Opinion of Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What do y'all think?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Republican in 2021 = HP.

[Left Wing]

HP for not voting to impeach Trump and using thin blue line imagery in his campaign. He’s not the worst Republican out there but I would still much rather have a Democrat in his seat.

[Suburbia]

HP for not voting to impeach Trump and using thin blue line imagery in his campaign. He’s not the worst Republican out there but I would still much rather have a Democrat in his seat.

Um, do you not realize that he comes from a district with a lot of cops, a lot of cops who work in Philly?

[Calthrina950]

HP, due to his vote on impeachment. My opinion of many congressional Republicans dimmed significantly in the aftermath of January 6.

[S019]

HP, fake moderate who opposed impeachment and who has voted time and time again with congressional Republicans, it's sad that people fall for his blatant act.

[VAR]

HP, fake moderate who opposed impeachment and who has voted time and time again with congressional Republicans, it's sad that people fall for his blatant act.

Brian Fitzpatrick is more "moderate" than Manchin/Sinema or any """"Blue Dog"""" in the House.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Definite FF

[Xing]

HP. He may be better than most Congressional Republicans, but that's way too low of a bar.

[Gracile]

HP, fake moderate who opposed impeachment and who has voted time and time again with congressional Republicans, it's sad that people fall for his blatant act.

Brian Fitzpatrick is more "moderate" than Manchin/Sinema or any """"Blue Dog"""" in the House.

That probably says more about how the distinction of being "moderate" is becoming increasingly meaningless in our current political climate than anything else.

Anyway, HP.

[VAR]

That probably says more about how the distinction of being "moderate" is becoming increasingly meaningless in our current political climate than anything else.

Obviously, I think I've made my thoughts on "moderate" politicians clear.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

HP hopes he loses

[S019]

HP, fake moderate who opposed impeachment and who has voted time and time again with congressional Republicans, it's sad that people fall for his blatant act.

Brian Fitzpatrick is more "moderate" than Manchin/Sinema or any """"Blue Dog"""" in the House.

Manchin is derailing HR1 and Sinema is threatening to derail the PRO Act, when is the last time Brian Fitzpatrick derailed something that the GOP wanted? Maybe Trumpcare, but people well to his right also voted against that, since it was toxic in much of the country.

[VAR]

Manchin is derailing HR1 and Sinema is threatening to derail the PRO Act, when is the last time Brian Fitzpatrick derailed something that the GOP wanted? Maybe Trumpcare, but people well to his right also voted against that, since it was toxic in much of the country.

They're not derailing anything lmao

[Calthrina950]

HP, fake moderate who opposed impeachment and who has voted time and time again with congressional Republicans, it's sad that people fall for his blatant act.

Brian Fitzpatrick is more "moderate" than Manchin/Sinema or any """"Blue Dog"""" in the House.

That probably says more about how the distinction of being "moderate" is becoming increasingly meaningless in our current political climate than anything else.

Anyway, HP.

I've come around to this myself. There are hardly any genuinely moderate politicians serving within Congress anymore. Much of what Manchin and Sinema do, moreover, is performative, as I myself have said before. The few remaining "Blue Dogs" in the House do not compare to the ones who were in the House until the Tea Party wave of 2010.

[MT Treasurer]

I've come around to this myself. There are hardly any genuinely moderate politicians serving within Congress anymore. Much of what Manchin and Sinema do, moreover, is performative, as I myself have said before. The few remaining "Blue Dogs" in the House do not compare to the ones who were in the House until the Tea Party wave of 2010.

Even the Blue Dogs who were swept out in 2010 were not as "moderate" as you think — the incredibly partisan rhetoric/votes during the Clinton impeachment process (among many other things) were a very good illustration of this, to name only one example. Partisan red state Democrats who talk bipartisan and vote the party line is far from a recent phenomenon either. In many ways, John Breaux was the original Joe Manchin (even his colleague Mary Landrieu, who was always less skilled at pretending to be moderate, had a lot of goodwill among Republicans/conservative Democrats for some weird reason).

Maybe Zell Miller was the last genuinely moderate red state Democrat, and I’m not even sure how much of his rhetoric & voting record was performative (probably more than we think). However, two things never seem to change: (a) Republican voters are far more likely to fall for this kind of act than Democratic voters, (b) even under 50/50 Senate compositions, the Democratic caucus (be it under Daschle or Schumer) is always remarkably organized, with leadership doing everything it can to prevent any defections. "Democrats will stick together no matter what" is a cliché, but it’s also true. You rarely see any Democrats who are even remotely critical of their party on any issue of actual importance/high-profile legislation (be it domestic or foreign policy), whereas Republicans are mostly too disorganized, incompetent*, and too divergent ideologically to combat this kind of unity among Democrats.

*Case in point: Republican leaders & strategists praising Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, and Kyrsten Sinema. If there ever was a Republican Senator from CA or HI, Democrats wouldn’t be heaping praise on them, they’d be burying them alive before they even served out their current term.

It’s pretty frustrating if you’re not a Democrat or a gullible Republican, honestly.

[Calthrina950]

I've come around to this myself. There are hardly any genuinely moderate politicians serving within Congress anymore. Much of what Manchin and Sinema do, moreover, is performative, as I myself have said before. The few remaining "Blue Dogs" in the House do not compare to the ones who were in the House until the Tea Party wave of 2010.

Even the Blue Dogs who were swept out in 2010 were not as "moderate" as you think — the incredibly partisan rhetoric/votes during the Clinton impeachment process (among many other things) were a very good illustration of this, to name only one example. Partisan red state Democrats who talk bipartisan and vote the party line is far from a recent phenomenon either. In many ways, John Breaux was the original Joe Manchin (even his colleague Mary Landrieu, who was always less skilled at pretending to be moderate, had a lot of goodwill among Republicans/conservative Democrats for some weird reason).

Maybe Zell Miller was the last genuinely moderate red state Democrat, and I’m not even sure how much of his rhetoric & voting record was performative (probably more than we think). However, two things never seem to change: (a) Republican voters are far more likely to fall for this kind of act than Democratic voters, (b) even under 50/50 Senate compositions, the Democratic caucus (be it under Daschle or Schumer) is always remarkably organized, with leadership doing everything it can to prevent any defections. "Democrats will stick together no matter what" is a cliché, but it’s also true. You rarely see any Democrats who are even remotely critical of their party on any issue of actual importance/high-profile legislation (be it domestic or foreign policy), whereas Republicans are mostly too disorganized, incompetent*, and too divergent ideologically to combat this kind of unity among Democrats.

*Case in point: Republican leaders & strategists praising Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, and Kyrsten Sinema. If there ever was a Republican Senator from CA or HI, Democrats wouldn’t be heaping praise on them, they’d be burying them alive before they even served out their current term.

It’s pretty frustrating if you’re not a Democrat or a gullible Republican, honestly.

Why are Democrats so united? Does it have to do with ideology, or is there some other factor at play?

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

HP, fake moderate who opposed impeachment and who has voted time and time again with congressional Republicans, it's sad that people fall for his blatant act.

Brian Fitzpatrick is more "moderate" than Manchin/Sinema or any """"Blue Dog"""" in the House.

Manchin is derailing HR1 and Sinema is threatening to derail the PRO Act, when is the last time Brian Fitzpatrick derailed something that the GOP wanted? Maybe Trumpcare, but people well to his right also voted against that, since it was toxic in much of the country.

TBH this is because Fitzpatrick is a House Rep and Manchin/Sinema are senators, and individual Senators have more power than House Reps

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

HP, fake moderate who opposed impeachment and who has voted time and time again with congressional Republicans, it's sad that people fall for his blatant act.

Brian Fitzpatrick is more "moderate" than Manchin/Sinema or any """"Blue Dog"""" in the House.

Manchin is derailing HR1 and Sinema is threatening to derail the PRO Act, when is the last time Brian Fitzpatrick derailed something that the GOP wanted? Maybe Trumpcare, but people well to his right also voted against that, since it was toxic in much of the country.

TBH this is because Fitzpatrick is a House Rep and Manchin/Sinema are senators, and individual Senators have more power than House Reps

Yeah, this is apples and oranges, regardless of everything else.

[Pollster]

I've come around to this myself. There are hardly any genuinely moderate politicians serving within Congress anymore. Much of what Manchin and Sinema do, moreover, is performative, as I myself have said before. The few remaining "Blue Dogs" in the House do not compare to the ones who were in the House until the Tea Party wave of 2010.

Even the Blue Dogs who were swept out in 2010 were not as "moderate" as you think — the incredibly partisan rhetoric/votes during the Clinton impeachment process (among many other things) were a very good illustration of this, to name only one example. Partisan red state Democrats who talk bipartisan and vote the party line is far from a recent phenomenon either. In many ways, John Breaux was the original Joe Manchin (even his colleague Mary Landrieu, who was always less skilled at pretending to be moderate, had a lot of goodwill among Republicans/conservative Democrats for some weird reason).

Maybe Zell Miller was the last genuinely moderate red state Democrat, and I’m not even sure how much of his rhetoric & voting record was performative (probably more than we think). However, two things never seem to change: (a) Republican voters are far more likely to fall for this kind of act than Democratic voters, (b) even under 50/50 Senate compositions, the Democratic caucus (be it under Daschle or Schumer) is always remarkably organized, with leadership doing everything it can to prevent any defections. "Democrats will stick together no matter what" is a cliché, but it’s also true. You rarely see any Democrats who are even remotely critical of their party on any issue of actual importance/high-profile legislation (be it domestic or foreign policy), whereas Republicans are mostly too disorganized, incompetent*, and too divergent ideologically to combat this kind of unity among Democrats.

*Case in point: Republican leaders & strategists praising Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, and Kyrsten Sinema. If there ever was a Republican Senator from CA or HI, Democrats wouldn’t be heaping praise on them, they’d be burying them alive before they even served out their current term.

It’s pretty frustrating if you’re not a Democrat or a gullible Republican, honestly.

Why are Democrats so united? Does it have to do with ideology, or is there some other factor at play?

It's important to remember that divergent behavior is rewarded by Republican primary voters, and especially in recent years "shake up Washington" messaging has been one of the most successful lines in GOP primaries. Even the party institutional leadership pushes a "less/small government" message that they may not realize primes voters to be receptive to campaigns promising to mess things up.

Democrats didn't really see anything like this until Sanders' 2016 run, and even that was ineffective for a wide variety of reasons (Sanders himself being a career politician, his stubbornness as a candidate, the blow-it-up message not being as popular as people think among the D base, and many other factors). Dem primary voters often choose to reward politicians/candidates who campaign on making government work/using and expanding government power rather than on shaking things up/small government ideals, and Dem politicians behave in kind. The Democrats' party leadership also has a much better understanding of their primary electorate than the GOP's, and are much better at preventing their chaos candidates from advancing.

[President Johnson]

HP for not voting to impeach Trump and using thin blue line imagery in his campaign. He’s not the worst Republican out there but I would still much rather have a Democrat in his seat.

Basically have to agree with this.

[VPH]

FF. One of the few Republicans I would vote for over a Democrat. He's pro-labor and pro-life. Also not bad on LGBTQ issues.

[Flyersfan232]

I voted hp r since I am a r but I would prefer neutral (R)