It's annoying that some of those Republicans aren't willing to dismiss out of the box, but I don't think they're doing it "trying to make a name" for themselves, as the author claimed. Rather, they're generally those Republicans who are up for election, whose seats aren't secure, and who may have a tough time defending a vote to dismiss before the case even gets started in the Senate.
For political reasons -- basically, not getting beaten by a Democrat in November -- they want to maintain at least an image of neutrality. So, they won't vote to dismiss before the case gets started. That does not mean they won't vote to acquit, because a vote to acquit after a trial lets you claim that you were at least "open-minded".
Each of them should just admit they are Democrats at heart and switch parties.
That is wildly premature, and almost certainly wrong. The author is equating a vote to proceed to trial -- which is what a somewhat squishy Republican might do -- with a vote to convict, which is where the dividing line for GOP v. Rat is really going to matter.
Each of them should just admit they are Democrats at heart and switch parties.
That is wildly premature, and almost certainly wrong. The author is equating a vote to proceed to trial — which is what a somewhat squishy Republican might do — with a vote to convict, which is where the dividing line for GOP v. Rat is really going to matter.
It’s hardly premature. It’s been 3 full years of non support of POTUS from the GOP Senate. Low lights of GOP Senate obstruction and coup collusion include the Mueller coup protection act and the threats not to fire Sessions.
How long should we plan on waiting for substantive support? If not now then when?