Here’s a little history for you. On Election Night in November 2000, I was working as a poll watcher in East Windsor, New Jersey. I was living in Hightstown at the time, but East Windsor was where I voted. After the polls closed, I observed while the count was taken from each machine and then tallied up. Once I had the numbers, I called them in to a number I had been assigned, and then I left to go home.
When I got in the car, there was some great news. Al Gore was projected to be the winner. The polls had closed in most of Florida, but they were still open in the heavily Republican Panhandle that borders Alabama. There wasn’t much political news back then on the radio. I didn’t have the POTUS channel on Sirius. So, I tuned to WABC out of New York City which was carrying The Sean Hannity Show.
I had actually been listening to Hannity for a couple of months on my way home from work because it was the only program on my radio discussing the election at that time of day. I’d grown to loath the man, but I needed my political fix.
I had been disturbed enough by the whole impeachment fiasco to get involved in politics for the first time. Initially, I worked tirelessly as a volunteer for Bill Bradley, but when he lost I focused on things like becoming a poll watcher and trying to help beat Rep. Chris Smith who was my congressman. I had learned from the Republican Mercer County Executive (his wife was my secretary) that Chris Smith was so opposed to abortion that he wouldn’t set foot on any part of the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in Hamilton because they had an department of obstetrics.
In any case, my nut-job congressman aside, when I turned on my radio, Sean Hannity was apoplectic. He was screaming from his studio in New York at every resident of the Florida panhandle, imploring them to get off their butts and go vote because it looked like Gore was winning the Sunshine State and was going to become the next president. He was beside himself with terror.
We all know what happened next. The first results showed Bush ahead, Gore called to concede, then called back to unconcede, and the country and the world took a ruinous path.
Somewhere in my head, I was always tempted to credit/blame Hannity’s last ditch desperate pleas on the radio that evening for ripping a hole in the fabric of history and setting us on this disastrous course.
I mention all this, because Hannity is growing similarly apoplectic.
The conservative pundit told listeners of his talk radio show on Wednesday that he was “sick and tired” of House Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others who condemned Trump’s controversial criticism of the parents of a slain Muslim American soldier.
“If in 96 days Trump loses this election, I am pointing the finger directly at people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and John McCain,” Hannity said. “I have watched these Republicans be more harsh toward Donald Trump than they’ve ever been in standing up to Barack Obama and his radical agenda.
“They did nothing, nothing — all these phony votes to repeal and replace Obamacare, show votes so they can go back and keep their power and get reelected,” Hannity continued. “Sorry, you created Donald Trump, all of you. Because of your ineffectiveness, because of your weakness, your spinelessness, your lack of vision, your inability to fight Obama.”
He added: “I’m getting a little sick and tired of all of you. I am, honestly, I am tempted to just say I don’t support any of you people ever.”
I won’t blame those folks for Trump losing, but I agree with most of the rest of what Hannity has to say about them. The only thing I really disagree with is the idea that they didn’t fight Obama. They did what Hannity asked even when it was clearly a suicide mission. They went right along with Hannity’s Gallipoli Campaign against a far smarter adversary in the president. Sometimes they grumbled that sending waves of riflemen against machine guns and artillery fire wasn’t going to be effective, but they were told that they lacked vision and spine and not to demonstrate weakness or compromise.
I don’t know what’s going to be left of the Republican party by mid-November. Hannity doesn’t seem to have effective plan for that either.
I’m not so sure that Hannity really is concerned or even needs to be. The guy has a pretty sweet deal in the grift-filled world of The Mighty Wurlitzer. The only beef he might have is that he could be required to update his schtick a bit. Though if a Democrat remains in the White House, he won’t really need to do much to tweak his operation. Just reset his talking points and memes from racism to full blown misogyny and he’ll be set to go, full steam ahead.
I have a feeling he won’t even have to break a sweat.
That’s true, except he’s going to have some problems landing guests.
If he gets tired of listening to his own heavy breathing and the dragging of his knuckles against the ground, there will be all the Trump enablers and dead enders. Pence, whose official job seems to be carrying the poop scoop and cleaning up where the Donald has roamed, can become a regular.
I would expect that he and all these people against whom he is railing will come to an understanding based on the mutual desire to stay relevant. That is kind of one of the foundational principles of the right-wing grifter, isn’t it? They really have no consistent mooring, aside from hating Democrats. They are all chameleons, who change attributes in an instant, based on the present perceived threat and circumstances in their environment. Whatever works to their immediate advantage is the principle de jour.
Good points, but personal relationships count for a lot. I get radio interview requests semi-regularly, and I’m not going on with someone who called my spineless and ineffective and blamed me for not following their crazy demands to a crazy enough extent.
There will, most certainly, be some price paid by Hannity if he continues in this mutually assured destruction mode. There is a limit to what old guard Republicans will tolerate. And despite the neutering they are getting from Trump and his torch and pitchfork crowd, they do still wield a sizable amount of power. Hannity knows this, but I’m not sure he cares.
I hope Lumpy has a full-blown, sever stroke on the air on (or even before) election night. Hell, I hope he has a Scanners-style head explosion.
A heart attack isn’t enough. It needs to be his what’s left of his brain.
Sweet. Few people are more complicit than Hannity in creating an electorate that would consider Trump to be presidential.
Watching him melt down fills me with joy.
You said what I would have said if you hadn’t said it first.
Another ex-CIA chief has endorsed Clinton.
I can tell this makes you want to vote for Trump.
I think what Bob’s remark reflects is the idea that if X endorses Clinton, then this must mean that Clinton and the Democratic Party have agreed to adopt X’s positions on any and all issues. It’s a peculiar line of reasoning.
Birds of a feather? If Albright and Brzezinski and KISSINGER all think she’s the cat’s meow regarding our foreign policy, then she certainly isn’t the peace candidate.
That’s silly, Bob. They, like we, have to live in the post-election world. Trump would be a disaster for everyone — especially those most impacted by foreign policy.
I’m not happy with Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy impulses, either, but there’s still something peculiar about your apparent logic. I agree with my gun-rights Republican neighbor about certain issues of a local, Portland nature, but that doesn’t mean that I’ve signed on to his worldview. We just happen to agree occasionally.
From the wiki entry for the Safari Club:
The United States was not a member of the group [the Safari Club], but was involved to some degree, particularly through its Central Intelligence Agency. Henry Kissinger is credited with the American strategy of supporting the Safari Club implicitly–allowing it to fulfill American objectives by proxy without risking direct responsibility.[13] This function became particularly important after the U.S. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 and the Clark Amendment in 1976, reacting against covert military actions orchestrated within the government’s Executive branch.[14]
+++
Considering that Brzezinski was planning on undercutting the Soviet presence in Afghanistan at the time using the Mujahadeen and the House of Saud, it appears that while not officially being a member of the Safari Club that it pretty much served the interests of US foreign policy.
Jonathan Marshall (father of Josh and an investigative reporter in his own right) wrote about the Safari Club decades ago.
Brzezinski, Kissinger. Do you think that Henry thought that Hillary was the best SOS since him and he didn’t mention the Safari Club to her? How about Colonia Dignitad?
By the way, a similar development arose out of congressional strictures against domestic spying. I don’t know if anyone remembers the ADL spying operation which grew out of “security concerns” around the DNC in San Francisco in 1984. The ring, which included an SFPD cop with CIA work, spied on all sorts of lefty groups, businesses and organizations, including my union local. When it finally came into the courts the spying info gleaned from our union (and all other groups) was ruled private property.
Thus, more CIA banks, more plausible deniability. More secrecy. More lies. The usual.
what does any of that have to do with Hillary Clinton?
besides the fact that they endorsed her over Trump (and any rational person would) there really isn’t any connection
Jim, plans for Afghanistan were drawned up under Brzezinski in the seventies, using the Safari Club to defeat the Soviets. You see, bipartisanship in the CIA. The CIA is incredibly dirty and incredibly insinuated into our foreign policy.
To imagine that each newly-elected President enters office as a clean slate is naive. To think that the CIA, and those who it represents, somehow sit back and let the people’s will be done in the US when it doesn’t let the people’s will be done anywhere else in the world is naive. To think that the CIA doesn’t have plans for its continuation is naive.
Kissinger was in the middle of overthrowing Allende and putting in a fascist regime in Chile, and the CIA during this period was setting up Operation Condor. (As Elvis Costello sang at this point in time, “it seems that South America is coming into style…”)
Do you think that after Nixon was exiled to California that the CIA kept all those secrets from Ford? How about Carter, as Brzezinski used the Safari Club to undermine the Soviet presence in Afghanistan? And again, the Safari Club/BCCI/House of Saud/CIA used the same networks for Iran-contra. And while Bill Clinton lobbed missiles all over the Middle East and Africa “against” al Qaeda they continued to function through intelligence services to include our own. The result of this duplicity is that the US is fighting a war in Syria not to rid it of head-chopping Sunni extremists but to push the Alawites out of power to allow for that Qatari gas line.
Here’s a thought for you: Would they have endorsed Sanders against Trump? I’d say no, because our foreign policy is ultimately a money-making scam, not the defense of our freedom.
you still haven’t connected it to Hillary but keep going at least you’re entertaining
What do these endorsements have to do with the policies Clinton will pursue once in the WH? There is no evidence that they will sway her, the point of these endorsements are to sway others not her any way.
To answer your question, I did not think Sanders would make a good president and I still don’t think he has what it takes but if he won and the choice was between him and Trump I would have voted for him because he’s the lesser of two evils.
You are still living in the Manichaean universe of black and white.
I have no idea of what Sanders would try to do but I’m pretty sure of what the corridors of power would allow him do.
If you cannot see the continuity of our foreign policy under Republican and Democratic presidents and think that endorsements from Kissinger, Brzezinski and Albright are merely because they thinks Clinton is somehow better and that their scale of better or worse matches your view of black and white, then that’s your choice. May you stand proudly side by side with that cast of characters.
I would suggest you go back and read what I’ve written that you find difficult to acknowledge. If you think that the dirty secrets of our foreign policy over the last seventy years have been kept from H. Clinton, then I think underestimate her. Sort of like the belief that the Honduran military would and could stage a coup without US intelligence knowing about it, or Clinton not knowing that the weapons deals she made with the House of Saud, Qatar et al still are the same weapons that keep showing up with ISIS and their allies, then you have reached a level of consciousness that I cannot duplicate.
you fail to make the connections that you are asserting and it’s my fault because I can’t read some tea leaves that only you and a handful of others seem to see?
It’s like that math joke meme where on the chalk board in the middle of the problem it says “a miracle occurs”
I fail to make the connections suitable to your standards. You see no connections in the foreign policies of Kissinger, Brzezinski, Albright, Rice and Clinton. You think that the same cast supports Clinton because she is more rational than Trump, but not because she will continue the same path.
Read up on the Safari Club. Ask yourself if Clinton spent eight years in the White House, eight years in the Senate and four years as SOS without any understanding of or connection with these war criminals or their secret agreements or their covert actions, or the lies of state to justify military actions. You probably thought that there were WMDs back in 2002, didn’t you?
You can lead a horse to water, except for the dead one that Booman keeps beating (although with enough help you can drag the dead horse to water).
I am not sure what you know, what you understand and where to point you. You’ve read about the coup in Chile, right? You know that Kissinger was behind that, right? Do you know anything about the Safari Club or is this the first time you’ve heard of a covert entity that’s existed since the seventies?
There is no miracle. There are empty spaces on your blackboard where YOU imagine miracles occur. It’s human nature. We can’t know everything so we have to each fill in the blanks. But when you see unfamiliar terms you might want to investigate them before claiming that the person who knows something you don’t know is somehow imagining it.
you’re not making a connection at all that’s the problem
just listing all their names in one sentence is not how connections are made
just listing all the bad actions each has done and then saying see they endorse Clinton she must be wanting to do more of the same without any intervening step is just silly
I get it you don’t like Clinton and you want to jump on any tangential information and say “see I told you” without making the corresponding steps to connect them to some nefarious plot on her part. I understand but that doesn’t make it right.
I’m not some Clinton booster as you can see from my comment history. Elections are about choices available, not choices against some perfect candidate and given our system the choice is between the 2 main parties.
Hillary Clinton approved weapons sales to Qatar and the House of Saud at the end of her time as secretary of state. These are the major backers of ISIS. Sunni royalty then made big donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Then ISIS appears and we fight them with one hand behind our backs while chastising Russia for bombing al Qaeda formations fighting side by side with ISIS. If it hasn’t become apparent to you, the US has been trying to overthrow the Assad regime, using ISIS as an excuse. Maybe you haven’t noticed that.
Now do you think that H. Clinton, subsequent to stepping down from her role as SOS said to herself, “Gee, I’ve accidentally inadvertantly armed the coven of terrorists!”? No, you know that she knew what she was doing. Do you think that Kerry has no knowledge of where all those white Toyota trucks came from? Do you think, as head of the State Department, that Clinton had no inkling of the Honduran coup before it happened? Do you think that when she was laying the foundation of the fascist-backed coup in Ukraine that she didn’t know about the fascists or their seventy-year history with the US intelligence services? Do you think that she had no knowledge of the Safari Club in all her years in government, just like you? Do you think she supported the Vietnam War because it felt like the right thing to do but that she had no idea about what it was about? Do you think that when Bush did the whole WMD schtick that Hillary actually believed it? Do you think that she had a “hole” between the Safari Club, bin Laden and US strategic goals in the region?
Do you think that Kissinger, or Brzezinski or Albright would endorse her knowing that she doesn’t understand or know anything about the US’s continuing foreign policy even after being SOS for four years? You see, the holes you see are in your narrative.
You can pretend that I know nothing, but doesn’t it get a little burdensome to pretend that Hillary and everyone in the government are also ignorant of what our statecraft has done and where it’s heading?
If Hillary and Kissinger were handcuffed together you wouldn’t see a connection, because you have been trained not to see a connection.
If you want to continue to pretend that you don’t see what’s in front of you, then go right ahead. If you see references to which you are unfamiliar, ask me about them and I’ll steer you to sources. But I can’t show someone who is willfully ignorant what they don’t want to see. I’ve asked you before what you know about the coup in Chile. You know about the coup and Kissinger’s involvement in it. Do you think that Hillary doesn’t know about the US/Kissinger’s involvement in that coup? Do you think that Hillary is so magnanimous that she can separate Kissinger the war criminal and what he did as Nixon’s henchman from his compliment to her? Do you think he never talked to her about “stuff”?
At a certain point I give up on you. If you want to know something, I’ll point you to various resources. But you are quite the opposite. Comments sections are not the place to fill in the blanks in your knowledge.
I will also add that Booman gets upset with hijacking his threads, so we’ve already more than used up our allotment here.
Again, if there is something that you don’t understand, specifically, don’t see a “connection”, then feel free to ask me. But if you don’t know and don’t want to know I can’t help you.
this entire conversation started because you asserted that the endorsements were going to influence her policy or that they were proof that her policy is awful already and they agree with it
You still have yet to show how or why Clinton’s policies would change due to their endorsement or what policies she’s already is pursuing that got them to endorse that are outside of President Obama is already doing.
US foreign policy doesn’t exist in a vacuum and can’t be unwound in areas we would all like to see changed at a fast speed. History, alliances, treaties and inertia are going to ensure that progress will be extremely slow.
Hillary’s foreign policy, as reflected by her time as SOS, is the same as the American foreign policy since WWII. The people who carried out that foreign policy, often in the most despicable ways, have endorsed Clinton. Because she will immediately change it, avoid conflict, stop using military and covert means to benefit corporate investment overseas?
No. Jim, look up the terms you aren’t familiar with and come back and ask me.
Or they know Trump is insane and that Clinton is the only other option.
Pushing Russia into a nuclear exchange, if not stupid, is probably shortsighted.
link
What secrets did Kissinger keep from Clinton? To know that the US is fronting terrorism seems like something you wouldn’t keep from your successor, especially if you think she’s the best since you.
Do you think that the 29 pages of the 9/11 panel were secret to Clinton? After all, Bill was dutifully shooting missiles at al Qaeda and bin Laden in Africa and Pakistan while he was being run by the Safari Club. You think that our foreign policy for the last half century was compartmentalized between the two parties? Really?
While your logic is impeccable, in this case it’s wrong.
Gonna be a neat trick when she does everything Robert Kagan wants her to do and everything her other endorsers want, like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Noam Chomsky, all at the same time, huh? Interesting universe Bob lives in.
Unpossible. Your choice on which faction will hold the most sway and get the big goodies.
You’re in the same universe. You can’t be all things to all people. Speculating whose interests will be represented is part of the political process for voters.
So do you think she’ll go with the money or with those too pure people?
No, not at all. Actually, the surge at the polls for Clinton is somewhat relieving, although I can’t vote for her. She is clearly the candidate of the status quo, and slow death is better than racists killing people in the streets. We’ll still get racists killing people in the streets but it won’t be organized by the federal government.
Also, as a tip of the hat to you, Booman, is that this a.m. 538 has Arizona very close, just as you’d predicted.
Of course you can’t vote for her. Wouldn’t want to stain your pristine soul.
Every time I start to think that I trust Bernie and he makes a good case for voting HRC someone comes along and reminds me just what HRC supporters are like. Every time!
Yes: smart, pragmatic, practical.
I have a grandchild due in September. I’d hate to see her have to grow up in the aftermath of a nuclear war.
It’s also curious how people who won’t vote for Clinton because of their conscience are being condemned as too pure for the world.
Okay, you accept the division of wealth in the US. You accept the militarization of the local police forces. You accept the total spy state on us. You accept the destruction of the middle/working class. You accept the merging of the media to a few international corporations. You accept a candidate who wants to make war against Russia, THE OTHER MAJOR NUCLEAR POWER.
Well, I guess I’m a little purer than you then, if that’s how you want to define it.
Also, as I’m an atheist my beliefs have nothing to do with “souls”.
Voting Trump is blindingly stupid and dangerous, but does the stream of endorsements from extremely conservative voices give you any pause at all? Not in terms of who to vote for, but in terms of what to expect? Or are you confident that, as with donations of millions of dollars, Clinton is uniquely able to accept them without any increase in the possibility of even the mildest reciprocation?
Of course not. Winning is everything, doncha know, and the bigger the win the better. It’s how the war party has remained in office throughout most US history. Peace isn’t popular.
I’m not answering for Booman or anyone else (other than me). It’s not that winning is everything. It’s that Hillary, as imperfect as she is, is still orders of magnitude better and safer than Trump. The ball is alwys rolling backwards or forwards. Rolling it forwards slowly is better than letting it roll backwards fast. Heck, letting it roll backwards slowly is better than letting it roll backwards fast. That’s my ridiculously simplistic way of explaining the obvious.
Too simplistic. Any and ever ball rolls sideways through 360 degrees as well. Airborne? Up and down, too.
That is a shitload of options through time.
Four dimensions at the very least. You two-dimensional explanation resembles stick figures in a Rembrandtian world.
WTFU
AG
I absolutely agree that Clinton is orders of magnitude better than Trump. (And as far as that goes, I actually find her likable; I suspect I’d like her more on a personal level than I’d like her husband or Obama.) So I completely understand, as you say, ‘the obvious.’
My question for Boo–and for you, if you’ll answer–is if these endorsements exclusively give you a thrill of impending victory or also a frisson of dread? I feel both, myself, but the dread is certainly there.
The one thing, perhaps the only thing, that puts Trump ahead of Hillary morally is his lack of warmongering. Simple as that.
We know that Clinton presidency will bring misery around the world. More coups. More military and economic interventions. More dead people. More money drained from our treasury for the advancement of corporate wealth. The question is whether or not she’ll step over the line and get into a shooting war with Russia. The Russians look to Trump as the peace candidate. They know who’s pointing guns at them.
The idea that Trump is lacking warmongering baffles me. He wonders why we shouldn’t use nukes. We have them, right? Why not use them. It’ll stop Isis so fast your head will spin. Also might work with North Korea. Let’s find out! The degree of his warmongering recklessness is almost literally inconceivable. Say what you will about Clinton, she’ll monger her wars with deeply considered intent, not like a drunk in a bar packing an aircraft carrier.
I am not convinced that Trump isn’t a useful idiot for how the corridors of power always wanted this election to turn out. And if he were elected I am sure he would not be immune to the same pressures that have affected the executive branch since WWII.
So pointing out the course that Clinton will undoubtedly take is not the same as endorsing Trump. I expect that Sanders would be subject to the same pressures, so, really, my view of politics in the US is that it’s pretty much entertainment on the lido deck of the Titanic. And I realize it’s annoying to point out the obvious to people who want to be true believers.
I remember drinking Irish whiskey with a friend the night after the elections in 2008, and while we were celebrating the defeat of Bush we came to the conclusion that even with Obama we were still f*cked.
It must have been very depressing for Cassandra.
. . . especially about the future.” — attributed to anonymous Danish Member of Parliament 1937-1938 by Danish politician Karl Kristian Steincke, 1948; variants attributed to Yogi Berra, Mark Twain, others.
Not difficult for Bob, though!
To be fair on the Trump nuke point. Anonymous sources (that appear to have a political agenda) are reporting something after the fact. Not in context and rarely are such reports verbatim. It’s a she/he said vs. a he says. Granted the “he says” guy doesn’t have a record for being truthful and frequently displays appalling ignorance. However, the other party is anonymous and therefore, can’t be subjected to tests for honesty, etc.
Also can’t ignore the fact that M. Albright made a similar comment to Colin Powell when he briefed her. He included it one of his books and Albright hasn’t disputed it.
CW is we must have nukes and first strike capability is US policy but they aren’t supposed to be used. It’s not rational. Trump’s not rational. But that doesn’t mean that his question was irrational or that he longs to lob nukes.
Let’s not presume to know what Russians know. They have a bit more experience living under the thumb of an erratic and not well wired together leader and it’s not pretty. Doubtful that they have any illusions about the prospects for them with HRC as POTUS. However, does that mean that they have concluded that the prospects for them with Trump as POTUS are better and aren’t potentially worse?
Gosh, where have I heard that sort of unwarranted certitude before?
[thinking . . . thinking . . . thinking . . . ]
Oh, right, I remember now!
Gosh, what could possibly be wrong with such a declaration? What could possibly go wrong with acting on it?
Epistemology 101
We know?
How could we possibly know?
Okay, Jim, you don’t know.
neither do you
I had a pretty good feel of how the Obama Administration was going to turn out, but in 2008 I wasn’t bleak enough.
The range was always from whatever a HRC administration would be like to Nixon (economy/environment) and Ike (foreign policy). Not good, but …
Trump’s lack of warmongering? Goodness, Bob, you are one credulous person.
Despite his lies about his pre-Iraq War views, Trump has been very clear that he would conduct a genocidal military policy in the Middle East, strongly supplemented by the CIA and MIC you so ominously warn us about. Who in the fuck do you think is going to be killing the families of people Trump decides are terrorists?
And you may think poorly of the world order, but to willingly cast it asunder for no vision at all would be exceedingly dangerous and highly immoral.
I mean, I can’t EVEN.
Okay, lack of warmongering against another major nuclear power who view H. Clinton as the bigger threat. You know that, right? You think you know better than the FSB?
Do you think that the CIA will do exactly what Trump wants? They didn’t do what JFK wanted (they killed him), they didn’t do what LBJ wanted (they told him what they wanted), they didn’t do what Nixon wanted (they got rid of him when he was too big for his britches), they didn’t do what Carter wanted (re: October Surprise). And Reagan and Bush I were former CIA employees (Reagan was spokesman for the Congress For Freedom, a CIA group that imported Nazis and fascists into the US in the fifties, and GHW was, of course, DCI and probably a lot of other things before that). Then Lucianne Goldberg and her buddy from Delta Force tried to bring down Bill Clinton. Goldberg was using a CIA cover when she was spying on the McGovern campaign in 1972.
So what war has Trump declared? What regime has he overthrown? How many people died from Trump’s drones? How many coups has he been part of? And speaking of genocide, do you think the Salafists in Syria who are getting weapons, supplies and training from our good buddies the Saudis and the Qataris AREN’T committing genocide against the Alawites, Christians et al?
Right now the Russian press backs Trump by default (there was some support for Sanders when he was viable) because they loathe the cold warrior that Clinton is. The Russians presume she will start a shooting war with them in Syria and/or Ukraine, maybe the Baltics. And they have more experience than you or I do with American imperialism.
This is where you and I disagree strongly. Trump has no say in Washington circles. Hillary is the choice of the status quo.
By the way, if you didn’t believe that Hillary and Bill had hits on all those people who died in the 90s, then why do you think that Trump could get away with it?
Seriously?
This from the guy who unhesitatingly declares “we know” the unknowable (the future fercrissakes!).
(No response to the rest. That was about as far as I could make myself stick with it.)
Yeah, I get that — Trump is horrible, awful, no good — and I don’t disagree. And each of us gets only one vote (assuming that it’s counted) to have a say in defining the next four years. We don’t get a do-over on that if it should turn out to be horribly wrong.
Where I disagree is that merely voting against someone by voting for the only perceived viable but unacceptable alternative is well-considered. (Disclosure, I’ve never voted third party in any election.) I still maintain that Gore would have been better than GWB, but as Gore was a DLC Dem, who among us can state without reservation that his responses to the 2001-2002 recession and 9/11 would have been all that different from GWB’s? That lag time between what a POTUS does in office and how that manifests within the economy and foreign affairs extends far beyond the subsequent election. Even knowing that and being as fully informed as an ordinary citizen can be expected to be, the choice in general elections are highly constricted.
Not as easily predictably bad is a very low bar. In part because it reinforces the notion to party leaders that “not as bad” is good enough. Was Carter really “not as bad” as Ford would have been? No question that LBJ was both very good and very bad and that there would have been no good with Goldwater and his bad would have been as bad or worse. Difficult not to conclude the same wrt to HHH and Nixon and McGovern and Nixon (although McGovern may have been hamstrung and unable to accomplish much good).
Where Democrats have been failing for decades is in the primary elections. From 1976 through 2004 few Democrats were even authentic participants in the choice. And too many that were able to participate, demonstrated appallingly bad judgment. Tsongas? Really?
A number of Democrats did sense in 1980 that Carter had to go. Yet, it was difficult to get on the Kennedy train because of his major shortcomings and much of his support wasn’t based on a rational analysis but on Kennedy nostalgia/mystique. And I’m not sure that by 1980 Kennedy could have functioned as an effective President. Later, yes. Then, probably not.
Many, many factors and variable to weigh.
I do think it’s concerning if she ends up thinking she owes them. All the more reason for us hippies to make all the noise of support we can–for her AND the outstanding Democratic platform, that has to be part of the deal–so she can see she owes us more.
The mistake the left has made with every Democratic president since FDR died, just about, is to start off on this suspicious and negative footing. In particular the Jimmy Carter we’ve known since 1980 could have been the Jimmy Carter who was president if he’d had any support from the left. Much better politics is to do what the united front did in 1932 and ASSUME the president wants to listen (whether we really believe it or not) and tell her, in a friendly and encouraging tone.
I’m not sure if she’ll think she owes them in terms of policy positions. She’s extremely bright and capable and assured. I do, however, think that highly-visible endorsements and high-dollar donations obviously give the endorser and the donor a voice. You’d have to be churlish not to listen to someone who supported you in a notable way at a critical time. I do not believe that Clinton is churlish.
So I think these endorsements make two things clear: one, the policies that Clinton is bright and capable and assured about are largely acceptable to some of the most (non-ravening crazed nativist) right-wing voices in the country. And two, because power speaks in politics, some of the voices which will be speaking to her in friendly and encouraging tones are most notably the ones whose donations and endorsements are most notable.
You’re assuming that if A supports B, the only possible explanation is that B has adopted A’s nefarious agenda.
It cannot possibly be that A has tacitly agreed to support B’s agenda.
When Arlen Specter jumped from the GOP to the Democratic Party, did it mean that the Democratic Party had suddenly adopted all the positions that Specter had hitherto been pushing? Just one example.
Your reading of ‘increase in the possibility of even the mildest reciprocation’ as ‘adopted nefarious agenda’ is perhaps not entirely accurate.
If a dozen Arlen Specters jump from the GOP to the Dems, is that more like to shift the Democratic party leftward or rightward–or not change anything at all?
I accept all sane people into the movement.
What “movement?”
There’s nothing sane about those that bomb first and avoid all questions later.
Nothing sane about advocating a gig economy (everybody is an entrepreneur) for all.
I’m not asking if you accept them. I’m asking if accepting them gives you any pause.
Gawker (because its headline cuts to the chase on the known and relevant facts) — I Ran the C.I.A. Now I Work For a Longtime Clinton Ally’s Consulting Firm and Am Endorsing Hillary Clinton
When the CIA was created after WWII it was essentially an international version of the old coal and iron police (Look it up if you don’t know about the coal and iron police), protecting American (and allied) investments around the globe, often by beating up and killing people. Thus Guatemala, Iran and a hundred other regime changes to make the world safe for the Yankee Dollar.
After the sixties assassinations and Nixon’s presidency produced alarm among the progressives in Congress, much of the CIA’s work was privatized, or put into that ambiguous area of private/public enterprise. This isn’t at all surprising in retrospect, as the CIA was formed by Wall Street lawyers like the Dulleses. Just imagine an enterprise created by the Dulleses whose workforce at its creation consisted of about twenty percent agents from Gehlen’s Org (that estimate given by Oglesby). Carter’s attempts to dismantle the more violent elements of the CIA only sped up the process. If Blackwater helps US corporations gain in Iraq and Afghanistan, then its part of our foreign policy. If they are exposed as thieves, torturers and murderers then they were a bad contract. So Blackwater changes its name a few times, or someone else creates a similar group of Hessians, and the game continues. Arms sales these days are more easily hidden, money moves without a trail back to the source. Privatization has made “Follow the money” more difficult to pursue. That’s what makes the Clinton Foundation such a juicy entity, though at a level not so despicable as, say, BCCI or Nugan Hand or the many deregulated S&Ls that have traces of cocaine in their ruins.
Anyone ever wonder who’s dipping their beaks into the business of Afghan opium? Hint: They were dipping their beaks since the Guerini Gang took out the commies on the docks of Marseilles.
One doesn’t need to know any of that old stuff to correctly assess the Morrell endorsement. One only needs to recall the legions of military/”security” flacks, hacks, and sycophants that dominated the airwaves and VSP-endorsements during the Bush/Cheney regime. If y’all liked that, you’ll love HRC.
None.
Duly noted. Not thrilled. The spooks appear to really despise Trump. Well I can’t blame them… even if they’re spooks.
My feelings are similar to yours. Kissinger, Spooks, Meg Whitman. Gah.
But interestingly, Mayor R. Scott Silverthorne’s ill fortune suggests that not all sexual hypocrites are Republicans. I guess, along with our foreign policy and Wall Street embrace, the centrist Dems now embrace snorting meth off young men’s abs.
Snorting meth offa young male’s abs? Wowie. Well this is a new wrinkle. I haven’t heard the story.
Breaking today. Busted yesterday.
I’d missed it was homosexual sex. Its like a stereotype, wow.
Duly noted that several commenters claim he’s a Democrat, even though, apparently he says he’s an Independent. Whatever. Not great no matter what party.
Here’s somewhat similar news about the Mayor of Stockton CA:
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/05/mayor-of-stockton-calif-arrested-for-p
laying-strip-poker-with-teens-and-secretly-recording-it#comments
Anthony Silva is registered as a Republican and has been surrounded by controversy. Now busted for, among other things, playing stip poker with underage children at a summer camp that he sponsored.
Skeeviness crosses party lines, methinks.
Democrats/liberals aren’t supposed to highlight or use sexual orientation when a politician gets into legal difficulties. (However, does seem okay when the politician is a Republican b/c that indicates that said politician us also a hypocrite.)
Publicly, Silverthorne appears to have identified as single and sexually ambiguous, but supportive of equal rights for the LGBT community.
The GOP has its own problem with the Mayor of Stockton.
“the centrist Dems now embrace snorting meth off young men’s abs.”
Jeezus K. Reist, Bob, isn’t think taking guilt by association just a wee bit too far?
Yeah. I don’t see where “Centrist Dems” support behavior like that. Maybe I’m missing something, but seems like this behavior is on the Mayor. I certainly don’t support it.
Sean Hannity can pound sand.
I guess it’s of some interest to note his on air tirade, but all that proves to me is that he’s doing what he’s highly compensated to do by his 1% paymasters: demonize, villify and diss the dastardly evil satanists in the horrible awful Democrat party.
What else is new? Well, I suppose jumping all over Yurtle, the Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver & Walnuts the Maverick might be sort of new. I wouldn’t know for sure.
Load of hooey. IOW, another day ending in “y.” And I’m sure Hannity’s already got his Playbook geared up and at the ready to go full-throated misogynistic, sexist, hate against the dreaded Hillbot, who will ruin everyone’s lives forever. Just like how Pussy in Chief, Barry Bamz HUSSEIN has done. Blah de blah blah…
What’s going to be left in November will be tens of millions of royally pissed Trump supporters, more convinced that ever that they are ongoing victims.
I’m not too interested in the fate of the GOP (though I’m pretty sure that that’s what BHO and HRC are now founding). I’m very interested in getting these folks back in the tent to at least some degree. It’s not ok for any society to have a large minority not invested in the basic values.
I often think of Alexa Pelosi’s documentary on the McCain supporters of 2008, all of whom dead certain their guy was going to win. These folks have still to be reconciled to the rest of the electorate. Ignoring them and hoping they go away won’t work. It’ll just make that much harder down the line. (Kind of like settling a lawsuit — it’s gonna happen, the sooner the better.)
A needed outcome in theory, but in practice, how does one reach people who in effect are living in an alternative reality? And who vociferously deny the validity of any contradiction to that alternative universe?
Fairness Doctrine.
They’ll just tune it out as lies by their enemies; it’s the paranoid mindset they’ve been marinated in for decades. I really have little hope for most of them. Sad!
They’re dying off fastest right? Problem will solve itself if we can cut off the flow of younger recruits. Quarantine.
IF HE VEERS LEFT….hey he’s a political diva looking for a new audience…what if?
I suspect that the powers that be would be quite happy with a strong “centrist” Democratic/Republican Party with just enough of the electorate in smaller ineffective rightwing and leftwing parties to supply a diversion for the public during election cycles.
Here’s a suggestion, Boo.
Save this thread and link to it in a year. I never bet point spreads, but let’s see if Clinton has extricated the US from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya. Let’s see how much of the Democratic domestic agenda is met and how effectively Clinton has fought for it. Let’s see if there’s a higher tax on the ultra wealthy, or a tax on Wall Street, or if the lack of regulations brings on another crash.
Of course, if the prodding of Russia results in a nuclear war then we can all be excused from participating.
I remember 2000 and how loooong the faces were at Fox and how happy people like Begala were for the first part of the evening … then it reversed.
I also remember noting whose face changed from gloom to happiness or vice versa. That was the first time that I confirmed Pat Caddel was a pretend Dem and was really rooting for Bush. But beyond that almost everyone on every news channel brightened up after the call of Florida for Gore was reversed. I was stunned. This was the moment that got me on-line and finding the various blogs on the left. Virtually the whole freaking TV press corpse was strongly pro-Bush. The only ones who were pro-Gore were the clear partisans, like Begala. Brian Williams, to his credit, maintained his demeanor without notable change – none of the others did.
May the rest of his beard turn gray.
Okay, it probably did.