@NateAFischer
View quoted post on X
I like both men. I'm adult enough to handle that Vance was publicly addressing the undeniable reality of the GOP wipeout, caused by deep national frustration with a war and its resulting spikes on gas prices and other costs, while Rubio was talking to a tiny group of people at a fancy gathering who desperately need to be comforted following that shellacking.View quoted post on X
It's unfair to compare the two sets of remarks. If they switched their audiences and roles, they might say something similar as the other one did. That's just politics.
HOWEVER, the less people care about whether either one of these guys will win the (likely way beyond Pyrrhic) nomination that they may or may not seek of a party in crisis thanks to the failures of its leadership across all branches of government, the better the party can fix the problems that brought it to this point and the better the party can work to repair the harm done. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter who gets the nomination!
Now I know that it's absolutely true that many older GOP voters fully support the war and fully support Trump's decision to do what he did. And most diehard GOP voters in other age groups would continue voting GOP even if they were less enthusiastic about the war. We see a lot of representation of the first group in particular in the media.
I know it's unpopular to say so, but these groups comprise a dramatically shrinking minority of voters that is unable to deliver election wins. Fully 65% of the country opposes the war. It's not a winning issue. Prosecuting it resulted in serious electoral costs -- largely due to the increased gas prices but also because of the sense that the Trump administration was not focused enough on domestic crises requiring major work. You may wish it were otherwise. I'm sure you do. But the reality is that this war has never been popular and has gotten less so. Thoughtful people should care far more about the very real concerns of the recent GOP voters who left or gave up and not just the ones who don't leave.
So you can pick the person who most aligns with your particular views on the war all you want! Donors and special interests can get behind whichever person they want and maybe they even have the power to get him the nomination! They frequently do! But it's a very, very, very, VERY long road between picking that nominee and returning the Republican Party to any semblance of power.
I'd care less about the fight over who gets nominated and much more about building a winning coalition going forward.
Also, as someone who genuinely likes Rubio, I think his vocal supporters may be hurting him by positioning him as a huge fan of the war. For whatever it's worth.
People should be able to take the L.View quoted post on X
I supported the war. I trusted the plan and thought (still do) that Iran is an unacceptable threat to the Western way of life. I still trust President Trump's clear belief that it was necessary at the time to do something like it to prevent a nuclear Iran, which seems to have been accomplished, at least for now.
But it's also clear that it's been a political disaster, that it's the main cause of the Midterms defeat, and that it should be wound down so that we can save America from Islamo-communism.
View quoted post on X
Pro-lifers can’t even get most pastors to directly condemn abortion from the pulpit. Until they can show the modicum of power required to achieve that, they aren’t in a position to credibly make demands of politicians.View quoted post on X
