« What Went Right? -- Weekend Open Thread | Main | Your Post-Convention Pre-August Open Thread of Blah »

July 24, 2016

Comments

NWRW hate conflict and wish people could just get along, and they'll find Kaine's collegial track record very reassuring.

That was also one of Obama's strengths in 2008: he was someone who visibly wanted to reduce the strife that had infected the Federal government since Newt Gingrich first became Speaker. In the event, he failed to achieve that end. Whose fault that was is a matter of dispute, but the failure is not.

I just don't think there's any evidence that vice presidential candidates affect people's votes much at all. Like half a percent in their home state, maybe, but that's it.

Doc Science, to me this resonates very powerfully as a thing that rings true. If Fox actually covers it without too much sabotage, and if it changes the numbers at all significantly, even if just a little, that is definitely a cheery thought. Rather hard to entertain a cheery thought at the moment, I'm so out of practice!

Great observations, Doc. Another thing that strikes me about going with Kaine is that if Hillary went with someone like Cory Booker or Perez or Warren or someone who is non-white male, it is really gloves are off time. Adam's suggestion that the VP pick doesn't affect people's votes is a bit off. It may not add votes, it seems like a bad VP pick could reduce votes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/19/sarah-palin-cost-john-mccain-2-million-votes-in-2008/

While it is depressing to suggest that having an African-American or a Hispanic as VP or a 2 women ticket is problematic, given the fact that Trump is the republican nominee, it seems an unavoidable conclusion.

Both Kaine and his wife, Anne Holton, have worked all of their lives for justice. They are the real thing in every way. I am thrilled with this choice.

Hmm.

I've been hearing a lot of people complaining angrily that Kaine does nothing to reach the gettable groups that Clinton doesn't already have sewn up--he's not the firebreathing economic populist that they think she needs. Now that I think about it, all of the complainers are male.

I would have liked the two-women ticket or the white-woman-plus-POC option (or, even better, a non-white woman), but I don't think Kaine is a bad choice.

I can see why the Sanders variety of economic populists would have preferred one of their own. But seriously, how many of them would opt for Trump instead? I suppose a few of them may decide to sulk. But unless they are under the delusion that a President Trump would be able (and willing) to drive a populist program thru a Republican Congress, they aren't going to let that happen.

Bitch and moan? Sure. Maybe even for several weeks. But by the middle of September, look for them to be back on board.

Meanwhile, Kaine avoids driving away moderately conservative voters. Voters who might have recoiled from an economic populist on the ticket. But instead will now be much more likely to be recoiling from Trump.

Yeah, this may sound very strange to say, but I would suggest that a liberal white male complaining angrily about HRC not choosing a firebreathing populist (and, if you think about it, Elizabeth Warren is probably the only non white male who can get away with that) is an example of white male privilege. I realize that some may strongly take issue with that, but it is the same dynamic as those who bitterly complain that Obama has been too nice, and has never gotten 'angry'. They look back and say 'gee Obama should have known that he was going to get no cooperation, so he should have let the Republicans have it from the get-go'. To assume that a black man, or a woman candidate for president, has the same range of tools to push back is to not understand how our society works.

I should add that I'm not calling anyone out here, especially not Matt. I too would have liked another woman or a POC, but the inverse of all those articles about Kaine being a safe choice would have been 'Hillary wants to go toe to toe with the Republicans and is picking a fight with them by choosing [name]' Given the media's complicity in the rise of Trump, you can be sure that the received wisdom would be to make the election into a grudge match.

If his speech on Saturday is any guide, Tim Kaine will be a tremendous campaigner. I was in the car, listening to the radio. Hillary introducing him almost bored me to the point of just popping in my old Tom Lehrer tape, but I decided to hang on and hear at least a bit of what Kaine had to say. He was about halfway through when I got to the mall, and I was so absorbed that I sat in the car for another 20 minutes to hear the rest of it. As I was walking into the store, my NWDW and early Bernie supporting sister texted me: "Phew...Kaine is cool!" So Tim Kaine made a great impression on at least two people (who, to be clear, were going to vote for Hillary anyway) with low tolerance for generic pablum in political oratory. Whether the NWRW of America will react the same way is not something I can predict.

To the extent that the defeat of He, Trump depends on enthusiasm for Clinton-Kaine among lefties like me and my sister, I have to pass on a rare bit of wisdom from Tweetie (aka Chris Matthews) earlier today: some of the biggest liberal successes in recent history were accomplished by Democratic presidents whose running mates were NOT favorites of the Left. Tweetie cited FDR's John Nance Garner, JFK's Lyndon Johnson, and arguably Barack Obama's Joe ("BFD") Biden. I would add that two or maybe all three of those presidents ended up more liberal as office-holders than as campaigners.

Anyway, FWIW given that I only fit one of the categories in the NWRW acronym, I am looking forward to seeing more of Tim Kaine as campaigner.

--TP

@wh: I hear a bunch of them insisting that they don't think it'll make any difference to them whether Trump or Clinton wins, so they're voting for Jill Stein. One or two actually insisting that they'd prefer if Trump won, because Trump is evil and incompetent whereas Hillary is evil and competent, so she'll do more evil (and they're voting for Jill Stein).

They are, as far as I can tell, all white men. The female Bernie supporters I know are 100% with Hillary now. The non-white people are seriously frightened and treating Trump as an existential threat; will vote for Hillary in a heartbeat to defeat him.

Even Bernie, who professes disappointment with the choice, calls him "very very smart", and "very nice" - which is a highly unusual combination in any politician.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36879197
Don't know much about Kaine, but he looks a good pick, much as I like Warren.

Just out of curiosity, do these guys see Trump and Clinton as the same kind of evil? And to the next same degree? Just trying to get a feel for how divorced from reality they are. (Having known a fair number of folks who are seriously part of the delusional left, I'm aware that there are degrees there. 😊)

A quick point, I think the Tim Kaine pick ensured her win. Smart, thoughtful, personable. Everything she isn't in some of those ways. I would vote for him if he were at the top of the ticket this election. (I won't vote for her).


wj,

Hillary is another level of evil beyond Trump. He is crass, a blowhard, a racist and completely unlikeable for sixty percent of the population.

She is a malevolent human being under the guise of an incredibly good politician. Her level of evil has no regard for the rules everyone else plays by. She,and many who support her, confuse her ability to hide a smoking gun with innocence. The outcome of investigations that say we can't make charges stick in court but she is clearly implicated (every one of them) get transformed into statements completely exonerating her through magical thinking.

She has no conscience, he has no shame.

Literally two evils. I could not possibly pick between them.

I have no idea who I will vote but most likely Johnson/Weld.

Marty needs some CDS rehab, stat.

@ Liberal Japonicus

That seems completely reasonable, there just doesn't seem to be much evidence for it.

I mean, I'm sure it's true at the margins. If the ticket included some utterly ignorant, wildly erratic, openly racist and misogynistic... ah f¥€%.

"She,and many who support her, confuse her ability to hide a smoking gun with innocence."

That's right up there with "all Saddam has to do is turn over his WMDs".

And no, the RW-GOP NEVER gets to live that down.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wasserman-schultz-booed-dnc-philadelphia-000000725.html

Scroll down a bit and this doesn't look like a picture of white Bernie bros protesting DWS.

What is this CDS for which Marty needs rehab?

Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Aha!

Regarding those DNC emails:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/are-donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-really-bffs

Putin had a much better week than even I thought:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/trump-gets-sizeable-convention-bounce-polls

The polls among world leaders who murder their own people show an even bigger bump for Trump.

You want evil, we're going to get f*cking Evil.

And lots of dead motherf*ckers along with.


Nate Silvers take? It isn't panic time for Clinton, but it ain't a walk in the park either:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-trump-gets-convention-bounce-drawing-polls-to-dead-heat/

It's pretty clear from everything I'm seeing that one mistake that the Clinton campaign is unlikely to make is overconfidence.

Marty's a conservative. Insisting that Trump and Clinton are both evil but Clinton is more evil is at least ideologically coherent for him. What drives me nuts are liberals saying this.

That said, I'm also now starting to see Bernie supporters who still insist that Clinton is a criminal who rigged the primaries... and that it's important to vote for her.

The optics of the booing of Clinton's name at the Democratic convention are pretty awful, and Sanders being booed by his own supporters as he endorses her candidature...
Aaargh.

Eventually a cure will be found for CDS.

Not like CDO, which is like OCD, except that the letters are arranged alphabetically.

"eventually a cure will be found..."

Hopefully before the end of the convention.

Except OCD is arranged perfectly by ink usage.

You all may have seen this, but I thought it was an extremely handy compilation of links to all the appalling things Trump has said, and all the appalling people who have endorsed him, all in one place. I know it would be naive to think that if you forward this to decent people thinking of voting Trump they might change their minds, but a girl can dream.

All you need to know about Trump

Thank you, GftNC. I 'm going to go door to door, and I'll have this with me.

Thanks Donald, I was trying to find some details on the make up of the FL delegation, but was unable to. However, this AP video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnVJOQoZMc4

seems to point to the division as being age based among white delegates. To me, it is underlined by this

The same thing [crowd booing] happened as Rep. Elijah Cummings delivered a speech centering on social justice.

As Cummings talked about how proud his late father would be of the people in the room, Sanders' supporters shouted, "No TPP, No TPP," in reference to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/25/487385184/raucous-repeated-chants-of-bernie-and-hillary-fill-convention-hall-on-day-1

I'm trying to wrap my head around booing and interrupting Elijah Cummings talking about social justice because Bernie.

And this tweet
“Iowa delegate @chris_laursen: Bernie basically fed us a bunch of Mountain Dew and now he wants us to go to bed. It’s not going to happen.”

the WaPo live updates have tons of this, if you can tolerate the number of facepalms you'll adminster to yourself
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/paloma/the-daily-trail/2016/07/25/the-daily-trail-breaking-apparently-the-revolution-will-be-televised-after-all/57967e084acce2050515b979/

sapient, given the "mood" in America, let us know whether or not a plurality of the voters you talk to read that list and send you on your way with a "Thank you for convincing us to vote for Trump. He'll do what needs to be done."

%-/

Now, for general consumption:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/25/late-night-creepsters-open-thread-watch-out-for-the-alt-right/

This passage:

“I don’t think people have fully recognized the degree to which he’s (Trump) transformed the party,” said Richard Spencer, a clean-cut 38-year-old from Arlington, Virginia, who sipped Manhattans as he matter-of-factly called for removing African-Americans, Hispanics and Jews from the United States…"

This stops now. We're not going to do this again in America. Here we have another chance to kill the Confederacy and Hitler and his minions and all of the filth Republicans who have fluffed these racist fascists all these years and called it party unity for the sake of tax cuts and all we do is report their fucking choice of beverage, like it's merely picturesque, instead of big E Evil on its way to the White House?

Yum, they loved their beer, too. Never mind the rest:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVzZ4uJZXvqoA9AZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyMWtpNGdnBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjI0MDdfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=The+Beer+Hall+Putsch+of+1923&fr=mcafee

Winning is bad enough, but what do we think these murderers are going to do if they lose?

I tell you, they will have to be killed. And the government can protect us from them by killing the lot of them, or it can be carried out by vigilante, mercenary action with enough savageness that they never come back again.

But, hamfisted, cloth-eared Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster via clumsy, politically correct email protocols, so let's do whatever we can to enable in big E Evil because we're so principled, virtuous, and cosset our consciences in moralistic chastity belts.


sapient, given the "mood" in America, let us know whether or not a plurality of the voters you talk to read that list and send you on your way with a "Thank you for convincing us to vote for Trump. He'll do what needs to be done."

No, you're mistaken as to what I want it for. It's a reminder of why I'm going to be working so hard to smile and give out campaign literature, asking every "maybe" to please vote for Democratic. If I said what I really think, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't make it back home.

This stops now. We're not going to do this again in America.

It's bred in our bone. You aren't going to change it by shooting people.

Some people have really hateful, dangerous aspects of their personality, that they have to keep an eye on and balance with other aspects. You can't surgically remove it, it's in their freaking DNA. They just have to learn constructive ways to live with it.

Better angels, right?

Did I say "some"? Most.

Nations are like people that way.

Just my opinion, obviously, but I think it's historically pretty well founded.

Guns aren't going to solve this.

Guns aren't going to solve this.

Not this time by any stretch, but that does not entirely eliminate the possibility.

On another note: How 'bout that Michelle O! Some speech! No guns needed!

Trump goes down to crushing defeat. Mark my words (said the anonymous internet commenter).

bobbyp:

Back in the day when you were a Commie dupe, like me, ;), did you ever run across Trump's Kremlin connection, Paul Manafort?

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/07/25/open-thread-donald-trumps-foreign-affaires/

Gingrich's reprise of UnAmerican Activities Committee's first session,on C-Span is going to be fascinating as he calls himself as a witness and he asks himself "Sir, have you no shame?"

Well, no.

Tell me something. What are the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and Homeland Security doing to round these traitors up for their obligatory trials and, one hopes, their public executions?

Seems as though the convention, threatening to go completely off the rails, managed to hold it all together, with Booker, Sanders, and especially Michelle Obama, performing rather well.

Clinton is an awful candidate, but I suspect she'll make a decent president. And the alternative bears contemplating only in the same way that the prospect of global warming or nuclear war bear contemplating.

I think my views on the candidates are pretty clear, but some of this stuff is more outrageous than even Trump. We won't be taking up arms, Trump won't be starting a nuclear war, we won't have marshall law (except in the way we have it now). We will bluster and tweet stupid sh*t maybe, but I suspect a President Trump would find himself pretty busy.

OTOH, come to think of it, Hillary might do all those things.

Apologies if my hyperbole offended you, Marty.
OTOH, given his policy pronouncements, the comparison of the prospect of a Trump presidency with that of global warming was entirely apposite.

On that topic, it appears there is good evidence for the earth's having an inbuilt thermostat to counter the effects of CO2 induced heating. Disappointingly, it seems to work over the order of 100,000 years or so...
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2757.html

I'm still trying to figure out what kind of evil Marty thinks Hillary is. Red Skull? Dr. Doom? Magneto? Thanos? or if he's a DC kind of guy, Lex Luthor? Darkseid? The Joker? Ra's al Ghul? if I could have a model of this 'other level of evil', I could figure out whether to send Spidey, the Avengers, Superman or the Green Lantern out...

I think Ra's al Ghul. Or a combination of Albert Fall and Richard Nixon.

Wait, so you mean that Richard Nixon should be considered a comic-book villain?

Because he was too liberal?

Marty has been listening to too much Noam Chomsky...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/21/noam-chomsky-richard-nixon_n_4832847.html

Seems as though the convention, threatening to go completely off the rails, managed to hold it all together

Historically, Republican conventions have been tightly managed, whereas Democratic conventions have been moderately chaotic. This year, the Democrats look to be somewhere near their norm -- just looking like they might go off the rails is nothing exceptional for them. As opposed to the Republicans, who looked like "management" was a rather foreign concept to them.

It's probably best to look at conventions as doing only two things:
1) introduce the candidate to that portion of the public which hasn't been paying attention during the primaries.
2) throwing a party for the party leaders, and give them a chance to schmooze.
The rest is basically fluff, but doesn't have a real impact on the course of the election except in really, really exceptional circumstances.

Clinton's tendencies for defensiveness and secrecy; which are understandable given the decades of attack, scrutiny, and conspiracy theories she's been subject to; are, none the less, self-defeating in terms of how she's perceived. I don't have any way of knowing exactly how corrupt she actually is, if at all, but I'm confident that she's not nearly as corrupt as many on the right think (or claim to think) she is.

On top of that, add her tone deafness (or optics blindness), which allows her to do things like hiring Debbie Wasserman Schultz almost immediately after the DNC email thing, and she seems to be brazen as well as corrupt.

Perhaps a litmus test for the virulence of CDS one may be suffering would be whether or not one believes the Clintons had Vince Foster killed. Finer resolutions of CDS severity can be determined after that based on opinions on Benghazi, Whitewater, private email servers, etc.

Marty:

Trump won't be starting a nuclear war

Foreign policy experts are REALLY UPSET about what Trump has said about NATO. In particular, saying that the Baltic states can't automatically assume the US will back them up if Russia rolls in is, in fact, a WWIII-level threat. Saying we'll leave NATO altogether unless we get protection money (which he said only yesterday) is also, in fact, a threat of nuclear war.

I should amend that. It's not just people on the right who have overblown perceptions of how corrupt she is. There seem to be plenty of people on the farther left end of the spectrum who are at least generally of the same opinion, though maybe not agreeing with those on the right on specific examples.

Albert Fall?! Now there's a blast from the past.

I'm kinda' with Marty here-a bit more sanguine about the damage Trump could inflict wrt foreign policy...even with a nutball like Trump in the Oval Office there would be institutional constraints that would tend to box in his more extravagant tendencies. I don't think he could just unilaterally tear the NATO treaty up, for example, or wake up one morning to play with the nuclear codes for fun. But I, for one, don't wish to find out.....especially if he has a nutcase GOP House and a supine GOP Senate. If that came to pass the real Armageddon would take place on the domestic front as the GOP joyfully and abruptly terminated the New Deal state to take us back to the Gilded Age....truly an utter social catastrophe.

For those of you who believe "there's not a dime's worth of difference" here, I would simply reply, "Some dime."

Michelle's the best
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln3wAdRAim4

I don't read Avik Roy much, but ...

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy

Excerpts from the Count's link:

He expands on this idea: “It’s a common observation on the left, but it’s an observation that a lot of us on the right genuinely believed wasn’t true — which is that conservatism has become, and has been for some time, much more about white identity politics than it has been about conservative political philosophy. I think today, even now, a lot of conservatives have not come to terms with that problem.”

(...)

I’ve read dozens of conservative intellectuals writing compellingly about non-racist conservative ideals. Writers like Andrew Sullivan, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Michael Brendan Dougherty, and too many others to count have put forward visions of a conservative party quite different from the one we have.

But not one of these writers, smart as they are, has been able to explain what actual political constituency could bring about this pure conservatism in practice. The fact is that limited government conservatism is not especially appealing to nonwhite Americans, whereas liberalism and social democracy are. The only ones for whom conservatism is a natural fit are Roy’s “cranky old white people” — and they’re dying off.

If I had a pipe to smoke while rubbing my chin, I'd be smoking it right now.

I don't see Trump starting a huge CF like the Iraq war; that required a LOT of sustained effort to get all the pieces in place, line up some pretense at justification, etc.

Unfortunately, that's *exactly* the kind of thing I could see Hillary pushing through.

But throwing a temper-tantrum, for some thin-skinned reason? Yeah, Trump might very well do that.

Or just being neglectful and ignorant, at the level of "The US does not intervene in intra-Arab disputes", as was told to Saddam by Bush Sr, and was taken as a green-light to invade Kuwait.

Most likely: Trump would be an absentee president, more interested in doing real-estate deals, and ignorant of the corruption and malfeasance in his own administration. Think "Harding, 2016".

Re: Hillary's honesty, corruption, etc. This tumblr post gathers a lot of links showing No, she's a politician--yet a fundamentally honest one. She's neither a goddamned supervillain nor Richard Nixon, and characterizing her as either is preposterous.

She's also been subject to more sexist attacks than most of you are probably aware of:

When you hear that Hillary Clinton is unlikable, be aware of the study that shows competent women are generally seen as unlikable; when you hear that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, know that this same study shows women in power are generally seen as dishonest. And know that when the same imaginary job candidate is presented to two groups, with the only difference being a male or female name at the top of the résumé, the female candidate is seen as less trustworthy than the man. In each study, these biased reactions were found in both women and men.

And realize that when women seek power—for example, by running for the nation's highest office—a Yale study reports that "participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e. contempt, anger, and/or disgust) towards them" and that "women were just as likely as men to have negative reactions."

Re: Hillary's honesty, corruption, etc. This tumblr post gathers a lot of links showing No, she's a politician--yet a fundamentally honest one. She's neither a goddamned supervillain nor Richard Nixon, and characterizing her as either is preposterous.

She's also been subject to more sexist attacks than most of you are probably aware of:

When you hear that Hillary Clinton is unlikable, be aware of the study that shows competent women are generally seen as unlikable; when you hear that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, know that this same study shows women in power are generally seen as dishonest. And know that when the same imaginary job candidate is presented to two groups, with the only difference being a male or female name at the top of the résumé, the female candidate is seen as less trustworthy than the man. In each study, these biased reactions were found in both women and men.

And realize that when women seek power—for example, by running for the nation's highest office—a Yale study reports that "participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e. contempt, anger, and/or disgust) towards them" and that "women were just as likely as men to have negative reactions."

One point of these psychological studies is that you (yes, you) probably have such biases unless you work consciously against them. Being "a good person" won't protect you.

When you say "she's a terrible campaigner", bear in mind that Hillary campaigns *differently* than most male politicians do: her building block is the listening tour, that's how she got votes in upstate NY. She *listens*, she forms relationships with people, she changes her mind.

I'll also say: Her #1 issue, for her whole life, is how we take care of children. This isn't considered a "serious" issue by the press, the pundits, or any political establishment. It's a "women's issue", you see, it goes on the Style page.

Yeah, I'm cranky. What about it?

Yeah, I'm cranky. What about it?

Typical female! *runs and hides*

Avik Roy dates the problem of white nationalist racism to Goldwater, 1964. But also dates "the conservative movement" to the founding of the National Review by Wm. F. Buckley.

Considering Buckley's WRITTEN STATEMENTS PUBLISHED in the NR, about how "the negro must be kept down", prior to 1964, I'd say that the white nationalist racism was baked into the cake right at the very beginning, no matter how Roy tries to salvage some of his preferred creation myth.

Doctor Science, your 1:04 pm is very good, and helpful to people who want to have an open mind.

I think that a lot of people were persuaded by the Benghazi hearings, not only because Hillary handled herself so spectacularly, but because they were actually able to spend some time with her.

Okay, horrible sexist comment: my take on Hillary? She's one tough broad.

Seems like a job qualification to me.

HSTH:

You don't get to say that when Donald Cranky Thin-Skinned Stubby-Fingered Vindictive Petty Trump has a shot at the Presidency.

If he's a "typical male", then men are too emotional to be allowed near the levers of power.

Dr. S: "I'll also say: Her #1 issue, for her whole life, is how we take care of children."

You know what the technical term is for species that do not work toward the success of their offspring? EXTINCT.

All else flows from making the "taking care of children" a priority.

Very majorly what Doc Science said, which is worth repeating.

I don't see Trump starting a huge CF like the Iraq war; that required a LOT of sustained effort to get all the pieces in place, line up some pretense at justification, etc.

Unfortunately, that's *exactly* the kind of thing I could see Hillary pushing through.

The thing is, I could see Trump getting us into a war anyway. Without bothering to get the pieces in place.** Which would make it even more of a disaster.


**Justification, of course, would be off-the-cuff. And not particularly important to him anyway.

You don't get to say that when Donald Cranky Thin-Skinned Stubby-Fingered Vindictive Petty Trump has a shot at the Presidency.

If Trump were to read this, I'd guess the stubby-fingered part would bother him the most. He would then lash out in a cranky, thin-skinned, vindictive and petty way in response.

I'd have to say Trump could certainly stir up a lot of sh1t if he wanted to. He could tell Putin the US will not honor its NATO treaty obligations should Russian invade the Baltics (hell he could indeed rip up the NATO treaty). He could ramp up the US posture w/r/t China in the South China Sea. He could tell, e.g., Japan and Saudi Arabia that it's time for them to get their own nukes. Pull US troops from South Korea while belligerently threatening the North. Order bombing of Iran under the AUMF. Etc. etc.

I'm not sure there are any institutional constraints stopping any of that.

Yes, on Snarki's comments vis a vis Buckley, but it was the wooing of racist, segregationist Confederate Dixiecrats by the Republican Party since the Truman era and solidified under Reagan/Gingrich that completed the creation of this contemporary, white nationalist monster.

Doctor Science is right on the money.

I've been self-examining my reticent dislike of Hillary Clinton, despite that the fact that I plan on stuffing the ballot box for her, and maybe its my problem, not hers, though I don't think being a female precludes a person from being a ruthless, pitiless as8hole.

Not saying she is. I do think that if there is a cow pie in the road, she has a tendency to veer toward it, step in it, and then declare that it isn't poop.

I don't get that. But that has been duly noted here in various degrees.

Of course, maybe acting that way at times comes from interacting in a man's world or politics and/or business, where being an asshole pays dividends.

I mean, plenty of far right republican women in the spotlight have proven they can be just as misguidedly and ruthlessly manhanded as their male counterparts.

I wouldn't let any of THEM in my bathroom either.

I don't think I've ever encountered such visceral, primal hate that I hear men and women in my world express toward Hillary Clinton. especially among women. It's a disgust usually reserved for other women who commit adultery.

Maybe Yoko Ono. Who I defended too.

One of my John Lennon-loving female friends hated Ono, not the least of the reasons being that she has retained her Japanese accent after living in America for so long. Duh.

One time I said, so what's John Lennon's excuse?

He still speaks Liverpudlian.

Or did, before the gun lobby got him.

Very majorly what Doc Science said, which is worth repeating.

I agree with Dr. S....what about the treatment Thatcher got? Same? Different?

Others to consider: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir?

Trump expresses admiration for Putin, because Putin apparently finds him a very handsome man.

Doctor Science and a bunch of us hate Trump.

I'd say there is a slightly better chance that Trump sends goons to beat the crap out of Us, then there is that that Trump would defend Latvia against Soviet tanks after Putin gifted him finger extensions at their first summit.

I mean, hell, I'm not sure NATO would intervene to kick Russia out of the Baltics should it launch a full scale land invasion and present it as a fait accompli NOW. But there's no need to go telling Putin that.

I don't worry so much about He, Trump starting WW3 off the cuff or demolishing the New Deal single-handedly. It's not the next 4 years I worry about; it's the next 40, which is to say the rest of my life and then some.

Think Supreme Court nominations, people. Think carbon emmissions encouraged. Think educations deferred. It's the stuff whose long-term effects will still be felt long after He, Trump himself is dead that really worry me.

Not to mention, of course, the precedent that electing a twit would set for all the future presidential campaigns we will have to live through.

--TP

Is it really possible that a conservative movement which traces its origins to Buckley can consider itself a champion of civil rights?

This is beyond laughable. It really is psychotic, if not clinically, at least in the sense of being utterly out of touch with reality. I know all about the Republicans who supported the 1964 CRA. I wonder what party Jacob Javits would belong to today.

I disagree with Roy that it is entirely a party of white nationalism, though that is on the increase. Basically we have a Republican Party dedicated to fruitcake economics, including never-ending tax cuts for the wealthy, opposing science, supporting theocracy, supporting corpocracy, etc. This is a part whose great legislative leader is Paul Ryan, one of the great political frauds of our time.

It is, IMO, Republican "intellectuals" like Roy and others who are much to blame for this. They have provided cover, not to mention fairy stories about federalism, balanced budgets, "free market healthcare," climate change conspiracies, etc.

what Tony P said.

Not to mention, of course, the precedent that electing a twit would set for all the future presidential campaigns we will have to live through.

Palin was the precedent....candidate Kardashian can't be far behind.*

No jokes about behinds, please.

"Saying we'll leave NATO altogether unless we get protection money (which he said only yesterday) is also, in fact, a threat of nuclear war."

Which is not what he said, at all, I watched it. He said multiple times that his point is, mine for decades, that if we are going to play world cop the allies need to pay what they have committed to pay. Not protection money, not a hold up, WHAT THE CHARTER AND AGREEMENTS SAY THEY ARE GOING TO PAY.

Then the questioner said, but money aside we would go help them anyway... And to his credit he said "Have they paid?"

One of the few things I have no problem with is an American President standing up and saying that all that money we spend to make you safe incurs an obligation you should meet. These are supposedly our friends for gods sake, they shouldn't be stiffing us.

Marty,

What are the numbers? Who is stiffing us, and for how much?

No snark here. I really want to know.

--TP

Has Trump paid back the money Russian oligarchs have injected into his indebted business enterprises?

What if Putin decides to take Latvia as collateral for those debts?

Has Trump paid back the contractors and workers in this country, you know, the white male ones, that he has stiffed over the decades?

Too bad they don't possess a nuclear arsenal to take the deadbeat out.

For a guy with such stubby fingers, Trump is one hell of a pickpocket.

TP,

It's hard for me to get a sense for exact numbers over time but here is an article on it:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/index.html

He said multiple times that his point is, mine for decades, that if we are going to play world cop the allies need to pay what they have committed to pay.

The thing is, it's one of the Baltics (Latvia or Estonia, don't remember which) that is the ONLY member of NATO who has paid what it committed to. So how do we justify not defending them?

Of course, Trump's information-free mind doesn't include that inconvenient detail. So it doesn't matter at all that they have done what he says should be done.

I like this one. Just a taste of what Trump will throw at Hillary.

https://youtu.be/uLm4w-z91B4

Trump doesn't know Latvia from labia.

Regarding children, I googled "Marian Wright Edelman Clinton" and of course interesting things popped up.

Here is the first--

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-hillary-clintons-long-tense-relationship-with-her-liberal-mentor/2016/06/02/b204f6de-22af-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

Her record is complicated. Seriously, it is.

On comparisons to Nixon, the Clintons are real good friends with Kissinger. I find that remarkable for alleged progressives.

I wrote a long rant about her foreign policy record last night, focusing especially on the Israel Palestine issue where I find her statements nauseating, but I decided not to post it. It was quite angry and I decided I didn't want to fight about it. Children come up there too.

I don't agree with centrist liberal Democrats. They turn their moral outrage buttons on and off at different times from when I would, in ways I find bizarre. They are capable of overlooking the obvious flaws in their candidates and then accuse everyone else of having a cult of personality. Much of how they try to get people to unite behind the Democrats seems to involve denigrating or downplaying the seriousness of some issues that I think matter. I do not wish to be told to be mature by people who I think avoid talking about certain issues if it would make their candidate or party look bad.. I wish the Sanders diehards would get behind her in roughly the way I am, which means saying that I am voting for Clinton, but won't pretend to applaud her record or her branch of the party. It's just that the Republicans are worse, sometimes much worse. That's enough of a reason. I am partly hopeful she might be good on some domestic issues. On FP, people should watch her like a, well, hawk.

wj,
I'm not sure how that would even impact his point, or mine since this is really something that I believe. I couldn't have told you which 5 of the 20 something countries had paid. But I would not have just said sure we'll defend them if they pay or not. Even if I knew I would.

update on DNC

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814

This is about campaign money raising.

I thought we filled the twit gap in January 2001?

Marty,

I read your link. It says many NATO countries spend less than 2% of their GDP on "defense". I figured that's what He, Trump was talking about, while making it sound like "they owe us money".

The US, I notice, spends 3.6% of its GDP on "defense". He, Trump complains that's too little. So how much should Canada (1.0%) or Germany (1.2%) spend? Should they pay that extra to us, as He, Trump seems to imply? If they spend it themselves, does that mean we can spend less ourselves? Or do still have to spend more, because our military is soooo depleted?

He, Trump is not just a grifter, he's bad at it.

--TP

The optics of the booing of Clinton's name at the Democratic convention are pretty awful,

Watching Bernie's speech, it was remarkable how loud the boos were for his endorsement of Clinton when contrasted by the relative silence when he went on to bash Trump. Just sayin'.


I'm still trying to figure out what kind of evil Marty thinks Hillary is.

Marty has to answer for himself, but what I find puzzling is the lack of concern over the AG meeting with Bill to talk about "grandkids," and HRC hiring Wasserman-Shultz the same day she steps down. The Clintons don't even bother to hide it (the corruption) anymore.

And let's not talk about the Clinton Foundation or speeches to Goldman Sachs.

No, this is not a sexist perception. I think I despise them equally (ok, fine, Bill more).

We have a lot of wealth. We spread some of it around. That's good business. A great deal of what we hand out comes back as material contracts for our hungry defense industrialists.

....and yes, some of it doesn't come back at all.*

But I digress,

Writing off debts owed us has a long history...going back to the forgiveness of debts to the US wracked up by the Allies in WWI.

For starters, you can rummage around in here, for example.

One might also notice that if you loan folks money, you tend to have influence over their actions. This is known as "promoting the national interest."

Essentially, when Trump gets lathered up about NATO debts, he is talking peanuts and being stupidly short sided.

Who doesn't want a remilitarized Europe and Japan! What could possibly go wrong!


*somebody told me debt forgiveness was in the Bible. True story!

Bill Clinton + AG, Clintons + Kissinger, RBG + Scalia.

Friendship isn't necessarily about the job you have, or the political tribe you're in; so I refuse to use "A is friends with B" as a reason to disparage anyone. People are more complicated than that, and this isn't high-school any more.

" I think I despise them equally (ok, fine, Bill more). "

I have always despised Bill more, well since Monica Lewinski. I don't know what other Presidents did in the WH but the complete lack of shame by Bill, coupled with his complete lack of conscience makes him Trump and Hillary combined.

I do agree with TP that, as grifter's go, Trump is not good at it, he just does it enough to occasionally get by. And the long con is not really his strength(see Trump University), so time is ticking.

No, this is not a sexist perception.

At least you admit that it's a perception, bc.

Pay up, Donald. The little girls have tactical nukes:

http://juanitajean.com/tops-in-goofy/

"I don't know what other Presidents did in the WH"

Clinton got a few blow jobs. GWB blew up the Middle East.

Now you know.

what I find puzzling is the lack of concern over the AG meeting with Bill to talk about "grandkids,"

since you apparently know what they talked about, how about you share it with the rest of us?

and HRC hiring Wasserman-Shultz the same day she steps down.

how is this corrupt? where is the quid-pro-quo? what crimes has DWS committed ?

they are reportedly old and close friends. Clinton gave her an "honorary chair" position, not a Chief of Staff job.

The Clintons don't even bother to hide it (the corruption) anymore.

nothing can hide from people who invent what they want to see.

And let's not talk about the Clinton Foundation or speeches to Goldman Sachs.

no, let's.

Clinton gave speeches to dozens and dozens of different groups. what is she going to get from The Gap, The Society for Human Resource Management, American Jewish University, American Society for Clinical Pathology, National Association of Convenience Stores, the Beth El Synagogue of Minneapolis, The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, etc., etc. ?

please, tell us. since you clearly already know everything that goes on in Clinton's head, tell us what the exact fuck she's going to get from the Massachusetts Conference for Women.

I agree with Dr. S....what about the treatment Thatcher got? Same? Different?

Others to consider: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir?

Hmm. Thatcher got a lot of extremely patronising class-based stuff of course (a British speciality) and didn't help herself by changing her accent/voice etc. She always got tons of criticism for bossiness etc when in a man it might have been perceived as something different (e.g. "This woman is headstrong, obstinate and dangerously self-opinionated." ICI personnel department assessment, rejecting job application from the then Margaret Roberts in 1948) and treating her ministers badly (e.g. in Spitting Image, a satirical puppet show on TV at the time:

Waitress, to Thatcher sitting at the head of a table in a restaurant surrounded by her ministers: What'll you have?

Thatcher: a steak.

Waitress: and the vegetables?

Thatcher: Oh, they'll have the same.)

I certainly remember many sexist comments about who fancied her (Alan Clark, and others) or her attractiveness (or lack thereof) and how she used it:

"She has the eyes of Caligula but the mouth of Marilyn Monroe." French President Francois Mitterrand

"She was always an attractive woman. She had not merely a film star's attractiveness; she could also behave like a film star when she chose to do so." Sir Bernard Ingham, her Downing Street press secretary

And of course she was often criticised for being a bad mother, which looks like straight up and down sexism.

My memory of Indira Gandhi is shockingly sparse, and coloured by her portrayal in Rushdie's Midnight's Children, and of Golda Mair is even sparser. Perhaps others can say something about them?

People are more complicated than that, and this isn't high-school any more.

I think this is 180 from my point (correct me if I'm wrong). When you have someone under investigation, you do not meet with their spouse semi-clandestinely or otherwise in private to discuss "grandkids". If you are friends, you should recuse yourself and turn the investigation over to special counsel. If you are friends, you are the AG, and your office is investigating your friend and you meet with them just prior to the FBI issuing findings and you DON'T recuse yourself, then congratulations! You have now joined the group of formerly ethical people who have been coopted by the Clintons. In fact, you don't even have to be friends to accomplish that.

And yes, HSH, this is my perception based upon the available info. One would have to be quite naive to think that the Clintons are paragons of promoting child welfare. It's all about money and power. They certainly succeeded at monetizing federal elected positions.

If you are friends, you should recuse yourself and turn the investigation over to special counsel.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that the AG was not involved in the investigation (that was the FBI). Or are you saying that the FBI was influenced by the AG in their findings and recommendations?

I'll just non-comment "what Donald said" @ 3:20 PM, with an underscores beneath the "don't want to fight about it" weariness.

"Loretta, you gotta stomp on Comey, babe. I mean, maybe you can't order him to call off his investigation, because we both know he'd run right to the mikes and declare he can't be intimidated, so he can keep up his integrity schtick. But cantcha hint he should keep his personal trap shut and just announce whether or not the FBI will ask for indictment?"

"Now, Bill, you know very well that even if there's nothing the FBI can indict on, Mr. Honest Republican Comey won't be able to resist trashing Hillary because, well, he's Republican and she's Hillary. And now that you have grandkids you ought to be old enough to know there's nothing I can do about that, so just suck it up."

"Oh, right. Grandkids. That's what we talked about, right?"

"Right."

"Say, don't you think Comey will be just a little intimidated when he reads in the papers that you and I talked?"

"Bill, honey, you just gave him one more reason to trash Hillary as much as he personally can. And you just gave the media one more excuse to call him Mr. Integrity after he uses his official position to push his personal partisan preferences. Seriously, are the grandkids keeping you awake nights, or what?"

--TP

I enjoyed Donald's link on the Edelman / Clinton friendship. A quotation that struck me was: "In those early days, the Clintons 'had an exaggerated view of their own combined capacity,' recalled Peter Edelman.”

I think that most people have an exaggerated view of a President's capacity in the realm of legislation, especially with a divided government. And without being reelected, Clinton would have given the government wholly to Republican control. Yes, the situation is complicated, which is why purists have to consider carefully what they're really looking to accomplish.

Marty, speaking of NATO: "But I would not have just said sure we'll defend them if they pay or not. Even if I knew I would."

Here is why that plan is horrifically unwise and could lead to the deaths of tens of millions--

The entire point of NATO is to avoid.

The word, again, is avoid.

Avoid.

A - v - o - i- d.

Warfare with between nuclear powers.

If you make it UNCLEAR that you will defend Europe against Russian aggression, you INVITE Russia to FIND OUT whether you will defend against Russian aggression. Then, once they embark upon a military campaign to take European territory (thinking the U.S. won't intervene), if you DO intervene, you risk warfare that could lead to nuclear escalation.

This is even more true now that Russia's nonnuclear military capabilities have weakened. As those capabilities weaken, their willingness to use nuclear means will go up (according to what I have read of military thought).

So you see, they thought of this when they formed NATO. And they decided that your proposed idea was insane. That's why they didn't do it.

Ukraine is not in NATO, by the way, if you'd like an example of what happens to Russia's neighbors when they don't have our protection.

focusing especially on the Israel Palestine issue where I find her statements nauseating

I tend to cut her slack on this because of the way I/P relations have played out (the Oslo accords, which seemed to set things at least on the right track, but with Rabin's assassination and the rise of Netanyahu, statements that might have been ways to try and paper over differences or appeal to domestic groups that have their own purity tests)

This necessarily comes with a lot of what-ifs, (imagine if gay marriage had instead moved in the opposite direction, how would we view all of the trangulated statements?) I think it is very easy to find yourself in a place you don't want to be because of half steps and finessed statements that blow up in your face when someone like Netanyahu is able to get the ear of the public. I imagine that this is how a lot of people on the Republican side (perhaps hanging on by their fingernails now) ended up where they are now. And one way to deal with it (as we see from Marty) is to pile up more and more dirt on the other side while acknowledging the problematic nature of the other side.

This isn't to draw you (Donald) out on talking about I/P issues, NV's 'I don't want to fight about it' being my main feeling, but I wanted to try and explain why it bother me as much as someone might suggest it should.

Stole this from Balloon Juice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqZaQKskP-A

That was 15 years ago.

I guess I'm puzzled about how the Clinton Foundation and giving speeches to Goldman Sachs amounts to corruption. At least of any unusual kind.

How high is the bar? Who does it get applied to, and who not?

I'm not a particular fan of Hilary Clinton, nor am I a particular foe. But I am baffled by the claims that she is "corrupt" in any way other than engaging in normal transactional politics.

Which is to say, politics.

It's her day job. She is, apparently, good at it. That's not a bad thing.

When I think of all the bullshit we've all lived through, I just can't get all that worked up about Hilary's "corruption".

I also find discussions of "who will cause the biggest clusterf**k" to be, frankly, laughable.

Trump talks as if being POTUS is going to be like being the star of The Apprentice.

NATO, you're fired!

The president is not CEO of American Enterprises. Even in these days of fairly expansive executive authority, what the president can and can't do is limited by law and by the Constitution. All the crap he talks about doing "immediately" when he takes office is not all within the scope of the office he is running for.

He demonstrates no understanding of that. Clinton knows it, intimately, from direct personal experience as first lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.

There is no comparison to be made between the two regarding anything that is relevant to the office of POTUS. None.

If you don't like Clinton, no worries. Don't vote for her. I'll thank you not to vote for Trump, but that's your business. Your vote, your choice.

But talking about the two as if there was some comparison to be made between them as regards their qualifications for the office is just beyond the freaking pale.

She's a really good transactional politician and a person with decades of experience in government at both the domestic and international levels.

He's a carnival barker.

It sucks that a carnival barker has managed to secure the nomination for POTUS from a major political party, but so be it.

Not my party, not my monkey.

Just don't try telling me there is some imaginable planet on which Clinton as POTUS is more likely to fuck up the country or the world than Clinton.

"I'm going to fuck things up" is what Trump is selling. That's his platform. It's what his people love him for. Or, to be more specific, "I'm going to fuck things up, and it's going to be terrific!".

Unfortunately that's just not a promise that is in his power to make.

Just don't try telling me there is some imaginable planet on which Clinton as POTUS is more likely to fuck up the country or the world than Clinton.

Oh yeah, oh yeah....well how about an unimaginable planet? But I am confused as to your point here, Russell.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad