This was not my impression of Liz’s overall position. I will admit I don’t watch C-SPAN for the floor speeches.
I have no doubt they would, and they would like to avoid talking about their terrible policies. Even if Liz did not exist they would still be able to do this for the next few years as the GOP is fractured openly between pro/anti Trump, and the pro trumpers like MTG are hitting blast out loud. Trump has damaged the Republican party brand immensely (which I called prior to him being elected), and they’ll be paying for it for a while.
For better or worse the Democrats seem to be able to keep a handle on their fringe’s vocals when it comes to the party airwaves. I don’t mean they don’t exist, but that there’s not open dissension in the party at the same level currently.
This is not a good response on the part of conservatives IMO. You can’t sweep Trump’s behavior under the rug. The only way to move on is to say “yeah we fucked up and we don’t like what he did either.” Pretending it’s not a big deal any more because it’s done doesn’t do it for a lot of people, including a lot of conservative leaning people.
Many people may forget their behavior during Trump’s years conveniently, but I don’t. And many other people will not. I said to two jar that by and large Trump’s policy choices weren’t terrible, with a few notable exceptions that I hated. But the schism was never about policy in the first place, and brushing that off won’t sit well with independents and others.
I 100% agree with this. But he has the benefit of having been consistent over the period of time in question. A number of the members trying to say that this is not a big deal do not have that benefit. For example a GOP member who voted against certification of the results telling me that Trump’s behavior was not a big deal and “this is not about right and wrong” doesn’t fly. I don’t give a shit. If Romney says we need to be focused about other things I agree, because pragmatically it’s correct but more importantly he put his money where his mouth was.
Okay, I can see that. But the optics play poorly, and opinion within the party seems to be mixed with a significant portion of people believe she’s being ousted not because of her poor vision but because of her dissension from Trump and desire to move the party away from Trump - incidentally Romney also said something like this on the record. If the reality is that she has no vision, then the party should be unified or nearly so in saying this. See what I’m getting at?
Okay she has no vision, and she didn’t shore up the political relationships that saved her in January February. Fine, but the message from members of the party isn’t unified on that front.