Embracing the politics of sadism, the GOP base hits a new low.
By Tom Nichols, November 1, 2022
Nancy Pelosi with her husband, Paul Pelosi, in 2019 in Washington, DC. (Zach Gibson / Getty)
A Spreading Cancer
It might seem late in the game to point to any one event as a final or conclusive moment in the decline of the Republican Party. And I have no doubt that if the GOP returns to power this winter, its worst members will find new ways to appall decent people while gamboling about in jester’s bells for its base. (As my Atlantic colleague Adam Serwer has put it so well, “The cruelty is the point.”)
But the reaction among Republican elected officials and their conservative-media life-support system to the beating of Paul Pelosi—by a man named David DePape, who was charged with attempting to kidnap Speaker Nancy Pelosi and admitted to planning to torture her—feels different.
I am not alone; my friend Mona Charen, among others, also senses that this event marks a new level of depravity in the GOP. I have struggled for a few days to decide why, exactly, this moment seems like an inflection point.
In terms of actual damage, January 6 was far worse than one violent crime in San Francisco. Republican leaders—and here I will leave aside Donald Trump, who is in a class of hideousness all by himself—have said far worse things over the past five years. But a parade of Republicans somehow think that an unhinged, hammer-wielding intruder putting an old man in the ICU is funny.
The first public hearing of the January 6th Congressional Committee, as seen on TV, on June 9, 2022. The first hearing included video clips of the insurrection and testimony. Video of Donald Trump’s speech at the Ellipse in Washington DC on January 6th, the day of the insurrection.\By Mark Peterson/Redux.
If you’re reading this, then you probably already know: Donald Trump is reportedly thinking about running for president a third time. As he would only be one of a handful of ex-presidents to run again after losing reelection, there aren’t a lot of historical parallels for this, should he announce. But it would kind of be like the bubonic plague announcing a comeback and expecting people to be happy about it. Or your oncologist telling you your stage IV cancer had returned. Or the worst president in modern history, the one who incited a violent coup because his ego is so fragile he couldn’t admit he’d lost, deciding to take another stab at terrorizing the nation for another four years. Something like that.
Does Trump actually have a shot at winning? That he has a greater than 0% chance of doing so should terrify everyone in this country, as well as the people living in the countries he’d probably drop a bomb on if given the chance—and considering the 74,223,369 who voted for him last time, including those who have publicly stated he’s a danger to society but would nevertheless still vote for him again, his odds are clearly a lot higher than that.
Though a New York Times/Siena College poll this week found nearly half of the party’s primary voters wanting someone else in 2024, Trump still leads the field—and thus remains the favorite to take the Republican nomination if he runs. And as Politico noted Tuesday, Trump “could launch his third campaign any day now.”
In short, if you’ve been paying any attention at all, this news has no doubt caused you to panic, driven you to drink, or ripped through your stomach like a batch of bad oysters shucked by Mr. Mar-a-Lago himself, who you know ignores the “employees must wash hands before returning to work” sign. To be clear, given the circumstances, these are appropriate responses.
But maybe you still need convincing. Or maybe you know a person who knows a person who still needs convincing. Whatever your situation, the following is a list of some of the many reasons why Donald Trump should never be allowed inside the White House again. Not even as a guest! Not even as a school trip chaperone standing quietly and respectfully in the back. It doesn’t include literally every reason, seeing as our fingers would break off before we could get through every single one. But for anyone wondering if it would really be that bad, it should be enough to convince them that yes, it would really be that fucking bad.
By Marshall Cohen, Jason Morris and Christopher Hickey, CNN Illustration by Will Mullery, CNN Published August 5, 2021
Illustration by Will Mullery, CNN
Washington (CNN) – Prosecutors in Georgia are still investigating whether former President Donald Trump broke any laws when he tried to overturn his 2020 defeat in the hotly contested state.
The probe ramped up earlier this year, with a grand jury convening in Atlanta. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has said the criminal investigation includes potential “solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration.”
Months after the election, new information is still coming to light about Trump’s potentially unlawful effort to overturn the results.
Recent reports indicate that he considered installing a loyalist as acting attorney general at the Justice Department — someone who agreed with Trump’s false claims about voter fraud and was prepared to pressure election officials in Georgia to overturn the results.
If you’ve been watching the news lately, you know there’s a discussion and some say a challenge to the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Here’s some of what is showing up on “Google News” for her as a topic:
So, I started thinking, hmmm, I wonder how the House leadership works, its history and rules, etc. You can see more about that at the Wikipedia page noted below:
Which brings me to the idea that they can make rules, so they can change their rules.
With the new 2018 Midterm election bringing in more voices, more diversity, more women, more people of color, more younger and energetic members, they should think outside the box a bit.
Why not give these voices a chance to be heard? Why not include them in “leadership”?
Why don’t they have a New Voices Co-Speaker? Why don’t they have a New Voices Leadership Team that provides advice and counsel to Nancy or whomever is Speaker?
Rather than leaving them out, include them.. practice inclusion. Take advantage of this new political energy and voices, listen, learn, change, adapt, grow.
Having these new leaders more visible and allowed by rule changes to be more active and involved, would provide a new vitality to the U.S. House. It would be something to point to at a 2020 election and say, look how we grew, look how we are different, look how we changed…
