Yankee - As always I appreciate your opinion. I think we will agree to disagree on some matters, but I would just like to discuss some points.
The only way this works long term is if it has legs beyond and above "Whatever Big Don wants at the given moment".
I think this is problematic, but I just want to note that people have the right and the prerogative to prioritize the short-term. The long-term is a luxury of youth and splendor, and most of the voters on the right are older. I would like for the GOP to appeal more to younger voters, but I don't want to abandon the aging base.
I opposed Liz Cheney in every primary she attempted or thought about running in over the past decade almost and were her opponent someone other than a carbon copy of herself (who supported her and worked for her campaigns in those same primaries by the way), I might have considered it just the same ole Wyoming fight with the Trump situation papered over it. However, that is not what we got and in the end, this women will just be Liz Cheney 2.0 plus the loves Donald DLC.
I totally get this. I have similar issue with Madison Cawthorne - more invade the world invite the world scum, just with some pandering to Trump. However, I think the Cheney clan needs to be excised from politics. No matter who replaces them, unless it's an outright racist pretty much, would be an improvement.
I raised this same concern as far back as 2018 cycle when Steven Bannon was promoting primary challengers like Grimm in Staten Island, who just a few years previously was not only in favor of open borders, but flaunting immigration laws himself and this was hand waved because "he is pro-Trump now". Conversely, there was no Senator more committed to anything resembling nationalism in the GOP prior to Trump then Jeff Sessions and Trump ended his career, not because he wavered on his commitments to borders and trade, but because he didn't put loyalty to Trump above everything else. Instead because of a Trump tweet, Alabama now has an air headed empty suit who talks a good game now, but in 10 years, who knows? Yellowhammer was right about this situation.
I was disappointed that Trump went after Sessions too. I don't think he was a great AG (by comparison, Barr did a lot more on immigration; Sessions was too married to drug laws, etc), but he was a great Senator. Trump, like all presidents however, had a massive ego. He blamed Sessions for the sins of the Obama administration regarding Russia. In reality there was little Sessions could've done to stop the investigation.
What is the point in nominating people based on whether or not they have cumbaya with Trump, only for them to screw us over once Trump is out of the picture? The emirs of cuckistan aren't the path by which a long time transformation is made even if today they sing they right tune. Hawley has the same exact problem, because he is Ted Cruz 2.0 with the Trumpism DLC written over the Tea Party one.
This is a point where I have to materially disagree. Josh Hawley:
• Supports wage subsidies
• Co-sponsored legislation enabling currency intervention in foreign exchange markets
• Authored the most draconian crackdown on mega corps in generations (banning all mergers and acquisitions by companies with >100b)
• Supports bringing back Glass-Steagall and expanding it to the tech sector
• Was one of a handful of republicans that supported 2k checks
He has been one of the better people on immigration and foreign intervention too. I think only Hawley and Rubio are talking about some of these issues. There is a massive difference between the guy who literally wrote the book on Teddy Roosevelt, and Ted Cruz.
Who is all around Trump these days? Mark Meadows, Mike Pompeo, Mo Brooks, Jim Jordan. These aren't civic nationalists. They are Tea Party darlings from the late 2000s and early 2010s. Who do you think made Paul Ryan Speaker? He was the tea party caucus' preferred replacement for John Boehner. Who do you think they invariably supported in the 2016 primaries? Ted Cruz. This is not a transformation of the Republican Party, this is a hijacking of the Trumpist movement in progress. The same people that had hijacked the tea party movement are all over and around Trump now and before you know it, it will be same hyper religious and hyper anti-government packaging that every previous movement has been hijacked into being for the past 30 years on the right.
People are attracted to power. It is worth recalling that Cruz had grassroots support in 2016, as you know. The Tea Party wave in 2010 actually was ignited by Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, and their supporters. Legitimate grievances with poor solutions.
Also Civic Nationalists wouldn't spin up a lie to preserve their own power, mislead and abuse their own people to the point that they raid congress on a lie and then obfuscate, deflect and throw them under the bus for the sake of self preservation.
We likely have materially different views on the outcome of the election and 1/6, so I will just agree to disagree here, respectfully.
As an aside - In general I think civic nationalists are people who have a duty to their fellow citizens, and not necessarily the institutions that claim to represent them. I have fallen more in the destroy/rebuild or erect parallel institutions camp, rather than the reform existing institutions path. I think all meaningful institutions are broken in America.
I have been railing against establishment corruption for 16 years, I have desired Lisa Murkowskis removal for 17 years. However, just like the media lying doesn't make the quack on facebook reliable, the establishment's corruption doesn't by default make Trump honest, competent or deserving of the support that he has.
Again the only way this works is to pursue it separate and apart from Trump.
I have issues with Trump. He is not perfect, but he is one of the few people on the right with force of personality. Speaking of the establishment and Tea Party, the only alternative to Trump, Ron DeSantis, was the darling of the Tea Party years ago. He is a huge foreign policy hawk, and he is extremely fiscally conservative.
In general given how important foreign policy is for the president—and that encompasses trade, immigration, and military action, certainly—I am skeptical about picking a governor as the nominee. I would certainly support him in a general, and I think he is smart about which culture war issues he fights. If none of my top 3 selections run (Hawley, Tucker, Trump), I would consider voting for him in a primary, as well.
Anyhow, as I prefaced, I respect your opinion, and am okay agreeing to disagree on some matters. I just wanted to outline my thought process.
