July 18, 2016

Can Trump still criticize Hillary for voting for the Iraq war, now that he's picked a VP who also voted for that war?

Watch him — on "60 Minutes" — insisting on saying he can:
Donald Trump: Yeah, you went to Iraq, but that was handled so badly. And [Iraq] was a war-- by the way, that was a war that we shouldn't have entered because Iraq did not knock down--excuse me

Lesley Stahl: Your running mate--

Donald Trump: Iraq did not--

Lesley Stahl: --voted for it.

Donald Trump: I don't care.

Lesley Stahl: What do you mean you don't care that he voted for?

Donald Trump: It's a long time ago. And he voted that way and they were also misled. A lot of information was given to people.

Lesley Stahl: But you've harped on this.

Donald Trump: But I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning.

Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but you've used that vote of Hillary's that was the same as Governor Pence as the example of her bad judgment.

Donald Trump: Many people have, and frankly, I'm one of the few that was right on Iraq.

Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but what about he--

Donald Trump: He's entitled to make a mistake every once in a while.

Lesley Stahl: But she's not? OK, come on--

Donald Trump: But she's not--

Lesley Stahl: She's not?

Donald Trump: No. She's not.

Lesley Stahl: Got it. 
That's the part I wanted to excerpt from the transcript, but I recommend the entire interview. Watch for all the times Trump jumps in and answers a question directed at Pence. And watch the body language. It reminds me of an old-fashioned husband-and-wife routine where the couple has agreed in advance that the husband should do the talking and the wife will perform silent theater with the message: This man is excellent. At one of the few points where Pence speaks, it seems as though he's reciting the message he's been on task conveying with his face: "I think this is a good man who's been talking about the issues the American people care about."

76 comments:

Moneyrunner said...

So this election is all about electing a Vice President because ....

Moneyrunner said...

Pence is a place-holder. Choosing Pence is all about showing that Trump is not a dangerous lunatic who's Hitler reincarnated. It's Pence's job to sit still, shut up, and smile lovingly at Trump.

Drago said...

.... whatever else happens the media cannot allow any of the focus to be on Hillary's actual record.

MisterBuddwing said...

If memory serves, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen wasn't exactly gung-ho when it came to abortion rights, but that didn't seem to disqualify him to be Gov. Michael Dukakis' running mate on the Democratic ticket.

Still, this is a bit awkward...

damikesc said...

It doesn't matter because Pence isn't the guy who will make that decision. Trump is.

It matters for Hillary since Hillary is the woman who will make that decision.

Pence not agreeing with Trump on all things is good. Presidents have enough yes men.

damikesc said...

I also am curious if Hillary will answer such questions when she names her VP.

I'm betting no.

MadisonMan said...

So this election is all about electing a Vice President because ....

...Hillary is so very deeply flawed as a Candidate.

Fabi said...

Be fair, damikesc -- Hillary! will have to answer hard-hitting questions such as "How wonderful do you think it will be as the first female president?"

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Wasn't part of Barky's supposed wisdom based on his opposition to the war in Irag? And didn't he pick Slow Joe despite the fact he supported the war. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Lesley didn't have much of a problem with that arrangement.

rhhardin said...

The Iraq war was fine and a good idea. There was a failure to follow through in hindsight - should have kept the Iraq army for example.

Once it started falling apart, the Dems encouraged it to fall apart. Keep blowing stuff up and we'll get America out, resulting in keeping blowing stuff up, until the surge ended it.

Right off, the middle east was impressed. That ended.

Rick said...

He shouldn't have made excuses for Pence's vote. He should have just said I'm not looking for his opinion on those types of issues so it doesn't matter to me or the public.

damikesc said...

Be fair, damikesc -- Hillary! will have to answer hard-hitting questions such as "How wonderful do you think it will be as the first female president?"

Her veep will also be peppered with "Are your eyes still functional after spending time in the same room with the brilliance that is Hillary?"

He shouldn't have made excuses for Pence's vote. He should have just said I'm not looking for his opinion on those types of issues so it doesn't matter to me or the public.

Or "If I wanted somebody who agreed with all of my positions, I wouldn't need a Vice President"

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Simple answer. He didn't make the same mistake again in Libya.

machine said...

"And he voted that way and they were also misled. A lot of information was given to people"


This is your current leader confirming the lies of Bush/Cheney...

Brando said...

First, I like that Stahl just accepts that Trump was "right from the beginning" on Iraq, or that he was "one of the few" who got it right. He's not on record opposing the war until it was well under way (which still puts him ahead of a lot of Republicans, but this doesn't exactly make him a soothsayer--most of the celebrity left (of which he is a member) opposed the war before the shooting even started). But that's the thing with Trump--he piles on so much turd, you can't pinpoint it all.

Second, it's clear what role Pence gets here--as symbolized in the "T into the P" logo. Usually candidates at least pretend their VPs will be key partners, but Trump is making it clear that we're going back to the days of the "warm bucket of spit" job. Pence is to sit there, and placate the establishment, nothing more. Which is fine, I suppose--that's at least more honest than that "equal partner" crap.

Third, I think the bigger question is what does Pence think of the war now? If he thinks it was a bad idea, when did he come around on that? That's the issue. If Pence never came around (or favored it long after Hillary stopped favoring it) then like Palin did to McCain on the "experience" question vs. Obama, Pence undercuts Trump's whole anti-Iraq War claim. Which shouldn't matter much, it's not the central issue of this campaign--he may as well say "I call the shots, not Pence" and be done with it. Then hold up the logo again.

FranDresher said...

Trump bashed Bush and Hillary for the Iraq war, yet excuses Pence? Yet another example of not meaning what he's been saying. I wonder when his followers will wake up to the fact that he's been taking them for a ride all along. He knows he can "shoot someone on the street" and still not lose votes among his faithful, luckily his faithful are not the majority, far from it.

Brando said...

"Wasn't part of Barky's supposed wisdom based on his opposition to the war in Irag? And didn't he pick Slow Joe despite the fact he supported the war. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Lesley didn't have much of a problem with that arrangement."

Not just that, he made Hillary his Secretary of State even though his whole primary campaign against her was based on her poor foreign policy judgment!

Trump's answer should have been "I will go to Pence for his advice on things, but that doesn't mean I think he gets everything right all the time."

Brando said...

And as for "can Hillary make a mistake" I think the answer is obvious--"she can make a mistake, she just makes so many, and seems to not learn a thing from them." I didn't see the whole interview so maybe he did say that, but if he didn't then simply saying "no she can't make a mistake" looks dumb.

There are good arguments out there--use 'em!

EmilL said...

The entire interview was once again like Alice in the Looking Glass. Bizarre. Trump wants to declare war, then he says he would send "very few troops"? Even Obama has more than a "very few troops" there. Pence sits there trying to keep a stone face in the face of a complete incompetant sitting next to him on those gilded chairs.Trump kept interjecting in orde to look in control, which made it even more apparent he wasn't in control of anything, especially not his mouth. This guy is a paper tiger, a fraud.

Xmas said...

You know, this is playing into "My VP is a better version of my opponent, and I'm a much better candidate than my VP." theme from a few days ago.

EmilL said...

"Donald Trump: Now look, we are going to get rid of ISIS, big league. And we're going to get rid of 'em fast. And we're going to use surrounding states. We're going to use NATO, probably. And we're going to declare war. It is war. When the World Trade Center comes tumbling down, with thousands of people being killed, people are still-- I have friends that are still--"

The rambling incoherence is mind boggling. Who are the people who still see him as someone who can lead a nation in times like these? He doesn't make you concerned for the country? Has a portion of the Conservative movement lost their everloving minds?

Meade said...

"The Iraq war was fine and a good idea."

I agree with this.
Same can be said about Vietnam. Failure was in its execution and follow-through which, except for USSR, resulted in global disaster.
Disaster especially for Cambodians.

Rusty said...

EmilL said...
"Donald Trump: Now look, we are going to get rid of ISIS, big league. And we're going to get rid of 'em fast. And we're going to use surrounding states. We're going to use NATO, probably. And we're going to declare war. It is war. When the World Trade Center comes tumbling down, with thousands of people being killed, people are still-- I have friends that are still--"

The rambling incoherence is mind boggling. Who are the people who still see him as someone who can lead a nation in times like these? He doesn't make you concerned for the country? Has a portion of the Conservative movement lost their everloving minds?

And the alternative is............................?

SandyColdfax said...

Compare and contrast Trump's comments with Pence's. Trump sounds like a bumbling baboon from loony island and Pence sounds like a statesman. Pence makes Trump look even dumber than he is, if that is even possible. Trump will be sorry he chose Pence, the contrast is just too stark.

shiloh said...

Althouse con Trump apologists notwithstanding, that whole interview was a train wreck, just like Trump.

Trump Timeline

Sept. 11, 2002: Howard Stern asks Trump if he supports invading Iraq. Trump answers hesitantly. “Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

Jan. 28, 2003: Trump appears on Fox Business’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” on the night of President Bush’s State of the Union address. Trump says he expects to hear “a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems,” and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do.


Once the war started he opposed it mainly for personal financial reasons. Shocking!

Trump's bottom line is always his personal bottom line!

tim in vermont said...

He could have simply said that Pence didn't repeat the mistake twice over the way Hillary has.

shiloh said...

"He could have simply said that Pence didn't repeat the mistake twice over the way Hillary has."

Mike Pence Praised Hillary Clinton During The Libya Intervention

Oops!

readering said...

He should have said if he limited himself to a Republican who opposed the
Iraq war he'd have no one.

And Pence should have said, I think you made a mistake, take Christie.

Hankenny said...

Pence says he is humbled to be on the ticket with Trump. Yes it probably is humbling to sit next to a walking talking train wreck and have to bite your tongue when that ignoramus makes your Party and ticket look like they've lost their grip on reality. Will Pence become President soon after Trump gets inaugurated? Does the Republican Party see Pence as someone who might step up to be President for some reason? If I were Trump/Caesar, I'd be looking over my shoulder, not in the direction of some crazy assassin, but in the direction of Party insiders. I foresee a political assassination of Trump ( should he win) not a physical one. Et tu Brute?

Hankenny said...

Good catch Shiloh.

"During the March 2011 hearing, Pence, then a congressman, offered Clinton pro forma niceties for her role during the Libya crisis. But he also went on to “encourage and urge the administration to stand with” the rebels, and called for “a coordinated international response, including a no-fly zone.” He added, emphatically, “Gaddafi must go.”

“I’m grateful to hear the secretary of state and the administration take that position unambiguously,” Pence said."

LOL.

Brando said...

"And Pence should have said, I think you made a mistake, take Christie."

Sounds like none of this rollout went smoothly, from the (disputed) accounts of him trying to get out to picking Pence a the last minute, to Pence saying he was told by Trump that he was his choice while for days after that Trump publicly claimed he hadn't decided, to an intro speech that rambled way off message (if that message was unity and a strong ticket). Some days it seems the grownups are running things and keeping the candidate disciplined, other days it's right back to keystone kops antics.

Considering how close the polls still are, it does make you wonder what shape Hillary would be in if she were facing a competent campaign. But we can't dwell on the "could've"s.

damikesc said...

I agree with this.
Same can be said about Vietnam. Failure was in its execution and follow-through which, except for USSR, resulted in global disaster.


Biggest problem is that we backed the biggest loser regime in recorded history. We cannot want to win WAY more than the country we are fighting for and hope for success.

Roughcoat said...

"The Iraq war was fine and a good idea."

I agree with this.
Same can be said about Vietnam. Failure was in its execution and follow-through which, except for USSR, resulted in global disaster.
Disaster especially for Cambodians.


I agree. I would go to on to say that the execution of the combat phase of the Iraq war was excellent. In fact, it was extraordinary. The swiftness of the advance over distance by a large mechanized force (on the drive to Baghdad) was unparalleled in the history of warfare. Only the Mongols accomplished such large movements so swiftly and successfully. Had U.S. military not been so proficient in the art of maneuver warfare and in the methodologies of movement and logistics associated with big-formation advances of mechanized forces--i.e., had the effort bogged down at any time during the drive--the Iraqis would have been able to regroup and prepare their defenses in Baghdad. Which would have resulted in a Stalingrad-type battle for the city, with horrendous casualties and destruction. A less proficient military, i.e. any other military in the world, would certainly have bogged down. Consider, e.g., what happened to Russian armored forces in the invasion to Georgia. Hint: they never reached Tiblisi.

As for Vietnam: with the failure North Vietnam's 1972 Easter offensive the war was essentially won; the PAVN was broken. I would argue that the war could have been ended before 1972; perhaps, arguably, well before 1972. But I'm not going to make that argument here. The Vietnam War is ancient history and I'm weary of talking about it.

EMD said...

Profiles Not Available in Courage on this thread, here.

shiloh said...

This was mentioned during the campaign mainly as sarcasm:

Trump's best pick for v-p ~ Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Indeed, trying to find any Rep who was against the war, against trade agreements, pro gay rights, pro civil rights, serious about solving the immigration problem, increasing the minimum wage, believes in climate change, etc. etc.

Republicans in a nutshell!

Donald Trump kicks off GOP debate by saying American wages are 'too high'

>

Presidential debates ~ must see tv ...

EMD said...

"what shape Hillary would be in if she were facing a competent campaign."

I've come to believe that there is no such thing as a competent campaign.

Brando said...

"I've come to believe that there is no such thing as a competent campaign."

Fair enough--any campaign is going to make mistakes and have trouble working out the kinks. Just with this one it seems to be rapid-fire.

Likewise, Trump would be in far worse shape if he were facing someone less unpopular, incompetent and corrupt than Hillary. Seems both parties decided to offer the other a gift in the same year, and we all get a front row seat.

JAORE said...

""Wasn't part of Barky's supposed wisdom based on his opposition to the war in Irag? And didn't he pick Slow Joe despite the fact he supported the war. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Lesley didn't have much of a problem with that arrangement."

Not just that, he made Hillary his Secretary of State even though his whole primary campaign against her was based on her poor foreign policy judgment!"

Hmmmmm... almost like Ms. Stahl leans left....

n.n said...

Stahl is implying that Clinton should run as VP.

Progressive wars. Tortured leaders. Sodomized ambassadors. Refugee crises/excesive immigration (i.e. anti-native policies). Class diversity (e.g. racism, Affirmative Action). Progressive debt (e.g. Obamacare, arbitrary minimum wage increases). Scientific mysticism (e.g. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change). Selective exclusion ("="). Throw another baby on the barbie. Cannibalize its remains for profit. Democrats have a Pro-Choice problem.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Hussein chose his fate after invading a sovereign nation and violating the terms of the ceasefire. Obama chose the fate of millions of people throughout Eurasia and America, too.

The withdrawal of honest brokers from Iraq was a catastrophic mistake with progressive consequences. Then came Libya, Syria, Ukraine, France, etc.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

Trump is lying about his opposition and I'm surprised that Stahl didn't challenge him with the proof. Yes, nearly everything he says is a lie but this is near the top of his long, lengthy list.

If the war had turned out well Trump would be saying that he supported the conflict.

We have two serial, near sociopathic-level liars running for the presidency. At a time of major problems.

What a mess.

Jon Ericson said...

FranDresher
EmilL
SandyColdfax
Hankenny

Gee, all new names. Huh.
And none have profiles,
What a puzzle.
And it is only 9:30.

MadisonMan said...

Trump would be in far worse shape if he were facing someone less unpopular, incompetent and corrupt than Hillary.

You're so wrong! Hillary doesn't lie! She has an outstanding list of achievements over her stories career. And she's all for open Government! Nothing corrupt about that!

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Clickbait. Hammond does not watch TV shows where jabbering speakers interrupt eachother. Thanks for the transcript excerpt, Althouse.

mccullough said...

Pence looked like Hillary in that '92 60 minutes joint interview about Gennifer Flowers.

It was great theater.

cubanbob said...

SandyColdfax said...
Compare and contrast Trump's comments with Pence's. Trump sounds like a bumbling baboon from loony island and Pence sounds like a statesman. Pence makes Trump look even dumber than he is, if that is even possible. Trump will be sorry he chose Pence, the contrast is just too stark.

7/18/16, 8:06 AM"

Wait till Hillary makes her VP choice before you speak. Also note unlike Obama who picked the arguably dumbest electable politician as his life insurance Trump picked someone who is a credible replacement president. Why indeed you are right to contrast and compare; in comparison Obama looks like the bumbling actor sent from PC central casting.

Bruce Hayden said...

Stahl is a leftist Dem operative with a byline, and is trying to play gotcha with Trump. No doubt she would ask Hillary equally hard questions, such as what is it like to be a grandmother (again?) I consider most of what she does on air to be a waste of electrons.

Bruce Hayden said...

Meade had it right. Both Iraq and Vietnam were militarily won by Republicans, and then quickly lost by the Dems. They refused the money to buy the munitions that we had promised, when the NVA headed south with their Soviet tanks. I can still remember President Ford going on TV and begging for the funding. He was rebuffed by a Dem Congress. And, of course, Obama wanted us out of Iraq from day one, regardless of cost. The difference was that the Dems got us into Vietnam, then refused to fight to win. Iraq was a bipartisan war. And, no. Bush didn't lie.

mockturtle said...

damikesc: I also am curious if Hillary will answer such questions when she names her VP.

I doubt she would even be ASKED such questions!

Brando said...

"Both Iraq and Vietnam were militarily won by Republicans, and then quickly lost by the Dems. They refused the money to buy the munitions that we had promised, when the NVA headed south with their Soviet tanks. I can still remember President Ford going on TV and begging for the funding. He was rebuffed by a Dem Congress."

I was under the impression that Nixon's deal wasn't so great (leaving plenty of NVA forces still in the South) and didn't give Saigon much that they didn't already have on the table in '68 (except a secret promise to start bombing again if the North invaded). Would giving Saigon funding in early '75 have made the difference, or was the ARVN simply so deteriorated or badly led that the loss was inevitable?

EMD said...

FranDresher

Funny. The actual Fran Drescher is a Republican.

EMD said...

My favorite part of the exchange was when Trump said: "I don't care."

Pence sucks, but he's probably on par in suckitude with whomever Hillary will choose.

walter said...

"This guy? (hand on Pence's shoulder) Look..I made a deal. Sometimes to win ya have to make deals. We're going to make sooo many great deals for the country."

traditionalguy said...

Stahl's pretense at logical argument ignores that Pence is not running for President like Hillary. He is not even running for co-President like Media narrative constructors are pretending here.

Pence has nothing to do but a ceremonial supporting role for the President and break ties in the Senate, or else he has to go away, far, far away, and sit and wait to see if Trump is assassinated or impeached.

mikee said...

"I think this is a good man who's been talking about the issues the American people care about."

Could anyone sit next to Hillary and perform the same action regarding her?
I mean, without either laughing to death, crying uncontrollably, or relying on drugs during the performance?

walter said...

This just in from Vagina:

Friend --

Mike Pence just might be the most anti-woman politician to get tapped for vice president in modern history -- so in his honor, and in honor of the first day of the Republican National Convention, we’re bringing back our Woman Cards for a one-day flash sale. Donate for the first time now to get yours for free!

walter said...

"What's in your pantsuit?"

walter said...

Mike Pence says, “I long for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the ash heap of history.” He even sponsored a bill that would allow hospitals to refuse to perform abortions on women who need them to save their lives.

He waged what the press described as “a one-man war on Planned Parenthood” -- he held up the entire federal budget and tried to shut down the government to force Democrats to agree to defund Planned Parenthood.

Mike Pence voted repeatedly against equal pay legislation. He’s gone so far as to say he regretted that he wasn’t a woman, because if he was, he thought people would take his anti-choice views more seriously.

No wonder the guy who said women who get abortions deserve “some form of punishment” picked Pence to be his running mate.

We’re taking Trump and Pence’s anti-woman views damn seriously. We’re going to get women more engaged in this election than any in history, and we’re going to elect the strongest fighter for women and girls the White House has ever seen.

If you’re with us, chip in right now to show Mike Pence and Donald Trump exactly who they’re up against -- and for today only, we’ll send you a free Woman Card for every donation you make:

mockturtle said...

We hear so much about the 'woman' vote and so little about the 'man' vote which is, as I see it, overwhelmingly anti-Hillary!

Chuck said...

Great post, Professor Althouse. Admirable analysis.

I don't know what the pro-Trump crowd expects people like me to think, about Mike Pence.

I. Are we supposed to be happy, because Trump is himself moving to a more traditional conservative role? Is Trump becoming more GOP Establishment on tough issues?

II. Are Trump supporters claiming that Pence is actually a good figurehead? Someone who will be good at simply remaining within Trump's wake? Who won't substantially change Trump?

I. and II. are incompatible. Which one is it? The 60 Minutes interview suggests that (II.) is the true nature of this pick.

This episode won't end with the vote on the Use of Force Authorization. There's every single free trade agreement brought for a congressional vote when Mike Pence was in the House. And there's a small handful of major immigration bills.

Jonathan Graehl said...

I don't care for Pence - not that he's awful, but that I wanted something more entertaining and someone more brilliant. But I agree that he's doing as Althouse says: playing a supporting role. Lending his credibility+judgment to what few evangelicals/nevertrumpers haven't already come to the same conclusion on their own.

As for "I don't care". "It's not ok when Hillary makes poor decisions like voting pro-Iraq-war". Well, he didn't fill in the blanks for us, but if you really can't do it yourself:

1. VP vs potus. Did we reject Obama because Biden? No. Yes, trump is 70.

2. track record of many such wrong war+chaos+blood+fire decisions for Hillary.

3. it's not surprising that someone was pro-Iraq-war but rather when they aren't. Trump is one of a few exceptions (in terms of people connected to power; you can find lots of crunchy citizens who are always against any war)

nonetheless, it's true that picking anyone who made this one mistake of hillary's many, slightly lessens the perceived weight Trump must place on that one mistake.

so what? individual voters who think the pro-Iraq-war vote is a huge downside will compare hillary-potus to pence-VP and it will weigh heavier against hillary.

of course the honest answer is that Trump is simply putting a happy face on a not-perfect VP. so be it.

Jonathan Graehl said...

I find it believable that Pence's experience+connections are an asset, and that Trump trusts him on a personal level - a valuable source of trusted advice. Trump said as much. I believe it. That's Trump making the most of something he's not 100% happy about needing to do. He says that it's a good thing that he made a pick that really only has value in party unity. It is a good thing. Good for him. Admirable flexibility. Anything else he can get is gravy. I think Trump is fundamentally honest once you account for the positive-thinking freedom we have no right to take from people.

Jonathan Graehl said...

I don't see Pence as helpful in the general election. (I could be wrong! but that social-conservative baggage.)

Trump is probably bummed that he has to hobble himself in order to shore up the party's resentful holdout "we've been putting in our dues for decades and we'd rather lose this election than give you any satisfaction" movement conservatives. If he loses with Pence, it's partially on them for essentially forcing him to service their emotional/importance needs.

Matthew Sablan said...

I always find it interesting that Republican VPs usually have enough heft/gravitas/etc. that they can routinely be expected to hold their own against the Democrat's Presidential candidate.

Matthew Sablan said...

"So this election is all about electing a Vice President because ...."

-- Same as with Sarah Palin. Because they can attack him effectively and get in solid 2-minute hates that make their base pay attention.

tim in vermont said...

Think of him as a porter for that baggage.

Chuck said...

Jonathan Graehl:

You suggest that the selection of Pence was forced on Trump. What leads you to that conclusion? Trump may indeed have been trying to satisfy Trump-hating base Republicans like me. Count me as unimpressed. But that only explains a motive for Trump. It doesn't explain any "forced" selection. Is Trump so weak and beholden to a Republican Establishment that he was "forced" into a deal with them?

Brando said...

"So this election is all about electing a Vice President because ...."

Well, when the top of the ticket gets cagey about whether he will actually serve out his term, it's worth looking hard at his VP. Hell, the man is also 70, and would be the oldest man ever elected (same goes for Hillary). There's a decent chance one of the VP choices will become president.

"But that only explains a motive for Trump. It doesn't explain any "forced" selection. Is Trump so weak and beholden to a Republican Establishment that he was "forced" into a deal with them?"

I think he was certainly "pushed" if not forced to pick Pence. His advisers are telling him he needs to pull the party together, as the math simply doesn't work out that he would get all these previous nonvoters to the polls (nonvoters are nonvoters for a reason--most simply won't show no matter what) or convince leftist Democrats to vote for him, and it makes more sense to get usually reliable GOP voters to come out for him instead. It doesn't work for his gut (hell, Pence didn't endorse Trump in the primaries, and what does Trump want more than loyalty?). But he may be willing to listen to his advisers a bit.

google is evil said...

Who for hell sake cares what Leslie Stahl or anyone at CBS says? Seriously, why would anyone with an IQ more than room temperature watch such blather?

MadisonMan said...

would be the oldest man ever elected (same goes for Hillary)

Hillary is not a man.

Maybe you knew that.

MadisonMan said...

Donate for the first time now to get yours for free!

I'll wait to ask for mine at her Press Conference.

Tess said...

I guess for me, we all were for the war because we were told to be so. Now we know dfferent, is that not possible for others? She hasnt changed her mind or said it was wrong. Im just asking, dont we look at the whole picture? No ones perfect. Im not a Trumper

Tess said...

I guess for me, we all were for the war because we were told to be so. Now we know dfferent, is that not possible for others? She hasnt changed her mind or said it was wrong. Im just asking, dont we look at the whole picture? No ones perfect. Im not a Trumper

elcee said...

Answer to "Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?".

Based on the operative law and facts, Pence and Clinton's vote and Bush's decision for Op Iraqi Freedom were correct: Explanation.

Regarding Bush's decision for OIF, Trump's current position is based on blatant legal and factual error while Clinton later 'evolved' by misrepresenting the 2002 AUMF and legal-factual basis of OIF: Explanations.

Brando said...

"Hillary is not a man.

Maybe you knew that."

Let's not jump to conclusions until we have some proof.