Is Trump playing 3-D chess or not?
It’s not a copout to say “it depends on what you mean by 3-D chess.”
If you mean something so advanced and esoteric it’s the equivalent of Einstein’s Special Theory (in the political sense), I’d have to say “no.” But I don’t think that’s what it means.
If you think (as I do) that playing 3-D chess means someone with a good grasp of strategy and advanced gamesmanship, working on a number of levels at once, some of them not immediately obvious to the casual observer—well then, I think it’s got to be “yes.”
I say that for several reasons. The first is how Trump beat the odds getting elected in the first place. It confounded nearly all the pundits and prognosticators. He either did it through luck, chance, or skill; at the time it wasn’t completely clear which it was (and it could have been a combination).
But a pattern began, and then that pattern kept repeating over time. It can be described this way: Trump does something that his enemies—and even some of those who support him—criticize. There’s a big furor. It’s widely reported that now, now he’s really done it; now he’s put his foot in his mouth and now he’s sunk himself for real. And yet, when the dust settles (and sometimes it settles rather quickly), we usually find that one or some or all of the following have occurred: Trump didn’t actually say what they said he said, his opponents do something in response to what he said that makes them look like the fools, the public in general responds by agreeing with Trump and his polls go up (sometimes after a bit of a dip).
Strange, isn’t it, if he’s such a fool, that these things keep happening over and over and over? Can anyone have that much good luck? The pattern points to a different explanation, which is that he’s an excellent tactician and strategist who acts in ways that flummox people and tend to have a result ultimately favorable to him.
That doesn’t mean he’ll always win. Not even everyone who plays 3-D chess wins, right? Trump could finally make the big misstep everyone keeps predicting and many are desperately hoping for. He could lose the 2020 election even if he doesn’t make that slipup; with the entire MSM against him, often distorting his words in various ways, it’s amazing he has any approval left at all. But either way, it appears that he’s playing a clever game, given the situation and given his own particular set of gifts.
What are those gifts? One is a certain gut-level intuition that has stood him well over a lengthy life of negotiating and maneuvering. The other is his actual experience in the art of the deal. And what is the art of the deal? Is it not something akin to the sort of gamesmanship Trump has shown as president? Knowing when to press, knowing when to back off, knowing the psychology of the other side, knowing how to bob and weave in order to get to a goal? Trump’s been doing that sort of thing his whole life, and wrote (with help, but the ideas were certainly his) a book on it.
Most of his opponents don’t have that particular background. Most of them are skilled at politics as it’s usually played, but Trump doesn’t play that way. So he is more apt to confound them—and the pundits, too.
I’ll close with a passage from today’s article by Andrew C. McCarthy that sparked this post. Often I agree with McCarthy, and in this case I agree with much of his article, but not this particular passage:
I don’t believe Trump is a master strategist who did this to force Speaker Pelosi and other mainstream Democrats, at their electoral peril, to embrace the radicals. That’s just the lemonade that Trump supporters are trying to make of the president’s never-ending supply of lemons.
But what degree of mental gymnastics would it take to imagine that forcing Pelosi to defend her radical flank was indeed Trump’s goal? Is that reasoning so twisted, so esoteric, so difficult to believe, knowing the man? I think it’s actually a relatively obvious thing to do, particularly for someone like Trump who clearly thinks along strategic lines. Trump supporters don’t have to strain very much to think of that explanation, plus in the past an awful lot of Trump’s lemons really have gone to make a pretty tasty and tangy beverage for those on the right to drink.
McCarthy adds something that is in some ways a lot more telling [emphasis mine]:
In any event, while it is beneath a president to carp in Trump’s juvenile way, I have less heartburn in principle with a president’s attacking radicalism than I do with a congresswoman’s claim that any criticism of her is an implicit criticism of immigrants, women, black people, etc.
McCarthy has an interesting history regarding Trump, and it parallels that of a lot of people on the right. He didn’t like him to begin with and doesn’t really like him now, and some of that is for stylistic reasons. But he has come to appreciate what Trump actually accomplishes, while still disliking what one might summarize as Trump’s style.
I don’t think, however, that the word “juvenile” actually applies here. Trump does sound juvenile at times, like a schoolyard taunter. I don’t think the tweets under discussion here were actually one of those times, but let’s just say for the sake of argument that they were. The question is whether they (or other tweets) reflect a juvenile mind and emotional makeup, or whether they are part of a decision Trump has made that this is an effective way for him to fight in the dirty and vicious game that is politics.
Obama is a good contrast. He was strategic, too, but his style tended to be lofty, intellectual, polished. Nevertheless he fought dirty and he made no bones about it; he’s the guy who said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
No, politics ain’t beanbag. It’s a bitter fight, and although for the most part the weapons are rhetorical (at least in this country, at least so far), they are meant to destroy. Each politician deals with the givens dictated by his or her own personality and style. Obama had that professor thing going; Trump is the loudmouthed wheeler-dealer. But I submit that, at least so far, Trump has proved to be a better chess master than his opponents.
Agreed.
And what is up with these conservatives that get hung up on style and propriety? How has that worked out for ya? Getting a lot of candidates elected that way, to pursue the conservative agenda and prevent the march on the institutions by the Left? No? Hmmm
Both strategically and tactically unwise. You have to win before you get to execute. How is that not obvious yet?
I believe Trump’s often bombastic manner is a reflection of his personality as well as a tactic. Trump is not the kind of guy who will change who he is for anyone. But I think he is much more self-aware than many give him credit for and has learned to use his “style” to his advantage. As you suggest neo a lot of his “erratic, impulsive” tweets have ended up serving a larger purpose.
Jeff Brokaw:
What I think is up with them isn’t as trivial as it sounds. It is a deep antipathy to Trump’s style. That style is associated with people they don’t like and, more importantly, have learned not to trust.
“Trump does sound juvenile at times…”–Neo, citing McCarthy’s description of Trump’s behavior as President. From the beginning I (along with my husband, our 3 kids and their spouses) have been on record that when Trump won the nomination he had my vote for 2 reasons: 1) not Hillary, and 2) his proposed list of SC appointments. The truth is as we got closer to the election, we all actually looked forward to casting our ballot for him, because we could see it wasn’t going to be “business as usual” which here in California had been a death-knell to what is best for us personally and civically. None of us have ever engaged socially (face-to-face or on any media) in the snarky and insulting ways that have become predominate over the last few years–interactions our President has done, in the past and as President. But the most amazing thing to me is that in my personal sphere, THE ONLY people I see and hear doing this, are the Presidents detractors–Trump haters, among my family and friends. You would think there is one exception, but no, the hate is vitriolic and must be blinding because none of them seem to understand they are doing the very thing they claim to believe is unacceptable.
“it is beneath a president to carp in Trump’s juvenile way”
It’s not juvenile at all. Any Republican who disagrees with the Democrats is immediately smeared as a racist, sexist, fascist, blah, blah, whatever, by the MSM and the Democrat politicians. They are nothing but barbarian thugs. If the other side plays by the rules then playing by the rules yourself is the correct thing to do. They don’t, so there is no reason to disarm yourself playing by rules they don’t respect. Are we supposed to accept endless reruns of Mitt Romney versus Obama and Candy Crowley? No thanks.
Sharon W,
As always, “It’s *different* when we do it …. even when we’re the only ones who do it.“
Trump is a fighter. The Squad is an assemblage of dishonorable ninnies who jape and sneer but who will never dirty their hands in actual combat.
A.G. Sulzberger, Jeff Bezos, David Remnick, Jeff Goldberg, Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper, Donny Deutsch, Joy Reid, Rachel Maddow, Jay Inslee’s Secretary of State Megan Rapinoe…, If they are the alternative – give me Trump every time.
It’s way more than a “style” thing with McCarthy:
Neo:
It’s definitely not trivial at all. It’s systemic and actively prevents conservatives from ever winning anything (see Romney, 2012).
The Left uses this fake concern trolling *all* the time and every conservative except Trump falls for it. Maybe stop doing that.
People on the nominal Right need to figure out if they want results or style. I thought conservatives are by definition practical, results-oriented people. That’s what appeals to me about it, anyway.
With a long history of brilliant analyses under your belt, this is another straight-arrow-in-flight-to-center-target, deviation-free-aerodynamics-flight-pattern to bullseye.
Kudos.
I think too many neglect the point that earning a billion isn’t ever done casually.
… so hearing some lesser [media/leftist] semi-sentient entity fail to recognize their own place in the Grand Order of Things, and yet calling the president stupid… I smile ruefully and shake my head slightly in contemptuous disdain.
I mean, like, they’re his judge?
… more like they’re blinded by the envious incredulous demon facing them in the mirror.
Idiots.
Strange, isn’t it, if he’s such a fool, that these [wins] keep happening over and over and over?
neo: Exactly. That’s why I stopped criticizing Trump and chose to look more closely.
As an NLP guy (like Scott Adams) I check for outcomes, not for their sportsmanship or what they say or whether I like them.
It pays to keep in mind that, in addition to his deal-making real estate background Trump is also: 1) a graduate of a military school; 2) headliner of a long running TV show.
In military school he was certainly introduced to Sun Tzu (The Art of War) and Von Clausewitz ( On War where he undoubtedly have learned something about tactics and strategy. One of Eisenhower’s most important decisions was to keep his best field commander, a frustrated George Patton, lollygagging in Southeastern England to reinforce the ruse that D-Day would occur at Calais. Trump’s tweets seem to have a similar purpose; they are the laser dot to his his opponents. The more attention they pay to his tweets, the less attention the give to his actions (the federal judiciary nominations, the USMCA, the executive order loosening regulations for kidney donors, etc.)
As a reality television show host he was, for years, immersed in the media and he knows how these people think, act, and respond, and he is bringing the fight to them on their own terms, using their own weapons and out-Alinskying them.
It’s definitely not trivial at all. It’s systemic and actively prevents conservatives from ever winning anything (see Romney, 2012).
Jeff Brokaw: Romney has disappointed me of late. True. But I doubt Trump could have beaten Obama in 2012 either. Trump barely beat Hillary, a far weaker candidate. I think Trump would have done even worse than Romney in 2012.
Obama was Obama and 2012 was four years less of Obama for Americans to become even more fed up.
Trump is a formidable political talent, but he is not magic. His election in 2016 required an angry electorate ready for his appeal.
Frankly I doubt Trump could beat Bill Clinton next year, if Bill were just an old hand Arkansas governor or senator, who hadn’t ever been president and lacked his current baggage.
Shorter: IMO Trump supporters overvalue Trump’s street-fighting style. That’s a piece of it, but it’s not really why he became President.
Another thing I notice is there seems to be ignorance or denial regarding our political history, because the back-and-forth among political opponents in former times was sometimes verbal brass knuckles. Some today might have had the vapors in response to goings-on in the public square. To frame things as though this is a brand new scenario is ridiculous. And also as Neo cites Obama’s “bring a gun”, I have pointed out that and other statements to some family and friends (Obama-lovers/Trump-haters) and it gets pretty quiet; hypocrisy exposed, but rose-colored glasses still in place.
You had better pray mightily for Trump to win in 2020 and to bring the House and the Senate along with him.
The alternative will be a disaster for this nation.
As Franklin said: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
We are currently in the most dangerous time since just before Lincoln was elected.
Hard to say with Trump. Clearly, he is craftier than many supposed. And he is by no stretch the stupid fool his detractors make him out to be. One thing for sure is that he is getting better at this job of being president. I think he enjoys it.
You also credit Obama with being “intellectual.” No question, Obama sounds like an intellectual. But at best, he is a pseudo-intellectual. He is a callow, facile pretender. He looks the part. When he makes a speech, you get caught up with his gestures and looks, his elegant pauses, the intonation, the clear enunciation, the varying of tone and timbre, all those things he learned by watching himself in a mirror for months at a time (I do hate the way he tilts his head, though).
The man is a fraud (remember corps-man?).
I will never call Trump an intellectual. Clearly, he is not. But neither is Obama (or that intellectually thin as a dime lightweight, Bill Clinton). A good thing to do is to read Obama’s speeches. They are vapid. He speaks like an angel, but says nothing. I would begin with his Nobel Prize speech.
He went on for 37 minutes. See if you can sit through it.
I’m not saying the guy’s a dolt by any means. Just clumsy, at times vulgarly so. I think his “genius” lies mostly in the fact the left has moved so far into whacko land, you cant but look wiser in comparison. Is he some mensa level incomprehensible prodigy? Some Ever Trumpers apparently worship the guy in that way. I find that laughable.
It’s going to come down to who scares the average voter least.
Test
It isn’t chess. It isn’t checkers. It isn’t Go. It’s p*ker. Good old American p*ker. No limit, table stakes p*ker.
Knowing the cards is just the entry fee. Knowing people is how you send them packing.
The spam filter doesn’t like the word “p*ker”. That’s an “o” if you haven’t figured it out.
It ain’t chess. It ain’t checkers. It ain’t Go. It’s p*ker. Good old American p*ker. No limit, table stakes p*ker.
Knowing the cards is just the entry fee. Knowing people is how you send them packing without their pants.
There. That’s what I wanted to say. Ain’t modern technology wonderful?
Kevin McCarthy: “BREAKING NEWS —> Speaker Pelosi just broke the rules of the House, and is no longer permitted to speak on the floor of the House for the rest of the day.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/GOPLeader
Heh.
Spk Pelosi knowingly broke the House rules a few minutes ago, has had her words “taken down”.
See the thread here: https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1151227168892030976
Huxley: Romney was just one example in a long list. I’m talking about the mindset. It’s pervasive in the party and in Conservatism as envisioned by the National Review set.
It’s clearly a disaster as far as electoral politics go. I’m tired of listening to these people complain about Trump while he’s in office and implementing the things they claim they want!
Memo to McCarthy: you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
titan28:
I absolutely do not credit Obama with actually being an intellectual, except in the sense that most academics are—that is, he sounds intellectual at times, uses the vocabulary, quotes the “intellectual” books. But I do not think he is actually a deep thinker in the intellectual sense. What I wrote was (and this is a direct quote) “his style tended to be lofty, intellectual, polished.” His STYLE. Which is more or less the same thing you go on to say.
Let me add that I don’t think that much of intellectuals per se, and I certainly don’t think being an intellectual actually helps a person make good decisions as president.
I have come to appreciate Trump’s accomplishments also.
Kavanaugh
Modest income tax reduction
Looking out for America’s interest in trade
Backing out of the Iran deal – and other foreign policy accomplishments
But did Trump beat Hillary? No. Hillary beat herself. She was so crooked that even comedians couldn’t resist hitting her for her crooked behavior at the time. Alternative media pushed her into the negatives. Trump barely mustered enough votes in the states that mattered to give a decisive electoral college win.
Will he do it again? If – and I say IF the people like Candace Owens and people like her can convince enough African Americans and Hispanic Americans that freedom, free markets, national security are their interests as well. 10% swings in these demographics can spell big trouble for Democrats. And therefore would it really be Trump winning or would it be Democrats painting themselves as tooo extreme and losing because of their own message is too extreme.
huxley:
I completely agree with you that Trump would not have beaten Obama in 2012.
In fact, many people forget that Trump actually very seriously contemplated running that year and decided not to. You can read an article about it here, written in 2011. An excerpt:
Fascinating to look at that now, isn’t it? He says he could have won, but my reading is that he strongly thought he wasn’t going to win, and he waited till 2016 when a weaker candidate appeared, and when people were more fed up with 8 years of Obama and the Democrats.
Note all the scoffing by the pundits, too.
Ann:
But ultimately that IS a question of style.
What does McCarthy mean by “fighting them” without “destroying” them? In what way does Trump want to destroy his opponents? He’s got plenty of power. I don’t see him trying to destroy anyone. He badmouths them, he says it usually in ways that are spot on but impolite. How does that destroy someone? I don’t get what McCarthy is talking about.
When the left tries to destroy Trump it plays a lot dirtier than he does. For example, the Steele dossier and the FISA court and all that followed. The constant twisting of his words by the press, which is very powerful itself. Trump doesn’t usually even twist people’s words, he just calls them on them—and often name-calls them on them. That is a matter of style, not destruction.
What I think McCarthy means is that he doesn’t like Trump’s style.
In addition, I would submit that if an opponent (in this case the Democrats) actually wants to destroy you, how do you effectively fight them? If you remain polite, can you win? Do you not get “destroyed” yourself? Trump is many things, but in what way has he become like the left? I don’t see that at all.
The only similarity I see is that he fights hard, and he is nasty. Those two things do not turn you into something evil and out to “destroy” your opponents.
The news this early evening is a vaudeville show. Nancy Pelosi was ruled out of order by her deputy, Steny Hoyer, for calling Trump “racist” on the floor of the House. Hoyer cited rules from at least Tip O’Neills’ time. Then Democrats voted to overrule Hoyer and leave Pelosi’s personal slams at Trump on the record. Evidently they will get around to voting on the resolution later this evening. Presumably it will pass on a party-line vote which will solidify the leadership with its radical wing. All of this over a series of tweets which said nothing whatever about race! The Democrats will be on record as saying that no person with African, Arab, or Spanish ancestry can be criticized for any reason.
McCarthy is stuck on gentlemanly style. Trump is after results.
The pattern points to a different explanation, which is that he’s an excellent tactician and strategist who acts in ways that flummox people and tend to have a result ultimately favorable to him.
ah… go read your own words and you can see the special sauce your missing…
the outcome depends on the ethics and personality of people of such ethics vs honest and clean…
his behavior does not work on those who dont have agendas, play games of hearing or press, willingess to lie or inflate or conflate or all of that…
and funny, as i said, his protection in the den of thieves is he is honest… oh, dont believe it, cause we now live in a womans world where things have to match up… women do archery given their lower upper body strength, killers are ugly, honest people are wimps who dont play games, and on and on…
note that i said its his protection…
and it works with the other tactic that works against unethical liars and actives
not one persons reasoning had to do with the power of those things, it had to do with his image not matching, or that is silly, etc..
no one except a few can conceive of honesty as a tactic
and how people with self control can negate a nature in favor of a productive tactic
honesty is the best policy…
was that only intended for the honest at heart? is it a behavior with a choice? can a dishonest person at heart, suppress such action in favor of a more beneficial behavior? and that if you want to be super successful you start to treat your behaviors as tactical, and suppression of the bad as prudent, and the package is part of your strategy
oh, and is honest a saint? or is honest a person that returns change she didnt deserve, but still crosses the street only on the green? do honest people always follow other peoples rules?
its akin to the puzzle of the two people who you can ask one question to find out which door to walk through…
the key is the question… the question reveals the right answer despite their compulsions… well, abstract that, and think of the behaviors and tactics of the dishonest vs honest…
how do you navigate a business landscape that has honest and dishonest people in it? do you rely on luck? can you behave one way that can expose the others?
thats what your seeing… oh, and also, one LAST point from the several billionaires i have met, and the social register deb i nearly married, and the successful investors i meet…
they play the rules hard… ie. if the rules say X, they do X… they live by the rules and they do NOT add rules that limit them… while it may be customary to do X, if its not a rule, dont be surprised if they ignore it.
think of it this way, they are playing the game of life with others that are also playing the game in hardball fashion in their spheres..
sad that people cant conceive of a way that an honest person could even exist in that level!!! that because they cant see what weapons and tools and behaviors and such would work, there must be none, and so, they all are bad, its just how bad, or if they are bad on your behalf.
but again, the qualities and things have no image, no body type, and no, they dont have formal ways…
but note, when your polite, and wear what your supposed to, and say what your supposed to… no one knows a thing about you, you the person can be completely hidden and so, your motives and more… we are used to that more than brash and open, and so we forgot there are more than one way to skin a cat…
I’m just amazed when people nitpick Trump’s ‘style’ like it’s important. I’ll tell you some important things:
Johnson – one of the biggest crooks ever in the White House
Carter – one of the most ineffectual and destructive presidents in history
Clinton – turned the most respected office in the world into a dirty joke
Obama – corrupted every agency of government and destroyed people’s trust in all of them
Anything Trump has done as president pales into insignificance next to those facts so let’s try to keep some perspective. No president in history has had to contend with the opposition Trump has. Success of any kind against that opposition should be celebrated by all conservatives.
I forgot to add both Bushes – punching bags for the left
This can never be repeated often enough:
George W. Bush got hundreds of thousands of people killed in a war for no good reason, authorized both spying on Americans without warrants and torturing prisoners, and led this nation into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Yet virtually all of Republicans/conservatives who pride themselves on abhorring Trump remain fans of George W. Bush TO THIS VERY DAY. They even wanted to put his brother in the White House!
I don’t begrudge people their disdain of Donald Trump but when you puff your chest out over Trump’s failings while turning a blind eye to George W. Bush’s resume of disasters, some of which may plague our nation for the rest of our lives, YOU ARE NOT PRINCIPLED. YOU ARE NOT MORAL. YOU ARE NOT NOBLE. YOU ARE NOT RIGHTEOUS.
You’re just a snobby jerk.
Mike
Obama is a good contrast. He was strategic, too, but his style tended to be lofty, intellectual, polished.
ah. but everyone who knew details knew he was dishonest, and would do that. and that he had an army that would protect records and would do much of the fighting for him… his base was told to do that just as the base is told to behave this way towards our current president…
His behavior was the action of someone who knew the fix was on his side..
Where most people in Trumps place, if lucky to win, would end up distracted, neurotic, swinging windmills, and given the attacks, press, people, maybe end up paranoid. Afrustrated mess who in an effort to be liked to get things done, ended up getting nothing done and no one liking them… and it wouldnt be the first in history.
I think at least 80% of Trump hatred on the right is invidious class snobbery. His Queens accent is perceived as lower middle class (which his wealth makes even more jarring to the BoWash/ivy elite) and his behavior is perceived as lumpen-proletarian: both unforgivable and not clubbable (as we say in lower Fairfield County and Westchester)
” led this nation into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression” — No. The causes of the subprime mortgage collapse were Democratic policies which pushed banks to lend money to people who were not qualified financially to handle the loans, and by “whiz kid” financial instruments which permitted banks to get around liquidity requirements.
I think Trump is helped tremendously by the unadulterated emotional response in reaction to his comments. It is difficult to take on anybody when you yourself are not of even keel.
As for the tweet, if a Dem had tweeted the same remarks then NYT would be explaining to us how a suggestion was made to emulate the Peace Corps by volunteering to go to a third-world country, help them in their development and then come back to share the experience and apply it in US.
Huxley: Romney was just one example in a long list. I’m talking about the mindset. It’s pervasive in the party and in Conservatism as envisioned by the National Review set.
It’s clearly a disaster as far as electoral politics go.
Jeff Brokaw: So you say, but somehow the Republicans elected their share of Presidents since WW II — before Trump showed up to show us the True Way. Further I’d say conservatives and National Review played a part in those victories.
You are not willing to say Trump would have beaten Obama. You have no explanation for Trump’s razor-thin margin against the truly awful candidate, Hillary Clinton. Only 80,000 votes changed in three states would have flipped the Electoral College to Hillary.
My point is Trump won in 2016 because American voters changed and were receptive to him. Not because Trump possesses the magic anti-National Review skeleton key to unlock elections.
There’s no way to know for sure, but I think the old Republican strategy disdained by Trump supporters was actually a good one for previous times and Trump would have gone nowhere then.
Trump’s style against his opponents is a lot nicer than the methods the democrats used against Kavanaugh. Whenever you are in doubt about our president just remember how the democrats tried to destroy Kavanaugh, nothing trump has ever said can possibly be comparable to what the dems did to Kavanaugh
George W. Bush got hundreds of thousands of people killed in a war for no good reason …
MBunge: That’s not how I parsed it then or now. If you want reasons, check the
“Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq”
https://web.archive.org/web/20021102072524/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Then come back and we’ll talk. Otherwise take your bile elsewhere. I don’t care how many times you want to say it.
> ” led this nation into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression”
The seeds of the housing crisis were planted in 1977 when the Community Reinvestment Act was passed. This was the first step in more liberal loans for housing. Then in 1992 changes to the Act “affected the CRA practices at the time in requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.”
The enforced mandates that altered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are similar to the one that force bond funds to buy long-dated bonds that yield negative interest rates of which there are many at the moment. There are a lot of mandates that funds have to own certain types of bonds for starters.
Does anyone recall, and not so long ago, when the Dem governor of NY said that “deplorable” *Americans* (that is, people like most of us reading and commenting here) have no place in NY and ought to get out of the State?
As always with these intellectually dishonest leftists, “It’s *different* when we do it … even when we’re the only ones doing what we accuse-and-condemn you of doing“
Frankly I doubt Trump could beat Bill Clinton next year, if Bill were just an old hand Arkansas governor or senator, who hadn’t ever been president and lacked his current baggage.
True.
But Clinton couldn’t get the Democrat nomination. Between not being left enough and a #MeToo history of epic proportions.
I do think that Clinton could these days get the Republican nomination, and win from that side. But not the Democrat.
Chester Draws: Well, I did try to divest Clinton of his baggage, mainly sexual, in my thought experiment!
If that were granted, Bill would be Biden with brains, savvy and likability. I think Clinton would send Bill Ayers’s children scurrying.
Biden is still leading the Dem polls, you know, often substantially.
Even if Trump didn’t think up the strategy. he probably has someone on staff who could; the great probable myth that he doesn’t listen to anyone but himself aside.
Kate said ” The Democrats will be on record as saying that no person with African, Arab, or Spanish ancestry can be criticized for any reason.”
Oh Lord let’s hope so.
…”I think the old Republican strategy disdained by Trump supporters was actually a good one for previous times and Trump would have gone nowhere then.”
Perhaps. But I doubt it. I still recall Reince rhymes with Heintz Priebus lamenting that many states won by the GOP in 1988 were completely out of reach for Mitt “Mittens” Romney.
I submit that a successful political strategy by the GOP would have avoided that outcome. And I don’t think there is a single thing Trump has done or proposed to do that Bush 43 shouldn’t likewise have done or attempted.
But no, since family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande, nothing was ever done to stop the endless influx of new democrat voters, nor was anything ever done to win them over.
Protip for the gop: People who work for an hourly wage like the prospect of making a higher hourly wage, not endless stupid platitudes about blah blah from rich people like Bush. For example, I’ve never forgotten the cold silence at my Bush-friendly workplace that greeted news about the abortive and obscure Bush attempt to rewrite US labor such that overtime pay would have gone away.
I can personally guarantee that it was less Bush-friendly afterwards. But later, it was very pro-Trump.
Anyway, I don’t think there is any 3-D chess involved. Trump is just doing what is blindingly obvious, to anyone who isn’t bought and paid for by the globalist GOP establishment.
MBunge:
The Iraq War and the reasons it began has been discussed at great length on this blog and elsewhere. Just your saying it was for no good reason isn’t very convincing, to say the least.
And you seem to know little about Trump supporters and Bush supporters, particularly at this point. A lot of people were reluctant supporters of one or the other, and some were strong supporters. But almost all of the stronger Trump supporters could not stand Bush at the time, and even more Trump supporters at this point have a lot of anger at things Bush has done. Bush is not a real popular figure among Trump supporters (or among most Republicans at this point), and even during his presidency he was not a popular figure among conservatives.
I suspect Eisenhower was smarter than Stevenson, certainly far better qualified to lead a large organization and deal with international affairs. Yet Stevenson was presented to the public as an intellectual as opposed the goofy, golf playing Ike. It is a conceit of the intellectuals that they are smarter than the crude folks who actually do things.
“No. The causes of the subprime mortgage collapse were Democratic policies which pushed banks to lend money to people who were not qualified financially to handle the loans, and by “whiz kid” financial instruments which permitted banks to get around liquidity requirements.”
So the buck stopped with- well, anyone but the President of the United States.
He had nothing to do with the economic collapse that happened while he was president.
Are you sure you want to make that argument?
Because I’m pretty sure no one will accept it, and I’m also pretty sure that if a Republican president has no ability to stop disastrous democrat policies- or politically more important, make sure that the democrats are forced to take the blame for them- then that Republican president is completely and utterly worthless both as a national leader and as a politician.
But you were talking about George W. Bush, so you’ve already realized how worthless he was, right?
This Republican president is trying to stop all sorts of disastrous Democrat policies. The House won’t cooperate, and the courts are way out of their lane in trying to stop him from exercising legitimate presidential authority. Bush tried to get Fannie and Freddie, etc., under control, and so did McCain, in one of his few good moves. They didn’t fight hard enough for it.
So, we’ve still got people trying to pretend in 2019 the GOP were just oblivious bystanders to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression AND people trying to pretend in 2019 the Iraq War didn’t get hundreds of thousands of people killed for no good reason.
THIS is why Trump won. The GOP/conservative movement had eight freakin’ years to come to terms with those mistakes (and even longer for a great many others, like “free trade” and being completely and utterly wrong about the impact of Bill Clinton’s tax increases) and refused to do so. That left the party wide open for ANYONE with even a little brains and grit to walk in and knock the whole rotten structure flat.
Mike
To paraphrase Lincoln, “We can’t spare this man. He fights.”
Does Pelosi actually believe that if one of the Stalinista Squad was of Russian origin, Trump wouldn’t have said exactly the same thing?
“They didn’t fight hard enough for it.”
Republicans controlled the House for the first six years of Bush II’s Presidency. They controlled the Senate for four of his first six years in office. It’s not that they didn’t fight hard enough. They didn’t fight at all.
Mike
Neo, you are so right and so good in your analysis. The people that criticize Trump and his tweeting behavior simply don’t know what they are seeing, evaluating, and analyzing. For anyone in business, that negotiates for living (as I do, though not at Trump’s monetary level) he is running a typical cycle. Start high to end high. Set a strong value anchor. Refute your opponents value. Undermine your opponents anchor. It really isn’t that complicated.
Politicians, and the folks like McCarthy, are familiar with political wheeling and dealing which is a barter system: I’ll trade A that you want for B which I want. Trump isn’t playing that particular game and so they can’t figure out what he’s doing.
Consider this: Trump knows that his biggest threat in the 2020 election is a competent Speaker Pelosi and a mainstream opponent like Joe Biden. He knows that he can sweep the floor against the ideology of AOC and Omar (and the others) because they are widely recognized and they and their ideas widely disliked. So he forces Pelosi, et al, to defend and, even, embrace them, thus making them the face of the Democrats regardless of who is chosen to run against him. Simple and elegant.
For good measure he tweaks them to call his tweets racist and xenophobic, an objective reading or which discredits such a claim. Again, brilliant.
There are actually two questions.
1) Is he playing 3-D chess?
2) Is he playing it well?
Of course, Spock would complain that Kirk played 3-D chess most illogically, yet Kirk would often win.
Make of that what you will.
…”I think the old Republican strategy disdained by Trump supporters was actually a good one for previous times and Trump would have gone nowhere then.”
Perhaps. But I doubt it.
Xennady: It’s a speculative argument from either side. Be clear, however, I have my convictions opposite of yours.
Would you care to make to argue Trump would have beaten Obama, given how superior you claim Trump is to Romney? If not, what is your claim for Trump’s superiority?
So the buck stopped with- well, anyone but the President of the United States.
He had nothing to do with the economic collapse that happened while he was president.
Are you sure you want to make that argument?
Xennady: No. I’d make the more complex argument that the economic collapse was worldwide and no one country, no one leader and no one party was solely responsible.
The causes go back farther than Bush’s term. There’s plenty of blame to go around. I consider solely blaming Bush incorrect and mostly the product of animus.
Huxley: You keep talking about 2012 and 2016. I never claimed Trump would have won in 2012 — my point was that Romney was the kind of candidate the establishment GOP loves — but he had no charisma and did not connect with voters and so too many of them stayed home and he lost a potentially winnable race.
He was an inferior candidate and the election post-mortems explained why.
Again, just an example of a big picture problem with establishment conservatism that has been true for decades.
Maybe Trump could not have won until 2016 against Clinton. I don’t know and it doesn’t matter to my larger point: too much focus on things that don’t win elections.
He was an inferior candidate and the election post-mortems explained why.
Jeff Brokaw: From POV you keep ignoring my point.
I’m saying (and neo did too) that Trump would have lost to Obama in 2012. Wouldn’t there have been similar election post-mortems explaining why Trump was the inferior candidate? If so, how can you say Trump would have been a superior candidate to Romney?
There are plenty of rotten things one can say about Trump — worse than Romney — that would explain why Trump had lost in 2012.
Again, I’m saying that by 2016 American voters changed and Trump was “more cowbell” for them. But it wouldn’t have worked before.
Prior to 2016 Trump’s buffoonish, corrupt persona with no government experience would have been an absolute non-starter IMO. Fortunately Obama’s shallow resume and demagogic campaign helped pave the way for Trump.
I’ve really enjoyed this discussion. Lots of trenchant, intelligent analysis here.
By the way, in my opinion, it’s more like 12D chess.
Huxley: I never even implied Trump could have won in 2012, I have no firm opinion on it, but most of all it just doesn’t matter to my point.
Try re-reading my last paragraph above.
We are talking about two different things.
“I don’t get what McCarthy is talking about.” neo
At base, McCarthy posits that if you fight as dirty as the other fellow, it makes you no better than them. It’s a common philosophical mistake, easily seen when the police who kill with a gun are compared to the criminal who kills with a gun.
“George W. Bush got hundreds of thousands of people killed in a war for no good reason, authorized both spying on Americans without warrants and torturing prisoners, and led this nation into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.” MBunge
That’s factually untrue on every assertion you make.
Bush was profoundly mistaken but within the context of his flawed rationale had an eminently valid reason to invade Iraq. Bush gravely underestimated the Left’s seditious and treasonous actions. Bush was misled by a senile Bernard Lewis who insisted that Islam was a Religion of Peace. Bush failed to appreciate that culture inculcates values, obviating his assertion that everyone desires freedom.
The Patriot Act only authorized spying on calls to America originating from questionable foreign locations and party’s identified with terrorists.
Waterboarding is not torture.
Bush tried to stop the primary factor that led to the economic crisis. Congressional democrats and republicans afraid of accusations from the left that they were motivated by racism blocked repeal of the legislative provisions that forced banks to make loans to people who did not qualify for them.
Bush has his faults but not the ones you ascribe to him.
Republican support for Trump rises after racially charged tweets: Reuters/Ipsos poll…
Trump is clearly counting on democrat extremism to win him the election. If he gets hard hitting factual PAC ads… he’s already won.
My first vote for President was back when the peanut farmer ran. And, I have truly had “buyer’s remorse” with every one of them since.
Then came Trump. I voted for Trump for one reason – he wasn’t Hillary. I’ve never not voted in an election and considered not voting in this one. But, I reluctantly voted for Trump. Very reluctantly.
Boy, am I surprised! I have become a strong Trump supporter. And I have learned two things with his tweets. First, try to find out what his exact words were because the MSM always distorts them. And second, wait, just wait; something else is about to go down. And they are caught off guard. LOL every time.
My favorite internet picture shows Trump sitting at a desk with the wind blowing his hair and red tie. The quote is “The deep state whispered to Trump You cannot withstand the storm” and Trump whispered back “I AM the storm”
Yep, he sure is the storm and they don’t know to take cover.
First Trump doesn’t apologize.
Second he actually likes to fight.
And third the Dems have had things their way for so long they have become fat, lazy, and stupid.
The Dems expected none of this and has them flummoxed.
Not mentioned so far . . . can you imagine any of the two dozen democrats competing for the nomination sitting down with Chairman Xi Jinping face-to-face? The rest of the world plays a tougher game than the U.S. has played for a long time. Since Reagan, in fact . . . and we’re winning. Populist resistance is taking hold in many countries, people are sick and tired of being ruled by their “betters,” and the U.S. is leading the way, thanks to Trump.
Jeff Brokaw: You have condemned Romney and the “National Review set” because Romney lost to Obama in 2012, demonstrating Romney was an inferior candidate and the “National Review set” “actively prevents conservatives from ever winning anything (see Romney, 2012).”
If Trump would have lost to Obama, then your logic would imply Trump was an inferior candidate and his approach also prevents conservatives from winning.
Of course you’re being cagey about not admitting that Trump would have lost to Obama, since that would blow a big hole in your case.
George W. Bush got hundreds of thousands of people killed in a war for no good reason, authorized both spying on Americans without warrants and torturing prisoners, and led this nation into the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.” MBunge
That’s factually untrue on every assertion you make.
Bush was profoundly mistaken but within the context of his flawed rationale had an eminently valid reason to invade Iraq.
there was no excuse for the Coalition Provisional Order #2. Bush has blood on his hands for that.
Jeff Brokaw: Again there’s the Hillary question.
If Trump was such a superior candidate with such a winning approach, putting the National Review set absolutely to shame as disastrous losers, why did Trump have such a tough time dispatching Hillary, the worst Democratic candidate since James Buchanan?
The smart money wasn’t wrong in discounting Trump’s chances. He could easily have lost to Hillary. If 80,000 votes in three populous states had gone the other way, Trump would have lost. If Hillary had listened to Bill Clinton, she would have campaigned in those states (she didn’t) and there seems a more than decent chance she would have won.
If Hillary had beaten Trump, would Trump be an obviously inferior candidate with obviously inferior methods resulting in obviously disastrous effects on Republicans’ chances of winning?
Or does losing only count if it happens to the “National Review set”?
Michael Medved and Mitt Romney’s knickers were in a bunch today.
No doubt David Brooks as well.
It was a very good day.
Look, Trump is entering an election with his #1promise in complete shambles. There is no wall and Mexico hasn’t paid for it.
#2 isn’t much better. There was no repeal of Obamacare let alone a repeal and replace.
All this despite control of all 3 branches for 2 years. Worse still, he has claimed to have already accomplished all the above. Who exactly is he playing for a fool here?
In contrast, when Barack Obama had all 3 branches he put thru Obamacare (with a filibuster proof majority to boot) and provided a Keynesian Stimulus that has lead to the longest economic expansion in US history.
The latter of course forms nearly all the arguments for Trumps re-election (his admin’s success with judiciary picks being the other one, to be fair). How does the Bankers Pary tolerate this?
When the dust settles, EverTrumpers (heh) will have to grapple with these facts. You ain’t got nothing.
Perhaps the British Ambassador is correct.
“Bush tried to get Fannie and Freddie, etc., under control, and so did McCain, in one of his few good moves. They didn’t fight hard enough for it.”
I’m glad we agree that Bush was a miserable failure.
In other words, Bush didn’t fight hard enough to stop democratic policies that had catastrophic consequences for the country and the GOP, nor did he even hasten to warn the public that those policies would lead to disaster. Neither ideas recommend him as a president or a politician.
But it’s actually worse. I recall reading that the administration went along the democrat policies because they believed that it would lead to Republican gains in the Hispanic vote. Noting that people who vote Republican lived in houses, they figured that if you gave Hispanics loans to live in houses, they would vote Republican too.
So really, we can’t even say that Bush tried to stop the catastrophe. He was complicit, because he was completely and utterly wrong about their end result.
Bottom line- he was a ruinous incompetent.
“Would you care to make to argue Trump would have beaten Obama, given how superior you claim Trump is to Romney? If not, what is your claim for Trump’s superiority?”
I have no idea if Trump could have beaten Obama in 2012, not that it matters now.
I will note that Romney was widely expected to defeat Obama, perhaps even by a landslide, and Trump was universally expected lose to Hillary Satan.
If Romney was in fact superior to Trump, as you argue, how the blazes could that happen? Why didn’t Romney exceed expectations, instead of Trump? In fact, why aren’t politicians in the Bush/McCain/Romney axis ever expected to win, or even get anything right?
All of those folks stumbled from disaster to political disaster, shrieking about rank-and-file Republicans who made them fail by not shutting up hard enough.
Romney fit right in. And now he spends his time attempting to undermine Trump from the Senate, because he hadn’t accumulated enough political failure already.
Why in the world would you want to defend such a hapless fool as Mitt Romney?
So I guess manju favors throwing the borders wide open and giving them all free health care, while taking away the health plans of most Americans who are actually citizens. If you think that’s a winning platform go for it. Because that is the overwhelming consensus of the Dem contenders, not just “the Squad”.
Yes he is, and playing it well. A life of visualizing, planning, and executing successfully over and over has created the perfect President for this time in history. Future historians will call this period the Trump Restoration.
It is happening just in time for the next major disruptive evolution, the explosion of job killing technology.
The Boomer Democratic Party has to be destroyed, and it is happening. Trump is uniquely equipped to do it.
A new approach will be needed. Andrew Yang’s book The War On Normal People would be interesting reading for those who follow Neo.
We are way overdue for a recession, and it may be a disaster with months, possibly years, of no bottom.
Buy a rototiller, stock up on shovels, spades, and trowels, start a big garden. It will give you something to do beyond worrying about what is going to happen.
Manju:
Hillary still isn’t the POTUS. The courts are being restored to their proper role (one judge at a time), and RBG will not live forever. You got nothing and never had nothing, sing with the crickets.
If so called conservatives like McCarthy had their way Hillary Clinton would be President and we’d be 2 years into this countries Death Spiral. Another part of Trumps skill is exposing people for what they really are…pushing their buttons until the mask drops.
“there was no excuse for the Coalition Provisional Order #2.” avi
Hindsight is 20/20. A strong argument could and can be made that Coalition Provisional Order #2 was necessary. Saddam’s military, security, and intelligence infrastructure could not be left intact.
That unavoidably left open the rise of Islamic Shia and Sunni elements. There was and is no possibility of democracy in Islamic societies.
Bush’s primary failure was in his premise that enough individuals in Islamic societies desire liberty. Secondly, accepting Bernard Lewis’ assertion that Islam is a Religion of Peace.
“Bush has blood on his hands for that.”
Fighting a murderous enemy does not result in ‘blood on one’s hands” that blood is on the hands of Saddam, his supporters, Shia fanatics and ISIS. Civilian deaths are unavoidable when fighting a war or terrorist groups.
Xennady,
“I recall reading that the administration went along the democrat policies because they believed that it would lead to Republican gains in the Hispanic vote. Noting that people who vote Republican lived in houses, they figured that if you gave Hispanics loans to live in houses, they would vote Republican too.
So really, we can’t even say that Bush tried to stop the catastrophe.”
Believe half of what you read because at best it will be incomplete.
When blocked in Congress, any President can do little about previously passed legislation. Bush had his flaws but you criticize him to too severe a degree.
<iI have no idea if Trump could have beaten Obama in 2012, not that it matters now.
Xennady: It matters for the purpose of this discussion. Romney’s loss to Obama is the big proof Trump supporters wheel out to claim Romney and conventional Republican politics were losing propositions.
However, if Trump would have lost to Obama, then that proof goes poof.
Neither you nor Jeff Brokaw are inclined to consider the possibility, but given that Trump was barely able to defeat the abysmal candidate, Hillary Clinton, I consider it a sucker bet that Trump could have beaten Obama in 2012.
I will note that Romney was widely expected to defeat Obama, perhaps even by a landslide, and Trump was universally expected lose to Hillary Satan.
The former was wishful thinking on the part of some Republicans. Most polls going into the election showed a close election with Obama having the edge.
The latter was the universal media opinion. However, Nate Silver’s web site gave Trump a 28.6% chance to win — not great odds, but not insignificant. There is nothing freakish about 28% odds paying off.
My only criticism of Bush is the same as for his father. They meant well and tried their hardest at everything. Unfortunately you get no points for trying, only for succeeding. Both of them were punching bags for their opponents because they felt that punching back was beneath them. Trump knows that without punching back there is no chance for victory. A good defense will never win a game. The best it can do is tie. You have to have an offense to win.
I won’t say 3d chess, but it turned out to be a masterful stroke.
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1150822302877212674
The other thing Trump has going for him is that anything he says drives those opposed to him absolutely batsh!t crazy. So crazy that I recalled what the Greeks used to believe: those whom the gods wish to destroy, the first drive mad. Trump isn’t Nemesis, but currently he seems to be her right-hand man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FczIzedZ38
Body Language Ghost of the Squad.
Interesting, Omar is the boss.
Hindsight is 20/20. A strong argument could and can be made that Coalition Provisional Order #2 was necessary. Saddam’s military, security, and intelligence infrastructure could not be left intact.
BS one of the early sections of the Prince describes why the empire of Darius didnt revolt after Alexander conquered it. the equivalent of the Iraqi army was left intact.
if they planned on disbanding it they needed more forces.
the whole Iraq debacle was run as incompetantly as JFKs coup against Diem with no thought of who would take over.
and after all were killed , it just emboldened Iran. smart move.
Xennady:
Romney was not widely expected to win the election. The polls were neck and neck, basically tied, going into the election. See this and this. Anyone who expected him to win was riding on hope, not information.
Also, stating the fact that Trump would probably have lost to Obama in 2012 is not defending Romney, either, “hapless fool” or not. It is merely stating that Obama was a far far stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton, so it is impossible to say whether or not Trump would have done better than Romney against him.
For the reasons I stated in my previous comment here, I think Trump would not have beaten Obama either. That doesn’t make Romney a good candidate.
Republicans controlled the House for the first six years of Bush II’s Presidency. They controlled the Senate for four of his first six years in office. It’s not that they didn’t fight hard enough. They didn’t fight at all.
how many republicans ARE democrats playing entryism? heck, trotskyite leftists using trotskies ideas on office holding and race… wouldnt?
Dem. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, “We aren’t in the business of asking for power; we’re in the business of grabbing power.”
Ill ham is a piece of work.
The Iraq War was not a debacle. The Iraq post-war was a debacle. When Fallujah wasn’t required to turn over the lynchers of those four American contractors or be levelled, when I didn’t see “American Military Government” signs going up everywhere, I knew we were going to be over the cliff in short order.
“Romney was not widely expected to win the election.”
He was by most of the people I was reading at the time, which is one reason why I’m no longer reading most of them.
“I think Trump would not have beaten Obama either. That doesn’t make Romney a good candidate.”
I agree. I didn’t really want to elaborate about a possible Trump v. Obama contest, because it didn’t happen. It’s every bit as relevant to today as the question of whether or not Mario Cuomo could have beaten Bill Clinton to win the nomination, or whether or not Cuomo could have then defeated Bush 41.
It maybe interesting to discuss, but not interesting enough for me to write about at 0400 before I leave for work, when I wanted to write about something else.
Romney is just a relic of a past that was–at least on the surface–a lot more “civilized,” and full of high sounding words and “decorum,” a time when a lot of stuffed shirt, prim and proper, uptight Country Club Republicans were the norm–see George Will.
How did their attitude and approach work out for us anyway?
How often did that milquetoast approach put us behind the eight ball, when the other side was–more and more often–playing dirty pool?
Maybe it worked in the past, when the Democrats weren’t so far to the Left and so underhanded and vicious, but it ain’t gonna work in today’s conditions of bare knuckle, bar room brawling.
We don’t need a Flounder, we need a Shark, and Trump’s that Shark.
” It matters for the purpose of this discussion. Romney’s loss to Obama is the big proof Trump supporters wheel out to claim Romney and conventional Republican politics were losing propositions.
However, if Trump would have lost to Obama, then that proof goes poof. ”
I think you vastly overestimate the importance Mittens has to any Trump supporter, or to any Republican, for that matter. I never see Trump supporters mention Romney in any other context than his present hobby of nevertrumping from the Senate. He’s a historical footnote, like Samual Tilden or James Blaine. No one is going to care about him in the future, even if they manage to find out he existed. Enough about him. He’s merely the most recent in a long line of failed Republican candidates and failed Bush presidencies.
I’ll elaborate, at least about the failures I personally remember. We have Bush 41, who followed the success of Reagan, and had the USSR collapse on his watch. He managed to lose to a dope-smoking draft-dodging corrupt liar from a tiny state with only two million people. This was not a success story for conventional Republican politics.
Then we had Bob Dole, a genuine war hero, who still managed to lose to Clinton. But that loss was abetted by the corruption of Clinton, who took untold millions from China to fund his campaign, illegally, which- to charitably interpret- Dole didn’t want to make an issue about. This was not a success story for conventional Republican politics.
Then we got Bush, who won, barely, after a constitutional crisis. He proceeded to fail to stop the 9/11 attack, involved us in a 20-year foreign aid expedition to the country responsible- I can’t call it a war- and allowed the policies of his predecessor escape blame for the attack. He then invaded a country that wasn’t involved, embarking upon a nation building exercise of the sort he promised not to do before he was elected.
Then, he barely defeated John Kerry, traitor, who despicably arranged to get three purple hearts despite never spending a day in the hospital. Bush followed up by failing to stop a catastrophic economic collapse, failing even to make the other party pay a price for its advocacy of the policies that led to disaster. This was not a success story for conventional Republican politics.
Then there was McCain. He seriously threatened to switch parties at least twice, regularly attacked Republican voters, and spent money running an ad congratulating Obama when he won his nomination. Shockingly, he lost. He sidewise blamed that failure on his running mate.This was not a success story of- you get it?
Mittens is the last in a long line of failures. So much so that I can barely muster any animosity against him. I loath McCain- still, even though he’s now suffering his retirement in Antenora- and I loath Bush, deeply and viscerally. But I can’t bother to care much about Mittens.
Bottom line- the failure of the gop goes back a long way. It was so thorough that an orange haired reality TV star was able to go through the best Republican field of my lifetime like that proverbial knife through the proverbial butter.
But no, conventional gop was like totes successful, because reasons! Feel better now?
So a few sort of whacky things fell out this afternoon, some of which might point in the direction of a chess match win, maybe: 1) the House held another stupid vote on impeaching Trump, which was voted down with all the Repubs and 137 Dems together as NOs, 332-95 ish, 2) Trump, leaving for his NC rally managed to talk about Rep. Omar’s brother marriage problem while saying he knows nothing about it apart from “hearing” it’s a fact, and that surely “someone” is looking into it, and 3) the SDNY announced it has ended without any charges its investigation into the Trump Organization and hush money payoffs. Pffffft. Nothing, nadda.
titan28 on July 16, 2019 at 4:57 pm puts it very well indeed:
Huzzah! *applause*
. . .
. I wish Pres. Bush “43” hadn’t gotten No Child Left Behind enacted.
. I really really wish he had fought harder to get Social Security privatized — it seemed to me (from watching TV at the time) that he was prepared to push it, then suddenly wilted. A great pity.
. And then there was Medicare Part D. Warnings were issued that registering for Part D would be be a huge mistake. Indeed so, but when Obamacare finally got up and not “running,” exactly, but lurching along, millions of us found that we couldn’t get private Major Medical — now called “Medicare Supplemental” — unless we signed up for Part D. Those of us who’d had drug insurance plans through the employer were fortunate indeed….
In an ideal world, The Surge and resultant pacification would have been continued by the next Administration. But then I suppose everyone has gathered my position on his successor in office, who saw fit to take apart the occupation.
I will note that there is, somewhere on YouTube, a video of part of a speech by Pres. Bush in which he told the American public straightforwardly and flat-out that it would be necessary to stay in Iraq for a long, long time. Unfortunately I don’t have the link. It seems to me that it was fairly early in the war, but I’m not sure about that.
It was obvious to a lot of us even before the invasion that if we pulled down Saddam and then walked away, there would be a power vacuum which would instantly be filled by very bad guys. Pres. Bush succeeded, finally, in plugging that hole in the sewer, but it needed to be guarded and the plug replaced day after day. This, of course, was not on Obama’s agenda — quite the opposite, if you ask me; thus so much unnecessarily spilt blood, and of course the Usual Suspects managed to manipulate the record so that many are convinced the war was ill-conceived and the buckets of blood that were actually due to Obama’s misdeeds were taken from his hands and poured over Pres. Bush’s head instead.
.
Anyway, thanks to the following in particular, for pointing out some mistakes in the common narrative about Pres. Bush:
Kate on July 16, 2019 at 7:13 pm :
huxley on July 16, 2019 at 7:23 pm said:
Thanks for the link, Huxley. I was coming up empty looking for the official list. :>)
Andy on July 16, 2019 at 7:23 pm explains more about the 2008 economic mess, starting with the 1977 Community Recovery act and help along by the machinations of Fannie and Freddie.
Good stuff.
Among other things, Geoffrey Britain on July 16, 2019 at 10:37 pm noted:
.
Some thoughts about the desire for freedom coming down the pike, I hope.