So wrote Todd Gitlin in an essay in a 2003 collection called "The Fight Is for Democracy: Winning the War of Ideas in America and the World."
I ran across that at the Wikipedia entry for Gitlin, which I was reading because he's got a piece the NYT: "The Bernie Sanders Moment":
It may have seemed, only a few years ago, that the ’60s radical moment was consigned to documentaries on Woodstock, pushed out of the spotlight for Occupy Wall Street and a new generation of activists to enter stage left. But here it is again....Man, it must be annoying for these Sanders people to have their "moment" stepped on by the "force" that is Donald Trump, whose dim prospects of election are supposed to be a reason to completely ignore him. Why pay attention to one and not the other? It doesn't make sense.
Is [Bernie Sanders] a generational candidate, then, seizing the spotlight to vindicate fellow ’60s-era radicals who may have felt their moment was gone? Yes and no. His enthusiasts cut across age lines. Tim Ashe, a Vermont state senator who got his political start working for Mr. Sanders, is 38. He has met 20-somethings and 40-somethings who say they moved to Vermont because of Mr. Sanders’s appeal — not in order to vote for him, but to live in a place that would elect him. The Howard Dean of 2004, a far more moderate Vermont immigrant, was for some a first hurrah in national politics. Now Mr. Sanders is the purer vintage.
So once again, we are not done with the ’60s.... However unpromising his prospects for electoral victory, Mr. Sanders’s campaign is already a force....
Glenn Reynolds says something similar in "The Donald and Bernie show/When party outsiders feel ignored, a champion appears to take their interests to heart":
Both Sanders and Trump pose threats to their respective establishments. Sanders might be another Eugene McCarthy, who garnered tremendous enthusiasm in 1968 while sapping the energy of Democratic establishment candidate Hubert Humphrey, who went on to lose. Trump might turn out to be another Ross Perot, whose plain talk about deficits excited a lot of GOP voters who then saw George H.W. Bush as an unappetizing substitute.And by the way, for those who think Trump is in a different category because he comes across as angry, take a closer look at Bernie Sanders. He was on "Meet the Press" yesterday, and we were repeatedly freezing the frame for the purposes of commenting on his angry facial expressions. If the press were as motivated to revile Sanders as they are Trump, they could easily put up photographs that make him look as weirdly enraged as the usual pictures of Trump.
In a democratic polity, you can't ignore the concerns of large numbers of voters forever. Both Democrats and Republicans are learning that lesson yet again.
Trump, it should be noted, is hamming it up for the camera. Sanders is trying to look presidential on a supportive morning news show. The freeze frame I caught was at 0:24 in the linked video, as he was saying "I voted against the Patriot Act."
Posts
98 comments:
Todd Gitlin and Bernie Sanders - aged ex-hippies still yearning for the glory days of College in the 1960s, but unable to grasp how the American system of free market capitalism created 150 - 200 Million middle class families in the intervening 50 years.
"...So once again, we are not done with the ’60s..."
The Sixties: America's reoccurring cancer. There is no political chemotherapy that will eradicate it. We will live in a continued weakened state until what the Boomers have wrought finally brings the Nation to succumb.
Wait till the youngster SJWs discover that the inheritance has already been spent.
I am Laslo.
I look back with embarrassment to much of the 1960's - excepting the music and the true revolution that happened in the religion of surfing - my two muses and life's passions. But the rest can go hang. Particularly the year 1968.
Over at Chateau Heartiste - "Science just keeps confirming the rule of thumb I now use to make sense of the world: Everything my grandparents told me is true. Everything my college professors told me is a lie."
Addendum - No offense intended to Professor Althouse who I particularly esteem.
Apparently, many 'democracy' warriors are really displaced socialists: and in Bernie's case: Actual socialists.
Say it ain't so.
I keep hearing that such communalism is a 'good idea,' but that isn't really true either. Human nature, authority, the laws etc all have such richer traditions, posing thornier problems than most followers of this modern pseudo-religion and utopian ideology would have us believe.
Oh, but's it's cool to be a hippie, or there's always some bitterness and resentment to stoke.
While politically, I'd prefer to see Sanders succeed and Trump fail because both of those things mean stopping the Clintons, I agree that the press has been treating Sanders more like a serious candidate and Trump as more of a clown. This is partly explained by the fact that Trump is primarily an entertainer, while Sanders is a longtime politician, Trump is far more quotable, and Sanders, unlike Trump, is not actually trying to get the other party's nominee elected.
In Woody Allan's "Bananas" he substituted San Marcos for Vermont and played the Sanders character, Fielding Melish, himself.
He is the leader of the Trustafarians. That's why Sandernistas look upon honest work with more than a little disdain.
Their flag is the flag of the "Second Vermont Republic" a secessionist movement, their rhetoric with regards to the Confederate flag notwithstanding. Those flags are offensive if you ask me because they represent a group that is still actively seeking secession.
Has any reporter asked Bernie Sanders about the most recent failures of socialism in Venezuela and Greece? Or about any of the other failures of socialism? Those who love the idea of socialism remind me of the old joke about the optimistic boy shoving through a pile of manure looking for a pony. They seem to believe that next time, with the right people in charge (meaning themselves), socialism will work. The history of socialism is the crap pile and there isn't a pony to be found anywhere.
In the 60s I was working hard as a medical student and surgery trainee. I had no time for fools and haven't got time for them now.
I do worry about Trump as Perot and wonder why the GOP does not pick up the theme of illegals. As Jonah Goldberg says today about GOP Trump supporters, "They’re angry about the GOP’s patented inability to cross the street without stepping on its own d*ck and then having to apologize for it. "
I see that and wish it were otherwise.
Instapundit scored a bull's-eye. Bernie's backers are repulsed by the grifters that are the Clintons and Trump's are disgusted with the Chamber-of-Commerce Republicans.
If the press were as motivated to revile Sanders as they are Trump...
But of course. As you might remember, the most forehead smackingly stupid things said in the 2008 election were not said by Sarah Palin or Joe Biden, they were said by Barack Obama. But Palin was the stupid one and Biden was the nice guy who misspoke. The narrative on Obama was that he was smart, so the press ignored his astonishing ignorance while clapping and huzzahing at his deep as dishwater philosophizing.
Wait till the youngster SJWs discover that the inheritance has already been spent.
Maybe that'll motivate them to move out of their parents' basement and make their own way in the world.
Nah.
Bernie Sanders has a position on Greece. He thinks that the US should help them borrow more money. Its right on his web site.
Don't expect him to re-examine his premises. There is always more of other people's money.
Bernie Sanders: I applaud the people of Greece
As far as I can tell from the web, Chavez got socialism wrong... again. And it isn't really socialism they are doing there. I agree, it is more like fascism, the difference is hard to see though.
The Boomers went from Free Love to Free Money without missing a beat.
As Sonny said: the beat goes on...
I am Laslo.
Watched The Big Chill the other day. What a hoot. They did get the music right in the 60s though, for the most part.
"He has met 20-somethings and 40-somethings who say they moved to Vermont because of Mr. Sanders’s appeal — not in order to vote for him, but to live in a place that would elect him."
@tim in vermont: So is this like the Free State Project, where libertarians are moving to neighboring New Hampshire to basically take over the government? The two states really are mirror images of each other.
I think the Drill Sgt. is right when he says: "When you are taking flak, you are over the target," and both Trump and Sanders certainly are taking flak.
Sanders may be nutty enough to think the revolution is finally coming and that he is really runiing, but I still do not think Trump is. There must be something in it for him, and as far as I am concerned, he is welcome to it. I think it is a very good thing that he is scaring up the chickens in the yard, and I certainly enjoy watching!
"We lost — we squandered the politics — but won the textbooks."
That's not the big win - the most lasting material effect.
What you did was spend every last dollar you had, and every dollar the next three generations will ever have.
You were the richest generation in the history of the world, and you still refused to live within your means.
And even now, in your last dying gasp, you are sqeezing out the remaining few drops from the following genrations, by requiring them to pay for your insurance.
You - the boomers - are and will forever be remembered as the swarm-of-locusts generation, leaving behind not even a stem or leaf
Another possible reason for the media's different treatment of Sanders vs. Trump is that the media has an obvious interest in creating a horse race for the Democratic nomination--otherwise, there's really nothing to cover (especially with Hillary avoiding any media contact because reasons). The GOP, on the other hand, already has a lot of candidates, many of which are expected to be quite entertaining. So they have no real incentive to make Trump look more legitimate.
But I would think if the media was primarily concerned with keeping the White House in Democratic hands, they'd be more likely to squash Sanders and elevate Trump.
I hadn't heard of the Free State Project, but count me in.
There is probably a common thread of "stupid" between Trump and Sanders. I think that they both might like to slap a 35% tax on the importation of cars built in Mexico. Now let's be clear and fair about that; that proposal is literally a Trump proposal from his campaign-announcement "speech." (Was it really a speech? Or just free-association?) If Bernie Sanders opposed such a tax, or anything similar, then I apologize to Bernie. I suspect that there is something equally bogus from the Sanders platform to substitute.
Anyway, I still get a kick out of the fact that the national press seems to have overlooked Trump's preposterous protective tariff proposal and is instead fixated on his presumed "racism," based on the press' own terrible manipulation of his words.
Lefties are allowed — even encouraged — to be enraged.
Trump is primarily an entertainer …
He’s entertaining, alright. But he’s primarily a blunt billionaire businessman.
You - the boomers - are and will forever be remembered as the swarm-of-locusts generation, leaving behind not even a stem or leaf
You mean like the Greeks? Won't happen here for another couple of decades probably, but what Hemingway said about bankruptcy is still true, it's gradual, then sudden.
"Why pay attention to one and not the other? It doesn't make sense."
Both are outside the mainstream and probably cannot get elected to the presidency but Bernie's ideas are ones the MSM loves and Trump's are ones they loathe. It is as simple as that.
We saw the same thing in the different coverage of Occupy Wall Street as compared to Tea Party protests. OWS always portrayed as (maybe slightly misguided) idealists while they trashed public spaces. The TP portrayed as wild eyed anarchists when they were obviously middle class citizens who left public spaces cleaner than they found them.
The fact that they managed to purge my children's generation's education for mentions of the horrors of communism and a clear sighted vision of fascism has set the table for them for a repeat of the 20th century.
bernie cares more about redistribution than growth. And that should scare a lot of people. Even as far down as the middle class. But in particular rich liberals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/13/what-bernie-sanders-is-willing-to-sacrifice-for-a-more-equal-society
Sadly, Bernie seems to be more of a man of principle, but it turns out the principles are socialist.
T-rump can only claim to be the wealthiest man in the history of humankind.
"bernie cares more about redistribution than growth."
That's the problem with the New-New Left--they believe talk of "growth" is just another trick in the zero-sum game of getting the rich richer at the expense of the poor. (Never mind that the rich have only gotten richer at times when the poor have improved, and vice versa). They see a diminishing pie and want to make sure everyone grabs a piece while they can.
"As far as I can tell from the web, Chavez got socialism wrong... again. And it isn't really socialism they are doing there. I agree, it is more like fascism, the difference is hard to see though."
The difference is hard to see because the differences are subtle at best.il Duce was first a communist polemicist. But he had a falling out with communism. That didn't turn him into capitalst man. Instead he structured fascism to be the vehicle that produced socialism better than the socialists. It's a sister lefty movement.
" they were said by Barack Obama. But Palin was the stupid one"
The best story about this was the time some people (I forget who) printed up an excerpt of Obama's book "Dreams.." and sent them to some lefties identified as being written by Sarah Palin. It was hilarious. "Written by an idiot" was one of the nice things said.
New Hampshire has been changed politically by refugees form Taxachusetts who move there and then vote for more lefty ideas. That why you have to be careful in Arizona if your license plate is California. The cops are watching for those devils.
I view the sixties as a movie with a crappy plot but a dynamite soundtrack.
Bernie isn't a Boomer! He's Silent Gen. Most the leaders were older, like him and Tom Hayden and their ilk. Boomers were followers.
The "unplanned" generation wants to manage their capital and keep their babies, too.
Tim in Vermont wrote:
Bernie Sanders has a position on Greece. He thinks that the US should help them borrow more money. Its right on his web site.
Don't expect him to re-examine his premises. There is always more of other people's money.
Bernie Sanders: I applaud the people of Greece"
encapsulation of socialism in general. Borrow other people money. Which is why thatcher was so precinct white her statement about socialism working until it runs out of other people's money.
Greece stopped working because they stopped caring about growth and is being kept afloat on other people money. When that well runs dry, other people have to step in and provide the money. That's the socialist economy. We would be absolute fools to cover greece's debt.
This also explains why we in America are 17 trillion in debt. Because modern democrats are socialist lite.
..."Trump condemned Mitt Romney as an immigration hardliner in 2012 and favored comprehensive immigration reform. Trump told Bill O’Reilly he was in favor of a “path to citizenship” for 30 million illegal immigrants:
Trump: You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.
Trump also gushed over Hillary and gave $$$$ to her slush fund over the years.
We need to wake up and smell the Perot II.
AprilApple--good find. It boggles the mind that the people who are so quick to condemn Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio for immigration "softness" seem to assume that Trump's current (i.e., post 2012) position on the subject is what he really believes, and not part of some attention-getting schtick.
Re: Free State Project--sounds good in theory, but the big hurdle is that people usually move to where they can find work. So while a lot of libertarians may not move to the Free State because they have better job prospects in another state, a lot of non-libertarians may themselves move to the Free State for jobs and bring non-libertarian politics with them.
On the margins, though, a state government that passes more libertarian-friendly laws could encourage migration by those who like those laws (and don't mind New England weather).
"I voted against the Patriot Act"
Sigh... That's as irrelevant as Wayne Morse saying he voted against the Vietnam war.
People on Social Security are always angry.
If you're listening to T-rump, you're like an employee in his casino as he comes down to gladhand you in front of the cameras for a promo video.
If you're listening to Bernie, you're just another pawn on the socialist chessboard. The community garden didn't produce this year!
The Boomer talk reminds me of a fascinating book I am reading:
"Whitestock: An Oral History of the Endemic Racism at the 1969 Music Festival."
Some excerpts:
Lionel Freeman: "There weren't a lot of us black folk there. Seemed it was pretty much a white thing: I mean, Sha-Na-Na? Really, white people?"
Howard Myers: " I remember seeing a few black people there. It was all love, man."
George Johnson: "Yeah, all these white people going on about loving your fellow man and they thought us brothers were only there to empty the toilets. Those toilets were sick, man: I thought white people were raised better than that."
Jeffrey Dowd: " I told one black man that I would never call him "nigger." He didn't know what to say."
Emery Allen: "One white boy told me he was down with The Struggle. Then he did some fucked-up white dancing to Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, real weak-ass hippie shit. I saw him again later and he thought I was some other black dude he met. I get it, whitey: we all look the same to you. Fucker."
Henry Wall: I met a black man there, we really talked about some real shit. I haven't seen him since then, but I still consider him a close friend, you know?"
Randolph Jones: "Some white dude had the nerve to ask me if I loved being around all these white women. Dude: your chicks stink of mud and fish. And no, I am not here to fucking clean the toilets."
John Randall: "All I did was apologize to this black guy we met about not having any watermelon, and he looked like he was going to tear me apart. I mean, hey brother: we're all fighting The Man."
I am Laslo.
Basically, Sanders looks like an angry old man, who wants that? Trump looks like an Oompa Loompa, that's more entertaining.
Bernie is willing to think outside the box. I think his proposal to give the people of Mexico and Central America food stamps and Social Security benefits without having to undergo the ordeal of the journey north has some merit. The program will be expensive in the early years but the increased consumption of American products will more than make up for the early shortfall. The program is, of course, contingent upon those states accepting the legality of gay marriage so it's win-win for everybody.
The inner contradiction in anti-war pro-Democracy is that an aroused Democracy is the ultimate pro war social system. Sparta had nothing on an aroused Athens.
Trump is the epitome of an aroused democratic social system. He is a common man at war with the elites who are racing to be the first to betray the USA for 30 pieces of silver.
@ Surfed - "Science just keeps confirming the rule of thumb I now use to make sense of the world: Everything my grandparents told me is true. Everything my college professors told me is a lie."
Dude, I'm stealing that. It's about as true a phrase as I've ever heard. Thank you.
Two reasons that people are ignoring Trump but not Sanders:
1) "People" really means the legacy media, which is tilted far to the left.
2) Sanders has a significant chance of being our next president; Trump doesn't.
My basis in saying this is that voters are so polarized that all that matters any more is party -- the individual candidates don't make much difference. The Republicans aren't going to nominate Trump, regardless of votes, and if Hillary self-destructs, as she seems like she's doing, the Democrats don't really have any other choice.
Hipsters are about skipping the Boomers generation and looking to earlier generations for truth. Dennis the Menace's dad could dress exactly the same, with the same pipe, and be accepted by hipsters today.
My advice to the young is never trust anybody over 50 and under 80.
Sorry, but Donald looks much angrier than Bernie, who appears to be suffering gastric distress.
@tim, the oldest Baby Boomers (me, for instance) are 69. Please go back to your old elementary school arithmetic textbooks and learn how to subtract 1946 from 2015.
I had Gitlin as a prof. Wasn't happy about it. I'm more charitable now...but only from a distance. lol.
There are other reasons to avoid Trump. Shoot, I've been doing my best to ignore Trump since the Maples incident, why would I stop now? Life's too short, etc.
I did hate-watch an early season of the Apprentice. (Trump Ice! With his big, fat face plastered over the side of a freaking truck. Tool.)
Well, Big Mike, my comment wasn't exclusively aimed at Baby Boomers, and I don't see where you would get that from my comment. So please go back to your old elementary school and learn some manners.
OK, I mentioned Boomers, but my intent was basically to include anybody raised in that post war era, which is not a cohort strictly limited to those born after the conflict.
When America has to fight another war who will join the ranks? Somehow I don't see SJWs or other assorted liberals, democrats volunteering. After Obama's fundamental transformation who will lay down their life for the transformed America that caters to the rich and other Democrat constituencies?
jr565 said...
bernie cares more about redistribution than growth. And that should scare a lot of people. Even as far down as the middle class. But in particular rich liberals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/13/what-bernie-sanders-is-willing-to-sacrifice-for-a-more-equal-society
What Bernie is wanting everyone to sacrifice to enable is vision is any hope of getting ahead. As my tour guide in Vietnam said, "Following Reunification, Vietnam was a socialist country. Do you know what socialism is? It's where if I work hard and you don't, we both get the same thing. So nobody worked hard. About 20 years ago, the government changed the rules. Now, if you work hard, you can prosper. Things are much better now."
Socialism never has worked for any length of time, but lazy people still like the idea of not having to work and getting the same as those who work hard. That is why it always fails. The productive quickly realize that they're being used as chumps and quit working, too.
“Our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount of [wealth] back from the top 1 percent,” Sanders said in a recent interview, even if that redistribution slows the economy overall.
And this is what Sanders -- and Cookie, when he comments here -- don't get. Economics is not a zero-sum game. This was proved mathematically by John von Neumann (The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior) and refined by John Nash (the mathematician who conquered schizophrenia and won the Nobel Prize in Economics). Sanders is intelligent enough to see that there is a problem when 116% of the economic gains during Obama's administration went to the top 0.01%, but the problem is the left-wing policies of the Democrats, which inevitably lead to such a result. We need to de-regulate, and we have to recreate an economic environment that encourages people to take economic risks, starting and building businesses.
@tim, it seems to me that a comment that starts with "skipping the Boomers generation" and ends with "never trust anybody over 50 and under 80" is suggesting that the Boomers including people whose ages are in the 70 to 80 range.
And we Baby Boomers don't have manners and are too old to learn them. I assumed you knew that.
Blogger AprilApple said...
..."Trump condemned Mitt Romney as an immigration hardliner in 2012 and favored comprehensive immigration reform. Trump told Bill O’Reilly he was in favor of a “path to citizenship” for 30 million illegal immigrants:
Trump: You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.
Trump also gushed over Hillary and gave $$$$ to her slush fund over the years.
We need to wake up and smell the Perot II.
7/13/15, 9:34 AM
Blogger Brando said...
AprilApple--good find. It boggles the mind that the people who are so quick to condemn Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio for immigration "softness" seem to assume that Trump's current (i.e., post 2012) position on the subject is what he really believes, and not part of some attention-getting schtick.
Somehow I doubt this is the standard you will apply to your own candidate going forward or applied to John McCain or Mitt Romney during the last two presidential elections.
But Trump? Well, he's different.
By the way, did you watch Trumps recent speech in Arizona? Somehow I doubt it. But, he said pretty much the same thing.
Most of us hard liners are immigration don't want or trust amnesty because it's going to create another 30 million illegals in this country. It won't solve any problems, it will just create more.
Unless you stop the flow of illegals. If you have a river, a dam, and a lake, the three work hand in hand. If the river is polluted and the dam has a leak, that means the lake is also polluted. Do you keep cleaning up the lake before you fix the dam? What would be the point?
We don't believe most politicians when they tell us they want border security. John McCain road along the southern border during his campaign and talked about how he wanted border security first. It was all bullshit of course.
Ted Cruz has the same position as Trump and Rubio on immigration. The difference is, Rubio thinks he can work with Democrats on comprehensive immigration reform.
You all think we are so stupid and just don't know or understand the candidates positions.
Voters are more discerning than you give them credit for.
Btw, all I hear re Sanders from Sanders supporters is how the media is delegitimizing him because he is too much of a threat at the same time they are legitimizing Trump with coverage, so there you go.
Hard for me to say since I don't frequent those outlets.
Poor Jim Webb.
"You all think we are so stupid and just don't know or understand the candidates positions."
I'm not calling anyone stupid, but I am calling Trump supporters lazy because they are far more interested in the "in your face" appeal of Trump (as in, if he has such enemies, he must be my ally) when it isn't that hard to find another candidate with the same position on immigration (i.e., anti-comprehensive reform, pro-mass deportation) who at least has some shred of credibility. Ted Cruz, for instance--I'm not a fan of his but at least I believe he didn't just decide to be anti-amnesty ten minutes ago.
I may not think you're stupid, but Trump clearly does. Enjoy the ride now, when he switches again in a year just remember my words.
Hipsters are about skipping the Boomers generation and looking to earlier generations for truth.
Hipsters don't think anything happened - of any significance - before 2000.
hoyden said...
When America has to fight another war who will join the ranks? Somehow I don't see SJWs or other assorted liberals, democrats volunteering. After Obama's fundamental transformation who will lay down their life for the transformed America that caters to the rich and other Democrat constituencies?
7/13/15, 10:33 AM
Never fear. The Democrats will rediscover the draft. The only question at that point is will the Democrats also institute the Soviet position of the unit political officer?
Trump is saying things that need to be said and may be taking flak that helps other candidates. I just worry he will bolt and do a Perot.
I also want to point out that the other candidates in the race who aren't hilariously suggesting they will make the Mexicans pay to build the wall (at which point you can tell Trump's just making fun of his supporters) may vary in their approach to illegal immigration, both in terms of the true nature of the problem and realistic (that is, physically possible) solutions to the problem, but at least they're not intentionally trying to ensure Hillary's election. Maybe you guys believe this clown after his "birther" nonsense of 2012, and maybe you believe he really, truly decided after a decades-long friendship with the Clintons that he's suddenly decided he's a conservative Republican, and a Tea Partier after years of using eminent domain to get local governments to force property owners to give him land below market value. Maybe you believe all that, but I somehow suspect you'll all be pretty quiet when he switches back to the Left.
Sanders and Trump aren't the real parallel -- Sanders is just the Democratic Party's Ron Paul. That Sanders is a senator while Paul was a congressman is of little significance -- Paul's district in Texas had a population of about 698,000 people, while Sanders' state is somewhat smaller, at 626,000. They're both extreme political figures with surprising strength amongst disaffected youths, elected by tiny electorates.
Neither does the kids-get-off-my-lawn look as well as McCain.
Blogger Michael K said...
Trump is saying things that need to be said and may be taking flak that helps other candidates. I just worry he will bolt and do a Perot.
I was pretty young at the time, but did Perot run for President first as a Republican, lose the Primary, then run as an Independent? I don't recall that being the case.
When was the last time a Presidential candidate filed and ran under a party for President and lost and then went rogue?
I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of states that don't allow you to do that. If you run during the primary and lose, you can't get on the ballot.
The whole purpose of the Perot scare is to get people to stop thinking about and supporting Trump. Trump isn't Ross Perot. And the implication is that Ross Perot was a bad person, and he would have been, if he first ran in the Primary and then ran anyway after losing.
Brando wrote;
Ted Cruz, for instance--I'm not a fan of his but at least I believe he didn't just decide to be anti-amnesty ten minutes ago.
I may not think you're stupid, but Trump clearly does. Enjoy the ride now, when he switches again in a year just remember my words.
Why do you keep saying Trump is anti-amnesty? Again, listen to his speech in Arizona.
Bernie should appeal to the Stupid Left, where Saul Alinsky meets the Dumbest Generation* as well as the usual low-fo voters who rallied 'round Obama and who will vote for anyone who will pick pockets on their behalf.
I've never been much of a Trump fan but at this point he seems to be the candidate the "liberal" Hive (and by "liberal" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators") seems to fear and loathe most. So that speaks well of him.
*Regularly represented on this blog by garage mahal.)
So once again, we are not done with the ’60s
Soon enough we will be, Comrades.
And salt the earth where we inter the corpse, with the head cut off and a stake through its heart.
Well, Big Mike, Bernie is 73, so I rest my case.
Gitlin and all of the New Left would do the world a service if they committed mass suicide. Their impact on the world has been overwhelmingly negative. Hell, even Hitler at least had the idea of the Volkswagen and the autobahn.
When Adolf Hitler has more good points than you, then you shouldn't be living.
While politically, I'd prefer to see Sanders succeed and Trump fail because both of those things mean stopping the Clintons, I agree that the press has been treating Sanders more like a serious candidate and Trump as more of a clown. This is partly explained by the fact that Trump is primarily an entertainer, while Sanders is a longtime politician, Trump is far more quotable, and Sanders, unlike Trump, is not actually trying to get the other party's nominee elected.
Trump is no less "serious" a candidate than anybody on the Dem side of the aisle.
And this is coming from somebody who doesn't support Trump.
The Boomers went from Free Love to Free Money without missing a beat.
They also went from Free Love to the most regimented sexual authority the world has ever seen. The Amish are less uptight about sex than Progressives.
But he had a falling out with communism.
His "Falling out" being supportive of World War I in the one country on Earth who had a Socialist party than opposed it.
It's not like he ever actually opposed Socialism.
AprilApple--good find. It boggles the mind that the people who are so quick to condemn Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio for immigration "softness" seem to assume that Trump's current (i.e., post 2012) position on the subject is what he really believes, and not part of some attention-getting schtick.
The issue seems to be some deep and profound distrust in the GOP Establishment (which the Establishment has earned in spades). The average voter is sick of the constant "failure theater" bullshit (my, can't do a thing about illegal immigration, but passing a terrible free trade bill? Got it. No problem. Hey, let's also make Obama's shitty Iran deal passed de facto and require a supermajority to DEFEAT it!"
Anybody the Establishment doesn't attack becomes suspect by default. The Establishment always sticks by their own and only really show their teeth beating down conservatives.
I have no problem not voting for a Republican for President. They nominate shit jduges. Won't do anything to change anything. They tend to be proto-Democrats.
Of course Trump is a self-promoting clown. So what. Does his personal wealth shield him from the need to suck up to the Republican donor class, which wants amnesty (plus a steady flow of cheap, low-skilled labor)?
I get that the macho tough guy routine is part of Trump's whole persona. But if he had really wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the race, he should have pulled a Ron Paul on foreign policy. Seems like a strong nationalist case could be made for securing our borders and staying out of idiotic, wasteful, counterproductive military adventurism. I have been following for the last few years the career of Nigel Farage and the rise of UKIP in Britain and been pining for a similar figure here. Alas, I highly doubt Trump is that person. America is probably past the point of no return. Europe's leading the way off the cliff, and we're not far behind. My long-term plan is to emigrate to southeast Asia, probably Singapore.
My question is what is his plan to restore his reputation after Hillary is safely in the White House? I mean is Hollywood going to pay him off with a flattering biopic?
I don't know what Gitlin is upset about. His folks have been having a "self-righteous moment" since, oh, 2003 or so.
"Does his personal wealth shield him from the need to suck up to the Republican donor class, which wants amnesty (plus a steady flow of cheap, low-skilled labor)? "
We finally agree on something.
We finally agree on something
We and they agree on a lot. That's why the political classes use fear and hate to keep us divided.
I think it is funny that Sanders and Woody Allen sort of had a similar impulse at about the same time. Allen used it as an idea for a funny movie, Bananas, and Sanders acted on the impulse literally. It must have been something in the air at the time for Allen to think it would make a movie people would relate to.
"I was pretty young at the time, but did Perot run for President first as a Republican, lose the Primary, then run as an Independent? I don't recall that being the case."
Good question. I wasn't that young and remember him being in the debates but that was the national election debates. I think you are correct. He really looked like the first third party candidate to have a real shot (John Anderson a RINO ran in 1980 and had zero effect "Reagan was too conservative") but there was a lot of unhappiness with Bush. I was mildly interested until Perot self destructed over a paranoid idea that someone was going to disrupt his daughter's wedding.
"I have no problem not voting for a Republican for President. They nominate shit jduges. Won't do anything to change anything. They tend to be proto-Democrats."
You can vote or not vote for whoever you want, but if you really think any of the GOP nominees would be worse than having the Clintons back in power then you aren't paying attention. Sure, they sometimes nominate "shit" judges--Souter and Stevens became reliable for the judicial Left. But the difference is that the Dems NEVER put moderates or rightists on the Court. So for the Court alone, your choice is roll the dice (as to whether you get an Alito or a Souter) or gurantee a Kagan or Sotomayor.
As for immigration, I take it you'd see no difference between Hillary (who is promising full citizenship for illegal immigrants, with nothing to offer in the way of border security or preferences for skilled immigrants) and say Rubio, who at worst might concede some partial amnesty (e.g., for immigrants who join the armed services, pay a fine, or were minors when they entered the country) to get border control concessions. If that's the way you see it, fine--but for me the difference is quite stark.
"Why do you keep saying Trump is anti-amnesty? Again, listen to his speech in Arizona."
Ok, fair enough--I'm not aware he came out recently as pro-amnesty, and if he did so I'm surprised that didn't make bigger news.
"When was the last time a Presidential candidate filed and ran under a party for President and lost and then went rogue?"
The last time that happened with a significant vote-getter was George Wallace in '68 (and the Dems feared a repeat in '72, though his shooting prevented that from happening. He'd won a number of primaries up to that point). Wallace though may have hurt Nixon's vote totals far more than his own party's, as he also ran on the "law and order" theme.
Perot took votes from both sides, as like Clinton he represented the "outsider" and "change" voters. Also, Clinton ran on a number of conservative themes in '92. The vote wasn't as neatly divided ideologically then as it is these days.
Forget securing the border. It will not happen.
The Left (AKA "Democrats") see no downside to keeping the border open. If another ten or twenty million uneducated Central Americans come in, they'd love. It will dilute the population of working class voters with more Democrats.
The US Chamber of Commerce loves illegal immigrants. They work cheap and drive down wages. The USCC contributes heavily to GOP candidates who toe their line on immigration. That is why you see a split in the GOP over immigration. You can what side the media is on because they will rarely, if ever, mention the influence of the USCC. Lots of money, few voters.
We are so soft hearted towards our children. We are even importing an oppressed underclass so that they can lead them in revolution, the way they always dreamed of.
Well, Big Mike, Bernie is 73, so I rest my case.
Well, tim, you got me there!
Are you really in Vermont? Please tell me you didn't vote for that a-hole!
You can vote or not vote for whoever you want, but if you really think any of the GOP nominees would be worse than having the Clintons back in power then you aren't paying attention.
We've had a Republican House for 5 years.
What, EXACTLY, did they do to uphold conservative principles?
We elected a Republican Senate and they just simply did what Harry Reid would've done but looked like dolts in the process.
Sure, they sometimes nominate "shit" judges--Souter and Stevens became reliable for the judicial Left. But the difference is that the Dems NEVER put moderates or rightists on the Court. So for the Court alone, your choice is roll the dice (as to whether you get an Alito or a Souter) or gurantee a Kagan or Sotomayor.
"Republican" judges dragged Obamacare over the finish line...twice.
"Republican" judges decided that their feelings on gay marriage matters way more than any actual Constitutional explanation for why it is legal.
The only plus is that they upheld the Second Amendment. So after decades...well, we got that.
As for immigration, I take it you'd see no difference between Hillary (who is promising full citizenship for illegal immigrants, with nothing to offer in the way of border security or preferences for skilled immigrants) and say Rubio, who at worst might concede some partial amnesty (e.g., for immigrants who join the armed services, pay a fine, or were minors when they entered the country) to get border control concessions. If that's the way you see it, fine--but for me the difference is quite stark.
NOBODY is discussing dealing with the border outside of Trump, and that is politically asinine of Republicans (that they'll lose is becoming increasingly more apparent --- a party as dumb as they have earned the losses). The donors for the GOP sure as shit don't want anybody to do so.
And until THAT is dealt with, the amnesty theater is utterly pointless.
Hell, I'd even accept TOTAL amnesty --- if the illegals can NEVER vote in any election for any federal office. Ever. Nor can their kids.
And if that ever happened, Dems wouldn't care any longer, either.
I watch closely Europe and I see what rampant immigration to bolster a political party causes. I'd prefer to avoid it here, but very few people seem to want the same. Oh well.
As long as the GOP is enamored with the Chamber of Commerce, then they can go fuck themselves. I'd support tripling the minimum wage just to fuck with the Chamber.
"NOBODY is discussing dealing with the border outside of Trump"
Even the pro-reform GOP are talking about dealing with the border. As for what Trump is discussing--telling Mexico to pay for it, which is about as likely to happen as re-animating Winfield Scott and sending him down there to re-invade--I don't count that as a serious solution to a serious problem. I'd rather argue with people who disagree but are at least taking the issue seriously. Trump is just mocking the Right.
""Republican" judges dragged Obamacare over the finish line...twice."
Ok, Roberts twice and Kennedy once, but the other three GOP nominated justices were in the dissents. Where were the Dem nominated justices? All four in lock step with the majority, both times. I'm not saying the GOP does a great job with their nominations--this has been a problem since Eisenhower--but at least with the GOP there's a chance of a Scalia or Thomas getting on the bench. Clinton and Obama give us no such uncertainty.
"We elected a Republican Senate and they just simply did what Harry Reid would've done but looked like dolts in the process."
The GOP House and Senate have not passed anything, but unless they can override a veto I don't see why anyone would expect them to. On the other hand, if those two houses remained in Dem hands since 2010, try and imagine what else we'd be seeing. Maybe an expanded ACA, with more subsidies; raised minimum wage; card check; cap and trade. There's a lot on the Dem wish list that is a non-starter thanks to the GOP.
That's not saying I'm thrilled with what the GOP houses have done--I'd have preferred they pass some popular legislation that would either force a compromise from Obama or put the Dems in the uncomfortable position of going on record against it (say, eliminating piecemeal unpopular parts of the ACA such as employer mandates). But I'm realistic about what I can expect from them.
The culmination of 50 years of left-wing thought is a candidate who will struggle to get more than 20% of the total Democratic primary vote. 20% might even be being generous to him. The Times can't stop slobbering over how Sanders shows that socialism is no longer taboo internally in the Democratic Party or to Democratic primary voters and basically approvingly predicts that the party will eventually openly advocate for it.
I'm waiting for a Republican nominee to finally step up in a debate in some October and say to the Democrat, "your party has gone so far left that you now openly advocate policies totally at odds with the history and culture of this country, and you try to cover that up by calling us racists over and over again. Fuck. You."
Vermont was an amusing sideshow when I lived in New Hampshire for a year 1994-95. The Vermont legislature finally had to pass a law with an exemption for sales tax on new cars because every VT resident was driving across the Connecticut River to buy cars from NH dealers. Ditto for Walmart and other Big Box stores in NH. NH was smart enough to put the state liquor store north of the first toll plaza on 95 so all those Mass alcoholics had to pay a toll to buy tax free booze in NH.
Look, the lessor of two evils is still less evil.
It is depressing I know, but I live in California. You get used to it. You do the best you can to persuade others to change, hold your nose and vote the lessor of two evils, and then continue trying to persuade others. I had high hopes that the Tea Party movement would get rid of enough establishment Republicans to allow real reform, but that hasn't happened yet.
As long as we are fighting the Left, the media and establishment Republicans at the same time, it is going to be an unpleasant uphill battle.
The GOP House and Senate have not passed anything, but unless they can override a veto I don't see why anyone would expect them to. On the other hand, if those two houses remained in Dem hands since 2010, try and imagine what else we'd be seeing. Maybe an expanded ACA, with more subsidies; raised minimum wage; card check; cap and trade. There's a lot on the Dem wish list that is a non-starter thanks to the GOP.
They proactively made the Iran deal impossible to defeat.
Blogger Brando said...
"NOBODY is discussing dealing with the border outside of Trump"
Even the pro-reform GOP are talking about dealing with the border. As for what Trump is discussing--telling Mexico to pay for it, which is about as likely to happen as re-animating Winfield Scott and sending him down there to re-invade--I don't count that as a serious solution to a serious problem. I'd rather argue with people who disagree but are at least taking the issue seriously. Trump is just mocking the Right.
I don't know if this is accurate or not.
Granted, Mexico is never going to write the US a check. That's probably true (Although I wouldn't completely rule it out).
However, according to Wikipedia, in 2014, we gave Mexico almost a billion dollars in foreign aid last year. If you add up all the countries and foreign aid we've given, it's 105 billion dollars.
The budget for CBP last year (Same year as that 105 billion in foreign aid) was 12.9 billion. CBP includes Border Patrol.
So, maybe without going into detail, he is talking about subtracting from their foreign aid to make them pay. Which, in reality, is the US paying, but I guarantee, to those foreign countries, it'll feel like they are paying.
Same year as that 105 billion in foreign aid
If I was elected president, my first act would be to eliminate all foreign aid, and make the State Dept. try to justify keeping any of it. Any aid that I did continue would be reduced by 10%. This policy would stand at least until we have a balanced budget. Charity begins at home.
The second thing I would do is immediately cut our contributions to the United Nations by 10%, and announce that I would continue to do so until the United States was contributing no more than 25% of the United Nations' operating budget. The U.N. is now primarily a jobs program for Third World diplomats and their families. Whenever it actually does anything, it invariably does more harm than good.
Then I'd start eliminating cabinet departments.....
Why pay attention to one and not the other? It doesn't make sense.
One of them might be a giant killer. But anyway, they are paying more attention to the other one. I mean, they are.
"They proactively made the Iran deal impossible to defeat."
Not sure what you mean. The Dims might get riled up enough to stop the Iran deal approval. Obama has structured this so that a 2/3 vote is needed to disapprove. That is the reverse of normal treaty approval but that is how this guy operates.
The GOP will never approve this but they don't have 2/3.
Michael, Corker's bill changed the normal ratification to make it a required supermajority down vote to defeat. If he did nothing, it'd be the usual supermajority to approve. He made approval the default here and everybody knew it.
Post a Comment