Also-Ran Rand: Kentucky Senator Says He Will NOT Back JD Vance If He...
New Reason to Skip Seattle: Government Says Just Flush the Rats Climbing Your...
Pro Shoppers Only: Kicking the Clueless Out of the Store Till Christmas
Bake the Cake, Bigot: X Reminds Governor Polis What Rolling Back Freedoms Actually...
Outlier Out-and-Out Liar: Hakeem Jeffries Dodges Question About Dems’ Record Low Approval...
But Trump! Tim Kaine Isn’t Too Worried His Former Running Mate’s Husband Is...
Christmas Came Early: Andrew Tate Finally Meets a Man Who Hits Back –...
Kaaa-BOOM! Anna Paulina Luna OBLITERATES Uber-Creepy Scott Wiener In Heated Exchange
The Rot in California: Jury Says It's OK to Tow Federal Vehicles During...
Our Gift to You This Holiday Season
No, Seth Moulton, You Are Not God; You Don't Get to Define What...
Sen. John Kennedy Calls for 'Another Reconciliation Bill'
Surprise! Nicki Minaj Electrifies at AmFest, Standing Up for Trump and Global Christians
Rob Schneider Brings the House Down -- and More Importantly, Together -- At...
Tulsi Gabbard Goes Off on Islamism: A Brutal Wake-Up Call for America Before...

The folks at The Bulwark think 'the three horsemen' could be 'force multipliers' in prying Trump out of office

Just to make it clear upfront: Bill Kristol didn’t write the piece; it was Jonathan Last who came up with the metaphor of — get this — Bill Weld, Joe Walsh, and Mark Sanford being the “three horsemen coming for Trump.”

Advertisement

For what it’s worth, on Monday night, President Trump dismissed the three as “a total joke.” He doesn’t sound concerned to us, but maybe he’s just good at hiding his fear.

In any case, here’s Bill Kristol pointing to Last’s piece in The Bulwark.

And here’s the thinking of where each horseman of the apocalypse stands in providing leverage against Trump:

Which is where Mark Sanford comes in. He’s the obvious—and predictable—reaction to Trump’s transformation of the party’s fiscal orthodoxies.

The same can be said—along different vectors—about Weld and Walsh.

Weld represents the kind of moderate, establishment Republicanism that has been on the outs in the party since John Anderson in 1980. The Rockefeller wing of the party was never very big. Outside of the Northeast it’s miniscule. But it exists. And most conservative presidents have tried to stroke it (as needed) rather than crap all over it.

As for Walsh, he’s the representative of Trump’s unfulfilled populist promises: There is no wall. What we’re getting is 174 miles of fence and it’s going to be paid for by abusing the Constitution to take money that was supposed to keep schools for the children of U.S. soldiers safe from terrorist attacks.

Advertisement

But which one is going to conserve conservatism the best? Which one is Molly Jong-Fast going to vote for?

Advertisement


Related:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement