mtutiger

Just from my day job I can attest that there is no shortage of concrete being poured in this country right now

1000 percent, it has to be Harris. No argument here

The 25th is the remedy for sure, but that solution evokes a lack of stability. I think there is legit concern from someabout voting for someone who cannot make it thru the term. Even if the remedy exists.

Counterpoint: if swing voters actually do think he should step aside and see him refusing to, as he is doing now, doesn't it reinforce the idea of a elderly parent refusing to turn the car keys over? And what happens if he theoretically is reelected, has a stroke, and still refuses to give up the car keys? Trump as a candidate promises less stability and majorities still hate him. But if perceptions of Biden and his age are *that* baked in, I can see how some voters might see him as just as unstable or more unstable choice than Trump. I don't agree with it myself, I would vote for a jar of pickles before I would vote for Trump... but I believe that's what we are reckoning with right now

I'm not hitching my wagon to anything lol

In a discussion about the roles of Mitt Romney and Josh Hawley, vis a vis January 6th, I continue to fail to see how any of this is relevant.

For reference, Appalachia defined from the Appalachian Regional Commission, with approximate location of Middletown circled in red: As his book goes into, he did spend a lot of time in Jackson KY as a kid due to having family in the area. And I have no doubt that it influenced him. But you are correct, it isn't Appalachia and it comes across not genuine at all for him to claim that he hails from there. On top of this, the thing that bothers me a little bit is that even with his hometown of Middletown, the reality is that he left, went to Ohio State, ended up at Yale Law School, wrote his book and landed in the VC world of the Bay Area. I don't begrudge him for getting out, a lot of people do; I went to college and ended up elsewhere - couldn't do what I do for a living in my hometown. But while growing up in a small town can influence the outlook of people who have left, the reality is that for someone like JD who got the hell out as fast as he could and graduated into the "elite" class, it comes across phony as hell when he claims to have special insight. People recognize it. There's a longer discussion to be had on how radically his views of where he came from have changed since the time he wrote his book as well - whether one agrees with Kevin Williamson's views, his piece on JD does a really good job of breaking down the discrepencies and is well worth the read. https://thedispatch.com/article/government-isnt-your-mamaw/

I mean, you are the one who invoked Mitt Romney's faith to impugn his motives and/or character here.

The "Sam and Ralph" stuff is getting really old from these guys

I won't say that it was better because a lot of good has actually happened since 2012, in spite of the time since being an era dominated by Donald Trump. But politics and governance has become incredibly unserious since that time. So many clowns on the scene, like the Boeberts and Greenes, who get way more airtime than they ever should. And the serious people, the ones who actually care about legislation and doing the work, some of them still exist but, on the GOP side, they keep getting pushed into retirement or given close primaries. I don't like the direction it is headed long term. People will go out of their way to give Trump a pass and say he's the "symptom, not the disease" or whatever, but IDK, I think the fact that he unleashed something that maybe was previously latent shouldn't be used an excuse.

It's also not germane to anything Eddie said. Literally, why should I give a **** what Mitt Romney believes or doesn't believe when evaluating his character as a politician? The reality is that one of those men helped create the conditions that led to the January 6th attack. One of those men not only didn't but continually pushed back on it as it was taking place. What the latter believes about the afterlife has no bearing on how I'm evaluating it in this world.

Romney is really conservative on a lot of issues, especially immigration. But his commitment to fact based reality is honorable and shows courage. He will be missed when he leaves, unfortunately there aren't many honorable folks left up there.

So if someone holds different religious beliefs, that means they are the devil and can't be trusted?

"Running against the Dems" sounds like a really half baked strategy for someone who wants to win the nomination of the Democratic Party and who wants any semblance of unity behind them heading into November

All the op-eds leading up to this point that always pondered fantasy ticket scenarios and flat ignored Kamala Harris' existence loom really large

Even if I agreed with you (and at this point I don't), the reality is this horse has left the stable. Telling millions of people, including millions of Democrats apparently, to sit down and shut up really doesn't fix anything. To be clear, I think there's a lot of legit concerns that accompany moving on from Biden, and many of the people itching to throw him overboard (at least the high profile ones like Nate Silver and Matt Yglesias) definitely come across like they are out of touch with various Dem constituencies that still support the President. But the situation just is what it is.... and it isn't entirely just a media creation, Biden and his campaign through his words and actions (not just the debate, but afterward, particularly the first week after) have to bear some blame for where we are.

The thing is that there's a bunch of them that I vehemently disagree with who, on the whole, are institutionalists and are relatively trustworthy (ie. when they give their word on something legislatively, they follow through on it).... Cornyn, Thune, Moore Capito, others. There's upwards of 30 of these types in the chamber as we speak. But these generally are folks who came to Washington to actually legislate and get things done. They aren't the type that hunt down the cameras any chance they get. I don't have much use for the latter (really in either party if I'm being honest).... and Hawley is among that group.

Also not seeing a whole lot from these statements (Jeffries, O'Malley Dillon, AOC) that really conflict with the idea that a drop out is being considered or will happen. Like, the status quo statements are going to hold until the moment that the status quo ends (should it indeed end)... nobody is going to come out and get ahead of that, certainly not figures associated with the actual campaign.

There are actually Republicans in the Senate that, while I don't like them, have veracity in their public statements. There's at least 30-35 of them. Through his words and actions since entering Congress, Hawley just isn't one of them.

So I am supposed to accept anything that Josh Hawley says at face value? Particularly on a subject like this, given his role in creating the conditions that led to January 6th? It's not about it being a Dem source or not, it's that Josh Hawley himself, through his words and actions since entering congress in 2019, hasn't proven to be someone worth trusting IMO. Sorry if that offends you.

Marjorie Taylor Greene sits on some committees in Congress.... does that make her stature unimpeachable too?

Josh Hawley happens to be a US Senator, which clearly means that he's always right and should never be questioned.

And with the exception of the Detroit rally, it's hard to look at the body of what he has done since the debate and see him effectively prosecuting the case. Hence why we are here.

But again this presents the problem: he's not out there, he's not on offense, he's not doing much of anything. Obviously at this very moment he has COVID but, ever since this debate, with the exception of his Detroit rally, he has not been able to defend himself or generate any sort of offense to go on. We can talk about what Biden should and shouldn't do all we want.... I've frequently also said during some of their leaner months the past few years that the Detroit Tigers should just hit more home runs too. But it's not enough to just talk about it, you have to *do* it. I am caught in the middle on this and have been ever since the debate.... there's been a lot of things about this whole episode that have been unfair, not the least of which is the casual and gross tossing around of clinical terms like "dementia", especially from people who know better. But on the other hand, the concerns about whether he has enough juice to do this aren't meritless either.... I have eyes and can observe what he's doing. And I just don't know that it works in terms of prosecuting the case for another four years.