The Republican Party has become more moderate in recent years and the president seems to be embracing this, despite being elected twice by an even larger margin.
And that, in turn, has led to some pretty odd moments.
The New York Times has a long history of having a conservative bent.
It has won a Pulitzer Prize, the title of which is often quoted on the front page of the newspaper, and has been the subject of a Pulitzer-winning book.
It also had a Republican president.
Now, the Times is under a new conservative ownership.
The company that owns it has acquired a lot of its conservative stock and a new owner has begun trying to distance itself from the party that won the election, a move that could be seen as a signal that it is becoming more conservative.
But that is not the whole story.
The Times is still a conservative newspaper, though not in the way the Times would like to think.
That is, it still has a conservative editorial page, a conservative columnist and a conservative newsroom.
And the Times still takes its conservative policy ideas very seriously.
So it is not surprising that the Times was at the center of a heated, and very, very public, feud with the GOP during the 2016 campaign.
That was when the Times’ conservative columnist Bret Stephens, who was then the editor-in-chief, wrote a piece on the Senate’s health care bill that was deemed too much of a conservative view.
He called it a “death panel” and said that it was “unprecedented” and a “dangerous” piece of legislation.
The House passed the bill on July 26, but it was defeated in the Senate.
The Senate did not have to pass it.
The vote in the House was 532-483.
In the Senate, where the Senate rules, the votes were 628-521.
That was enough to override the veto of President Donald Trump.
And then the Republican National Committee issued a statement saying that Stephens “totally misrepresented” the Republican Party and its principles, and that the article was “an attack on the GOP.”
And that was the beginning of the end for Stephens.
He was fired, and the Republican Congress passed the Graham-Cassidy bill, which is what the president supported.
It is hard to see what a reasonable explanation for that is for Stephens to be fired.
Stephens, for one, has argued that the Republican establishment and the White House, and especially President Trump, have played a key role in his firing.
He has also argued that Republicans should have “put their money where their mouth is.”
So it was a bitter, sometimes ugly, feud that has been covered extensively.
In its statement, the RNC pointed to the “conservative principles” that Stephens defended, including the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and a repeal of taxes on the rich.
The RNC went on to say that the “senators health care plan is a radical proposal that is anathema to conservatives and is not conservative.”
And the RNC continued: “We have repeatedly said that this is a bill that must be stopped.
That the president and his allies must stop the bill.”
That is, they had to stop the health care and tax plan.
So they did.
They are now trying to get rid of it.
The fact that Stephens was fired was not news to the Republican leadership.
The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and his sons, James and Lachlan, are also in the Times newspaper empire.
The Trump family owns the Washington Post.
But the president’s children do not control the paper.
That is why the president did not want to see the House pass Graham-Carson on July 27.
He knew the Senate was going to pass the bill anyway, and he wanted to keep the Republicans from voting to repeal it.
So the administration was trying to make it as hard for Republicans as possible to get to a vote.
They were trying to create a situation where a vote on the health bill could be postponed indefinitely, so that the president could continue to pressure Republicans and get the votes.
There are some signs that the administration is succeeding.
The Senate has passed the measure and the House is debating Graham-Sessions.
And Republicans have taken the steps they have taken to prevent the repeal from going into effect.
It will be interesting to see how the Republican party responds to this.
If they do not want a Republican Party that is more conservative than the Republican president, they will have to get their party to do something that would put the party on the right side of history.
And, of course, there is the question of whether the party will be willing to move to the right.
This will be an important question for Republicans.