Donald Trump

The Strategic Advantages of Defaming the Dead

Trump's offhand insult of the late John Dingell is part of how he reshapes the GOP into his own image, to the applause of supporters fed up with Washington's exaggerated self-regard

|

Once again last week, President Trump defamed a dead man, cheekily suggesting at a rally Wednesday that the late congressman and WWII veteran John Dingell might currently be burning in hell. To understand the practical effect of the tactic, take a quick roll call of the handful of elected Republicans bold enough to criticize the president's remark.

Start with the congressional delegation from Dingell's home state of Michigan, where Trump's counter-impeachment rally was held. There was Paul Mitchell, who called the comments "dishonorable" and "unacceptable." There was Fred Upton, who termed them "crass." And there was Justin Amash, who tweeted to Dingell's widow and replacement, "Debbie, we are here for you."

How did they muster the courage to speak out? Mitchell is one of the near-historic number of Republicans in the 116th Congress who have announced they won't seek reelection. Upton has been rumored all year to be next on the retirement list. Amash left the GOP on July 4 and voted this week for impeachment.

As has been the case the last three years, nothing loosens the Republican tongue quite like relaxing one's grip on power. Among the still-ambitious, the Dingell comment drew little criticism from his party.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R–Texas), the popular eyepatch-wearing veteran most famous for his moment of cross-partisan civility on Saturday Night Live, bucked the trend, tweeting that Trump's comments "were totally unnecessary." And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – S.C.), who has gone through several cycles of presidential disparagement of his late friend John McCain, bracketed his criticism with praise for his White House golf partner.

"When it came to John Dingell, he made sure he was honored appropriately. He did admire John Dingell's service," Graham told Fox News. "But this joke he made last night, he's made it several times, it's just not funny."

Every time Trump drives a bulldozer through the guardrails of political decorum, the Republican Party becomes more Trumpy and less decorous. Michigan's Mitchell chose to retire this July in reaction to the president's grotesque suggestion that four congresswomen of color "go back" to their home countries, even though three were born in the United States. "We're here for a purpose," Mitchell told the Washington Post, "and it's not this petty, childish bullshit."

For millions of voters, Trump's norm-shattering crassness is the whole point. He is the Elephant Man you bring to the beauty pageant, the foam middle finger you wear to the coronation.

Just look at who's clutching pearls over a mild joke about the longest-serving congressman in history: Fake News CNN! "Swamp mistressNancy PelosiMeghan McCain! How many more "civil" politicians do we really need to wage one disastrous policy after another?

None of that makes it any more fun for Republican officials to be "badgered with questions" every day about the president's latest outrage. You could power the entire Eastern Seaboard with the teeth-gritting smiles GOP lawmakers are constantly forced to display on Capitol Hill.

Those Trump-weary Republicans who self-deport from office tend to either be replaced by loyalists to the president — as Bob Corker was by Sen. Marsha Blackburn in Tennessee — or by Democrats, as in the Arizona senatorial swap of Jeff Flake for Kyrsten Sinema. Either way, the remaining GOP looks and sounds more like its leader, while the alienated defenders of civility spin off into the impotent margins.

This dynamic was laid bare during last Wednesday's House impeachment debate, when Republican after Republican echoed Trump's distinctive brand of insult comedy — "witch hunt," "massive cover-up," "Schiff Show."

Meanwhile, far away from the corridors of power, veterans of past political campaigns for the likes of John McCain and George H.W. Bush were busy this week launching likely futile attempts to loosen Trump's iron grip on the party they once helped lead.

The Lincoln Project, a group of Republicans opposed to "Trump and Trumpism," announced its formation last Wednesday with the portentous proclamation that "Patriotism and the survival of our nation in the face of the crimes, corruption and corrosive nature of Donald Trump are a higher calling than mere politics." To defeat him at the ballot box, they've got only 85 percentage points to make up!

The president's makeover of the GOP will almost certainly lead to his acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial, assuming we get one. But the problem with producing a bunch of mini-me's is that career politicians lack Trump's facility for and experience with pro wrestling-style rhetoric.

When Sen. John Kennedy (R–La.) produced outrage-headlines last month by saying about Nancy Pelosi, with Trump standing right behind him, that "it must suck to be that dumb," the occasion was a Keep America Great rally for Louisiana gubernatorial candidate Eddie Rispone. Rispone then lost the election in a Republican-dominated state.

John Dingell won't be the last dead congressman Donald Trump defames. But he may not have many more opportunities as president.

This article originally appeared in the L.A. Times.

NEXT: The Corruptions of Power

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Excellent article, Welch! Oh, look what time it is.

    1. Oh, look what time it is.

      Would you look at that, it’s half past time for cytotoxic the obsequitious sadsack to adulate the half retarded radical left wing crypto-Marxists at Reason and insist that everyone who doesn’t join him is a cultist.

      1. Hey now, mikey is neutral.

        1. Remember I recently learned what neutral means so I don’t claim to be any more. Except when I still do.

          1. You may be neutral, but you’re neutral evil.

            1. Intended for the real one.

    2. It would be nice if you let the reader know in advance that this was a TDS LA Times reprint.

      Coulda moved on to another.

  2. Poor, poor Welchie Boy. He once again woke up this morning to find out that his democratic party candidates all absolutely suck, same as they did yesterday.

    1. Here he is writing in a libertarian mag that Trump is mean, because he kinda-sorta insulted a now deceased pathological regulator.

      Welch is really trying to pad out his resume for the WaPo, with this nonsense.

      1. Hey, John Dingell served in Congress for 60 years, winning the seat previously held by his father, and upon retirement passing it on to his wife.

        Reason is all about defending America’s hereditary noble class from criticism.

        1. When you put it that way, it’s like pissing on Camelot.

        2. You certainly get credit for pointing out what Welch is indirectly defending. And while I agree Trump shouldn’t have said it, as contrary to the solid advice of not speaking ill of the dead (surely there are exceptions such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Chavez and many others), Dingell is no saint – look at what’s happened to Michigan including Detroit and Flynt since he was first elected, preceded by his dad, in 1955. That’s nearly total failure for which he should at least partially get the discredit. Economic growth over that time per my calculations is 0.7% growth per year – lousy (Per FRED in 1955 to 2019 Michigan GDP grew from $350 billion to $520 billion).

          After giving Mrs. Dingell what she wanted for her deceased husband, she still voted to impeach Trump. That’s like asking your boss for a raise, then reporting him to HR or upper management for other offenses after you get the raise – it’s dirty politics.

          Let’s have some perspective – say by including some of the lies and insults of Trump by the MSM. What’s the point or purpose to call out Trump, and ignore his critics who do the same thing? Heck that’s what the MSM has been doing for 3 years, and the more we learn, it’s the Democrats whose lies about Trump trump by far the insults from Trump they deserve. Welch, unlike most of the MSM, deserves credit for at least being honest.

          I can’t say I agree with Welch or others who think civility among politicians is a good thing, when they ignore the incivility they bring upon taxpayers and pretend government is good. If people were good, we wouldn’t need government.

      2. All the while ignoring that the progtards just spent $32 million plus marketing on a film that hit piece on a dead man. Most of which it appears they will not make back. Of course I a, speaking of the Roger Ailes film ‘Bombshell’.

        So really, Matt can fuck off. He just stepped past a $100 thousand bearer bond to pick up a dime.

  3. Why is it important that Republicans are reluctant to criticize the president in an election year?

    “The coattail effect or down-ballot effect is the tendency for a popular political party leader to attract votes for other candidates of the same party in an election. For example, in the United States, the party of a victorious presidential candidate will often win many seats in Congress as well; these Members of Congress are voted into office “on the coattails” of the president.

    This theory is prevalent at all levels of government. A popular statewide candidate for governor or senator can attract support for down ballot races of their party as well.

    . . . .

    This also refers to the phenomenon that members of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives are more likely to be voted for on a year of the presidential election than a midterm.[1]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coattail_effect

    In a presidential election year, those Republicans who wish to be reelected would be well-advised to STFU instead of criticizing President Trump–but that has been the general rule for most every party and their president in American history.

    This isn’t indicative of some moral failure in the Republican mindset. It simply indicates that Republican control of the House mostly depends on the “issue” of President Trump to drive marginal voters to the polls. If there is anything different about that in the upcoming election, it’s that the Democrats impeaching the president within a year of the election has made President Trump even more of an election year issue than he would have been otherwise.

    If you’re bemoaning that certain principles seem to whither when politicians no longer fear facing the voters–because the voters don’t share those principles–then I’m here to bemoan the fact that we’ve apparently been unsuccessful in persuading the voters to see things our way. I’m certainly not about to cry about politicians being unable to do what they want without consideration for whether the voters want whatever their politicians want. As I wrote yesterday, elitism is contempt for the opinions of average people–even on questions that are well within the proper purview of democracy, like who should be president.

    If we libertarians have failed to persuade average people to share our principles, it may be because so many of us hold the opinions of average people in contempt–and they know we’re contemptuous of them. For instance, some of us appear to be bemoaning Republican politicians who yield to the wishes of average people in election years rather than inflict “principles” on the voters over their objections and against their will.

    I might ask, “What about the consent of the governed? Why isn’t that an important principle?”, but I have a bigger question than that: Why would you expect average people to share our principles if they can tell that we’re contemptuous of them and their opinions?

    1. I can think of at least two motivations to disparage the political views of average people.

      Elitists think they know better, about issues large and small, and wish to see their solutions imposed on others. They might even seek to inhibit contradictory views. And they have few reservations about institutionalizing their solutions through government or other social agencies.

      Libertarians reject the common tendency of average people to also seek institutional solutions, especially when those solutions impinge on fundamental liberties. But we do not, or at least should not, think that even if we know what is better for others then we have the right to impose that opinion on them.

      1. “Libertarians reject the common tendency of average people to also seek institutional solutions, especially when those solutions impinge on fundamental liberties. But we do not, or at least should not, think that even if we know what is better for others then we have the right to impose that opinion on them.”

        My libertarian criticism of representative democracy has two main objections.

        1) Democracy has no business subjecting our individual rights to popularity contests, which is why the First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law”.

        We’re not talking about the government violating fundamental rights when we’re talking about whether people should vote for someone who says rude things. If the people don’t give a shit about that, they aren’t violating anyone’s individual rights.

        2) Representative democracy is insufficiently democratic.

        Market allow people to pursue their own interests by representing themselves, their own interests, and their own qualitative preferences–which is why they’re superior to representative democracy. It is the fundamental responsibility of libertarianism to champion the cause of free individuals to make choices for themselves that reflect their own qualitative preferences. Denigrating the qualitative preferences of average people is defeating the purpose of libertarianism. This is why elitism is antithetical to the libertarian cause. Markets are better than representative democracy specifically because they reflect the qualitative preferences of average people.

        When elitists say that the qualitative preferences of the American people are insufficient, they are wrong–regardless of whether they’re talking about fast food, environmental concerns, gun related recreational activities, popular music, favorite TV shows, or whether we think it’s important that our presidents speak in language that’s considered acceptable by the elitists in polite society. One of the main reasons the elitists in our society hate President Trump is because he caters to the qualitative preferences of the average people that elitists hold in contempt.

        1. A lot of your argument that Republicans facing re-election are not showing any ethical spinelessness by remaining silent about Trump hinges on your characterization of Trump as “someone who says rude things”.

          First of all, I don’t agree. The communication style of a national leader does matter. It matters if the leader is encouraging divisiveness and vilification. It matters if the leader is alienating allies and not able to stay off Twitter during diplomatic negotiations.

          You are right that actions matter more than words, but here’s where there is more wrong with Trump than being “someone who says rude things”. He is capricious, inconsistent, and vindictive. He has trouble recruiting and retaining staff. He notoriously brushes off briefings and reports, and gets his news from TV. He has associates of questionable character such as Giuliani. He has abandoned allies with little warning. His tariff battle with China has created domestic casualties.

          1. “A lot of your argument that Republicans facing re-election are not showing any ethical spinelessness by remaining silent about Trump hinges on your characterization of Trump as “someone who says rude things”.”

            I see a couple of problems here, at least.

            1) Expecting people to be stand up for something over the objections of their constituents isn’t necessarily ethically superior–not when the purpose of democratically elected representatives is supposed to be to represent the will of their constituents.

            2) You’re the one that seems to be equating Trump defaming the dead with ethics. Picking his nose on television isn’t necessarily a question of ethics–no matter how hard you try to equate the two.

            1. On 1), assuming we’re all libertarians here, we’re all familiar with the arguments about the dangers of pure democracy. It’s typically framed as the need to guard individual rights from democracy, but this conversation is making me think individual integrity also must be a counter to unfettered democracy — in other words, there is sometimes an ethical obligation to speak out against the crowd.

              On 2), the particular matter of Trump’s defaming the dead, that is under the category of, as you put it, “someone who says rude things.”

              1. “there is sometimes an ethical obligation to speak out against the crowd.”

                Which is why we speak out against you and your NPC talking point bullshit.
                You are the least ethical person here, and have extremely low character.

                1. I am a crowd?

                  1. “I am a crowd?”

                    You are Legion.
                    In the biblical, Donk/Demon aspect.
                    You need be destroyed.

              2. Funny, Ken seems to be OK with engaging in conversation without calling anyone a sock puppet, or personally insulting them.

                1. So? Kemp is way too nice sometimes. We don’t want to encourage you. Except maybe to drink Drano.

          2. Nobody questioned Guilianis character until he allied with Trump.

            Some pretty fucking circular reasoning there.

            1. It’s clear to me that by allying with Trump it proves he has poor character. And is a white nationalist.

        2. Ken, are you just saying it’s UNWISE to denigrate qualitative preferences as libertarians (because we don’t want people thinking of us as elitist assholes, especially when it does us no practical good to be elitist assholes) or are you saying it’s somehow inconsistent with libertarianism as a political philosophy to do so?

          I don’t see how it’s inconsistent. Libertarianism is really just about the proper use of government force. It isn’t a philosophy that says anything about all legal choices being equally GOOD.

          I would not be inconsistent as a libertarian to want drugs to be legalized while still saying that using hard drugs is a bad choice.

          And you say that you don’t want libertarianism “imposed” on people while also saying that you don’t want (the libertarian view of) rights being subjected to a popularity contest. I’m not saying you’re necessarily being inconsistent, I’m saying I might be misunderstanding exactly what you do believe.

          I think the reason we don’t want a libertarian emperor has less to do about imposing liberty on people than it has to do with the nature of power and how we can’t trust it to be not corrupted by actual people. In theory, imposing unpopular freedoms on people is morally justified. Even if everyone in the world besides Eric wants Eric to be a slave, they should not be legally allowed to make him a slave.

          Don’t you want things like the first amendment “imposed” on people? It would probably be gutted if it was subjected to pure democracy.

          And to be clear, I’m not trying to argue with you or win a debate. I’m genuinely trying to figure out if we disagree at all or where I might be missing you.

          I understand why we think it should be perfectly legal to make choices we disagree with, but I don’t understand why it’s anti libertarian to criticize choices. One of the features about libertarianism as a political philosophy is that you and I can totally disagree about what choices to encourage or discourage in others while both of us remain equally libertarian. Because libertarianism is ONLY about the what the government can do. It has nothing to do with whether or not people should make the legal choices they make. Right?

          1. “I don’t see how it’s inconsistent. Libertarianism is really just about the proper use of government force. It isn’t a philosophy that says anything about all legal choices being equally GOOD.”

            It may seem like I’m nitpicking here, with the following, but I don’t think I am:

            The legitimate purpose of libertarian government is to protect our rights. We have police to protect our rights from criminals. We have have courts to protect our rights from the police. We have civil courts to protect our rights from each other. We have a military to protect our rights from foreign threats.

            When we’re talking about legitimately libertarian crimes, we’re talking about one person willfully violating someone’s rights. We’re obligated to respect each other’s rights, and when we willfully violate that obligation, we effectively consent to an appropriate penalty. To my mind, this is what I mean when I talk about “mens rea. Even those who are guilty of criminal negligence consented to an appropriate penalty when they willfully disregarded someone else’s rights.

            What do we mean when we talk about “government force” in terms of contract disputes? If the government “forces” you to abide by the terms of a contract–terms to which you consented–is the government really forcing you to abide by those terms?

            In regards to the military, I have no doubt that elective and offensive wars can be unjustified, but, on the other hand, I don’t know that the government initiating a war of self-defense after some foreign threat has attacked us is a coercive force–especially when the American soldiers doing the fighting are volunteers and the enemy has devoted itself to targeting American civilians because they’re Americans.

            There may some situations when real government force may be necessary, like when compelling witness testimony. Even then, however, if the strongest case I can make for justifying “government force” is for compelling witness testimony and even that includes the provision that anyone should be free to refuse to testify for fear of self-incrimination, then my strongest case for “government force” is really weak sauce.

            In a libertarian society, maybe there isn’t much of a justification for the use of government force at all. I think the justifications for individuals using force are probably better. If you’re an individual who sees evidence suggesting probable cause that a legitimate crime is being committed, the government probably shouldn’t convict you if you use an appropriate amount of force–whether you are or aren’t a police officer.

          2. “I think the reason we don’t want a libertarian emperor has less to do about imposing liberty on people than it has to do with the nature of power and how we can’t trust it to be not corrupted by actual people. In theory, imposing unpopular freedoms on people is morally justified. Even if everyone in the world besides Eric wants Eric to be a slave, they should not be legally allowed to make him a slave.”

            Force in and of itself provokes resistance.

            I love peach ice cream made from scratch with fresh peaches. If you forced me to eat it against my will, I’d hate it–and I’d resent you for it. From a consequences perspective, you can always count on that reaction. For every coercive action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It can happen that people didn’t realize how much they’d love peach ice cream until you forced them to try it. It is also true that they can and will hate you and the peach ice cream you’re forcing them to eat–only because you’re forcing it on them.

            I knew this woman who grew up in a Muslim country, where she had to cover all the time. She resented it, and she was so glad when she relocated to France, so she wasn’t required to cover anymore–right up until the moment that the French government told her that she couldn’t cover anymore. Suddenly, she wanted to cover, when she hadn’t before. Covering or not covering wasn’t the real issue. Eating peach ice cream or wearing a hijab, the issue is being told what to do, and force provokes resistance for that reason.

            In regards to the ethical considerations, don’t forget what rights are and from where they originate. When I hit a nail on the head with a hammer, I am not violating its rights–because a nail is an object without agency, it has no rights. If I hit you on the head with a hammer, I am violating your rights because you have agency and therefore rights. Ethics and rights originate from agency. Ethics is the ability to choose other than what you chose, and a right is the obligation to respect other people’s agency. How can you have a moral society–with a government that respects its obligation to respect the agency of individuals–and also have a government that inflicts policies on its people?

      2. But we do not, or at least should not, think that even if we know what is better for others then we have the right to impose that opinion on them.

        I don’t have that opinion as a libertarian; as a libertarian, I’m hoping that we will eventually have small government.

        I do have an opinion as a US citizen and tax payer. As such, as long as others take my money to enrich themselves, I’m going to use the political power I have to influence how that money gets used.

        1. As a libertarian, I’m here to persuade other people to want what I want. I do not want an emperor–not even a libertarian emperor. If the purpose of libertarianism is not to seize the reigns of power, through elections or otherwise, and inflict libertarian policies on an unwilling population, then it must be to persuade our fellow Americans to want what we want.

          1. Reigns, reins, I think it’s raining outside.

            Bonus question: Anyone else know the difference between caribou and reindeer?

            1. Bonus question: Anyone else know the difference between caribou and reindeer?

              Is this anything like the difference between an enzyme and a hormone?

              1. The difference is that reindeer can fly.

                You should have gotten that one. It’s Christmas Eve, for goodness’ sake!

          2. If the purpose of libertarianism is not to seize the reigns of power, through elections or otherwise, and inflict libertarian policies on an unwilling population, then it must be to persuade our fellow Americans to want what we want.

            That’s a false dichotomy. In fact, there are many other ways to make the US more libertarian.

            One way to make the US more libertarian is to, in fact, impose more burdens on the unwilling population. For example, if everybody in the US had to pay a flat tax of 50%, you’d be amazed at how quickly people would come around to the notion that government should be smaller and taxes should be lower.

            1. I think you’re naively underestimating people’s economic ignorance.

              They could easily want their taxes lower without wanting government to be any smaller. They would be fine with accruing more debt.

              1. Well, if they want lower taxes for everybody, that’s a start and an improvement over “high taxes on high earners and no taxes on the bottom 50%”.

                1. Yes, but for all practical purposes Ken is right. It mostly does come down to persuading people that more individual liberty is a good thing. I’m not sure why that’s so hard to do, but apparently it is.

                  1. It’s not difficult to persuade people that individual liberty is a good thing.
                    It’s difficult to get them to realize that individual liberty is something other than an abstract idea, and that their preferred altruistic policy reduces it.
                    If one doesn’t agree that individual liberty is good, trying to convince one is pointless.
                    But the majority of people will agree that it is good, they’re just all too willing to compromise (for the sake of health/safety/equality/etc).
                    You don’t need to convince people that individual liberty is good, you need to convince them to stop compromising on it, and show them how policy X upon it and adds up with policy Y and policy Z to severely reduce it.
                    Further, you have to convince them to be less beholden to the status quo

                  2. You can’t persuade people of something that isn’t true. Right now, more government is good for the majority of voters, even if the globally optimal solution would be more liberty.

            2. “One way to make the US more libertarian is to, in fact, impose more burdens on the unwilling population. For example, if everybody in the US had to pay a flat tax of 50%, you’d be amazed at how quickly people would come around to the notion that government should be smaller and taxes should be lower.”

              So, what you’re saying is that inflicting policy on the American people–over their objections and against their will–is futile, right?

              The Prime Minister of Australia inflicted a carbon tax on the Australian people over their objections and against their will. In the next election, the Australian people threw her and her party out on their asses–and then they got rid of the carbon tax.

              In the United States, the individual mandate was inflicted on the American people over our objections and against our will by way of ObamaCare. It was so unpopular, our politicians set the penaltax all the way down to zero–which made it unconstitutional. It’s gone now.

              They used to have laws all over the South that said things like that black kids couldn’t go to the same schools as white kids, that a black woman had to give up her seat on a public bus–because she was black, etc. Once those laws became unpopular, they went away, and the people who broke those laws became heroes.

              We have massive government interests invested in spending trillions of dollars both domestically and internationally fighting against marijuana. All those federal laws are still in place, but it doesn’t matter what federal law says once enough Americans in certain states have made it clear that they don’t want those federal laws enforced in their state.

              Sometimes the law inflicts things on people they didn’t know they really wanted until they saw it in practice. Laws against smoking in restaurants are like that. Whether the government should or shouldn’t be able to impose laws like that isn’t what I’m discussing here. I’m saying that if enough American were really upset about laws that prohibit smoking sections in restaurants, they would disappear.

              You cannot inflict libertarian policies on people over their objections and against their will–not if they really don’t want them. The old adage says that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, which is just another way of saying that people won’t be any freer than they want to be–over the long term. If you want more freedom, you must persuade your fellow Americans to want more freedom. There is no way around that.

              1. So, what you’re saying is that inflicting policy on the American people–over their objections and against their will–is futile, right

                No, I’m merely saying that your dichotomy and reasoning are false. You think of “more liberty” as the outcome of democratic processes and persuasion. That’s b.s.

                Societies become more libertarian when social and technological conditions make more liberty preferable to more and more people. Persuasion isn’t needed.

                1. It took about 75 years for the people of the Soviet Union to push back against authoritarian communism, but even with all that effort, the authoritarian communists failed.

                  And that was without any semblance of democracy whatsoever.

                  How do you plan to inflict this freedom on people? Are you planning to use more force than the communists did? How forceful will you need to be before people are finally free?

                  Did you see the way the people of Iraq responded to having freedom inflicted on them? Do you imagine the people of Montana, South Central Los Angeles, or the suburbs of Philadelphia will act differently?

                  Your efforts won’t just be futile. They’ll be counterproductive. Inflicting freedom on people using the coercive power of government always ends in tears and always for the same reasons.

    2. Correct, Ken. Matt apparently doesn’t understand the concept of party.

      Every time Trump drives a bulldozer through the guardrails of political decorum, the Republican Party becomes more Trumpy and less decorous

      He mistakes a fleeting necessity of people to put up with the party leader with full-on adoption of his style and tactics. The Heffalumps have long been the party of bringing knives to gunfights, and now that they are led by the fastest tongue in the west Welch wants them to rollover and expose their bellies. They need more brawlers, fewer Mitts.

      1. Totally agree, BigT. The Republicans have played high-ground, play-nice politics for as long as I can remember and, as a result, have cowered to the left’s onslaught and let them take over every facet of the executive and judicial branches of the government. Most conservative people I know have been waiting for an actual leader to fight the onslaught and, while many do not always appreciate Trump’s tactics, find him much preferable to the typical jelly-spined Republican leadership of the past few decades.

      2. Coattails are nothing new, but even more importantly, bemoaning politicians who are only contemptuous of the voters once they’re no longer running for election isn’t just elitist. It’s also authoritarian. That’s the word for a system where the leaders are unconcerned with what their people think.

        I watched Ad Astra the other day on Vudu. It’s about what happens to people when they become convinced that the problem with the universe is other people and the burden of dragging them along on our way towards progress. When Swift was criticizing the age of Reason, he had Gulliver falling in with elitists who had developed such contempt for the average man, that Gulliver sailed home in a boat rigged with a sail he’d made of human skin (200 years before rumors about Auschwitz’s infamous lampshades). Gulliver could never be happy in the presence of other people again, he held them in so much contempt.

        I used to think Christianity was held in contempt by elitists because of fundamentalists who made unscientific claims about creationism, because of hostility to LGBTQI+, etc., and I’d wonder why the critics would ignore the central concepts in the Sermon on the Mount. I’m starting to think the hostility towards creationism and charges of bigotry are beside the point, and the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount is what really makes them hostile.

        Elitists find the idea that they should be required to persuade the people they despise to be utterly revolting–because that generally requires you to care about the people you’re trying to persuade as well as their opinions. The reason Christianity spread by word of mouth to dominate the Roman Empire was because it started with the premise that the creator of the universe cares about you, individual, singular “you”, so much that he sacrificed himself–because he couldn’t stand the thought of spending eternity without you. The reason Christians went around trying to persuade those who were hostile to them was because they believed that if Jesus died for the people who were contemptuous of Christians, then they must be important.

        The elitists have spent the last 12 years, at least, telling the white, blue collar, middle class that they’re a bunch of racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, idiots, and the only thing that’s persuaded the white, blue collar, middle class to believe is that elitists hate them. Once you’ve persuaded people that you hate them, persuading them of anything else is practically impossible.

        How does bemoaning those Republicans who don’t show contempt for the opinions of their constituents–until they’re no longer seeking election–work to persuade anyone of anything productive from a libertarian standpoint?

        It’s a rhetorical question. The answer is that it doesn’t.

        1. “I’m starting to think the hostility towards creationism and charges of bigotry are beside the point, and the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount is what really makes them hostile.”

          Yup.

        2. Ken, tell us more about how Dear Leader exemplifies the teachings of the Sermon on the amount? Is it his work on behalf of the poor like John the Baptist or his teachings of the word of Christ on the golf course?

          1. “Ken, tell us more about how Dear Leader exemplifies the teachings of the Sermon on the amount?”

            You need to work on your reading comprehension, and I say that because I care about your opinion.

            1. I’m just reading this, Ken…

              because of fundamentalists who made unscientific claims about creationism, because of hostility to LGBTQI+, etc., and I’d wonder why the critics would ignore the central concepts in the Sermon on the Mount. I’m starting to think the hostility towards creationism and charges of bigotry are beside the point, and the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount is what really makes them hostile.

              …and concluding that what really bothers me about Trump’s personality cult isn’t the RP party’s dismissal of Trump’s criminality, douchebaggery and lies. It’s really that {sobbing, now, Ken… thanks a lot} I hate Jesus’ teachings on humility and grace. I’m so sorry, Ken!

              1. Way to double down on looking stupid.

              2. Wondering about why elitists are hostile to Christianity is not claiming that Trump exemplifies the principles of the Sermon on the Mount. It just isn’t.

                “Ken, tell us more about how Dear Leader exemplifies the teachings of the Sermon on the amount?”

                I never made any such claim.

                1. I’m not terribly hostile to Christianity, but yet feel morally superior to people that make ridiculous excuses for why we have to put up with Dear Leader’s criminality and lies. I’m like the worst, hunh Ken.

                  1. Not the worst. Dumb as a box of rocks though.

                  2. “I’m like the worst, hunh Ken.”

                    I didn’t say that either.

                    You’re really good at responding to things no one said.

                    1. It’s because he’s dumb.

                  3. How about “Trump’s criminality and lies pale in comparison to the past and future criminality and lies of his opponents”? Would you consider that a “ridiculous excuse”?

        3. “I used to think Christianity was held in contempt by elitists because of fundamentalists who made unscientific claims about creationism, because of hostility to LGBTQI+, etc.”

          Those actually are reasons that some people are opposed to fundamentalists.

          1. If that’s important to you, for whatever reason, then this is probably the statement you should be addressing:

            “I’m starting to think the hostility towards creationism and charges of bigotry are beside the point, and the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount is what really makes them hostile.”

            —-Ken Shultz

            1. You make a good point, but there’s another reason for their hostility: Christianity is a rival faith.
              State supremacists, such as Mike Laursen, cannot tolerate those who have other gods than Daddy Gov

            2. Mike’s not Jeff, he just frequently, intentionally, misunderstands the points of those he argues with just like him.

            3. I’ve been mulling over whether there is anything to what you wrote in that part.

          2. …except they aren’t really.

            After all, many are quite supportive of Muslims who tend to have dramatically worse views on those issues than Christian fundies.

            1. Not to mention the bizarro world of trans activism that has infected mainstream politics faster than Leukemia Awareness Lobbyists.

            2. And the elitists are so hostile to the people whose support they need in order to win elections and set policy.

              Start a conversation with a progressive about why the white, blue collar, middle class of the Midwest thinks that progressives hate them, and they usually change the conversation into something about why the white, blue collar, middle class of the Midwest should be hated.

              Believing in the Sermon on the Mount may be a pretty good proxy for being a Christian, and the logic there may be about as diametrically opposed to progressive ideals as anything can be.

              Being a progressive is about using the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for the greater good as the progressives see it, and they so often justify forcing those sacrifices in terms of good vs. evil. White people are racist and therefore evil, the blue collar middle class is unwilling to sacrifice their standard of living for the environment and therefore evil, and then they’re homophobic if they oppose gay marriage, xenophobic if they want to control the border, etc., etc. which is evil upon evil upon evil . . .

              Here’s the end of the Sermon on the Mount:

              44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

              45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

              46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

              47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

              48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

              —-Jesus of Nazareth

              https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7&version=KJV

              Elitist contempt for average people is diametrically opposed to that. Especially when we’re talking about social justice warriors and other progressives on a righteous crusade, if they can’t hate average people, what’s the point of being a social justice warrior, a climate change warrior, or any other group that wants to use the government to persecute whomever they hate?

              The Sermon on the Mount pulls the rug out from under them all.

              Here’s another experiment: Tell a progressive that racists have free speech rights, and see how they react. That’s a pretty good proxy for an elitist reaction to the Sermon on the Mount.

              1. “Being a progressive is about using the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for the greater good as the progressives see it, and they so often justify forcing those sacrifices in terms of good vs. evil.”

                And those ‘sacrifices’ usually involve handing over more money and/or power to the ‘progressives’, with no recognizable benefit to the people they claim to be ‘helping’.

                Almost like ‘progressivism’ is just a con to justify grabbing money and power.

        4. The elitists have spent the last 12 years, at least, telling the white, blue collar, middle class that they’re a bunch of racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, idiots, and the only thing that’s persuaded the white, blue collar, middle class to believe is that elitists hate them. Once you’ve persuaded people that you hate them, persuading them of anything else is practically impossible.

          This…100%, no debate. This is the sentiment that will motivate voters next November. Personally, I cannot wait for November so I can vote out that useless son of a bitch Andy Kim (NJ D-3).

        5. Okay Ken, I actually posted my questions to you above before reading this, so now I do think I have a better understanding of your point.

          You are coming at this from a strategic perspective as a libertarian. You think it’s a mistake to come off as elitist because it doesn’t help us persuade anyone that we’re right.

          But when you talk about the motives of the critics of the conservative Christians, you might be making an “elitist” type mistake when you assume the worst about them and accuse them of being disengenuous.

          Shouldn’t we be trying to win the hearts and minds of the progressives too? Shouldn’t we be trying to convince them that the solution to religiously motivated statism is not more government power of our choices but less? And can’t we only start that conversation if we don’t begin it by calling them disengenuous assholes?

          Doesn’t this tactic for libertarianism mean we have to use the same non-elitist, and non judgy strategy on both the back water conservative white trash rubes and the Marxist useful idiots?

          (I’m kidding. Just a little elitist libertarian humor)

    3. ” some of us appear to be bemoaning Republican politicians who yield to the wishes of average people in election years rather than inflict “principles” on the voters over their objections and against their will.”

      The ratchet only goes in one direction here Ken, you know that.

    4. What about the consent of the governed? Why isn’t that an important principle?

      Well, Ken, we live in a Republic— not a democracy— so the consent of the governed doesn’t really matter. If it did, then Hillary Clinton would be POTUS and God help us if States that actually had more people than cows got to run things. Where would we be then, Ken? Where?!?

      1. In shit and typhus-rampant crapholes, with thousands of homeless camping out on the streets and high numbers of gun crime.

      2. “Well, Ken, we live in a Republic— not a democracy— so the consent of the governed doesn’t really matter.”

        This is wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to start.

        How ’bout with the claim that the consent of the governed doesn’t matter in a Republic–do you have any rational basis for that statement?

        P.S. You might want to read what I wrote here, too:

        https://reason.com/2019/12/24/the-strategic-advantages-of-defaming-the-dead/#comment-8063295

  4. “John Dingell won’t be the last dead congressman Donald Trump defames. But he may not have many more opportunities as president.”

    Lol. Keep telling yourself that.

    The rest of the article was actually pretty decent. Poor insider Republicans not liking that their new leader isn’t playing by the old rules. I don’t blame them. As long as one party pretends to play by the rules, the system still kind of shambles forward. But both sides ending all civility is a recipe for the whole thing grinding to a halt. Add in the purely ideological impeachment proceedings which can no longer be masked, and I can’t help but wonder if historians will be able to look back and say “this was the point of no-return for the Republic,”

    1. The United States of America will be fine.

      Right-wing malcontents, not so much.

      Carry on, clingers.

      1. Right-wing malcontents, not so much.

        I’m sorry you’re not feeling well, Kirkland.

      2. The country was in a much worse mess of partisanship, culture wars, and outright violence in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It got better.

        1. Not really, because all of those people got old and are now in charge, and look where we are.

    2. So, the Republicans should just continue to cower down and play by the rules, so the system can “continue to shamble forward”. Yeah, that’s really worked for them over the last 50 years – the result has been a takeover by the left of virtually every federal govt. agency, as well as the federal judiciary. I prefer Trump’s tactic of taking a bazooka to a gun fight.

      1. What about the American people stop lowering their expectations of politicians, demand better, and hold both Republicans and Democrats to a higher standard of behavior.

        I keep hearing the argument here that we have to accept Trump’s behavior because the majority of people voted for him. But when I talk to real people who voted for Trump, I meet few who did so enthusiastically. They just thought Hillary was worse.

        We’ve collectively lowered our standards to the point we don’t expect competent governance, integrity as office holders, or civility.

        1. What about the American people stop lowering their expectations of politicians, demand better, and hold both Republicans and Democrats to a higher standard of behavior.

          Yeah, that’s the delusional belief of progressives: “let’s put better people in charge and then everything will be better”.

          We’ve collectively lowered our standards to the point

          I won’t do anything “collectively” with the likes of you.

          we don’t expect competent governance, integrity as office holders, or civility.

          Libertarians recognize that you can’t get good people as office holders; no sane or decent person wants that job. Libertarians want as little governance as possible, to the point that the integrity and civility of office holders matters as little as the integrity and civility of the people who clean the sewers. Because that’s roughly the category of job politician belongs to.

          1. I disagree about what libertarians believe. (We don’t all believe exactly the same things, of course.)

            A more subtle libertarian view is that it is hard to find people of integrity to serve in government. One shouldn’t count on it, so there should be checks on the power of the office. Also, the bigger government is the more it will be a prize that draws corrupt people.

            1. A more subtle libertarian view is that it is hard to find people of integrity to serve in government. One shouldn’t count on it, so there should be checks on the power of the office. Also, the bigger government is the more it will be a prize that draws corrupt people.

              You’re trying to dress up what is obviously a progressive mindset (your stated objective is to “find people of integrity to serve in government”) with empty phrases (“hard to find”, “checks on the power of the office”, etc.).

              I disagree about what libertarians believe. (We don’t all believe exactly the same things, of course.)

              You are not a libertarian, even if you identify as one.

          2. “Libertarians want as little governance as possible, to the point that the integrity and civility of office holders matters as little as the integrity and civility of the people who clean the sewers. Because that’s roughly the category of job politician belongs to.”

            I agree, except I hold sewer workers in much higher regard than politicians, plus they have more “integrity and civility” than most politicians who are full of what these guys help clean up.

  5. “But this joke he made last night, he’s made it several times, it’s just not funny.”

    Everyone’s a critic.

    1. He should keep his day job.

      1. Pretty sure he’s going to.

    2. Is it time for clingers whine about how their betters look down on them?

      Trick question: In these comments, it is always time for disaffected right-wing losers to whimper about condescension . . . and all of this damnable progress.

      1. Sadly, you’re neither good at serious political discussion, nor at parody, nor at sarcasm.

      2. I bet you’re fun at parties

        1. “I bet you’re fun at parties”

          Now THAT’s sarcasm.

      3. The guy clinging to this same bit for 3 years calls others clingers lol

  6. Shorter Welch:

    “What happened to all those Republicans who were so willing to set aside petty politics in order to fulfill their duty as noble losers while my radical left wing crypto-Marxist buddies steamrolled over politics and culture utterly unopposed?”

    They got shown the door because they’re useless pieces of shit. Being a radical left wing crypto-Marxist enabler is arguably worse than being a radical left wing crypto-Marxist, if only because it’s so much less honest. Keep whinging like the pathetic cry-bully you are, we’ll be swilling your tears like fine champagne come election night when another member of the Most Qualified Cunt brigade gets harpooned.

    1. It’s hilarious seeing the woodchipper crowd bemoan Trump’s rather innocuous joke implying that a lifetime politician might have gone to hell after his death.

      1. Personally, I thought politicians went to a place worse than hell. 🙂

    2. I agree Rickey. Welch misses why Trump was elected, and it wasn’t just that Hillary was worse. He defeated all the GOP contenders (and he went after Paul first in the first debate, because he knew who his real competition was – and yet they’re friends today) because (allow me to rephrase your words about “useless …”) they’ve been lying to voters for decades about what they support (liberal big government) and the Tea Party almost did them in (but were suppressed by Douglas Schulman of the IRS – Bush appointee under who the Tea Party harassment started and which Obama/Lerner continued) but failed (lots of GOP RINOs pretended to be Tea Party types, typical lying to get elected as usual).

      Trump won, simply because voters no longer believed the lying RINOs and Democrats. When the president can blatantly lie about keeping your plan/doctor and the MSM backs him up until it’s too late and too obvious, the country is badly broken.

      IMHO, the libertarian leaning voters of the GOP voted for Trump because he wasn’t playing their game of “civility” like a RINO pretending to be a limited government conservative, and was calling out the failures of politicians.

      Personally I’m glad for the end to “civility” because government has never been and never will be “civil”: it’s a necessary evil. An aura of civility masks the nature of its incivility towards individuals as it takes money from civil people by force. People calling for more government (as we’ve gotten over the decades) should be called out for the incivility they want, because government is uncivil. Only big government proponents will claim it isn’t.

  7. Trump acts like Trump “…to the applause of supporters fed up with Washington’s exaggerated self-regard.”

    As if Trump was any part of the solutions, rather than a part of the problems!

    Quotes from The Donald in the “Anti Gravity” column in August 2017 “Scientific American” magazine follow:
    “I have great genes and all that stuff, which I’m a believer in”,
    “God helped me by giving me a certain brain”,
    “I have a very, very high aptitude”,
    “Maybe it’s just something you have. You know, you have the winning gene.”
    Google the quotes, they are real…

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/04/17-issues-that-donald-trump-knows-better-than-anyone-else-according-to-donald-trump/
    Trump:
    “I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth.”
    “I understand social media. I understand the power of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody, based on my results, right?”
    “Nobody knows more about debt. I’m like the king. I love debt.”
    “I understand money better than anybody.”
    “I think nobody knows the system better than I do.”
    “I know more about contributions than anybody.”
    “Nobody knows more about trade than me.”
    “Nobody knows jobs like I do! ”
    “Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump.”
    “There’s nobody bigger or better at the military than I am.”
    “I know more about ISIS [the Islamic State militant group] than the generals do. Believe me.”
    “There is nobody who understands the horror of nuclear more than me.”
    “Because nobody knows the system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me.”

    1. Boy Hihn those quotes sure showed… something.

      1. And YOUR comments show the vacuum in your head! Thanks for sharing your nothing! But it’s a very self-important nothing, isn’t it? You are PROUD of your nothing! You’re eager to flaunt it for all to see!

        1. A President thinks he knows more than others?

          WELL I NEVER!!!

          I’m glad Trump’s predecessor didn’t think he knew everything better than others…

        2. Here comes another manic episode.

          Seriously Hihn, take your lithium as prescribed. We’d all be much happier. And you might maintain some semblance of stability and not be up posting crazy stuff all night.

          1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

            1. Cool; I liked Tim But he needed a Holy Hand Grenade in order to defeat the Vorpral Bunny.

      2. They show salesmanship. Just like the guy who says his vacuum cleaner can suck the chrome off a trailer hitch.

        1. Like any successful peddler of shoddy goods, Trump knows his audience with exquisite precision — and disregards everyone else.

          Trump’s audience consists of the downscale, resentful, gullible losers of American society, who have hitched to him for a last-gasp ride of perceived adequacy.

          1. When did Trump gain the mass of ghetto hood rats and slack-jawed, slope-foreheaded hicklibs as his audience?

          2. For a man of the cloth, you certainly have a deep hate for people.

          3. Only as long as you “permit” it, eh rev?

            Haha.

          4. Your alter-ego, Reverend Arthur I Kuckland is so much better than you.

  8. ‘All the Republicans who were more than happy to bend over and take it from the Democrats are retiring!! Heaven forfend!!

    Whatever shall we do?’

    Cry me a river, Welch.

  9. So reasons stance is we should falsely revere the dead? What the fuck is the point of this article?

    1. Perhaps that common decency, humanity, and respect for the friends and relatives of the deceased, would call for us NOT to do these kinds of things? The dead are dead and gone; it is highly unlikely that we can affect anything about them, except their dead, rotting bodies. We COULD be civil! Especially supposed role models and “leaders”, could at least TRY to be civil!

      But from the majority of your comments… I can see your viewpoint, because you don’t have scarcely a CLUE about what it means to be “civil”! “Civil” is a foreign word to you, so, OF COURSE this article has NO point at ALL!

      1. The Reason comments section will be nearly as elated as your family when you finally succumb to the senile dementia Hihn.

      2. SQRLSY will soon be penning tributes to Stalin, Mao, and Hitler to show his respect for the dead.

        1. All three of them, we should thank, for having taught us about the consequences of following a State-imposed “cult of personality”. There’s not a whole bunch more, positive, that I can add, about them. It’s too bad that SOME people haven’t learned these lessons!

          (I can EASILY forgive voters who voted for Trump, against Hillary, in November 2016. I am having a MUCH harder time forgiving those who voted for Trump in the primaries. It was already clear, what a world-class asshole Trump was, at that time).

          1. Better you ask forgiveness from others for burdening the world with your annoying (and unintelligent) psychosis.
            Fuck you and your pretensions to be in a position to offer forgiveness.

            1. Should I be begging You for Your Permission to forgive others?

              Fuck You and Your pretensions of being a decent, at least vaguely humanoid lifeform, with any sort of ego-size less than the known universe!

              1. Lol
                I do appreciate your ability to discredit every position you advocate.
                I don’t forgive you for continuing to pollute the world with your presence, but it does have the above good side

    2. No, the stance is not that we should falsely revere the dead.

      The point is we should not take shots at the dead.

      It’s classless, pointless, and shows weakness.

      1. Yeah, stick to rape jokes about politicians’ kids like the classy Democrats do.

      2. Look at Party of slavery, Team Blue, making demands of how others should act based on that Party’s vast expertise at enslaving Blacks.

        1. Oooh you burned me there….

          1. You BURN yourself. I just add firewood.

        2. If the Democratic Party was “the party of slavery” it was many, many years ago. We all know that the set of people that make up the Democratic Party today are no longer part of any such long-ago legacy. In other words, it’s a cheap “whataboutism” shot that tries to derail the topic being discussed, which was JesseAz’s questioning why politicians should be civil.

          1. “If the Democratic Party was “the party of slavery” it was many, many years ago.”

            No “if”. It was. Seceded from the Union over it.

            And they have not changed. At all. They still want to enslave their voters so they rely on them.

            “We all know that the set of people that make up the Democratic Party today are no longer part of any such long-ago legacy.”

            Your front-runner for President was. Just sayin’.

            “In other words, it’s a cheap “whataboutism” shot that tries to derail the topic being discussed, which was JesseAz’s questioning why politicians should be civil.”

            Spent my entire adult life hearing about how conservatives are evil and want to enslave blacks. Fuck your concern trolling.

            1. They have not changed? At all?

              We still have literal slavery, and Democrats are defending the institution?

              1. Welfare, 50% income tax, race based policies. Yes, still the party of slavery.

          2. Correct, mike. Apparently back in the 60s these people switched tack and turned to pandering. Desegregation, after all, was driven by the belief that the negros could never rise to a low level of civilized existence without the cynical, patronizing influence of white people. That, and Margaret Sanger epitomized where the left “evolved” to on race.

            They are far worse than people who display their racism openly.

      3. So all the people trying to use the dear departed Hitler to say bad things about Trump are wrong?

        1. Yes, of course, it is wrong to call Trump “Hitler”.

      4. Why not? What makes Dingell so special other than he was a useless relic of the political class that was basically feathering his own nest at taxpayer expense? What makes him any different from the corrupt Senators that caused the Roman Republic to fall from the sheer weight of their own decadence?

    3. The point of this article is Holiday web traffic and reason staff uses TDS to achieve it.

      1. Reason resorting to click bait; not unlike Yahoo.

      2. Yes, KMW is going to whip Reason into good shape financially by drumming up controversy and installing ads. Principles are the first casualty.

    4. What the fuck is the point of this article?

      My guess would be to earn a paycheck.

      1. When Welch has written multiple articles on the same topic in the past, it has been an indication he’s working on a book.

    5. So reasons stance is we should falsely revere the dead? What the fuck is the point of this article?

      Not all dead. Only slick, corrupt, dead Democratic party hacks and scions of political dynasties. Those we should revere!

    6. Is it that foreign a concept when speaks in favor of civil and mature behavior?

      1. Sometimes the morally correct behavior is to spit in someone’s face or piss on someone’s grave.

    7. JesseAZ, I’d like to respond to ‘revere the dead’ part of your comment.

      I believe that we should, as a rule, respect the dead. Are there exceptions to this rule? Absolutely yes. I do not believe we should be respecting Hitler or Mao or Khan or Caligula (as examples). But for the rest of us….Yeah, be respectful.

      In Judaism, when someone dies, the officiant typically delivers what is called a hesped (a eulogy). We make real efforts to praise the human who has died. There are multiple rationales for why this is the case. But I have shed many tears in my life listening to them. A politician like Dingell has done good deeds in his life, regardless of his politics. We can, and must respect this, and praise him for that.

      POTUS Trump made an inelegant and inappropriate comment. In this case, I wish he would say something along the lines of regretting making a comment that could be seen as disrespectful of the dead, and adding to a widow’s grief. That is the part that bothers me the most….adding to a widow’s grief. The widow lives in the here and the now. She should be left alone to recover from her loss.

  10. Matt correctly points out that while President Trump can get away with this others Republicans can not. Yes the Republicans become more Trumpite but to what end. When Trump is gone where do the Republicans go as a party. Reagan had a legacy, Trump does not. A brief interlude and when he is gone all the Republicans will have is a bad memories.

    1. “When Trump is gone where do the Republicans go as a party.”

      For the sake of the planet, hopefully the early 2000s neocons (David Frum, Bill Kristol, etc.) regain control. Although they arguably made mistakes, nothing they did was anywhere near as bad as Drumpf’s draconian war on immigration.

      #LibertariansForABetterGOP
      #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge

      1. Keep in mind that, while Jeb! will be over 70 years old in 2024, he has an up-and-coming son George Prescott who will be shy of 50 – and he’s half Hispanic. Viva Jorge Arbusto! I’m sure the GOP will be back in safe, comfortable, familiar hands come 2025.

    2. It’s obvious you have a great deal of concern for the Republicans. That’s awfully big of you.

      1. As a moderate I rely on conservatives, liberals, and libertarians to provide context to issues. I read or listen to their arguments to help me define what I think is a practical solution to the issue/problem. Healthy political parties are therefore important to me. I don’t see the Republicans under Trump as healthy.

        1. “As a moderate”

          The only way you’re a moderate is if the Overton Window is a mile to the left of Robespierre and Marx.

          1. My views were developed as a child and young adult and have not much changed. I don’t define myself by mainstream ideas or customs. I see that things change in time and that I must adjust but in the context of personal ideas developed years ago. I also see problems as things to be solved and not things to be resolved in accordance with my personal beliefs. I am a moderate.

            1. No, you’re a weakling looking for the easy way out.

        2. Hey me too!

        3. You claim moderation as a rather thin veil to your all too obvious TDS, as in “I listen to all sides to make an informed decision but Trump bad, really really bad.”

          Sure, Trump is a jerk, a narcissist, a cad, all sorts of things. But given the choice we had in 2016 I have not one regret he won the election. And the Senate is approaching 200 federal judges confirmed, who are overall much more respecting of the Constitution than any ideologue that would have come out of a Clinton presidency. As of now 6 out of 10 appellate courts are majority Republican appointees. Just wait till Ginsberg succumbs to her terminal illness if you think things have been uncivil up to this point. As I value my freedom and liberty and a limited government, I’ll put up with Trump and all his callousness toward that end.

          1. I accepted Donald Trump was elected President and I hoped he would rise to the position he held. He has disappointed me greatly. I don’t have TDS and I don’t harp on much of the petty shit he does. Like you I think he is “a jerk, a narcissist, a cad, all sorts of things.” If that says I have TDS then you should also claim it.

            1. It took Moderation4ever about 3 years to accept trump was President.

              He was a Mueller fanboy.

    3. ” Reagan had a legacy, Trump does not.”

      Well, trump has a legacy in my 401k. He has done more for the ‘working class’ economically than the last representative of fascism ever did.

      1. I look at it the other way. The “ working class” has done more for Trump and my 401k than he ever did for anyone. If not could he take my shift tomorrow? I could use a break.

    4. “Reagan had a legacy,”

      As a practical matter? Not so much, his VP set out to dismantle it the moment he was President himself. He’s fondly remembered, but many of his actual accomplishments got undone.

      Example: He reined in the BATF. Bush the elder unleashed them, resulting in Ruby Ridge and Waco. He agreed to an amnesty and immigration enforcement: The amnesty happened, the enforcement didn’t. Traded tax hikes for spending cuts, the spending cuts never happened.

      I might go so far as to call Trump the anti-Reagan: Reagan’s manner was pitch perfect, but he fell short on policy frequently. Trump’s manner is ghastly, but he’s better at delivering on policy.

      1. Ultimately, what matters is what gets done (or doesn’t). Substance is more important than style.

      2. Brett, I’d like to see POTUS Trump do one thing more: Dramatically shrink the size of the administrative state.

      3. “Reagan had a legacy”

        He sure did.

        Some examples of Reagan’s legacy include the ongoing arguments for tax cuts. Bush Sr. lost because he violated his promise to maintain Reagan’s legacy, “Read my lips, no new taxes”.

        Reagan’s legacy includes the pragmatic approach to foreign policy that won us the Cold War. No doubt, the Republicans turned away from pragmatism, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and the Powell-Weinberger doctrine during Bush the Lesser’s awful reign, but Trump represents a repudiation of that and a return to Reagan’s legacy.

        We haven’t even started talking about the Reagan coalition bringing together southern social conservatives and Midwestern blue collar workers, who continue to be the backbone of Trump’s support today in the form or Reagan/Trump Democrats.

        We’re still living in the post Cold War world that Ronald Reagan gave us. If something had fundamentally changed during the Bush the Lesser and Obama administrations, someone would be calling for us to go back to the policies of those days. No one, not even from the candidates on the left, are calling for a return to those policies.

        Those on the left and right who were openly advocating for a Bush Jr.-Obama era neocon adventure in Syria were doing so over the objections of their constituents in both parties. Who is advocating a return to ObamaCare? Even the consensus on not caring about spending is emblematic of the Reagan administration.

        If you’re using general consensus as a demarcation of various eras in recent American history, we could start with FDR and the Great Depression and see that era through to the end of the Nixon administration and into the frustration of the Carter administration. The next era really begins with the Reagan administration and will go through the end of the Trump administration at least.

        The Bush and Obama administrations were a throwback to what was going on during the Johnson administration, with its war of liberation and the expansion of Johnson’s Great Society–the latter both through Bush the Lesser’s Medicare prescription drug coverage and Obamacare. That didn’t change anything fundamentally.

        The American people repudiated FDR style central planning and we abandoned idealism in foreign policy circa the Reagan administration. Those were big changes–and they’re still with us today. The reasons Bush Sr. didn’t depose Saddam Hussein, the reasons Clinton didn’t invade Rwanda, and the reasons Trump pulled our troops out of harm’s way in Syria were the same reasons Reagan pulled us out of Lebanon. Meanwhile, to see where the American people (both Democrat and Republican) were on FDR era central planning, look at the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. The thinking of different eras all dovetail into each other, but the changes that came about circa the Reagan administration remain predominant today.

    5. Poor Moderation4ever does not realize that Trump just became the best President in US History and that is legacy.

      Not even the Founders had to endure multiple coup attempts.

      1. Sure, a coup that would, in the unlikely event that it succeeds, install Mike Pence as President.

      2. 1789….It is a little early to crown POTUS Trump as GPOAT. 🙂

    6. To be fair, it is likely that he will be acquitted in the Senate, become more popular with his base, and win re-election. That would give him four more years to try to build a legacy of China trade deals, border walls, judicial appointments, and (maybe) withdrawal of troops.

      But, your point still stands, even though he may well build a legacy. The Democrats are currently wandering around lost after the popular Obama presidency, and it’s likely the Republicans will be similarly lost after the Trump presidency.

    7. Ever heard of the Supreme Court fucknut?

    8. Maybe the republicans will learn to stand up to the bullying tactics of the left. That may be Trumps best contribution to the GOP.

      I’m afraid though once he is gone they will return to cowering in corners

  11. Re Dingell, the truth is an absolute defense against defamation.

    While it would be difficult to directly establish Dingell’s current location, (Well, and to report back, anyway.) discovery would establish that Trump has a reasonable basis for his claim.

    1. While Dingell was a career politician who inherited his seat from his father and bequeathed it to his widow, as is the prerogative of the American nobility, fought for universal healthcare from as far back as the 1950’s, supported rather extreme environmentalist positions (except when it came to the automobiles built in his district, of course), supported both the Gulf War and the War in Afghanistan, one thing you can’t take away from him is that he voted against the Patriot Act, so he wasn’t irredeemably bad. He wasn’t Satan, just one of his lesser minions.

      1. “He wasn’t Satan”

        Maybe just a tenant

  12. Poor reason. The amount of TDS articles will flow like the Nile after trump win reelection.

    Matt “Beto Boner” Welch hates that Trump fights back and its a winning strategy.

    Lefties say a bunch of negative things about Trump..but thats okay.
    Democrats say a bunch of negative things about Trump…but thats okay.
    RINOs say a bunch of negative things about Trump..but thats okay.

    Trump replies with Hyperbole…IMPEACH HIS ASS, CAUSE MEANIE!

  13. I’m not sure you can defame the dead and I’m sure there are any number of people who vowed some day Dingell would burn in Hell while he was alive, so this boorish behavior of violating the social norm of not speaking ill of the dead (which is why I’m sure nobody is planning on talking shit about Trump when he croaks) is just more of Trump being Trump. He might as well hold press conferences from the Oval Office bathroom, sitting on a golden toilet taking a royal dump. He’s just a horrible, awful human being. A thin-skinned, egomaniacal, fat-headed, loud-mouthed ignorant braggart.

    But we don’t hire Presidents for their table manners and the last several “nice guy” Presidents we hired did some pretty awful fucked-up Presidential shit far worse than petty name-calling. Come to think of it, so has Trump, but at least he hasn’t (yet) done worse things than his immediate predecessors.

    And trust me, I understand the gut-wrenching conflict of supporting Trump over his alternative – as a long-time Seattle Seahawks fan, I still bear the emotional scars of that fateful day when, after weeks of speculation over what kind of retarded hapless morons would possibly draft that over-rated, loud-mouthed, fat-headed clown Brian Bosworth, we all learned who the retarded hapless morons were.

    1. We’ve got a nation of, what, about 300 million people. We, as a people, cannot manage to find a few people who could serve as President with competence, integrity, and civility?

      We have all been convinced to lower our expectations and standards.

      1. Maybe people have different tastes than you, jeffmike.

        I, for one, would never agree that someone you feel has “competence, integrity, and civility” actually possessed those qualities.
        Indeed, your endorsement would indicate otherwise

      2. We, as a people, cannot manage to find a few people who could serve as President with competence, integrity, and civility?

        Unfortunately, no. And James Madison knew this when he wrote the Constitution. The whole system of checks and balances is designed to counter-balance the greed and lust for power on the part of the executive with the greed and lust for power on the part of the legislature, it presupposes that it’s not going to be men of competence and integrity and civility that are going to be the ones seeking high office but quite the opposite. Men of competence and integrity and civility are sitting at home minding their own damn business, not sticking their noses in everybody else’s.

        1. Do we really want ‘angels’ in the White House? I think not. That typically does not bode well for the country (e.g. POTUS Carter).

      3. We’ve got a nation of, what, about 300 million people. We, as a people, cannot manage to find a few people who could serve as President with competence, integrity, and civility?

        We did.

        You don’t think so because you’re in that part who wanted something else.

        We have a competent president, with integrity, who treats the left with more civility than it deserves.

      4. You literally have to be a psychopath to want to be president and to actually manage to get elected, and almost ever US president has been. And the more power the federal government gets, the worse the crop of people it attracts becomes.

        The problem isn’t our low expectations, it’s your delusions about how the real world operates and how politics works.

  14. Simply dying does not make one correct.
    Dead people who had bad ideas are still dead, and the ideas are still bad.

    1. True, but on the other hand, civility is a great social value.

      1. Civility must be earned and the left has not been civil to Trump since he announced he was running.

        1. Perhaps. I was thinking of a larger context with a longer view than just recent history.

          1. You mean all the civility people showed to the fascists, segregationists, slave holders, and genocidal maniacs throughout history?

            Incivility is beneficial when directed at those who hurt and oppress people.

      2. Civility towards corrupt psychopaths is not a “great social value”.

  15. I just remembered another funny thing about this topic.

    Don’t reason staff and Lefties defame Fred Trump?

    The guy is dead and cannot defend himself. TDS is a hella of a drug.

    1. Can you provide a citation or link? I just googled Reason articles that mention Frederick Trump and see only two that talk about him fairly positively.

  16. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R–Texas), the popular eyepatch-wearing veteran most famous for his moment of cross-partisan civility on Saturday Night Live….

    Hahaha. SNL is a hack Lefty show that is so politically biased it’s staff are like reason who dont even know what being unbiased looks like.

    1. It just goes to show where Welch’s political sensibilities actually lie.

      1. And SNL mainly did it because their drug-addled cast member had caused a major public backlash. If you watch the piece, he spends the whole time cringing and slumped over like a bad doggy that’s about to get smacked in the nose with a newspaper.

  17. The Hellish Legacy of the Dingell Family
    A decade ago, Time Magazine unveiled an in-depth article on the death of Detroit. One of the politicians whom the article blamed for Detroit’s woes was Rep. John Dingell.

    The Dingell clan has held a congressional seat outside Detroit since 1932. Their 87-year tenure has not coincidentally coincided with the decline of a thriving industrial city into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

    But it’s been good for the Dingells, three of whom have sat in their congressional seat since the days of Herbert Hoover, the rise of Hitler, and the radio age, and fattened their pockets on its sinecures.

    1. Thanks for the link.

  18. Dear Matt: I’ve lived in Michigan me entire life. I can assure you, it is virtually impossible to discredit, besmirch or defame Dingell’s grandfather, father, John himself or his parasitic child bride adequately enough. That you are not aware of this is telling. I’ve 90 years in political power with the Democrat labor machine and as a bag man (men) from taxpayer pockets to General Motors checkbook, each Dingellberry enriched himself and helped impoverish Detroit. Next in line is his idiot son. That Welch is ignorant of the Dingell legacy of harm and self enrichment I find incredible unless, as I suspect, he’s just allowed his liberal mask to slip. Hell would be the just reward for generations of Dingells and Trump is no prophet to have recognized it. Welch is simply infuriated that he’s got the balls to say it.

    1. ???????????? x infinity.

    2. Don’t underestimate, I think, how people see Trump.

      He sees this political (leave aside his own possible shenanigans as a private business man) corruption or at least has known about it. Sees they never faced criticism so now he just lets every corrupt politician have it like that guy who died in Baltimore.

      I think people see it through this prism and they like it. They love it even more when known pieces of shit politicians who enriched themselves are defended from the establishment and chime in with self-serving tweets like Amash did.

      ‘Let the bastards have it’ has some juice it looks like.

      ‘For once someone tells it like it is!’

      Maybe that’s why Trump does it?

  19. Show the proof that he isn’t in hell, then the joke is bad.

  20. Same Dingell family that held a seat in Congress since the Great Depression. I think we can insult them, live or dead.

  21. The dead only worry about decay and necrophiliacs.

    1. And those damned, disrespectful worms!!!

      https://genius.com/Harley-poe-the-hearse-song-lyrics

      Don’t ever laugh
      As a Hearse goes by
      For you may be the next to die
      They wrap you up
      In a big white sheet
      From your head down to your feet
      They put you in a big black box
      And cover you up with dirt and rocks
      And all goes well
      For about a week
      And then your coffin begins to leak
      And the worms crawl in, the worms crawl out
      The worms play pinochle on your snout
      They eat your eyes, they eat your noes
      They eat the jelly between your toes
      A big green worm with rolling eyes
      Crawls in your stomach and out your eyes
      Your stomach turns a slimy green
      And puss comes out like whipping cream
      You spread it on a slice of bread
      And thats what you eat when your dead
      And the worms crawl out and the worms crawl in
      The worms that crawl in are lean and thin
      The ones that crawl out are fat and stout
      Your eyes fall in and your hair falls out
      Your brain comes tumbling down your snout
      And the worms crawl in, the worms crawl out
      They crawl all over your dirty snout
      Your chest caves in and your eyes pop out
      Your brain turns to saurkraut
      They invite their friends, and their friends too
      They all come down to chew on you
      And this is what it is to die, i hope you had a nice goodbye
      Did you ever think as a Hearse goes by
      That you might be the next to die
      And your eyes fall out and your teeth decay
      And that is the end of a perfect… day

  22. Hey, you are right! Before Trump, no republican would act this way!

    And certainly no democrat has ever spoken ill of the dead…. They never talk bad about Reagan, that’s for sure. Or Nixon for that matter.. No, democrats are really respectful.

    And then there’s the living. You notice how horrible Trump is, calling people names? But in the interest of civil discourse, democrats would never stoop to such things…. I mean, calling Trump names doesn’t count, obviously. Nor does calling his supporters “racist” or “Nazis” or “fascist” or, or, or…. Because they really are terrible.
    But before Trump… they never would do that. Well, I mean Bush… of course Bush. Bushitler. Comparing him to a monkey was obvious. And making movies about assassinating Bush isn’t really hate or anything.

    But other than that…. Oh, well obviously Dole was evil. Just look at him. And Romney. That guy was obviously racist and homophobic and deserved whatever he got. And McCaine… sure, he tried to hide it, but his campaign was totally racist, so obviously they were gonna talk about him that way.

    But other than all of the presidential candidates and other major politicians like Gingrich… and writers and pundits and radio personalities…. other than that? Yeah, when have they ever talked about other people like this?

    Well, sure, when Clinton was in office they went after secretaries and interns and travel agents…. but what do you expect when trailer trash like that is part of a vast right wing conspiracy?

    Look, the point is that politicians just don’t say bad things about other politicians. Not like Trump does. That’s the real point….

    1. Oh, and awildseaking reminded me….

      In politics we never go after the family. That is sacrosanct. Particularly the kids. Well, except Trump. His kids are grown. So they are fair game. Well, and the one kid that is still a kid…. because he’s like, special needs or something….. So they are just kinda asking for it with that. You know, like Palin with Trig. It is just so obvious, you gotta go after that.

      Well, and Bush. Because he was literally Bushitler, and his daughters were all like in college and stuff and that’s totally different because if college girls are out drinking that’s news and commenting on news isn’t really going after the family.

      No, Trump is literally worse than Hitler with this stuff. And he doesn’t even apologize when people pretend to be offended on other people’s behalf. So he is totally evil.

      1. The hypocrisy of it all doesn’t even faze them, in fact hypocrisy defines them.
        But maybe it’s not so much hypocrisy as it is a form of psychosis, an egotistical imbalance serious enough to require help, a superiority complex of substantial proportions that negates introspection but protects them from thought.

  23. This is a dumbass game the press loves to play. Somebody says something (maybe) rude or offensive, then the shills try to entrap others with their reaction–or lack of–to it.

    1. I’m pretty sure it’s not just the press, it’s anybody following Alinsky’s list of rules. This framing of the narrative as outrage in the service of defending the defenseless has many names and many forms but all of them are phony as a three-dollar bill. It’s like a “how dare you!” for anybody criticizing Greta the Magical Retard – pre-emptively wielding your victimization as a weapon.

      1. It may have many names. I prefer “boring”.

      2. My favorite name for Greta is The FAS and the Furious.

        1. How dare you!

  24. No, it’s funny. Anything taking taking the piss of out politicians rather than revering them is always in good taste. One of the key steps in getting smaller government is probably to stop getting misty-eyed about people like Dingell. I thought this was a libertarian publication.

    1. Not anymore it ain’t

  25. Welch, I hope this is a wake up call to your TDS. If there’s any one mantra that summarizes Trump, it’s “talk shit, get hit.”

    Here are the words of the late glorious leader Dingell; “On behalf of so many of my fellow veterans: Please take two running jumps and go to hell, Mr. Trump.”

    For context, he said this in response to Trump stating “I wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole”…but here’s the fun part. All the MSM lied about this quote to make it sound like he was referring to John McCain. The media would love if this were true because not wanting to be in a foxhole sounds like an insult to McCain’s service, as if he’s unfit or a traitor or not someone you can rely on. In reality, here’s the real, full quote.

    “I wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole with a lot of these people that I can tell you, including Ryan. By the way, including Ryan, especially Ryan.”

    Not only did Paul Ryan never serve, but Trump was very clearly referring to a foxhole in a non-literal manner. He’s saying that he wouldn’t want to depend on Ryan or other Republicans in a tough fight where people have to dig in and be dependable. With all the RINO retirements and deflections, can you blame him?

    In short, as we’ve seen more than anyone cares to admit, this Dingell story is incredibly fake news. Dingell decided to be an asshole and insulted Trump based on false, malicious reporting. If Trump died nobody would blast Dingell for hurting the Trump family’s feelings, but it’s okay because veterans can do no wrong and we should all be bootlickers and fuck truth. I guess nobody ever told Dingell to stop thinking he’s hot shit. At least something in his life is hot now.

    1. The faux-righteousness of it all is sickening indeed.

      If Trump died….all of a sudden all this ‘decorum’ bull shit would go straight out the window. Could you imagine the tweets? There’s no question if Trump were to pass in a plane crash or something, the reaction would be pure happiness from jerk offs who talking about ‘decorum’.

      “The president’s makeover of the GOP will almost certainly lead to his acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial, ”

      ?

      Can it be because, maybe- just maybe – it’s more than that? Matt is making it seem like he holds the Senate in his palm like a Svenjolly while disregarding the fact, well, there’s no hard evidence to impeach him.

      Strange sentence. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

      1. No, you are completely wrong. Because the left totally follows all of these rules of decorum and respect for the office and for government and for the will of the people.

        Like when Trump was asked if he would accept the results if (when) he lost the election. There was such outrage that he would dare say that it depends on what happens… and joke that he would accept the results if he won. (one wonders if the questioner was aware of the DNC and HRC campaign collusion with foreign agents to dig up dirt on Trump at that point?)

        And what happened when Trump won? They calmly accepted the will of the people and supported their new president. Hillary Clinton came out immediately and gave a wonderful concession speech, wishing the new president elect well and offering any support he needed. And the outgoing administration totally worked with the incoming Trump administration, and they totally didn’t start sabotaging the incoming administration, wiretapping their team and leaking the names of people from classified secret “foreign surveillance” and spreading around classified info to be leaked with the intention of starting an independent counsel investigation and eventually impeachment. Nope, they would never do that.
        And the Obama administration certainly didn’t rush through their last months in office, issuing executive orders designed to hamstring the incoming administration with illegal immigration and other issues.

        No, Obama learned from the way he was treated by Bush. He remembered that Bush actually called him in to consult on major policy issues during the transition, like the trillion dollar “troubled asset” buyout thing to stabilize the currency markets. Heck, Bush even let Obama go out and make speeches about how he was the one who decided to do the TARP bailouts and he was the one who approved it.

        So Obama knew the value of a peaceful and respectful transition of power. And he never would have allowed his administration to undermine the incoming administration.

        1. Please forgive me, M’lord. How could I be so foolish?

    2. “In our modern political age, the presidential bully pulpit seems dedicated to sowing division and denigrating, often in the most irrelevant and infantile personal terms, the political opposition,”

      John Dingell magnanimously speaking some kind words of Trump as he lay on his deathbed, dictating his final words to his wife in a “Letter To America” he left as a review of his legacy. This gentleman belonged to the loyal opposition who would never stoop so low as to refer to their opposition as bitter clingers, deplorables, racists, Nazi’s, white supremacists, bigoted, low-IQ, uneducated trailer-park trash, too dumb to know what’s in their own self-interest.

      1. It is as if the guy has a super-power. I don’t understand it, but people just get sucked in. Even on their deathbed, their thoughts are of Trump.

        I think of the guy as mostly a buffoon. But people obsess over every tweet to the point of literally wasting their last moments thinking about Trump and their disdain for Trump and his supporters.

        Really weird superpower.

      2. I just read Dingell’s “Letter to America”. What a self-righteous, ignorant blow-hard.

  26. Trump’s offhand insult of the late John Dingell is part of how he reshapes the GOP into his own image, to the applause of supporters fed up with Washington’s exaggerated self-regard

    As far as I’m concerned, the sooner we start recognizing the legacy of men like JFK, Johnson, Wilson, FDR etc. for what it actually was, the sooner we recognize that their fame ought to be infamy, the better. Dingell, of course, doesn’t quite play in that league; Dingell is no prince of darkness, he is more like a prince of insufficient light. Ditto for McCain.

    Every time Trump drives a bulldozer through the guardrails of political decorum, the Republican Party becomes more Trumpy and less decorous. Michigan’s Mitchell chose to retire this July in reaction to the president’s grotesque suggestion that four congresswomen of color “go back” to their home countries, even though three were born in the United States.

    Reason apparently get paid by the lie.

  27. Sure, Republicans need to grow a set and brawl back when appropriate. That said, I think a president needs to show some decorum: cut out the rude, crude insults. Get an attack dog, like a Chris Christie, to do that for you. Day one, Trump is tossing bombs at the media over inauguration day crowds (who gives crap) and trading insults with some B-list Hollywood foul mouth. All presidents have had their vulgar, colorful moments but not nonstop. Let the Dems act like the assholes they are and be a bigger man.

    1. Screw that. They all deserve and need to be knocked down a couple of pegs.
      Vote everyone out, every time.

    2. That said, I think a president needs to show some decorum: cut out the rude, crude insults.

      Why? I mean, if Americans lose respect for the presidency through Trump, that seems to be a bonus. And it’s not like Trump can just switch it on and off; this is what he is; this is what it took to beat Hillary and the kinds of attacks by Democrats that accuse everybody who opposes them of being “Nazis” and “racists”.

      You want more decorum? Start with the people attacking Trump.

    3. Well, if Trump has some ventriloquist dummy like Christie spouting insults, then of course the media would ask Trump if the agreed with Christie’s latest “outrageous statement,” Trump could either waffle – not in his nature – or he could disavow the dummy (“Trump claims to reject foul-mouthed spokesman, but does he really?”) or he could endorse the dummy, which would be the same as making the remark in the first place.

  28. The biggest advantage in defaming the dead is that they can’t sue. This is the lesson of Clifford Irving, the biographer of Howard Hughes. His fraudulent bio got as far as it did because he took pains to involve the dead in his wilder stories, like the Hughes relationship with Ernest Hemmingway.

  29. More great news for America, but bad news for Welchie Boy and all the rest of Reason’s leftie Obama momma brigade: Super Saturday three days ago was the greatest retail shopping day in American history, with $34.4 billion in sales:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/other/saturday-shopping-sets-us-one-day-sales-record-analyst-says/ar-BBYhl0P

    I guess this really isn’t too surprising, what with the lowest unemployment in decades and the Dow Jones Industrial Average up about 9,000 points in the last three years!

    1. We Koch / Reason libertarians don’t care about such things. Here’s what matters — our billionaire benefactor Charles Koch is only up $2.74 billion this year.

      Not. Good. Enough.

      #DrumpfRecession
      #VoteDemocratToHelpCharlesKoch

      1. Almost time to hold another fundraiser webathon. We wouldn’t want to see him go broke!

  30. John Dingell’s best line in the movie “Tombstone”:

    “I’m your …….”

    1. I’m your huckleberry?

      It means something like “ I’m up for it” or “I’m the man for the job”.

      When doc holiday says it to Ringo I think it is his badass cool way of saying “ if you want trouble I’m the guy to bring it to you”

      Just wondering if that is what you had in mind. One of my favorite movies.

  31. produced outrage-headlines last month by saying about Nancy Pelosi, … that “it must suck to be that dumb,”

    Well, doesn’t it?

  32. And there was Justin Amash, who tweeted to Dingell’s widow and replacement, “Debbie, we are here for you.”

    So does that mean her name is… Debbie Dingell?

    1. That’s the kind of “libertarian” Amash is.

  33. I’m with Ken upthread. Why should we expect anyone in the RP to exhibit any decency and decorum by denouncing a President who just spit on the grave of a person who served in Congress for 40 years. They’re just trying to keep their cushy job. Why should we expect anything different from a government bureaucrat?

    1. Why would anyone who “served” in Congress for 40 years deserve NOT to have their grave spat on?

      1. If these government bureaucrats in the RP don’t like their colleagues at work so much why don’t they quit?

  34. This is totally Trump and the RP:

    Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. … Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

    1. Certainly more than the Democratic Party. Glad you’re finally accepting it.

  35. Hey Ken…

    23Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”…

    This is totally Trump, right?

    1. I’m fond of the verses that prophesied Dingell’s time in office:

      John 12:4-6–But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

  36. Matt,

    Honor and decency in the modern Republican Party?!? LOL… yeah, right!

  37. “He doesn’t know it’s a damn show! He thinks it’s a damn fight!”

  38. You know what, Welch, you fuck, you and the rest of the asswipes celebrating Impeachmas need to really shut the fuck up.

    NO ONE is buying it anymore.

    1. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

  39. Herbert Hoover’s party of God’s Own Prohibitionists, then Dick Nixon’s party of War on Drugs, gooks, whatever, then the Bush Dynasty’s party of Death to Hippies over plant leaves and Asset Forfeiture Bank Failures… The party of the Trump of God could strike the yokels as an improvement.

    1. Prohibition was a progressive policy; while there were some progressives in the GOP, they were then already mostly Democrats and are now almost exclusively Democrats.

  40. Not a Trump fan but I do like this aspect. All the people inside the beltway are sociopaths. Clear and simple. These are not nice people, these are not selfless people. These are the worst people who are the best at spinning their awful intentions to appear to be something much nicer than it really is. It’s refreshing to see them called out, spanked and treated as they deserve to be.

  41. Dingell’s status as a veteran is not relevant. Like McCain, Dingell was a corrupt career politician and an example of the rot in DC.

    Timothy McVeigh was a veteran. Charles Whitman was a veteran. Jeffrey Dahmer was a veteran.

    Why wait a week on the Dingell comments? That ship has sailed. No one in MI cares anymore. Folks like my parents weren’t pleased with the comments, think Trump is an ass but won’t vote for Facelift Joe or the armchair Marxists.

    1. Normally his veteran status would be irrelevant, but Orange Man Bad, so it’s important right now.

      1. Sorry, Democrats and liberals serve too. RW insults against veterans is not irrelevant to us. It shows RW sanctimonious grandstanding on veterans is all bs for show.

        You’ll throw us under the bus the moment we don’t tow your political line.

    2. Trump is as corrupt as the come.

      1. The fact that people like you say this means Trump is the opposite.

        All the Lefties could not find a single criminal act that Trump committed. It’s hilarious that Trump knew you people would never find anything after he kicked Hillary’s ass.

  42. Defamed?

    I wonder if there’s ever been a defamation case based on a statement that someone went to, or would go to, hell. I guess each religion may have mass defamation cases against each other.

    Set aside that Trump made neither claim, but only said “maybe” and “I don’t know” and then proceeded to joke that he was unsure of his own eternal destination. Because that’s what the whole thing was to him, a joke, which only people with a stick up their ass appear not to understand. I didn’t find it particularly amusing but it is what it is.

  43. Now that I’ve read the article . . . . it’s laughable. No doubt the author is a man of the left. As a man of the left, there are no depths too low for him and his compatriots, whom presumably he never criticizes. Blackmail, false accusations of gang rape against a SCOTUS nominee, spying on political opponents, etc. They would take away Americans’ capacity for self-defense and other Constitutional rights, and give the government a monopoly on the use of force. They successfully take away Americans’ ability to self-govern by diluting and replacing their votes with millions of immigrants who will vote for the globalist socialist agenda. And so on.

    But when it comes to Republicans, any depth is too low in their minds, because they of course prefer the traditional sort of Republican who simply plays the role of designated loser while contentedly collecting the proceeds of their sinecure.

  44. Merry Christmas, you guys! Never change!

  45. I don’t worry about Trump statements. After a while it is like living by the train tracks. You just don’t hear it.

    The whole process all of it not just Trump, has reached new lows of petty, venal, pointless incompetence.

    The only standard left is winning at any cost.

    At least there was a veneer of respectability. When Reagan took office he looked out and said “ the sun burst through the clouds in an explosion of warmth and light.”

    He would be laughed off the stage for that today. Sure it was largely an act and he was a talented actor. Yet people need something to believe in. Something of value. A light in the darkness when things look bleak. That too is what leadership is made of.

    This week my wife and I had a of work things going on like many of us. It is really just the two of us with kids grown up. So first few nights of Chanukah we kind of ignored. Some FaceTime with the kids.

    Tonight I was doing some work downstairs on the computer. She was tired from her day. She called me upstairs. She had pulled out the menorah from the closet. We lit the candles and shared that together. Best part of my week.

    So whatever, wherever and however you are. I wish the readers here happiness in the coming year.

    Shalom, Merry Christmas, Festivus, anything.

    1. Chag Semeach Hanukkah, Echospinner.

    2. Some of us are super happy because Trump is President.

      Thanks to the House Impeachment, Trump is now the best President in US History. The Democrat Party is imploding. Trump will be reelected in 2020. RBG allowed Trump to replace her after she croaks in her office soon. The GOP will gain seats in the US Senate. Blue states will be losing House seats to Red states after Census 2020.

  46. The way I see it, RWers finally found the president who represents them perfectly, a crude rude stupid pig.

  47. Thank you Trump and Merry Christmas!

    You were a great gift for America in our time of need. I look forward to 5 more years of your generous service as President. You’re only one man so you can only do what you can do.

    1. 5 years?
      #Trump4EVA

  48. Discuss this article on Quora:

    https://www.quora.com/q/sgrmlrcbxkjitfee/The-Strategic-Advantages-of-Defaming-the-Dead

    If you aren’t familiar with Quora, it is a vibrant community where everyone must use their real names and a “be nice, be respectful” policy is strictly enforced.

    1. Yup, right, a site where angry SJWs will make your life a living hell if you disagree with them. A site for immature little leftist trolls like you.

      1. Besides if I had to put out my real name and all that someone would figure out that I am actually Magneto (ret.) and there would be no end of it.

    2. Real names are toxic to discourse because it enables additional layers of prejudice and non-objective discussion. True anonymity is the only way to discuss difficult subjects because people can speak freely and confront difficult subjects without the stigma and fear of making mistakes, not being eloquent, being imperfect, not having strong beliefs and exploring new ideas, etc.

      1. Some people don’t understand why ad hominem is a fallacy.

    3. “vibrant”

      It’s just funny.

  49. Mike Laursen is straight up spamming for another site because he can’t defend against people calling out his lack of integrity here.
    What a fucking coward

  50. Just more faux outrage from the elitist boob class.

    Christians believe people can go to Hell. They believe that all people *deserve* hell, and but for Jesus’s sacrifice and acceptance of Jesus as their Lord and Savior, that’s where we’d *all* go.

    Nothing for a Christain to get their panties in a bunch about.

    Even less for the elitist boob class to get upset about, as they don’t even believe it is possible because they don’t believe in Hell.

    Meanwhile, Dingell had already expressed his desire that Trump “go to hell” in a tweet, while the Leftist Establishment has been calling *him* Hitler Nazi Klansman White Supremacist for 4 years.

    Not merely *him*, but his supporters as well.

    Recall Hillary:
    “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it … — they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America”

    Where was Establishment outrage over Hillary “defaming” half of Republicans in all the greatest sins they can imagine, including being “irredeemable”.

    That’s quite a thing, in a Christian majority country, to declare someone “irredeemable” – i.e., *inevitably* going to Hell.

    Yet another demonstration that the Left Always Projects, and accuses the Right of *exactly* their own offenses.

  51. …the president’s grotesque suggestion that four congresswomen of color “go back” to their home countries…

    Still peddling that lie are you, Welchie? Corporate masters crack the whip if you don’t at least subtly push the TDS narrative?

  52. Trump ain’t the only one that thinks Dingell is burning in Hell. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/09/ding-o09.html

  53. BRAVE. SO BRAVE. The people who trumpeted “Trump Derangement Syndrome” have now grown the tiniest pair. After Trump normalized political violence and right-wing white racist terrorism like we saw in San Antonio, Welch FINALLY has the guts to denounce more garbage from TraitorRapistNazi.

    Reason is so fucking weak.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.