Dallas Mayor Flips to GOP: 'Cities Need Republicans'

[hollodero]

(09-28-2023, 05:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But what would they be angry about?  The man isn't going to govern differently.  His policies haven't changed.  He isn't all of the sudden engaging in the worst excesses of the GOP.  He simply acknowledged that the Democrats have failed the public so badly on this issue, and continue to do so, that he was compelled to switch to a party that actually safeguards the citizenry.  In his opinion of course, although I don't know anyone who could make a strong argument against that belief.

Well, for one, crime is certainly an important topic, but not necessarily the only important topic. The GOP stands for a lot of other things aside from potentially serving the public better on that front; from cutting and/or not expanding health care and social benefits to more or less neglecting climate change (put a more positive framing around it if you please), business policies, taxation, abortion, affirmative action, refugees and immigrants, guns, LGBTQ topics and so on and so forth, too many to list. I don't aim to be judgmental on those issues and values, but I'd say most democratic voters have fundamentally different stances on most or all of them. Certainly, a GOP politician can have differing opinions on one topic or another. But seen as a whole, he symbolizes those policies when carrying the R around behind his name.

And it's particularly difficult when it comes to Trump, sorry for being a broken record and understanding Dill here, I make it quick. I figure he was a major reason for people to vote Biden, and to vote blue across the ballot. Most liberal voters (and also me) just see Trump not only as perfectly unpleasant, but also as a threat to the country and democracy; and they see the GOP as the party that in its entirety supports or at least does not hinder him in his past and possible future deeds to these ends. The R just has that stench these days, not my fault. And even if you rightfully argue that this is unreasonable, it will still remain like that on an emotional level for most people, and admittedly also for me. Imho there's hardly such a thing as a completely sober, unemotional stance, and therin lies the problem. This is why I feel a meaningful dialogue will not be the result of that move; especially when starting it by claiming republicans are needed. It might be a reality in the two-party system, but the message won't be perceived well. The system is bipolar, individual mindsets usually are neither that nor independent or flexible. They are entrenched, as is the logical consequence of the system, it's also observable reality and the mayor knows that too.

(09-28-2023, 05:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It doesn't contradict your belief regarding the two party system, it fails to acknowledge why he had only one real option because of it.  You can't dislike our two party system and then criticize someone for jumping to the only other major party.  By your own admission he's making the only viable choice available to him.

I don't know that, for I just know too little about the inner workings of city administration to determine whether being within a party is just inevitable. If it's indeed just impossible to run a city without belonging to a party, then I sure have to concede the point here. I could not hate the player for having to play the game to its subpar rules.

(09-28-2023, 05:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But I disagree that his mere presence makes any connection to them odious by dint of this association. Trump is more the GOP than any single Dem can be said to be the Democratic party.  But he is no way "the GOP".  There are millions of GOP voters who would prefer someone else, who also find more to loathe about Democratic policies and politics than a GOP with Trump in it.  

Sure, and I sure do not scold them, but those also are people that probably did not vote for Mr. Mayor to begin with. But what would those people say if their candidate, the one they voted for based on their stances, just declares that he can no longer support Trump and therefore he now switches to the democrats. I'd wager most voters will not be cool about that.
And none of those few republicans that actually left the GOP over Trump, that critizise him harshly and perceive him as dangerous, be it Flake or Kinzinger or Cheney, did that. Amash turned libertarian. No one turned democrat. One could sure lecture them on the realities of the system they're operating in and tell them that this is the one move they have. Switch to the democrats as only viable party to oppose Trump, tell folks that the country needs democrats, give them majorities and influence etc. to fight Trump more effectively. But they did not go there, none of them, and I figure it's because the ideological gap was just too far, for them and their voters. Imho, same goes for democrats and theirs.

(09-28-2023, 05:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Left and been a party of one?  Maybe get Sinema to join him and have two people?  Again, you're ignoring the realities of the two party system you so dislike.  This move was his only legitimate option.  As I said before, he doesn't have the autonomy of a Senator.  He needs a political network to be able to function as needed.  By your own admission Sinema will lose her bid for reelection, would she not stand a much better chance of returning the the Senate if she ran as a Republican?

That is difficult for me to say really. If the republican machinery supports her, then sure. If Trump does not forgive her past transgressions and sends a negative tweet or whatever its called on his social truth thingy or calls her names in rallyes, then probably not. I'm not sure reelection chances make it the right thing to do, however, even if their ambitions might be served. I mean, for all I care Sinema or Manchin also could simply stay democrats and keep criticizing them from within. It might possibly achieve more than just joining with the enemy, so to speak.
Now maybe this opposing policies from within option, or being an independent like Sanders or Angus King option, is indeed not possible for a Dallas mayor on a practical level (leaving reelections aside, for that is a different angle altogether). Again, if that is indeed so and he has no other viable choice to achieve his goals on fighting crime, then I understand the man.


Yup, ceterum censeo, two party system, real culprit once again.