You don't get it John. Those Trump-backed GOP candidates didn't lose their elections - they were all rigged, ...or something....
When you live in an echo chamber - e.g. get all of your "news" from a cable channel that reflects and amplifies your worst thoughts, fears, and biases - you create your own reality.
In that reality the "winners" are the fighters, that is those who yell the loudest and make the snarkiest jokes about their real and perceived enemies (owning as you describe it).
Losers are by definition, anyone else. If one of those losers wins an election, it's because the fix was in, and just means they need to yell even louder and be even more obnoxious to get their point across.... or something....
John, who gets more press coverage? AOC and Marjorie Taylor Greene, or a reasonable democrat from MN Dean Phillips? I'm sure you never heard of Dean? You know the answer.
My point is this; the vocal right or left get all the coverage. And Jason Whitlock clearly defines there is a conspiracy by the press to define the narrative. So, John, do you really believe in your state that traditional nice guy politics will win the press and elections? And more directly, a conservative that meets your virtuous standards?
Marjorie Taylor Greene will never ever get a positive writeup in our local press in Minnesota. And quite frankly it doesn't deserve it. But the little princess AOC will always get positive press every time.
John, based upon very liberal print periodicals, why would you object to the extremes you write about in this commentary.? They get the Press.
I must admit that I'm very confused by your comments. My footnote about Tucker certainly had to do with the media (his show in particular), but my main piece -- which appears to be what you're responding to -- didn't. It was about GOP state parties surrendering winnable seats by backing wackos and conspiracy-nuts for leadership positions.
Are you suggesting that it's the media that's making the people I named 'appear' as wackos and conspiracy-nuts, and not their own conduct? If so, I disagree.
If you're making the general statement that the media treats the wingnuts on their side much differently than the wingnuts on the other side, that's undeniably true. Likewise, broadly speaking, the media tries to cast fairly normal people on the other side as wing-nuts.
But I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote. Dave Williams, for example, hasn't been misrepresented by the media. He is as I described, and he's proud of how he is. He's a hardcore election-denying nut who actually tried to get "Let's Go Brandon" printed next to his name on the ballot. Doug Mastriano also isn't a liberal-media concoction. Neither is Kari Lake.
As for your question: "do you really believe in your state that traditional nice guy politics will win the press and elections?"
The answer is: probably not the press (though Cory Gardner received the endorsements from many big state papers including the Denver Post), but yes on elections.
Nice-guy politics worked just fine for Kemp, Raffensperger, and others not named "Herschel Walker" in Georgia last year. They worked well for Glenn Youngkin. In Ohio, the less-Trumpy statewide Republicans all performed better than J.D. Vance.
Again, Colorado was a purple state, trending red again, until Trump became the GOP leader and shaped the party in his image. We still lean right (even libertarian) on laws and ballot initiatives. But the Trumpification of the GOP has killed the party's chances of winning statewide elections here for the foreseeable future. "Very liberal periodicals" aren't to blame.
As for this comment: "And more directly, a conservative that meets your virtuous standards?"
My virtuous standards? How much "virtue" does it take not to be a conspiracy-nut? How much does it take to accept the results of democratic elections, and have a more regard for the U.S. Constitution than a personality-cult-leader's ego? The answer: not a whole lot. Republicans who can clear that VERY low bar will get (and have in fact received) my support.
You don't get it John. Those Trump-backed GOP candidates didn't lose their elections - they were all rigged, ...or something....
When you live in an echo chamber - e.g. get all of your "news" from a cable channel that reflects and amplifies your worst thoughts, fears, and biases - you create your own reality.
In that reality the "winners" are the fighters, that is those who yell the loudest and make the snarkiest jokes about their real and perceived enemies (owning as you describe it).
Losers are by definition, anyone else. If one of those losers wins an election, it's because the fix was in, and just means they need to yell even louder and be even more obnoxious to get their point across.... or something....
Good summary!
Perfectly stated! 100% agree.
It's a dismal outlook for the GOP unless there's a major intervention of some kind.
John, who gets more press coverage? AOC and Marjorie Taylor Greene, or a reasonable democrat from MN Dean Phillips? I'm sure you never heard of Dean? You know the answer.
My point is this; the vocal right or left get all the coverage. And Jason Whitlock clearly defines there is a conspiracy by the press to define the narrative. So, John, do you really believe in your state that traditional nice guy politics will win the press and elections? And more directly, a conservative that meets your virtuous standards?
Marjorie Taylor Greene will never ever get a positive writeup in our local press in Minnesota. And quite frankly it doesn't deserve it. But the little princess AOC will always get positive press every time.
John, based upon very liberal print periodicals, why would you object to the extremes you write about in this commentary.? They get the Press.
I must admit that I'm very confused by your comments. My footnote about Tucker certainly had to do with the media (his show in particular), but my main piece -- which appears to be what you're responding to -- didn't. It was about GOP state parties surrendering winnable seats by backing wackos and conspiracy-nuts for leadership positions.
Are you suggesting that it's the media that's making the people I named 'appear' as wackos and conspiracy-nuts, and not their own conduct? If so, I disagree.
If you're making the general statement that the media treats the wingnuts on their side much differently than the wingnuts on the other side, that's undeniably true. Likewise, broadly speaking, the media tries to cast fairly normal people on the other side as wing-nuts.
But I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote. Dave Williams, for example, hasn't been misrepresented by the media. He is as I described, and he's proud of how he is. He's a hardcore election-denying nut who actually tried to get "Let's Go Brandon" printed next to his name on the ballot. Doug Mastriano also isn't a liberal-media concoction. Neither is Kari Lake.
As for your question: "do you really believe in your state that traditional nice guy politics will win the press and elections?"
The answer is: probably not the press (though Cory Gardner received the endorsements from many big state papers including the Denver Post), but yes on elections.
Nice-guy politics worked just fine for Kemp, Raffensperger, and others not named "Herschel Walker" in Georgia last year. They worked well for Glenn Youngkin. In Ohio, the less-Trumpy statewide Republicans all performed better than J.D. Vance.
Again, Colorado was a purple state, trending red again, until Trump became the GOP leader and shaped the party in his image. We still lean right (even libertarian) on laws and ballot initiatives. But the Trumpification of the GOP has killed the party's chances of winning statewide elections here for the foreseeable future. "Very liberal periodicals" aren't to blame.
As for this comment: "And more directly, a conservative that meets your virtuous standards?"
My virtuous standards? How much "virtue" does it take not to be a conspiracy-nut? How much does it take to accept the results of democratic elections, and have a more regard for the U.S. Constitution than a personality-cult-leader's ego? The answer: not a whole lot. Republicans who can clear that VERY low bar will get (and have in fact received) my support.