The second-highest rated comment — with 1230 recommendations — at a NYT article by Patrick Healy titled "Clinton Campaign Underestimated Sanders Strengths, Allies Say." Excerpt:
Most Clinton advisers and allies would speak only on the condition of anonymity to candidly assess her vulnerabilities and the Clintons’ outlook on the race.... Several Clinton advisers are also regretting that they did not push for more debates.... Several Democratic leaders... argued that Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should have competed against [Sanders] more aggressively, in debates and on the campaign trail, rather than appear so sharply negative with their recent attacks, which have given the campaign a jumbled feeling heading into the first voting states. Even Chelsea Clinton jabbed at Mr. Sanders, an unusual move given that relatives are traditionally used in campaigns to soften a politician’s image....Jumbled... sudden... anxious....
Some Democrats also believe Mrs. Clinton may have benefited from a more competitive primary season with big-name rivals, like Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., who might have brought out the fighter in her. Only this month has she started to engage Mr. Sanders, and some of her jabs have looked sudden and anxious....
Why did Democrats stand back and allow Clinton to run unopposed? She lost in 2008, so why was she entitled to this clear path they gave her? One guy, not even a Democrat, stepped into the path with her. That he's caused her so much trouble makes it obvious that she didn't deserve that deference.
I know there's another guy. I'm sure his utter irrelevance has some meaning. What gets me is the cession of the party to the Clintons. How can a party be so inert, so uninspiring? Why did Obama leave it in such a condition that it should offer up only the elderly woman who lost to him 8 years ago, offer her up as if she's so decidedly right that no one else should even compete? What deadness! Such deadness that a significantly more elderly man drops in and feels like the future. How could a party lapse into this predicament?
ADDED: The post title is a quote that I cut and pasted. The misspelling of "Hillary" appeared in the NYT. Just a commenter, though, so no reason to look down on the NYT.
Posts
150 comments:
The Democratic Party has become a seething cauldron of disparate interests and lobbies. Read Jay Cost's book "Spoiled Rotten," about how it is a collection of mutually incompatible seekers of privileges that can be held together only by some magnetic force like a black candidate or a women candidate.
I'm a little surprised that Warren passed up the chance but the Clintons are well known to be malicious and vindictive so she may have decided to pass this time although she is no spring chicken herself.
"How could a party lapse into this predicament?"
Failed ideas and a wildly corrupt party, that's how.
And Bernie Sanders is just their crazy uncle on the loose. He is no kind of an "alpha male."
They gave the nomination to Obama because he was black. Now it is Hillary's turn, because she is a woman. It's affirmative action. In neither case was the candidate a reasonable choice, but in today's Democrat world, special interests trump quality.
Other potential candidates knew, or were warned, that the DNC would not treat them fairly if they challenged Bloody Mary in the primary.
And we saw that play out with how the DNC actually handled the debates.
How can a party be so inert, so uninspiring?
Because the current leadership has smothered the next generation of Democratic politicians. Name a Democratic leader under retirement age besides Obama, a lame duck, and Debbie Wasserman Shultz who is dumber than a box of rocks.
Even worse, the Republicans are dominating elected positions at the state level, so there is no farm team coming up.
As bad as things are for the Democrats now, it could be worse for them in four years.
Contrast that with the Republicans.
Trump certainly is an alpha male, and the rest of them, even the undercards, at least look plausible as department secretaries and agency heads.
"Why did Democrats stand back and allow Clinton to run unopposed? She lost in 2008, so why was she entitled to this clear path they gave her?"
Hilary might have been better off if Biden challenged her directly. (He's still out there.) Then the focus would have been on the difference between her and Biden, and with Biden's graffitis she would have compared reasonably well.
As to the rest, who have they got? It would have to be someone relatively obscure and untested, which means a long shot. The well known Clinton vindictiveness probably had a substantial effect in ruling out long shots. Both the candidate and the people who would support the candidate know that a loss would put them in deepest Siberia. So many Democrats are tied to the bounty of the state for livelihood, identity and power that Siberia is a fearful prospect for them.
With the Clintons you can never rule out intimidation, and it does not have to be overt.
"How could a party lapse into this predicament?"
...by being led by the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Sad commentary, yes, but not unexpected or atypical.
Hillary and Obama both are 'zero sum' people, highly focused on themselves and their relative position. Gain for other people is of no value to them; ruination of others is valuable since it raises their own relative position.
As bad as things are for the Democrats now, it could be worse for them in four years
I've been reading epitaphs for one party or another for all my life it seems. Alas, they never seem to come true.
Althouse, your last 5 sentences are spot on.
And Hillary is old, yes. Trump is even older! Really, Boomers: Get off the Stage.
Silly Hillary. She still thinks that the New York Electoral College vote beats Vermont's. But like AlGore, she may not beat Trump in her home State. And campaigning while under Federal Criminal Indictment may not be easy to overcome by the cache of becoming the First Woman Criminal President.
"What gets me is the cession of the party to the Clintons. How can a party be so inert, so uninspiring?" What do you mean, "uninspiring"? First woman prez! And then, who else have they got?
"Why did Obama leave it in such a condition that it should offer up only the elderly woman who lost to him 8 years ago, offer her up as if she's so decidedly right that no one else should even compete?" I think O wanted, and still wants, control of the party after he steps down. But he didn't have a proper Plan A, since Joe was 1. old 2. white 3. male 4. reluctant and 5. Joe. He needed someone who could win and whom he could control--but who?
Plan B: cede the campaign to Clinton, 50/50 she loses, and O is home free, his legacy cemented. Of course, the whole thing could still implode, requiring Joe riding to the rescue.
"deadness . . . How could a party lapse into this predicament?" What do you mean, predicament? It is the reactionary party. Socialism is their new idea. You may not like it but it's who they are.
"How could a party lapse into this predicament?"
Because they have been crushed at every level other than POTUS. Senate. House. And in state legislatures and governor. Cupboard will be dry for a while.
Who will play Perseus to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's Medusa?
Recall who the news media briefly focused on in the darkened audience at the very moment that Sanders apologized to Clinton during the last Dem debate.
My prediction is that DWS will "resign" before this is over.
A Democrat is running as a Republican and winning.
Maybe Mitt Romney should jump in and run as a Democrat.
Bernie isn't THAT much older than Hillary. The funny thing is, Hillary seems to me older than her years. She seems tired and rickety. Compare her to Elizabeth Warren, who's only a couple years younger but much, much more energetic and spirited.
Bernie sure looks old, and has looked old for decades.
Jim Webb is probably the most qualified candidate that has appeared on the Dem scene for this cycle. We saw how long he lasted. Everyone who is not rabidly mad seems to have been co-opted by the Clintons. I don't think there is any other answer than fear of the Clinton's vindictiveness. Perhaps a desire for power, but it's hard to believe that there are many people who actually want to work in a Hillary administration. However I am, even at my age, constantly surprised by the ego needs of some of our population.
I've been reading epitaphs for one party or another for all my life it seems. Alas, they never seem to come true.
OK..who are the "rising stars" in the Democratic Party?
@Bob Boyd Wouldn't that be a hoot!
Why did Democrats stand back and allow Clinton to run unopposed?
The problem is that the Dems don't have many viable candidates to run against her. Warren had a decent shot, if not to win then to build a base for 2020. Gore blew the 2000 election and Biden has tried twice in the primaries with little success. The only high profile dem governor I can think of is Cuomo. He actually might have had a chance - this seems to be the year of the New Yorker.
Bob Boyd,
A Socialist is running as a Democrat and appears to be winning.
So the mistake was not running a better campaign, or getting out of the way, it was "darn, we didn't destroy the guy".
A Democrat is running as a Republican and winning.
Maybe Mitt Romney should jump in and run as a Democrat.
60 - 70 years ago, either of them would not have been out of place as Democrats, but this is now - after the great purge.
The Democrat center is now pure socialist, and their fringe communist.
That is how they got where they are. And Republicans were slowly heading that way till the Tea Party showed up.
I'm not a Trump fan but if he wins the nomination... Yes I will vote for him.
Vote for him cause I am getting pissed off with what all this government is doing.
@ paul I am trending the same way and for the same reason. I can't believe that's the way my mind is working, but it is!
When you go into a game, like football or basketball or tennis or billiards or politics, you study the opponent first, but then you get into the game, all the way. You learn what tactics the opponent deploys, and adjust.
Hillary seems to believe that you defeat the opponent before the game starts. This strategy never wins.
How can a party be so inert, so uninspiring? Why did Obama leave it in such a condition that it should offer up only the elderly woman who lost to him 8 years ago, offer her up as if she's so decidedly right that no one else should even compete?
Because the Obama Administration, and Democrat progressivism in general, does not seek to persuade or attract or inspire. Instead, it ia all about power, which does not need to persuade, it only needs to impose. Their thinking is also pervasively divisive. Everything is "us" against "them," and the "us" is automatically entitled to whatever they want. Even when they talk about uniting people, it is in terms of "us" coming together to go after "them."
So of course Hillary does not bother to persuade. She is entitled. She does not need to do the polite thing and ask, she expects everyone to give. If she meets an opposing view, she always attacks.
Then you also have the extreme narcissism of Hillary, which Obama and "her husband" also have, but she then adds her own special pathological paranoia where those who do not bow down to her are enemies to be destroyed.
If Sanders picks a youthful running mate before the primaries, he would win it out of the gate. As it is, no person in their right mind will vote for a 75 year old man, who's never run anything bigger than a desk, and will probably die in office.
Not that many youthful Woodstockers around anymore.
As to the rest, who have they got?
In addition to the above, then you have Harry Reid. A fair number of Dems in the Senate might have made decent candidates, or at least made the argument that they are good by claiming that they had been successful governors before they joined the Senate. However, because the Dem side of the Senate is a one-man puppet show, while they might have been the greatest governors ever, they have been complete do-nothing, accomplish-nothing non-entities as senators.
I still think this is a very interesting year. People I know on the right think we are headed for a revolution. Trump might just be the guy who heads it off. Gregg Abbot, in Texas, seems to be moving to relieve the pressure on the right by asserting states' rights, which were discredited by segregation.
If we can avoid nuclear war in the next five years, I am slightly optimistic.
When you have as many unanswered questions as there are in this post, it simply means you haven't put in the time to come up with a good conspiracy theory.
Maybe I can help.
Both Sanders and Trump initially got into this race at the Hillary's request.
Sanders job was to A) Give the appearance that Hillary had to earn the nomination. B) Run against her from the left to make her look relatively centrist for the General.
Trump's role was to be another Ross Perot type disruptor of the Republicans.
Nobody at the time expected Hillary to suck so bad as a candidate that Bernie keeps beating her even though he's trying not to.
And Trump didn't expect to be so well received, have so much fun or actually have a chance to win the Republican nomination.
The democratic party has become a bit of a cargo cult. They long for the days of the last Clinton presidency, but they have no idea how Bill Clinton got elected, or exactly what it was that made the 1990's seem like a great time for the country. They think that by putting another Clinton out there, things will magically come together.
The truth is, the 1990's weren't that great an era economically, except for people in high tech, and Bill Clinton wasn't that great of a great president. He was a great politician who faced mediocre opponents during an unusual, interstitial time in world history.
It's interesting to me how often the professor spins her blog posts out of "the highest rated comment" on a story or reddit thread or such. I wonder if she wishes she had a "like" or rating system here?
Hillary seems to believe that you defeat the opponent before the game starts. This strategy never wins.
Never say never.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121918996082755013
OK..who are the "rising stars" in the Democratic Party?
I don't really know, because I don't follow politics that closely. I will suggest that there are some in state legislators in the Great Plains. My inclination is that Democrats on the coasts (I include the Great Lakes in that description) are a bit divorced from Economic Reality.
Here in WI, the Democratic Party offers up retreads and tries to convince us they are brand new tires, but I just see tired.
khesanh0802 said...Jim Webb is probably the most qualified candidate that has appeared on the Dem scene for this cycle.
I agree. Instead they give us that nothing burger from "The Wire" every debate.
And I think Mark makes a point worth considering for the Democrats: the Senate is a dead-end location as far as leadership goes. That's where good Democrats go to wither and die on the vine. If you want to cultivate yourself for higher office -- the Presidency/Vice-Presidency, Governor's mansions are the places to do it.
Hey! No moderation! I came back from a work trip at the right time.
Silly commenters. The Democrats have another candidate you are forgetting. His name is Donald Trump.
Too many people looking for power, not so much wanting to do something positive for the country. Give away benefits, privileges, access, etc to gain voters who don't have to actually earn them. Its not a good deal but the elites know they are smarter and that people need to be cared for. Right? Just ask them.
Look at her accomplishments.....she marries a sterile womanizer, and has a child with the ugliest partner at the Rose law firm. She is dismissed from the Watergate investigation because she attempted to fabricate evidence. The shenanigans in the White House travel office. Her Russian reset button that translated to overcharge. Ambassador Stevens, and the SEALs in Benghazi. Her private email server.
Everything she touches turns to shit. She's incompetent. She has come to epitomize the idea of an out-of-control government, and she can't wash that stain off her dress.
Maybe President Trump can offer Hillary a position in his new administration.
How about naming her US Ambassador to Libya?
I wonder if she'll keep requesting more security and if her requests will be denied.
Socialism, a political philosophy that has failed everywhere it has been tried, and failed so magnificently that places like Venezuela and Cuba exist today, still appeals to people for reasons beyond my understanding. I guess everyone can convince themselves that they will be the Chavez of their country, and not one of the masses trying to find toilet paper.
Yes, Hillary, stand in front of that 100mph Bernie rolling socialism bus, and try to ride the front bumper as it reaches you. You will be a greasy spot on the road of history, just like Bernie is going to be.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/21/why_donald_trump_didnt_run_as_a_democrat_127475.html
Debbie Wasserman Shultz who is dumber than Half a box of rocks.
"Donald Trump is a Democrat!"
Oh really? How many dems are running on a platform of building a wall ASAP and banning Muslims temporarily?
We aren't stupid, you know. And bringing up 10 year old stuff isn't going to convince anyone. When you are a businessman in a heavily dem city, of course you're going to play the chameleon.
"Huma, can you bring me my pain pills...?"
"Hillary, you're on your second bottle of Vodka this morning -- I don't think adding pain medication is a good idea."
"But it HURTS, Huma. It hurts so bad. Everyone is turning on me. Anonymous advisors, anonymous allies: they are all sticking knives in my back."
"It's because they believe you've lost your Ruthlessness and Cruelty. They don't fear you like they used to."
"I was GOOD at being Ruthless and Cruel, wasn't I, Huma?"
"You were the best, Hillary. And if you just cut back on the relentless drinking and washed the shit and urine from your hair you could show them how Ruthless and Cruel you still can be."
"I just don't know if I have it anymore, Huma. I'm being out-stamina'ed by a 74-year-old Jew. It's ALWAYS the Blacks and Jews, even after all I've done for them."
"Hillary, you know I am of Muslim heritage. I have told you before that Blacks and Jews are the very most ungrateful and lowest of people."
"Yes, you have told me that, Huma."
"And have I been wrong?"
"Huma, you know I hate the Blacks and the Jews, but there are not enough Gay people to elect me -- I HAVE to pander to them."
"I understand, Hillary."
"It's just that Bernie is pandering even MORE. It's like shiny objects: you can never give Those People enough Shiny Objects."
"That is why you need to be Ruthless and Cruel again: it is the only language they understand. Without Fear they will Fuck Up Everything."
"I know, Huma, I know... ...Huma?"
"Yes, Hillary?""
"Am I shitting myself again?"
"Yes you are, Hillary."
"How can I control a Country when I can't control my own Bowels?"
"Hillary, America doesn't care if you occasionally shit on yourself, as long as you Shit on the Right People, too..."
I am Laslo.
Predicament? What predicament? The Democratic Party is in good shape compared to the Republican Party evidenced by its top two front runners, Trump and Cruz. Shifting the focus of concern to Democrats is a way to make conservatives and Republicans feel better about what they have become. Again, when Trump is your top guy, you have got major problems in your very own house. Stop peeping through the curtains into the Democrat's house hoping to find worse disfunctionality than in your own.
Anyone who thinks that Hillary is less dysfunctional than Trump needs to be institutionalized for their own safety.
Amanda may be right. The Dems are self-destructing nicely and it may be better to just passively watch. The worst thing that could happen is that Hillary gets so bad that people give her sympathy votes.
Anyone who thinks a narcissistic, thin skinned, blowhard, doofus, buffoon, misogynistic bigot like Trump who didn't even know what a nuclear triad was can be President of the most powerful country on earth is deluded and not very intelligent.
It has definitely been a puzzle to me that she was not challenged by better candidates- and those candidates do exist. Even the weakest of those other candidates, Biden, would have defeated her easily, but I think his heart just wasn't in it any longer. It may well be that the other candidates sat out thinking that Biden would eventually take up the challenge.
As it stands, she will be the nominee unless the FBI gets frisky.
Amanda does a great Debbie Wasserman-Schultz impression.
Remember when the Kennedy brothers were running well to the right of Nelson Rockefeller?
Good times, good times.
Am I the only person who is sick and tired of pundits doing "horse race" reporting and focusing on tactics? Where do the candidates stand in important issues?
The Middle East -- how we got where we are is important relative to Hillary Clinton, who had a hand in making it what it is today. Has she learned anything from her mistakes? More vitally, what is the vision of where we need to get to (no ISIS/ISIL, no living Al Qaeda members, at a minimum, no Saudi Arabian export of Wahhabism) and what steps can we take to get there?
Immigrants and Refugees -- it's great that Trump has proposed a moratorium on accepting Muslim immigrants until we can figure out what's broken and how to fix it. The question for him and other Republican candidates is how are you proposing to figure out what's broken? The question for Clinton and Sanders is do you even understand that when we bring in a woman who posts her desire to kill Americans on social media before coming here, that there really is something broken? How will you fix such an obvious blunder?
Undocumented Hispanic immigrants -- do you propose to offer amnesty? Do you propose wide open borders? If not amnesty, how do you propose to relocate the millions (is the widely-accepted figure of 11 million anything like accurate?) that are here?
Appalling levels of lead in the water in Flint, Michigan, and heavy metals released into the Navajo's water supply by EPA blundering make it clear that the EPA is out of control and adding to our environmental problems, not alleviating them. How will each candidate propose to fix that?
For the vast majority of Americans, the misleadingly-named "Affordable Care Act" means much higher premiums for much higher deductibles and all around worse health insurance. Who proposes to fix and how? Who proposes to eliminate it and how will we return to what we had before, or perhaps an even better system than we had before? Note for brain-dead Bernie, we already have a single payer system in the US, which is called the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). It stinks.
The Veterans Health Administration -- yes, while we're on it, how does each candidate propose to fix this abomination? I understand that given their basic hatred for the military the Democrats are okay with our veterans being left to die by an uncaring bureaucracy, but IMAO the veterans deserve better than that. Maybe we'd be right to do away the VHA and roll the vets into an upgraded version of Medicare. Not that Medicare is perfect (now that I'm retired you can trust me on this!!!) but it's clearly better than what our veterans are getting today.
Military advanced weapons systems -- Lockheed's contract for the F-35 is way over budget and climbing rapidly, and despite being based on existing, obsolescent airframe (the 767), Boeing is in trouble with its tanker contract. How do you propose to get these under control? Or do you look forward to the day when the entire US budget can only afford one fighter and one tanker, with the Air Force flying them on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, the Navy on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, and the Marines on Sunday?
The economy -- the latest studies show that 93% of American counties never recovered from 2008, though Wall Street (which has the money to contribute to candidates) is doing just fine. Many economists are predicting a serious recession this year or early in the next. I'd like to know what each candidate proposes to do to help people who don't earn enough money to make political contributions? And how will you head off or ameliorate the coming recession?
That will do for a start.
On Meet the Press this morning, Hillary asserted she knew "from the beginning" the campaign against Sanders would be "close."
Whoa!!
The democratic party has become a bit of a cargo cult. They long for the days of the last Clinton presidency, but they have no idea how Bill Clinton got elected,
I totally agree. They long for him like Republicans long for Reagan. The difference is that Bill was headed for palookaville until the GOP took Congress in 1994. I only wish I had invested heavily in the stock market then. Clinton rode the wave of the internet like Coolidge rode the wave of the auto, the telephone and the electric appliance. in the 1920s. Both booms ended in a panic, as booms often do. The difference was that Bush was not Hoover although the Democrats did manage to get the economy really screwed up while Bush had his eyes on Iraq.
Obama played Hoover but the worst of the panic was over by the time he got hold of the wheel. The next two years may be very crazy as China collapses and the stock market swoons.
"Amanda does a great Debbie Wasserman-Schultz impression."
Yes but Wasserman-Schultz has been elected to something so she can't be quite as stupid.
After half of Amanda's comments have been screeching about our side of the curtain she tells us not to peek behind hers? And now she's back to her spewed litany of -isms. Hahaha!
p.s. -- love the scent of your new perfume, Amanda. Is it Desperation by DWS?
"Why did Democrats stand back and allow Clinton to run unopposed?"
What choice did they have? They can't run on a platform that is against the last seven years so what does that leave them except to run on a platform that doubles down on more of the last seven years: Sanders. That may be great for a primary victory but doubtful for victory in the general. Hillary was supposed to be the third Obama Administration but not so openly left as Sanders thus looking "moderate" to the general electorate. No other candidate on the Democratic lineup has any traction either for the base or as a candidate for the general election. Simply stated this election like any election where there has been back to back Administrations of one party is seen as a third term for that party's last incumbent. Clinton/Gore couldn't pull it off in 2000 under better circumstances and there is no reason to expect the Democrats will win with a third Obama Administration and that is all they have.
" Amanda said...
Anyone who thinks a narcissistic, thin skinned, blowhard, doofus, buffoon, misogynistic bigot like Trump who didn't even know what a nuclear triad was can be President of the most powerful country on earth is deluded and not very intelligent.
1/17/16, 11:02 AM"
As if a socialist under any circumstances would be better. Ignorance can be remedied. But the stupidity required to be a socialist is incurable.
Anyone who thinks a narcissistic, thin skinned, blowhard, doofus, buffoon, misogynistic bigot like Trump who didn't even know what a nuclear triad was can be President of the most powerful country on earth is deluded and not very intelligent.
Substitute "Obama" for "Trump" in the above sentence, and it would still be correct.
Laslo may have to be banned from future Hillary threads. It's just not fair to let professionals compete with amateurs..
I assumed no one else is running because of the trend in mid-terms the last couple years. It's a Republican's race to win. Why would any ambitious Democrat want to run in a race they're going to lose and face the ire of the Clinton machine at the same time? Hillary is deluded and the others are outsiders. The msm and the establishment party are beholden to the Clinton's because of the Clinton power and because those people want returns for the bribes they've paid the Clintons over the years.
Everyone else is waiting until 2020 when they'll get more attention and support from the establishment. Trump's entry is very like Schwarzeneggar's run for governor, running in this narrow window where there the competition is meager and the desire for an outsider is stronger than rational examination.
Learning that the nuclear triad means ICBMs, heavy bombers, and subs would take Trump approximately 2 seconds. I'm sure he knows about all three of those already. Managing the details of all this is kind of why we have the Pentagon, anyway.
In addition, that doctrine is a bit of a cold war relic. Our major threats these days have little to do with the fear of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Either way, this doctrine is well established and a president is regularly briefed on military details he needs to understand.
Amanda, the 80's called, they want their foreign policy back.
Nuclear triad was always just a bit of a rhetorical invention, and very dated. It sounded like a debate topic from the 1970s. It's also been a very long time since there was a viable "triad" as the bomber force has become a token - an immediate strike by the survivable parts of the once mighty SAC would amount to 6 or 8 B2's, those that may be ready at a given time, not the hundreds of B52's of 1978. The other 6 or 8 may be ready up to half a day later. The remnants of the ancient B52s and B1s, those that may still be nuclear-tasked, are probably not survivable against a great power.
And least one thinks either Laslo or I are all about humor this am, remember, Laslo has spotlighted a GREAT PSYCHO-SOCIAL TRUTH today, namely one helluva lot of people REALLY DON"T care if you are shitting on yourself as long as as long as you SHIT ON THE RIGHT PEOPLE as well..
It's 100 to 1 that Amanda didn't know what the 'nuclear triad' was either until she Googled it, while Trump undoubtedly knows what it is, even if he doesn't know the shorthand jargon editorialists use to refer to it. (His reply suggests that he thought they were referring to the nuclear-chemical-biological triad, which is also important.) After all, Amanda didn't even know enough to check the online Dictionary of the French Academy to see what counts as a French word or not: she thought a badly-OCR'd 19th-century text displaying masses of obvious gibberish counted as 'evidence'. She still hasn't had the grace (or intelligence) to admit she was wrong about that, though she did at least go away for nine days after that little fiasco. It won't be long before she embarrasses herself again, but will she go away again? All signs point to 'no'. I suspect she's paid to comment here.
How is it in a country where no one has internet, much less a smart phone, someone speaking freely in a movie about barbarous behaviors was able to incite 1000s, or more than 100s to violent ends? Or climb over the embassy walls in Cairo shouting "Wea are all Osama!" Certainly a half-competent intelligence agency would have interviewed a dozen oilfield workers regularly for their ground truth reporting and known this for a fact long before this incident? If not, pTb will fire them all. Or at least their leadership for stupidity or being a tool. I've been there. The New York Times has been there. How is it they don't know what people living on two dollars a day can know for themselves? For two dollars a day or even just a meal you go where you are told to go, even risk death. And we put a man in jail for speaking his piece and relieving his soul of his own private hell. Which is what "free" speech is all about. Much better than violence. Oops. Wait one, I hear a battering ram at my door. Hmm. who swatted me? Great country you've got. No surprise you're getting what you deserve. good and hard. Hope the imprisoned filmmaker gets featured in a number of youtube, if not TV spots as one of Ms. C's better moments. The left will scream he littered and deserved a year in jail, similar to the crime pTb committed when counting street dancers on roofs. Has he no shame? More pork rinds plesae, but heat them in the microwave first after salting heavily.
" a president is regularly briefed on military details he needs to understand. "
Unless he refuses briefings on subjects he doesn't want to gear about. We have survived seven years of this. Trump could not be worse.
I also think Trump is less likely to lie to himself. Obama has never run anything more complicated than his mouth. That is why I am not fond of Senators.
virgil Xenophon: "Laslo may have to be banned from future Hillary threads. It's just not fair to let professionals compete with amateurs.."
Indeed.
It's like watching Shoeless Joe play in some remote minor league under an assumed name after being banned from "the bigs". It just ain't fair I tellya!
One could as easily ask: what happened to the Republican Party such that a wild card and non-politician like Donald Trump could appear out of nowhere and usurp for himself the public enthusiasm--even adoration--that the loyal party hacks assumed would be apportioned among themselves, until finally it would be directed toward the one, (Cruz, Rubio, Bush?).
The Republicans are as blinded to the public's disgust with business as usual, and with Washington, as are the Democrats. And why not? They're all part of the same self-congratulatory club, living-in-a-cash-funded-bubble. They're all house servants for the financial elites.
Neither Sanders nor Trump--in the unlikely event either is elected--will change much: Sanders because he is basically an establishment Washington democrat, (in actual practice, if not in self-identification), while Trump has no coherent platform or politics, but is simply popping-off.
Dr Weevil: "It's 100 to 1 that Amanda didn't know what the 'nuclear triad' was either until she Googled it, while Trump undoubtedly knows what it is, even if he doesn't know the shorthand jargon editorialists use to refer to it."
So true. The nuclear triad was/(is?) relevant in that it pertains to nuclear superpower antagonists as those are the only powers on earth capable of launching such a broad attack as to make a "first-strike survivable" nuclear deterrent capability necessary.
The nuke-chem-bio triad is much more relevant in these days of less likely potential Soviet...er..Russian nuclear attacks against the west and much more likely combination threats from small tactical nukes along with bio-chem agents.
The nuke triad discussion was from the cold war and the 1980's and who can forget the dems/media (but I repeat myself) making fun of Romney for his supposed 1980's foreign policy outlook.
But that was "yesterday" with Romney of course.
RESET!!!
Now it's Trump and it's all about "how come you won't talk about 80's foreign policy stuff!!???"
Hilarious.
"The Democrat center is now pure socialist, and their fringe communist."
Absurdly incorrect...although perhaps it would look that way to a far-right reactionary.
Robert Cook: "One could as easily ask: what happened to the Republican Party such that a wild card and non-politician like Donald Trump could appear out of nowhere and usurp for himself the public enthusiasm--even adoration--that the loyal party hacks assumed would be apportioned among themselves, until finally it would be directed toward the one, (Cruz, Rubio, Bush?)."
Yes, one could easily ask those questions.
And many have. Many, many, many have.
And the answer has already been identified about a million times over and already discussed ad nauseum, ad infinitum, ad ridiculum, (insert additional Latin phrases here).
But whatever.
Do continue, your "insights" are so edgy and unique.
A point of contention: To describe Trump as a "non-politician" shows an amazing lack of understanding of how the world "works" and how those who really do build and create (like Trump) must be successful in navigating even the most politician-infested waters.
Cook: "Absurdly incorrect...although perhaps it would look that way to a far-right reactionary."
A label, when launched by a marxist conspiracy-theorist like cook, to be embraced with gusto.
" 'Amanda said...
Anyone who thinks a narcissistic, thin skinned, blowhard, doofus, buffoon, misogynistic bigot like Trump who didn't even know what a nuclear triad was can be President of the most powerful country on earth is deluded and not very intelligent.
1/17/16, 11:02 AM'
"As if a socialist under any circumstances would be better."
Why not? (Although the question is moot, as there is no socialist in the running).
Oh, gawd. Here we go again with Comrade Cook's No True Socialist fallacy. Give it a rest, moron.
"Do continue, your 'insights' are so edgy and unique."
Heh. I never consider my comments to be either "edgy" or "unique," simply accurate.
How can a party be so inert, so uninspiring?
That's a very good question. You usually only get a situation like this, or close to it, when an incumbent president is running for re-election.
I suspect the answer is:
1) The Democratic Party does not tolerate much dissent. That includes dissent about personal character, an area that Bernie "sick-and-tired-about-hearing-about-your-damn-emails" Sanders did not want to get into.
2) Money. The Clintons are very good at scooping up money and foreclosing help others might get, like people who might run campaigns.
And the fact that campaign contributions are published, makes it possible to "threaten" people who try to stop them. They don't appreciate eople hedging their bets.
2a) The whole campaign finance system is rigged so as to minimize the number of candidates. Even Vice President Joe Biden thought it was maybe too late to start - and don't think the Clintons were not telling people to tell him that. They convinced him,
Hillary did, however, want a challenger or two just to suck up whatever oxygen remained in the room. In 2008, Barack Obama was supposed to be the challenger who would suck up a lot of votes and money but who also couldn't win - but she lost.
I think the Clintons actually also are probably responsible for talking Lawrence Lessig out of the race.
And they changed the debate criteria to keep him out of the debates. And with that he gave up. He could have been a contender. More than Martin O'Malley.
Robert Cook: "One could as easily ask: what happened to the Republican Party such that a wild card and non-politician like Donald Trump could appear out of nowhere and usurp for himself the public enthusiasm--even adoration--that the loyal party hacks assumed would be apportioned among themselves, until finally it would be directed toward the one, (Cruz, Rubio, Bush?)."
Cook you claim to be a New Yorker and yet you state something this ridiculous? Do you think Trump was able to do what he did in NYC and in other cities if the guy doesn't have great political skills?
Drago: The nuke triad discussion was from the cold war and the 1980's
No, I think it goes back to before 1960. It hasn't been seriously discussed since.
It's is the idea that the United states as (or should have) 3 completely different methods of deliverinbg nuclear weapons: Airplanes (bombers) land based mssiles, and nuclear submarines. One for the Air Force, one for the Army and one for the Navy.
B-52 and other bombers have the advantage of being able to be recalled. Submarines have the advantage of survivability. Missiles - I don't what advantage missiles have over the other two - maybe there are more of them. Or you might be out of communication with the submarines. Or the enemy can't see them. The idea of the triad would also be that in case the potential enemy figures out a way to defeat one of them, the other two methods remain.
"As if a socialist under any circumstances would be better."
Why not? (Although the question is moot, as there is no socialist in the running).
1/17/16, 12:15 PM"
As if Sanders isn't left enough for Cook. Cook, the purist. Cook does the official Communist Party of the USA have a candidate for president on the ballot in your state? If you can't comprehend why a socialist would never be better is simply due to either you being delusional or you're hoping to be one of those in charge.
buwaya puti said...
Nuclear triad was always just a bit of a rhetorical invention, and very dated. It sounded like a debate topic from the 1970s. It's also been a very long time since there was a viable "triad" as the bomber force has become a token - an immediate strike by the survivable parts of the once mighty SAC would amount to 6 or 8 B2's, those that may be ready at a given time, not the hundreds of B52's of 1978.
I think one of the other arguments for the triad was that in case one method was abandoned, or something technically was wrong with something new that was built, you'd have the other two. Of course there are the bombs themselves, but there's probably some variation among them, also. So the bomber part is minimal. Anyway, what really counts is the submarines.
One could as easily ask: what happened to the Republican Party such that a wild card and non-politician like Donald Trump could appear out of nowhere and usurp for himself the public enthusiasm--even adoration--that the loyal party hacks assumed would be apportioned among themselves, until finally it would be directed toward the one,
You haven't been paying attention Comrade Cookie.....
We've been saying for months that Trump's popularity was due to precisely the politics of the Republican Party establishment and the base finally getting fed up with them.
What is hopefully, is that the Democratic base seems to be just as upset at the Democratic Party establishment that taught the Republican Party Establishment to act that way based on their support for Sanders.
All other potential candidates were decimated in the 2010 and 2014 elections. Thanks, Obama
"Do you think Trump was able to do what he did in NYC and in other cities if the guy doesn't have great political skills?"
I don't know whether Trump has accomplished what he has due to great political skills or due to great financial leverage. Certainly, great financial leverage always "trumps," if you'll excuse the expression, whatever political skills one may have. However, don't be obtuse, as that's not the point of my comment, which is clear: Trump has never held elective office. He's not part of their club.
Hillary Backer Howard Dean: “Don’t Mess With Bill Clinton! You’ll Be Finding Yourself Six Feet Under Before You Know Your Name!
http://downtrend.com/markeece/hillary-backer-howard-dean-dont-mess-with-bill-clinton-youll-be-finding-yourself-six-feet-under-before-you-know-your-name
Video at the link
Six feet under as in metaphorically six feet under? Or as in Vince Foster style six feet under?
This is a pretty stupid comment by Dean. Whether true or not, some people claim as many as 50-60 dead bodies on the Clintons. Nobody should be bringing that up.
At least nobody that is supposed to be on Hillary!'s team.
I can bring it up because, while I do not believe it to be true, I think Hillary! is despicable. I don't really care what sinks her as a candidate as long as she sinks and stays sunk.
John Henry
MadisonMan said...1/17/16, 9:10 AM
I've been reading epitaphs for one party or another for all my life it seems. Alas, they never seem to come true.
There are structural considerations.
Otherwise the Republican Party should have gone the way of the Federalists or the Whigs in the 1930s, with a new second party emerging. Instead, it eventually came back, even in the south.
On the other hand, in the United Kingdom, the Liberal Party managed to get replaced by the Labour Party in the 1920s.
Sammy you over analyze things. The Democrats can't do better because they can't repudiate Obama and can no longer campaign against Bush. What Hillary was supposed to bring to the table is name recognition under the premise that low information voters will vote for a known candidate versus an unknown candidate and that somehow the Clinton Administration aura of good times will cling to Hillary-sort of like a revival tour. When that's all you have going for your team it looks plausible at first pass. Reality has a way of injecting itself and changing the landscape.
Marty said...1/17/16, 12:41 PM
All other potential candidates were decimated in the 2010 and 2014 elections. Thanks, Obama
No, I think it is the fact that nobody is independent. In Congress, Democrats vote very much in lockstep. The Democratic Party is really centrally run. Candidates rely on the DNC and assorted related organizations for their campaign funding. It would be much better to be able to get lots of money quickly from some rich people. Rich people have all kinds of different points of view.
There were hardly any challengers in 2000 (although then there was a sitting vice president) Just Bill Bradley who wasn't too good at it. In 2004. it sort of seemed to be open. In 2008 there were a few, but almoost all were not prominent people.
We also need the ability to cote uncommitted, for delegates who will actually honor what they campaign on, and an ability for candidates to jump into the race late. That hasn't happened since 1968.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
"Do you think Trump was able to do what he did in NYC and in other cities if the guy doesn't have great political skills?"
I don't know whether Trump has accomplished what he has due to great political skills or due to great financial leverage. Certainly, great financial leverage always "trumps," if you'll excuse the expression, whatever political skills one may have. However, don't be obtuse, as that's not the point of my comment, which is clear: Trump has never held elective office. He's not part of their club.
1/17/16, 12:41 PM
Cook you see the problem but can't comprehend it. Trump's appeal is precisely because he is perceived as not being part of the club. And yes to be a highly visible and successful real estate developer in NYC and other major cities requires not only lots of money but political skills to sell it to the politicians who have to risk public wrath for the give away's needed to make these projects fly.
This morning Jake Tapper asked Hilary if she had been interviewed yet by the FBI. She said no.
I think tonight, in his intro, Bernie should say something like "I've never been indicted and am not expecting to be interviewed by the FBI."
Doesn't matter whether Hilary has ever been indicted or whether she is expecting to be interviewed by the FBI. They are true and positive statements on Bernie's part. (I assume they are true)
Just leave them hanging out there over the debate like the skunk at the garden party. Hilary can ignore the statement or she can attempt to address them. Neither will do her any good.
At some point Sanders is going to realize that he might be able to win this thing. At least the nomination. He has nothing to lose even if he doesn't win.
At this point, he is going to go balls out or balls to the wall after Hilary!
That will be fun.
John Henry
Just to be dead nuts accurate balls out and balls to the wall are engineering terms referring to the balls on a steam engine governor. Get your minds out of the gutter.
What Hillary was supposed to bring to the table is name recognition under the premise that low information voters will vote for a known candidate
That advantage is perishable, and it's melting in Iowa and New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton knows this could disappear in other places, too.
The Clintons probably feel now they failed to introduce Bernard Sanders to voters before he did.
In fairness to Obama, he's left the Democrats rather like Bush left the Republicans, with the exception that McCain at least had to fight off a couple real challengers. I think in both cases, each president was much more focused on their agenda/legacy than that of the party, hence the devastating losses for each, reducing the pool of talent from which to draw another candidate.
As for why the Democratic party would cede the field to her, here are a couple thoughts:
- The party leadership is blind to how bad a candidate she actually is. That can happen, bedfellows are less likely to spot apparent flaws, particularly when the media seems rather disinterested in exposing those flaws.
- She came with money, donors, and power brokers. I suspect there was an element of frugality here - they wanted a primary that wouldn't cost a fortune to preserve cash for the general election and downballot races.
- She probably knows where a lot of skeletons are buried, both within the Obama administration and among the party generally, and would not have been afraid to dig them up. Sanders is probably the one candidate more or less immune to this kind of attack since he has been technically independent of the Democratic party structure.
- I think at least in part, there is a feeling that it's "her turn" after Obama beat her back in 2008. Apparently, the Democrats seem to feel that this recent losing strategy from the Republicans (see Dole, McCain, Romney) will somehow be gold in their hands. I think the party feared a revolt from the feminists in the party base had Hillary not had a relatively clear field (particularly if, as actually happened, all the other candidates were white men), a situation that could only have been avoided had Elizabeth Warren run instead. Warren's taking a pass I think made a Hillary push somewhat inevitable.
- There is still Clinton nostalgia, even though the party as a whole would be rather likely to repudiate almost all of Bill Clinton's policies.
John said...
This morning Jake Tapper asked Hilary if she had been interviewed yet by the FBI. She said no.
I think tonight, in his intro, Bernie should say something like "I've never been indicted and am not expecting to be interviewed by the FBI."
Doesn't matter whether Hilary has ever been indicted or whether she is expecting to be interviewed by the FBI. They are true and positive statements on Bernie's part. (I assume they are true)
Just leave them hanging out there over the debate like the skunk at the garden party. Hilary can ignore the statement or she can attempt to address them. Neither will do her any good."
Why stop with Sanders? Every Republican candidate can make the same statement. I'm surprised they haven't done so yet.
One thing to know is that Ted Cruz has made himself very well known in Iowa, and Kasich and Christie in New Hampshire. This can create a misleading impression.
In 1975/6 Jimmy Carter campaigned in the state of Iowa a WHOLE YEAR and had a higher recogition there than the well known (to political reporters) Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson of Washington, who had only a 10% name recognition rate. Jimmy Carter spun a story for reporters that people wanted an outsider, which many reporters bought.
Jimm Carter convinced reporters he was a serious candidate, and he did such a good job of it, that he was eventually elected president!
This strategy of campaigning heavily in Iowa has not worked since.
In 1980, Geirge Bush's (the Elder) "Big MO" was stopped by Ronald Reagan saying he paid for this microphone. It didn't help Christopher Dodd in 2012 either. Jimmy Carter had relied on the fact that he was much better known in Iowa than his opposition and then giving reporters a totally different spin.
Maybe ding somewhat well in Iowa worked a little for Obama, but I think it was more Hillary losing, although Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy gave only positive reasons for their endorsement.
Rick "Not-Romney" Santorum actually won Iowa in 2012, but he was not credited with it right away, so it didn't help him that much.
Why are the Democrats retreads? We don't know what the demise of socialism in a given place looks like because it hasn't demised very often before and historians haven't given an analytic picture. However it's possible that old people mumbling old slogans and ignoring the reality brought about by their own policies is the last stage before the fall - as in the Soviet Union with Brezhnev just before 1989.
So here in the US. Who is responsible for catastrophes in the US cities? Who is responsible for blacks being poorer than they were in 2008? Who is responsible for the rape of the universities? And for rape in the universities? Who is responsible for tuition increases? who is responsible for huge US debt which is about to cause 2008 again? Who gave Iran nuclear weapons? and money for terrorism? It's the Democrats and only someone mired in the past can avoid thinking about it all. Only someone old (not that every old person is mired in the past but that is the danger) and it helps if they are also corrupt, like the Pink Pander. Bernie believes his old-time socialist religion and he might try to help people and God knows where he'd go with that in time (see Gorbachev).
I would like to take a moment to thank and defend President Obama. I think he is doing an awesome job. I was ambivalent in 08 since I really liked Palin and thought she would make a great Senate president and, if McCain croaked in his first term a great president.
I found Romney abysmal in 2012 and was strongly rooting for Obama. Not strongly enough to give money, but strongly.
Why do I think he is doing an awesome job? For the past 100 years we have seen federal govt take over more and more of our rights as citizens and states. President Obama has tried to do even more of that and has been somewhat successful.
As several have pointed out, he has done this to the point where support for govt of both parties is at an all time low. He has done this to the point where there is serious talk about a Con-Con to push back. He has done this to the point where we got 2 explicitly liberal candidates in 2012 primaries (Paul and Johnson) and 2 more, though a bit less explicit, liberal candidates (Paul and Cruz) in 2016.
He has done this to the point where the front runner and almost front runner in both parties are both outside the federal establishment and are both viewed (rightly or wrongly) as going to dis-establish it.
As a liberal, or libertarian, classical liberal, minarchist if you prefer, this looks to be a watershed election.
President Obama has made liberalism respectable again.
If you wanted this liberal revolution, do you think we would have been more likely to get it under a President McCain or Romney?
I've long said that I could not figure out whether it was because of his stupidity and incompetence or whether he was working to a plan. I really don't care.
The end result is what is important and I am LOVING it!
We've got a log way to go but I do see the mighty ship of state starting to turn around. I think in 20-30 years we are going to be wondering how we can replace TR with President Obama on Rushmore.
John Henry
@cyrus83 for all of the reasons you stated but you missed the most important one: the wiser Democrats have figured out that they are destined to lose this year and by having Hillary take the hit it cleans the party of the Clintons. The economy is going south again and will worsen after the election. The only thing worse for the Democrats in 2017 is winning. If they lose, they blame the Republicans. If they win, they can't and they position themselves for even more congressional and state and local losses in 2018.
"Learning that the nuclear triad means ICBMs, heavy bombers, and subs would take Trump approximately 2 seconds."
And he'd have the smartest guys, top men!
Besides, he reads "the papers".
And he'll mention how high he is in the polls.
One problem with presidential campaigns is that candidates run out of money and quit. They quit too early. Ed Muskie quitting in 1972 was the first time when money, and not prospects, was a consideration. Before a candidate could always get enough to continue his campaign.
Kerry in 2003/4 and McCain in 2007/8 hung in there. And they came back. Albeit their big drop was all before any votes were cast.
Jeb Bush may be hoping for the same thing, but he's doing much worse than they were doing, and McCain had a favorable primary calendar and rules. Jeb Bush does have organization, and maybe money, so if Kasich and Christie and maybe even Rubio or Cruz drop out, he could rebound.
Blogger virgil xenophon said...
Laslo may have to be banned from future Hillary threads. It's just not fair to let professionals compete with amateurs..
NO, NO, NO, NO.......
I think Ann should make him a co-blogger. Perhaps only for posts relating to Scarlett Johanssen, Huma and Hilary, though.
Washington Post should give him a column.
I agree that none of can compete. We are like Jeb to his Trump. I still enjoy reading him, though.
John Henry
Blogger Drago said...
But that was "yesterday" with Romney of course.
RESET!!!
Drago, I think you mean "EMERGENCY STOP!!!"
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/04/03/?post_type=comic
John Henry
Sammy Finkelman:
Drago: The nuke triad discussion was from the cold war and the 1980's
"No, I think it goes back to before 1960. It hasn't been seriously discussed since."
Are you under the illusion that the cold war does not include the time period from the end of WWII and 1960?
I pulled out the 1980's specifically over the cold war time frame since that was the era when the left finally felt fully comfortably openly siding with the Soviet regime over the elected American leadership.
Amanda wrote:
Trump...who didn't even know what a nuclear triad was..."
It isn't, "what a nuclear triad was," it should be, what "the" nuclear triad was, a small but significant difference. And Amanda, without prompting, would you have known, would anyone of a thousand people have remembered what the three part response to the Soviet threat was called?
Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton got about 35% of the delegates with people in many states voting to stop them, but they were able to consolidate. One notable trick of Jimmy Carter was to run in the south as the alternative to George Wallace, and then get Wallace's endorsement right after the primaries were over.
And in the last 3 big primaries, where in California and New Jersey people were doing everything to stop him, voting for Jerry Brown in California and for a so-called "Humphrey-Brown" slate in New Jersey, (the delegates elected betrayed their voters) and then went to Mayor Daley I of Chicago and got him to say that he should get the nomination if he won Ohio, and in Ohio argued that people should vote for him because any vote not for him would be a vote for Hubert Humplhrey and only a candidate running in the primaries should get the nomination.
Clinton in 1992 also had about the percentage of the delegates and got oher candidates to endorse him.
If Trump is held to less than about 38% of the delegates, he won't be able to consolidate, and he won't be able to prevent a stop-Trump organization from forming, it will likely go to the convention floor. Cruz might back Trump, but now Trump has said there would be a problem if Cruz was the vice-presidential nominee.
poker1one: "It isn't, "what a nuclear triad was," it should be, what "the" nuclear triad was, a small but significant difference."
Actually, it is "what the nuclear triad IS", since it still matters.
And no, Amanda had never even heard of it prior to the question asked of Trump. Which makes their outrageous-y outraged outrage even funnier.
John said...I would like to take a moment...
You probably need to "take" two of something, and leave the moments alone.
The nuclear triad is just a way to spend three times as much of the treasury.
Land based missiles are fully obsolete. Actually the ICBM is obsolete. The ability to carry nukes on cruise missiles make them easy to launch within theater.
This means that submarines are no longer needed as a nuclear launch platform.
The real reason we have thousands of nuclear weapons, is that we expect half of them to fizzle, or not complete their flight. It's not overkill, so much as insurance against all the low bidders who make and maintain the countries WMD.
Blogger coupe said...
John said...I would like to take a moment...
You probably need to "take" two of something, and leave the moments alone.
So you do not think that President Obama has advanced the liberal/libertarian agenda?
Not asking whether you like it or not, many people who identify as conservatives do not. Just asking whether we are moving in that direction.
John Henry
@Drago - I don't think the left ever really sided with the Soviet Union. There was a considerable amount of nuclear disarmanent/nuclear negotiations support. The Dems really changed foreign policy starting about 1966. It was a big handicap for any Dem running for president. Dukakis put himself in a tank to try to imply he would be strong when the issue was would he buy into stupid arguments. Being a card carrying member of the ACLU didn't help him in that regard.
I mentioned pre-1960, because I don't think you would read much about the triad in any other context beyond the time when it originated.
Trump was not familiar with this issue, or the term "triad" and just tried to bluff his way through. I guess he just never read anything about it. I think it would take more than 2 minutes for him familiarize himself with this - it would take maybe an hour and a half, provided he got the right articles or briefings.
While I know what the triad is, which Donald Trump didn't know, I don't know what the issue is with it now. Somebody is trying to save money? Apparently one leg is already pretty much gone, and now just about only ICBMs and submarine launched ballistic missiles. Well, better to keep a few bombers, just to keep potential attackers worried.
I was surprised to read that in a 2-way race Trump beats Rubio, but not Cruz. The amnesty issue may be a real killer in the Republican primaries, which is very bad for the Republican Party. It'll stay that way until somebody manages to successfully argue against immigration law enforcement as an end in itself. Right now the reopublican Party is in a logic trap.
Ideas sometimes catch fire, and do damage until they get rebutted. Support for very high tax brackets caused a lot of problem until the late 1970s, when an argument in principle, not just pragmatic was made.
Socialism caused a lot of problems - Winston Churchill didn't know how to argue against it in 1945, and he didn't come back until after 6 years of Labour Party rule with all kinds of war-time rationing maintained.
We know have this problem, with a lot of people (but a minority, and with a definite difference in values between different states) have bought into this idea that nobody should gain any advantage from having broken immigration law, unless you can prove it will never happen again, and of course you can't, and in fact it will.
There is also the idea that any immigration into the United States makes people in the United States poorer (and so does trade by the way - so does having any contact whatsoever with people outsid ethe United States - except maybe for exports, but don't subsidize them)
Or that it is a particularly dangerous thing, even if it doesn't make people poorer - nobody ever says that the Fair Housing Act is dangerous by the way, and there's far more cause for that -
And that no fairness or condieration is due, or worth doing, and any kind of arbitrary discrimination is justified when it comes to immigration. This carries over, of cours, to birther arguments and arguments about Ted Cruz's eligibility, because nobody is in the mind to be charitable, or proportionate, or even logical. Trump understands how this can be twisted and put to new uses.
Sammy Finkleman and Robert Cook in a single thread?
Somebody crossed the streams and we are living in some sort of Hell.
Confess! Who crossed the streams?
coupe said... 1/17/16, 1:55 PM
The nuclear triad is just a way to spend three times as much of the treasury.
It could be.
Land based missiles are fully obsolete. Actually the ICBM is obsolete. The ability to carry nukes on cruise missiles make them easy to launch within theater.
Well, they are bit more permanent, and not subject to removal for political considerations.
This means that submarines are no longer needed as a nuclear launch platform.
Submarines are something that can withstand a lot of things going wrong.
The real reason we have thousands of nuclear weapons, is that we expect half of them to fizzle, or not complete their flight.
That's probably true. They need to be reloaded with tritium. Perfectly okay if every other nuclear weapon in the world was slowly deteriorating, but we have some new contenders.
That's right. Amanda still didn't understand it. It is "the" nuclear triad.
Good point, poker1one, Drago, and Sammy F: the fact that Amanda wrote "a nuclear triad" shows that she still doesn't know what it means, so I was overestimating her knowledge when I said it was 100 to 1 she didn't know what it was until after she Googled it. She still doesn't! Will she go away for 9 days now? We can only hope!
Anyone who thinks a narcissistic, thin skinned, blowhard, doofus, buffoon, misogynistic bigot like Trump who didn't even know what a nuclear triad was can be President of the most powerful country on earth is deluded and not very intelligent.
Don’t hold back. You left out racist, terrorist, clown, fool, bozo, boob, lout and oaf. Be more comprehensive in the future, please. Going easy on Trump won’t convince anyone.
Nuclear (or nucular, if you will), triad
Gosh. Haven't heard them words since I was in the Air Force in the 60's and 70's. Way it was explained was:
..we need the air planes because ...;
..and we need the ground based missiles because ...;
..and we need the submarine launched missiles because ....
But what I understood from all that was:
..hells bells; we're the "Air Force" so there's gotta be airplanes;
..and missiles is the coming thing, and they do fly through the air, so we should have some;
..and the Swabbies agreed we support them with the nuc missile subs, they'll back us on the bombers and ground based missiles.
What Obama (and every President since FDR) has done is to federalize anything within their reach. I don't think that is a truly liberal or conservative concept. It may have positive implications to both liberals and conservatives.
I think liberalism without federalism cannot exist. So, I think the true goal is federalism, and liberalism is just a by-product.
Sort of like if you take all the money from a retarded kid, and give him a sucker, he smiles.
I'm also baffled by it and assume strong arming must have been involved. How anyone could think clearing the field for her isn't a mistake is beyond me.
Coupe,
I think that you may be confusing liberalism with progressivism. It is a common mistake, the word liberal in all its forms has been misused for 70 years or so now when progressivism got a bad reputation for being Fascism lite.
I use the term in it historically and etymologically correct sense. It comes from the same root that gives us liberate and liberty. A liberal is defined as a free man.
Many people use the word libertarian in its place today. Or classical liberal. I am fine with either but don't think they are necessary. Hence, I use "liberal" instead.
If you believe in liberty, help out by doing your bit to take the word back.
John Henry
If Bernie is going to get the nod from the Democrats, Cruz should get the nod from the Republicans.
Then the country has a clear choice. Capitalism vs Socialism.
Weevil, your creepy obsession with my whereabouts needs to be checked. Do you have any idea of how odd it is that you continue to obsess over why I was not online here for nine days, IF that is even true. Why would you go so far as to even notice my absense, much less comb the threads looking for my presence and then even counting the days?? I think perhaps you need a hobby other than being a constant commenter on the Ann Althouse blog.
I wanted to like Bush and Kasich, but during their debates and interviews my eyes glazed over. The same phenomenon may be going on with Hillary. She's not so much unlikable as boring. Plus, she's got that laugh......Bernie Sanders is the Dem version of Ron Paul. He's a cranky old man. But the Dems have many more Socialists than the Repubs have isolationists.......I'm surprised that Webb didn't so much as cause a ripple on the waves. It says something bad about the Democratic Party that such a candidate can't even register in the polls. If the Republicans are the party of white males, then the Democrats are the organized opposition to white males.
Oh look! Amanda tries to paint me as some kind of stalker. Of course, I don't give a damn where she lives 'in real life' or where (if anywhere) she was commenting in the nine days she wasn't commenting here. I'm just glad she was gone, because her absence noticeably raised the average quality of comments, and I wish she would be gone more. It would be nice if she had "a hobby other than being a constant commenter on the Ann Althouse blog" - assuming it's a hobby and she's not paid to comment here.
And I know why she was gone: because she had been shown to be utterly, shamefully ignorant of the things she insisted on commenting about - just as she is here, writing about "a nuclear triad" as if there were more than one. Will she explain what she meant, or just go on to say silly things about other important topics?
Do you have any idea of how odd it is that you continue to obsess over why I was not online here for nine days...
Well I for sure didn't obsess over it. I assumed you had been arrested at some protest or another and locked up.
Nuclear triad? It’s so obvious. A nuclear family consisting of three people. Duh. Ask me something else.
Trump supporter
If Bernie is going to get the nod from the Democrats, Cruz should get the nod from the Republicans. Then the country has a clear choice. Capitalism vs Socialism.
Cruz, a capitalist? Remind me again of how many goods and services Cruz has ever created for profit. But what really concerns me about Cruz is that his tax plan includes a value-added tax(VAT). A VAT is what’s favored in European socialist economies. Some capitalist, that Cruz.
http://tinyurl.com/ph9txck
http://tinyurl.com/pucnsog
Predicament? What predicament?
Priceless.
"Cook you see the problem but can't comprehend it. Trump's appeal is precisely because he is perceived as not being part of the club."
Of course it is...I understand Trump's appeal perfectly, even though he is no more fit to be President than the other miscreants in his own party that he bashes for their unfitness. I was simply pointing out the Republicans had been taken by surprise by this non-politician, this non-member of their club, coming out of nowhere and leaving them eating his dust. This was in response to a question posed earlier about Hilary not having seen what a factor Sanders would be, and her having failed to think to co-opt some of his positions beforehand to cancel him out. In short, the Republicans were no more able to anticipate their own constituents' hunger for a wild card--whether it would have been Trump or someone else--than the Democrats and Hilary had anticipated the degree of Sanders' wild card appeal. They figured he would just be another Dennis Kucinich, someone they could disregard as a kook, not to be taken seriously.
In short, both parties are insular and are more like each other than they are different, and neither party comprehended the desire of the American people for someone who was not just "the next in line" from their respective sweaty cohorts of perennial aspiring occupants of the Oval Office.
virgil xenophon said...
"And least one thinks either Laslo or I are all about humor this am, remember, Laslo has spotlighted a GREAT PSYCHO-SOCIAL TRUTH today, namely one helluva lot of people REALLY DON"T care if you are shitting on yourself as long as as long as you SHIT ON THE RIGHT PEOPLE as well..
Thank you, Virgil. I was hoping someone would see where that lead.
I am laslo.
I understand Trump's appeal perfectly, even though he is no more fit to be President than the other miscreants in his own party that he bashes for their unfitness.
Professor Cookie has spoken !
Who would you opine is "fit to be president ?"
I think the public, left and right, is tired of the ruling class although the left is getting far more of their agenda, as crazy as it is, enacted. What makes them mad is that leftism doesn't work any more than Socialism does. The Venezuelans are angry that there is no toilet paper but have no idea how toilet paper happens.
Cookie doesn't understand how a modern economy happens. It does not occur to him or to most Socialists that the free market is what works and every other "system" of economic organization fails and has to be rescued by a free market, just as the Soviets finally let peasants cultivate private plots so the rest of the country didn't starve.
The Cubans survive on European travelers and, while it lasted , on Venezuela charity. The reason why they are interested in Obama's overture is that they needed another source of "other people's money."
They have no intention of reforming communism and allowing the Americans to supply funds will just delay the collapse of the oligarchy that runs Cuba.
coupe,
"The ability to carry nukes on cruise missiles make them easy to launch within theater."
Also significantly shorter range and smaller payload.
Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton 14 Nov 2015
"We have to look at ISIS as the leading threat of an international network. It cannot be contained—it must be defeated."
--
What? Not a ragtag JV team tooling round in pickups?
Will there be ads for 13 hours during commercials?
Will she outdo Bernie's ATM fee limit?
exhelodrvr1 said...Also significantly shorter range and smaller payload.
Not really. The warhead on top of the Minuteman ICBM is pretty small. I think there are 3 nukes and 3 decoys. A cruise missile nuke isn't that much smaller and can still take out a whole city.
During the war in Serbia, the B-52's launched from the Med. So that's a good enough range for me. The nukes are no shorter range than the high explosive. +/- only 10's of miles.
Amanda@2:59pm,
Oh my goodness! I recognize the "voice" in your comment. Sad to say that I've forgotten your earlier "handles" but I remember that you collected a certain type of doll, spoke of several children that were in the armed forces And/or lawyers, hung out with fiscal conservatives in Waukesha County, etc. I also remember that while you irritated several commenters here, I was always fine with you while not agreeing with you. Toward the end, you adopted a distressing number of sock puppet personas which I found disappointing. What was your "name"? Darn it. Ut wuill come to me eventually.
Coupe: The minimum yield from an ICBM (single warhead) is at least 3x the maximum cruise missile yield.
Don't tell Amanda, but the only reason we have a nuclear triad is because the Republicans gerrymandered it.
Sammy, let me be the first to thank you on behalf of all the retired military officers who participate or lurk on this blog for your labored, long-winded and rudimentary explanation of the nuclear triad.
What would we do without you?
Robert Cook said...
One could as easily ask: what happened to the Republican Party such that a wild card and non-politician like Donald Trump could appear out of nowhere and usurp for himself the public enthusiasm--even adoration--that the loyal party hacks assumed would be apportioned among themselves, until finally it would be directed toward the one, (Cruz, Rubio, Bush?).
The Republicans are as blinded to the public's disgust with business as usual, and with Washington, as are the Democrats. And why not? They're all part of the same self-congratulatory club, living-in-a-cash-funded-bubble. They're all house servants for the financial elites.
Neither Sanders nor Trump--in the unlikely event either is elected--will change much: Sanders because he is basically an establishment Washington democrat, (in actual practice, if not in self-identification), while Trump has no coherent platform or politics, but is simply popping-off.
He will work MUCH better with tea party elected republicans in the house and senate than either either Clinton or Sanders. Hear any Dems talking about building a wall, or keeping Muslim immigrants from coming into the country?
"Neither Sanders nor Trump--in the unlikely event either is elected--will change much: Sanders because he is basically an establishment Washington democrat, (in actual practice, if not in self-identification), while Trump has no coherent platform or politics, but is simply popping-off."
Sanders is a Communist and Cook thinks Sanders is an establishment Washington Democrat. Is it possible that Cook is far to the left that he is left of communism? Is such a thing even possible? Or maybe Cook is on to something : Democrats are now Communists who are trying to move the country even further left, but so far not left enough for his taste.
@cubanbob
Honestly there may be such Democrats expecting this to be a loss, but I think way too much of the party has bought into the idea that the Republicans are a clown show and won't be winning again any time soon, and I tend to think those people are the ones in charge, not the ones expecting this to be a losing year. A loss in 2016 I expect to come as a horrific and unexpected shock to most of the Dem faithful and leadership if it turns out that way.
The party is not going to be clean of the Clintons unless either Bill gets the Cosby treatment or Hillary is convicted of serious felonies, or they die. Even should Hillary lose in 2016, I can't imagine the Clintons retiring from the game. The same applies to Obama, who I can't picture vanishing from the stage the same way GWB did.
I think in a two-party system, one can always make the case that it is a pyrrhic victory for each party to win in any given year. 2012 is a perfect example - had Romney won, the travails of Obamacare - website and soaring costs both - and the economic headwinds of this year would be his fault. Obama's winning on the other hand has caused damage to his party at the lower levels and has saddled the party with various policies they can't seem to run from because Obama really isn't a great team player. Isreal, Iran and really the whole Middle East could remain potential ticking time bombs for years after he's out of office.
What gets me is the cession of the party to the Clintons. How can a party be so inert, so uninspiring? Why did Obama leave it in such a condition that it should offer up only the elderly woman who lost to him 8 years ago, offer her up as if she's so decidedly right that no one else should even compete? What deadness! Such deadness that a significantly more elderly man drops in and feels like the future. How could a party lapse into this predicament?
Spot on, Althouse!
1) The media is in the bag for the Democrat party. All sins are forgiven, all weaknesses are covered up, all the bodies are hidden. This makes the Democrat party soft, muddle-headed, and weak. Republicans are forced to always play their A game, because the media is so brutal on us. The media hates to criticize Obama, and is rarely harsh with him. This might keep his "image" strong, and his poll numbers (relatively) high. But his failures are covered up (even to himself), and so he feels no need to improve or get better at his job.
2) Hillary's gender kept Joe Biden from running. The white males of the Democrat party figured it's time for a woman to be president. The only white males that decided to run had no chance whatsoever. Low status white males from nowhere. The party is shocked and reeling that Bernie Sanders, that joke of a socialist, the whitest white man I know, is doing so well. Apparently many Democrat voters do not give a shit for identity politics. Joe Biden is kicking himself, while voicing support for the crazy old white man from 1922.
3) Democrats prize money above all else. They focus obsessively on money. Yes, the Clintons are deeply corrupt, but they are rich, and that money gives them power. And so there is no way anybody can compete against the evil rich Clinton machine. Unless the voters are sick of the corruption and decide to vote against it. In which case your money is useless. But for many Democrat politicians, money is the calculation. Money is always the calculation. Bernie Sanders is clueless about money, and has a deep disregard for the hard work that creates wealth. But his disdain for money creates a certain appeal, particularly among young people who have no money.
Coupe,
"The warhead on top of the Minuteman ICBM is pretty small. I think there are 3 nukes and 3 decoys. A cruise missile nuke isn't that much smaller and can still take out a whole city."
Cruise missile warheads are somewhere in the range of 1/10th to 1/3rd as powerful. "Taking out a city" is not the primary purpose of a nuke - it's to take out military targets, many of which are significantly hardened. And the difference in power between the two makes a huge difference in effectiveness for those types of targets.
Cruise missiles definitely have their place, but it would be VERY foolhardy to get rid of the other delivery systems.
"Bernie sure looks old, and has looked old for decades."
Perhaps Bernie "looks old" because he reminds one of Eugene Debs, of the IWW, of the Popular Front, of the socialist enthusiasms now beyond most living memory?
One can see Bernie Sanders as a candidate in a Progressive college town, or even in a progressive-sort of place like Vermont, yet as a national candidate he's weak. That Hillary! can't beat him off says far more of Hillary's weakness as a candidate than of Bernie's strength.
I think your questions about how the Democratic party got here are felt by many.
It is not a comfortable situation.
My answer, which I offer reluctantly and unhappily, is that the Democratic party has focused on identity group politics (they wanted a woman) and on pleasing the donors, and that Hillary Clinton looked like a great bet on both counts. So they rigged the game on the basis that they had to, and any underlying uneasiness was justified on the basis that it was a necessity.
I base that in large part on the reasoning displayed on Democratic Underground, which has become steadily more contentious as the Sanders/Clinton divide heats up.
I agree that the Democratic focus on identity politics is not healthy for the country, I am not so sure it is electoral poison (as it should be).
Look at the Democratic Party in Congress and State capitals (and Capitols) in 1993 compared to 2001, and again compare 2009 to 2011 and 2015. Clinton and Obama were hugely destructive of the Party, not just in Congress but in Statehouses as well. It recovered in the 2006 and 2008 elections because of Bush's ineptness in Iraq and a fortuitously-timed market crash. But without an incompetent GOP in the White House to run against, it's been a series of disasters for them.
Where are the other Dem candidates for President? Maybe among those crushed in the 1994 and 2010 landslides.
Post a Comment