John Kasich: GOP Will Begin to Die if It Stays a Trump Party

Breitbart ^ | February 3 2021 | Pam Key

[petitfour]

GOP died when it fielded the loser McCain and bigger loser Romney.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Pick one and work with it Mr Trump.
Fixed it."

Trump did pick one, the Republicans, same as Ronald Reagan.
If he were now to split apart Republicans, all that would do is guarantee insane Democrat rule in perpetuity, meaning the destruction of the United States.

Of course, I "get" it: for our Lost Causers, that is a beautiful thing to fantasize -- the old Confederacy reborn!
George Pickett's brave men lined up again on Seminary Hill, cowardly Republicans retreating in terror from the Cemetery Hill, wouldn't it be great!

But no sane person imagines such a thing, or would take steps knowingly to lead us there.
Nor does Donald Trump in any way share in our Lost Causers lunatic fantasies, FRiend.

That's why, if he wants it, Trump will remain as leader of the Republican party.

[right way right]

“
Too late John.
You dimwits killed the party long ago.

Now you’re all Democrat sock puppets kicking a dead horse and too stupid to know it. ”

I Can’t add to that response without getting banned from this site.

[Toespi]

Is this a threat? I believe it is a veiled threat.

[BroJoeK]

Bryanw92: "Did you just wake up from a 6 month coma?
A lot changed while you were sleeping.
The GOP is siding with the Democrats to declare us all Domestic Terrorists."

Naw, that's complete nonsense -- you're letting your fondest fantasies take over your eyeballs, so you see only what your fantasies allow you to see (much like Democrats, by the way).

The truth is, in the House the Republican vote was 197 to 10 against impeachment = 95% of Republicans voted for Trump.
Those 10 included Cheney, Kinzinger and some lesser knowns.
So the issue became, should Cheney keep her leadership position?
We're told that Cheney called many fellow Republicans to explain her reason, which we are not told what that is, and so must surmise it goes something like this:

1. Donald Trump beat up on Cheney's daddy pretty bad, and this is simple payback.

2. With Trump out of the picture (at least for now), Republicans need leadership and Cheney wants to lead the suburban housewife "moderates".

3. That may also have included an implied gender diversity agenda.

4. If there are any deals to be reached with Biden-Democrats, Cheney's vote establishes her credibility as an independent negotiator.

That's my speculation because I've seen nothing to confirm any explanations in logical, rational, reasonable & factual terms.
Whatever she told them, Republican Congressmen bought it by two-to-one.

The problem is, to any reasonably informed observer, President Trump did nothing wrong, and all the media hullabaloo seems intended to obscure the real perpetrators.
And why any Republican would buy into the nonsense is beyond me, so can only conclude they know something we don't, or are playing some political game we can't see.
In either case the truth will eventually come out (including who voted how) and that will be a time for reckoning.

The 145-61 vote for Cheney tells us, I'd guess, what the hard-core Trump support is: roughly 1/3 of all Republican Congressmen, meaning about 2/3 are "moderates" who'll cut & run when the going gets tough.
That's too bad, but almost all of those moderates did stand with Trump on the impeachment vote itself, so they are not totally craven -- the issue was punishment for Cheney, not necessarily support for Trump.

Bryanw92: "They think that 7 months of burning cities is democracy working best but a 1 hr unauthorized tour by 100 people was an insurrection."

Like I said, a reasonably informed person (such as yours truly) cannot see where Trump himself did anything wrong, and wonders strongly why we are not being told the real facts, such as who, exactly, were those people, who lead them, who organized it, and what the h*ll did they think they were doing?
Were there Capitol Police in on it??
So it's mind boggling and I don't think that passionate accusations are the right answer.
Let's see the real facts.

Bryanw92: "You keep saying “third party”. Do you believe that there is a second party in 2021?"

Sure, the 197 Republican Congressmen who voted against impeachment do deserve some respect.

But for those who keep caterwauling "third party, third party, third party", I'd say: go ahead and join one -- there are many to chose from.
This site lists 50 "third parties", including many as conservative as anyone might wish, but also the "Transhumanist Party", "The Rent is Too Damn High Party" and my all-time favorites, "The United States Pirate Party"!

Go Bucks!

[BroJoeK]

"GOP will die very quickly if it becomes the never-Trump party."

Relax, that's not going to happen.
If Donald Trump still wants to lead, most (by far) Republicans will support him.

[WashingtonSource]

No. He’s saying the opposite of the truth. It will die if it becomes a Kasich organization. It will thrive as long as Trump is the leader and Trump policies are GOP policies.

[Eleutheria5]

Kasich, the Bushes, the pedo founder Steve Schmidt, and Krystal, don’t want him? He’ll lead all right; he’ll lead the Patriot Party and I’ll go with him. No longer registered as a Republican anyway. And when those that go with him are gone, including sitting legislators and governors, they’ll be left with a country club disguised as a party, and no real power. Abe Lincoln and Frederick Douglas did the same to the Wigs.

[Eleutheria5]

My mistake. John Weaver was the pedo founder.

[BroJoeK]

"GOP died when it fielded the loser McCain and bigger loser Romney."

That's nonsense -- McCain & Romney were Bush family clones and Bushes (kinder, gentler, compassionate, etc.) were considered a winning political formula at the time.
And who were their Republican opponents?
Against McCain it was Huckabee, Romney & Ron Paul (in that order).
Conservatives Huckabee & Paul won half the votes combined as McCain and just a few more that Romney in 2008.

In 2012 it was Romney, Santorum, Ron Paul & Gingrich and again the conservatives Paul & Gingrich combined got only about half the votes of Romney and just a few more than Santorum.

Then 2016 was a quite different story.
There was a whole roster of candidates of whom Cruz & Rubio were said to be conservatives, Donald Trump was a big unknown but obvious force of nature and Kasich was the leading "moderate", got less than 1/3 as many votes as Trump, and only 15% of all the Republican votes.

Bottom line: Republicans as a whole want to be the conservative party, but we cannot simply destroy our "moderate" wing and still be competitive for a majority.

[BroJoeK]

"And when those that go with him are gone, including sitting legislators and governors, they’ll be left with a country club disguised as a party, and no real power."

Sure, then Democrats will become a permanent majority bent on destroying our Constitution and our country.
That should tell us all we need to know about those bawling "Third Party, Third Party, Third Party'.

[Eleutheria5]

That’s not what happened in 1860, although it was real bad. They put up all sorts of roadblocks to forming a major national party now, and each state would be a separate expensive struggle. But the Demonrats will not be able to pull off a permanent majority, because they always overplay their hand and self destruct. It’s only a question of when and how, not if. That is what happened in 1860.

What is their hand? Control of the media and big tech, and name-calling and reliance on the minority vote. Pretty thin hand. Two of a pair maybe. They’re already overplaying it.

[BroJoeK]

"That’s not what happened in 1860, although it was real bad."

It is what happened in 1852 and 1856.
Weakened Whigs split up over slavery, North vs. South.
That elected Democrat presidents & majorities in 1852 and 1856, produced the SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling, the lowest-ever Tariffs of 1857 and doubled the national debt.

Those were seen as threatening Northerners where they lived and flipped many from Democrats to Republicans in 1860.
In the mean time, Democrats also split up over slavery, North vs. South in 1860 and the result guaranteed a minority Republican party victory.

These examples prove, yet again, that disunion of political parties only benefits their opposition.

Bottom line: the Republican party is Donald Trump's to lead, if he wants it, and why wouldn't he?
A third party would only make permanent the Democrats' destruction of his MAGA/America First agenda.
It makes no sense and I don't think he'll do it.

[Eleutheria5]

“Bottom line: the Republican party is Donald Trump’s to lead, if he wants it, and why wouldn’t he?”

If the never-Trumpers are determined to shut out the MAGA faction via dullskuggery, he would have to split, and I for one would join him. We’ll see what happens in the mid-terms.

[Albion Wilde]

Stuff another hoagie in your hoagie hole, Kaysick.