, even if you don’t agree, instead of just dismissing it as “pure fantasy.”
There are literally zero shades of gray with you.
If you went to see the “50 Shades” movie, you probably thought it was Casablanca.
“Shades Of Gray?” Thanks James.
More like figments of your imagination.
No, I can tell it literally hurts your brain to try to look at something through someone else’s perspective.
Let’s try to simplify this:
1. Should Trump be removed from office because of inappropriate actions he took as President?
I don’t think one person who has posted here disagrees he should.
2. Will Congress remove Trump?
This is fine to talk about or predict, but it’s not really relevant to #1. I think everyone here at the moment will predict “no”.. at least at the moment.
3. Regardless of what you think Congress *might* do, do you hope they remove him from office?
This seems to be where there is division on this board.
If you answered yes to #1, this should be an easy yes to #3, Number two should be irrelevant.
It seems though that the concept, however unlikely you might think it to be of “enough Republicans did the right thing” is not worth the cost.
What should be the first political consideration?
What is right for America or maintaining the status quo of an ongoing political battle?
I think it should be the first.
This gets so old and oh so boring.
My position has been and is totally consistent.
Should Trump be Impeached?Yes
Should he be removed from office?Yes
Do I think that twenty + Republican Senators will vote to remove him which would be necessary to accomplish such?No
Is there any way that could happen?Yes ,but only if Trumps approval among Republicans dropped below 50% and even then, it wouldn’t be a sure bet.
Do I see that happening?For a variety of reasons which I have previously mentioned, No I don’t.
Yeah, I already knew all that.
But #3, do you want it to happen?
Very specific.
The guy needs to be kicked out…
Right now?
Not gonna happen
But?
He’s working hard at it…
I said yes he should be removed from office.
Why wouldn’t I want him to be?
This is getting bizarre.
.
Sounds like parsing, but I will fill in the blank for you then and if you disagree you can say so.
“I, jack, want DJT to be removed from office even if it means that 20 or more Republican Senators did the right thing.”
Further where is this “division” you speak of.
I know no one here who doesn’t Want him out of office.
Some of us have commented that politically we didn’t think it was going to happen.I still don’t.In fact I’ve heard no one who has said they believe Trump is going to be removed from office after an impeachment trial in The Senate,not even you.
I don’t even know where you are coming from and what’s your point.
This is silly.
Sure I would .That hasn’t been my point.
My point is and continues to be that there won’t be twenty + Republican Senators to,as you say, “do the right thing” due to the simple fact that Republican voters still and will Continue to Overwhelmingly support Trump.
I don’t know how much simpler I can make it for you.
It has been coming across to me since this began that you did not want the Senate to vote because you saw no point in it. I have seen before and have mentioned past positions you have taken as a frame of reference (Confederate flag in SC, AL Special Election). Sometimes people or events surprise you. We all should be open to pleasant surprises.
Now, I have gotten your positioned clarified.
In a broader sense, I still think you are missing out in enjoying Republicans come to increased cracks over Trump.
Do you believe there will be 20+ Republican Senators who will “do the right thing.”
Be specific.
Yes or No.
As of today, no. I said that a few minutes ago.
But I am not going to rule it out. It might happen. There have been “crazier” things in politics before.
This seems like such an easy case to make to the public that Republican Senators would feel the pressure. You have a “defendant” who seems to keep digging a bigger hole each week. How big can it get?
*If* a dam breaks, it will break fast and hard and the undertow will be massive. As I said earlier, there seemed to be even more Republican coalescing behind Nixon (who had just won 49 states) both in terms of politicians and voters a month after the impeachment inquiry then.
And if it were a secret ballot, it definitely would happen, but yes, we know there is not going to be a secret ballot, nor should there be.
Let’s point out that if one, single, solitary Republican in the Senate winds up voting to convict Trump, it will be the first time in American history that has ever happened.
Both of the previous acquittals saw the party of the President vote in complete lockstep to not convict.
This would not be an insignificant thing.
And it would also be an historic first if *every* member of the opposition party voted to convict.
“Millions of followers”
Far more like millions of hostages.
They aren’t hostages. They’ve been hoping for this for years. See my above comment on Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh morphed himself. He is the one who declared that conservatism is a lost cause and the populism is the way to go. Will a lot of others follow that prescription forever? I doubt it.
He has taken stances and positions that it would have been unimaginable to see him taking, even five years ago. He is aging. His voice is physically getting worse, and he is trying to stay relevant. He knows that the way to appeal to Trump personally is to somehow make John McCain the villain and keep Trump the victim.
Rush Limbaugh today is much more relevant to Republican voters than say Mitt Romney.
He’s not even the most relevant right-wing talk radio host anymore.
And you are confusing talk-radio aficionados with the average Republican voter or leaner.
Look at it this way.
A sports figure might be worshiped and beloved by a home-town crowd. He could be larger than life there.
Players these days rarely stay on one team though.
If they choose to go somewhere else, they are often then treated with revulsion.
If they are merely traded or released and wind up somewhere else, they may get some appreciative applause, but fans are still rooting for their team over their former favorite player. They have moved on and grasped the concept of what is most useful in the present time.
You’re right there.Theres Sean Hannity Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Mark Levin…
And what do they all have in common?
All avid Trump supporters.
Not all of those people have radio shows.
Carlson actually said publicly that Trump acted inappropriately in regards to Ukraine. So, he went off the reservation on that.
Mark Levin used to hate Trump and pledged he would never support him. Then, he did what he felt he had to do. When Trump is gone, someone like Levin will speak of him with contempt and claim how horrible he was for conservatism, etc.
The above post gives new meaning to the term
“Wishful thinking.”
That can go both ways. Your wish if for Republicans to always be 100 percent united so that you can rail against 100 percent of them 100 percent of the time.
Yeh that’s what I want.
Wishful thinking appeared to take on a new life of its own this evening Jack when our friend Corey tried to redefine Nixon’s racist Southern Strategy that was, in part, described by Dave earlier today.
Perhaps Jack would like to tell us how it played out over the last four decades as a long time resident of South Carolina.
Our friend used the term “ridiculous spin” during the Tulsi Gabbard discussion, but other than his “theory” that somehow Harry Reid is responsible for Trump’s election to the Presidency, the idea that Nixon’s election, and the subsequent election of folks like Reagan and Bush, had nothing to do with racial politics is the most ridiculous spin I have heard today.
And today was a horrible day for our democracy and the future of our Republic. Clearly the Republicans in Congress, with the exception of two or three, will remain “loyal” to their “Great White Hope” as more information about Trump’s criminal activity becomes clearer and more established. The testimony was damning, but those mopes could care less, they continue to complain about process.
I think it is time to remember that none of this, the investigation into Trump’s illegal activities, his obstruction of justice, or the conspiracy that now seems to be unfolding would be possible if Nancy Pelosi and Democrats had not taken the House of Representatives back. Now for those who think she might be moving too slowly I can only say that she knows what she is doing. In fact, I think she might go down as one of our greatest Speakers. And, to think, she was about to retire if Hillary had been elected President.
I called her Chief of Staff the other day to ask for an autographed copy of the picture of her standing up to Trump. If we hadn’t already ordered our holiday cards, that picture would be the cover.
One thing, and then off to bed, big day tomorrow with a new project. The idea that somehow the Republican Party would go back to its old hypocritical ways when Trump leaves office is simply a huge wet dream. A new day for the Party of Trump has dawned. Unless Trump is put into prison without his phone he will remain the head of the Party.
Folks have spent months here trying to somehow prove Trump was a faux Republican, a Democrat in sheep’s clothing. Well as Jack has pointed out over and over again, he’s not only the leader of the Party, but he is carrying out their horrible agenda (from judges, to tax cuts, to children in cages). Trump is clearly more popular with the deplorables than Reagan or Bush. Those tweets won’t stop if he’s impeached or defeated next year, and the faithful will respond accordingly. They should all warm very nicely to his victim hood.
There is a thought that Trump wants to be impeached and convicted since he fears he will lose the election. And, if he’s removed from office through impeachment he can claim the Deep State did him in. The sympathy will launch his new television station and several hotels in Eastern Europe, although Putin and his money men might not be as willing to back roll him as an ex-President. But, the future is clear, Trump will be with us into the foreseeable future.
Look at it this way. The Southern Strategy created Trump through 50 years of dog whistles. He is the Republican Party.
I think that much of this discussion missed what might be relevant political history.
McCarthyism in the GOP lasted far longer than Joe McCarthy; it certainly lingered into the 1960’s — despite the grossly delayed opposition of Republican politicians, e.g. Ike, who found McCarthyism to be a useful political tool.
And during the lingering days of McCarthyism, the Goldwater movement (challenging Northeastern moderate Republicans like Rockefeller, Javits and Romney) failed in 1960 only to take over the GOP in 1964. Every account I’ve read about the [San Francisco] Cow Palace convention describes something like a Trump rally today. And Barry Goldwater, probably out of principle, gave an unyielding acceptance speech — written by the future anarcho-libertarian Karl Hess — which promised A Choice not an Echo.
In the 1964 general election campaign, Goldwater made an effective, and unashamed, appeal to segregationists based on his vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the Senate Republican conference supported 27-6.
Having been seduced away from the Party of Jefferson & Jackson by Goldwater, most of those segregationists stayed within the GOP; although only 40% of Americans voted for Goldwater, the Goldwater supporters had a solid if not always commanding hold over the geographically-extended Republican base.
Roughly the same thing happened with the Northern and Southern base rallied by George C. Wallace.
But Richard Nixon, with his political advisers, was canny enough, both in 1960 and in 1968, to appear as a respectable Republican while winning over or holding the McCarthyite, Goldwater and Wallace bases. I’ve never been sure how genuine or contrived his own self-description was: a liberal on civil rights, a moderate in economics and a conservative on national defense.
Even after his resignation in face of certain impeachment and conviction, Nixon retained much rank-and-file support among Republicans — perhaps as high as 40-50%). After he left, they didn’t repudiate his crooked legacy; they thought he’d been lynched; and 20% of the general citizenry agreed.
A quarter-century later, those Republicans felt that impeaching, convicting and removing Bill Clinton (for far smaller offences) was turnaround and fair play.
After Nixon and the brief interlude of the unelected Gerald Ford (very conservative, but also tolearant and constructive), Reagan almost defeated Ford for the 1976 nomination and beat everyone for the 1980 nomination and general election.
Like Nixon, Reagan was able to combine a very dark pitch to the far right/populist base already inside the GOP, and to espouse a sunny, optimistic promise (contrasted with the austerity of Ford and Jimmy “Malaise” Carter) based on an apparently effective, competent record as Governor of California — something that made him acceptable to moderate, Main Street Republicans and also (combined with his darker pitch) to working-class Reagan Democrats.
Many of them stayed within the GOP, too, and haven’t left.
So, while no one can tell, I doubt that the GOP base — as built up and transformed by McCarthy, Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan — will suddenly change its views and world-view even if Congress and 60% of the people reject Trump in disgrace.
I take a lot of issue with much of that, but you have the right to your opinion.
I don’t understand such points though as Nixon holding the “Wallaec Base” in 1968 when Wallace ran against Nixon and beat him among those voters. And in 1976, that sort of vote did not stay Republican, it went to Carter.
I don’t see examples of McCarthyism extending beyond McCarthy and it was largely Republicans who got the credit for repudiating McCarthy. Did McCarthy even have a base in the Republican Party? He seemed to be mostly tight with Joe Kennedy.
It is widely accepted that Goldwater did not vote against the CRA because he opposed Civil Rights but for federalism reasons. I would have to see an example of him endorsing segregation. I have watched his very stident ’64 convention speech many times and he flatly rejects segregation.
I don’t see how this begat Nixon or Reagan either. It just sounds like people on the left have been historically upset when Republicans won. No surprise there.
This is also a bit like claiming that Trump took or takes *no* mainstream position and that repudiating Trump or moving on from Trump is not complete without abandoning every one of his positions.
That is not realistic in anyway. For all his many faults, he has taken boilerplate positions on some issues that Republicans have had for generations and Democrats too on others, (even more so than traditional Republican belief.)
As dark and dystopian Trump’s convention speech was, he certainly took a position on LGBT rights in that speech that was far different than what any other Republican nominee had ever said. He was cheered by the crowd with nary a protest in sight.
If a future GOP nominee says the same sort of inclusive thing, are they merely embracing the legacy of Trump? I think not.
So you reject the very existence of Nixon’s Southern Strategy?
I think it’s overblown as far as the racial aspect. There was an effort not to ignore the south or speak poorly of them.
Every public utterance Nixon made in that campaign was about bringing the country together on the basis of race. He did not win many Southern states in 1968. That sort of blatant politics ended that year with Wallace not to really be seen again until Trump came along.
Nixon won them all in 1972 for other reasons (national defense/blowback against the counterculture, etc). jack was one of his voters and jack has assured us that at no point in his life growing up in South Carolina was he ever opposed to Civil Rights. So, he voted for Nixon for other reasons, as did most other people in the clear mandate that year produced.
It was more of a “border state” or “white moderate” strategy.
The 1968 Nixon campaign was certainly not appealing to outright segregationists but was trying to win support by those who feared unrest in the country spreading and welcomed the concept of “law and order” after all the turmoil and violence that was being seen whether it related to rich white kids burning flags or rioting over the Vietnam War or urban ghettos going up in flames as well.
It is hardly a secret that people in the U.S. evolved personally and on a macro level when it comes to race and Civil Rights. Much was changing already in 1968 but had a way to go. The fact that we evolve as a people is a good thing.
“Law and order” meant and means different things to different people. I think it should best be taken literally
DSD is our most even handed political historian here. I’ll go with his assessment.
That’s very kind of you to say so, Scott, but not all of CG’s points are wrong. I’ll have to revisit and revise some of my own telescoped and incomplete assertions or conclusions.
Detailed response to CG later.
As for Nixon not winning many Southern states in 1968, that’s just wrong. Humphrey carried only three Southern & Border states (Texas, West Virginia & Maryland) and George C. Wallace only five (Ga, Alab., Miss., Ark. & La). The rest went to Nixon: Virginia, the Carolinas, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma and Delaware.
If you’re counting only the 11 states in the Southern Confederacy, Wallace won 5, Nixon 5 and Humphrey 1.
CG?
Even McConnell mentioned Trump’s choice of words was ‘inappropriate’
This is NOT the first time questions about Trump’s racial comments….
This is NOT overblown….
He is SUPPOSED to be repping over 300 Million Americans of ALL colors….
I’ll have a post later….
Bill Taylor has spilled more on Trump AND Pompeo….
“Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense.”
I wonder what Senator said this..
I was offended when I saw that Trump used that word, but now it clear’s they did their research before using it. Back in 1998, Democrats were throwing it around a lot to describe the Clinton impeachment.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-top-dems-including-nadler-called-clinton-impeachment-lynching
Yeah and if we go back a few years before that Clarence Thomas said he was the victim of a “high tech lynching”.
The difference is Thomas, Greg Meeks, etc all knew who Emmett Till was.
I bet Trump not only doesn’t know. He doesn’t care to know about the history of Till.
It WAS WRONG then ….
It IS WRONG Now…..
Two wrongs do NOT make a right….
I just added the Biden past comment to this post….
Agree
Biden will be forgiven….
Trump will NOT….
Black lawmakers on Capitol Hill slammed President Trump for an explosive tweet Tuesday that compared Democrats’ impeachment investigation to a “lynching,” conjuring a dark chapter in the nation’s history targeting African Americans.
While Democrats widely condemned Trump’s language, it was personal and hurtful for members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)….
More…
Agree that is on the “Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right.” Hopefully, the people that used it in the past will admit they were wrong as Biden had.
But there’s video everywhere tonight now of people saying it in 1998. John Kerry, Harry Reid, etc .It seemed to be a talking point that Democrats were deliberately using then.
So, when Trump Tweeted this, I think it clearly was meant as a “trap.” They knew they would get an outraged response and they knew they had this multitude of examples of Democrats saying “lynch” or “lynching” in describing what they said was happening to Clinton. Trump defenders today are more than prepared to claim that they were right then and that Clinton should never have been impeached.
After all DJT was on the record at the time saying how horrible it was that this was happening to Clinton. On this issue, he is actually one of the few people in Washington today to be consistent. (Trump merely wanted GWB and Obama impeached.)
As Biden has*. He’s already Tweeted an apology for what he said in 1998.
Politicians had a better way with words a couple generations ago:
“They have vilified me, they have crucified me; yes, they have even criticized me.”
Mayor Richard J. Daley
Trump’s choice of word may have been unfortunate, but I can’t easily think of an alternative word.
Despite the dark history of lynching in order to terrorize Negroes, many whites were also lynched, especially Republicans, communists, labor organizers and those either awaiting trial or (in the mob’s view) unjustly acquitted in court.
The most commonly-accepted etymology of lynching (and thus to its first uses) is to an Irish landowner or official of that name who was killed by Irish tenant-farmers and laborers.
Everyone here knows with what loathing and contempt, bordering hatred, I regard the present President but I don’t think that every ambiguous comment he makes proves his racism.
When he referred to good people on both sides of Charlottesville, he may honestly have thought that the white-nationalist mob was just the violent head of many non-violent defenders of Confederate monuments.
When he called someone (I think Biden) a dumb ass, that refers to four-footed asses like the one that carried Jesus into Jerusalem.
And wrong and distorted his mindless rage against being impeached, I think he was comparing himself to all victims of lynching without much thinking about the most-lynched race.
To me, “lynching” should be considered a racial reference considering our history. Variations have been used by Clarence Thomas and more recently by Justin Fairfax in Virginia. I think they have far more of a right to make that claim since they are black men who were accused of sexual misconduct which is historically what many innocent black men were lynched over.
Last year, there was a controversy when Mississippi Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith made some dumb comment about a “public hanging” and Democrats all jumped in to say she was talking about a racial lynching. I think what she said was politically stupid but different than referencing lynching. The term “public hanging” should probably be more associated with judicial sanctioned capital punishment such as in the Old West, and in which the person hung would have almost certainly been white.
In this case, Trump was both deliberately being a racial arsonist as well as trying to entrap Democrats in a “gotcha” game.
Well?
He’s just pissed off black’s and he they won’t forget this….
This just plays into Joe Biden’s support…..