Now, I disagree with what much of what Dowd wrote in this piece, but I felt the quote by Dem Senator from CT, Chris Murphy, really nailed the stark difference and the reasons why Dems and Reps looked at the impeachment proceeding so differently:

 
“This trial in so many ways crystallized the completely diametrically opposed threats that Democrats and Republicans see to the country,” Murphy told The Times’s Nicholas Fandos. “We perceive Donald Trump and his corruption to be an existential threat to the country. They perceive the deep state and the liberal media to be an existential threat to the country. That dichotomy, that contrast, has been growing over the last three years, but this trial really crystallized that difference. We were just speaking different languages, fundamentally different languages when it came to what this trial was about. They thought it was about the deep state and the media conspiracy. We thought it was about the president’s crimes.”

 
I think this is a fair assessment. If liberals want to know why Republicans have stuck together and rallied around Trump, even though they may not like him, or even despise him personally, it is because so many of us felt that from virtually day one, the "deep state" via the "liberal media" trotted out one bullshit story after another for years on end.  

 
We got conditioned to believe every "bombshell" and every breathless "breaking news" interruption would be completely untrue, or at the very least, way over blown in due time. So often these "gigantic" stories were gone and off even the lib media's minds and lips mere days after publication/broadcast, but that didn't stop the next one from rolling into the station just behind it. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

 
So when the Ukraine "bombshell" hit, R's just rolled their eyes and were like "Wtf...ANOTHER ONE???" There is only so much fiction one can listen to before you completely tune it out, and R's have totally tuned out the "scandal du jour."

 
Now that I think about it, it isn't all that too dissimilar to the global warming, and in the grander sense, the environment debate. For decades, liberals have told us that this or that ecological disaster was here, or just around the corner.  

 
It just didn't matter how many times these prognostications were proven untrue, or exaggerated, as that never seemed to stop or even restrain the next ecological disaster that was "certain" to occur if we didn't act. We have tuned out all the doomsday predictions as we are just so jaundiced by the ineptness of past forecasts that have been proven wrong.

 
This OP wasn't intended to launch another GW debate, God forbid. I just wanted to see if some on the Left could see the bigger point I am making, and why we as Republicans are just so jaded into not believing all the doomsday stories so often laid out by what we see as a hostile media re: Trump Inc's actions.

 
I am curious if you feel the quote from Murphy rings true i.e. we just see this thing, and others like it, so differently. IOW, if we stop looking at the other side and instantly yell out "LIARS!" isn't it possible we can at least see the other side of the argument even if we don't happen to agree with it?

 
All of this may not be a "right" vs "wrong" thing, but more of a "mommy" vs "daddy" deal i.e neither side is really "wrong", per se, but it's just that we come at it from completely different perspectives and experiences, and that is what struck me when I read Murphy's quote.

They've been trying to impeach Trump since he was inaugurated.  I don't think "crimes" had anything to do with it.  

1) The Republicans have realized that Trump totally controls their party and breaking with him will have a VERY high political cost, including getting primaried. Since the goal of most Senators, no matter of which party, is to get re-elected, they'll do almost anything not to jeopardize that.
2) The real goal of McConnell and the Republicans is long-term conservative control of the Judicial Branch. This is why McConnell sat on the Garland nomination for nearly a year despite ZERO precedent for it. And Trump has delivered big time on that ploy, with two SCOTUS Justices and certainly more if he's re-elected, not to mention dozens of judges confirmed to lower courts. This is the main goal of keeping him in office, then re-electing him. ANY tactic that accomplishes this goal is worth exploiting.
3) But, yes, Murphy is also right. And in your case, Hack, you are a blind squirrel who got a nut.

Re your first point, Lamar Alexander is not up for re-election as he is retiring so obviously he didn't concern himself with being primaried or getting re-elected.

 
I agree with your second point but just remember it was the "Biden Rule" that stated we shouldn't fill SCOTUS openings until after the election and McConnell used that as his rationale for blocking Garland. Would he have done it anyway? Not sure, but I think he would have.

while I don't agree with him he at least had a thoughtful reason. As for the Biden Rule, you are misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding it. There is almost no comparison between the Biden Rule as Biden himself explained it (not to mention the historical context) and the way McConnell re-interpreted it. Read on...

Both said a SCOTUS nominee shouldn't be put up until after the election. How would that constitute "almost no comparison?" Seems like they are saying virtually the same thing, no?

I started reading that Dowd column ... same old "all our motives are pure, all your motives are evil."  That's useless hackery.  I didn't finish reading it.  It's not a serious analysis.  

...and played up the Dem Senator's comments.  

 
I really think he nailed the different lens the two sides see this mess through. It was insightful and interesting and not the typical "all our motives are pure, all your motives are evil" comment we often get from the likes of Dowd, as you point out.

You really believe that excrement?  Deep state?  Just how gullible can one get?  Deep state?  Ouch!

 
How about a line or two about "fake news" next?  Bet you are in total alignment with Trump on that one too.  Bet you also believe Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are historians, rather than hacks who's only intent is to rile up Trumps followers with the sole purpose of increasing $$$$$$/viewership.  Trump's followers have both of them laughing all the way to the bank.

You don't believe there is a permanent political class -- "the establishment?"

Every time there is a change of administration, there are hundreds of people who step into official roles -- cabinet positions, secretaries (of state, for instance), ambassadors, staff members etc.  They tend to hang around DC and revolve in and out of official positions.  Many lower level are permanent government employees.

Hillary got 90% of the DC vote, Trump got 4%.  It's a company town.

"Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992"

They were both saying the same thing. Duh.

That was a rhetorical question, you dolt.