October 25, 2017

"For anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story."

"The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy. More recently, if just one of two things is true—Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake intelligence prompted Mr. Comey’s email intervention—then Russian operations, via their impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot behold a mountain if there’s a molehill anywhere nearby. Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin."

Writes Holman Jenkins in the WSJ, quoted at Instapundit. (And the WSJ link worked for me without a subscription.)

148 comments:

John Borell said...

"Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush."

Ralph L said...

I got the wall, so I'll take your word for it.

Funny how months ago, DC said firing Mueller would be an impeachable offense.

PackerBronco said...

Leak from the Mueller Investigation to distract everyone from these new stories coming in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

tim in vermont said...

Intemperate tweets are the real problem.

Khesanh 0802 said...

My comment to the original column: "It's time for Sessions to put on his big boy pants and dump Rosenstein and Mueller. Both of them are negatively implicated in the situation surrounding Uranium One and the Dossier. Those of us who have questioned the ethics of the FBI and its head (s) are looking prescient now." This was before the WaPo issued it's exclusive on who paid for the Fusion Dossier. I double it in spades this AM.

JPS said...

Stories like this make me much less dismissive of some of the more paranoid leftist imaginings of the US Government (of which I am, in however part-time and peripheral a capacity, a part). It just makes me wonder why they keep trying to give it more power.

But then I remember the answer: It'll be OK as long as the right people - their people - are in charge.

And if you keep going down that road, the possibility that the wrong person will be in charge becomes an emergency, justifying all sorts of extraordinary measures to prevent or undo.

AReasonableMan said...

Holman Jenkins is a reliable shill for the open borders beloved by our corporate overlords.

Sydney said...

I wonder if any of this will make the news that people read and listen to.

rehajm said...

The collusion of the US players brings creepy and sinister to a new level.

EDH said...

Rosenstein's initial charge to Special Cousel Meuller did seem obtusely narrow.

If Mueller, Rosenstein and McCabe "can't" be fired by Trump over these conflicts, there need to be parallel investigation.

tim in vermont said...

All the more reason to take him seriously, if he is one of the elite pushing this crap down our throats, ARM.

But your usual comment to any story that exposes the dumpster fire that is the Clintons is "squirrel!"

n.n said...

The dynamic balance of a one-legged stool: personal interest, where national (e.g. community) interests are superseded for personal gain.

This is at least one reason why Democrats have made an extraordinary effort to dissociate from both the Clinton and Obama factions.

Ray said...

I have mixed feelings.

Clinton lost and I don’t want her singled out for an investigation.

In a perfect world I would like her pardoned, but everything comes out. Think a truth commission.

Mueller’s #1 goal is protect the FBI.

I want a government that is not used as a political weapon. It’s horrible it happened. And scary.

JPS said...

ARM:

"Holman Jenkins is a reliable shill for the open borders beloved by our corporate overlords."

You do understand this doesn't actually refute anything he wrote?

Hagar said...

Calling for Trump to "fire" people these people is a mistake. The truth seems to be leaking out, as murder will, and it shall be most interesting to see how they will manage the conundrum.
What is worst; letting it all out, or continue to deceive and get caught in flagrante delicto?

Kevin said...

Now wouldn’t you like to read what’s in Hillary’s deleted e-mails?

I’m sure the next spin is that while it happened on her watch, she was never directly involved.

n.n said...

The Clinton and Obama factions are open border for Democratic leverage, labor and environmental arbitrage, foreign investment, and personal profit. The expose on sale of the Uranium One asset is just one notable aspect of these transnational interests that are in conflict with national/community interests, from Somalia to Libya to Ukraine to America. The most overt aspects and consequences of anti-national/community interests is why all the other presidential candidates, with a progressive loss of mainstream media credibility, were rejected.

TreeJoe said...

....Am I wrong in seeing in pattern in Obama-administration behavior whereby they announce they are going to move closer to a country like Russia or Iran and then work towards achieving that closeness regardless of actual behavior by the country?

How much did they hide or brush away that Russia did while they were "resetting"? How much did they hide or deliberately suppress by Iran during the Nuke deal?

And, similarly, how much did they hide and suppress about Bergdahl while they rushed to rescue him? And how again did they justify the killing of american citizens and family members of terrorists in drone strikes?

........

The incredibly transparent problem we have is that Trumps inappropriate and unprofessional communication style is more of a story than actually what is being done in the background. The actual actions and results of the administration.

tim in vermont said...

Hillary's deleted emails likely had to do with Uranium One. I love how she says that the story has been debunked, when she illegally destroyed so much evidence.

n.n said...

Calling for Trump to "fire" people these people is a mistake. The truth seems to be leaking out

Yes. The extraordinary, but not unprecedented (e.g. Nixon coup), effort to sabotage or remove Trump, and to disenfranchise Americans and native populations, suggests that he is either a competing and/or conflicting interest to these transnational/community interests. But, as is human nature, with a strong leader, the voices that were suppressed are now speaking out, and with a trickle are building into a wave that are causing these 1%ers to panic and realign.

FIDO said...

Why does this man still have a job? Mueller I mean, just to clarify for ARM, Chuck, Inga et al.

tim in vermont said...

You do understand this doesn't actually refute anything he wrote

It's the best squirrel he could come up with, because covering for the moral rot and ethical turpitude of the Clintons is "reasonable"!

Fabi said...

The real story is all the Bush boys gang raping a young woman at a photo shoot!

JayDee77 said...

You elect someone from the cesspool of Chicago politics and give him free reign for 8 years. This is what happens.

Chuck said...

AReasonableMan said...
Holman Jenkins is a reliable shill for the open borders beloved by our corporate overlords.

I sometimes wonder what world I am living in. Holman Jenkins is one of the Journal's greatest columnists in a generation. He began the Trump era denouncing Trump, and as we have gotten into the Trump presidency, he has scaled back his major criticisms, all the while noting that Trump is an incompetent Washington tactician and messager.

So from the left, ARM suggests that Jenkins is "reliable shill for the open borders beloved by our corporate overlords." I don't know if that was pure sarcasm (shame on me, and kudos to ARM if it was). Sounds like Steve Bannon!

Any other week of the year (or most specifically the 2016), the Trumpkins would be stealing ARM's words. Claiming that Jenkins is an open-borders globalist member of the deep-state Wall Street Journal culture.

But now, I suspect that Jenkins will find out that there is nothing so soothing to TrumpWorld as going after a Clinton, and including Bob Mueller in the attack.

The comments at the Journal are remarkable. There is still a stark divide, between pro- and anti-Trump readers of the Journal online. But wow, the number and vehemence of Trump fans is really striking.

tim in vermont said...

the while noting that Trump is an incompetent Washington tactician and messager.

Check the score board.

Interesting too that you misunderstand Republicans in the same way ARM does. LLR

Hagar said...

The headline news in the ABQ Morning Democrat is that a baby giraffe was born at the zoo yesterday. They obviously have not gotten the word on how to handle the news out of D.C. yet.

Perhaps"a modified limited hang out?"

Widmerpool said...

Jenkins is the Journal's best columnist and has had the most solid, realistic view of Trump of any columnist out there. I admit that's probably because he captures my feelings - noting Trump's obvious failings, hoping for the best, while not pining for Hilary. He has been spot on on this Russian business from the start.

Michael K said...

The FBI protecting itself is a story that goes back to Hoover. The Nixon coup was retaliation for passing over Felt for Director. Nothing that Mueller does will be a surprise. The fact that Trump is so open makes it harder for them.

tim in vermont said...

LLR defends HRC again. All of this noise about Clinton is nothing more than a sop to the base, right Chuck?

Laslo Spatula said...

"But wow, the number and vehemence of Trump fans is really striking."

"..."because time and time and time again Trump demonstrates that he is hard-wired to ignore all humanity in himself and in others."

Looking on the Vehemence Compass for which way the needle is pointing.

I am Laslo.

Chuck said...

tim in Vermont:

You don't need to care what I think. I certainly don't care what you think. It doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion if I think that Trump is an incompetent Washington tactician and messager. The real point -- my point -- is that Holman W. Jenkins Jr., who seems to be the Althouse Hero of the Day, has said so many times.

n.n said...

Check the score board.

So far, Trump has not only survived, but thrived, where lesser men have resigned or conspired. Albeit with diminished capacity and productivity. That is, assuming that he is not merely a competing or conflicting interest, but with a national/community (e.g. America) outlook that is more than just personal interest (the one-legged stool).

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
LLR defends HRC again. All of this noise about Clinton is nothing more than a sop to the base, right Chuck?

You dumb, miserable, hateful fuckwad. Quote my "defense" of Hillary Clinton. Be specific, you stupid little troll.

Amadeus 48 said...

DNC/Clinton dossier story at the bottom of page 12 of the Chicago Tribune today. Flake and Corker torch Trump at the top of front page.

Coming tomorrow: seismic activity at Col. Robert McCormick grave site. Coffin detected spinning.

Fabi said...

"You dumb, miserable, hateful fuckwad."

Vehement, hypocritical and ironic. Very efficient of you, Chuckles!

Sebastian said...

As Trump is about to tweet:

"Dirty Hands Mueller covered up corrupt Clinton-Putin uranium deal. Conflict of interest! He should resign."

n.n said...

He is a sober man, with the Truth on his side...

Despite his individual idiosyncrasies, and what may be considered a gray personal and public history, this is what people are banking on. A character constellation with a bias to sobriety and Truth, and an extraordinary will and record to prevail.

Amadeus 48 said...

Chuck--You don't think much of Trump.

We can agree that he appears to be unconstrained by norms of decent, dignified behavior. My question is, who would have done better against Hillary and in DC than Trump has? I'd be interested in your thoughts on that. You voted for Trump. Do you think he can do better than he has?

tim in vermont said...

now, I suspect that Jenkins will find out that there is nothing so soothing to TrumpWorld as going after a Clinton, and including Bob Mueller in the attack.

So you didn't mean to imply that attacking HRC and Mueller is only a sop to the know nothings who support Trump?

Hagar said...

There has to be a lot of people around in the agencies who know bits and pieces of what happened and are disgruntled for one reason or another -- even if it is just that they were told to suck it up without getting in on the payoffs.

tim in vermont said...

Blogger Laslo Spatula said...
"But wow, the number and vehemence of Trump fans is really striking."

"..."because time and time and time again Trump demonstrates that he is hard-wired to ignore all humanity in himself and in others."


They can only both be true if your xlaim is that people who support Trump are less than human.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

A flimsy narrative is much better than the truth, right leftists?

tim in vermont said...

And Insty comes through with the link.

"Nicolle Wallace: Members of Trump Admin ‘Do Not Appear to Be Human Beings.’"

traditionalguy said...

The Federal Police has played politics in DC since it was created under J. Edgar Hoover.

Hoover's MO was to investigate everything going on that affected politics so the Bureau could "classify it " to hide it for blackmail power over the Pols. That was his function, as will be seen if the JFK assassination cover up ever comes out, "un-redacted."

So Mueller was inserted to be a Clinton minion and keep that gang out of jail.

The only mystery is the Perception Bias created in the Media narrative that the FBI is a bunch of honest idealists. That was J. Edgar's greatest accomplishment.

Chuck said...

Amadeus 48 said...
Chuck--You don't think much of Trump.

We can agree that he appears to be unconstrained by norms of decent, dignified behavior. My question is, who would have done better against Hillary and in DC than Trump has? I'd be interested in your thoughts on that. You voted for Trump. Do you think he can do better than he has?

Three questions in there, to my reading. And of course we agree that Trump is unconstrained by norms of decent and dignified behavior.

Q1. Who would have done better against Hillary? I don't know. I just can't put myself in the mind of a voter who voted Obama in '08 and/or '12, and then voted for Trump. Talk about low information! I tend to think that any Republican could have capitalized on the historic low turnout among urban/black Dems.

Q2. Who could have done better in Washington as a Republican, than Trump? Oh that is so easy! A President Kasich would by now have more legislative wins and more federal judges than Trump. He'd be looking at consolidating gains in the Senate in 2018, with an invulnerable majority in the House. There might be some hope of 60 votes in the Senate. Hannity and Breitbart would be complaining a lot, and they'd be so much more marginalized, with a unified Republican Party giving them the stiff arm.

Q3. Since I voted for Trump, do I think he can do better? Very much so. He couldn't do much worse. His great achievement so far is Gorsuch. About which he knew very little, and which he fumbled along the way. But even Trump couldn't screw it up. Trump has shown himself to the entire nation as someone who doesn't much care about what is in legislation, as long as it allows him to claim victories on Twitter. A string of Communications Directors, Press Secretaries, Chiefs of Staff, National Security staff; all of which Trump has called "a fine tuned machine." He's getting nothing done. And now, he has singlehandedly turned a 52-seat Republican majority in the Senate into a effective 49-seat minority, with a 51-seat anti-Trump majority.

Ralph L said...

The Barron family owned the WSJ until recently. Collusion with Trump!

Chuck said...

tim, I think that fans of Trump are so idiotic, on so many dimensions, that Hillary doesn't even rank in relevance.

I didn't "defend" her; you lied about that, and now we know that you had nothing because you can't quote me.

Lance said...

Has anyone asked Christopher Wray what he's doing to investigate the FBI's role in the Uranium One and GPS Fusion stories? I congratulate the guy on keeping a low profile, but it's time to provide answers.

Amadeus 48 said...

Chuck--Thanks. Well explained.

I'd give Team Trump higher marks for regulatory rollback, but what man has undone, man can redo. We'd be better off with legislative action. But the congressional GOP is in disarray, and Trump makes that worse.

JPS said...

Chuck,

"I just can't put myself in the mind of a voter who voted Obama in '08 and/or '12, and then voted for Trump. Talk about low information!"

Really? This surprises me. I don't agree with or applaud either choice, but I can easily understand them.

Marty Keller said...

Comrade LLR said, "You dumb, miserable, hateful fuckwad. Quote my 'defense' of Hillary Clinton. Be specific, you stupid little troll."

"And of course we agree that Trump is unconstrained by norms of decent and dignified behavior."


Again, by out-Trumping Trump behavior, demonstrating the source of his own lack of constraint. At least he voted for the President.

Chuck said...

JPS said...
Chuck,

"I just can't put myself in the mind of a voter who voted Obama in '08 and/or '12, and then voted for Trump. Talk about low information!"

Really? This surprises me. I don't agree with or applaud either choice, but I can easily understand them.

I want to extend to you a non-hostile, unchallenging, welcoming invitation to explain an Obama-then-Trump voter. I am sincere in this. Because Trump's ideology, if he has one, has been to tear down anything and everything that had Obama's name on it.

Of course, some of Trump's substantive promises -- health care and trade policy above all -- were promises of more big government to help people. Which may be in common with Obama. On health care, Trump promised to "cover everybody" and to lower everybody's costs. He talked about government price controls on pharmaceuticals, which is a Democrat dream. Trump talked about trade protectionism for American manufacturing jobs, which is a Pre-Clinton union/Democrat dream.

But honestly, with Trump bashing Obama every day of the campaign and twice a day as President, what Obama voter has jumped to Trump?

AReasonableMan said...

'The victim here is the President' ... Sad!

James K said...

But honestly, with Trump bashing Obama every day of the campaign and twice a day as President, what Obama voter has jumped to Trump?

The ones who were smart enough to realize they'd been conned by Obama, with all his promises of a new kind of politics blah blah, and who saw that Hillary is cut from the same cloth. Complete phonies both of them.

MaxedOutMama said...

Well, yeah. We know this. The questions all sit with Congress - they really have the oversight responsibility under the Constitution, and this is the sort of circumstance (the overall involvement in politics by what are supposed to be and must be apolitical agencies) in which they should intervene.

Those who are involved in the misdeeds are acutely unqualified to investigate.

Kevin said...

Oh that is so easy! A President Kasich would by now have more legislative wins and more federal judges than Trump. He'd be looking at

... continuing payments to insurance companies to prop up Obamacare.
... letting in the DREAMers. And their familes. And their families.
... leaving the border open to increase the number of people in the country when Dems legalized them.
... letting little Kim build his weapons, and denouncing the Iran deal as "sub-optimal" or some such phrase, but leaving the Mullahs to their missile and bomb building.
... keeping NAFTA and other trade deals right where they are, so not to make other countries mad at us.

But yes, he'd probably have taken Andy Jackson off the twenty to get some good PR and more federal judges in office that Trump has. However, they'd be more to Chuck Schumer's liking.

Kasich would have been Dem-lite, and he would have left the door wide open to whatever the Bernie Sanders wing wants to push when they get their turn.

JPS said...

Chuck,

"I want to extend to you a non-hostile, unchallenging, welcoming invitation to explain an Obama-then-Trump voter."

Thanks.

"Of course, some of Trump's substantive promises -- health care and trade policy above all -- were promises of more big government to help people. Which may be in common with Obama."

I think you don't need me to explain it to you.

"with Trump bashing Obama every day of the campaign and twice a day as President, what Obama voter has jumped to Trump?"

But not all Obama supporters loved him personally. Most did. It wasn't a large fraction of Obama voters who did jump to Trump. Those who did would be those who, as the loathsome but perceptive Bill Clinton put it, "look at that pretty picture of America [Obama, but also Hillary] painted and they cannot find themselves in it to save their lives." How bothered would they be by Obama-bashing, as long as it came from someone who (a) pointed out correctly that Obama hadn't delivered on his [big-government] promises to them; and (b) promised to do better?

They're not going to vote for a guy like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul who says, That shouldn't be the government's role. They're going to give the big-government Republican a chance. And since their disaffection is chalked up by the left to probable latent racism and sexism, they're not going to be much dissuaded when the left points to that guy and say, Don't you dare vote for him! He's racist and sexist!

Kevin said...

The ones who were smart enough to realize they'd been conned by Obama, with all his promises of a new kind of politics blah blah, and who saw that Hillary is cut from the same cloth. Complete phonies both of them.

And they would have stayed home rather than vote for President Jeb!, Kasich, or Cruz.

Rubio might have had a shot to sway them, but he would have been painted as just another politician in a suit, which would have turned them off.

Drago said...

"A President Kasich..."

Would have remained, forever, a character existing in fiction alone.

Which is precisely why LLR and "Accidental Leftist" Chuck would have loved him to be our candidate.

You know, because Kasich would have been so "effective" (wink wink) against the Clinton/Media/LLR machine.

In the same way the MI LLR's are busy searching for the "best" candidate (wink wink) to run against Stabenow!

tim in vermont said...

im, I think that fans of Trump are so idiotic, on so many dimensions, that Hillary doesn't even rank in relevance.

I didn't "defend" her; you lied about that, and now we know that you had nothing because you can't quote me.


That's some twisted logic, even from you, Chuck. What you are saying is that this additional, on top of all of the others, story of the turpitude of the Clintons is irrelevant and we should be talking about how Trump is a buffoon! You might not be directly defending Clinton, but you are carrying her water for her, same as ARM, by suggesting that this story is irrelevant. To me that's the same thing, trying to call off the dogs from the scent because attacking Trump is more important than attacking a vast swamp of corruption that stretches from the IRS to the FBI.

Sorry, the nearly complete corruption of the Federal Government is a bigger story than Trump's social graces.

Tim said...

How much of Trump's over the top behaviour is because his oppositon ( from ALL sides) is so over the top? From the time he announced his candidacy to today it has been unending attacks on him, his family and his business.

tim in vermont said...

He Chuck, simple question. Are you "pro-immigration" and what does that mean today, exactly, if not open borders?

Drago said...

Trump flipped 209 of the 676 counties that voted for obama twice and won 194 out of 207 counties that voted for Obama at least once.

Yet LLR and "Accidental Leftist" Chuck doesn't understand any of them even though he markets himself as someone "in the know" who reads more than you, knows more than you, and is smarter than all you horrible Trump voters.

Of course, LLR Chuck would never say those types of things to lefties, because that would be rude.

LLR Chucky, the 'Steve Schmidt/Nicole Wallace' of the Althouse blog!

Hagar said...

ARM, Inga, et al. are "Uni-party" or Progressives. But what is Chuck's motivation?

Birkel said...

Chuck, so called fopdoodle, thinks Trump is a lousy tactician. After all, Trump could just abandon the voters to pursue the eGOP goals and turn power back to its rightful holders, big government career politicians.

What horrible tactics not to give the self-interested losers what they want while ignoring the voters.

tim in vermont said...

President Kasich would be providing those moving sidewalks inbound between Mexico and the Untied states, with voterID cards spit out by a machine.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

I can certainly understand not liking Trump, but to take no satisfaction in defeating Hillary? I just don't get Chuck. Look at the corruption here!! And there will be more stories to come, as this scandal unfolds.

tim in vermont said...

Chuck reminds me of that episode of Gomer Pyle playing poker, where he threw in a full house because it wasn't "the best hand" and he "wanted the best!" Sgt Carter couldn't believe it, but of course it was a sit com, not real life, so Gomer drew a royal flush. Well Trump won, in an unconventional way. I don't think Kasich could have done the same, and I voted for Kasich in the primary, because I thought he had the only chance to beat Trump!

Birkel said...

The richest counties in America now ring Washington, D.C. The current system has paid off handsomely and is predictable. This is regulatory capture on steroids.

There are very profitable apple carts threatened by Trump. That is why Chuck is so adamant.

And he's a natural sshole.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Any of you assholes who sanctimoniously lectured us about how Comey was the last honest man, was above reproach, was the consummate unbiased/fair professional, etc, want to apologize now?

Anybody who stuck up for Comey and the FBI want to admit that just about every new fact we learn in this whole sordid mess makes the FBI and Justice (and Lynch, and Holder, and Comey, and Mueller, and senior Obama officials/Obama) look worse and confirm the kind of assertions & accusations you dismissed as partisan hackery as, instead, likely true?

It's so damn weird that I haven't read any of that lately. You'd think these honest truth-seekers would be willing to admit they were wrong and those of us who were more cynical about the alleged non-partisan professionalism of these jokers look more like we're right every day.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

But now, I suspect that Jenkins will find out that there is nothing so soothing to TrumpWorld as going after a Clinton, and including Bob Mueller in the attack.

Yeah, that's the angle to take: this is all just a distraction and the actual truth or meaning of what's being reported is not the real import of the story--the real import is how Trump supporters react to the story. It's a variation of the "Republicans Pounce!" Media line, you know, always focusing to the metastory when the story itself is bad for Dems.

If I didn't know better I would suspect that the person that instinctively focuses on that angle was an ideological opponent of the Right, so quickly did they ape the POV and/or talking points of the anti-Right Media. Weird, I know.

mockturtle said...

Ray aptly observes: Mueller’s #1 goal is protect the FBI.

This has become a critical flaw in all of our law enforcement organizations from the FBI to the local PD. 'Serve and protect' applies more nowadays to the LE organization, itself, than to the public.

cubanbob said...

now, I suspect that Jenkins will find out that there is nothing so soothing to TrumpWorld as going after a Clinton, and including Bob Mueller in the attack."

Putting arrogant, elitist criminals in jail works for me. You can't drain the swamp by pardoning the big fish and frying the small ones. Now the Sessions has recused himself, its time for Trump to step up and hire a number of special prosecutors to investigate the FBI, the DoJ, State, The IRS, EPA and so much more.......

Chuck what color is the sky on your planet? Kassich had as much chance of getting elected as you or I which none at all. Trump is a distraction at times but he isn't the problem. Fake Republican conservatives who run on a fairly explicit conservative platform like McCain and then go Democrat Lite in DC after the election are the problem.

tim in vermont said...

If I didn't know better I would suspect that the person that instinctively focuses on that angle was an ideological opponent of the Right, so quickly did they ape the POV and/or talking points of the anti-Right Media. Weird, I know.

But remember, just because he is reacting to this story in a way that maximizes the Clinton's best interests, doesn't mean he is "defending her" No, just like all of the left wing trolls here do the same, while claiming they never voted for her.

It would be a lie to say that suggesting that these stories shouldn't get any attention because they are just sop to the know nothing Trump supporters is "defending" HRC. A lie I tell you! Attention must be paid so some other story dammit! It's all lies!

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
He Chuck, simple question. Are you "pro-immigration" and what does that mean today, exactly, if not open borders?

Based on what has come up in Congress, I'd be something of an immigration hawk. I would not have joined the Senate compromise of 2013. I favor much, much stricter enforcement. I oppose anything and everything having to do with "sanctuary" locales. I very much oppose chain migration.

But I also favor a broader extension of work permits. With no pathway to citizenship. I oppose the expense, and likely futility, of any "wall." As to walls, I'd like for local officials and residents make the case. If there is great support in certain places, that's fine. Congress already passed that.

All of the taunts of "open borders" Republicans are such bullshit. There isn't a Republican in Congress who actually favors anything like "open borders."

And I'll say this as well; immigration is such a low-grade issue for me. Health care, tax reform and budget discipline are so much bigger.

Birkel said...

There isn't a Republican in Congress who actually favors anything like "open borders." --fopdoodle

Lindsey Grahamnesty disagrees.

Browndog said...

Trump spreads conspiracy theories on Twitter. He's unhinged!

Oct 19th: Trump asks who paid for "dossier"

Oct 21st: Trump demands immediate info.

Oct 24th: WaPo scoop

Fabi said...

HoodlumDoodlum's comments at 10:17 / 10:20 AM are worth reading twice.

grackle said...

If Mueller, Rosenstein and McCabe "can't" be fired by Trump over these conflicts, there need to be parallel investigation.

Yes.

The incredibly transparent problem we have is that Trumps inappropriate and unprofessional communication style is more of a story than actually what is being done in the background.

More of a story? Naw. Certainly it is true that you anti-Trump folks have been trying to make every Lefty scandal about Trump’s behavior (those tweets have to STOP!) but it hasn’t worked and I don’t believe it will work in the future. But keep hoping …

PackerBronco said...

Blogger mockturtle said...
Ray aptly observes: Mueller’s #1 goal is protect the FBI.


But of course.

Law of Big Government #8: As government agencies grow, they devote more and more of their time, talent, and money to protecting their own existence.

Darrell said...

The Trib is at heart a conservative man's newspaper. Really.

That notion died when Sarah Palin accepted the nomination for vice president. Sunday's paper had a Palin slur in even column in every section--including Food, Entertainment, and Sports. Monday, I canceled my subscription, and I haven't read it since. It was a daily habit from the time I was six.

Ray said...

The race of 2008 of McCain vs. Obama, I voted for Obama. My hope was for voting for Obama it would help race relations and I did not think he could do that much damage. Obama seemed to have a better idea on the economy than McCain. I was wrong. McCain came across as a hot headed idiot, and my opinion of him has not changed. 2012, I was strong Romney, and the way he was demonized was just wrong.

Trump I believe is doing a much better job than McCain could have done. Romney, I like a lot, but I am not sure how effective he would have been as President. The raw hatred of the Left is so great in American politics, that I am not sure anyone but a Trump could succeed. He fights back, and is winning the culture war. Hopefully, Trump can make the left realize using Alinsky tactics and identity politics is counter productive, and we can go back to a Federal Government that is more functional.

Humperdink said...

"All of the taunts of "open borders" Republicans are such bullshit. There isn't a Republican in Congress who actually favors anything like "open borders."

The southern border been a sieve for years/decades - no matter which party held the levers of power. C'mon Chuck, up your game.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I don't know. I just can't put myself in the mind of a voter who voted Obama in '08 and/or '12, and then voted for Trump. Talk about low information!

So it's "I can't understand some people therefore they must be idiots!" is it? That doesn't exactly mark you as someone who should be paid attention to, especially on the subject of political tactics or strategy.

Personally I was incredulous at the millions of Americans who voted for Obama over Romney and if I'm being honest I had a number of emotionally-driven nasty and/or disparaging thoughts about "those people." But! I didn't stop there and dismiss a huge chunk of the nation as "low-information idiots," nor "Obamatards" or something similar. I updated my priors, wept internally for the future of our nation, and kept thinking about what could be done to change things for the better. I didn't pretend that since all those people were so very wrong their existence could simply be dismissed or ignored.

One of the problems I have with the moral preening and sanctimony lots of the NeverTrump crowd STILL engages in is they never seem to answer the question "ok, how do YOU propose to win and govern?" Jonah Goldberg disclaims the NeverTrump label but proudly considers himself a member of the "remnant." They're the only smart, moral people left you see--they're the only ones with real principles, etc. Ok, fine. You're better than the Tea Party types, you're better than the populist types, you're better than the Trumpkins and the alt-Right and all the rest. You have contempt for all those backward rubes and you're not afraid to express it. Great, good for you. Now: who's gonna vote for your candidates? Who's left to buy your magazines or populate your non-existent rallies? Who are you going to actually be able to recruit to combat the Left's angry mobs (literal mobs, these days!)? Instead of bothering with convincing people who are in many cases actual life long Republicans that the Trump way is wrong and the TrueCon way is better most of what I see from the NeverTrump crowd is the same sort of contempt and vitriol and dismissal that the Left/Media usually serves up to the Right. What's the need for "conservative" Rubin at the WashPo when she makes the same sorts of attacks and "arguments" against people who voted for the current Repub President as are made by Paul Krugman, or Rachel Maddow, or any other Leftist? It's not just that they oppose Trump--it's that they oppose Trump voters in exactly the same manner that hard core Leftists have traditionally opposed the mainstream Right. That these people cannot see that fact is evidence, to me, of their stunning lack of objective awareness.

The other big problem with that attitude is that it's annoying as all hell, of course--it's both self-congratulatory and insulting to all the "others" that many of those same people depended upon to get to their current positions in the first place.

tim in vermont said...

All of the taunts of "open borders" Republicans are such bullshit. There isn't a Republican in Congress who actually favors anything like "open borders."

And I'll say this as well; immigration is such a low-grade issue for me.


So the re-engineering of the electorate, which will destroy all of your dreams of fiscal responsibility is not an issue for you? That's why I call you "purblind," even when you call me a stupid miserable fuckwad, or whatever it was.

The corruption of the federal government, including the weaponizing of the IRS against your beloved GOP is a minor issue? Purblind.

tim in vermont said...

Of course they don't call it "open borders" anymore than you call carrying Hillary's water by trying to distract from damaging stories about her "defending" her. Language was never meant to mean what it said, was it?

tim in vermont said...

I think that maintaining national sovereignty should be a top, if not the top, priority of a nation's government. Chuck thinks it's somewhere around the licensing of hair shampooers.

Unknown said...

t's not just that they oppose Trump--it's that they oppose Trump voters in exactly the same manner that hard core Leftists have traditionally opposed the mainstream Right

This.

I remember reading a "Corner" post by Kevin Williamson at NR during the campaign and just being floored at the contempt for flyover voters. I knew then something was very wrong in what I had once thought of as a congenial place, and it has not gotten better.

Bruce Hayden said...

Back whe Romney was running against Obama I had high hopes for him. He had made his fortune turning around companies, detecting and pruning deadwood, etc. but I look back now, and realize that he is just too decent for the job (as I believe GW Bush was). We need a fighter to take the fight to the enemy, and someone who can’t be intimidated by the entrenched bureaucracy and Deep State operatives. There is, frankly, far more rot there in DC than most of us realized. Hence Trump.

buwaya said...

The real problem here, re the FBI, is that entire organization is corrupt. Like all of Washington, but the FBI is uniquely dangerous to the state, second only perhaps to the CIA.

Note that Mueller and co. started their monkey business re Clinton in 2009, before the eight years of the Obama admin.

They were ready and able to cooperate with this brand of corporatist corruption from day one. Given that Mueller and co. are old DOJ and FBI hands from Republican administrations, one has to conclude that the corruption is ancient, deep, and pervasive.

The entire agency, the FBI, must be considered hopelessly compromised and not fit for public service.

Chuck said...

The corruption of the federal government, including the weaponizing of the IRS against your beloved GOP is a minor issue?

When did I write anything like that? I wanted a scathing investigation of that scandal. I had hoped for prosecutions, and I still don't understand why there weren't any prosecutions.

How do you dream up this stuff about me?

I am one of those Republicans who won't budge on any "pathway to citizenship." You can't vote if you're not a citizen. And yes, I favor strict i.d. requirements for voting so that no non-citizens vote.

How's that, for my left-wing tilt?

Unknown said...

Chuck has zero room to call Trump, or anyone really, crude and uncouth. Chuck himself reminds me of Markos in terms of class and dignity--i.e. there is none there. And this pining for Kasich? Please. Kasich couldn't have won Ohio.

--Vance

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chuck said...All of the taunts of "open borders" Republicans are such bullshit. There isn't a Republican in Congress who actually favors anything like "open borders."

And I'll say this as well; immigration is such a low-grade issue for me. Health care, tax reform and budget discipline are so much bigger.


The fuck they don't. Have you heard of Lindsey Graham? Are you familiar with John McCain? Saying, as a candidate, that he should be elected 'cause of his belief that we should "build the danged wall" doesn't count as much as his subsequent statements, actions, and actual votes I'm afraid.

If you think Kasich could have beaten HillDog then you have to think Rubio could have and if so then the only thing that prevented President Marco was his Gang of 8 embrace. Absolutely fatal, and for good reason.

Again: it's good that you recognize your own personal priorities w/r/t legislation and/or "problems." That should go along, though, with acknowledging that MANY, probably MOST of the people who voted Republican in the last Pres. election disagree with you. That's kind of the fundamental problem the GOPe is having now, man! They know their priorities aren't the same as their voters' priorities but instead of working to change that (by changing their voters' minds or changing their own priorities) they campaigned as though they agreed with their voters and are now governing in ways that show that they don't.

Trump pandered just as much, of course (more, really), but he was able to point to the disconnect between what the GOPe says they think and care about and what they actually DID. That's a YUUUUGE part of how Trump won, man--that's something you must get if you are to understand "how Trump happened." When Trump obstinately acts now in ways that seem politically stupid (still insisting on "the wall" instead of caving/compromising) hes's being more true to his campaign promises/campaign pose that the GOPe guys have been. It's one of the reasons his "cult of personality" works at all, and it's the main thing undergirding the "he fights" belief/excuse you hear from many Trump supporters.


Many people believe that the Left has used its control of our institutions (both the State and the Media & Academy) to stack the deck against conservatism by (among other things) intentionally subverting traditional ideas of community & citizenship and flouting the law/undermining the concept of rule of law regarding immigration. Those people view immigration, then, as an existentially-important subject and feel that Republicans who help the Dems/Left import a new constituency (one more amenable to Leftist policies) are traitors to their nation and false to their asserted conservative principles.

You don't have to agree with such people to understand WHY "immigration" might be more important to them than some other legislative topics. That the GOPe people WILL NOT listen and WILL NOT acknowledge that fact (instead just dismissing such people as ugly, as ignorant, as racist, etc) is in large part responsible for the current disarray of the Republican party.

Chuck said...

Bruce Hayden said...
...
... We need a fighter to take the fight to the enemy...

Who is the enemy? The reason I ask is that I get a lot of GOP donor emails, and I just got one from the Revive America PAC, working for Roy Moore, and their pitch was that the RNC and Republican Senate Campaign funds were being denied to the Moore campaign. And that they needed my money, to help Roy Moore get to Washington... where he can help destroy Mitch McConnell and the GOP establishment.

It is the weirdest goddamned thing I've ever seen.

"We need to destroy them because they won't give us money."

exhelodrvr1 said...

Chuck,
Stop digging. Please.

tim in vermont said...

I am one of those Republicans who won't budge on any "pathway to citizenship." You can't vote if you're not a citizen. And yes, I favor strict i.d. requirements for voting so that no non-citizens vote.

You remind me here of "The Man Song (He's the man!)"

One of the lyrics goes:
"I'm a man and I have my needs!
(Sotto voice) but they're not that important...."

That was for everybody else, I know you won't get it. For you Chuck, you believe all of that, but don't think it's important, while cheap pliable labor pours over the border.

tim in vermont said...

And if you cared about corruption, Chuck, as in the IRS, you wouldn't be wanting to sweep this story about Clinton corruption under the table.

"Attention must be paid! To something else!"

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I remember reading a "Corner" post by Kevin Williamson at NR during the campaign and just being floored at the contempt for flyover voters. I knew then something was very wrong in what I had once thought of as a congenial place, and it has not gotten better

100% agree re: Williamson. He still writes good stuff but the contempt DRIPS and is tough to ignore. He takes the germ of a point--that the people on the Right should eschew adoption of the Leftist victim-worship/responsibility dodge re: rural America's woes--and expands that into something like "our country would be better off if everyone who is insufficiently supportive of my worldview just died." Ditto John Podhoretz. Bret Stephens actually wrote a column praising illegal immigrants (or potential illegal immigrants I guess) as SUPERIOR to lazy grasping native deplorables. Like...that's the caricature of the country club Repubs that more populist rightwingers used to toss around, and that guy straight up embraced it!

The Left has always called Repub supporters racists idiots. When prominent "Right" voices start doing the same it's fair to ask in what objective sense those voices are effectively opposing the Left. If the answer is "they're not" then their own assertions that they're the pure ones, the true carriers of the flame of conservatism, just don't carry that much weight with me.

Chuck said...

Unknown said...
Chuck has zero room to call Trump, or anyone really, crude and uncouth. Chuck himself reminds me of Markos in terms of class and dignity--i.e. there is none there. And this pining for Kasich? Please. Kasich couldn't have won Ohio.

Of course, Kasich did win the Ohio primary, and he beat Trump like a drum. 47% to 36%. And Kasich got about 250,000 more votes in his primary, than Hillary got in her primary.

tim in vermont said...

If anybody is your ally in getting the IRS cleaned up, it's not one of those hack R's who think the cesspool is a hot top who showed themselves willing to look the other way for. whatever reason, maybe they were afraid of the press?

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
And if you cared about corruption, Chuck, as in the IRS, you wouldn't be wanting to sweep this story about Clinton corruption under the table

The winner, of the Non-Sequitir of the Week!

tim in vermont said...

The Left has always called Repub supporters racists idiots. When prominent "Right" voices start doing the same it's fair to ask in what objective sense those voices are effectively opposing the Left

Stockholm syndrome.

tim in vermont said...

he winner, of the Non-Sequitir of the Week!

Purblind, Chuck, purblind.

Seeing Red said...

Trump is an incompetent Washington tactician and messenger.

I'm not sick of winning yet!

So much winning!

Insty has the link to what Trump did with Malaysia.

More winning!

tim in vermont said...

he winner, of the Non-Sequitir of the Week!

ATTENTION MUST BE PAID TO ANYTHING BUT HILLARY"S CORRUPTION!!!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

And, again: my meta-objection is with the response of contempt towards people you should want to persuade. Not that no NeverTrump types never tried to persuade the Trump-voting base...but there was and is a lot more name calling and casting-out than there is genuine outreach.

Instead of understanding someone who voted for Trump and working to persuade them that there's a better way to promote conservative values why not just call 'em all Trumpkins, insult their intelligence, and conclude they're vicious racists who worship a cheeto god and aren't fit to be considered conservatives in good standing? It's much more fun! John Stewart and Stephen Colbert proved that, and lots of GOPe types have internalized that lesson. To be fair they were in many cases just returning fire at alt-Right/Pepe Trump supporters so the tone and contempt were for those individual targets entirely appropriate...but they've seemingly generalized that to all Trump supporters/voters and that's a real problem.

I'm still not clear on how you actually build a coalition or WIN/effect actual political or cultural change using that tactic, though.

tim in vermont said...

You know something Chuck, truth to power is what Trump deals in, and none of your guys, none of the other "seventeen gentlemen callers, seventeen!" None of them we willing to take on the corruption that permeates the FBI, the IRS, the FEC, Justice, the CIA, the NSA, none of them. They just wanted a seat at the table. Trump wanted to turn the tables over in the corrupt temple, to use a second allusion in this comment.

Murph said...

It's not just that Hillary deleted so many of her emails, it's that there's still so much that we don't know we don't know:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-recovered-72000-pages-clinton-records/

buwaya said...

As a check on the depth (in time) of the impulse to corruption, have a look at Muellers wiki. The contacts he has with known players made me take notice. You do need some NorCal background to understand.

His legal career started in the 1970s at the San Francisco "white shoe" firm of Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro. PMS (locals sometimes called it) is a mainstay of San Francisco's so called "Downtown Interests", a network of business district oligarchs. Another of these is of course Sutro & Co., at which Dianne Feinsteins billionaire husband Dick Blum got his start - and rolodex. The "Downtown" interests were always Democratic, of the upmarket variety, the local Republicans were the small-business groups out in the Western Avenues. Their chief for a long time was John Barbagelata, a realtor, whose small firm dealt in tract homes, not the office buildings Sutro dealt in, and for which PMS obtained strategic waivers from City Hall.

tim in vermont said...

“I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag – because every one of them had a state.gov email address and therefore their daily schedules became public records, as required by law,” Richard Grenell, former diplomat and US spokesman at the United Nations, told the Post.

Experts predict the circumstances surrounding the destroyed records will be intensely scrutinized. The Associated Press has been trying to obtain access to Clinton’s schedule and public and private calendars through Freedom of Information Acts from January 2009 to February 2013, and the wire service sued the State Department for the schedules in 2015.


"Attention must be paid to anything else!" - Chuck

Meanwhile Hillary illegally destroyed federal records of meetings that probably included donors of some of the 145 million dollars to her foundation, and for whom she did enormous favors.

buwaya said...

A fine, smaller-scale case in corporatism and the utility of regulation to established players is San Francisco's real estate regulatory regime. This has been a complex mess for good reasons, as it limited construction and inflated the value of assets held by existing landowners (such as Sutro). Any new construction permits had to be shepherded through an immensely complex process at City Hall, by insider outfits like Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro.

A man, like Mueller, out of this milieu is going to bear watching.

cubanbob said...

Instead of understanding someone who voted for Trump and working to persuade them that there's a better way to promote conservative values why not just call 'em all Trumpkins, insult their intelligence, and conclude they're vicious racists who worship a cheeto god and aren't fit to be considered conservatives in good standing? It's much more fun! John Stewart and Stephen Colbert proved that, and lots of GOPe types have internalized that lesson. To be fair they were in many cases just returning fire at alt-Right/Pepe Trump supporters so the tone and contempt were for those individual targets entirely appropriate...but they've seemingly generalized that to all Trump supporters/voters and that's a real problem.

I'm still not clear on how you actually build a coalition or WIN/effect actual political or cultural change using that tactic, though."

Hoodlum what these so-called Conservative Nevertrumpers problem is that they using Hillary's tried and true rehashed tactics of Deplorable's! Why aren't we fifty points ahead! It really worked so well for the Left in November. What these scmucks are doing is making people like me into die-hard Trump supporters. I voted for Cruz in the primaries. I held my nose and voted for Trump in the general ( as if voting for Hillary was even a consideration for anyone with the least respect for the law). But the more the hysterical the Never Trumpers and the Left get the more enthusiastic I'm getting for him and the more likely I am to giving money to candidates who standby him. For all of his bombast and bullshit on the big things he is getting it right and the so-called scandals are really proving his point about draining the swamp.

Fabi said...

A sitting governor who can't even get to 50% in his party's presidential primary is what Chuck calls beating Trump like a drum. Hahahahahahahahaha.

If Chuck didn't exist we'd have to invent him.

buwaya said...

And as not often enough mentioned, the problem in Washington is not Hilary Clinton, or her activities, nor even those who bribed her. The real problems are in the bureacratic organizations that permitted this misbehavior, and covered it up, and continue to cover it up, and continue to harass attempts at reform.

This whole thing is not about persons, but systems. And this includes the Republican establishment.

Fabi said...

In GOPe parlance, it would mean 53% of Ohio's primary voters were NeverKasich.

buwaya said...

The "conservative" press depends on the charity of a few very wealthy donors. They cannot live from selling anything to the public. This was true even for Buckley, but he had a degree of celebrity so also some independence.

The modern ones have no celebrity, and no independence from their donors.

This is to compare with the populist-conservative press, or mostly radio really (Limbaugh), who make their living by building large audiences and are therefore independent.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Who is the enemy? The reason I ask is that I get a lot of GOP donor emails, and I just got one from the Revive America PAC, working for Roy Moore, and their pitch was that the RNC and Republican Senate Campaign funds were being denied to the Moore campaign. And that they needed my money, to help Roy Moore get to Washington... where he can help destroy Mitch McConnell and the GOP establishment.”

I would say that the enemy is a combination of the Democrats (naturally) and the Deep State, which arguably includes much of the GOPe. Esp bad with Senate Republicans - here in AZ (now), McCain ran (of course) on repealing Obamacare, etc, but almost immediately switched sides, and few in the GOP are sad about Flake (“mini-McCain) announcing that he won’t run for reelection next year. The question that you have to ask about Republican politicians is whether they really represent their constituents and vote how they promised when running for election, or have sold out. The Senate may be worse here because they only have to go back to the voters every six years.

pacwest said...

"52-seat Republican majority in the Senate into a effective 49-seat minority, with a 51-seat anti-Trump majority."

Gilding the lily Chuck. Snow is not a Republican in my sense of the word, and Murkowski, like her father, is only interested in herself. McCain I'll give you. The Freedom Caucus is going to follow their own mandate. If there were 60 R Senators you would still not get to 51 in most instances.

Re Kasich: Any governor who accepted the Medicaid handouts is not to be trusted with the long term interests of his state imo. Pure speculation on both our parts, but I believe only Trump could have beaten HC. You ride the horse that brought you to the party. What's so hard to understand about that?

Birkel said...

The enemy are all of the people who prefer the stability of a sclerotic, dysfunctional economy that has promises far exceeding its ability to pay when those bills inevitably come due, but who can make out like bandits right now.

People in D.C. understand on which side their bread is buttered. They know full well that the current system is unstable within most of our lifetimes. They understand the mathematics of the inevitable crises.

But they're invested in the current system.

The enemy would prefer an outsized share of anemic growth to the unpredictability and nervousness of a competitive political economy. And that includes nearly all of the Republicans and Democrats and bureaucrats who have witnessed wealth consolidate around the capital city, while producing no goods or services that improve the lives of Americans elsewhere. The enemies are those who would prefer to skim the efforts of others than to be roused to competition in which they might not become our overlords.

Leviathan and all its tentacles are the enemy. Leviathan is self-aware and it hates any who would stand in opposition.

Gahrie said...

Of course, Kasich did win the Ohio primary, and he beat Trump like a drum. 47% to 36%.

You're crowing as if that is a victory? A long time member of the Republican Establishment and Washington insider, currently sitting as the governor of the state versus a pretend Republican who spent most of his life as a Democrat real estate developer/TV star whom nobody took seriously and he only beat him by 11 points?

Seems more like squeaking by to me....

Birkel said...

304 - 227 in the Electoral College (57.25%): squeaking by

47-36 in Ohio by a sitting governor (56.62%): beat like a drum

Fopdoodles are notoriously bad at analogies.

(Percentages calculated only by the two-candidate results.)

Chuck said...

pacwest said...
"52-seat Republican majority in the Senate into a effective 49-seat minority, with a 51-seat anti-Trump majority."

Gilding the lily Chuck. Snow is not a Republican in my sense of the word, and Murkowski, like her father, is only interested in herself. McCain I'll give you. The Freedom Caucus is going to follow their own mandate. If there were 60 R Senators you would still not get to 51 in most instances.

"Snow"? You mean Olympia Snowe, who retired from the Senate in 2013? I presume that you're talking about Susan Collins.

You're deciding for yourself who is and isn't a Republican. That is your right. In fact, I'll do the same. Sean Hannity isn't a Republican. That one was easy because even Hannity says that. Rush Limbaugh isn't a Republican. I don't regard Roy Moore as a Republican. I don't regard Kelli Ward, or Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell as Republicans. At least not Republicans of any worth or consequence.

And I will reconsider my view in that regard the moment that Steve Bannon quits hammering Mitch McConnell.

Original Mike said...

This just out: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz says she knew nothing, nothing!

Original Mike said...

The Jenkins article is excellent (as they usually are). I'm clipping it for future reference in this confusing, multi-threaded topic.

Original Mike said...

Kevin said..."Kasich would have been Dem-lite,"

I think the "lite" is too generous.

Thanks, Chuck, for making me feel better about Trump.

Fabi said...

The US Senate Majority Leader can't take the heat from Steve Bannon? Hahahahahahahahaha.

grackle said...

I'm still not clear on how you actually build a coalition or WIN/effect actual political or cultural change using that tactic, though.

Respectfully, I suggest the commentor study Trump’s presidential campaign. It’s a textbook example that should clear up the confusion.

Fabi said...

We should be hearing from the Awan Brothers soon.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

You're deciding for yourself who is and isn't a Republican.

The republican party is two groups: the republicans who are the voters represented by Trump, and the Republicans who are the globalist shills Chuck defends.

The Republicans are going the way of the whigs. Just like the whigs abandoned their voters and the voters turned on them the Republicans are going to be gone or defenestrated as we continue through Trump's historically great presidency. Reagan saved us from the Carter malaise and Trump is saving us from the Obama malaise.

Trump will be right up there with Reagan in conservative politics when this is done. If he can avoid the two mistakes Reagan made which was appointing HW Bush as his successor and amnesty he could surpass him.

Achilles said...

Fabi said...
We should be hearing from the Awan Brothers soon.

They will be granted immunity and tickets to Pakistan in return for complete silence if the FBI brass has any say in it.

Fabi said...

@Achilles -- we'll know soon enough who cut their deal.

Fabi said...

The confrontation on video between Wasserman-Schultz and the Chief of the Capital Police was noteworthy, because, if she had any real juice left then that meeting wouldn't have ever been held.

Drago said...

Fabi: "A sitting governor who can't even get to 50% in his party's presidential primary is what Chuck calls beating Trump like a drum. Hahahahahahahahaha."

You'll have to forgive "Accidental Leftist" Chuck. He's still upset that Kasich wasn't given the opportunity to bring that "massive" political strength to the race against Hillary. You know, because he would really have given Hillary a run for her money (wink wink).

Jim at said...

"I sometimes wonder what world I am living in." - Chuck

That made me laugh out loud.

You're not the only one who wonders what world you're living in, sir.



pacwest said...

""Snow"? You mean Olympia Snowe, who retired from the Senate in 2013? I presume that you're talking about Susan Collins."

My bad, should have said the current RINO from Maine. Interchangeable.

I'm not arguing for Bannon in any of this. He is a net negative for the Republican party. Unfortunately he has a large following and still has Trump's ear. The only horse I have in this race is fiscal conservatism, (which covers a lot of ground). Not Trump's strong suit, (nor half of the Congressfolk) but I believe he is a necessary precursor to getting there. Is the saying that culture leads politics? You have to fight the culture war first. The only reason I support Repubs is they have the largest (only?) group of fiscal conseratives at present. Hence my rejections above. Those two are who I consider the most egregious examples. You obviously have others. To me it is not about party and process. Stupid as I may be I can still do the math.

buwaya said...

"He is a net negative for the Republican party. Unfortunately he has a large following and still has Trump's ear."

Having a large following is a net negative?
The Democrats have an array of "large followings" and it works for them.

"You have to fight the culture war first."

True. To fight this one has to break in. With, for instance, large followings.

buwaya said...

"You have to fight the culture war first."

And as for that, you can't fight something with nothing.
That's why the Breitbart-Bannon-Yiannopoulos Alt-Right is valuable.
Get the kids, or a large fraction of them, worked up about something.

pacwest said...

"Having a large following is a net negative?"

For the Republican party as it exists, yes. You will get a lot of nut jobs primarying thar can't win an election against a Dem.

pacwest said...

And Trump seems to being a pretty good job of fighting with or without Bannon.

Bannon specific in my comment. I'm all for the other rable rousers. The less Dems, the better chance of more fiscal conservatives. You have to come out of the culture wars with a group that can take advantage of a win. I don't follow Breitbart at all, so I my may be off base, but I get the impression that fiscal conservatism is not one of the major tenets over there.

buwaya said...

"You will get a lot of nut jobs primarying thar can't win an election against a Dem."

Maybe, but the trend of the times is that energy, personality and aggression work surprisingly well.

DavidD said...

I’m curious to know your take, Ann, on the use of “soft-pedaled” rather than “soft-peddled”, as in soft sell (the opposite of a hard sell).

Qwinn said...

"but I get the impression that fiscal conservatism is not one of the major tenets over there."

Are you suggesting that Breitbart has gone socialist, without following it at all?

Ann Althouse said...

“Soft pedal” is correct. It refers to the piano pedal and is a standard expression.

I’ve never heard soft with peddle as a substitute for the standard soft sell.

DavidD said...

See? Perfect.

I’d always pictured it as a cycling metaphor somehow and it never made sense.

pacwest said...

"you suggesting that Breitbart has gone socialist, without following it at all?"

I read the headlines rarely, and fewer articles. I see nothing to tell me that a sound fiscal policy is anywhere near the top of their agenda. I never saw anything that told me they were leaning towards socialism. Like I say I'm not that familiar. Most of the writing I do read there seems over the top, so I haven't paid much attention. Should I? I read the Kos kids with about the same frequency.

Gospace said...

"..."because time and time and time again Trump demonstrates that he is hard-wired to ignore all humanity in himself and in others."

Which explains why all off Trump's employees, at any level from janitor and maid to personal assistant, have nothing bad to say about the way Trump treats them. Contrast that to the losing candidates treatment of underlings and hotel staff. She's probably still miffed at the Secret Service for taking her aside after she threw an ashtray at him, and explained to her in no uncertain terms their job was to protect the President from anyone, including her.