Let's parse it [and I basically agree the Trumps are scumbags so I will skip graph 1]:

I'm also going to combine the next 2 because in #3 she immediately tries to bring up "The Dems are just as bad" as if just doing so - admitting it exists - somehow discredits it. I accept the premise that the GOP's shortcomings matter more at the moment, but that's a pretty thin reason to judge more harshly. We are 5 years away from the ranking Democrat in the legislature's higher chamber bragging about the fact that his lying about Mitt Romney was right it because: "it worked didn't it?"

#4: "Indeed, for decades now, demonization — of gays, immigrants, Democrats, the media, feminists, etc. — has been the animating spirit behind much of the right."

Even if you accept that as true, at least half that group is hardly blameless--particularly Democrats & the media. But how is that different than demonizing rich people, public corporations, organized religion, "the patriarchy," etc? Same story different villain. SVU squads are annoying regardless of their politics. (See Bill Burr: "fuck you and your grouphow bout that?")

Continues " It has distorted its assessment of reality, giving us anti-immigrant hysteria, promulgating disrespect for the law (how many “respectable” conservatives suggested disregarding the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage?), ."

It takes a lot of chutzpah to call Republicans the anti-immigration party (and FWIW many Republicans are anti-illegal immigration, so the distinction should be made) and then also call them the party that supports ignoring the law 1 sentence later.

"elevating Fox News hosts’ blatantly false propaganda as the counterweight to liberal media bias and preventing serious policy debate."

Media outlets not named Fox -- particularly the largest ones (CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc) actually /do/ have a liberal bias. Every serious study (and anyone paying attention) confirms this -- only the extent is up for debate. So I don't think Fox is the most reliable source for News and Hannity is a first class dirtbag, but you can hardly blame people for wanting to watch the only news channel that doesn't basically tell them they're what's wrong with America, either. Just because they're wrong about what is wrong with America doesn't make that less true.

"For seven years, the party vilified Obamacare without an accurate assessment of its faults and feasible alternative plans. “Obama bad” or “Clinton bad” became the only credo — leaving the party, as Brooks said of the Trump clan, with “no attachment to any external moral truth or ethical code” — and no coherent policies for governing."

Obamacare DESERVED to be vilified. Sure the GOP is to blame for having 7 years to come up with a better plan and putting out the weak ass AHCA, but implementing something now wouldn't be an urgent issue if we didn't whiff the first time, so don't blame the tow truck for being slow to arrive on the scene blame the driver that drove the car into the ditch (to borrow one of Obama's favorite analogies).

#5:

"We have always had in our political culture narcissists, ideologues and flimflammers, but it took the 21st-century GOP to put one in the White House."

Obama is seen as basically all of the above by his critics. As a critic of both Obama and Trump, I will say I believe Trump to be more egregious in all categories, but you don't have to look that far back

" It took elected leaders such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and the Republican National Committee (not to mention its donors and activists) to wave off Trump’s racists attacks on a federal judge, blatant lies about everything from 9/11 to his own involvement in birtherism, replete evidence of disloyalty to America (i.e. Trump’s “Russia first” policies), misogyny, Islamophobia, ongoing potential violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clause (along with a mass of conflicts of interests), firing of an FBI director, and now, evidence that the campaign was willing to enlist a foreign power to defeat Clinton in the presidential election."

Meh mostly agreed. But referring to the above and particularly relating to Clinton (since the author brought it up), I've seen no evidence of anything in Hilary's past that while she might not have colluded with Russia to get herself elected, that makes me doubt she'd have objected much, either if she was their chosen one. The Democrat party has a long history of cooperation with and sympathy toward the USSR and leftist governments everywhere. The Dems own primary runner-up comes to mind here as do many Democrats of yesteryear well within the time frame the author is talking about.

"Out of its collective sense of victimhood came the GOP’s disdain for not just intellectuals but also intellectualism, science, Economics 101, history and constitutional fidelity."

The Democrats are the party of identity politics and perpetual victimhood. I'll admit the right has it's own SVU, but the party platform is less based on it. The Democrats are furthermore in no position to lecture about economics 101 or constitutional fidelity (science I'll give you).

"If the Trump children became slaves to money and to their father’s unbridled ego, then the GOP became slaves to its own demons and false narratives. A party that has to deny climate change and insist illegal immigrants are creating a crime wave — because that is what “conservatives” must believe, since liberals do not — is a party that will deny Trump’s complicity in gross misconduct. It’s a party as unfit to govern as Trump is unfit to occupy the White House. It’s not by accident that Trump chose to inhabit the party that has defined itself in opposition to reality and to any “external moral truth or ethical code.”"

Again mostly agree. I've never been a fan of demonizing immigrants and haven't seen any evidence that immigrants (illegal or otherwise) are any more likely to commit crimes than non-immigrants. I do sympathize with the position that "well if he wasn't here, then my daughter wouldn't have been shot by him," but public policy should be based on macro views/data and not anecdotes.

The GOP isn't unfit to occupy the WH Trump is. If Romney -- who is and was absolutely fit to run the country -- won in 2016, there would only be slightly less bellyaching from the left and media (remember the "War on Women™" or as I said above "It worked, didn't it?" The generation that thinks it's appropriate to riot in the streets when a speaker that makes them uncomfortable comes to campus was previously 2-0 in elections (the "good guy won"). They were ill equipped to deal with losing and would be acting like crybabies if a more qualified Republican won too.
[Post edited by CharlestonSC at 07/14/2017 9:55PM]