# Any non-Trump Republicans/conservatives willing to discuss things? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 3, 2020, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115 "2020-12-03T15:01:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/61 "2020-12-03T21:26:44Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > After the Bork debacle, everyone knew the rules were changed. Even those people who were nowhere near politics 33 years ago? To be clear, I’m not disagreeing that the “rules” change. But there is no direct line back to Bork from McConnell that would justify using his rejection to block Garland’s. And I don’t see the relevance of Souter either, which again was ages ago. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/62 "2020-12-03T21:26:46Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I kind of wonder how the Democratic Party would have done if Bernie Sanders had won the nomination and the Presidency. Being an outsider much like Trump and with his own idiosyncratic policy aims, would the Democratic party thrown in with him, or would they have tried to check him? I don’t think those are comparable. Bernie Sanders is far left, but he’s not a corrupt and incompetent mental case like Trump is. In the case of Trump, the primary issues with him from the perspective of the Republican Party leadership are about his manifest character flaws. These are very difficult to call out for what they are, given the enduring support he has in the Republican Party base. In the case of Sanders, it’s all about policy. I suppose the other parts of the leadership might be nervous about being identified with his ideology, but I don’t think they would feel the same pressure to go along with that. Bottom line: it’s much easier to say “we don’t think we can get full congressional support for anything quite as ambitious as what our Leader is calling for” than it is to say “we think our Leader belongs in either a jail or a mental institution”. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/63 "2020-12-03T21:33:15Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The reason David Souter got nominated by a Republican president was because of the assessment that no known conservative could get approved. Well, maybe if by “known conservative” you mean “conservative with extensive paper trail publicly documenting their strongly conservative ideological positions”. [David Souter at the time of his nomination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter#U.S._Supreme_Court_appointment) was firmly considered a “known conservative” by opponents and supporters alike, despite his lack of a paper trail: > [@](#): > > The [National Organization for Women](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Women) opposed Souter’s nomination and held a rally outside the Senate during his confirmation hearings. […] > > These senators, along with seven others, painted Souter as a right-winger in the mold of Robert Bork. […] > > At the time of Souter’s appointment, John Sununu assured President Bush and conservatives that Souter would be a “home run” for conservatism […] ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/64 "2020-12-03T21:33:57Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Even those people who were nowhere near politics 33 years ago? To be clear, I’m not disagreeing that the “rules” change. But there is no direct line back to Bork from McConnell that would justify using his rejection to block Garland’s. And I don’t see the relevance of Souter either, which again was ages ago. The point of the rules changing is that these changed rules are in effect 33 years later. So McConnell and the Republicans 33 years later are still living in that altered state which was initially set into motion by the Bork nomination. Every nomination has had to be carefully calculated in terms of political considerations, in order to avoid having the same fate as befell Bork happen again. The point is that after the Bork nomination, political ideology became a major factor in SC nominations and it remained that way ever since. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/65 "2020-12-03T21:39:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, maybe if by “known conservative” you mean “conservative with extensive paper trail publicly documenting their strongly conservative ideological positions”. [David Souter at the time of his nomination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter#U.S._Supreme_Court_appointment) was firmly considered a “known conservative” by opponents and supporters alike, despite his lack of a paper trail He was assumed to be conservative, primarily because he was nominated by Bush. There wasn’t really a lot of evidence one way or the other. The lack of a paper trail was what avoided a major nomination fight, and that same lack of a paper trail is how the assumption that he was conservative turned out to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/66 "2020-12-03T21:48:03Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The point is that after the Bork nomination, political ideology became a major factor in SC nominations and it remained that way ever since. But if the rules have indeed been changed so much, why has not a single nominee been rejected since Bork? It could certainly be that something like that was unlikely, given the mostly uncontroversial and qualified nominees that have come along since then, and of course sometimes nominations happen when the executive branch and the senate are under same party control. I just reject the notion that McConnell was in any way justified killing the Garland nom because of Bork. As for political ideologies being more of a factor, fair enough. Because for a long, long time, nominees were simply confirmed as a matter of course. A president was seen as being able to get the nominees he wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/67 "2020-12-03T21:56:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > He was assumed to be conservative, primarily because he was nominated by Bush. Well, he was nominated by Bush in the first place [specifically because influential conservatives including John Sununu were portraying him as conservative](https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1990/07/25/sununu-affirms-conservative-values-of-new-court-nominee/?outputType=amp). Sounds like there may have been some wishful thinking all around on the conservative side, but it was mostly a self-own. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/68 "2020-12-03T21:56:23Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I think you hit the nail squarely on the head there. I have to admit I’m surprised that the Democrats weren’t unanimous about anti-semitism; what segment of _their_ base is anti-semitic? I would guess that it’s the Ilhan Omar + Tlaib demographic, plus the pro-Palestinian lobby. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/69 "2020-12-03T22:03:04Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I would guess that it’s the Ilhan Omar + Tlaib demographic, plus the pro-Palestinian lobby. ? Support for Palestinian rights doesn’t automatically equate to being anti-semitic. Nor does being Muslim, or having a Muslim congressional representative. Of course, there are certainly anti-semites in the Palestinian-rights movement and in the Omar and Tlaib constituencies, just as there are anti-semites everywhere else. But trying to smear those groups as somehow intrinsically anti-semitic just seems like a cheap and lazy way to demonize opposition to Israeli anti-Palestinian policies by equating it with anti-semitism. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/70 "2020-12-03T22:03:39Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > But if the rules have indeed been changed so much, why has not a single nominee been rejected since Bork? Several came close, e.g. Thomas, and Alito (whom the Democrats attempted to filibuster). > [@Kimstu](#): > > Sounds like there may have been some wishful thinking all around on the conservative side, but it was mostly a self-own. I suspect you’re saying “self-own” in an attempt to portray it as simply Republican stupidity and thus having nothing to do with Bork, but if so that’s simply not the case. The Republicans took a risk in taking a guy without a solid track record based on the assessment of a couple of guys that he was conservative, but it was a risk that was taken in order to avoid another Bork debacle. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/71 "2020-12-03T22:04:10Z")
Sure, I’m not saying all pro-Palestinian folks or Arabs are anti-Semitic. But I’m guessing that if there is any anti-Semitism in the Democratic lobby (since we’re trying to pinpoint where it’s at,) it would be there. Hard to see which other groups would have members who would object to Jews. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/72 "2020-12-03T22:09:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The Republicans took a risk in taking a guy without a solid track record based on the assessment of a couple of guys that he was conservative, but it was a risk that was taken in order to avoid another Bork debacle. No, the “Bork debacle” was likewise largely a self-own: I’m using the term consistently to refer to the Republican wishful overoptimism in both cases. The Republicans chose Bork despite his record of highly unpopular conservative views, and largely ignored the need to prepare him for the pitfalls of the innovation of televised confirmation hearings. Bork’s consequent high-profile public unpopularity was a result less of Democrats’ somehow “changing the rules” in some unclearly specified fashion than of Republicans’ simply taking their desired outcome for granted without regard to contraindications. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/73 "2020-12-03T22:10:07Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Sure, I’m not saying all pro-Palestinian folks or Arabs are anti-Semitic. But I’m guessing that if there is any anti-Semitism in the Democratic lobby (since we’re trying to pinpoint where it’s at,) it would be there. Hard to see which other groups would have members who would object to Jews. I don’t think it’s mostly about overt anti-Semitism. It’s about people whose worldview sees Jews as powerful controlling people, and anti-Semitism as therefore not a big deal, and are thus predisposed to look at resolutions condemning anti-Semitism as singling out Jews for special privileges. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/74 "2020-12-03T22:12:34Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Several came close, e.g. Thomas, and Alito (whom the Democrats attempted to filibuster). In my opinion, Thomas should have been rejected (not that we have to debate that here, assuming you or anybody doesn’t!) so for me he doesn’t figure into this. It would have been justified. I don’t remember why the Democrats attempted to stop Alito. In any case, I agree with what you say that the days are long gone when nominees getting confirmed could pretty much be taken for granted. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2020, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/75 "2020-12-03T22:23:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s about people whose worldview sees Jews as powerful controlling people, and anti-Semitism as therefore not a big deal, and are thus predisposed to look at resolutions condemning anti-Semitism as singling out Jews for special privileges. ISTM that you’re using a pretty drastic interpretation of Omar’s remarks about “political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country” (if that is indeed the incident under discussion here). As a person of Jewish descent, I’m well aware of the pernicious history of “dual loyalty” accusations against Jews. But I’m also well aware of ongoing and energetic propaganda efforts to persuade Americans, Jewish and otherwise, of their duty to support alliance with Israel and to equate any criticism of Israeli policy with anti-semitism. So while I think that there is doubtless some anti-semitic influence affecting Omar’s remarks, support for Omar, and American opinions about the Israel/Palestine situation—because there is always some anti-semitic influence affecting everything everywhere—I don’t think it’s a priori illegitimate to question the tactics and the ethics of various lobbying efforts on behalf of the Israeli government. And I think it’s an overreaction to reflexively slap the broad-brush label “anti-semitism” on all such questioning. (However, I do think it was both ethical and politically astute for the House to respond to that controversy by passing a resolution condemning “anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry”. I note that the 23 Representatives who voted against that condemnation were all Republicans, btw.) ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2020, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/76 "2020-12-04T01:00:01Z")
Sorry, but I’m going to ask this to be closed. Not turning out at all as I’d hoped. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2020, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115/77 "2020-12-04T01:24:46Z")
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-non-trump-republicans-conservatives-willing-to-discuss-things/927115.md?page=3)