I guess Mr Nichols is one of those people who was only a Republican when the party was willing to be roadkill for the Progressive smear machine.

I can disagree with some of Trump’s polices and tactics without being willing to tacily endorse domestic terrorism and character assassination employed by the democrats, by leaving the opposing party.

This dude apparenly really believes the Russian collusion nonsense. Even my 93 year old mother is less gullible.

Meanwhile I suggest that all of you who hate republicans continue shunning them, and harassing them. Im sure it will benefit your party at the ballot box.

The choices get a bit clearer when the opposition presents itself as aggressive dangerous lunatics, and tells you upfront what their priorities are, and what their agenda is.

Isab Says:

"being willing to tacily endorse domestic terrorism and character assassination employed by the democrats"

You are really stretching the meaning of tacitly here.

Not only doesn't the author fail to directly state such a position... they don't imply it either.

If you see such an endorsement in anything the author wrote it is because you are seeing things that do not exist in an effort to create a strawman argument.

Nichols' is correct that the Republican party has abandoned all principles (stated, traditional, or otherwise) in pursuit of winning political victories at all costs.

They have adopted an ends justify the means philosophy.

This is not a great long term strategy.

Ahh, jeez what a time-waster...

"The Kavanaugh confirmation fight revealed the GOP to be the party of situational ethics and moral relativism in the name of winning at all costs."

Is this like when Trump supporters get blamed for violence at rallies when Antifa arrives in buses, to protest and assault them for pay?

Because what I saw was Democrats prepping and parading a woman acting as a child in a desperate attempt to keep Kavanaugh out of the Court - with such a heartbreaking story that the obvious right-wing house organ, USA Today, called them on faking it.

What was the party affiliation of those found screaming incoherently when Kavanaugh was confirmed? Isn't screaming a sign of desperation, however infantile?

I'd prefer my leftie kin shun me than shoot me, or whack me with their bike locks, or try to ruin my life with preposterous lies, or ...

You can use many cases to argue the Republican Party is a, not the party of situational ethics and abandoned principals, but not the Kavanaugh case.

It's a political party, after all. Political parties are all about expedience, principals and ethics be damned.

The Kavanaugh case showed the Democrats to be a party of situational ethics and abandoned principals - suborning perjury, character assassination, political machinations, etc. To wit, all of the corroborating witnesses named by the three accusers failed to corroborate the accusations - one even denied knowing the accuser. Yet, the Democrats persist with the myth that the accusations are "credible" and, by default of having been made against a while man and Republican appointee, true.

As for tariffs, I will admit, I was against them when Trump proposed them. However, while still against tariffs in general, I see that the administration is using them as a weapon to counter perceived trade imbalances and unsavory trade practices, and not as a blanket trade policy. Now, whether Trump is deft enough to wield such a weapon with skill is open to debate.

Free trade does not mean one country gets to ignore the intellectual property rights, trademarks, and patents of another country, or dump excess product on the market of another country - all of which China has been accused of doing by several presidential administrations. Free trade does not mean that the US becomes an open market for other countries while those countries remain closed or restricted to US products - e.g., the EU which charges 10% import duties on cars from the US while the US charges 2.5% import duties on cars from the EU. Free trade is open trade both ways. It is not the job of the US to lift Third World countries out of poverty by sacrificing its own blue collar workers.

As for the limits on executive power, when did either party believe in those when in power? The Democrats ruled by executive order and agency regulatory authority under Obama when they lost Congress in the mid-terms - with nary a peep from Congressional Democrats about the president stepping on Congress' prerogatives. Nothing from them in the way that Democrat elder-statesman, Robert Byrd, once took Bill Clinton to the woodshed over his breaches of Senatorial privilege.

Both Bush and Obama played games with the power of the president to make recess appointments - to the extent that Harry Reid left one Senator in the chamber during recesses to read nonsense into the record so the Senate was never technically out of session. Under Obama, McConnell continued the practice. Trump has been mercifully restrained with recess appointments, but has not yet faced a Congress under the opposition's control, so the worst may be yet to come.

We like to pretend that the political parties with which we affiliate are somehow pure of heart and noble; and that the opposition parties are ignoble and corrupt. But, the truth is, they're all political parties - they're all corrupt and full of con artists. That's a major part of the reason our Founding Fathers disdained them and advised against them.

In looking at the comments on that tweet and his responses, your calling him out for immaturity is right on the mark.

The silent treatment is for emotional blackmailers, the punitive and manipulative.

It's passive-aggressive behavior, which is typically unhealthy (except where direct speech would be dangerous, etc.). Have an upcoming column on this that should post in a few weeks.

It's the antithesis of shunning that persuades -- from a Guardian piece, "The white southerners who changed their views on racism":

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/08/the-white-southerners-who-changed-their-views-on-racism

"But in her 20s, while studying at the University of Mississippi, Hinman’s views changed. She made liberal friends."

> Tom Nichols, professor at the U.S. Naval War
> College, has a piece on why he's leaving the
> Republican Party

Except if you check his background, you'll find he was a Never Trumper.

It only makes sense that someone opposed to Trump would leave the GOP as the party aligns itself more closely with Trump over time.

Here's an article by Tom Nichols 3 months ago stating that Trump's stability is in question -

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/16/donald-trump-sides-vladimir-putin-most-danger-since-cold-war-column/786850002/

Hey, Tom? don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

The Republicans, however, have now eclipsed the Democrats as a threat to the rule of law and to the constitutional norms of American society.

Really, Tom? where? I keep hearing stuff like this, but again: where? examples?

Beecause Trump. Shut up!

This is how you got Trump. You want to know how you get more Trump? keep beating that dead horse.

Here's what he has wanted for 2 years -

"perhaps the Republican Party could morph into #NeverTrump, and remember why we were all once conservatives who cared about principle."

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/795840723060948993

Here was his position pre-Presidential election -

I am not a "Republican for Hillary" and did not join that movement. But her victory - which is to say his loss - is essential.

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/795364581556318210

So, he voted Democrat last Presidential election - like a true Republican.

Conan Says:

"As for the limits on executive power, when did either party believe in those when in power?"

I don't know Conan... I distinctly remember you and others bringing this up on a constant and repetitive basis for about 8 years (between 2008 and 2016).

All of a sudden within the last 2 years it's always been a fictional concern that no one really believed in.

I wonder what happened.

His is a curious complaint. Republicans are supposed to represent the people who elected them and their president. There are rules of procedure for Congress, which they are following. Sure they are trying to win. duh. But the dems are trying to win by rioting, screaming, disrupting the confirmation hearing, doxxing, lying, attacking and harassing members of the administration, blowing up pipelines, occupying wall street, and threatening to impeach trump on nothing if elected. Please tell me which one wants power at "any cost".

> They have become all about winning.

What is best in life?

To crush your enemies. See them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of their women.

Black lotus. Stygian. The best!

All of a sudden within the last 2 years it's always been a fictional concern that no one really believed in. ~ Artemis at October 8, 2018 8:40 AM

Artie, please learn some reading comprehension.

Note the phrase, "when in power" in the sentence you selectively quoted. You, yourself, staunchly defended Obama's use of executive orders and decried what you held to be Trump's executive overreach. So, when your preferred party's in office, it's an acceptable use of executive power and when your preferred party's not, it's creeping totalitarianism.

I wonder what happened.

"It Was All Made Up, It Was Fabricated": Trump Says Kavanaugh Victim Of Democrat "Hoax"

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-08/it-was-all-made-it-was-fabricated-trump-says-kavanaugh-victim-democrat-hoax

After Kavanaugh Win, A Look Back At Jonah Goldberg & Others Who Mocked Trump Supporters For Saying ‘He Fights!’

https://lovebreedsaccountability.com/2018/10/06/after-kavanaugh-win-a-look-back-at-jonah-goldberg-others-who-mocked-trump-supporters-for-saying-he-fights/

That includes crid -

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2018/07/linty-2.html

"That includes crid -"

Trump has done serious damage to the once admirable Crid opinions.

I find the whole Kavanaugh debacle is driving me from the Democratic party.

I don't think Ford should have been allowed to address the Senate at all. For what? So she can make an accusation unsupported by even a shred of evidence?

Ford: "Kavanaugh sexually assaulted me."

Investigator: "I see. And do you have any evidence to support this claim or witnesses who can corroborate your story?"

Ford: "These four people were at the party."

Investigator goes to interview witnesses.

Investigator: "It seems that none of your four witnesses can corroborate your claims. In fact, one of them, a lifelong friend of yours, says she was never in life at a party with Kavanaugh doesn't know him, and further states that you never even mentioned this incident until now. Do you have any other evidence?"

Ford: No.

Investigator: "Thank you for wasting our time. The door's over there."

In fact, if evidence could be quantified, Ford would actually have a negative amount of evidence. Her witnesses didn't just fail to corroborate; they testified against her.

Unpopular opinion: If you can't come forward with your claims of crimes committed against in a timely manner and with evidence, you need to let it go. Resign yourself to the fact that you're never going to see justice.

Because without evidence, especially if you're going to wait 26 years, there's absolutely no reason anyone should even consider what you have to say.

That includes crid -"

Trump has done serious damage to the once admirable Crid opinions.

Dave B at October 8, 2018 2:43 PM

Having read Crid for so long, and corresponded with him a bit, I suspect that most of Crid’s anti Trump posts are just trolling.

I don't think Trump or his policies, need me defending him. The dems are doing a good job right now of uniting Republicans behind Trump. I think we all need to just get out of their way.

I mean, on the board, Artemis alone is worth at least ten or twenty votes for the Republicans.

"Shun any republican . . ."

Oh, how I wish the "Never Trumpers" and "I hate all things Trump" at work would shun me.

They just never shut up about him! It is like they have some sort of sick fetish that they just cannot let go of.

I'll agree Crid is trolling Isab, but I doubt much of it is intentional. He's been doing the crazy grandpa thing for a couple of years now. And doesn't look like he is going to stop any time soon. But he does do a good job expressing the never Trump platform, no matter how unhinged it is.

"Will The Kavanaugh Confirmation Fight Cause Some Republicans To Look For The Exit From The Party?" In the Atlantic's dreams.

You are really stretching the meaning of tacitly here.

Not only doesn't the author fail to directly state such a position... they don't imply it either.

Sure they are, they suggested that republicans are "abandoning" the rule of law by demanding things like due process and evidence

You know what I like about this board, and why I have kept coming for over a decade? I feel like there are lots of points of view, and we debate, and argue and sometimes get pissed off at each other, but all in all the discussions are good, and even when I disagree with points I still learn something.

So... thanks, Amy!

Anyhow, I think it is important because it's almost like the parties are sports teams or something, it is less about trying to govern and imrpove the country and more about getting one own's team winning.

And I wish there were more places like this with people with a variety of views talking.

You know what I like about this board, and why I have kept coming for over a decade?

I was told there would be nude pics ;)

You've been here all this time hoping for nude pics? Your patience is exemplary!!!!

Eclipsed Democrats as the party of situational ethics? Nonsense.

Most people of both parties do have some degree of double standard. It's just normal to more easily believe the worst about someone you already don't trust, and to assume the best about someone you already like. But this notion that Kavanaugh makes Republicans worse than Democrats on situational ethics is absurd.

The Democrats think Bill Clinton's mistresses, when subordinates serving him in the Oval Office for crying out loud, were a private matter. Yet, Donald Trump's mistress from over a decade before he ran is a public matter.

The Democrats think Bill Clinton's multiple credible and substantiated allegations of sexual assault while he was Attorney General and Governor was something we should must MoveOn(TM) from. Brett Kavanaugh's 36 year old allegation by one person* without any other evidence when he was a teenage is fair game.

And for those that say "Democrats supporting Clinton 20 years ago don't support Republicans supporting Kavanaugh today," let me remind you that you tried to put Clinton back in the White House less than 2 years ago.

For those that say "Bill Clinton wasn't the candidate, Hillary Clinton was" I say that if it was Sarah Palin and her husband was accused (even uncredibly) of even a fraction of what Bill Clinton was credibly accused of, does any serious person think people would say it doesn't matter because he wasn't the candidate?

Bill Clinton has spoken at every Democratic National Convention since 1988, to thunderous ovations. Now, after 30 years of providing cover for his conduct on a national level (and longer at the State level), we are to believe that the Democrats #MeToo moments are genuine?

Any fair minded person knows there would be no #MeToo if Hillary was president.