To quote a DU pillar, this morning's revelations about McCarthy and McConnell wanting Trump

[Atticus]

to either resign or be removed immediately after January 6th makes one thing "pellucidly clear":

---the instrument has yet to be invented that could measure either the hypocrisy or the cowardice of those who call themselves "Republicans".

[PJMcK]

1. Exactly

It re-raises the question: Why are Republicans so enthralled to Trump?

His base isn't that big. His endorsements aren't guarantees. His approval rating is low.

Why do Republicans keep falling in line behind this loser?

[Atticus]

2. "Kompromat"? nt

[NCDem47]

6. No doubt Trump works in the dark arts

Gossip and drama queen. He loooooves to dish and get dirt on others that he can exploit for his gain. It's so obvious. He glorifies the mafia ethos. Bully, blackmail, and bride EVERYONE in your orbit.

Shudder to think of the access he gained to our nation's most sensitive information.

[Walleye]

10. We never found out what was in David Pecker's vault at the Enquirer

[brewens]

3. Everyone has dirt on everyone else, unfortunately some on our side too. As soon as someone has

trouble, threats go out to the right people to back off.

[Hortensis]

15. On the Republican side we have ABUNDANT documented evidences

of blackmailable behaviors. (Likely 100s these days if Republican voters cared. Dirt just isn't the same when an entire party is rolling in it, though).

What's on the Democratic side? 50 senators, over 200 reps. There has to be some "dirt." Some're sleeping around. Some have relatives with ruinous activities they're trying to keep contained. Some haven't returned donations from bad donors as they should have. Some bought property shortly before value rose more than expected.

Our party still polices its elected reps, though, and I have no hesitation in saying that finding big, blackmailable dirt on the "right people" would be far harder to impossible, especially in the senate. If Jim Clyburn or Patty Murray for instance had some dirty secret big enough to control him or her and other leaders knew (a strange, bad vote would also be a big clue to something wrong), they'd have retired or at least stepped down from leadership positions. It goes to who and what we are.

[Mad_Machine76]

18. I do wonder

if somebody has something on Sinema or Manchin, especially Sinema, who's political career has had a weird trajectory. Even though she is no longer in office, I wonder about Tulsi Gabbard too.

[Hortensis]

19. Oh, I always wonder these days too. Fwiw, I am talking about the kind of

Democrats who BELIEVE in the value of the federal government, which is by nature virtually all the liberals, even the kind of squirrely, less than ethical ones the house leadership occasionally has to pressure into line or, worst case, help usher out.

Liberals tend to go to DC believing in the value of government to do good, and the desire to do good is a real barrier to the degree of corruption that's developed on the right. You just don't see it among Democrats in general.

These days almost all Republican conservatives make a religion out of being anti-tax, anti-regulation, and seeing a strong, progressive federal government and social programs as evils to be destroyed. And corruption of what is already believed to be rotted with progressive liberalism is a major technique for doing that. Conservatives were always more inclined to corruption overall, but those who wouldn't go along were mostly purged a long time ago and replaced by the kind we see now.

This has all been proven in general by various studies of who's who and why. Fwiw, I don't see Manchin at all in the same category as Sinema or Gabbard, whatever their "categories" are (?), or Manchin as fitting into a Republican category, but it's clear enough for anyone to see that none of them are liberal Democrats like their colleagues. And that Manchin's positions have shocked and disappointed colleagues, including Biden, who thought they knew him pretty well.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Because he is their base

And both are insane and vindictive.

[agingdem]

8. That's it..

Trump's bully-boy name calling, insults, and threats are intended to incite his army of racists, xenophobes, anti-intellectuals..he appeals to the lowest of low and that means violent retaliation, both personal and professional...and that scares the shit out of them..

[BeyondGeography]

12. Wingnut media picks up the scent and you're left alone with your principles

They’ve been running scared since the Gang of Eight got rolled by Rush Limbaugh et al on immigration in 2013. A 68-32 majority in the Senate and Boehner couldn’t bring it to a vote.

[malaise]

14. From Kevin backed off after saying that Putin pays T

the Slobfather. I knew Slobby has the goods on him.

[rainy]

17. Gerrymandered districts make them

have to appease the crazies. The districts are drawn too safe allowing for no competition within so the crazies control the elected leaders. That’s how the tea party got its start.

[FakeNoose]

5. To invoke the 25th Amendment, it would have been up to Mike Pence

Apparently McCarthy and McConnell were on board, and Pence wasn't? I don't get it, because Mike Pence's hanging scaffold was still standing in front of the Capitol building. If anyone had a motive to REMOVE Chump once and for all, it should have been Pence.

[Atticus]

9. Uh, "Mother's Boy" has nothing to "tan". nt

[Claustrum]

7. I think it showed that they knew the severity of what TFG has done

and they thought the public would punish TFG and the republican party for it. So they got out in front of the story to try to get TFG to resign so it does less damage to their party. To their surprise, for some crazy reason, the general public ignored it. So now, they are back to not caring about the matter.

[7wo7rees]

11. "pelucidly clear".......... must be much loved "malaise"

REPUBLICONS!!

[malaise]

13. Ding ding

We have a winner

[niyad]

16. Exactly.