Republicans' goal is to create a permission structure for not wanting to impeach Trump, so that it can be included as one reasonable point of view in the eternal Crossfire debate that is American political media.

They know that if they can whine enough about "unity," and they're taken at face value, reporters and media, and then the rest of civil society, will back away from Trump's impeachment as a question of partisan controversy.

It's a re-run of a game they played with Trump. Trump's extraordinary unfitness has been clear since 2015. The GOP's four-year project has been to find space for Trump support in polite society, mostly by pretending it was open for debate whether he's competent and not a crook.

They don't have to PROVE that Trump's competent, or that he doesn't deserve impeachment. They just have to advance a argument that seems plausible, at least to someone born yesterday and who takes everything politicos say at face value (political correspondents, in other words).

If the GOP can do that, suddenly the entire political-media complex will stop looking skeptically at them for refusing to impeach. They won't have convinced anyone of anything, but pressure will evaporate. After all, you're not allowed to criticize someone for an opinion, right?

Anyway, it'll probably work. Peter Baker is probably drafting his "On Trump, Views in the Capitol Diverge" piece right now. The awful pundits who launder this stuff rely on the same ecosystem to produce their cut-and-paste takes, and they give cover to the liars every time.

exactly what I’m talking about. Can you imagine a liberal saying “Democrats hold this view because of their deep and abiding belief in a better, fairer country”? No, you couldn’t.

He isn’t making an argument, but arguing you must treat Rs as reasonable https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1349682232324206593?s=21

the entire right-wing political project relies on the willingness of non-right-wingers to extend them the presumption of good faith

It’s a trick designed to ensure they do not get held to account for obviously malicious motives and terrible ideas

also, I really think right-wing bad faith is helped along by the way some liberals like to perceive themselves as broad-minded; it’s easy to lie about your motives to NPR types who like to feel as if they’re floating above the debate, carefully absorbing all sides

The dumb notion that the best place to be is floating above things listening to both sides is why somewhere like POLITICO - which faces no real pressure to publish far-right activists - nonetheless pats itself on the back for publishing far-right activists.

in reality it’s a totally self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed impulse, one that basically amounts going to a bunch of actively malicious radicals engaged in indefensible politics and saying “please, lie to me, so I can feel smart for thinking I see your point of view”