IT HAS COME TO THIS: Traumatized lawmakers are openly worried that far right colleagues might hurt them — not rhetorically, not politically, in the literal sense of the word.
It’s important to note there’s NO evidence. But it’s a crisis in relations.
Multiple Democrats are demanding investigations into suspicions — again, not substantiated — that members aided rioters. At least one R voiced similar fears. They’re scared of Q radicalization. And they’re terrified of getting COVID from anti-mask members. nbcnews.com/politics/congr…
Elected lawmakers scared for their lives from pro-regime mobs, unsure which threats are real or not, and openly asking whether the leader’s party or state security was involved?
The thing is it seems both extremely impractical and symbolically upsetting to have them there. But they need to have a real conversation about the fact members are worried their own colleagues are potential threats to their lives then.
Yeah the metal detectors are pretty far downstream from the fact members are accusing unnamed colleagues of scouting for the insurrectionists northjersey.com/story/news/pol…
The repeated theme over and over today is that members are scared of their far right colleagues in a very real and physical sense, not metaphorically. This is going to be the actual unity issue moving forward.
Before the party breakdown was, a large explicitly pro-Trump wing, maybe a half dozen explicitly Trump-skeptical or anti-Trump, and then a large amorphous wing that was also explicitly pro-Trump but people largely assumed they were lying.
That was not a formula for non-Trump R's to confront the fact he's the dominant figure moving forward. Unless they could name their cause and objectives, they would be continuously outflanked and bullied by pro-Trump R's. Indeed that's what happened with the EC votes.
To this scenario @DouthatNYT describes: You don't even need some dramatic crack-up for R's to run aground. If the looming Trump threat keeps the 2020 D coalition together and even small percentages of Trump R's stop turning out, that alone is a huge issue. nytimes.com/2021/01/12/opi…
The most recent source of D strength is that they have an intensely engaged suburban base that also is more affluent and this powering record-breaking fundraising. For R's, it's a fired up rural/small city vote. It's close, but as of *right now*, this is a winning formula for D's
Post-2020 Gerrymandering can help R's take back House in 2022 even without making significant gains in popularity. But a Trumpier House could also accelerate the same problems that cost them the 2020 elections in WH and Senate. And no sign he's going anywhere in all of this.
There's no reason to believe impeachment gets any R votes until proven otherwise, but everything D's put here closely mirrors what critical R's have said. Compare the language to Rep. Liz Cheney's (no. 3 House GOP leader) version of events below: nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/…
And what do you know, Cheney reportedly considered a potential vote for impeachment.
Again, there's still no real reason to believe there are significant R votes for impeachment -- let alone from leadership! -- until they actually happen.
A House GOP led by two people who voted to overturn the election results after a mob assault on the Capitol AND one person who voted to impeach the president for inciting the mob with false election fraud claims seems untenable. So I'm pretty skeptical Cheney votes "yes."
This straightforward list is very much worth your read. Bear in mind this is only the last year and only rhetoric foreshadowing the Capitol assault. There's years more of violent and dehumanizing rhetoric, much of it directed at other targets.
For example, just in 2019, one of Trump's rally lines that doesn't make the cut. thehill.com/homenews/admin…
When a pro-Trump extremist sent 16 bombs to news outlets across the country the year before -- this was his response when he didn't have a prepared text to read off cnn.com/2018/10/25/pol…
Which Corker? The one before and after 2016 who praised his Natsec competence? The one who then was retiring and warned Trump was a dire national security threat who’d start WW III? The one who then reconsidering running and abruptly became an ally again? washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/styl…
The PR effort by non-Trump R’s to be defined — even praised as prescient! — by their occasional criticism of Trump peppered in between years of supporting, validating, and campaigning for him is predictable and going to be spectacular.