I truly regret that I may have sounded sanctimonious. If true, then it is probably damage caused by beating my head against a wall.
I absolutely support your right, even responsibility, to form your own political opinion on any subject. I enjoy the dialogue with respect to your opinions. That dosn't mean that I don't take issue with some of them.
For example, when I speak of pragmatism, it is with the hope of getting something accomplished in Washington. Purely with that in mind, I find this constant refrain that "rhinos," moderates, basically whomever doesn't seem to fit a Freedom Caucus profile, "have to go" a worthless exercise in self delusion. These were your words.
"We've come to a point of no return where no conservatives may ever control D.C. again. Radical, uncomfortable changes have to happen or nothing will happen. I'm truly shocked that you don't acknowledge that.. We have to purge the elected part of the swamp before we can cleanse the non-elected bureaucrat part of it. It will be extremely uncomfortable if not downright ugly if we are serious about it."
Serious question. How do you "purge" the elected part of the swamp you don't like? Remember, they are all elected by there own constituents. Many come from states or districts where a Freedom Caucus type candidate would have the political lifespan of a Gypsy moth. In short, they aren't going anywhere. Lisa Murkowski, who many here seem to despise, overcame a challenge from the right and was reelected in Alaska. Blame it on ranked choice voting if you wish, but I think it unlikely any of the other republican senators that seem to cause such ire are going to be successfully challenged from the right in a primary either. Sarah Palin has also returned to her knitting.
Second serious question. What do you mean by radical, uncomfortable changes? To what exactly? For instance, I am a great fan of Robert Heinlein. I think he was really onto something when he suggested in "Starship Troopers" that only veterans had earned the right of franchise. However, short of a military insurrection, that is one radical "reform" that will never happen. More importantly, I love this republic with all its flaws better than someone else's idea of how best to run the country or populate the houses of congress.
So assuming your idea of radical change doesn't include overthrowing the government, what is the sense in wasting a lot of time and energy on what is essentially fantasy?
The numbers don't even work in the House where the Freedom Caucus makes up less than 25% of the Republican caucus and only 53 of the 435 total members of the House. Without allies, or a quirky Speaker election format, those 53 members are merely making noise.
If we are going to get anything done, it will take every republican in both houses. That includes in the senate men like Lindsey Graham, Robert Portman, and yes, even Mitt Romney. Indeed, until at least '24, any legislation will have to include the support of a few democrats as well. Otherwise, the best the House can do, and it can be an important role, is to put the brakes on the Biden agenda. Those are facts, neither opinions and nor wishes.
So, my pragmatic, I truly do not believe sanctimonious, suggestion is that we would be far better served figuring out where to work toward mutually agreeable goals as a party rather than trying to figure how to eliminate each other.
