@jamestaranto Also not serious: people who knee-jerk that I'm sure to vote for Hillary (whenever I blog something negative about Trump).
— Ann Althouse (@annalthouse) November 26, 2015२६ नोव्हेंबर, २०१५
Tweeting at Taranto about Trump.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११३ टिप्पण्या:
As I have loved you, love one another.
Oh please. It's a fait accompli, perfesser. Might as well mail in your absentee ballot for the Hildebeast now and save yourself all kinds of time.
Well, you DID vote for our pathetic Community Organizer-in-Chief twice.
Would you be willing to name the Republican candidate(s) you could potentially see yourself voting for over Hillary?
Althouse will not vote for Hillary.
No person who loves America would do so.
Hillary Clinton must be defeated.
Carthage must be destroyed.
Ann, there's three chances you will vote for the R candidate - slim, none, and fat.
Well. You DID vote for Obama, once.
I mean. I forgive you.
You are, after all only a college professor.
However it does show a certain lack of jugement.
Other people might not be as generous as I am.
Try and do better next time.
You have certainly posted negative items about Hillary. However, there doesn't seem to be a sense of 'dislike' in those posts -- more an example of cruel neutrality, say.
When you post about Trump there seems to be an undercurrent of distaste about the man that runs through them, regardless of the subject.
This is entirely subjective on my part, of course.
And I think you COULD vote for Hillary, but COULD NOT for Trump.
Which isn't a knee-jerk response, just my observation, and by saying that I believe you that you haven't decided on Hillary -- just not Trump.
It is still early, and the final players may or may not be what we expect now.
If it were Hillary versus Rubio...
I am Laslo.
Because you will vote for Hillary, Althouse. Your criticism of the Republican field is just laying the groundwork for your eventual post of "how (insert Republican nominee name here) lost me."
"Well, you DID vote for our pathetic Community Organizer-in-Chief twice."
Nice demonstration of not caring about facts.
Correction: No person with more than half a brain would vote for Hillary unless they were getting paid.
You people who are commenting don't seem too familiar with the 11+ years of archive on this blog. What is the basis for thinking I like Hillary? Click on the Hillary tag and go back through the history of my day to day thoughts about her. You could score the posts -- good, bad, mixed -- and produce a statistic. I'll bet if you give 0 for mixed, -1 for bad, and +1 for good, you will end up with a negative number.
Also, you have my blogging through 4 election seasons, this one, 2012, 2008, and 2004. In 3, my vote is revealed, and in 2 of those 3, I voted for the Republican. When I voted for the Democrat, my reasons included: 1. the GOP candidate wasn't a real conservative, 2. the Democrats needed to take some ownership of the war on terror (and not be carping from the sidelines for another 4 years), and 3. the GOP candidate showed himself unprepared to deal with the financial crisis.
Really, I don't know why some of you read this blog unless it's just to spread lies and try to drag me down.
Good Lord. Happy Thanksgiving again Althouse.
I am now entering a politics free zone for the rest of the day. In my head at least I hope.
The reason to vote for Hillary, even if you don't like her, is that the election comes down to 2 major party candidates and the other one is worse.
Now, is the time to concentrate on not screwing up the GOP choice and Trumpsters don't want to focus on where we are in the decision making process. They want to leap ahead to a match-up with Hillary and argue that she's terrible. But many Americans will, if that ultimately is the decision to be made, say she's terrible but Trump is a disaster.
The GOP has to see this problem now and behave responsibly.
Althouse, while I don't think you have become a fan of Hillary, I have noticed a little change. You now seem to be more tolerant and give her a fair shake, a better shake than before.
"You people who are commenting don't seem too familiar with the 11+ years of archive on this blog"
I thought my 8:17 post was reasonable.
"What is the basis for thinking I like Hillary?"
I commented that you have posted negative things about her, but don't seem to dislike her. Not the same as saying your posts show you like her.
I do think you dislike Trump, but stated that was opinion.
Finally, I added "If it were Hillary versus Rubio..." as a nod that you could be open to other candidates, if they seemed plausible to you.
Again, opinion.
I am Laslo.
Taranto has a valid point.
As for the rest, give it a rest. It's Thanksgiving!
Thank you, Althouse for giving another year of blog.
@Althouse: Your 8:35 comment seems to be not far off from my 8:17 comment.
I may even call myself A Reasonable Man.
I bet someone has already claimed that name, though. I suspect.
I am Laslo.
And Trump is the only GOP nominee that Hillary could defeat.
Hillary's opposition research team is sifting through a gold mine of material right now. The lawsuits. The crazy statements. The bankruptcies. The disgruntled ex-employees. The real estate deals. She will leak some to the MSM and some info will be in TV ads. Trump will explode. Hillary wins in a landslide. And then she goes to work and the damage is done.
Ah well, leave Ms. Althouse alone. One vote more or less for Hillary won't matter in an election that's going to be stolen anyway.
"2. the Democrats needed to take some ownership of the war on terror (and not be carping from the sidelines for another 4 years), and 3. the GOP candidate showed himself unprepared to deal with the financial crisis. "
So, the election of Obama made them "take ownership" ? They took ownership like Gamelin took ownership of the German invasion in 1940.
"unprepared to deal with the financial crisis."? OK, McCain looked like a deer in the headlights. Obama, on the other hand, looked like he was auditioning for the movie "Being There."
Even Charlie Gibson had trouble believing his answer about Capital Gains taxes.
Best case scenario currently-- Hillary is the Nominee, picks Webb as her vice. Hillary has health issues. Voila! Decent Dem nominee!
The go nominee will be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-choice, pro-rape and pro-school-shooting. How could Saint Hillary possibly be worse?
It's not fair to say Ann voted for Obama twice. The only way I can see that being true is if you count voting for Obama over Hillary in the Dem primary in 2012, which I'm not sure she did, but even if she did, it's also a vote against Hillary, so how can it really be faulted?
She's made it clear she voted against Obama in 2012. She should get credit, or at least not have an accusation made that implies otherwise.
That said... Ann, there is no such thing as a Republican that is worse than Hillary. Even Nixon wasn't anywhere near as bad. Hell, save Obama himself, I can't think of a Democrat that would be worse than Hillary.
I will violate my non political vow rather quickly.
I actually see Hillary as the greater disaster. I know that is saying a lot but I would rather have someone who is wacky about some issues than a committed and very skilled liar. Checks and balances work much better on the former.
If you think Hillary is a horrible disaster, you ought to care more about getting to a GOP candidate that a majority of Americans can vote for. Some of you are getting off on Trump, which is pretty self-indulgent. I look at what's going on and I just get ready for the inevitable: President Hillary. How about doing something now, while you can or is it just too damned wonderful living in your dream world with your man Trump?
Sorry, I meant "if she voted for obama over hillary in the primary in 2008", not 2012.
"I know that is saying a lot but I would rather have someone who is wacky about some issues than a committed and very skilled liar."
I think I'd pick the liar. I think Hillary will lie but, as President, she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit.
I don't trust Trump at all, but the only way he could be worse than Hillary is that Republicans would get more blame for the various collapses that are already inevitable due to Obama. That said, at least the media would be critical of his excesses, unlike Hillary's. Those cancel out, and we're still left with "no one could be worse than Hillary",
Okay, wow, you think Hillary does *anything* for anyone's benefit other than herself?
What could she possibly do to disabuse you of that fantasy that she hasn't already done? Is there anything? What has Trump done that is worse than what Hillary has done that costs him your benefit of the doubt but not hers? I don't like him at all, his history is terrible, but there's nothing in it one tenth as bad as hers.
Ann "I think I'd pick the liar. I think Hillary will lie but, as President, she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit."
I'll take this as conceding Taranto's whole point.
If you think Hillary is a horrible disaster, you ought to care more about getting to a GOP candidate that a majority of Americans can vote for.
If people like Trump, they like Trump. You can't tell them if they support him they'll end up with Hillary, any more than you can tell a Hillary person if they support her they'll end up with a Republican president. It doesn't matter, They want what they want and at this stage they have every right to go for it.
But the Republicans who aren't for Trump can't really do anything about him until votes start being cast. Really, the most the average person can do is vote for who they want when the primaries come around.
And there are always surprises when it comes to actual votes. As Giuliani and Howard Dean discovered.
As Hillary herself discovered 8 years ago.
There's just no need to try to convince people they are wrong at this point for strategic reasons. One of the great joys in voting life is getting to cast your vote in a wide primary fields and feeling like you actually have a voice.
as President, she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit.
Now that is the most worrisome thing you have said. Now, I wonder if you will vote for her.
She has NEVER done anything that was not for her, chiefly pecuniary, interest. Jay Cost has her exactly right.
It appears that Clinton’s way around this precedent was to do what we lately learned: use the Clinton Foundation to collect money, including from foreign governments, have her husband participate in the more narrowly partisan activities, and use a private email address to correspond free from the prying eyes of the National Archives.
That, to me, was the big question coming out of the email story this week. A lot of people were wondering what public business she was conducting on a private account. What I wanted to know was: what private business did she not want to conduct on a public account? If given three guesses, I’d say: politics, politics, politics.
She is the worst person to get this close to the US Presidency since Aaron Burr.
What lies have been told by Hillary, that benefited this country?
"Blogger Michael McClain said...
Well, you DID vote for our pathetic Community Organizer-in-Chief twice."
I consider this a gross libel.
"And Trump is the only GOP nominee that Hillary could defeat."
Just as Obama had a significant advantage because he is black, Hillary has a very good chance of becoming President simply because she is a woman. It will take a very good candidate to defeat her.
Ann:
Hillary is way more than a liar. She is a criminal well capable of treason for the right amount of money. With her husband, she engaged in a multi-million dollar bribery scheme in plain sight. The thing with her as President is that the public will never know if she is acting for party, country or Hillary. And, of course, she is absolutely immune from impeachment. Queen Hillary.
Hillary is evil and incompetent. There is no reason to vote for her. None. You can not vote If you don't like the GOP candidate. A vote for evil is a vote for evil.
Maybe Shouting Thomas is right. Maybe you are the enemy. If you vote for the V, you are.
"Hillary – sure she's an asshole, but she's our asshole!"
I think I'd pick the liar. I think Hillary will lie but, as President, she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit.
Realistically, Hillary's will be on the basis of what will benefit of Hillary.
There is nothing wrong or unusual about that. It is the human condition to put oneself first, with rationalization of motive as necessary to satisfy individual psychic needs.
Problem is Hillary's personal needs are quite divergent from those of the public good. She is an evil person.
Some folks are inclined to look for a "rising tide lifts all boats" path through life. For others, life is a zero- sum game; any pain or loss inflicted on others is a gain for self. To the extent that Hillary is not a sociopath, simply oblivious to the welfare of others, she is a sero-sum thinker.
And yes, she will certainly lie to cover her mistakes. Her first response to any perceived threat is to attack, with the first fantastic lie that comes to hand.
"I think I'd pick the liar. I think Hillary will lie but, as President, she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit."
Now there's an endorsement. "She's a mendacious, insufferable harridan with no perceptible talent, but she's DOING IT FOR US!"
JFC
Parsing the email address. anal tea house.
Some things cannot be unseen.
Remember, this medicine will not work if you think of a monkey while taking it.
And add me to the list of those thanking you for another year of the blog.
Hillary is the establishment candidate. I don't like her as a person, don't trust her, but she will make fewer mistakes because she is a creature of the system. She is the safe choice if a loose canon gets nominated in the Republican primary. Especially since the Republicans will own the whole show. They will be unlikely to resist the urge to self-destruct, and last time the Republicans did that, we got Barack Obama.
BTW, it's hardly knee jerk to think you are most likely to vote Hilary no matter who the Republican is.
Really, I don't know why some of you read this blog unless it's just to spread lies and try to drag me down.
What did I say that wasn't factual?
Drag you down? Never!
Trump is a mountbank, a pitchman, a huckster. But. He is not Hillary. Hillary is a psychopath.
I think I'd pick the liar. I think Hillary will lie but, as President, she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit.
You have absolutely no evidence that she would do anything for anyone elses benefit. You have no evidence that she will do anything to the benefit of the country.
Her record as a senator and as secretary of state should tell you all you need to know.
Unless you're just fuckin with us.
Un that case. Well Played.
"I think I'd pick the liar. I think Hillary will lie but, as President, she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit."
Wow. You really haven't been paying any attention since '92, have you? Hillary, first, last, and always, will make decisions she genuinely thinks will be for her benefit.
I think I'd pick the liar. I think Hillary will lie but, as President, she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit.
This is the same kind of wishful thinking that led you to vote for Obama in 2008. Then it was the twin myths that Obama was (a) intellectually gifted and (b) driven by noble intent. To many of us it was clear before 2008 that those myths were not grounded in the record, and I think even you at this point would have to agree that you were wrong. (Yes, I know you were convinced that McCain was a loose cannon, but how much looser could he have been that Obama, especially with a Congress then controlled by the Democrats?)
With Hillary it is again that she is (a) intellectually gifted and (b) driven by noble intent. And again, many of us wonder where you get those notions.
Can you see why Althouse Watchers think Hillary! already has your vote, regardless of your claim to cruel neutrality?
LOL.
First, I am a great fan of James Taranto and have been known to send him items for his Best of the Web column in the WSJ online.
Second, I have much respect for Professor Althouse; and seeing just the Twitter exchange she posted, I was inclined to take her side.
But reading these comments, Taranto has a point. I keep forgetting, that Althouse supported Obama and that her social views are such that just about every Republican candidate is a deal-breaker for her. Althouse seems to be intrigued by (resigned to?) another Clinton in the White House. And learned nothing from the Obama years. (Or else presumes that everything Clinton is saying now is a lie, like her rejection/support of gays in the military and gay marriage.) Is Kasich okay, Ann? Could you and I, together, agree that a Kasich presidency would be good for the country? Would that win your vote over Hillary?
Honestly, I am repulsed by Donald Trump as you are, professor. But that doesn't soften my views on Clinton one bit. You're seemingly a soft supporter of Clinton no matter what. Must be the law professor in you.
1. I am not sure how crazy Trump is despite the act and the verbiage. The guy is still in business.
2. He is going to have to work with the Republican Party - Paul Ryan, et al.
3. Hillary! we know is the hardass part of Clinton, Inc., a criminal conspiracy.
4. She is going to have to work with the Democratic Party - Pelosi, Reid, et al.
Taranto as Althouse's "drunk uncle" this Thanksgiving.
"it's hardly knee jerk to think you are most likely to vote Hilary no matter who the Republican"
Yup. Vaginas and all that.
Me thinks the lady doeth protest too much.
The reason to vote for Hillary, even if you don't like her, is that the election comes down to 2 major party candidates and the other one is worse.
Who could possibly be worse?
I grant that Trump could be as bad, and several of the republicans would be useless...but who the hell could be worse than Hillary, a lying, psychotic, power hungry, money hungry bitch that chews even her friends up and spits them out.
"I think I'd pick the liar. I think Hillary will lie but,. . ."
Besides being deluded by his own personality, the Pillsbury Dough Boy with the carp lips is at least as much of a liar. Also, he doesn't have any core political philosophy either on substance or execution. This leaves him overly vulnerable to the influence of the flock of hummers that surrounds him hoping to catch a drip of cash. That's dangerous: a windsock on Viagra.
The good thing is that Trump's popularity has been relatively stable at about 25% of those who claim to be likely Republican primary voters. It's long been my contention that it will be tough for someone with support capped at that level (or maybe increasing by 20%) to win the Republican nomination. Most of the States do not have winner-take-all primaries -- they are either proportional or proportional by district -- Florida being the early exception. Florida is the reason that Rubio and Bush need to come to an agreement about who gets off the ballot before Florida. I think Ohio is winner take all also; Go Kasich. Recent analysis by Silver and others seems to agree.
The GOP has to see this problem now and behave responsibly
Why don't the Democrats have to behave responsibly and dump Hillary?
Note even a bit serious: People who write in shock and horror about Trump's ascent without ever discussing immigration.
Pauline Kael pundits who don't know anyone who cares about an issue, so they assume (or pretend) it can't drive a plurality of voters.
I think I'd pick the liar. I think Hillary will lie but, as President, she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit.
1) What possible evidence do you have that Hillary has ever fought for anybodies benefit except her own or her family's and the child rapist she got off?
2) What possible evidence do you have that a republican, or even trump, wouldn't work for everyone's benefit?
I know, I know....feelings
I don't get the impression Althouse likes Hillary, but it's anyone's guess how she'll vote if it comes down to Hillary vs trump.
I call out Trump a lot, and will take his side when the criticism is overboard as it often can be with controversial figures. I think he'd be a nearly definite loser to Hillary, and if he somehow got elected he'd violate every promise quicker than epany other President and get rolled by the insiders. I am no Trump fan.
But there is nothing in my mind more dangerous for this country than electing Hillary which would meet the rare trifecta of corruption, power abuse and incompetence in a way I don't think we ever suffered in the modern era. We must never for a minute forget what that gang has in store, and we must stop it.
Not only does James Taranto have a valid point, I'd point out that he's also one a handful of bigger media people who have ever noticed Althouse in the past. Rush Limbaugh is another. How often have George Stuffinenvelopes and Mrs Dowdfire acknowledged her?
Ever notice it's always the conversatives who notice her and not the conservatives or the liberals? She ought to give thanks.
Ah,yes. Time again for ye olde "School Marm Althouse." Let's take a moment and reflect on her discovery of the Nig pajamas. "One hears such sounds, and what can one say but... Salieri!"
Who really cares how Althouse votes anyway? She's never swayed my political opinion or convinced me of anything political. It's not her forte. Her forte is art and to lesser extent the law.
I do credit Althouse with making me aware of men in shorts and what it means for the nation.
"McCain was a loose cannon"
Hmmm. 2016 is starting to shape up like Son of 2008, except with Trump as McCain x 100 (not so much loose cannon as loose A-bomb), and Hillary, the MegaObama, with a far more proven track record of incompetence and corruption.
There actually was a time back then when I mighta coulda sorta maybe thought about voting for Clinton (didn't happen, though). I thought, as you appear to do now, that "she's our asshole!". But the intervening years have shown me whoever the "our" is in that phrase, it doesn't include me or most of the people I care about, or a good chunk of the country, for that matter.
I do credit Althouse with making me aware of men in shorts and what it means for the nation.
The abuse she inflicts on men in shorts almost makes up for the rest.
"2. the Democrats needed to take some ownership of the war on terror (and not be carping from the sidelines for another 4 years),"
I remember a stronger position than that. Althouse not only wanted the Democrats to take some ownership of the war but also wanted the Democrats to have complete control of government so that they owned the result. I was appalled; what a risk. And in the event it turned out to be the disaster that could reasonably have been forecast; ObamaCare, economic stagnation, and a disintegrating Middle East evolving into a global existential threat.
Paco wove: But the intervening years have shown me whoever the "our" is in that phrase, it doesn't include me or most of the people I care about, or a good chunk of the country, for that matter.
Exactly. With Trump I feel included; with Hillary I fell excluded. Pretty simple, actually.
Trump speaks to the affected; Hillary speaks to the disaffected.
"I didn't want to vote for Obama, those evil incompetent Republicans forced me to do it ...it's not my fault!"
"I don't want to vote for Hillary, but those evil, incompetent Republicans are going to force me to do it."
This, combined with turning Romney's remark bragging about how he was ready to hire a bunch of women to work for him into an attack on women (that worked!) are why I am entirely serious when I demand the repeal of the 19th Amendment.
I'm still not convinced Hillary will be the nominee.
So let's take Trumps "lies" versus Clinton's "lies".
Clinton lied about dodging sniper fire. SHe PERSONALLY dodged sniper fire. Which never happened.Trump "lied" about seeing on TV that thousands of Muslims in NJ cheered. And then he "lied" about seeing people jumping off the WTC.
In other words, he's lying about seeing things on TV versus in person. Or seeing things on TV, that others say we're not broadcast on TV.
If you compare those two lies there is no contest. One is a direct lie. One is overstating the case, and perhaps, conflating events AFTER seeing something 15 years prior on TV or the Internet.
I preferred Hillary in 2008 because I thought the GOP would have resisted her more forcefully than they would Obama. From the looks of things, I had that measured exactly.
McCain would have been a bad president.
Obama has been exactly as bad for this country as I thought he would be. He is the worst president in this country's history. And he is not finished diminishing America.
2016 is shaping up to be an inflection point in America's trajectory. Hillary will hasten the decline. Several Republicans might reverse the trends.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Let's start with the most salient fact: Obama got 65 Million votes in 2012. That's a lot of knuckleheads.
The other salient fact (perhaps more of an opinion) is that Bernie Sanders is a socialist Joke and may ding Hillary here and there but wont have the financial, political or institutional support to defeat Hillary in the primary.
This, reasonably, means Hillary, at 100% name recognition, starts with about 60 Million votes, and about 240 Electoral Votes.
This, reasonably, means Hillary is a formidable candidate - whether the peanut gallery here likes it or not.
I don't like it. I think Hillary is a liar. More critical to my view, though, is that the Democrat party is an awful, self-destructive vehicle for Leftism, which actively seeks to undermine American cultural values, our free market system, and our national security.
So, I'm voting for whoever is running against Hillary.
Trump, I respectfully suggest, has the least appeal to the mushy middle voters, who swing back and forth (kinda sorta like Althouse). I fear that he will lose to Hillary, although I would definitely support him and vote for him.
My thought is that if you are really Conservative, then give Cruz a chance over Trump. Cruz will be as tough on immigration as Trump, but smarter and more savvy.
If you are less Conservative, then give Rubio a looksee. He's got some flaws, he's a little slick, but he will beat Hillary in the General which is both necessary and sufficient.
"my reasons included: 1. the GOP candidate wasn't a real conservative"
If only he had been a real conservative, that would have changed everything.
"2. the Democrats needed to take some ownership of the war on terror (and not be carping from the sidelines for another 4 years)"
Worked out great. They took ownership, then discarded it, and denied there was such a thing. Problem solved.
"and 3. the GOP candidate showed himself unprepared to deal with the financial crisis"
By contrast with Dem candidate Barry who hung out with the Marxist profs but applied Econ 101 successfully to create shovel-ready jobs and such.
"she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit"
She's very "pragmatic" that way.
What we have here is a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect in a law prof who believes she is good at giving reasons.
Wow. You really haven't been paying any attention since '92, have you? Hillary, first, last, and always, will make decisions she genuinely thinks will be for her benefit.
The reality, that so many seem to be trying to avoid (Ann?) is that Hillary truly probably is the most corrupt major party candidate over the last maybe century. At least during our own lives. I don't think that this has sunk in with many people, but her family and their trust were able to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars while she was in "public service". Foreign policy was, essentially, for sale to the highest bidder (though I don't know how you calculate the value of Huma's contribution to the Administration's position on the Arab Spring, and, in particular giving control of Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that her parents helped run). We are, just now, putting the pieces together, with the slow release of her emails, and those of her state department minions, as well as looking at what their foundation was doing during the last decade (and, esp. while she was Sec. of State).
I did find interesting her statement a couple days ago that women claiming rape or sexual assault should be believed. Sure seems to be a different tune from when she was running the Bimbo Patrol to protect her husband, where she and her people would do whatever it took to discredit women claiming sexual assault by her husband. Hopefully, this sort of hypocrisy will be highlighted during the campaign, along with pictures of her husband with other women, and with the guy with the private island full of underaged girls. Is she going to apologize to all the women whose reputations Hillary tried to destroy? Doubtful.
The GOP has to see this problem now and behave responsibly.
The GOP as an entity can't "see" this problem and "behave" responsibly.
Individual voters, individual people, are going to make the decision. As long as the GOP allows anyone to declare for the presidency under their name, then the GOP has to rely on voters.
Unless it wants to be like the DNC, and re-allocate votes after the fact.
""my reasons included: 1. the GOP candidate wasn't a real conservative"
and Obama turned out to not be a real moderate. He was exactly what his critics said about him. If the argument is, which was more authentic, clearly McCain won that argument.
And I'd think McCain would appeal to a liberal who would vote for an Obama over a "real" conservative. McCain was the guy that "real" conservatives argued would constantly ding other republicans.
...and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit.
Y'know, it is exactly that which has made Hammond a Libertarian. Government programs too often crash on Unintended Consequences and Cost Overruns. Worse, Unaccountable Officeholders give depressing expectation for more of the same.
The best answer seems to be take responsibility for yourself. Government, in most instances, is not going to do a better job.
Let us remember this Thanksgiving Day the reason folks have - and do - take on hardship to come to America. The American Dream is not, as politicians are wont to say: home ownership, a chicken in every pot, a living wage, etc.
Conquistadors, slaves, and terrorists excepted, what drives folks to come to our shores is to escape oppressive government programs.
So, when she calls all the woman coming out against her husband and accusing him of innapropriate sexual conduct liars at one point, but then tweets that we must accept the word of people who cry rape absolutely, is that a lie that benefits the people, or herself?
If you think you should accept the word of someone who cries rape absolutely then I don't see how you would view her actions with anything but contempt. Because she's lying.
If you think you should have a presumption of innocence when being accused of a crime then I don't see how you would view her actions with anything but contempt.
And how do you get from thwt she she would lie "for the people's benefit"
Althouse said: "my reasons included: 1. the GOP candidate wasn't a real conservative"
jr565 responded: "And I'd think McCain would appeal to a liberal who would vote for an Obama over a "real" conservative."
Yes, I've always found this argument nonsensical.
Open borders, muslim refugees, ISIS in ascendance, financial and employment stagnation...conditions are ripe for a Trump landslide.
You folks still imagine that democrat-media opposition research will sink him? Really? After every one of their attempts has backfired and he's become more popular each time?
The problem with most of you is that you are politicos, elitists, and live in a bubble. Trump to you is just hysterically declasse. You can't imagine the populist appeal Trump has at this critical time in our history when the establishment and the media are despised as never before, and it runs deep.
You still imagines the machinations of the establishment and media complex are in control.
They are not.
People who predict the future only by examining history will be blindsided every time there is a paradigm shift, and that is what is happening now.
I suspect that Althouse thinks that a Hillary Clinton presidency will be the third Bill Clinton term but what Althouse seems or wants to overlook is the ideologically Hillary is much closer to Obama than Bill. I don't think it has registered on Althouse that at best a Hillary presidency will be the third Obama term.
Trump isn't my choice but at worst he won't be as bad as Obama-Hillary Clinton. The man does understand economics and has a real world knowledge of incentives and disincentives. And lets not forget that HillaryCare was the forerunner of ObamaCare. As for foreign policy, really?
While no doubt Trump is probably a bit sleazy and no doubt the Clinton machine can uncover a lot she has the problem as well and who is worse? The one who offers the bribe or the one who takes the bribe? Trump isn't a wallflower, he will have no restraints on counter-punching Hillary and her criminality.
Trump has one thing going for him right now that no other Republican candidate has: he appeals to blue-collar Democrats and independents and after eight years of an affirmative action hire as president why is there a presumption the voters are ready for yet another affirmative action president? There is a lot of concern trolling when it comes to Trump. Let the process work, that is what primary elections are for.
"The GOP has to see this problem now and behave responsibly."
this is not a defense of Trump. I'm hopi g he doesn't win the nomination.
But, again, why is the onus on republicans to behave responsibly? It's been established that Hilalry is a liar. Althouse all but said as much. Why is it responsible that the democrats are nominating such a known liar and hypocrite?
That's somehow responsible.
How about, if you know the person is as big a liar as Hillary, vote responsibly.
Althouse is feigning her non liberal credentials to appear open minded. But the very fact that she demands things from one side and not the other, let's us know what side she leans towards.
That and voting for Obama.
@Althouse, there are so many issues you've raised in your tweet and in the comments upthread, I'd like to try to answer at least some of them.
As regards the 2008 election, I recollect your precise wording as being that McCain did not appear to you to be a "principled conservative." Therefore you voted for one of the least-principled liberal extremists to run for president since William Jennings Bryan. That's always bothered me. In one of his books John Madden wrote about how he managed to pass (twice!) on Dan Fouts in the draft. Dan Fouts went on to become one of the all-time greatest quarterbacks in the Hall of Fame. His answer was that he spent so much time looking at Fouts that small issues became magnified. So it was, I think with you looking at McCain. Did you look nearly as hard at Obama? If so, how'd you miss Altgeld Gardens? While it's true that Reid made McCain look like a buffoon with respect to the 2008 financial crisis (and McCain received darned little support from his fellow Republican senators, I noted at the time), it's also true that Obama didn't even bother to weigh in on the crisis. Phoning it in became a trademark of the past seven years, one might note.
The trick is not to dwell on 2008 but to learn from it. And one lesson to learn is not to focus so tightly on Trumps's faults that you overlook Hillary Clinton's greater faults. Trump has a habit of letting his mouth move before his brain is fully engaged, but is not Hillary over scripted? You know where Trump stands on any issue, but do you really know where Hillary stands on anything? Anything other than her desire to be elected president?
For me the biggest knock on Hillary Clinton is her nearly total lack of managerial expertise. A quick question for the Con Law professor -- what are the first three words of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution? * President Obama is not a competent manager, and it has showed in ways great and small, from the near total failure of the Obamacare roll-out to the VA (which is still a disgraceful shambles) to his promise made to Chris Christie to "cut the red tape," which never happened to the OPM hack to ... Need I go on? And there is evidence that as a manager, Hillary is not better but is in fact worse. Much worse. Certainly she does not "get" the information age at all.
Trump, by contrast, has shown off his managerial skills on TV. I don't think they're as impressive as the managerial skills of the CEO of the firm from which I retired, but they're way better than the average person on the street and thus mountainous when contrasted with Hillary Clinton. Above all, I noted that he gets the difference between hiring a woman for a job and hiring a woman whose skills are suited to the job.
Anyway it isn't clear that Trump will be the Republican nominee. However he has resonated with the American people (though perhaps not the faculty of an extremely left-leaning Big Ten university) and that is worth noting.
______________
* For those of you who aren't Con Law professors, the three words are "The executive power." Meaning that the President is responsible for managing the federal bureaucracy.
@Althouse: Hillary Clinton is a subject of an FBI investigation and maybe subject to indictment but it's the Republicans who have to get their act in order? I think its the Democrats who need to get their act together and find a replacement nominee. Lets see; Trump gets the nomination and then he starts demanding the FBI and the DoJ take action against Hillary under the relevant statutes. If they do, Clinton is done. If they don't, Trump argues massive corruption in the government by the Democrats and it will only get worse if she is elected. Trump maybe a problem for the Republican establishment but Hillary is an even bigger problem for the Democrats.
Hillary! is appealing to the activist left to win the nomination. So, she does not mean a word of it; she has said these things, and when she goes to backtracking, there will be mutiny in the ranks.
If she gets elected, it is not going to be a peaceful presidency, domestically or abroad.
If you think Hillary is a horrible disaster, you ought to care more about getting to a GOP candidate that a majority of Americans can vote for.
I'm going to make a prediction now, that if it comes true, will be flushed down the memory hole.
This statement is along the lines we've heard over and over again. It's always the Republicans who are supposed to pick responsibly. Never the Democrats. Was Obama an irresponsible pick? Of course it was. But that was flushed and done away with, drowned out by the cries of, "First black President! Historic!"
So Trump becomes another, "You can't vote for him because he'll lose!" candidate in a long line of candidates just like that. We got McCain and Romney because we were told those were the ones America would vote for, and they lost.
Here is my promised prediction.
Trump will win the Presidency and years and years later, when we have another election, and we point back to the Trump Presidency and we remind people, "Hey, you said McCain and Romney were the candidates America could elect, but they lost. You said Trump was the candidate that America couldn't vote for, and he won. Maybe you don't know what the hell you're talking about." they will say, "We never said that. We always knew Trump could win."
I really am tired of being told to vote for the most electable candidate. Because really, the people who tell us that have no idea who is the most electable candidate.
Does anyone doubt that if Rubio becomes the Republican nominee, we will see story after story that is concern trolling? "Hey, I liked Rubio and I hated Trump. Trump was terrible. I'm glad he lost. But it turns out, Rubio is worse than Trump! Who knew?"
Count on it.
"I keep forgetting, that Althouse supported Obama and that her social views are such that just about every Republican candidate is a deal-breaker for her."
No, I have voted for Republicans even though they have social-issue views I disagree with. It's a lot easier for people who don't have that problem.
"Althouse seems to be intrigued by (resigned to?) another Clinton in the White House."
I am not the slightest bit intrigued. I just adapt to what I think is coming and I don't spend my life feeling aggrieved.
"And learned nothing from the Obama years. (Or else presumes that everything Clinton is saying now is a lie, like her rejection/support of gays in the military and gay marriage.)"
I was never in thrall to Obama. I simply chose between the two candidates.
"Is Kasich okay, Ann? Could you and I, together, agree that a Kasich presidency would be good for the country? Would that win your vote over Hillary?"
Based on what I know right now, yes.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Is Kasich okay, Ann? Could you and I, together, agree that a Kasich presidency would be good for the country? Would that win your vote over Hillary?"
Based on what I know right now, yes.
This is the kicker with every single Republican candidate.
They are easy to support when the media hasn't focused on them. This is why McCain and Romney look so palatable during a primary.
But once the primary is over, you found out about being a bully in school, dogs on roofs, and all other siliness.
This is what makes Trump the safer candidate. By the time the primary is over, what won't be known about him?
You did choose between the candidates. Those of us who predicted all that has since passed (a weakened economy, a weakened military and an abdication of America's standing in the world) find no solace in pointing out that we were correct.
You, Althouse, will always be able to say McCain would have been worse. But to make that argument you would need to think that in four years McCain would have been worse than the worst president in U.S. history will have been in eight years. I do not believe you can make that argument straight-faced. I also note you have never attempted that argument.
Yes, Republicans must choose wisely, as they are the adults in the country. Everybody forgives children - and the childish - their mistakes. Let us now hope so of the children have been converted to adulthood and will not repeat their poor choices. Otherwise, Hillary will ride this country to the ground.
@eric, that last sentence of yours is very insightful.
Michael K, Aaron Burr redeemed himself by riding us of the loathsome Hamilton.
and I don't spend my life feeling aggrieved.
...except by the poor quality of the responses on my blog.....
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Eric: You could not be more wrong. There is a gold mine of dirt on Trump that hasn't been aired. Look at his Wikipedia page.
Ann Althouse said...2. the Democrats needed to take some ownership of the war on terror (and not be carping from the sidelines for another 4 years)
Can we all agree that this didn't happen? I didn't exactly hope for it myself but I did think, after Obama won, that at least the Democrats would now have to act responsibly and "take ownership" in just the way you mean. That didn't happen, and knowing it didn't (and won't, in the future) certainly informs my future decision making--I hope it does yours as well, Professor.
James Taranto @jamestaranto 10h10 hours ago
@annalthouse My point was limited to the claim that Trump is disqualified because he is a "liar."
That pretty effectively answers your argument, doesn't it, Prof. Althouse? You have different reasons for feeling Trump isn't qualified to be President, not just "because he is a liar." I'd bet that's not even in the top 5 reasons you think Trump is a bad choice!
McCain himself, in 2008 wouldn't/couldn't make the case that Obama was going to be bad president. He was proud of Obama and after the election was over seemed happy he lost.
And at least Obama didn't start WW III, which McCain probably would've.
"Blogger Guildofcannonballs said...
"Blogger Michael McClain said...
Well, you DID vote for our pathetic Community Organizer-in-Chief twice."
I consider this a gross libel.
11/26/15, 9:45 AM"
I wanna make it clear that unless you live in the same locale as Althouse to claim her vote, not documented to my knowledge but possible as far as I know, for Obama in a primary isn't the same as voting for him as POTUS twice.
Providing some evidence of this phantom primary vote would sooth many worries since without it any further thought on the subject is extraneous to productivity. Nonetheless, "our" community Organizer-in-Chief implies a primary vote of exactness only fellow Madisonian could claim cogently.
David Begley said...
Eric: You could not be more wrong. There is a gold mine of dirt on Trump that hasn't been aired. Look at his Wikipedia page.
Yeah, not so much. I almost fell asleep reading it. Talk about boring.
I thought there was going to be some salacious material and its all lawsuits and such. Yeah, uh huh, that'll ruin him.
Rcocean, we have a year left and Russian Sabre rattling in Syria and the Chinese trying to take ownership of a major shipping route with an artificial island. Please don't jinx us with this "at least he didn't start WWIII" crap.
"Michael K, Aaron Burr redeemed himself by riding us of the loathsome Hamilton."
In your dreams maybe. He was as loathsome as Hillary and smarter.
Somebody here objected, I think, to my characterization of Obama care as including the drug companies" inside the tent."
You might read this for some remedial education.
For decades, drug makers had overwhelmingly supported Republican lawmakers with campaign contributions. But the alliance with the Obama administration changed that, and Pfizer led the way. The company appointed Jeff Kindler, a lawyer and a longtime Democrat, as its chief executive in 2006, and Mr. Kindler became chairman of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s main lobbying arm, on the eve of the Affordable Care Act’s passage in Congress in 2010.
Obama did the Animal House routine routine. "You fucked up. You trusted us."
@rcocean
We're in WW III now.
Althouse wrote
"I don't spend my life feeling aggrieved."
after writing
"I don't know why some of you read this blog unless it's just to spread lies and try to drag me down."
I think, more than anything, Trump upsets your mid-atlantic middle class sensabilities. He is vulgar. You are refined. He is enmeshed in a world hustling and dealing. You are enfolded in the university. Insulated.
Hillary on the otherhand was raised, more or less, wrapped in middle class privilege. Her upbringing is closer to yours than Trumps. She never had to associate with the working class, or negros, or vulgar Jews. They didn't have them in her high school, Main South.Well. A better class of Jews certainly. No. "those" sorts went to Main east and Main West where there were shop classes. Hillary leaned to lie at her mothers knee. I would really have liked to meet her mother. I bet she was a piece of work. I would have paid cash money to see the look on that womans face when her daughter brought home Bill.
But keep this one thing in mind when you're considering Hillary. Everything she has touched has turned to shit.
The electorate can't afford the turning into shit of anything else.
There are always choices. If it is a choice between Hillary and someone unpalatable you should vote for neither of them. Hillary is a despicable human being. No decent human being can can a vote for Hillary.
If the Republicans put up a known rapist obviously it would be bad to vote for that person. Nobody should do it. They are bad people. If the choice was between a rapist and Hillary I would vote for nobody. A rapist is an evil person. Coincidentally a rapist is the husband of Hillary. She remained married to a rapist to retain power so you are, among a great many other things, endorsing rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and general misogyny, when you vote for Hillary.
In addition Hillary stood on the coffins of dead veterans and knowingly lied not only to the country but to the faces of their families and shook their hands. Then they threw an American Citizen in jail to buttress the lie.
Anyone who casts a vote for Hillary is an enemy of this country, freedom, and decency. It doesn't matter who the republican is, a vote for her removes you from decent humanity.
Didn't vote for McCain because he isn't a 'true conservative'?
So you voted for the most liberal senator?
Bullshit.
That makes no sense. Your going to turn yourself inside out trying to rationalize your irresponsible vote.
That a professor of law would vote for someone with no record of achievement, who won't open up any documentary evidence supporting his purported history and even citizenship is mind-boggling.
You voted for Obama because of his skin color and your need to be on 'the right side of history'. Can't go to those faculty meet-and-greets and have others whisper about how you didn't vote for the First Black President.
Hey, we all make mistakes. Admitting yours is the first step to learning.
Perhaps you can argue the law. I assume you can. Your arguments based on logic are far too often deeply flawed and tinged with disdain for those who dare disagree.
Prejudiced and emotional. Great qualities in an educator.
"I think I'd pick the liar. I think Hillary will lie but, as President, she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit."
Taranto was correct, as were so many posters here.
You will usually find SOME reason, weak thought it may be, to vote for a Democrat.
"I think I'd pick the liar. I think Hillary will lie but, as President, she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit."
Taranto was correct, as were so many posters here.
You will usually find SOME reason, weak thought it may be, to vote for a Democrat.
"she'll most likely lie for us or lie to cover up mistakes after she makes decision that she works on hard and genuinely thinks will be for our benefit."
You have to be completely deluded to write something like that. It's all about lying to protect themselves; that's what the Clintons do.
Hillary lies to a mother's face at her dead son's funeral to protect herself.
Anne, do you lose all perspective when a token is running for office?
When the default position in your politics, your mind, and you soul is that Republicans are worse, period, you can convince yourself to go along with any damn thing the Democrats require, from keeping an active serial molester in the White House to thinking Obamacare can last.
But the political, mental and ethical pretzel you are warped into by doing so should be educational to you about the possible invalidity of the default premise.
And that is where I give Althouse credit. She will vote for Hillary, and it will likely be less than four years before she regrets it. In that, she will be head and shoulders above millions of other Hillary voters, who will just walk around looking like pretzels, wondering why the Republicans were so mean as to do that to them.
Sorry, Anne, but if you're willing to vote for Hillary, then you have no credibility on the "this person is bad for lying" front.
1: Criminal email server, criminal obstruction of justice attempting to cover up what she did with her emails
2: "Vast right wing conspiracy"
3: Dead broke
4: Teluza dash under fire
5; Benghazi
Sorry, if you can vote for that, you clearly have no problem with people being dishonest
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा