“There is this sense that if Trump got it, why shouldn’t they?” said David Gergen, co-director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard Kennedy School and an adviser to four presidents. “They’ve been more successful, they have more experience, and they’ve run a public company, which is more equivalent to what a president does than a private company” like the Trump Organization.
Stu Loeser, once the press secretary for Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who considered a presidential run last year, concurred. “If you run a company that has employed tens of thousands of people, and generated lots of profit and been undeniably successful, and you look at a sitting president who, to be honest, a lot of business people don’t have much respect for, you think, why not me?” he said.
March 10, 2017
"With Trump in White House, Some Executives Ask, Why Not Me?"
In the NYT:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
135 comments:
This is how you get more Trumps.
"Why Not Me?"
Were they asking this after Romney lost? Because Romney was a capable executive.
Trump isn't just a businessman, he's a self-marketer.
And he stepped in during a historically unique window.
If they were the kind of businessmen who were able to become President they wouldn't have waited for someone else to do it first, they would have been the first through the window.
It would be nice to break the back of the career politician.
But what I expect we'll get is a lot of cargo cultists.
I own a building! I ran a business! What's Trump doing that I haven't got?!
"They’ve been more successful, they have more experience, and they’ve run a public company, which is more equivalent to what a president does than a private company”
I don't understand this at all. Trump is a billionaire. How can you get anymore successful than that? And what does "more experience" mean? Trump has been in business his entire life - and he's 70. As for a public company being more like a presidency, that's a minor point.
If "Businessmen" think they'll be POTUS just because Trump did it, they're being stupid. Very few Democrats will vote for someone because he's a businessman, in fact, just the opposite. And Trump won mostly because of his message and personality which are sui generis.
Mark Cuban will run in 2020.
OTOH, the Democrat party is already controlled by the Big Donors. They gave Hillary a $Billion. So, its make sense if one of the Billionaire Democrats would run for office, after all, they already run the party.
They were scared off by the press or by the danger of online pile-ons, previously. If the tycoon with political ambitions also has something to lose on the business side, or fiduciary responsibilities, the risk was seen as extreme.
Any such tycoon has skeletons in the closet, of some sort.
Even Romney the pure was excoriated and turned into a cancer-causing villain.
One thing Trump did to change this all was to bull through an extreme level of personal attacks on all his (rather substantial) skeletons, and especially I think attacks on his businesses. He lost business relationships, his businesses were boycotted, even his kids businesses were boycotted and his kids business partners were pressured.
But it looks like all of his businesses are pulling through the troubles. TBD.
"Mark Cuban will run in 2020."
Never trust a man who won't use his real name. They're usually hiding something.
"Why Not Me?""
Because you have to get elected and maybe another one of them eventually will.
As a builder, Trump had to deal with a lot of politicians and had proven himself successful.
Translation: with the Clinton and Obama fundraising vacuums now focused entirely on themselves, the Democrats need money.
Lots of it.
"Mark Cuban will run in 2020."
He can run but he won't win and remember he didn't have the courage to run this time. I think Mark Cuban is someone who just got lucky.
If you're so rich, how come you're not smart?
You need to be big enough to handle the rabid press (if you are a conservative)..If you are a liberal, just have a platform of having government take over your life...
Remember when career politicians were critical of businesspeople for lacking political experience, as if businesspeople were somehow not equipped for the job? And hoe some took this as valid criticism?
That said I think many of these business titans will very quickly find themselves out over their skiis if they run for President, even a guy like Bloomberg who has achieved political success already. Cuban? Oprah? I don't think they could fake the policy smarts but maybe. Some twit like Howard Schultz? While you might not have to be a politician you do need to possess some political skills, like charisma or charm.
If you believe that the 2016 election signals some sort of weird new paradigm shift I suppose that line of thought is valid. But isn't it just as likely that 2016 was an anomaly? We're still simply too close to the events right now to properly assess them and put them in context.
I believe that for now the broader electorate has lost confidence in the elite establishment class. Only time will tell if that confidence can be restored.
If you run a company that has employed tens of thousands of people, and generated lots of profit and been undeniably successful, and you look at a sitting president who, to be honest, a lot of business people don’t have much respect for, you think, why not me?
You didn't build that company, mister. Elizabeth Warren told me so.
This is dumb.
Did history start yesterday? Have they never heard of Meg Whitman? Romney? Ross Perot?
Holy cow. The list goes on and on. Successful business people have been getting into politics since the beginning of our nation. And obviously long before that in other nations.
These people aren't very educated.
These brilliant business minds who view at Trump as an inferior likely lack the skills and judgement to be a successful President.
They are bidding No-Trumps. But all you see is more Romney types who played the system at some insiders game.
Go ask Hillary how important she thinks charisma is to a candidate.
Oprah is rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams, but come on, listening to her talk sometimes, and she can come across as a complete airhead. What on earth would her platform be?
@Alexander said...
It would be nice to break the back of the career politician.
But what I expect we'll get is a lot of cargo cultists.
So you forced me to google "cargo cultists!"
"After World War II anthropologists discovered that an unusual religion had developed among the islanders of the South Pacific. It was oriented around the concept of cargo which the islanders perceived as the source of the wealth and power of the Europeans and Americans. This religion, known as the Cargo Cult, held that if the proper ceremonies were performed shipments of riches would be sent from some heavenly place. It was all very logical to the islanders. The islanders saw that they worked hard but were poor whereas the Europeans and Americans did not work but instead wrote things down on paper and in due time a shipment of wonderful things would arrive."
Alexander, for providing us with the label, is now "Alexander the Great".
"These brilliant business minds who view at Trump as an inferior likely lack the skills and judgement to be a successful President."
Yes...just like Trump! That's why they're now thinking, "Why not me?"
Lemme get this straight... the Trump fans are finding excuses to criticize unnamed CEOs based on something that David Rodham Gergen said?
This is so Limbaugh; so Hannity. Any excuse at all, including one coming from a source they loathe, to hate on regular, mainstream Republicans.
Anyway, the mistake is in thinking that "business" propelled Trump to the White House. It wasn't business; it was never business. It was celebrity. Donald Trump is as much of a businessman as Kevin Costner is a professional golfer or a professional baseball player. Trump is to business, what Hulk Hogan is to athletics. Trump is to business, what Al Sharpton is to civil rights. Trump is to business, what Victoria Beckham is to music.
"Oprah is rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams, but come on, listening to her talk sometimes, and she can come across as a complete airhead. What on earth would her platform be?"
You think Trump comes across as anything but a boor, a buffoon and a scam artist? Do you think he appears to have a cogent thought in his head about domestic or foreign policy? What on earth is Trump's "platform" but a farrago of the typical ignorant rants you might hear bellowed or slurred at the corner tavern on Saturday night?
Meg Whitman and Ross Perot never had a chance.
Both were also in and done before the current extreme reaction of the system. The immune response that Trump overcame was not yet in place, but it was partially weaponized against Whitman. She was attacked repeatedly and overwhelmingly for her personal failings, especially the nanny issue.
The California press coverage of the 2008 election was scandalous, frankly.
Whitman was also already out at ebay before running. And, note, she kowtowed to TPTB by endorsing Hillary, because she is now running HP.
There are many other failed businessmen - politicians. But what nearly all of them have in common is that they failed.
Most CEO's I've known were more impressive and capable than Trump. But Trump won because he could relate to regular people. Most CEOs are like Romney. Brilliant, highly accomplished; and clueless about middle class folks in Wisconsin.
Robert,
You are smarter than that. Trump made a vast number of specific promises. Far more specific than Clintons/Democrats did.
Look past voice and style. Granted I am a foreigner so it may be easier for me, as all of you are weird in one way or another.
Do you think he appears to have a cogent thought in his head about domestic or foreign policy?
This is why lefties will never understand what happened to them on the way to the White House.
Chuck is no better.
Trump is a unique personality in American politics. Bloomberg is a nanny scold who could not even plow the snow from the streets of the city that elected him Mayor.
Jerry Brown has been a lefty hero much as Obama is a lefty hero. Both are prisoners of extreme ideology.
Roger Simon, has, I think, a better take on who Trump is than anyone else I've seen.
So is Donald a Dengist? As yet, of course, his impact is extremely minor by comparison and even making such a comparison of someone who was born a peasant in impoverished rural China, became a communist and then lived to subvert communism in the most populace country on the planet with a to-the-manor-born scion of a Queens real estate mogul is, shall we say, a bit of a stretch.
Nevertheless, the Deng analogy suddenly jumped into my head when I saw a video the other day of a smiling (yes, smiling) Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) — normally a bitter enemy of anything Republican — emerging from a White House meeting with the president. Cummings had been talking with Trump about the high cost of pharmaceuticals and apparently, evidently to Cummings' surprise, there had been another meeting, this time of the minds. It didn't matter if the cat was black or white (Democrat or Republican — no racial implication intended here). People were having trouble affording their meds, the one item they needed above all besides food.
Deng Xiaoping who said, "I don't care if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."
Stu Loeser, once the press secretary for Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who considered a presidential run last year, concurred. “If you run a company that has employed tens of thousands of people, and generated lots of profit and been undeniably successful, and you look at a sitting president who, to be honest, a lot of business people don’t have much respect for, you think, why not me?” he said.
Good lord, it's like Mitt Romney just never existed, huh? 'member him? I guess not--memory hole'd I suppose.
Is it the case that successful Republican business people aren't REAL business people, like Republican women aren't real women, gay Republicans aren't real gays, and black Republicans aren't real blacks?
Michael, I was shocked by Cummings reaction to the Trump meeting in that same way.
Mostly "Why not me?" because when it comes right down to it they don't have the BALLS to make the run. Big company guys are cocooned in an environment that shields them from the hard knocks that entrepreneurs like Trump learn to take in stride. Why give up the ridiculous compensation and perks that they have to take the punishment Trump has? Entrepreneurs usually have the leadership ability of a cow. They know how to spot something they can make money on - and they are really good at that - but they want to bail and move to something else new as soon as they make their nut. A few like Bloomberg might have the combination of drive and leadership to make a run. You will notice that Bloomberg, however , didn't have the balls to go for the big prize ( of course, he really would have had to run for Hillary's spot since he is a lefty granny at heart.) Gergen is bi-party establishment and doubly cursed now that he is at the Kennedy School. He might have had a few good things to say 20 years ago. No more.
I second Heatshield's assessment on CEO's.
Yes...just like Trump!
Sorry, Cookie. Your projection doesn't count. We don't live in the leftie/Obama world of what ifs and counterfactuals anymore. We're going to have tangible measurable results one way or another.
Michael K said...
...
Trump is a unique personality in American politics.
I sure hope you are right about that. Elmer Gantry was unique (insofar as he wasn't really Billy Sunday), but of course he was a fictional character.
True, re guts. Trump has guts beyond all those guys.
And energy and stamina, and heart. His campaign was astonishing, in its sheer killing-workload, maintained for a year.
It may take a hundred years to clear the bad blood, and get a consensus on the simple fact of his achievement.
you look at a sitting president who, to be honest, a lot of business people don’t have much respect for, you think, why not me?”
Because you are a moron?
Trump is President because, in addition to being a successful entrepreneur (which is different from just being a CEO,) he also was able sl identify unmet needs and convince people that he cared about their concerns.
You know who else was a very successful CEO? Mitt Romney.
Also, nicest guy in the world. Very respectful of the norms and practices.
Trump IS a character, written by reality, which is always a better writer than any author of fiction. We still dont know if the tale will be a tragedy.
Trump did not win *just* because he's a businessman. He wants to bring jobs back, protect our borders, put the needs of Americans ahead of non-Americans, and MAGA. How many other CEOs have those values, and actually believe them, down to the core? Not many, I'll wager, although obviously there are some who still do.
Businessmen who believe they are just like him, but who ignore these crucial difference, are not nearly as smart as they think.
Ask, not do? There's the problem.
Elmer Gantry was unique (insofar as he wasn't really Billy Sunday), but of course he was a fictional character.
My one concern about Trump is that he will eventually get weary of the constant leftist abuse he is receiving and from die hard "Republicans" like you and choose the Mussolini, or if you prefer, the Huey Long, route of real populist pathology, which would be a shame as he might just fix what is wrong with the country.
I am pleased with what he has done so far but am aware that revolutions, like the one we are in, can go very wrong.
Imagine if Louis XVI had not tried to flee Paris on June 20, 1791 could the French Revolution created a constitutional monarchy as England did ?
We'll never know.
If Atlanta had not fallen in 1864, would Lincoln have lost the election to McClellan ?
We are in the midst of a historical inflection point.
In other words, a lot of these businessmen are incredibly clueless. That is why men like Bloomberg will never be president.
Jeff Brokaw: "Trump did not win *just* because he's a businessman. He wants to bring jobs back, protect our borders, put the needs of Americans ahead of non-Americans, and MAGA. How many other CEOs have those values, and actually believe them, down to the core? Not many, I'll wager, although obviously there are some who still do.
Businessmen who believe they are just like him, but who ignore these crucial difference, are not nearly as smart as they think"
You can't win the Presidency without representing some sort of movement. If you run and simply argue "competence" then you can expect Dukakis-like results.
Recall HWBush's line of criticism of Dukakis during the Republican Convention in 1988:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25955
snip: "Eight years ago, I stood here with Ronald Reagan and we promised, together, to break with the past and return America to her greatness. Eight years later, look at what the American people have produced—the highest level of economic growth in our entire history and the lowest level of world tensions in more than 50 years.
Some say, you know some say, this isn't an election about ideology, that it's an election about competence. Well, it's nice of them to want to play on our field. But this election isn't only about competence, for competence is a narrow ideal. Competence makes the trains run on time but doesn't know where they're going. Competence is the creed of the technocrat who makes sure the gears mesh but doesn't for a second understand the magic of the machine.
The truth is, this election is about the beliefs we share, the values that we honor and the principles we hold dear."
I remember when Lee 'I-O-U-a-Coca-Cola' was considering a run for office. Hell, IMO, Perot was the best candidate we've had in my lifetime.
These aholes miss the essence of Trump just like everyone except Trumpkins. Trump didn't win because he was a businessman, he won because he was Trump.
Dumbasses.
mockturtle: "I remember when Lee 'I-O-U-a-Coca-Cola' was considering a run for office. Hell, IMO, Perot was the best candidate we've had in my lifetime."
I disagree but only because it was clear then and is even more clear in retrospect that the reason Perot was running was due to his intense hatred for the Bush family. And it was intense.
Hence his volatile "jump in/jump out/jump back in" behavior.
more clear in retrospect that the reason Perot was running was due to his intense hatred for the Bush family. And it was intense.
I might have voted for Perot than but he eventually showed he is a nut,
Reagan's worst mistake was Bush.
buwaya said...
He lost business relationships, his businesses were boycotted, even his kids businesses were boycotted and his kids business partners were pressured.
But it looks like all of his businesses are pulling through the troubles. TBD.
Trump suffered through this because he took the side of the American People against these same business tycoons.
They don't understand the underlying reason behind Trump's success. Nobody is going to support a successful business person arguing for open borders and shipping jobs overseas.
"We don't live in the leftie/Obama world...anymore.
Ha! If you think Obama was a leftie, you're the one not living in the real world.
Perot was too old.
Not in years necessarily, but we age and lose it at different rates.
It's clear he was way over the hill in 1992. The Perot of the 1970s would have been something else. He didn't put in a fraction of the effort Trump did, nor did he spend much. Not a gambler either.
Nor did he have Trumps level of professional skill as a showman.
Didn't Bloomberg pass a ban on large soda's?
Anyone who passes a ban on large soda's is a guaranteed loser in a US presidential election. The sanctuary city thing doesn't help much either.
Michael K: "Reagan's worst mistake was Bush."
Indeed. HW collapsed on Tax Cuts and he was foolish enough to listen to Sununu in the nomination of David Souter.
Souter is why the current make up of the court is so close.
We needn't waste our time reliving the disaster of HWBush caving to the dems on the tax increase and HW's hopelessly (HOPELESSLY) naive belief that the dems would keep their promises and stand with him on that. That was the single biggest issue that Carville used to beat Bush up.
Trump won because he:
1. Was a political outsider
2. Was anti-PC
3. Called the MSM an enemy of truth, which it is
4. Identified terrorists as what they are
5. Has his own money--the GOP did not get him elected
Cook: "Ha! If you think Obama was a leftie, you're the one not living in the real world."
In cooks world the only "true" lefties are the ones filling the mass graves.
Sorry conspiracy boy, there's lots of flavors of "lefty" that fall short of lining people up by the millions to be shot or starved.
Much to your chagrin no doubt.
If Obama could become President, why not any community organizer?
If William J Clinton could become President, why not any Rhodes Scholar?
If Ronald Reagan could become President, why not any mid-level actor?
If Jimmy Carter could become President, why not any peanut farmer?
If John F Kennedy could become President, why not any PT boat Captain?
If Harry S Truman could become President, why not any small town haberdasher?
And on, and on, and on...
So to ask the question, is to answer it.
I don't think that Trump won because he was a businessman but rather because he was good at marketing (esp himself) and could build a bridge with working class/middle class, esp whites. And, yes, used his brilliant son-in-law to build an extremely effective electronic marketing system, far more responsive and individualized than any seen before in politics. I agree that most CEOs would have fared a fate like Romney's, except maybe worse, thanks to his squeaky clean life, leaving no real skeletons in closets for the Dems to find.
That all said, the place where a CEO might have a chance, might be on the Dem side, at least once they got the nomination. Hard to do worse than Crooked Hillary did there (and she came close to winning). Likely wouldn't be as dirty, nor as unhealthy. Or, really, as charisma impaired. The problem though is that the Dem nomination is still very much an insiders' game, as we saw with the fate of Bernie Sanders. Which means that no matter how desperately the Dems need new blood at the top they really are going to have to let this generation die off first, before they have a decent chance at acquiring such.
Obama is a perfect example of the ultimate effect of Gramscis "long march".
At one time there was a purpose to this, systems and mechanisms were created to subvert capitalist society and bring on communism. Obama was groomed for power by this system.
But the director of that March died, the soul died, leaving it's creation a purposeless zombie creature. A machine dedicated to power for the sake of power, and destruction for the sake of destruction. Because destruction is in its nature.
Maybe I'm forgetting, but didn't the Democrats spend a decade or so, recently, bashing high-earning CEO-types, arguing that "they didn't build that," and making "inequality" (in part defined by them as the difference between the CEO's pay and the average worker's pay) a central evil of our time?
Did...did everyone just drop that? I mean, I know that kind of thing happens--the Left was all about "getting money out of politics" right up until Obama outspent McCain and Hilldozer plowed through a cool billion dollars--but does no one else remember those seemingly deeply-held convictions of the Left?
What must it be like to be able to declare the world new each day, or at least each time one feels like it'd be convenient! Try as I might, I just can't do it, myself, but then again I'm not of the Left.
"Reagan's worst mistake was Bush."
Agree, but the Republican Establishment forced Reagan to put a Moderate on the ticket. It could have been worse, Ford might have accepted the bizarre "co-presidency" offer.
Reagan should have dumped Bush as VP In '84 and made him Secretary of State, which is what Bush wanted to do anyway. And then put a good conservative in as VP, thereby teeing him up for 1988.
Of course, Reagan was too lazy and nice to do that.
Re: Robert Cook:
What on earth is Trump's "platform" but a farrago of the typical ignorant rants you might hear bellowed or slurred at the corner tavern on Saturday night?
His platform was -- pretty consistently -- crack down on illegal immigration and renegotiate free trade deals to keep jobs in the US. Election night, I was in Japan and a friend texted me that this would never happen in Japan. Well of course it wouldn't! Japan has been implementing Trump's policies for the last 60 years. You wouldn't need a coarse, loudmouthed blowhard to promote these policies, because they represent the broad, quiet political consensus. When the Japanese authorities have experimented around the edges of this consensus, e.g. by encouraging low skill immigration, the people didn't like it so they paid immigrants to go back home. They've had trouble joining free trade agreements historically because the ruling party is simply too responsive to domestic voters who want to make sure that farms and factories remain in Japan.
You can try and deride this as "ignorant rants," all you like, but hey -- I go to Japan all the time precisely to get away from the grime and squalor I have to deal with every day here in Washington DC. Their solution isn't perfect (there's an entire generation in there that, ah, kind of forgot to have children, and they have massive public debt) but it's not noticeably worse than what we have here. And for someone like me, it is noticeably better. I have seen the future and it works.
"If John F Kennedy could become President, why not any PT boat Captain?"
Hey, it almost worked with John Kerry!
Perot...
At one point not long ago I considered my votes for him a mistake.
Not long ago though I realized there was no difference really between a Clinton and a Bush. They played for the same team.
And Perot was right about some things like that Huge Sucking sound NAFTA made and he had excellent slides about the debt. 3 decades of the uniparty worked out just like he said it would.
Jeff Brokaw said...
Trump did not win *just* because he's a businessman. He wants to bring jobs back, protect our borders, put the needs of Americans ahead of non-Americans, and MAGA. How many other CEOs have those values, and actually believe them, down to the core? Not many, I'll wager, although obviously there are some who still do.
You say all that stuff like it was actually contentious. I want lower taxes, better government service, lower health care premiums, better health care; I want lower gas prices, and better roads; I want everybody to have a great job that pays enough for everybody to have what they want; I want world peace; I want a cleaner environment; I want a pink unicorn, not because I would know what to do with a pink unicorn but rather because I want to give the pink unicorn to a beautiful little blonde-haired girl and see her smile.
Nobody gets all of those things. Governing -- especially as President -- is about making hard choices. In order to make those choices in a coherent way, you need to have principles. I don't think Trump has any. Actually, Trump is like Groucho Marx, who had his principles, but if you didn't like them, he had others.
"What on earth would her platform be?"
Up with people.
Women are Great.
"Why not me?" Sounds a lot like Hillary asking, "Why am I not 50 points ahead?" These so called smart people haven't a clue.
Perot would've been much better than Bush or Clinton in 1992. Unfortunately, I don't think he was ever really serious about being President. When it looked like he was leading in polls, he dropped out for that crazy "Someone is going to trash my Daughters Wedding" reason.
Once it became clear he couldn't get elected, he got back in.
He was just a spoiler, and hated Bush.
Robert Cook said...
Ha! If you think Obama was a leftie, you're the one not living in the real world.
Cook is right. There is no right/left spectrum anymore. That was a sham from the start pushed by the uniparty oligarchs. Obama was only worse compared to Clinton's/Bush's by degrees not by goals.
Obama was just more honest about what he was doing than the Bush's were.
And Perot was right about some things like that Huge Sucking sound NAFTA made and he had excellent slides about the debt. 3 decades of the uniparty worked out just like he said it would.
Exactly. Perot had it nailed.
Chuck said...
You say all that stuff like it was actually contentious.
Rubio and the rest of the GOPe agree. We need "comprehensive immigration reform."
rcocean said...
"If John F Kennedy could become President, why not any PT boat Captain?"
"Hey, it almost worked with John Kerry!"
Almost only counts in horseshoes and atomic bombs. He got his participation trophy...SecState
Regarding the 'leftie-rightie' argument: Face it. We have had a one-party government for a very long time. Where the division really falls is between globalist [Dems & GOP] and nationalists [the rest of us]. This same rift is happening all over Europe, as well. The elections there will be interesting.
"...a lot of business people don't have much respect for..." is a tiresome canard propagated ad nauseum by the NYT since Trump announced his candidacy. These "business people" are never named, which is standard for the Paper of Record. Trump is a billionaire who has recovered from at least one bankruptcy so it's reasonable to assume that he's got above average business acumen and has earned the respect of at one or two "business people".
Any excuse at all, including one coming from a source they loathe, to hate on regular, mainstream Republicans.
The "regular, mainstream Republicans" who were criticized by that point in the threat included Mark Cuban, Howard Schultz, and Oprah.
Cookie said...
"We don't live in the leftie/Obama world...anymore.
Ha! If you think Obama was a leftie, you're the one not living in the real world.
Who said Obama was a leftie? Try this, Cookie: Use of the virgule
Chuck said...Nobody gets all of those things. Governing -- especially as President -- is about making hard choices. In order to make those choices in a coherent way, you need to have principles. I don't think Trump has any. Actually, Trump is like Groucho Marx, who had his principles, but if you didn't like them, he had others.
Right, so good thing Hillary Clinton and her party have principles, right Chuck? Good thing Obama and his party had principles, right Chuck?
Are you joking with this shit, implying that Trump is especially bad on this count? For God's sake, man, we've been through "if you like your Dr. you can keep your Dr.; oh and all families are going to save $2.5k/year and everyone gets great coverage" and you're complaining that Trump's rhetoric is insufficiently based in reality? Obama's verbal tic "there are those who say" followed by a straw-man heavy gloss of actual trade offs and finished with "but I say we can both have our cake and eat it, too!" to thunderous applause--do you really think Trump is WORSE on that score?
Trump implies there are no costs or downsides to the things he wants to do. Republicans pretend that eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse on top of increased dynamic economic performance from tax cuts will pay for everything they want. That's not an honest accounting of trade offs and it's not how I want politicians--or any adults, really--to discuss, argue, and persuade. Fine.
Obama and the Dems ATTACK any assertion that trade offs might exist! They punish anyone who even nods towards the reality that things have costs, that decisions require choices, that we can't "have it all." Talk about reforming program X and the immediate, overwhelming response is "see, this non-Dem hates group X and wants them to starve and die." Wanna improve health insurance? "Republicans hate sick people--the Republican plan is for people to die quickly." That's not an exaggeration, man, that's an actual assertion made by actual national Democrats and treated as a valid thing to say by the Media.
But yeah, no, you're right--Trump's an outlier in this regard, Trump's refusal to recognize reality and discuss trade offs/hard choices is unique and without precedent in our modern political sphere. Totally.
Hoodlum Doodlum: Why are you so obsessed with a party with so little control as the Democrats? We own the House, Senate and White House now. And most of state governments everywhere. We get to legislate.
And yes; I absolutely, positively think that Donald Trump's banal trashtalk on healthcare has been worse than any similar trashtalk from Obama. I am not defending Obama or Obamacare. But not only has Trump not actually done anything himself on health care, he hasn't said a single important, sensible thing. Not one.
M Jordan at 12:00 PM nailed it.
Close the thread.
Robert Cook: You think Trump comes across as anything but a boor, a buffoon and a scam artist? Do you think he appears to have a cogent thought in his head about domestic or foreign policy?
I suspect he has a more solid grasp of how the world really works than you do, Robert.
I can understand how observers conclude that Trump doesn't have a cogent thought in his head about policy. What I don't understand is how they have concluded that the rest of the teleprompter readers, bullet point orators, bromide salesmen, K Street rent boys, and venal ideologues in American political life do.
And don't tell me "but I think they're idiots/scam artists/whatever, too". Obviously, people wailing about Trump as you're doing here do think that he's "uniquely unqualified", which suggests that their critical faculties regarding political speech/political action are a bit out of whack.
What on earth is Trump's "platform" but a farrago of the typical ignorant rants you might hear bellowed or slurred at the corner tavern on Saturday night?
Who are you and what have you done with our Bob? Lately the comments posted under his name have been indistinguishable from those of thousands of over-credentialed under-brained foot-stamping Facebook cat-ladies, and that's not like him at all.
Chuck said...And yes; I absolutely, positively think that Donald Trump's banal trashtalk on healthcare has been worse than any similar trashtalk from Obama. I am not defending Obama or Obamacare. But not only has Trump not actually done anything himself on health care, he hasn't said a single important, sensible thing.
Well there you have it, I guess. Trump hasn't "done anything on health care" so Chuck's happy to conclude that Trump's trashtalk is worse than Obama's. Hey, Chuck, maybe let's let Trump get 6 months in office under his belt before we say he hasn't "done anything himself," huh?
No, no, you're right, you're being sensible--he's a miserable failure because he hasn't "done anything" yet. That doesn't seem unfair or unrealistic at all, no sir.
Chuck said...We own the House, Senate and White House now. And most of state governments everywhere. We get to legislate.
"We." Nice, nice. Hey, maybe while we're at it, let's all remember that the legislature legislates, right? I mean, the Repub. congressfolk put their plan out, what, this week, yeah? Is that somehow Trump's fault, Chuck? The Republican establishment--which by the way both hated Trump and opposed him (ineffectively!) throughout his campaign--has had several YEARS to get on the same page re: repealing Obamacare, to craft not only the bill itself but to build a consensus, etc...and has apparently done a shitty job of it. That's somehow on Trump too, though, huh Chuck?
The Repub. proposal Ryan put out is shitty and pleases no on mostly because it's addressing only those things that can be accomplished through reconciliation. That's necessary because "we" don't "own" the Senate enough to prevent a filibuster. Ryan's proposal is only part of the reform push--the other part will have to come in many separate bills that will have to get through with actual supermajorities and thus will be much tougher to accomplish. Because we're only seeing the reconciliation-able bill now it looks like crap. Now, this is both a tactical and a strategic problem--and Ryan & Co. have, apparently, utterly failed to address this problem until now. That's led to a week of bad headlines, to the Media getting to gleefully point to "Republican infighting!" and to a pretty bad impression with the public. None of that, as far as I can tell, has much of anything to do with Trump.
But yeah, Trump's the problem, and Trump's rhetorical excesses are worse than Obama's, totally.
But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise;
God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
Saint Paul, I Corinthians 1:27
I cannot count the number of successful entrepreneurs I have known personally who have failed in areas they thought their expertise would surely make them strong in.
Trump is a successful Real Estate Developer. In New York high rise real estate. Is there a tougher environment in the world? Maybe in a warzone. People denigrate him because of that pussy comment. I can guarantee you that all the men that complained and whined that they have never been around that in a locker room are BS ing you. Trump is pretty mild as far as that language goes. Should a rough and tumble guy be allowed to lead the country or do we need to turn them into pussies first before they are electable in the media's eyes?
People especially lawyers with limited perceptions dislike his use of language. It's just the Ali Rope a Dope persona Trump is using. The dopes don't know they are being roped. The dopes all have Ph.Ds etc.Trump is not going to be nice and tidy and neat until he invites you to his house.
HoodlumDoodlum: Are you joking with this shit, implying that Trump is especially bad on this count? For God's sake, man, we've been through "if you like your Dr. you can keep your Dr.; oh and all families are going to save $2.5k/year and everyone gets great coverage" and you're complaining that Trump's rhetoric is insufficiently based in reality? Obama's verbal tic "there are those who say" followed by a straw-man heavy gloss of actual trade offs and finished with "but I say we can both have our cake and eat it, too!" to thunderous applause--do you really think Trump is WORSE on that score?
But Trump is a potential threat to the status quo. Obama was the selected caretaker of the status quo. So yeah, from Chuck's point of view, he's worse. Obama's bullshit didn't threaten what Chuck wants to preserve.
This reminds me of right after the election when a big Democratic trope for about a week was that Trump won because he was a celebrity (The Apprentice and all), so we should recruit George Clooney or Matt Damon or some other utterly mindless pretty face who has been in People Mag a lot.
So a few days ago, Oprah starts speculating about herself, and now it's big-time corporate types.
Ridiculous. Trump was a credible candidate because he understood and articulated certain things that appealed to a great many millions of people that no one else was speaking to, and showed that he might be willing to upset some apple carts to represent these forgotten people. So from early on he had a large constituency that nobody except Cruz, in a limited way, even tried to contest. Then, he won because the opposition in both the primaries and the general was weak and in some cases, stupid (maybe borne of arrogance).
That is the polar opposite of what we would expect from any conventional business type or celebrity, by their very nature. Now, maybe after some months of Trump people will get sick of the drama and want a return to quiet; in that case a conventional business person might have a chance, but a pro politician would be even better.
Angel-Dyne said...
...
But Trump is a potential threat to the status quo. Obama was the selected caretaker of the status quo. So yeah, from Chuck's point of view, he's worse. Obama's bullshit didn't threaten what Chuck wants to preserve.
LMFAO. Trump has signed on to the House bill. That GOPe product, that the Louis Gohmert-nutjob faction thinks is too much like Obamacare.
Trump doesn't have any idea what he wants. Trump wants another campaign rally in a hockey arena, where he can blame shit on Obama.
I read this yesterday and thought, "These people have no idea why Trump won." And David Gergen (!), the low-key, moderated, well-modulated voice of the middle center, who has never encountered a Republican that he approved of since Nixon, for whom he wrote speeches and then stabbed. This is chewing gum for the Times's readership. "Those Republicans, they really wanted a business leader, but they are so ignorant and oaf-like that they think Trump is a business leader."
Well, you can debate 'em if you want to, but I think it's a waste of time. Let them figure out what happened. They are so bright I'm sure they'll get it right quicker than anyone who actually voted for Trump.
"Why are you so obsessed with a party with so little control as the Democrats?"
Because they don't have "little control"
- They have most of the political money in the US. The .001% is Democrat, or Democrat-sympathizing by maybe 8:1
- They have control of most national institutions, educational, professional, media, as well as the majority of large corporate enterprises. They are in Gramsci's position of "hegemony". There is much more to power than who wins elections.
- They are literally the "party of government" - Republicans hold legislatures and executives, but Democrats are nearly 100% of the functionaries and management of all government bodies.
Ultimately, what Trump promised was jobs and good times.
This was explicit.
Unlike most politicians promises, there are perfectly good metrics for this, and there is no great crash to obfuscate a lack of recovery, as with Obama. You can and should track the labor force participation rate and employment numbers. Luckily these update fairly quickly.
Give this at least six months though.
Median household income comes with a long lag, so its only useful as a retrospective. But you could use that too, as part of your historical judgement.
buwaya said...
"Why are you so obsessed with a party with so little control as the Democrats?"
Because they don't have "little control"
- They have most of the political money in the US. The .001% is Democrat, or Democrat-sympathizing by maybe 8:1
- They have control of most national institutions, educational, professional, media, as well as the majority of large corporate enterprises. They are in Gramsci's position of "hegemony". There is much more to power than who wins elections.
- They are literally the "party of government" - Republicans hold legislatures and executives, but Democrats are nearly 100% of the functionaries and management of all government bodies.
Okay, that's a countering argument I can actually respect. All the more reason to GOVERN with the power we've got. Build toward 60 Senate votes in 2018. Continue to fight for election law reform, and for the right sort of free-speech campaign finance law. A profound, lasting, economy-growing tax code overhaul. We're talking Mitch McConnell's Xmas list here.
Instead of shit-stupid controversies like Muslim bans, "wires-tapped", electoral majorities from 2016, and "Radical Islamic Terrorism."
...Forgot "Mexican border walls," too...
My bad.
Why not Steve Forbes? Why not Ross Perot?
Why not Lee Iococa?
Indeed, why not the dog catcher? He would probably be smarter.
Chuck - You are so SOL it is pathetic. What are you, gimpy McCain, the Dems favorite Repub, or the Mini-me Senator from SC? Both of them are there to perform their anti-Trump routine to satisfy their as kissing of the Dem establishment. Rebels, indeed. BS. You didn't support Trump, great. Grow up. Your are a lawyer, right? Your type are always on auto-stupid. For you, I have the solution; Henry the Sixth, Part 2, Scene 2.
Chuck: LMFAO. Trump has signed on to the House bill. That GOPe product, that the Louis Gohmert-nutjob faction thinks is too much like Obamacare.
So I guess you can relax, Chuck. Trump is a moron who doesn't know what he wants, and is going to be managed and dominated by the smarter, professional, adults-in-the-room of the Holy GOPe. Nothing to worry about, then.
Trump doesn't have any idea what he wants.
Apparently you don't, either, since you keep braying that you're getting everything you want, and yet you're still in a permanent toddler snit about Trump.
Trump wants another campaign rally in a hockey arena, where he can blame shit on Obama.
You should be grateful. If the GOPe, as they look fittin' to do, stick to their SOP and remain as purposefully ineffectual as always, resulting in their pissing away the great gains of 2016, you can blame all that shit on Trump and look forward to attending the big 2020 Rubio foam party rally.
Did Jesse Ventura's successful run for Governor of Minnesota trigger the same reaction?
“There is this sense that if Ventura got it, why shouldn’t they?” said Gavin Dirge, co-director of the Center for Public Exposure at the Mr. Kennedy School. “They’ve been more successful, they have more belts, and they’ve fought as a heel, which is more equivalent to what a governor does than being a face” like Jesse the Body.
I heard our resident Sooper Geeenyouus Ritmo is going to run.
You are over-concerned with surface features like elections and votes. Or for that matter Republican and Democrat. Look beneath.
"Mexican border walls" - is a very specific campaign promise, and a significant economic measure, that gets right to the matter of labor surplus. This is a very big deal and a very large part of the war of substance thats being fought beneath the war of words. And the other side on that fight is nearly as much "Republican" as it is Democrat.
The other side is heavily invested in creating and maintaining a US labor surplus, as well as, on the Democrat side, effectively replacing the US population with something more tractable. There is no point in election law reform unless that is resolved in Trumps favor.
The electoral majorities from 2016 are also important, for the same reasons and to the same effect as above.
Wire-tapping is also a matter of substance. Thats your institutional power right there. Break them on that, and you reduce the leverage of the permanent government.
Everything that is being argued about is happening on many levels. There are fights by proxy, on proxy issues, arguments that substitute for those that one side or the other does not want to make explicit.
Chuck: All the more reason to GOVERN with the power we've got. Build toward 60 Senate votes in 2018. Continue to fight for election law reform, and for the right sort of free-speech campaign finance law. A profound, lasting, economy-growing tax code overhaul. We're talking Mitch McConnell's Xmas list here.
Instead of shit-stupid controversies like Muslim bans, "wires-tapped", electoral majorities from 2016, and "Radical Islamic Terrorism."
The Trump phenomenon is not a local American thing, Chuck. The forces that caused it are not going away even if Santa brings everything any True Conservative(tm) could wish for.
I think your inability to grasp this explains a great deal of the sheer out-of-phase oddness of so many of your comments.
"I think your inability to grasp this explains a great deal of the sheer out-of-phase oddness of so many of your comments."
In a forum full of odd Trump worshippers, Chuck's comments sound quite sane.
Romney is a capable executive; Trump is a marketer/entrepreneur -- therein lies the difference. The president is not a CEO, he has to lead.
buwaya, if you want to make some sophisticated arguments about international labor surpluses, that's okay. But a Mexican border wall hasn't got anything to do with anything. We've got a whole lot more people here illegally who have overstayed their legal visas.
And "wire-tapping" is a pure bullshit issue, for which Trump ought to be rightly shamed. There is no basis, on which the story could be true; if it were, it would be something that no President should ever discuss (the details of a classified intelligence operation).
I am not going to pretend that what Trump is doing is brilliant messaging, when what he's doing is inflicting his insomnia on the rest of the country as he reads Breitbart and InfoWars in his stupor.
And "wire-tapping" is a pure bullshit issue, for which Trump ought to be rightly shamed. There is no basis, on which the story could be true;
Except for all those right-wing papers like the NYT reporting on the wiretapping, back when they were trying to advance the "Trump is a Kremlin stooge" meme.
the NYT reporting on the wiretapping, back when they were trying to advance the "Trump is a Kremlin stooge" meme
Progressive Pro-Choice. They want to abort the baby and have it too. The cognitive dissonance must be deafening.
Why do some people here claim no evidence and totally ignore that the NYT had front page items on that very subject 11-7-16 and 1-20-17?
Since the NYT was reporting that, did they have any evidence? One would presume so, all snark aside. QED we at least have evidence from a 3rd party(ies) that evidence may exist. And if the NYT purports to have evidence, is it unreasonable or unfair to assume that President Trump may have some as well?
So, where is the intellectual honesty?
Are people so far bent that they can't acknowledge that which actually exists?
What type of asshole does that?
Ron Winkleheimer said...
"And 'wire-tapping' is a pure bullshit issue, for which Trump ought to be rightly shamed. There is no basis, on which the story could be true;"
Except for all those right-wing papers like the NYT reporting on the wiretapping, back when they were trying to advance the "Trump is a Kremlin stooge" meme.
So tell me, who reported, credibly, that "Obama... tapped [any] wires in Trump Tower."
Two words: immigration reform, including catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises).
The social liberals and business interests, foreign and domestic, oppose emigration reform, and want [class] diversity redistricting, and insourcing/outsourcing, respectively. The Planners/abortionists have a further conflict of interest -- a profit motive -- in social justice adventures that open abortion fields.
buwaya said...
You are over-concerned with surface features like elections and votes. Or for that matter Republican and Democrat. Look beneath.
*snip*
Everything that is being argued about is happening on many levels. There are fights by proxy, on proxy issues, arguments that substitute for those that one side or the other does not want to make explicit.
3/10/17, 2:02 PM
Exactly this. The 'Muslim ban' is another proxy fight on two levels. First, it's a substitute for a debate about what to do with the fact that a not-insignificant number of people from a specific religious ideology want to see us subservient to their beliefs. This also includes the fact that they are using this ideology to justify mass-casualty attacks and atrocities, and it has no visible institutional check on the means they would employ (does anyone seriously believe ISIS would not use a nuclear or biological weapon if they had one, they are already using chemical munitions).
That's one level, the second is a power struggle between supporters of the current immigration/refugee policy and the new administration using the courts as a proxy (it's worth noting that in the Washington case the argument on standing was extremely weak). it's also groundwork for a future power struggle between some of the liberal states and the federal government over projected/feared future actions (he's going to order a border wall built, California sues to stop it because it would break up families!).
The Mexican border is a path for, AFAIK, about 70-75% of the illegal residents in the US, so it is most certainly a very large part of the labor surplus problem.
Wire-tapping happened -or what amounts to wire tapping with current technology. There is no question that security agencies were listening in on the communications of Trump and his campaign staff, under whatever pretext. This is dirty pool, regardless of the disingenuous explanations. And more, this is a telling symptom of political corruption of the agencies involved. See above re the "party of government". This is a grave matter for any government, the indiscipline or untrustworthiness of its security agencies.
The way I see it Trump is insomniacally and often inaptly tweeting his apprehensions about genuinely grave matters. Penetrate the form, and see the substance.
Or for that matter Republican and Democrat. Look beneath.
Overlapping and convergent interests. While the 2008 financial crisis had a Democratic face, there was clearly Republican support. The same can be seen with Obamacare preserving the status quo and preventing a functional capitalist market, thereby redistributing capital to the 1% and cronies. Also Obama's global wars and catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, etc. As well as the artificial green blight (a.k.a. clean, green industry) and their environmentalist lobbies. The monopolies and practices are diverse, colorful, and bipartisan.
Scott, that is such baloney. Trump isn't doing any good with it, legally. His sloppy and intemperate language actually risks making bad law.
There's no real need right now, for any urgent (temporary, per the Trump Administration) travel restrictions. It's for no good reason; the real reason is for the Bannon/Miller crew to somehow spike a football in celebration of an electoral victory following the inexcusable trash talk about "...a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..."
Trump isn't going to get that. He was never going to get it. He was stupid to have said it. That trashtalk is only hurting Trump now, if (one assumes) the current EO is actually meaningful. The Democrat state AG's are making it one of their first and most important arguments.
I don't agree with the Dem AG arguments. But the only reason that they have those arguments is Trump's intemperate, quasi-bigoted, bloviating.
"But the only reason that they have those arguments is Trump's intemperate, quasi-bigoted, bloviating."
If they didn't have those arguments they would have plenty of others.
Nobody is fooling anyone anymore. The battles are fought naked, in the open, in spite of attempts to clothe them in deceptions.
buwaya said...
Because they don't have "little control"
- They have most of the political money in the US. The .001% is Democrat, or Democrat-sympathizing by maybe 8:1
- They have control of most national institutions, educational, professional, media, as well as the majority of large corporate enterprises. They are in Gramsci's position of "hegemony". There is much more to power than who wins elections.
- They are literally the "party of government" - Republicans hold legislatures and executives, but Democrats are nearly 100% of the functionaries and management of all government bodies.
Don't forget that there are enough vichy republicans still in congress like McCain and Graham and Murkowski that are fairly explicit in their servitude to the state. Speaker Ryan is clearly a servant of the oligarchs and his bullshit health plan just shows who he wants to keep power over our Healthcare.
Now they are saying we can't have Tax Reform until we pass a bullshit health care reform bill.
These people are still in power and they are still trying to screw this country over.
Chuck said...
There's no real need right now, for any urgent (temporary, per the Trump Administration) travel restrictions. It's for no good reason; the real reason is for the Bannon/Miller crew to somehow spike a football in celebration of an electoral victory following the inexcusable trash talk about "...a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States..."
You mean not wanting sharia law and more people that believe in sharia law here is not a good reason?
We know you are on the other side and we know the other side wants more sharia law. So there is that.
It's TrumpCare, he'll be the one signing this monstrosity into law, not Ryan. Nice of Ryan to take the fall for him though.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/323297-right-targets-ryan-not-trump-on-obamacare-plan
"President Trump has so far managed to avoid becoming a target for the conservative backlash to Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) ObamaCare repeal and replace plan, even as the White House vigorously whips support for the bill.
Ryan hasn’t been so lucky.
Breitbart News, which has long been one of Ryan’s most vocal foes, panned the American Health Care Act as “Speaker Ryan’s ObamaCare 2.0.”
Powerful conservative groups Club for Growth and FreedomWorks, whose leaders discussed the issue with Trump on Wednesday, have branded the bill “RyanCare.” A FreedomWorks digital ad included a photoshopped image of former President Obama laughing with his arm around the Speaker."
Chuck said...Build toward 60 Senate votes in 2018. Continue to fight for election law reform, and for the right sort of free-speech campaign finance law. A profound, lasting, economy-growing tax code overhaul. We're talking Mitch McConnell's Xmas list here.
You're not wrong here, Chuck, so I'll make sure I say it: that's correct. The question, then, is why did McConnell and Ryan, in their infinite wisdom, not decide to do those smart things--those popular and long-lasting things like a tax code overhaul, first? I really don't know. I don't think it's "because of Trump." My guess is that they, like most people, assumed Hillary would win, and on that basis felt no restraint in making promises about how quickly they'd push through Repeal & Replace (knowing it'd just get vetoed, again)...so they made what were good campaign promises thinking they wouldn't really have to follow through.
Trump won, though...so now they're stuck. Ryan's doing his best, I think, and genuinely thinks this is the smartest/best way to proceed, but clearly they don't have the full Repub. team on board and that's causing a lot of problems that shouldn't exist.
Again, I'm not sure how you can really blame Trump for that, though.
" Why are you so obsessed with a party with so little control as the Democrats?"
Already answered. Chuck is one I scroll past quickly, lest any of his "logic" stick to me.
Health care reform is actually fairly simple. What is complicated in Republican tax lawyers that write 90% of their legislation.
I found this out when I tried to volunteer in 1995.
None of it is about health.
The lack of respect from other business people is part of what got Trump elected.
Chuck. Sad.
Paddy O pops the balloon with the second comment of the thread. Done!
So tell me, who reported, credibly, that "Obama... tapped [any] wires in Trump Tower."
And this is how you get more Trump.
Chuck said...So tell me, who reported, credibly, that "Obama... tapped [any] wires in Trump Tower."
Our source was the New York Times.
The Media's been pushing the "Trump people linked to Ruskies via US intel" for a few months now, Chuck, as you well know. That included stories about investigations of a "secret server" either in Trump Tower or some other Trump location that was supposed to be engaging in clandestine communication w/a Russian bank. (Turns out it was probably sending spam email marketing...but nevermind). Most of the reports talked up intel supposedly collected on Trump aides, including Mantafort who happens to live...in Trump Tower.
Anyway a front-page NYTimes article from 20 Jan was headlined "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aies - Examining Russian Ties." That article discussed a "broad investigation" into possible Russian links and explicitly mentions Mantafort. This, of course, is just one example of a large number of articles the Media put out to create an impression that US intel had concluded that Trump and his team were dirty--were in bed with the Red Menace. Most of the articles have, way down at the bottom, some caveat like "no on is alleging actual collusion or criminal activity yet" but that's clearly the impression the Media wanted to give.
So. We know Mantafort lives in Trump Tower and it was alleged that a Trump computer/server was in Trump Tower, and the reports indicate that Trump aides and Trump's server communication were part of US intel intercepts. We're pretty sure Flynn was--at least that's what was (illegally) leaked, right? Now, if you want to say "the intel gathering was done against the Russian contacts only, so the actual wiretaps were on the Russian end and the Trump people just happened to get recorded as part of those calls," then fine. That's a thin reed, though, when the entire thrust of the Media's assertion is that TRUMP IS UNDER INVESTIGATION!
Now, if your point is that "Obama himself ordered nothing" then of course you're technically correct...but that's not how these things are played. The President is supposed to take the blame for anything bad that happens under his watch, and for all the actions of his subordinates--which includes everyone in the FBI, everyone in the DOJ, everyone in the CIA, etc. Obama didn't order Lois Lerner to violate people's rights, but it was Obama's IRS, so he has to take the blame, right?
Anyway if 1 or 2 FISA warrants were applied for by anyone in the Obama admin targeting Trump or his associates then that's "Obama ordering" it.
[None of this is to say I think Trump's tweets have been adequately supported, or that even if they're correct that they were in any way a good idea. They haven't been, and it's incredibly stupid to tweet that stuff--it's horribly harming to Trump if he's wrong and if he's right it's exactly the wrong way to publicize and take advantage of the bad behavior of the Obama Admin. It is a stupid, stupid thing for Trump to have done...but let's not play the Media game of arguing for months that Trump & his associates were under deep investigation (including by US intel agencies) only to turn around now and say "there's no evidence that the Obama admin did any kind of surveillance or investigation of these people!"]
Guess what Chuck, I read Trump's book "The Art of the Deal," and it turns out Trump didn't actually build Trump Tower!
Turns a bunch of architects and hard hats and financiers built it.
Hell, it practically built itself.
if he's right it's exactly the wrong way to publicize and take advantage of the bad behavior of the Obama Admin. It is a stupid, stupid thing for Trump to have done.
Trump lacks discipline but has an instinct for publicizing things that need to be publicized. He got the whole media talking about Obama's attempts to undermine his successor with this. When has a former president tried to damage his successor like this ?
Maybe Roosevelt and Hoover but Roosevelt was dealing with a crisis and Hoover had failed to deal with it successfully.
In Hoover's defense, I would say the Roosevelt tried what Hoover had been doing and probably failed. Business confidence might have ended the Depression in 1932 if Roosevelt had not attacked the business world with such venom.
They haven't been, and it's incredibly stupid to tweet that stuff--it's horribly harming to Trump if he's wrong and if he's right it's exactly the wrong way to publicize and take advantage of the bad behavior of the Obama Admin. It is a stupid, stupid thing for Trump to have done
I don't agree with this. Bypassing the MSM and characterizing it as the opposition party seems to be working out for Trump pretty well so far. The MSM is like Chuck, they have a cartoon Trump living in their head and that is the one they interact with.
What the actual Trump does is almost irrelevant to them.
Thus Trump, who is a big supporter of Israel and has an Orthodox Jewish Son-In-Law is an anti-Semite. And a guy who supported same sex marriage 20 years before Obama and Hillary and had Roy Cohn as an attorney is homophobic.
Twitter is pretty much our age's version of the fireside chats that Roosevelt did over the radio. And yeah, we are living in a degenerate age in a lot of ways.
Not too long ago, we already had an executive in the White House, complete with Harvard MBA.
"And yes; I absolutely, positively think that Donald Trump's banal trashtalk on healthcare has been worse than any similar trashtalk from Obama. I am not defending Obama or Obamacare. But not only has Trump not actually done anything himself on health care, he hasn't said a single important, sensible thing. Not one."
Lulz
You're not wrong here, Chuck, so I'll make sure I say it: that's correct. The question, then, is why did McConnell and Ryan, in their infinite wisdom, not decide to do those smart things--those popular and long-lasting things like a tax code overhaul, first? I really don't know. I don't think it's "because of Trump." My guess is that they, like most people, assumed Hillary would win, and on that basis felt no restraint in making promises about how quickly they'd push through Repeal & Replace (knowing it'd just get vetoed, again)...so they made what were good campaign promises thinking they wouldn't really have to follow through.
What a great comment. I so love this blog when Althouse is on, and her commenters are being smart. I bolded the question that I love. And I don't love it because I have some snarky smarter-than-you answer. My answer is the same. I don't know! The brilliance of this question makes me think about a smiling Mitch McConnell, quietly saying (after announcing that the border wall, Obamacare reform and infrastructure spending will all wait, while the Senate pursues other priorities. I can just hear, in McConnell's voice, "the President has his priorities, and we have ours..."
I'm sure that a big part of it was deference to the President. And a part of it was the fact that Obamacare was enacted early in the 44th President's tenure. And they think it has to be done fast. There may be a dozen reasons.
I wish I could write more, but my power has gone out and I don't like doing this on my phone. Have a really nice Friday evening, Hoodlum and thanks again for a great question.
This is just the kind of oligarchy the Trumpists wanted.
"This is just the kind of oligarchy the Trumpists wanted."
Achilles will be along shortly to remind everyone how stupid they are for not seeing Trump as the Oligarch Slayer. He seems to miss the fact that Trump has hobnobbed with oligarchs all over the world and filled his Cabinet with them.
Achilles will be along shortly to remind everyone how stupid they are for not seeing Trump as the Oligarch Slayer. He seems to miss the fact that Trump has hobnobbed with oligarchs all over the world and filled his Cabinet with them.
It's probably true, and very vexing that his definition of oligarchy is so unusual and counter-intuitive. Myself, I'd like to see evidence that a billionaire actually cares about the problems of the working class before declaring him/her anti-oligarchy. But I think he approaches it differently. A lot of people think pride is more important, and somehow that working class poor people retain their pride if they never question the amount of resources and attention the government showers onto billionaires at their expense. But others, myself included, are less given to being flattered and made proud. We simply want to see results. And the result's of Trump's efforts on poor people's air and water, their healthcare, their security, seem to be abysmal. This is an administration that feels proud of all the stink it makes on our allies and enemies and refugees, but where are the good results? They're just doing emotional feel-good reactions to find pride in doing a lot of political noise, without caring what the actual results are.
But no matter. This administration's foreign policy is actually run by President Steven Bannon. And he sees the world the way Thomas Cromwell saw Europe and what he could manipulate Henry the VIII to do to it. But the world is a much different place, now.
They can't adjust.
"And the result's of Trump's efforts on poor people's air and water, their healthcare, their security, seem to be abysmal."
Tough metrics here. Even swagging it you have to wait a year at least for data.
You have to give all of this time you know. I keep telling the lot to wait six months for the labor market or GDP or tax collection figures (for instance) to firm up, and so should you; there is no way to actually count the dead bodies you want to count, yet.
Tough metrics here. Even swagging it you have to wait a year at least for data.
Pollution has obvious consequences. Would you seriously say that sinking a knife into someone's chest cavity has unpredictable consequences until you wait a while?
Pollution takes a rather long time to adjust to policy changes, especially if you are adding to it. There are quite long lead times. I dont see a feasible way to increase pollution in Los Angeles for instance, even if you wanted to. The highways are already congested and there is no way you are going to add any measurable extra polluting industry there in under five years.
As for other data, the same.
The other problem with demographic data is its all mixed up with multiple drivers giving a net effect that is likely to be ambiguous. Increased death rate for under-treatment (presumably from lack of insurance) seems like an unlikely effect to measure. You will have a hard time removing that from, say, the effect of population aging or from improvements in medical tech, or for that matter, possibly, reduced alcoholism, addiction and depression as a result of higher employment rates.
Now, its always possible to find anecdotes.
Paddy O gets it right: "If they were the kind of businessmen who were able to become President they wouldn't have waited for someone else to do it first, they would have been the first through the window."
And what Martin said is also true. "Trump was a credible candidate because he understood and articulated certain things that appealed to a great many millions of people that no one else was speaking to, and showed that he might be willing to upset some apple carts to represent these forgotten people. So from early on he had a large constituency that nobody except Cruz, in a limited way, even tried to contest." I was a Cruz supporter, and voted for him in the NY primary, in one of the 2 upstate districts that held Trump below 50%. Every one of the people I know who was pro-Trump early on was leaning Cruz before Trump entered the race as a serious candidate. (That would be the ones who actually paid attention to and talked politics before October of a presidential year.) The one thing no one know is who all those Kasich voters were in the district. None of them had a yard sign, and I observed no Kasich bumper stickers.
Post a Comment