No one is debating the value of legacy name recognition in politics or the generational inequities of financial access in America.
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 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Bammer lamented "Trump-backed R’s taking out more moderate R’s is really, really disappointing."
Eh most of the page was about Cheney, and I assumed he was talking about her, but I'm not gonna split hairs here.
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.
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.
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.
Perceived corruption, lying, and betrayal. A perception earned the hard way. The only question is why aren't you acting the same?
