The one about defending the morons in the leadership of his own party. Unnecessarily too.
This will, quite predictably and not wholly unreasonably, be read as an argument that the action of the mob was nothing but “legitimate political discourse” and that nobody should be prosecuted. It will be used against hundreds of elected Republicans who were not consulted in its drafting and do not endorse its sentiment. To the extent that the party did not intend this as the meaning — and RNC chair Ronna McDaniel, already doing damage control, says it was not meant that way — its wording is political malpractice of the highest order coming from people whose entire job is politics.
And yes, that was the National Review saying that.
To the extent that the party meant to maintain plausible deniability that they meant to whitewash the violent mob while appealing to the large portion of their base that is represented by the violent mob… well, nice try, but your polish just won’t stick to that turd.
It all comes down to 2022 and 2024. In particular, if Democrats can hold the House this year and complete the work of the January 6th investigation, the Republicans as they are currently configured are done for. If Republicans win both elections, they are still done for, but only in the sense that they’re policies run up against reality. Climate change doesn’t care about things like that, and it will hit harder under Republican policies, regardless of how many Trump rallies the base attends and how much they suppress the Democratic vote.
This I’d like to see. I don’t believe I’ve seen Republican strategists (meaning the sort that are on the news - including conservative news) “scared shitless” since back in the early days of the Clinton years. Since Newt Gingrinch and 1994 it’s been all about how they are going to fight the Democrats at every step, not defeatist talk about how the Democrats finally got the better of them so let’s pack it in because we’re done for.
My position is that anybody who committed crimes on January 6th should be prosecuted. Rubio’s position is that anybody who committed crimes on January 6th should be prosecuted. And, as far as I can tell, your link makes clear that the (a) the folks at National Review take the same position, and that (b) the folks at National Review take issue not with what McDaniel intended — and note that she says it was not meant in some other way — but with how it could be taken.
McDaniel says she means to draw a line between those who broke the law and those who didn’t. Like the folks at National Review, I agree that for political reasons she should refrain from bad — if literally correct — phrasing; but, to the extent that her position is the same as mine when it comes to locking up (or sentencing to hard labor, or possibly executing) such lawbreakers, I can but hope she’s learned to message more effectively.
Well, yes; they take issue with how it will be taken by someone familiar with the English language and the basic logic of the situation.
To go over the latter again:
The Republican Party censured Kinzinger and Cheney for participating in the January 6 committee.
Specifically, the Republican Party declared that the activities of the January 6 committee in which Kinzinger and Cheney are taking part constitute an attack on citizens engaged in “legitimate political discourse”.
The January 6 committee is an investigation of a)the mob violence that occurred at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and b)the planning and preparation for said mob violence.
The Republican Party considers mob violence and planning/preparation for mob violence to be “legitimate political discourse”. Q.E.D.
McDaniel says she means to draw a line between those who broke the law and those who didn’t.
Since the resolution condemns the investigation of those who broke the law, this statement only makes sense if she intends to draw a line between those who did and did not break the law and permit investigation of only the latter.
I read her as saying her intention is to make sure the investigation sticks to its stated goals, and doesn’t go beyond those by going after people who broke no laws. Is that not a possible reading?
Not really, no, unless you’re going to argue for the ridiculous position that it makes sense to censure someone for things they did not do but just might possibly do in the future.
Who is proposing investigating people who broke no laws? What would they even look for? “Joe Blow was hanging around on the grounds of the Capitol – let’s see what we can pin on him!”
Anyway, back to the subject of this thread, the Republicans will likely take over the House and the Senate this November, and will control the Supreme Court for a couple of decades. Doesn’t seem like a recipe for failure.
And, Hispanic voters are becoming more reliable Republican voters – they tend to be socially conservative anyway. Many other recent immigrants are also socially conservative and so are a natural demographic for a Republican party if they just tone down the racist dogbullhorns.
The very worst of these pales in comparison to the January 6 insurrection. None of the protests from the left had any intention of overthrowing the government or murdering elected officials. There’s a difference between protesting to advance civil rights and address legitimate grievances and throwing a violent temper tantrum because your toddler messiah can’t accept the results of an election.
ISTM a big part of the investigation is determining whether laws were broken and by whom. By necessity, that requires investigation of people who have not yet been determined to have broken laws.
Otherwise, it’s like saying, “We don’t know who robbed the bank, and since no one has been identified as a bank robber, we can’t investigate anyone for the bank robbery.”
Not to mention that Democrats up to and including candidate Biden condemned the violence stemming from those protests, while all but a very few Republicans (including the man at the top) have championed and/or whitewashed the acts committed on Jan. 6.
How about those who planned the whole shit-show and supported, promoted it before January 6? Those who encouraged the mob to do what they did? Those in positions of power? Should they be investigated at all, or should the whole investigation by the House Committee just be shelved?
I know it goes against the left wing propaganda machine but if their intent was to violently overthrow the government wouldn’t they have come armed? Seriously, the left at least shows up to their riots and unrests with skateboards, Molotov cocktails, and a vast assortment of construction tools and materials.
Anyways, neither the Republicans or the Democrats are destined for anything at this moment. It’s a two party system and each party is going to morph in a way to be at near parity with the other.
Plus the attempt to overthrow the government was a lot more than just the Jan. 6th rioters. The attempt was to use the violent mob to stop the electoral vote counting and delay it long enough to prevent Biden from being certified by congress. There were several parts to this coup attempt, and the crowd that was fired up and aimed at our government was only one part of the plot. Characterizing only what was done by the rioters on Jan 6th as the attempt to overthrow the government erases the plotters and planners all over the GOP doing everything they could on Trump’s behalf to prevent Biden from getting certified as the winner. Let’s not lose sight of that.
Besides the fact that many were armed, they erected a gallows on the Capitol steps, complete with noose. I have no doubt that had they managed to find Pelosi and Pence, they would have been strung up to die, unless they had gotten bludgeoned to death before making it to the gallows. But do go ahead and make false equivocation between this and a few inconsequential blocks being occupied by non-violent protestors in Seattle.