Don’t get me wrong, I’m not lauding Romney for anything.
Under this analogy, wouldn’t Romney belong to the Zentrum?
I am unsurprisingly comfortable with and confident in my categorization.
I laud Romney for voting to convict, even if he calculated it as a way to stake ground in a post-Trump GOP.
KevinC
5487
I’ll throw props Romney’s way. It was politically damaging to him to vote to convict, especially at the time. He’s up there with Nancy Pelosi in terms of the hate I see around here from the Republican/Trumpist crowd. I’d imagine Thanksgiving isn’t going to be too comfortable.
Is he positioning himself for a post-Trump GOP? Definitely could be, but he’s already been the party nominee once and he’ll be 77 when the next election season rolls around. He’ll be that age when his Senate term is up at which point he may well be looking to retire.
Is he an ally of progressives? No. Like the rest of his party his policies are terrible. But what sets him apart is that unlike anyone else in his party, he actually has some convictions. I’ll give him a lot of credit for standing up to his constituents, his party, and his family to cast that vote. He’s the only US Senator to have done so. I’m not a fan of the guy or anything but he’s a lot better than the rest of his party by a large margin (that’s a very low bar, of course).
ZeTh1
5488
Don’t forget McCain and his badass “No.”.
“The blacks.”
“People.”
SCOTUS doing their part for the GOP:
Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier this week:
We need a Constitutional amendment for the right to vote - that might even pass in red states.
I think he’s just being conscious of his legacy; wanting to be on the right side of history. Same thing I see glimpses of in John Roberts.
Seems like a fitting demise for the GOP that the guy to lead it would be the guy who lost the election for them 2 cycles ago.
Was it politically damaging, though? He’s got close to 60% approval where it counts (Utah). He’s pretty well liked there, and Mormons aren’t particularly fond of trump (though they’ll hold their nose and vote for him because fetuses and racism, I guess).
I think he’s done the bare minimum to seem brave, while not actually taking any risks at all.
KevinC
5494
It was politically damaging. His party is a cult and he voted to convict their orange idol. Let me put it this way: he gained animosity from a lot of Republican voters, enough that he’s pretty much guaranteed a primary challenge if he so chooses to run again (I have my doubts). And let’s be honest, it’s not going to garner a lot of votes from Democrats as this thread illustrates. Of course, that’s assuming that the Trump brand isn’t completely toxic by the time 2024 rolls around which by all rights it should be, but at the time of the impeachment vote the party was in lockstep with Trump.
I don’t know, I think it takes a kind of courage to stand up against the entirety of your party that you’ve belonged to for your entire life, your constituents, and your family to do the right thing even knowing it wasn’t going to convict Trump.
I’m not saying he’s a national hero or anything, but I’ll definitely give him props for what he did. He’s the only senator in US history who has done it, so it must not be an easy thing.
The problem with Romney and McCain and their like is that once in a great while they buck they party, but 99% of the time they vote along party lines for terrible laws and awful court appointments.
Although he wasn’t yet in the Senate, here’s typical Romney:
“I would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh,” Romney said, “given his decades of admirable public service and his 12-year record as an accomplished justice on the second highest court of the land.”
No one’s saying Romney isn’t a Republican. But he is apparently a Republican who had a problem with the President soliciting foreign aid to smear a political opponent. That’s something.
Himmler tried to start peace talks with the allies when he realised they couldn’t win.
Timex
5498
The thing is, what i think a lot of these GOP members fail to realize, is that acting with courage would net then a lot more support than being the craven cowards they are.
I don’t think it’s cowardice, it’s more of a pragmatic view on the strong benefits of staying in lockstep as a party. Anybody doing politics in a national elected office is way past thinking that they can just vote their conscience on every issue. That may garner support from a few voters, but breaking ranks will cause the party to abandon a politician. And with the party apparatus and funding, there’s basically no way to ever hold ever national office again. I’m not aware of any national elected officials who got where they were without party support.
It’s still short term thinking. The long game (if one actually cares about America) is to double down on integrity and principles.
I’m not the world’s biggest Mitt Romney fan but comparing him to one of the chief architects of the Holocaust is quite something.
