They're Calling It The Party Of Trump - But.....

[global1]

if any of the other Repugs that competed in the Repug primary won the nomination and became president - would major platforms of the Repug Party (tax cuts; judicial appointments; immigration issues; Mideast policies; reduction in environmental regulations; healthcare (destruction of ACA); equality issues (black, brown, women, LGBTQ): voter suppression (gerrymandering); etc - really have been all that different than what Trump has done.

Now I realize that Trump is not very politically astute and does thing like a bull in a china shop. But other Repugs that might have taken the nomination and won the presidency - would these same major issues have been accomplished - but maybe more tactfully than Trump handled them - with less controversy?

Take away all the Russian influence in the 2016 election and all the talk of collusion and Trump being a Russian asset and the Mueller investigation - these are all Trump problems. Take away all of Trump's dalliances - the p grabbing; Stormy Daniels; alleged payoffs to other women; emoluments issues; his lying and campaign rallies; etc.

Would any other Repug having won the presidency - pushed for the same major Repug platforms mentioned above - and pulled them off?

I guess bottom line I'm taking issue with the talk of 'the Party of Trump' rhetoric and trying to make the point that really what has gone on behind the Trump antics - are really the policies of the Repug Party.

Any thought?

[Pope George Ringo II]

1. As a group, GOP politicians are more interested in free trade than Trump.

The base is clearly shifting against it and we'll have to see what that does to the politicians, but I'd have to say he's an outlier among elected officials in that respect.

Other than that, I'd agree that he's not that different from the rest of them on domestic issues. Arguably, he's a little more incoherent and frenetic in his pandering because he's really about optics among his base rather than actual result. This just means he implements some half-assed stupidity or another when he wants some fawning adulation from his fans, rather than as a carefully-considered proactive agenda.

[spicysista]

2. I feel you.

Charles Blow made a similar point, from a different perspective, on Bill Maher's show. He said that the more deplorable elements of the Republican party have always been there. This is the republican party. It hasn't been able to claim the legacy of Lincoln since Lee Atwater's southern strategy and Ronald Reagan declared his candidacy in Philadelphia, MS.

Their modus operandi has been to demonize the very policies that helped create this country's middle class for a very long time. The New Deal was alright as long as its face was white. These were not handouts but hand ups! But then the roaring 60's came followed by the turbulent 70s and suddenly......poverty had a new face. The rest is our story.

[mikehiggins]

3. No. No other Repuke would try to pull off what Don the Con has.

The policies of the GOPukes have been consistent for decades, sponsored and underwritten by pretty large numbers of very rich people, not to mention corporations. It took this guy to hire the biggest collection of clowns and idiots ever seen in D.C.

The regular GOPukes are/were part of the political biosphere, all of whom had/have an interest in keeping the game going. They would never attack our international relationships; they are too far involved in them to risk scuttling them. None of them would have pulled out of the Paris Accords or the Iran deal or allow asbestos back into the US. That would be too damaging to their bottom line.

The list of affronts to our society is too long to really go into in one post. Could you visualize Jeb Bush doing any of that crap? Mitt Romney? John Kasich? Just to name a few.

Of course, if any of them were the GOPuke candidate Hillary would be President.

And we would never learn just how fragile our government really is.