Making out that you are some holier than thou moderate in today’s political climate only pegs you as a rube of a slightly different flavor.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Maybe, but then why step down early? The only thing that makes sense is that there is a shitstorm coming, and his only option is to not be there when it hits. Then, in 2020, poke his head out and act like he was on whichever side came out on top.
Kevin Drum just posted a theory similar to adaher’s from the OP (minus the proposal for reassigning leadership of the oversight committee, plus some foot-related snark): It’s Not a Big Mystery Why Jason Chaffetz Is Quitting Congress – Mother Jones
Sounds about right. I’m still naive enough to be a little shocked at the bald-faced opportunism.
Truth : There was no actionable wrongdoing with regards to Benghazi.
Truth : This was established relatively quickly, after the first investigation.
Truth : The Republicans kept “investigating” in spite of the facts.
Or more generally :
Truth : The Earth is warming, and the primary cause is human activity.
Truth : Lower tax rates on the richest do not create jobs.
Truth : Sanctuary cities do not generally have higher crime rates.
Truth : A border wall would have next to no impact on illegal immigration.
Truth : The murder rate is down.
… I mean, I could go on for hours, if I were inclined to list simple truths that Republicans either reject, or pretend to reject for political purposes. Anyone who equates the Democrats and the Republicans on this subject - the acceptance or rejection of truth - is doing just what the Republicans do - ignoring facts and evidence to reinforce their own opinions.
My number-one criteria when selecting candidates to vote for is “Which one of these people acknowledges reality and seems to have a plan to deal with it?” As a result, the last time I voted Republican was in 2000. The GOP’s rejection of science, fact, and even reality itself has made me into a die-hard Democrat. And I’m aware some lefty fringe types have bugs up their ass about nuclear power and GMOs, and I challenge them on those positions where I see them. But I’d vote for a kook who wants to ban mutant corn over a kook who wants to de-regulate air pollution every time.
So please - enjoy sitting on that fence, and pretending it’s in the middle of the field. The rest of us will try to bring reality back to politics in spite of you.
Where do you see anything about “prefer” in my post? The Democrats have almost no political power in the country right now. We’ve lost Congress, the White House, and the majority of governorships. The last election went to a pathological liar and explicit racist. The lesson of 2016 is that the American public prefers lies and insults - rational discourse sounds good on paper. But it doesn’t actually get you votes - not even from your precious “moderates.”
What “most moderates like [you] know” is a bigger political fantasy than CandidGamera’s “distilled truth.”
So again I ask: do you prefer to act like Hannity, O’Reilly, et al.? Or do you prefer to discuss issues in a rational way, acknowledging that differing views can be had, but that, for reasons you will gladly set forth in a respectful way, you think your views have more merit?
This Board is filled with “liberals” who engage in discourse roughly equivalent to that engaged in by the aforementioned right-wing commentators. “I’m right, and if you can’t agree with me on that, you’re just stupid.” (Not saying you do this, but you know the ones I mean) And this sort of commentary from the “left” is becoming increasingly common on my Facebook feed, in my interactions daily with people at places like my curling club, the golf course, etc. And with respect, I think that the “rational discourse” method generally produces good results. After all, didn’t the Presidency go to Barack Obama twice? I hardly thought of his campaigns as being hyper-partisan and filled with shrill denunciations of alternative viewpoints. And as for Congress, absent the unfortunate temporal unity of the Tea Party and the 2010 census, I think the seating arrangement there would be much closer to even.
So I hope that the Democratic Party doesn’t see the result of the Presidential election of 2016 as a sign it needs to up its shrill partisan rhetoric game.
nm
You answered your own question. He’s stepping down early to avoid the shitstorm, so he can emerge unscathed and get elected governor.
Seems likely. Then the question becomes whether or not he knows something that is coming round the mountain. Seems to me he wouldn’t do this unless he was pretty sure there was.
Or at least sure that there couldn’t not be. 
I’d quibble with this one by saying that “at the current general tax rate and deduction regime.” Under very high tax regimes that nonetheless offer some ways around them, you can put so much effort into avoiding taxes that it hurts the economy. On the other hand, if you can’t avoid them, well, everyone always wants to make as much money as possible even if there’s only one for you, nineteen for me.
And I ask you again, where do you see the word “prefer” in my post?
And where did the House, Senate, and the majority of governorships go during that period?
How did the Tea Party and congressional Republicans grab so much political power in 2010? Through rational discourse? Not so much. While Democrats were trying to craft rational solutions to actual problems, the right wing of this country was shrieking about secret Muslims and death panels, and the American electorate rewarded them control of the country.
We should not forget another important factor, the fossil fuel companies that knew that the most extreme conservatives do distrust science, so they funded groups that helped to elect them to congress in 2010 and earlier. They did not have to do much of an effort then to get what they wanted, in the way of the congress critters destroying regulations and treaties that were getting in the way of their profits.
Long expose made by the fine reporters at PBS’s Frontline:
(Link goes to transcript, the documentary is free to watch and required viewing) -Teacher talking- 
You’re not the boss of us! I’ll watch it, sure, but not because you said so!
There’s no huge dump of documents and scientific papers in this movie, right? Just askin’.
So answer my question, then. Do you or do you not prefer the Democrats adopt a shrill, partisan tone similar to that of the right-wing commentators like Hannity? Stop avoiding the question.
No, but plenty of examples of Republicans and conservative groups demanding that from scientists in their fishing expeditions.
I’ve answered it twice already.
Haven’t they already? Whats the cold mendacity of Sean “The Big Giant Head” Hannity compared to the cheerful and chucklesome enthusiasm of Rachel Maddow? Or the intense, rabid badger aggressiveness of Chris Hayes? OK, a bit weak on the shrill, but partisan as all git-out!
“Curling club?”
Jobs are created by demand. The super-rich, as a class, are too small to generate effective demand for consumer goods, or services. Meaning the lower class and middle class, by their sheer bulk numbers, account for most of it - so if you want to create jobs, you give more money to the lower and middle class. They’re also less likely to hoard the money away uselessly, as their margins are so much smaller that they cannot effectively save most of what they get.
IOW, give a thousand dollars to a poor guy, and he will spend 100% of it right away. Give the thousand to a rich guy, and he shoves it in a bank account, generating far less economic activity.