Sometimes all it takes is a simple arrangement of facts to suggest a slightly different interpretation. I often see endorsements as the endorser actually approving the endorsee, usually for their ideological position, although sometimes simply for competency, and, \u00a0yes, I do understand that some of my readers probably consider me naive for it.<\/p>\n
But these two notes<\/a> from Steve Benen, separated in neither time nor space, sort of brought the alternative interpretation to the fore:<\/p>\n * As some Republican incumbents fret over possible even-further-to-the-right primary rivals, Donald Trump has reportedly\u00a0assured<\/a>\u00a0three Republican senators — Nebraska’s Deb Fischer, Mississippi’s Roger Wicker, and Wyoming’s John Barrasso — that he’ll support their re-election bids.<\/p>\n * On a related note, though Deb Fischer is not seen as a vulnerable incumbent, Steve Bannon has reportedly been\u00a0in contact with<\/a>\u00a0former state Treasurer Shane Osborn about a possible GOP primary.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It really sounds like Trump and Bannon are competing for loyalty from these various elected officials. Now, I know this isn’t anything new, but this looks like a big chess game going on out there on the extreme right.<\/p>\n And the question is whether or not the Democrats can find a way to take advantage of this (dare I say it?) inevitable discord on the right.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sometimes all it takes is a simple arrangement of facts to suggest a slightly different interpretation. I often see endorsements as the endorser actually approving the endorsee, usually for their ideological position, although sometimes simply for competency, and, \u00a0yes, I do understand that some of my readers probably consider me \u2026 Continue reading