This post focuses mainly on a few articles that I’ve read today, and they largely scream ‘I don’t understand [WTF] happened!’.
Fortunately, today’s president is so innocent of information that Congress cannot continue deferring to executive policymaking. And because this president has neither a history of party identification nor an understanding of reciprocal loyalty, congressional Republicans are reacquiring a constitutional — a Madisonian — ethic. It mandates a prickly defense of institutional interests, placing those interests above devotion to parties that allow themselves to be defined episodically by their presidents.
(Bold emphasis mine)
If the author was truly just referring to Congress finally utilizing its Constitutional Checks and Balances on the President’s outlandish positions in rhetorical question, I’d agree with it, but the author further down makes this statement
Speaking of Scaramucci, and in his defense: His love interest, the president, was elected for his persona rather than his principles.
(Bold emphasis mine)
Now, what are the issues?
First, the author is Never Trump who don’t consider Trump a Republican by principle, and elected-appointed Republicans largely prefer Pence as President.
Second, Presidents are classically considered the Leaders of the Party, and this is where Elected-Appointed Republicans who prefer Pence President simultaneously bash Trump’s usage of Twitter and demand Trump use Twitter as a Progressive Republican Agenda “Public Relations” operation. Funny how that works doesn’t it?
Third, it makes plain that the rhetorical question isn’t how wonderful Congress finally utilizing its Constitutional Checks and Balances to prevent Trump’s outlandish positions; they are using Congress’s Constitutional Checks and Balances to simultaneously steamroll Progressive Republican agenda and largely punish Trump supporters thinking Trump accomplishments are everything.
Trump is the political version of a pickup artist, and Republicans — and America — went to bed with him convinced that he was something other than what he is.
He cannot negotiate a health-care deal among members of a party desperate for one, can’t manage his own factionalized and leak-ridden White House, and cannot lead a political movement that aspires to anything greater than the service of his own pathetic vanity.
So, listen up, Team Trump: “Put that coffee down. Coffee is for closers only.”
Same themes and dance.
So, what happened in the 2016 election cycle?
By a variety of primary exit polls:
-Trump protest vote, wrecking ball to the Beltway establishment, and stalemate.
-Many Trump supporters stated that they would vote Sanders in a general election Trump V Sanders election match up.
Trump won the RNC nomination while Sanders lost the DNC nomination.
Clinton isn’t liked outside the Beltway, and Sanders’ supporters legally challenged the DNC in court in which the DNC legally argued it can indeed interject in favor of a candidate, which in this case was Hillary Clinton.
When Sanders lost, some Sanders’ supporters crossed the aisle including some of Sander’s PACs.
Clinton failed to motivate minority groups as African-Americans to turn out to vote. Can’t blame them under Clinton’s previous statement par to calling those who don’t support her as ‘Deplorable’.
The entire affair with Trump-Russia Collusion-Interference largely stems from compelling Trump to continue present foreign policy expansionism, and it is attacks the source/author rather than the content of namely WikiLeaks who was one of the groups to expose W. Bush’s enhanced interrogations (Torture) along with Project Veritas and others. One has to approach the Trump-Russia collusion-interference under guilty until proven innocent to ignore or omit the connection to the Russian lawyer Trump Jr met with the Trump dossier used in the 2016 election cycle.
Republican intellectuals have for quite some time argued that we’re in the midst of a war on ideas that they refer to as a ‘culture war’ while Democrats have for years stated Republican Party was on the verge of fracturing. Apparently, the two concluded using statistics as Party Line voters under Democrats hate Republicans and Republicans hate Democrats would ever vote against their party. There’s just one problem here that is centrally Party Line voters makes up a minority in both Parties.
So, what does it mean to conclude more people will just vote Party line under Democrats hate Republicans and Republicans hate Democrats? It means that people are tolerating or accepting Progressive Democrat or Progressive Republican ideas aka ‘culture war’.
Remember these Republican primary arguments?
-Trump mainly does well in open primary States
-Trump supporters are Democrat supporters
Clearly, the Democrats lost the Presidency compliments of the DNC interjection in favor Hillary Clinton through confirmation bias that Trump’s nomination translated to a Clinton easy victory through the Republican Party fracturing without adapting to the changes.
Progressive Republicans are gearing up for the same lesson with Pence whose only shot at the Presidency under present dynamics is removal of President Trump by impeachment or 25th Amendment. Pence could try a 2020 primary, but he won’t win the general election.