As in all "long games", the trick is not to be pushed off track and thereby cut off at the knees before you get there. She now needs to organize, get a clear story together that is not just that she's anti-Trump and Jan 6th lucid but what she is "for" too so that she provides the basis for a "Reality-based" Republican Party that would d…
As in all "long games", the trick is not to be pushed off track and thereby cut off at the knees before you get there. She now needs to organize, get a clear story together that is not just that she's anti-Trump and Jan 6th lucid but what she is "for" too so that she provides the basis for a "Reality-based" Republican Party that would draw a great many existing Republican voters. If this represents half their previous tally, then she will have a lot more elected supporters in states and on the Hill and the trumporcs will have less.........and the Democrats will get on with serving the people throughout the land just as long as they can contain their own similar internal divisions.
Cheney is clear enough. She is in favor of all the awful things her party has been doing, having voted with Trump most of the time, with the exception of denying election results and related lying and mob attacks. That's better than Trump, the way being raped is better than being murdered.
Mussolini, who should be counted as an expert on the subject, said fascism should really have been called corporatism. Cheney and her pals want corporatism. They have been working in that direction for the last 40 years at least. What they don't want, is the randomness of mad oligarchy and personality cult.
I'm reading a book now, "Under the Light of the Italian Moon". I quoted a passage to my husband last night: (paraphrased a bit) "An arrogant man, who wrapped his desire for power in the guise of love of his country, under the rallying cry of moving his country back to greatness. Excellent at using bravado to convince masses of fools and bigots." I asked my husband who he thought this described. He said "Donald Trump". Then I told him it was actually Mussolini. We need to get people to realize that this is what TFG and his minions really represent. I so wish my Italian grandparents were alive today to help me spread this message.
Had the same scenario play out in our home when I read a remarkably similar passage in Joseph Kanon's Alibi or the Girl from Venic by Cruz I think. Spot on.
All tyrants wrap their desire for absolute power in the love of country. All of them begin with positive gestures, like making the trains run on time. They all use manipulation, the way a child molester entices a child. They are evil. Trump wanted to do good things for his country, but his ego corrupted him. He is now irrelevant. I hear forgiveness frees you.
shoot! autocorrect! try again: At the moment, the propaganda and Big Lie are our biggest and most imminent threat. The Dems need to be so "pure" are what keeps us all from having nice things. Just because we are grateful and supportive for her very conservative voice calling out the Big Lie for what it is does not mean we need to like her or lay down with her. It's not all or nothing. it just isn't.
I strongly believe in the positive value of two viable political parties to provide a competitive marketplace of ideas surfacing the best of those to govern us. However, it does require both of those parties to have ideas worthy of the competition. Unfortunately one of our two parties at present seemswoefully short of ideas and the few it advances seem very unworthy of consideration or that competition.
Considering this dilemma, I have concluded it is not my job to fix the badly damaged Republican party. Hence I spend little to no time thinking about how to accomplish this or to whom to look to address the challenge. Rather I will do my best to shape and advance the good ideas of the only viable remaining political party. When another competitor worthy of this competition of ideas arrives on the scene, whatever its heritage or origin, I will judge it's merits then. Until that time, I see little use in troubling myself with concern for the future of an unworthy competitor or its leadership.
Even though George Washington spoke out against having political parties, their presence throughout American history has given a voice to those in opposition to the party in power. But that must be a "loyal" opposition, which the Republican Party ain't. Perhaps we will end up with two major parties, one the centrist Democrats and the other, the more progressively minded ones. Having one party, even if only temporarily, is not good.
That almost closely describes the political party structure in Australia.
The Australian Labor Party (ALP) is a social-democratic party. It is a progressive-leaning party with policy positions favoring social welfare and government assistance programs. It was founded by the Australian labor movement and broadly represents the urban working and middle classes.
The Liberal Party of Australia is a party of the center-right that broadly represents businesses, the urban middle classes, and many rural people. Its permanent coalition partner at the national level is the National Party of Australia, formerly known as the Country Party, a somewhat more conservative party that represents rural interests. These two parties are collectively known as the Coalition. In Queensland, and more recently in NSW, the two parties have officially merged to form the Liberal National Party, and in the Northern Territory, the National Party is known as the Country Liberal Party.
It should be noted that at present the Australian Labor Party holds 68 seats in the Australian Parliament, the Liberal Party 67, the Country/National Party 10, and the balance of 6 held by minority party and independent members. The Liberal Party would be similar in their views to moderate Democrats in the U.S. Congress and the Labor Party more similar to Progressive Democrats.
What an enlightened pleasant people the Australians are!
True, however one may encounter other challenges. Witness at present the struggles of Israel to form a governing coalition. Additionally for a plethora of reasons the U.S. is unlikely to see the rise of a viable third or multi-party system. The discussion of why is a bit lengthy for this platform, but I believe it to be the case. It is more likely that the two parties evolve or become non-viable and are replaced by a successor.
There again, one dominant leader, who has probably overstayed his welcome and is currently subject to criminal charges, has been getting in the way. His Likud Party rivals are probably going to have a much easier time in the coalition forming business....if not in solving the fundamental problems that the society faces.
In my opinion, the demise of the Republican Party will be unlike the deaths of the Federalist Party and the Whig Party. While remaining Federalists found a temporary home with the Whigs and most of the Whigs ultimately became Republicans,"reality-based" Republicans like Chaney will not find a home in the Democratic Party. Their alternative is a new "reality based" conservative party, probably something like the Lincoln Project. The Trumpublican Party will gradually shrink into history and share the fate of the "Know Nothings" whom they stupidly strive to emulate. But this will not happen overnight. Until it does, the Democrats must hang in there.
I'm not sure, given their demise due to greed and overpayment of their self-indulgent principals, the Lincoln Project is a great example but the rest of your hopeful argument retains its validity.
We have a choice between upward mobility and the lowest common denominator.
We can be a fiscally responsible economy or we can dump trillions in debt on our children. Trump helped people the Democrats traditionally marginalized and used.
Trump also let his ego destroy his presidency. He is not relevant now. That is reality.
As in all "long games", the trick is not to be pushed off track and thereby cut off at the knees before you get there. She now needs to organize, get a clear story together that is not just that she's anti-Trump and Jan 6th lucid but what she is "for" too so that she provides the basis for a "Reality-based" Republican Party that would draw a great many existing Republican voters. If this represents half their previous tally, then she will have a lot more elected supporters in states and on the Hill and the trumporcs will have less.........and the Democrats will get on with serving the people throughout the land just as long as they can contain their own similar internal divisions.
Cheney is clear enough. She is in favor of all the awful things her party has been doing, having voted with Trump most of the time, with the exception of denying election results and related lying and mob attacks. That's better than Trump, the way being raped is better than being murdered.
Her and her ilk have raped our country, most definitely but her current courage to stand strong may just save our country from fascism. I'll take it.
Mussolini, who should be counted as an expert on the subject, said fascism should really have been called corporatism. Cheney and her pals want corporatism. They have been working in that direction for the last 40 years at least. What they don't want, is the randomness of mad oligarchy and personality cult.
I'm reading a book now, "Under the Light of the Italian Moon". I quoted a passage to my husband last night: (paraphrased a bit) "An arrogant man, who wrapped his desire for power in the guise of love of his country, under the rallying cry of moving his country back to greatness. Excellent at using bravado to convince masses of fools and bigots." I asked my husband who he thought this described. He said "Donald Trump". Then I told him it was actually Mussolini. We need to get people to realize that this is what TFG and his minions really represent. I so wish my Italian grandparents were alive today to help me spread this message.
We need TFG to clearly BE the FORMER guy.
Had the same scenario play out in our home when I read a remarkably similar passage in Joseph Kanon's Alibi or the Girl from Venic by Cruz I think. Spot on.
All tyrants wrap their desire for absolute power in the love of country. All of them begin with positive gestures, like making the trains run on time. They all use manipulation, the way a child molester entices a child. They are evil. Trump wanted to do good things for his country, but his ego corrupted him. He is now irrelevant. I hear forgiveness frees you.
shoot! autocorrect! try again: At the moment, the propaganda and Big Lie are our biggest and most imminent threat. The Dems need to be so "pure" are what keeps us all from having nice things. Just because we are grateful and supportive for her very conservative voice calling out the Big Lie for what it is does not mean we need to like her or lay down with her. It's not all or nothing. it just isn't.
Spot on!
I strongly believe in the positive value of two viable political parties to provide a competitive marketplace of ideas surfacing the best of those to govern us. However, it does require both of those parties to have ideas worthy of the competition. Unfortunately one of our two parties at present seemswoefully short of ideas and the few it advances seem very unworthy of consideration or that competition.
Considering this dilemma, I have concluded it is not my job to fix the badly damaged Republican party. Hence I spend little to no time thinking about how to accomplish this or to whom to look to address the challenge. Rather I will do my best to shape and advance the good ideas of the only viable remaining political party. When another competitor worthy of this competition of ideas arrives on the scene, whatever its heritage or origin, I will judge it's merits then. Until that time, I see little use in troubling myself with concern for the future of an unworthy competitor or its leadership.
Even though George Washington spoke out against having political parties, their presence throughout American history has given a voice to those in opposition to the party in power. But that must be a "loyal" opposition, which the Republican Party ain't. Perhaps we will end up with two major parties, one the centrist Democrats and the other, the more progressively minded ones. Having one party, even if only temporarily, is not good.
That almost closely describes the political party structure in Australia.
The Australian Labor Party (ALP) is a social-democratic party. It is a progressive-leaning party with policy positions favoring social welfare and government assistance programs. It was founded by the Australian labor movement and broadly represents the urban working and middle classes.
The Liberal Party of Australia is a party of the center-right that broadly represents businesses, the urban middle classes, and many rural people. Its permanent coalition partner at the national level is the National Party of Australia, formerly known as the Country Party, a somewhat more conservative party that represents rural interests. These two parties are collectively known as the Coalition. In Queensland, and more recently in NSW, the two parties have officially merged to form the Liberal National Party, and in the Northern Territory, the National Party is known as the Country Liberal Party.
It should be noted that at present the Australian Labor Party holds 68 seats in the Australian Parliament, the Liberal Party 67, the Country/National Party 10, and the balance of 6 held by minority party and independent members. The Liberal Party would be similar in their views to moderate Democrats in the U.S. Congress and the Labor Party more similar to Progressive Democrats.
What an enlightened pleasant people the Australians are!
Oz is largely gun-free, too.
Thanks for the summary of Australian politics, Bruce.
You don't have that problem in a more competitive, multi-party system.
True, however one may encounter other challenges. Witness at present the struggles of Israel to form a governing coalition. Additionally for a plethora of reasons the U.S. is unlikely to see the rise of a viable third or multi-party system. The discussion of why is a bit lengthy for this platform, but I believe it to be the case. It is more likely that the two parties evolve or become non-viable and are replaced by a successor.
There again, one dominant leader, who has probably overstayed his welcome and is currently subject to criminal charges, has been getting in the way. His Likud Party rivals are probably going to have a much easier time in the coalition forming business....if not in solving the fundamental problems that the society faces.
In my opinion, the demise of the Republican Party will be unlike the deaths of the Federalist Party and the Whig Party. While remaining Federalists found a temporary home with the Whigs and most of the Whigs ultimately became Republicans,"reality-based" Republicans like Chaney will not find a home in the Democratic Party. Their alternative is a new "reality based" conservative party, probably something like the Lincoln Project. The Trumpublican Party will gradually shrink into history and share the fate of the "Know Nothings" whom they stupidly strive to emulate. But this will not happen overnight. Until it does, the Democrats must hang in there.
I'm not sure, given their demise due to greed and overpayment of their self-indulgent principals, the Lincoln Project is a great example but the rest of your hopeful argument retains its validity.
I did say "something like" in referring to the Lincoln Project. It had its flaws, but after all, it was composed of Republicans.
"Something like" is a good escape clause; worth remembering, thanks Jacob.
The last part is the key; Democrats seem to think that Will Rodgers' comment about organisation was a compliment.
We have a choice between upward mobility and the lowest common denominator.
We can be a fiscally responsible economy or we can dump trillions in debt on our children. Trump helped people the Democrats traditionally marginalized and used.
Trump also let his ego destroy his presidency. He is not relevant now. That is reality.
Trump helped no one but himself. To believe otherwise is simply a pledge of allegiance to the Big Lie.