The Republican Agenda 2021 and Forward

Alli said:
I’ve been saying it’s a Contract Against America, but I think Liz may have it more accurate with Contract On America.
Click to expand...

What's hilarious to me is that so many references are indeed to Gingrich's old name for the thing, "Contract for America" and the parody title that substituted "on" instead of "for". No one's paying attention to the actual new title, much less to whatever is in it, aside from the video with the offshore images. Talk about rocky rollouts. 🤣
 
I find it ironic that the main reason for the rise of the global right is the failures of capitalism and they turn to fascist authoritarianism that is the biggest defender of extreme capitalism – power concentrated at the top while crushing the workers by making them grateful to be a cog in the machine and the scraps they get for doing so. It’s like Christians saying Satan is the cause of all the problems in the world and as a result they start worshipping Satan. That’s pretty much hitting the nail on the head with Christians worship of Trump.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
I find it ironic that the main reason for the rise of the global right is the failures of capitalism and they turn to fascist authoritarianism that is the biggest defender of extreme capitalism – power concentrated at the top while crushing the workers by making them grateful to be a cog in the machine and the scraps they get for doing so. It’s like Christians saying Satan is the cause of all the problems in the world and as a result they start worshipping Satan. That’s pretty much hitting the nail on the head with Christians worship of Trump.
Click to expand...

At the very least it's like what's going on with Giorgia Meloni's rise to leadership of Italy. She managed to pitch being "Italian, Christian, mother, woman" as conservative attributes that somehow escape the left entirely, as if none but the right have values that are human or nurtured in family and community... and meanwhile she castigates the left as the source of any tendency in Italy for people to be viewed as mere cogs in a consumerist society that she depicts as overly controlled by the EU.

It makes the head spin really. If Meloni manages to assemble a coalition it will bring to legislative power a bunch of people who have every intention of keeping ordinary Italians -- women or no-- exactly where and who they are, which is.... yeah, cogs in a wheel owned by someone else. And meanwhile as fiery as her speeches have been sometimes, she self describes as a traditionalist in order not to scare away true conservatives who are merely dissatisifed by overall government policy.

Same as what's been going on lately in back rooms (and some donor circles) of the Republican party: weeding out candidates or even a few GOP congress critters who are a little bit too strident in advertising the actual extremism of today's Republican Party. Kevin McCarthy wants to tone down the public look and feel of some of House Freedom Caucus, not intending that the party act with more moderation if it returns to majority control in the House next year, but at least to look and sound like it.

These are not necessarily anti-Trump Republicans in the sense of a Liz Cheney, even if McCarthy and others in the GOP leadership are getting past weary of the former prez. They recognize the need not to tip that applecart over before the elections.

What they have been aiming for is reduced risk of alienating conservative and independent votes they need, as well as possibly making McCarthy's cat-herding chores a little simpler next year. But the main thing is the upcoming elections, so we can file this effort under the shopworn rubric "Don't frighten the horses."

How Kevin McCarthy’s political machine worked to sway the GOP field (paywall removed)

"Allies spent millions in a sometimes secretive effort to weed out candidates who could cause the House leader trouble or jeopardize GOP victories in November"​
 
lizkat said:
What's hilarious to me is that so many references are indeed to Gingrich's old name for the thing, "Contract for America" and the parody title that substituted "on" instead of "for". No one's paying attention to the actual new title, much less to whatever is in it, aside from the video with the offshore images. Talk about rocky rollouts. 🤣
Click to expand...

Laugh all you want. The "Contract WITH America" gave the GOP control of the House for the first time in 40 years. That's generations.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
I find it ironic that the main reason for the rise of the global right is the failures of capitalism and they turn to fascist authoritarianism that is the biggest defender of extreme capitalism – power concentrated at the top while crushing the workers by making them grateful to be a cog in the machine and the scraps they get for doing so.
Click to expand...

That's one interpretation.

But I say it isn't the Global Right, but the Global Elites. Of both sides.
 
Herdfan said:
Laugh all you want. The "Contract WITH America" gave the GOP control of the House for the first time in 40 years. That's generations.
Click to expand...

And with that, Newt Gingrich introduced and made nastiness a virtue on the Republican side, which has grown exponentially in strength and nutjobbery over the last 40 years.
 
Herdfan said:
Laugh all you want. The "Contract WITH America" gave the GOP control of the House for the first time in 40 years. That's generations.
Click to expand...

Gingrich had the sense to focus on items that at least 60% of all Americans were then in favor of, although the ensuing Congress developed a preference to split the items into a larger number of bills, hoping to get an impressive number of them passed in the House but suspecting (correctly) that a lot of them would not make it through the Senate.

The alleged "Commitment to America" that McCarthy has put up to represent goals of the Republican Party of today carries little sense of an actual legislative program, since whenever the Rs do flash their colors on that score on the national scene, they tend to take a drubbing. Meanwhile the language is close to embarrassing in some places:

abcnews.go.com

McCarthy rolls out House GOP 'Commitment to America' ahead of midterms

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., rolled out an agenda he says the House GOP would follow if it flips the House this November.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

While intended to detail what an agenda could look like in a GOP House majority, the plan is light on specifics. Included in the "commitment" are platitudes like "support[ing] our troops," "exercis[ing] peace through strength with our allies to counter increasing global threats," "recover[ing] lost learning from school closures" and "uphold[ing] free speech."

The proposal also boasts of "rigorous oversight," though no specific investigatory efforts are laid out.
Click to expand...

Well of course Elise Stefanik weighed in on that last one, laughably enough talking about "rooting out corruption" in the administration.... even as the former prez she still sucks up to all the time juggles multiple run-ins with our rule of law. MTG has been quoted as suggesting she will introduce a resolution to impeach Biden every week. McCarthy may like to tone that effort down a little... or, not.

But never mind, it's the wacky season, six weeks before voters roll eyes and try to exercise their constitutional right to help shape our representative self-governance.

McCarthy's effort with the "Commitment to America" rollout is essentially a last ditch attempt to paper over the divisions in the Republican party itself, as well as a campaign ad meant to gloss over the difficulties that Donald Trump is facing as those six weeks to election day roll off the calendar.

It's not quite inexplicable to me that Trump is still the nominal head of this GOP, despite being the most disgraced president in the history of the USA. But it grows more so by the day in the wake of all of Trump's legal difficulties, some of which are unprecedented for either a sitting or former US president.

Once the elections are over I will not be surprised if within the Republican Party some of the serious divisions that herald a struggle to arrive at "the post-Trump era" become far more visible. How that affects the leaders of Congress and course of actual legislation (no matter who holds the gavels) remains to be seen. I'd personally hope for more across-aisle cooperation on key problems we keep kicking down the road as a nation. Not holding breath.
 
Citysnaps said:
And with that, Newt Gingrich introduced and made nastiness a virtue on the Republican side, which has grown exponentially in strength and nutjobbery over the last 40 years.
Click to expand...
Exactly what happened. It indeed was a contract ON America. A rehash of Reagan/Heritage Foundation ideology and scheming. It's been steep downhill ride every time the GOP gains control. It'll be worst this time since they've rigged the system even more than usual. Especially if they outright steal seats since they're in control of the vote count/assessments in lots of places.
 
Herdfan said:
That's one interpretation.

But I say it isn't the Global Right, but the Global Elites. Of both sides.
Click to expand...

One thing I don’t get, and this might be the way the media is presenting it, is to me elites are elites. But it seems from the right there are good elites and bad elites as if one set is more aligned with the lower classes. While it may be fair to say there are more democrat elites in tech and entertainment, it’s absurd to think that Wall St and finance isn’t packed with republican elites and I’d argue they’re waging the most war against the lower classes. Then of course there is the fossil fuel elites, big pharma, and the legacy families who rarely get a mention these days packed with republicans. Like I said, it may be the media‘s slant on good and bad elites in the right’s eyes, but then there’s Trump - lifelong poster child of elites screwing and despising the lower classes getting a total pass by lower class republicans.
 
Culture wars, increasingly louder dogwhistling maturing into overt racism, more for the wealthy and themselves and less for everyone else, and a core base of brainwashed, corrupt, violence-sympathizing, white nationalist ideology-pushing, voter-suppressing and power-grabbing.

That's the republican agenda. Any agenda like healthcare or job creation is always a riff on "Let us enact these policies (which provide nothing for any of those things) and the market will be so great it will all take care of itself". They have no real plan. Look at their last plan after Romney lost - to appeal to more minorities and broaden the base. They ended up with Trump.. that's a big tent alright, but a circus tent.

Republican policies are not popular. But they've found people can be convinced with hatred and racism to vote against their own best interest, cutting their nose to spite their face. Our lopsided electoral system and the makeup of congress allow them to appear more competitive at the ballot box than they are in the general public.
 
I only loosely follow leftwing mainstream media but I assume rightwing mainstream media is the same on this because they are all corporate shills. The union movement, mostly mum on the subject or at best possibly the only time they report news without opinion. All the progressive sources I follow are enthusiastically pro union, read: working class. You’d think this is something those on the right, or what makes up Trump supporters on paper, would bond over this but they are probably so hellbent on outrage and vengeance that they are no longer capable of seeing an obvious ally.

Or maybe they think only leftists with useless college degrees work at coffee shops, Amazon distribution centers, and fast food chains. Since the right is so driven by exclusion they probably can’t fathom people on the left championing something that would benefit them as well. There must be some catch or ulterior motive that will screw them in the end.
 
I guess it’s Mitch McConnell’s turn to have Trump insult his wife and do nothing about it. Trump called his wife, former Trump Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chow, “Coco Chow” on his stupid social media platform, as well as saying McConnell has a “death wish”.

The midterms are beyond are going to be unreal.
 
GermanSuplex said:
I guess it’s Mitch McConnell’s turn to have Trump insult his wife and do nothing about it. Trump called his wife, former Trump Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chow, “Coco Chow” on his stupid social media platform, as well as saying McConnell has a “death wish”.

The midterms are beyond are going to be unreal.
Click to expand...

The insult was even a bit worse. "Must immediately seek help and advise from his China loving wife, Coco Chow!”

She was born in Taiwan.

What's really sick is there are likely tens of millions of Americans who are OK with the slur and think it's funny.
 
Last edited:
Rick Scott just said to Margaret Brennan, "That's a nickname, but but but FEMA ..."

Then she asked him, directly, several times, about the Greene comment, "Democrats want Republicans dead. They've already started the killings." and he would NOT denounce it, he kept going back to the VP comments, bringing people together, he would not even say something indirect like "I don't know what she said, but clearly that kind of language is not appropriate", fucking ghoul.
 
DT said:
Then she asked him, directly, several times, about the Greene comment, "Democrats want Republicans dead. They've already started the killings." and he would NOT denounce it, he kept going back to the VP comments, bringing people together, he would not even say something indirect like "I don't know what she said, but clearly that kind of language is not appropriate", fucking ghoul.
Click to expand...
So who exactly killed whom?
 
GermanSuplex said:
I guess it’s Mitch McConnell’s turn to have Trump insult his wife and do nothing about it. Trump called his wife, former Trump Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chow, “Coco Chow” on his stupid social media platform, as well as saying McConnell has a “death wish”.

The midterms are beyond are going to be unreal.
Click to expand...

Maybe the midterms will instead indicate a political equivalent of "quiet quitting" on the part of conservative leaning potential voters -- one can never know for sure until votes are cast.

Not every conservative voter is active on social media. Not every conservative would ever consider voting for anyone except a Republican (or mabe a Conservative or equivalent in a state with fusion voting). But some will sit on their hands before voting for anyone when the "conservative Republican" on a congressional ticket is a Trump supporter: there are potential voters who by now are sick of the meddling scofflaw ex-president Donald Trump, and the mini-Trumps who have received his endorsement.

Of course there are voters who will hold nose and vote their preferred party ticket anyway but more often that's in a presidential election year, not in the midterms.

As for Trump's insults to McConnell and his wife, it's clear Trump's impulsive and by now diffused rage will never be moderated by either self-preservation or pragmatism in singling out particular individuals for abusive commentary. As a member of senior leadership in the Republican Party, McConnell essentially helps hold purse strings on hundreds of millions of campaign dollars. This means nothing to Trump in a rage. It does mean something to people who have the option to cease cooperation in the GOP's underwriting Trump as a viable political figure.

McConnell is not likely to dignify Trump's remarks with any sort of commentary, despite some trolling on social media along lines of "gee the guy won't even defend his wife" etc. But Mitch McConnell is known to be a guy who understands that revenge is a dish best served cold.

The difference between McConnell and a lot of other Republicans (particularly some in the House) is that McConnell actually cares for the viability of the GOP. Ever since the ascension of Trump and the now widening fissures over how to manage a course correction away from a cultish party outlook, McConnell has engaged in a kind of ballet between assuaging concerns of Trump's followers and ensuring that the door remains open for those in the party (not necessarily those in Congress) who already want Trump firmly in the rear view mirror.

MItch's fence-dance has garnered him scorn from all sides, within and without the GOP, but he doesn't seem to mind. He still has the 2010 Citizens United decision of SCOTUS on his side, and so more access to campaign funds for the GOP than Donald Trump can even dream of having at his own disposal: "All the free speech money can buy."

Meanwhile Trump is stuck with grifting dough from his followers to pay for legal defense he doesn't even cooperate with. If you ask me who's going to come out on top with this battle for the cynical soul of the GOP, my two cents are on McConnell.

Even Kevin McCarthy, more noticeably a ring-kisser in Trump's corner, is angling for a toned-down far right caucus in the House. McConnell and McCarthy both want a Republican Party that can move on past Trump once these midterms are over, win or lose a majority in either chamber of Congress. It's only Trump doesn't quite get that yet. HIs allegiance is to himself. McConnell and McCarthy get it that their own powers are rooted in overall support from the Republican Party. They look at the dance their own party's congressional candidates are doing, state by state, and it's clear that there's more daylight now between the people and Trump, and so between the party and Trump.
 
DT said:
Rick Scott just said to Margaret Brennan, "That's a nickname, but but but FEMA ..."

Then she asked him, directly, several times, about the Greene comment, "Democrats want Republicans dead. They've already started the killings." and he would NOT denounce it, he kept going back to the VP comments, bringing people together, he would not even say something indirect like "I don't know what she said, but clearly that kind of language is not appropriate", fucking ghoul.
Click to expand...

I just saw that. Professional level weaseling at its finest.
 
Yah this rhetoric of political violence just needs to stop. Every single time some politician relays or initiates anew the idea that dissatisfaction over a political issue could be swayed or settled by violence, that person needs to be reprimanded in public by the entire senior leadership of the person's party.

It's not that we haven't seen times of political violence in the USA. We have done. But in the time of Donald Trump's ascendancy during 2016 was the first time I ever saw a presidential candidate suggest during his campaign that political violence --against dissenters, against working members of the press-- was acceptable. He wasn't talking about law enforcement. He was urging his followers to consider vigilante style management of other people's free speech. And ever since then, others have felt free to speak for and even to act on that idea.

Refusing to normalize political violence is one of the ways we remain a democracy. It should be a bipartisan effort.
 
Back
Top