The American Conservative: GOP Censured Free Thought, Conscience

[sun rise]

Maybe some might consider The American Conservative a hotbed of "woke" leftist radicalism and Red Dreher to the left of Bernie Sanders. Others might wonder what kind of odd beast I am for paying attention to thoughts published by that hotbed of MAGA anti-American propaganda. The truth is that I happen to find areas of agreement from time-to-time and occasionally want to read what thoughtful conservatives have to say. I know that makes me a purple unicorn but that's who am I am.

Anyway to the piece at hand. That someone who is clearly conservative agrees with people who are clearly liberal on this one topic is a critical thing to note. Also note that he's not suddenly changing parties and in fact does not like the left one bit: I also agree with him that going after Sen. Sinema is a dumb thing to do. GOP Censures Free Thought, Conscience - The American Conservative

“Legitimate political discourse” is the term they use for the sacking of the US Capitol by the MAGA mob. Disgusting. And note in the first part, the party leaders openly and without any apparent sense of irony say that fighting for political victory is more important than anything else. This is wholly unprincipled, but I guess to be expected from the GOP. I never thought I would ever defend a Cheney, but the Republican Party calling the Jan. 6 attack “legitimate political discourse” did the trick.
...
Like these two, I don’t see the point in doing this. Whatever you think of Cheney and Kinzinger’s actions post January 6, to trouble yourself to formally censure them, to have gone on the record declaring that all you care about is achieving political power, not principle, and to describe the shocking sacking of the Capitol as “legitimate political discourse” is to declare yourself morally idiotic, it seems to me
...
I’m planning to vote Republican this fall even though I believe the January 6 events were a disgrace, that Trump deserved his second impeachment for his behavior on that day, and the Republican Party is a sad, stupid mess. It’s because I believe that the Democrats — the party of militant wokeness — in power would be on balance much worse for the country than the Republicans in power. But please do not tell me that I have to ignore the moral corruption inside the GOP as the price of my vote. People are so blockheadedly binary in their thinking. What was the Democratic entity that censured Sen. Sinema for not following the party’s agenda in lockstep? I get being mad at her, but when you control the Senate by a razor-thin margin, you cannot afford to demonize Senators who vote with you on most issues.
...
Back to the House Republicans: why was it necessary to censure Cheney and Kinzinger? What good was served by it? Again, I believe that it is possible to oppose their stance while at the same time respecting their right to dissent from the majority. This is politics, not religion. We are not dealing here with metaphysical/theological truths. A healthy political party or movement has to maintain a space for internal dissent. But we don’t have healthy political parties now. We don’t have a healthy public square. If you want to know where this thing might end up going before too long, watch the first episode of the 1980s-era British TV documentary about the Spanish Civil War. Watch at least to the point where the old Falangist writes that by 1935, both Left and Right hated each other so much that when they saw each other on the street, they saw demons.

 

[Clara Tea]

Maybe some might consider The American Conservative a hotbed of "woke" leftist radicalism and Red Dreher to the left of Bernie Sanders. Others might wonder what kind of odd beast I am for paying attention to thoughts published by that hotbed of MAGA anti-American propaganda. The truth is that I happen to find areas of agreement from time-to-time and occasionally want to read what thoughtful conservatives have to say. I know that makes me a purple unicorn but that's who am I am.

Anyway to the piece at hand. That someone who is clearly conservative agrees with people who are clearly liberal on this one topic is a critical thing to note. Also note that he's not suddenly changing parties and in fact does not like the left one bit: I also agree with him that going after Sen. Sinema is a dumb thing to do. GOP Censures Free Thought, Conscience - The American Conservative

“Legitimate political discourse” is the term they use for the sacking of the US Capitol by the MAGA mob. Disgusting. And note in the first part, the party leaders openly and without any apparent sense of irony say that fighting for political victory is more important than anything else. This is wholly unprincipled, but I guess to be expected from the GOP. I never thought I would ever defend a Cheney, but the Republican Party calling the Jan. 6 attack “legitimate political discourse” did the trick.
...
Like these two, I don’t see the point in doing this. Whatever you think of Cheney and Kinzinger’s actions post January 6, to trouble yourself to formally censure them, to have gone on the record declaring that all you care about is achieving political power, not principle, and to describe the shocking sacking of the Capitol as “legitimate political discourse” is to declare yourself morally idiotic, it seems to me
...
I’m planning to vote Republican this fall even though I believe the January 6 events were a disgrace, that Trump deserved his second impeachment for his behavior on that day, and the Republican Party is a sad, stupid mess. It’s because I believe that the Democrats — the party of militant wokeness — in power would be on balance much worse for the country than the Republicans in power. But please do not tell me that I have to ignore the moral corruption inside the GOP as the price of my vote. People are so blockheadedly binary in their thinking. What was the Democratic entity that censured Sen. Sinema for not following the party’s agenda in lockstep? I get being mad at her, but when you control the Senate by a razor-thin margin, you cannot afford to demonize Senators who vote with you on most issues.
...
Back to the House Republicans: why was it necessary to censure Cheney and Kinzinger? What good was served by it? Again, I believe that it is possible to oppose their stance while at the same time respecting their right to dissent from the majority. This is politics, not religion. We are not dealing here with metaphysical/theological truths. A healthy political party or movement has to maintain a space for internal dissent. But we don’t have healthy political parties now. We don’t have a healthy public square. If you want to know where this thing might end up going before too long, watch the first episode of the 1980s-era British TV documentary about the Spanish Civil War. Watch at least to the point where the old Falangist writes that by 1935, both Left and Right hated each other so much that when they saw each other on the street, they saw demons.

Republicans (aka Religious Right):

1. Ended internet gambling (for US citizens)

2. Supported the NRA (National Rifle Association), and refused to vote for legitamate war hero Senator John Kerry, claiming that he was antiguns (while Kerry was campaigning he was using a rifle to hunt).

3. Tried to get schools to lead prayers by their bible and their God (but kids with other religious beliefs would feel left out, and may be forced to pray to a God other than their own).

4. End planned parenthood. At a time of rampant STDs (like AIDS), and a time of unwanted pregnancies, they fought to stop giving away condoms. (would you call that condomnation?)

Defending Trump, I'd say that MAGA (Make America Great Again) was about closing the borders to illegal (not legal) immigration which takes jobs from working Americans. It is about bringing factories back to America that were outsourced for cheap foreign labor during the W. Bush administration. W. Bush made the mistake of assuming that the invisible hand of Capitalism would find the best trade deals, but that only works in free market economies, not in economies where Chinese child slaves are forced to work for 25 cents per day to compete with American workers for jobs. Adam Smith, father of Capitalism, insisted on Laissez faire (hands off approach to economics), so as the economy got worse and worse, President W. Bush did nothing to fix it.

Vice President George Bush called Reagan's deregulation "voodoo economics" because Reagan promised to cut government spending and improving the economy. Yet, Bush did what Reagan did. Later, W. Bush (son) did what Reagan and Bush did, but with a far greater effort, and things failed far worse.

Reagan busted the steel industry in the US, so planes were falling out of the sky after their engine bolts broke (now they use military grade, x-rayed bolts). Farmers went broke because of Reaganomics, so Reagan blamed each and every farmer, rather than blaming his own policies. Farms that had been in families for hundreds of years were suddenly foreclosed. Foreclosures were so rampant that the FDIC and FSLIC both went broke. Fortuneately democrats of Congress bailed out the FDIC (a privately owned company that insures bank deposits).

Republicans tried to pin the blame on Democrats, like Fed Chairman, Paul Volcker keeping Federal Reserve interest rates high while there was inflation and unemployment. It was the drop of interest rates that stimulated the economy (not Reaganomics).

While I think that you are right about the moral corruption of the GOP, lets not overlook the moral corruption of the democrats. The DNC cheated Berny Sanders. Hillary had debate questions before debate (revealed in hacked emails of campaign manager Podesta). All this cheating has attempted to change the outcome of US elections, which I think is treason against the United States. Notice, also, that none of the cheats went to jail.

Eric Snowden revealed that the phones of all Americans were illegally tapped. The FBI insisted that Microsoft, Intel, Google, and other companies allow illegal wire-tapping and espionage. This is likely what led to the hacking of Hillary.

Did you know that Google Maps is a joint venture of Google and the FBI, and that FBI maps have far greater resolution than the public is allowed to have.

You seem to want the political system of America to be less binary, and cooperate together for the country. So, should we bomb only half of Iraq and torture only half as many people? (That is a compromise). Or, should we fight for what is right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is about bringing factories back to America that were outsourced for cheap foreign labor during the W. Bush administration.

That was actually Clinton amd NAFTA that opened the flood gates for that.

 

[Ponder This]

Maybe some might consider The American Conservative a hotbed of "woke" leftist radicalism and Red Dreher to the left of Bernie Sanders. Others might wonder what kind of odd beast I am for paying attention to thoughts published by that hotbed of MAGA anti-American propaganda. The truth is that I happen to find areas of agreement from time-to-time and occasionally want to read what thoughtful conservatives have to say. I know that makes me a purple unicorn but that's who am I am.

Anyway to the piece at hand. That someone who is clearly conservative agrees with people who are clearly liberal on this one topic is a critical thing to note. Also note that he's not suddenly changing parties and in fact does not like the left one bit: I also agree with him that going after Sen. Sinema is a dumb thing to do. GOP Censures Free Thought, Conscience - The American Conservative

“Legitimate political discourse” is the term they use for the sacking of the US Capitol by the MAGA mob. Disgusting. And note in the first part, the party leaders openly and without any apparent sense of irony say that fighting for political victory is more important than anything else. This is wholly unprincipled, but I guess to be expected from the GOP. I never thought I would ever defend a Cheney, but the Republican Party calling the Jan. 6 attack “legitimate political discourse” did the trick.
...
Like these two, I don’t see the point in doing this. Whatever you think of Cheney and Kinzinger’s actions post January 6, to trouble yourself to formally censure them, to have gone on the record declaring that all you care about is achieving political power, not principle, and to describe the shocking sacking of the Capitol as “legitimate political discourse” is to declare yourself morally idiotic, it seems to me
...
I’m planning to vote Republican this fall even though I believe the January 6 events were a disgrace, that Trump deserved his second impeachment for his behavior on that day, and the Republican Party is a sad, stupid mess. It’s because I believe that the Democrats — the party of militant wokeness — in power would be on balance much worse for the country than the Republicans in power. But please do not tell me that I have to ignore the moral corruption inside the GOP as the price of my vote. People are so blockheadedly binary in their thinking. What was the Democratic entity that censured Sen. Sinema for not following the party’s agenda in lockstep? I get being mad at her, but when you control the Senate by a razor-thin margin, you cannot afford to demonize Senators who vote with you on most issues.
...
Back to the House Republicans: why was it necessary to censure Cheney and Kinzinger? What good was served by it? Again, I believe that it is possible to oppose their stance while at the same time respecting their right to dissent from the majority. This is politics, not religion. We are not dealing here with metaphysical/theological truths. A healthy political party or movement has to maintain a space for internal dissent. But we don’t have healthy political parties now. We don’t have a healthy public square. If you want to know where this thing might end up going before too long, watch the first episode of the 1980s-era British TV documentary about the Spanish Civil War. Watch at least to the point where the old Falangist writes that by 1935, both Left and Right hated each other so much that when they saw each other on the street, they saw demons.

The censure was appropriate because Cheney and Kinzinger were nominated and appointed to the committee by the Democrat party through Nancy Pelosi, after the Democrat party, through Nancy Pelosi, refused to accept any of the Republican party nominations through McCarthy (which were would've been considered to represent the interests of the Republican party) for the committee. Cheney and Kinzinger are, of course, free to do as they please, but it doesn't mean that their actions occur in a vacuum. The committee cannot be viewed as genuinely bipartisan when it's members do not genuinely reflect the interests of both parties. Because the Democrat party would like to insist that the committee is bipartisan (even though all of its members were selected by the Democrat party), the Republicans have no choice but to censure Cheney and Kinzinger so that it is clear to all involved that the committee does not reflect the actual interests of both parties and that its members were not approved by the Republican party. If Cheney and Kinzinger has sought and received approval from the Republican party to adequately represent the Republican party's interests in the committee, then there would've been no need to censure them. Cheney and Kinzinger are effectively claiming to represent the interests of the whole of the Republican party, when, in fact, they most certainly do not represent those interests.

 

[Kooky]

Defending Trump, I'd say that MAGA (Make America Great Again) was about closing the borders to illegal (not legal) immigration which takes jobs from working Americans. It is about bringing factories back to America that were outsourced for cheap foreign labor during the W. Bush administration. W. Bush made the mistake of assuming that the invisible hand of Capitalism would find the best trade deals, but that only works in free market economies, not in economies where Chinese child slaves are forced to work for 25 cents per day to compete with American workers for jobs.

That was what was being promised, but the fact that he utterly failed to deliver on that (which shouldn't surprise anybody who has looked into the actual economics of this phenomenon) doesn't seem to have made people any less inclined to vote support "MAGA". At this point, I'd say that there is very little substance to the slogan in terms of actual policy, and I am wondering very hard whether such a substance existed in the first place.

Adam Smith, father of Capitalism, insisted on Laissez faire (hands off approach to economics), so as the economy got worse and worse, President W. Bush did nothing to fix it.

I would say that this is a misconception of what Smith advocated. Laissez Faire was actually a policy advocated by the French economic school of Physiocracy, who believed that wealth would circulate naturally via commerce and any government intervention would disrupt that natural flow.

As far as I can tell, Smith, on the other hand, believed that wealth was created through industry and commerce, and saw the government's role in actively supporting these key economic factors with public infrastructure and public education.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Republicans (aka Religious Right):

1. Ended internet gambling (for US citizens)

2. Supported the NRA (National Rifle Association), and refused to vote for legitamate war hero Senator John Kerry, claiming that he was antiguns (while Kerry was campaigning he was using a rifle to hunt).

3. Tried to get schools to lead prayers by their bible and their God (but kids with other religious beliefs would feel left out, and may be forced to pray to a God other than their own).

4. End planned parenthood. At a time of rampant STDs (like AIDS), and a time of unwanted pregnancies, they fought to stop giving away condoms. (would you call that condomnation?)

Defending Trump, I'd say that MAGA (Make America Great Again) was about closing the borders to illegal (not legal) immigration which takes jobs from working Americans. It is about bringing factories back to America that were outsourced for cheap foreign labor during the W. Bush administration. W. Bush made the mistake of assuming that the invisible hand of Capitalism would find the best trade deals, but that only works in free market economies, not in economies where Chinese child slaves are forced to work for 25 cents per day to compete with American workers for jobs. Adam Smith, father of Capitalism, insisted on Laissez faire (hands off approach to economics), so as the economy got worse and worse, President W. Bush did nothing to fix it.

Vice President George Bush called Reagan's deregulation "voodoo economics" because Reagan promised to cut government spending and improving the economy. Yet, Bush did what Reagan did. Later, W. Bush (son) did what Reagan and Bush did, but with a far greater effort, and things failed far worse.

Reagan busted the steel industry in the US, so planes were falling out of the sky after their engine bolts broke (now they use military grade, x-rayed bolts). Farmers went broke because of Reaganomics, so Reagan blamed each and every farmer, rather than blaming his own policies. Farms that had been in families for hundreds of years were suddenly foreclosed. Foreclosures were so rampant that the FDIC and FSLIC both went broke. Fortuneately democrats of Congress bailed out the FDIC (a privately owned company that insures bank deposits).

Republicans tried to pin the blame on Democrats, like Fed Chairman, Paul Volcker keeping Federal Reserve interest rates high while there was inflation and unemployment. It was the drop of interest rates that stimulated the economy (not Reaganomics).

While I think that you are right about the moral corruption of the GOP, lets not overlook the moral corruption of the democrats. The DNC cheated Berny Sanders. Hillary had debate questions before debate (revealed in hacked emails of campaign manager Podesta). All this cheating has attempted to change the outcome of US elections, which I think is treason against the United States. Notice, also, that none of the cheats went to jail.

Eric Snowden revealed that the phones of all Americans were illegally tapped. The FBI insisted that Microsoft, Intel, Google, and other companies allow illegal wire-tapping and espionage. This is likely what led to the hacking of Hillary.

Did you know that Google Maps is a joint venture of Google and the FBI, and that FBI maps have far greater resolution than the public is allowed to have.

You seem to want the political system of America to be less binary, and cooperate together for the country. So, should we bomb only half of Iraq and torture only half as many people? (That is a compromise). Or, should we fight for what is right?

You should see New York promoting sports gambling now.

Love a desperate person betting their life's savings in hope of striking it rich. Now it's easier than ever!

Online right from your phone or PC!

But at least they are giving the money to the Democrat slush fund and pork barrel to pay off their crony buddies in crime.

 

[Father Heathen]

You should see New York promoting sports gambling now.

Love a desperate person betting their life's savings in hope of striking it rich. Now it's easier than ever!

Online right from your phone or PC!

But at least they are giving the money to the Democrat slush fund and pork barrel to pay off their crony buddies in crime.

I thought you loved freedom and hated the nanny state? Make your mind up already.

 

[Shaul]

Democrats censure their members at times too. Recall how Senators Sinema and Manchin were treated recently. Of course, in these instances, the Republicans did it in a formal manner while Democrats used the politics of destruction and called the Senators all manner of vile things.

 

[SomeRandom]

You should see New York promoting sports gambling now.

Love a desperate person betting their life's savings in hope of striking it rich. Now it's easier than ever!

Online right from your phone or PC!

But at least they are giving the money to the Democrat slush fund and pork barrel to pay off their crony buddies in crime.

Whilst sad. That’s the price of freedom, amirite?
I’m free to kill my liver to my hearts desire.
(Though thankfully I live in a country with universal health care.)
That it can potentially destroy my life and my family is sad, certainly. But the government can’t tell me not to do it, all the same.
Surely you would agree that advocating the government to tell me not to drink as much alcohol as I want would go against your political values. Right?

Freedom comes with a price. Just because said price is worth the freedom doesn’t mitigate the disastrous consequences said freedoms can allow. Unfortunately

 

[Twilight Hue]

I thought you loved freedom and hated the nanny state? Make your mind up already.

The difference is, its not about the people. It's about themselves and the nice money stream they made so they can suck from it like a parasite.

 

[SomeRandom]

The difference is, its not about the people. It's about themselves and the nice money stream they made so they can suck from it like a parasite.

So like capitalism?

 

[Father Heathen]

The difference is, its not about the people. It's about themselves and the nice money stream they made so they can suck from it like a parasite.

I.E. tax eliviating revenue? But we get it; you've been programmed into believing anything a dem does is bad no matter what. It's transparent and predictable. Of course when conservatives do things like ban and burn books you not only attempt to defend it you cook up some cockamamie way to blame dems for it. Don't be a robot.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You should see New York promoting sports gambling now.

Love a desperate person betting their life's savings in hope of striking it rich. Now it's easier than ever!

Online right from your phone or PC!

But at least they are giving the money to the Democrat slush fund and pork barrel to pay off their crony buddies in crime.

Why shouldn't gambling be legal?
Doing away with free plastic bags is a no but prohibiting online gambling is ok? How do you rationalize that?

 

[shunyadragon]

That was actually Clinton amd NAFTA that opened the flood gates for that.

It has a longer history than Clinton.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why shouldn't gambling be legal?
Doing away with free plastic bags is a no but prohibiting online gambling is ok? How do you rationalize that?

Switch the parties responsible and his response would flip-flop.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The censure was appropriate because Cheney and Kinzinger were nominated and appointed to the committee by the Democrat party through Nancy Pelosi, after the Democrat party, through Nancy Pelosi, refused to accept any of the Republican party nominations through McCarthy (which were would've been considered to represent the interests of the Republican party) for the committee.

That's not correct. The Republicans were invited to produce the names of five Republicans. Two were unacceptable to the Democrats, the other three acceptable. The Republicans were invited to suggest two others also acceptable to the Democrats, but instead, chose to withdraw the other three as well and to name nobody. One of the rejected Republicans was Jim Jordan, who will likely be indicted as an insurrection co-conspirator. His job on the committee would have been to be as disruptive as possible and leak committee doings to McCarthy.

And none of that forces the Republicans to censure Cheney or Kinzinger.

The committee cannot be viewed as genuinely bipartisan when it's members do not genuinely reflect the interests of both parties.

The interest of the majority of Republican party was to thwart the investigation just as it is to thwart democracy. Cheney and Kinzinger are both very conservative and generally voted with Trump, but they stand out from the rest in being interested in the Constitution and the rule of law, which is their job. The committee isn't interested in empaneling anybody that hasn't shown a commitment to getting to the truth of January 6th much less no commitment to anything American.

Because the Democrat party would like to insist that the committee is bipartisan (even though all of its members were selected by the Democrat party), the Republicans have no choice but to censure Cheney and Kinzinger so that it is clear to all involved that the committee does not reflect the actual interests of both parties and that its members were not approved by the Republican party.

The committee is bipartisan, but that only matters for optics. The Democrats could do this alone, and nearly had to.

And if this committee doesn't represent the interests of the Republican party because the Republicans don't represent the interests of America, then who cares what those interests are? What they think doesn't matter except in the sense of knowing what they're up to. Their opinions have no value in such a process.

If Cheney and Kinzinger has sought and received approval from the Republican party to adequately represent the Republican party's interests in the committee, then there would've been no need to censure them.

The Republicans would never approve anybody supportive of the investigative process. It's clear that Cheney and Kinzinger were censured for doing their duty when no other Republican in the House would. How much more undemocratic could this party be? It's supporting a failed attempt to overturn the election and attempting to thwart an investigation into that, it's using every voter suppression tactic it can to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters, and now it's devouring its own for being out of lockstep.

Cheney and Kinzinger are effectively claiming to represent the interests of the whole of the Republican party, when, in fact, they most certainly do not represent those interests.

I doubt that they think that they represent the Republican party any more, but I agree that they do not represent it. As I said, why would a person of principle dedicated to preserving the Constitution want to represent that? Their party is un-American. Multiple members and their operatives need to be investigated and the criminals exposed and prosecuted. This is what they are trying to thwart.

 

[Sand Dancer]

That was what was being promised, but the fact that he utterly failed to deliver on that (which shouldn't surprise anybody who has looked into the actual economics of this phenomenon) doesn't seem to have made people any less inclined to vote support "MAGA". At this point, I'd say that there is very little substance to the slogan in terms of actual policy, and I am wondering very hard whether such a substance existed in the first place.


I would say that this is a misconception of what Smith advocated. Laissez Faire was actually a policy advocated by the French economic school of Physiocracy, who believed that wealth would circulate naturally via commerce and any government intervention would disrupt that natural flow.

As far as I can tell, Smith, on the other hand, believed that wealth was created through industry and commerce, and saw the government's role in actively supporting these key economic factors with public infrastructure and public education.

It's easy to take a few verses from a text and make a whole policy on it, saying that's what the author wanted all along. Ugh.

 

[metis]

The censure was appropriate because Cheney and Kinzinger were nominated and appointed to the committee by the Democrat party through Nancy Pelosi, after the Democrat party, through Nancy Pelosi, refused to accept any of the Republican party nominations through McCarthy (which were would've been considered to represent the interests of the Republican party) for the committee.

Not true, as they actually believe that democracy and honesty are important and that what obviously happened on January 6th and afterwards was an attempted coup, which is certainly was, whereas they and you don't. It is now abundantly clear what Trump and some of his supporters were trying to do, and Trump even admitted it, and Pence also stated that Trump was doing it as well!!!

one & out

 

[Ponder This]

That's not correct. The Republicans were invited to produce the names of five Republicans. Two were unacceptable to the Democrats, the other three acceptable. The Republicans were invited to suggest two others also acceptable to the Democrats, but instead, chose to withdraw the other three as well and to name nobody. One of the rejected Republicans was Jim Jordan, who will likely be indicted as an insurrection co-conspirator. His job on the committee would have been to be as disruptive as possible and leak committee doings to McCarthy.

And none of that forces the Republicans to censure Cheney or Kinzinger.

In other words, the Democrats clearly didn't want to consider the Republican view and the Republican party clearly rejected the committee.

The interest of the majority of Republican party was to thwart the investigation just as it is to thwart democracy. Cheney and Kinzinger are both very conservative and generally voted with Trump, but they stand out from the rest in being interested in the Constitution and the rule of law, which is their job. The committee isn't interested in empaneling anybody that hasn't shown a commitment to getting to the truth of January 6th much less no commitment to anything American.

In other words, Cheney and Kinzinger joined the committee as Republican representatives (by Democrats because they were Republican), but they were not selected by the Republican party nor do they actually represent the interests of the Republican party on the committee.

The committee is bipartisan, but that only matters for optics. The Democrats could do this alone, and nearly had to.

And if this committee doesn't represent the interests of the Republican party because the Republicans don't represent the interests of America, then who cares what those interests are? What they think doesn't matter except in the sense of knowing what they're up to. Their opinions have no value in such a process.

Basically the Democrats are doing this alone. It's a farce to consider the committee as bipartisan. It's bipartisan in name only.

The Republicans would never approve anybody supportive of the investigative process. It's clear that Cheney and Kinzinger were censured for doing their duty when no other Republican in the House would. How much more undemocratic could this party be? It's supporting a failed attempt to overturn the election and attempting to thwart an investigation into that, it's using every voter suppression tactic it can to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters, and now it's devouring its own for being out of lockstep.

Everyone in Congress is "doing their duty".
Cheney and Kinzinger have views that differ from the rest of their party and they may even vote differently than most of their party. But that's not why they were censured.

They pretend to represent the Republican party on the committee when they manifestly do not.

I doubt that they think that they represent the Republican party any more, but I agree that they do not represent it. As I said, why would a person of principle dedicated to preserving the Constitution want to represent that? Their party is un-American. Multiple members and their operatives need to be investigated and the criminals exposed and prosecuted. This is what they are trying to thwart.

They don't have to represent the Republican party if they don't want to.
But there should be no illusions about it.
They were selected for the committee because they were Republicans, but they were not selected by Republicans for this committee.

Not true, as they actually believe that democracy and honesty are important and that what obviously happened on January 6th and afterwards was an attempted coup, which is certainly was, whereas they and you don't. It is now abundantly clear what Trump and some of his supporters were trying to do, and Trump even admitted it, and Pence also stated that Trump was doing it as well!!!

one & out

Everyone in Congress says they believe in democracy. They also all claim that they are honest. And maybe they are honest... most of the time. But claiming to represent Republicans in this committee is definitely dishonest and that's what they did the moment they became members of the committee by virtue of their party affiliation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So like capitalism?

Everyone is pro capitalist.