Washington Post: This is a massive failure of character among Republicans -- with evangelicals out in

[Judi Lynn]

This is a massive failure of character among Republicans — with evangelicals out in front

Opinion by
Michael Gerson
Columnist
November 12, 2020 at 2:42 p.m. CST

One of the better speeches I helped produce for George W.?Bush was never given. On election night 2000 — standing outside in the rain, at an Austin victory rally that never happened — I had the copy of a concession speech in my pocket. As I remember it, the first lines were: “I have just talked to my opponent, who is no longer my opponent. He is the president-elect of the United States.”

I had no doubt that then-Gov. George W. Bush would have delivered that speech if necessary. The 2000 presidential election was far closer than the one we just experienced — a slight electoral wind could have blown it either way. But Bush, had he lost, would have played by the rules and accepted the outcome, just as Vice President Al Gore eventually did. And how do I know that Bush would have done this? Because he is a man of character who would have put the good of the country ahead of his own interests when the moment called for it.

What America is now experiencing is a massive failure of character — a nationwide blackout of integrity — among elected Republicans. From the president, a graceless and deceptive insistence on victory after a loss that was not even close. From congressional Republicans, a broad willingness to conspire in President Trump’s lies and to slander the electoral system without consideration of the public good. Only a few have stood up against Republican peer pressure of contempt for the constitutional order.

How could such a thing happen in the GOP? It is not an aberration. It is the culmination of Trump’s influence among Republicans, and among White evangelical Christians in particular. Their main justification for supporting Trump — that the president’s character should be ignored in favor of his policies — has become a serious danger to the republic.

More:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-a-massive-failure-of-character-among-republicans--with-evangelicals-out-in-front/2020/11/12/c7a05396-251e-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html

[keithbvadu2]

1. For Bill Clinton, the republican mantra was "character matters".

For Bill Clinton, the republican mantra was "character matters".

They have gotten over that quaint notion.

[aggiesal]

5. IOKIYAR ! n/t

[Grasswire2]

2. BS BS BS Revisionist history!

His premise might be believable if we did not know how the Bush 2000 "victory" went down.

But we all do. The "man of character" chose to allow his first cousin John Ellis to implement the Rove plan by calling the election prematurely for W, as Ellis manned the FOX Decision Desk that night. He allowed harassment of Al Gore. He allowed the Brooks Bros. riot. He allowed his father's cronies to stop the counting of votes in Florida.

Gerson used to be a staff writer for Chuck Colson, Nixon's hatchet man and an evangelical figurehead. He learned to paint over flaws with pretty words.

[madaboutharry]

3. W learned "character" from his father,

who ran the racist Willie Horton ad.

W would have given a concession speech if it was clearly a loss, that is true. But it wouldn’t have been because of character. It would have been because there would be nothing he could do about vote totals.

Republicans are good at revisionist history.

[tanyev]

8. I can't find it now, but I recall reading that the Bush team had lawyers ready to contest

two potential outcomes--Gore winning the popular vote/losing the electoral and Gore winning the electoral vote/losing the popular. They were going to fight it no matter what.

[Grasswire2]

9. yes

I have forgotten the name of the lawyer who spilled the beans a few years ago about the massive PR blitz strategy to brand W the winner on election night, no matter what, and make Gore defend.

It was calculated.

[unblock]

4. as a nytimes analysis later showed, shrub lost by virtually any standard.

they ran through the ballots and almost regardless of the recount methods involved, gore won florida and the entire election.

but of course, shrub filed many lawsuits, many wanting to shut down recounts in one area while arguing the exact opposite position in another, based of course on where they figured republican votes were.

and then there was the brooks brothers riot, which delayed counting in a democratic area.

finally there was a hasty supreme court intervention to shut things down temporarily while shrub still had a lead to give them time to hear the case and come up with a feeble excuse to prevent any further change.

the resulting decision was ludicrous. not only completely on party lines, but also the written "decision", which is supposed to explain the reasoning, was utter nonsensical garbage. it included the impossible disclaimer that this decision should not be viewed as setting any sort of precedent, which is basically an admission that it was utter garbage and they only did it for purely partisan reasons.

it also claimed to be based on "equal justice" by stopping the recount because the methods used were not consistent from one county to the next across florida. but of course, it left in place a partial recount and a general election that was also based on methods that were not consistent from one county to the next. in other words, the whole "equal justice" argument was ridiculous.

never mind that, obviously, by stopping in the middle, some votes were recounted and others weren't, but in scalia's mind, that's "equal justice".

well, it is if it gets a losing republican in the white house.


anyway, that's a gracious *loser* republican for ya right there.

so screw gerson and his lie that shrub would have given a nice concession speech had he lost.

he *did* lose, and instead decided to steal it.

[Skittles]

6. GWB, a man of character

HE LIED HIS WAY INTO A WAR

[no_hypocrisy]

7. With display and ill ease, I have witnessed the moral failings of the Republican Party.

I'm talking more than the cosmetic digging by reference to anything having to do with the other party as "democrat" instead of "democratic."

The unwillingness, the obstinance, the refusal to lose even for one term and to share power. Since Newt Gingrich, there has been no bipartisanship. Even when the Democrats are in the majority, the Republican refuse to participate with them in legislating. Compromise appears to be a dirty and obscene word. The whole point of legislation is compromise, a blending of interests.

All that one as an observer gets is a festering grudge held by the Republicans, not that there is any justification for it and a determination to conquer and get even. And to never let Democrats get a single piece of policy passed again. Ever.

It's sort of like a football team bringing a bulldozer onto the field instead of shoulder pads, helmets, and a strategy. Instead of gaining and losing ground via yardlines, the bulldozer just keeps going down the field, mowing down everything in its way, and finally knocking down the goalposts.

The question remains: how do you take away the keys from the bulldozer?

[Grasswire2]

10. Gerson is taking a pounding in the comments section there. nt