I was going to suggest that Burt probably reacted to Cheney more than anyone else because of those encomiums* to her from the usual suspects at the Bulwark.

*Stole this new word to me from the Twitter

What great virtue and character to exist as a stand-in for a neo-conservatism that insists on pointless expeditions abroad above all else.

Insist that I'm the moderate, centrist voice of reason opposed to the "extreme radicals"? In this economy!?

The purposeful vagueness of the "them" here is so powerful.

No one is debating the value of legacy name recognition in politics or the generational inequities of financial access in America.

I asked you if the other Republicans who (apparently) needed to be weeded out for the sake of the party were also in the pocket of these shadowy figures, and what you said is "they are obviously minor players compared to the daughter of Dick Cheney." Making this only about Cheney is a defensive strategy, because she is a Cheney and therefore easy to paint as part of the power elite. No further explanation necessary. It's a worker's party now.

But Burt, there is no getting around the fact that this was not a surgical rejection of a single legacy power broker. It was a concerted targeting of a significant number of currently-serving individuals by people within their own party. Trying to make it only about Cheney is like saying "I'm not asking why the REST of the village burned down. That's irrelevant to what I want to talk about. I want to talk about why this one house in the middle of the village burned down."



I think she is an unremarkable and ultra-consistent Republican ideologue and office holder who now cannot be tolerated by the very people she votes exactly in lockstep with. I'm asking you to drill down the specifics of why, since you agree with them. You haven't said anything about her yet that doesn't describe a hell of a lot of other Republicans who haven't faced concerted primary efforts from MAGA world.



My answer is that you have no idea about these other Republican incumbents at all. You assume that they must have been doing something wrong because they were targeted by people you support. They deserved punishment because they were punished.



Right. She was worth less to the movement than a Republican who routinely votes against the movement's ambitions, because she attacked the figurehead. It is better and more important to show fealty to the figurehead than it is to further the movement.



Was Herrera Beutler also a part of this clique? Was Peter Meijer? And Tom Rice? Is that why they needed to be primaried?

What about people like Hal Rogers or Chris Smith? Or other long-serving Republicans who were a part of the Bush-era globalist agenda? Nobody's primarying them. Were all of the many various long-serving Republican Senators and Representatives, many of whom have been in office for decades, not a part of this clique?

Or is there some other reason why Beutler, Cheney, Meijer, and Rice needed to be excised that didn't apply to Hal and Chris? What might it be?



Bammer lamented "Trump-backed R’s taking out more moderate R’s is really, really disappointing."

You chose to narrow the focus to Cheney alone, which is easier to frame as "the people against the establishment" because of her family and history. But (he said again) Cheney's removal was part of a concerted effort that involved an historically unusual number of incumbents being removed by their own party, and not an isolated event.


I'm asking you. I'm asking what distinguishing quality these people suddenly have, that would cause voters who in some cases supported them for years to only now reject them en mass.

Liz Cheney supported the IRS super soldiers.

Give me a name and I'll tell you if they are in the Illuminati or not.

lol

It goes beyond financial access. It's access to positions of power that even most rich people don't have access to. She isn't just powerful because she has access to wealth.


I'm not interested in sorting out the miniscule (if not totally hypothetical) number of good ones from the Liz Cheneys. The vast majority of these people are closer to Liz Cheney than the saintly paragons of civic virtue you seem to think they are. You can waste your time sorting out who is and isn't, but I'm not wasting my time. That isn't how a totally corrupt system is fixed. The corruption is such that you are looking for unicorns.

It is a populist movement. You may think they are wrong, or that they don't actually represent the crowd's interests (populist movements seldom do), but it is a populist movement, like it or not. Of course, it's corrupt, too - a much more stupid form of corruption - but it's also a symptom of a much larger problem that you don't seem to want to face.


So? We're passed the time for surgery. They're using a sledgehammer, because that's what the current situation demands. You can call them brainless louts for resorting to such "mindless" reaction, but it's getting a lot more done than your endless analysis. They have jobs. They don't obsess over every race like you do.

Yeah, the one honest politician left alive might get caught in the crossfire. Tragic.



Yeah, you're right. I am. And more times than not, you and I both know I'll be right about them. Again, I'm not interested in surgical precision here. This isn't the time for that. It's not a terrible strategy. I support the strategy. Democrats should adopt this strategy. Carpet bombing.



Voting record is important (though it can be gamed), but obviously siding with "the enemy" to attack your own movement is arguably detrimental to the cause in most cases, don't you think? Maybe they're wrong, but they've seen politicians turn on them before (many, many times actually), so I can see why they are done with anyone who shows even a glimpse of betrayal.



Let God sort em out.

Do you want me to say that MAGA is only electing honest politicians? Of course not. I think they are electing those they perceive to be loyal, and making a very big mess of things for the old regime in the process.



Eh most of the page was about Cheney, and I assumed he was talking about her, but I'm not gonna split hairs here.


Most people think the level of corruption is much higher than you seem to think it is, and Cheney is a good mascot for that corruption, and I think that people assume the rejected candidates are closer to her than not. Is it paranoia? Maybe. Or maybe they're right not to bother with subtleties.



Perceived corruption, lying, and betrayal. A perception earned the hard way. The only question is why aren't you acting the same?

Wyoming shouldn’t even have senators.

I don't know why you don't understand that I am not defending these people on merit or "rooting for them." I am saying that they were perfectly acceptable to the Republican Party for years....decades, in some cases. That includes the years since 2016.

If they are problems, corruptions, and failures, why were they not treated as problems, corruptions, and failures in 2020? Or in 2018?

I am not presenting them as paragons of anything. The Republican party accepted and embraced them, including (for most) throughout the Trump years. So what changed in the last 2 years?



So the Republican Party is at war with corruption?

Oh. Okay?



So as I understand it, they're purging corruption (meaning their intentions are pure and unassailable), but also they're not paying attention (meaning their actions are chaotic and uninterpretable).

Man that's a sweet spot. It's almost like it means you never have to question or understand anything.



And yet most of these people did not attack their own movement. The worst that can be said about many of the state level officials who have been targeted is that they certified an election.



Don't ascribe opinions to me that I have not expressed. I've not said anything about an absence of corruption in government.

You're asserting the existence of corruption simultaneous to asserting that there's no reason to prove corruption before consequencing people. And you're comfortable giving Get Out of Jail cards to literally any corrupt politicians who show sufficient loyal to the party leadership. You are advocating for the very thing you insist is the enemy.

The fulcrum that all this turns on is loyalty to the leader. That's it. That's the only thing.



They only suddenly show signs of this corruption? Was Liz Cheney not corrupt yet when the Republican Party gave her the third highest leadership position in the House in 2019? Is Kristi Noem a champion of fighting corruption? Give me a break.

True statement

Higher standards? Increased frustration? Lower tolerance for failure? Desperation? All of the above?



Who isn't?



I don't know what to tell you. Learn to live with uncertainty and ambiguity. Learn the ability to act without all total information. They dedicate a lot of resources to make sure you don't have it. At least MAGA voters seem to be aware that something has to change. You guys seem hellbent on defending the status quo at every opportunity.



They may have gone a little too far in a few places.



Is there some doubt about the existence of corruption here? Do we really need to get granular with it? It's not just a few corrupt people. The whole institution is compromised! Fire the whole department! Act! DO something.

These politicians are all gonna land cushy jobs somewhere anyway. It's not like they are being taken out and shot. We don't have to worry that much about collateral damage.

The cult of personality is in full swing no doubt, but it didn't come out of nowhere. Maybe if the establishment wasn't wholly dedicated to vaporizing their livelihoods, it wouldn't have come to that?

how do you not feel betrayed by the US government, post-internet?

They chose people like Oz and Walker... did they really expect to win with candidates that bad?

I hope Dr. Oz takes absolutely zero looks in the mirror this fall, and continues to run every election cycle in perpetuity, making Tiktok videos about the price of crudité at "Wegner's."

I personally spoke to one of the Republicans who was running and my brother personally spoke to another, and both of them were running under the platform of being mega-maga. Our big question was: Why the hell did Trump endorse Oz?

Both had the same answer and it was not surprising. Trump called them on the phone and offered his endorsement but with one condition: if they win, they must be his slaves and do and say everything he tells them to do.

They both more or less told him that he was being ridiculous...that they were going to do what they felt was right for the people of PA...yadda yadda yadda. His response was, "Then I will endorse the Muslim guy, and he will win. You just watch."

That is how Dr. Oz became our candidate. He was the only person running who was entirely willing to bend over for Trump.

That may be how he got Trump's endorsement. He only got the nomination after Republican primary voters took their turn being bent over for Trump

Right. We're talking Pennsyltucky and that's a given. Anyone that Trump endorses is going to win.

We are less than a year away (maybe 8-9 months) from Ron DeSantis declaring his run and setting off a race that will… man, I don’t even know, maybe end us? But I’m stocking up on popcorn & beef jerky.

DeSantis will be a good candidate to test the strength of the modern conservative messaging without the trump bluster. Interested to see how the Dems respond. It’ll be harder for them because he can form a substantive sentence.