Strib carrying AP feed about Republican integrity:
It's not about right or wrong. It's about the focus" of House Republicans, Scalise said Tuesday.
Many Republicans also agree with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who's said the allegiance many GOP voters have to Trump is so intense that the party can't succeed without him.
[...]
In a memorable statement before the House impeachment vote, Cheney said: "The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing."
Her words — and her pre-vote announcement, which allowed Democrats to cite her opposition during the debate — infuriated many House conservatives.
More words exist in the post, but the above quoting is enough to show dynamics among our Republican friends. Grifting, lying, hubris and fraud are okay if you build a big base from it; GOTV potential rules all else; integrity other than behind Trump has no coin in their realm.
Big surprise? It is as poisonous to democracy as the Dems collectively screwing Bernie and fobbing Biden off as Presidential - where he was only barely more so, than Trump. Trump lost because he is, was, and ever will be an asshole.
Biden won despite his record of mediocrity, Harris was tugged along despite hers.
The party of Lincoln is now the party of Trump. That anyone voted for him after four years remains an astounding fact. In 2016 there was the Clintons as cause. In 2020, nothing quite as egregious.
___________UPDATE___________
Poor Liz. If only this judgment were to have been her judgment:
- We embrace free thought, we welcome robust debate, and we are not afraid to stand up to the oppressive dictates of political correctness.
She stood against "oppressive dictates of political correctness" i.e., the GOP correctness "Trump won," arguably a falsehood which her GOP colleagues tried to shoehorn her into - robust debate intended by her denial of such a correctness litmus test postulate.
So, whose fine bullet point is quoted above? Who else? Easy words may be untrue. Or open to the exception that proves the rule? Where one exception can lead to others, exceptions swallowing the rule? Or not a rule at all but an intentional lie instead?