@nimh,
Quote:Quote:blatham wrote:
because it is giving the movement conservatives and corporate interests pretty much everything they've long wanted.
Is it, though? Seems like there are two contradictory narratives.
That's a fair point, nimh. It seems to me that both arguments are true, though seemingly contradictory.
On one hand, because Trump is a the sort of Look-At-Me! pathological narcissist that he is, rather than an ideologue and loyal party member, he can be an impediment to the goals of someone like Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell or the Koch network. They obviously can't count on him to line himself up with their messaging/PR needs or to focus on many issues they deem ought to be the focus (and that is the most common criticism we hear from them if they dare to criticize - "I wish he wasn't so noisy"). And they are certainly concerned with his polling and what that might mean next November. I suspect there might not be a single GOP rep in either house who would not prefer Mike Pence over Trump. And more broadly, most or many of those around him in the WH are incompetent and this is making things even worse for the people we're talking about.
But on the other hand, recall that Grover Norquist said five years ago that the only thing the GOP needed in its next President was "enought working digits to handle a pen (to sign movement conservative policies into law). In this sense, Trump has been a pretty agreeable patsy or placeholder. The first clear evidence of that was the slate of department heads Trump signed off on.
One further point. Winning the trifecta (WH, Senate control, House control along with the significant power of choosing committee heads) can be less absolute or overwhelming than it might seem. Though Obama enjoyed that situation for a time, it's certainly not the case that he steam-rolled the place - though I admit he was a far, far less cynical individual than McConnell or Pence or Trump.
