There are no significant partisan differences – 57% of independents, 51% of Republicans, and 50% of Democrats are at least somewhat worried the federal government is monitoring their activities...Seems like a great issue for Republicans, no? Potential to drive a wedge into Democratic Party constituencies.
... 6-in-10 Americans (60%) feel that unelected or appointed government officials have too much influence in determining federal policy. Just 26% say the right balance of power exists between elected and unelected officials in determining policy. Democrats (59%), Republicans (59%) and independents (62%) agree that appointed officials hold too much sway in the federal government.
“We usually expect opinions on the operation of government to shift depending on which party is in charge. But there’s an ominous feeling by Democrats and Republicans alike that a ‘Deep State’ of unelected operatives are pulling the levers of power,” [said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute].
Few Americans (13%) are very familiar with the term “Deep State;” another 24% are somewhat familiar, while 63% say they are not familiar with this term. However, when the term is described as a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy, nearly 3-in-4 (74%) say they believe this type of apparatus exists in Washington....
Americans of black, Latino and Asian backgrounds (35%) are more likely than non-Hispanic whites (23%) to say that the Deep State definitely exists. Non-whites (60%) are also somewhat more likely than whites (50%) to worry about the government monitoring them and similarly more likely to believe there is already widespread government monitoring of U.S. citizens (60% and 49%, respectively). More non-whites (35%) than whites (23%) say that such monitoring is rarely or never justified....
March 19, 2018
"The Monmouth University Poll... finds a large bipartisan majority who feel that national policy is being manipulated or directed by a 'Deep State' of unelected government officials."
"Just over half of the public is either very worried (23%) or somewhat worried (30%) about the U.S. government monitoring their activities and invading their privacy."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
145 comments:
A lot of those blacks, including the DC councilman, attribute much of this manipulation to Jews. And it will get worse as BLM gains credibility among the left.
Seems like a great issue for Republicans, no?
No it doesn't. Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic.
The need for civil service reform is long overdue....
Freder wrote: “Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic.”
On the flip side, breeding unearned respect in government leads to a single-party player government like in California.
"Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic."
Putin and Xi would no doubt agree.
I'm very interested in finding out what information McCabe had leaked to the press, and when he leaked it. If it was partisan ( most likely ) and before the election ( not sure ) then it seems pretty serious. If it was based on any information obtained by the coercive power of the state ( wiretaps, subpoenas ) then it is very serious.
Right, Fredder.
We should have blind faith respect and endless doubtless confidence in our Private Server Elite.
I can at least hope that those on the liberal side who feel that it is morally urgent for the apparatus of the "Deep State" to stop Trump can appreciate that they are releasing the Kraken. However necessary it may be to release it, it is also a very dangerous thing for the Republic.
I hope that such moral qualms exist in the breasts of good liberals everywhere, but most days I find myself in agreement with that noted English Medieval savant, Theodoric of York --- "Naaaaaaah!".
Freder Frederson said...
Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic.
That depends entirely on whether or not the government is trustworthy.
No it doesn't. Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic.
You misspelled patriotic.
Our country was literally founded on the principle of mistrusting government.
I saw this story (linked by Drudge, which is how I presume you saw it too, Althouse) and before I emailed you to suggest it as a bloggable story, I looked at Monmouth's website to see the questions.
I tend to think that Drudge, and The Hill, are blowing it up a bit much.
Here's the Monmouth link:
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_031918/
I liked the question that asked if people were familiar with the term Deep State as it applied to the federal government and 63% of the people said that they were not. 13% said that they were very familiar with the term.
Just imagine, if anybody were questioned on what the precise definition was, and if anyone could provide any clear examples of "the Deep State" as it currently existed.
How many people regularly watch Sean Hannity, and listen to Michael Savage? What is the size of the InfoWars demographic?
I get it, that there are sizeable portions of the Trump voter base, just like there are sizeable portions of the Nation of Islam, and By Any Means Necessary, and the Workers World Party, and the Green Party, who all think that the federal government is actively spying on them. Tells you quite a bit about all of those groups that they sort of agree on that.
But ask them to agree on a definition of the deep state.
The need for civil service reform is long overdue....
At this point I say bring back patronage and the spoils system....then the Republicans would get a chance to control the government some of the time.
I'm glad to see that at least that a majority of people have a healthy disrespect and distrust in government, as they should. As has been demonstrated by history over and over again, government is a necessary evil. Having no government leads to horrific warlordism, having too much government leads to massive corruption and human misery. It's the way humans work.
Lampposts, suitable for hanging, available through the Althouse portal.
I bet most of those 17 victims at Parkland trusted the government.
I get it, that there are sizeable portions of the Trump voter base, just like there are sizeable portions of the Nation of Islam, and By Any Means Necessary, and the Workers World Party, and the Green Party, who all think that the federal government is actively spying on them. Tells you quite a bit about all of those groups that they sort of agree on that.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, it tells you something about the government.
"Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic."
Someone should tell government workers that engage in misconduct at the expense of citizens.
Is there a difference between a "deep state of unelected government officials" and "administrative agencies run by unelected government bureaucrats"? Because the latter certainly exists, and exerts substantial influence over what happens in this country (which could certainly be described as manipulating or directing national policy).
A lot of people don't really know about that, but there's no controversy that they exist.
Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic.
So, we should place our trust in President Trump? Is that really your argument?
What I was going to do in an email to you, Althouse, was suggest an Atlhouse poll on "the Deep State." Perhaps a question or two more pithy than the Monmouth questions. Or else, taking one of the Monmouth questions verbatim, if it were not any sort of copyright violation.
The great presumption in the Monmouth poll is the definition of "the deep state."
Question 34 at the Monmouth page is this:
34. The term Deep State refers to the possible existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy. Do you think this type of Deep State in the federal government definitely exists, probably exists, probably does not exist, or definitely does not exist?
The "existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy..."
27% Definitely
47% Probably
16% Probably not
5% Definitely not
5% Don't know
So most cannot be definite, don't really know, and are guessing, and the deep staters may be just "manipulating," whatever that means...
#FakeNews.
It's hard to not see that the MSM, on whole, is part of the Deep State. Issues that may help the republicans win elections will be ignored, or twisted to mean the opposite.
"I saw this story (linked by Drudge, which is how I presume you saw it too, Althouse) and before I emailed you to suggest it as a bloggable story..."
No, I saw it at Memeorandum.
"Here's the Monmouth link..."
That's the link in the post, you know?!
..then the Republicans would get a chance to control the government some of the time.
The deep state wasn't exactly built, institutionalized, and isolated in secret, and behind the back of Republicans.
"I get it, that there are sizeable portions of the Trump voter base, just like there are sizeable portions of the Nation of Islam, and By Any Means Necessary, and the Workers World Party, and the Green Party, who all think that the federal government is actively spying on them. Tells you quite a bit about all of those groups that they sort of agree on that."
It's not a matter of "thinking" that the federal government is actively spying on us. Edward Snowden's revelations confirmed what many had suspected to be true, and Snowden's revelations show how vast the surveillance is. Clapper lied about it to Congress.
All this tells about the groups that think that is that they are paying attention. Anyone who, at this late date, does not know the federal government is spying on us simply hasn't been conscious the past several years.
Ann Althouse said...
"Here's the Monmouth link..."
That's the link in the post, you know?!
I did know. At least, I knew it was the link from the story in The Hill. And yes, that is how I got it as well.
And since I was proposing to go directly to the Monmouth poll and quote it, I wanted the link to be posted. So I posted the Monmouth link directly. I wanted to drill down on the details of the Monmouth polling.
I do understand, that many Americans, and many Althouse commenters, believe in a "deep state." There's a sucker born every minute.
"?!"
As for the Deep State, I believe it's not exactly a conscious conspiracy but rather more like a like-minded collaboration that's not centrally directed or anything. This collaboration is of course made up of both elected and unelected officials as well as a majority of the media. It's a gestalt entity. Among other things, they all look out for their fellow travelers, protect and cover one another, disperse information among one another, create and push narratives. Their collective will is not necessarily the will of the general voting public and in fact is often at cross purposes with it. Self preservation and perpetuation is the Deep States highest mission.
You can think of our Government like some kind of massive super organism and Deep State is kinda like the immune system of this organism. And under that analogy Trump and Trumpism was/is sort of like a grafted on limb that the Deep State immune system has been rejecting.
Robert Cook said...
"I get it, that there are sizeable portions of the Trump voter base, just like there are sizeable portions of the Nation of Islam, and By Any Means Necessary, and the Workers World Party, and the Green Party, who all think that the federal government is actively spying on them. Tells you quite a bit about all of those groups that they sort of agree on that."
It's not a matter of "thinking" that the federal government is actively spying on us. Edward Snowden's revelations confirmed what many had suspected to be true, and Snowden's revelations show how vast the surveillance is. Clapper lied about it to Congress.
All this tells about the groups that think that is that they are paying attention. Anyone who, at this late date, does not know the federal government is spying on us simply hasn't been conscious the past several years.
I'm so glad that a guy as articulate Robert Cook wrote this. Because it is almost entirely true, and thereby admirably focuses our attention.
We live in an age of rapidly- and almost incomprehensibly-accelerating data collection. Where commercial and governmental agencies have access to large parts of that data collection. That is a fact.
What is not a fact, is the existence of a group of unelected military/government actors, using that information in a concerted way to control the federal government.
By confusing/conflating legitimate issues involving data collection, I see a kind of a hysteria surrounding a "deep state" being promoted in some (too many) quarters. Without a natural enemy.
So while we might view nutball progressives and nutball Trumpists as being natural enemies who will check each other's excesses and compete in the marketplace of ideas, there is something about this "deep state" notion that crosses over. Like a bad virus for which there is no good antibiotic.
Maybe Sean Hannity will succeed in his efforts to trademark "deep state" for use by the Trump campaign. Which will make it off limits to progressives. But the Monmouth poll worked hard to make it appealing to both sides. And so got the pro-deep state result.
Nonapod said...
As for the Deep State, I believe it's not exactly a conscious conspiracy but rather more like a like-minded collaboration that's not centrally directed or anything.
If we asked 800 respondents for a definition of "the deep state," we'd get 950 different answers, right?
"Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic."
When a lefty says this, "left" and "right" no longer have any meaning.
@Chuck
You need to reflect on why that was irritating. Don't act like you're providing more depth when you are not. And when you presume to know where I got what I got and you're wrong, you should be circumspect about your presumptiveness, not double down on your weird superiority pose. It's annoying.
Do you seriously wonder why people find your comments annoying? Think about it!
The alternative view is that you intend to be annoying and I should resist talking to you at all.
I'm about to decide.
Chuck said...
Like a bad virus for which there is no good antibiotic.
There is no good antibiotic for any virus.
"And since I was proposing to go directly to the Monmouth poll and quote it, I wanted the link to be posted. So I posted the Monmouth link directly. I wanted to drill down on the details of the Monmouth polling."
You didn't "post the link." You copy and pasted the URL. NO ONE appreciates help like that. The hyperlink was in the post.
You're not introducing "drilling down" into the original article. I already did that. To come back and insist that you were doing something special there is just insulting to me.
If we asked 800 respondents for a definition of "the deep state," we'd get 950 different answers, right?
Naturally. The same is true for a lot of abstract concepts, they're vague and can mean something different to different people. The term Deep State is sinister, mysterious, and abstract. But for most Trump supporters it basically means "The people in and around government who are trying to undermine, impede, and ultimately remove Trump whether by impeachment or election". But of course it doesn't have to just mean that.
"'Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic.'
"So, we should place our trust in President Trump? Is that really your argument?"
These are two different things. One is the structure by which our nation is managed and run, while the other is simply an individual temporarily filling a role in that management structure.
If we come to truly mistrust our government qua government, then it will be time to dismantle it.
However, if we direct our mistrust at the individuals in government who misuse their positions to profit themselves and the wealthy, powerful entities outside government whose lackeys they are, then we can flush them out and replace them (we must hope) with earnest public servants who will abide by their sworn oaths to serve our interests.
Chuckles: doing the work that no one else will ...praising an ancient Commie like Comrade Marvin and defending the Deep State.
Deep state or dark state. Democracy evolves in darkness.
with earnest public servants who will abide by their sworn oaths to serve our interests.
Of course, this is why many people elected Trump. And why many people think the "Deep State" is yelping like a stuck pig right now.
LOL
LLR Chuck is dancing all around since he doesn't quite know where to come down yet in an effective Dem Defense way.
Of course, there are the requisite insults to Trump voters (naturally) as well as the faux intellectualism and superiority complex meanderings (per usual), but our #StrongDemDefender hasn't found his narrative footing yet.
Strzok's specific text where he and Page are trying to figure out a way to meet to chat (ex parte) while in a "public" setting (improperly) with Strzok's good buddy and FISA court / District Court Judge Contreras who just happened to sit as the judge for Flynn's guilty plea but was then forcibly recused just days later, shows a (laughably inept but undeniably real) clumsy conspiracy action.
As even Dershowitz pointed out.
It will be fun watching how LLR Chuck evolves his Dem Defense postings as more information emerges from IG Horowitz's report due out soon.....or perhaps not so soon. Laura Ingraham reports that her contacts say the report would have been out long ago but the IG and his staff (and the "non-DC" prosecutor that has been working in parallel with the IG) keep finding more stuff, delaying the final report(s).
It's going to get very interesting as the heat is turned up on LLR Chuck's lefty allies.
The criminals at the FBI and CIA may be beginning to perspire.
This survey makes Trump's timing perfect.
However, if we direct our mistrust at the individuals in government who misuse their positions to profit themselves and the wealthy, powerful entities outside government whose lackeys they are, then we can flush them out and replace them (we must hope) with earnest public servants who will abide by their sworn oaths to serve our interests.
Human nature doesn’t work that way. Never has, never will, and the pretense of “earnest public servants” has caused millions of deaths.
Ann Althouse said...
@Chuck
You need to reflect on why that was irritating. Don't act like you're providing more depth when you are not. And when you presume to know where I got what I got and you're wrong, you should be circumspect about your presumptiveness, not double down on your weird superiority pose. It's annoying.
Do you seriously wonder why people find your comments annoying? Think about it!
I think -- I know -- that some people among your commentariat are irritated by my commenting. I know that "people" as a universal category are not irritated by my commenting; only some are. And I presume -- am not certain, but presume -- that the reason for that is not much more or less than the fact that I personally criticize Trump. In a way that you almost never do. And for me, the proof of that is that I was the same person, with the same views and same personality and same writing habits, on your blog's comment pages for years before any Trump phenomenon. And pre-Trump, I had no such persona on your blog. Years' worth of comments. No great controversies involving me. I haven't changed. You blog's comments pages have changed, in the era of Trump.
Now; I "presumed" that you got the Monmouth story off Drudge because your regularly find blogging material from hyperlinked stories on the Drudge Report. By your own account, you do. I never said that I knew where you got it. I accurately described what I presumed about where you got it. You read Drudge, so do I. Perhaps we read it very differently; I do not know and would not presume anything about how yo might read it.
Returning to "why people find [my] comments annoying..." Let's be clear. In response to my criticisms of Trump -- not criticisms of you, not personal criticisms of other commenters -- many of your commenters have engaged in a remarkable pattern of personal attacks on me. At times, my responses have been "in-kind"; returning fire with what the Current Occupant might call "tough language." More often, I ignore the insults and taunts of your commenters. Not always, for sure; just more often than not. (It's a very big catalog.) I am the least surprised person in the world, to know that I come off as annoying, to that sector of your commentariat that wants to pin nicknames and acronyms on me, wants to call me a liar for stating who I voted for in the last election, and who otherwise defame me on a more or less regular basis on your blog's comments pages.
I'm not forgetting that just a few days ago you, Althouse, claimed that I was lying, on some issue or another that you didn't even identify. I asked you what the heck that was all about and you didn't respond. I still don't know, and I AM PRESUMING that you don't either.
The "Deep State" is not only about the few individuals actively working to manipulate it and us, but also about the vast "mindless" majority just anxious to protect their government paychecks.
Thus when I first got out of school and went to work for the Civil Works section of the Corps of Engineers and waxed indignant about the things I saw going on around me, not to mention the things not going on, and went to waving my arms, etc., the older employees would look at me sadly and say, "If you were here during the Depression, you would not say those things, Hagar." "But the Great Depression was over 20 years ago!" "Yes, but if you had been here then, you would not say those things, you would be glad you have a job!"
Those people had just totally lost their manhood and would go along with anything to keep their paychecks (and quite generous paychecks, I might add) coming, even to authorizing payment to contractors for work they knew had not been done, when told to do so from Washington.
It is now 80 years since the end of the Great Depression, and those guys are long dead, but the management positions in government are held by the grandsons of those who were able to live with their consciences and make peace with "the system" back in those days.
So what do you suggest, Pookie? That we all live in private fiefdoms of our own, constantly warring with our neighbors over access to food and water, having duels over parking spaces and unmown lawns?
Why do you assume no one in elected office or working in civil service jobs is sincerely intended or conscientious in his or her efforts? How can you assume that, when you witness the good things government has accomplished?
What do you mean, exactly, when you say "human nature doesn't work that way?" What are you referring to?
That there are bad governments, or good governments that do bad things, or bad people in good governments, or that mistakes or unintended consequences occur, does not mean government qua government is always and ever unworkable. Government is workable, as we see globally and historically.
And I presume -- am not certain, but presume -- that the reason for that is not much more or less than the fact that I personally criticize Trump. In a way that you almost never do.
Nope. It’s because your Trump-related comments have demonstrated to one and all that you are a boring insecure jackass.
So what do you suggest, Pookie? That we all live in private fiefdoms of our own, constantly warring with our neighbors over access to food and water, having duels over parking spaces and unmown lawns?
I suggest that we give government as little power, with its concomitant corruption, as possible. It’s interesting to me that you assume the very worst of private citizenry while assuming the very best of an inherently and demonstrably corrupt government.
Nonapod said...
If we asked 800 respondents for a definition of "the deep state," we'd get 950 different answers, right?
Naturally. The same is true for a lot of abstract concepts, they're vague and can mean something different to different people. The term Deep State is sinister, mysterious, and abstract. But for most Trump supporters it basically means "The people in and around government who are trying to undermine, impede, and ultimately remove Trump whether by impeachment or election". But of course it doesn't have to just mean that.
Talk abut stumbling onto significance...
The Deep State, defined as "The people in and around government who are trying to undermine, impede, and ultimately remove Trump whether by impeachment or election".
So if The Deep State amounts to Rep. Maxine Waters, Mother Jones magazine, and the House Minority Leadership, I wouldn't be too scared of it.
If The Deep State amounts to people who would like to "remove Trump... by... election," then someday I might be part of The Deep State! (To be determined, in 2020 I suppose.) Jeff Flake, who is leaving Washington, and who is abandoning all of his official power, would be part of that Deep State.
You have come very close to equating "The Deep State" with "opponents of Trump." Which would logically include Bill Kristol, Kevin Williamson and Jonah Goldberg, along with Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow and Tom Steyer. People who disagree with each other on practically every policy question you could think of. Somehow aligned and conspiring together now.
Hagar said...
The "Deep State" is not only about the few individuals actively working to manipulate it and us, but also about the vast "mindless" majority just anxious to protect their government paychecks...
...
"Deep State" definition number 17: the bloated federal bureaucracy. Which conservatives have questioned for the last 50, or 100, or 150 years. Maybe what we lacked in all that time was a catchy nickname like "deep state."
This whole “Deep State” meme is depressing to me. We have a Constitution that provides for unlimited government. And now people supposedly have the sadz that our unlimited government is spying on us and doing all sorts of dastardly acts on the QT. Quel horreur! Every government in human history has been unlimited and they have all worked towards one goal - trying to control people by getting them to conform to political/social norms chosen by the government. The terrible irony is that all unlimited entities have the same problem - since all actions are possible in an unlimited government, it doesn’t take long for entities within that government to take on opposing goals. Chaos ensues. Governments fall apart. And like the Phoenix, the same nonsense rises out of the ashes.
The "deep state" (alternatively "some of LLR Chuck's Heroes") thus far clearly includes, at a minimum, the following individuals:
Comey
Brennan
Yates
Clapper
McCabe
Carlin
Ohr (both of 'em)
Rybicki
Priestap
Baker
Strzok
Page
Note: there will be others identified and I'm not included the standard political hacks like Lynch, Rice, Powers, Kerry, etc who are your typical political appointees.
LLR and #StrongDemDefender Chuck is NOT going to like that Horowitz Report(s).
Not. At. All.
Priestap in particular will be one to watch as he is the ONLY one of the above mentioned hacks who is still in place....and there is probably a very good (Non-DC Prosecutor-y) type reason for that....
The swamp is deeper and bigger than we thought.
I'll bet if you made LLR Chuck swear on a stack of Dick Durbin pictures and Washington Post Sunday editions LLR Chuck would tell you he knows perfectly well what is meant by "deep state" in this context.
All he is doing here is providing narrative support to his lefty allies by trying to muddy the waters.
Fortunately, our #StrongCNNDefender and self-proclaimed "MI Electoral Expert" has no influence over the results of the investigations soon to be fully revealed.
There will be no joy in LLR Chuck-ville on that day. I guarantee it!
On a positive note for LLR Chuck, if all goes well he can play a role in finding just "the right" candidate for the republicans who will be happy to lose in a very respectful manner to Stabenow!
Government is workable, as we see globally and historically.
Government is, and has always been, a necessary evil.
gerry, I'm not including in "the swamp" those political appointees of the President and immediate members of his staff.
I'm only including those for whom non-partisanship is expected as members of the permanent govt class.
The fact that LLR Chuck's "brilliant" obama and hillary decided to go all in on politicizing the federal agencies should be expected.
After all, they are leftists.
"maddow is brilliant" Republican Chuck: "Jeff Flake, who is leaving Washington, and who is abandoning all of his official power, would be part of that Deep State."
LOL
Flake is "leaving" Washington.
Uh, no. He is being shown the door by his very own constituents.
"obama is magnificent" Republican Chuck: "...and who is abandoning all of his official power,...
LOL
Yeah, lots of people who are thrown out on their ear and/or run out of town on a rail "abandon" their "official power"....
There are times where it is literally impossible to caricature Chuck.
Drago, you don't deserve any response from me; but I am going to post here that you are lying when you tell this group of readers that I am a "self-proclaimed MI Electoral Expert." I never claimed any such "expert" status, and you cannot find a quote from me wherein I ever did that. What I have written in the past was that I was a lawyer, in Michigan, that I had an interest in election law, and that I had been in the past (and not in 2016), a volunteer for the Republican National Lawyers Association. No more, and no less. And not much at all, in any context, for more than a year, and then only when the rudest and most insulting of Althouse commenters come at me with comments like yours.
Your cyber-stalking me on these pages is perhaps the very best example of what I understand Althouse to have derisively called "clutter."
Drago you keep posting fake quotes from me and never provide a link to what I wrote. You keep doing it even when I challenge you on it.
LLR and Noted Liar Chuck: " I never claimed any such "expert" status,"
You most certainly did.
In fact, you used that supposed expert-ness to lecture others interminably about what what was going to occur in MI and how Trump and Trump voters were absolute idiots for believing he could win there.
Similar to how you posture in a "superior" way on this thread today, for which you've already been called out on by Althouse.
Look, we get it.
Your dem allies are beginning to take it on the chin and it upsets you. You need to lash out. Your patterns are well established.
That's your fault, not mine.
So go on Durbin-boy. Keep it up. You are convincing no one...
The only one cyber-stalking anyone is you cyber-stalking (through rumors) Barron Trump.
But that's more your speed, isn't it?
Question for Chuck: Of all your favorite obama admin deep state lefty hacks who have violated the law, which one do you like the most?
When the long list of indictments start to roll out this fall, and there are Deep Staters on it, the turmoil just might upset the "Blue Wave."
Priestap is probably singing like a canary.
It is going to get very interesting.
Michael K: "Priestap is probably singing like a canary."
Likely. Very likely.
Comey and LLR Chuck hardest hit.
Drago said...
Question for Chuck: Of all your favorite obama admin deep state lefty hacks who have violated the law, which one do you like the most?
Jared Kushner.
Is there a difference between a "deep state of unelected government officials" and "administrative agencies run by unelected government bureaucrats"? Because the latter certainly exists, and exerts substantial influence over what happens in this country (which could certainly be described as manipulating or directing national policy).
Yes and no. As the scandal with the DoJ and FBI continues to unfold, one of the interesting things, to me, is that the main players seem to be more Never Trumpers than Democrats. Comey and Mueller are, or at least were, supposedly Republicans. Dr McCade, wife of the just fired deputy Director of the FBI, supposedly voted in a Republican primary, shortly before being recreuited by Clinton bagman McAuliffe to run as a Democrat. And even Peter Strzok is reported to have had Republican leanings. Yet, Crooked Hillary was going to be the next President, and no one wanted (esp not Strzok, who was one of her interviewers) to be on her hit list, so they went easy on her. That was bad enough, but sometime in spring or summer of 2016, the cabal apparently moved from just giving her the benefit of the doubt, to actively working against a Presidential candidate, and then, when he won, against his transition, and, ultimately, his Administration. Yes, the Obama Administration was pushing them in this direction, and actually leading the charge to subvert Trump’s campaign, transition, and Administration, but once DAG Yates was finally out, that ended, yesterday, they persisted.
My point, to the extent I have one, is that there are problems with the administrative state. A lot of them. But I think that a lot of it is just bureaucratic sloth and inertia. The Deep State though is more malign. It seems to want to run the country, regardless of electoral results, however they want. Maybe the difference is between bureaucrats operating between the lines, but respecting their electorally designated bosses, and actively sabotaging validly elected Administrations, and even trying to actively affect those elections to their own benefit. The latter, I think, is malign, and urgently needs to be excised.
Vichy Chuck: "Jared Kushner."
English is your first language, correct?
LOL
Drago said...
LLR and Noted Liar Chuck: " I never claimed any such "expert" status,"
You most certainly did.
In fact, you used that supposed expert-ness to lecture others interminably about what what was going to occur in MI and how Trump and Trump voters were absolute idiots for believing he could win there.
Similar to how you posture in a "superior" way on this thread today, for which you've already been called out on by Althouse.
Look, we get it.
Your dem allies are beginning to take it on the chin and it upsets you. You need to lash out. Your patterns are well established.
That's your fault, not mine.
So go on Durbin-boy. Keep it up. You are convincing no one...
I said quote me, you nasty jackass. Quote me with a link to a real quote from me. You can't do it. You've been making stuff about me for so long and with such regularity that you may have convinced yourself that I wrote what you think. Which would only demonstrate to you what your pathology is.
You are such a shamelessly relentless liar.
LLR and #StrongCNNDefender Chuck: blah blah blah blah.
Your deep state allies are being exposed.
Nothing can stop that now.
Deal with it Durbin Fan-boy.
Drago, I emailed your question to Abbe Lowell and Jamie Gorelick, and that is how I came up with "Jared Kushner."
LLR and #StrongDemNarrativeBooster Chuck: "Drago, I emailed your question to Abbe Lowell and Jamie Gorelick, and that is how I came up with "Jared Kushner."
Your time would have been better spent emailing the lawyers for Comey and company.
But that's ok.
Your job here is to defend democrats. Not expose them.
Thanks for working so hard to demonstrate that, time after time after time after time...
My personal favorite examples of LLR Chuck's knee-jerk defense of dems and lefties are the Blumenthal (Stolen Valor) and Keillor (sexual harassment) examples.
I can't wait to see how well LLR Chuck reacts when there are waves of lefty hacks accused in the wake of the IG report!
“Priestap is probably singing like a canary.”
I don’t think that he is alone, just, maybe, the first to flip. I think that a good heuristic here is that someone has probably been flipped if they are fairly obviously guilty of at least violating. FBI and DoJ rules, if not actual federal laws, were reassigned, but not allowed to resign. Priestap, of course, famously advised his bosses to not report the Carter Page FISA warrant to the Gang of Eight in Congress, as required by law. And was in charge of both that and the Crooked Hillary email “investigation”. Others, like Strzok, Page, Carlson, etc, are suspected of having been flipped.
Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic. - Freder the Totalitarian
Well, at least you're consistent.
"Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic."
The McCabe firing is political!!
Compare and contrast.
You have come very close to equating "The Deep State" with "opponents of Trump."
Generally I was just trying to define the Deep State in terms of how Trump supporters may view it, but even they could probably discern the difference between of their run of the mill anti-Trump neighbor down the road and a powerful Federal bureaucrat, a Senator, or commentator on CNN or the NYT. (Just FYI, I veer from Trump agnostic to cautiously supportive and back again from day to day and issue to issue). I mean, obviously not everyone who doesn't like Trump and wants him gone is part of the the Deep State. It's also possible that there may be people who could be considered Deep Staters who may be more amenable to Trump.
Drago you nasty, lying, miserable fuckhead. Stop lying about me.
What I wrote about Blumenthal was that he correctly characterized his conversation with Judge Gorsuch. And that Trump lied, when Trump tweeted that Blumenthal had mischaracterized the conversation. And a couple of weeks later, Gorsuch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in his confirmation hearing and proved Blumenthal had been right. Trump had been wrong.
What I wrote about Keillor was here, and people can read for themselves whether what I wrote was a "knee-jerk defense...":
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/11/i-am-liberal-and-liberalism-is-politics.html?showComment=1512068582915#c5075973803067331483
You're incapable of writing a single paragraph about me (and why you'd write about me every day is a real mystery) without lying.
I wish you'd stop it. I PRESUME that Althouse wishes that you'd stop it.
LLR and Noted Liar Chuck: "What I wrote about Blumenthal was that he correctly characterized his conversation with Judge Gorsuch."
LOL
What you really did was purposefully mischaracterize Blumenthals Stolen Valor lies. You asserted Blumenthal had made just one "mistatement" one time.
All lies.
All in service to your dem allies.
Blumenthal lied multiple times in multiple venues over multiple years.
But you wanted to ding Trump, so you weren't about to let anyone's justified criticism of a dem get in the way.
You sad little guy you.
Nonapod said...
You have come very close to equating "The Deep State" with "opponents of Trump."
Generally I was just trying to define the Deep State in terms of how Trump supporters may view it, but even they could probably discern the difference between of their run of the mill anti-Trump neighbor down the road and a powerful Federal bureaucrat, a Senator, or commentator on CNN or the NYT. (Just FYI, I veer from Trump agnostic to cautiously supportive and back again from day to day and issue to issue). I mean, obviously not everyone who doesn't like Trump and wants him gone is part of the the Deep State. It's also possible that there may be people who could be considered Deep Staters who may be more amenable to Trump.
Right; if we are to believe (/infer from?) the Monmouth poll, there are people who think that Trump is the God Emperor, who believe in the existence of the Deep State. And there are people who think that Trump is the Antichrist, who believe in the existence of the Deep State. Monmouth used none of those terms of course, but obviously found belief in the Deep State all over the partisan/ideological map.
The Deep State is like some cult belief; every new fact, no matter how disparate, serves to deepen the proof of the conspiracy. The Deep State is everywhere, and it is everything, to everyone...
Drago said...
...
What you really did was purposefully mischaracterize Blumenthals Stolen Valor lies. You asserted Blumenthal had made just one "mistatement" one time.
No, Drago; I wrote about what I wanted to write about, which was the controversy of the moment, and not Trump's dredging up of the old and irrelevant past controversy for which Blumenthal apologized. I didn't write about that because I didn't care about it. Like I don't care about you.
Please, for everyone's benefit here. Quit stalking me, and quit writing about me.
Nonapod: "It's also possible that there may be people who could be considered Deep Staters who may be more amenable to Trump."
Admiral Mike Rogers is a hero in this story.
In April of 2016 Rogers found out about all the improper 702 raw data infractions (after ordering an internal audit at NSA) and he put a stop to it.
Not surprisingly, all those heroes of the left and the LLR's (Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Lynch, Yates, etc) wanted Rogers fired for that.
So, in early 2016, after access to the raw intercept data was cutoff by Rogers at NSA, the inner circle of deep staters at DOJ/FBI conjured up their Russia lies to begin developing a means to get around Rogers at NSA by getting a FISA warrant. But, hmmmmmm, won't we have to have a reason to ask for one? Why yes, yes we will. Hey, I've got an idea....
And off they went.
Admiral Rogers was the one who went to Trump Tower after the election in November to tell Trump that he was being spied on.
"Wiretapped", if you will.
Which some LLR commenters on these boards ridiculed...and were wrong about..again.
After that meeting, LITERALLY the day after the Rogers/Trump meeting, Trump moved his entire Transition operation out of Trump Tower and across the River to the Trump Golf Club in Bedminster, NJ.
The long knives were out for Rogers then since he went "rogue" against the deep staters and obama hacks.
You can pull up the plethora of articles that "suddenly appeared" in LLR Chuck's beloved lefty Media organs laying the case for a supposed Rogers firing.
Also of note, once LLR Chuck's beloved media hacks had to admit that it wasn't 17 intelligence agencies that determined Putin wanted Trump to win, we learned it was only 3. The 3 usual hack suspects: Clapper/Brennan/Comey.
If it was a slam dunk it should have been 4.......so who didn't go along with that hack analysis?
Admiral Mike Rogers at NSA.
LLR and Lefty Narrative Hack Chuck: "No, Drago;.."
LOL
Yes Chuck.
Yes.
You purposefully mischaracterized Blumenthal's multiple Stolen Valor lies in multiple venues over multiple years as a single "mistatement", "one time" for which Blumenthal apologized.
I am never, NEVER, going to stop pointing out your lies.
Ever.
Blumenthal lied. And then you lied to cover for him.
As you always, always do.
Ann Althouse said...
The alternative view is that you intend to be annoying and I should resist talking to you at all.
I'm about to decide.
Ann is extraordinarily tolerate on these boards. But she knows deep down that Chuck is here in bad faith.
Chuck isn't here to discuss the issues she brings up. He is here to push the democrat/deep state agenda.
Most of that is trying to dissuade people that such a thing exists.
It is going to be a rough day when McCabe and Comey turn on each other. Both are up for conspiracy as well as perjury now as McCabe clearly said he and Comey discussed illegally leaking information to reporters. Sounds like there were several people in that discussion.
It's like pornography: hard to define, but instantly recognizable. And obscene.
Achilles illuminates the clearest problem facing LLR Chuck's deep state/dem/lefty hack conspirators.
Comey testified under oath that he was not, nor ever directed anyone to leak to the press.
McCabe testified under oath that he had been authorized, by Comey, to leak to the press.
LLR Chuck hardest hit....for now.....
The Birch Society's been saying this for decades, backing it up with evidence. Now that evidence is being so openly played against the people.
Monmouth is also home of Professor Grover Furr who thinks and teaches that Stalin is underappreciated and gts a bad rap.
I used to be in a socialism discussion group. The least hint of faint criticism of Stalin would bring several mb of photocopied articles about the great leader.
He would send stuff in Cyrillic Russian from Pravda and the like in the 30s and complain that I didn't read them.
If only I would read them, he said, I would recognize Stalin's greatness, kindness and humanity.
Ive met some extremely strange people in cyberspace over the past 30 years. None can match him for extreme batshit crazy wierdness.
I still miss that group. I got thrown out because I would not recognize THE TRITH! about socialism.
John Henry
Chuck said...
The Deep State is like some cult belief; every new fact, no matter how disparate, serves to deepen the proof of the conspiracy. The Deep State is everywhere, and it is everything, to everyone...
The FBI and the democrat party clearly colluded with Russians to produce the "Trump Dossier."
Rosenstein, a "republican," used the dossier to elevate Carter Page from a level VII surveillance asset to a level I surveillance asset. This allowed the FBI to monitor the communications of everyone Page talked to while he worked in the Trump campaign. How convenient.
A year ago when your talking points were to push the dossier you were telling everyone about the golden showers incident. Now it is a figment of our imaginations.
Going to be fun when Mueller and Comey and McCabe are all brought up on conspiracy charges. Sounds like McCabe is turning bitter. Think he will be the first to turn on everyone? Someone is going to decide they don't want to go to jail.
This "Chuck" persona is a hoot!
The Deep State is like some cult belief; every new fact, no matter how disparate, serves to deepen the proof of the conspiracy. The Deep State is everywhere, and it is everything, to everyone.
I wouldn't say that. It's a fairly incontrovertible fact that there are many people who are in positions of power and influence in the government and media who want Trump gone and are working hard to make it so. To deny that at this point would be absurd.
It's also true that in any large organization of human beings, be they governments or large companies or religious organizations or whatever, groups will naturally form within them with their own agendas that may be at cross purposes with one another or with the ostensible mission of the organization itself.
For example, a careerist bureaucrat may not always work towards the best interests of the people he's serving. He may be more interested in preserving his career over anything else. He may even be amoral, bending and breaking rules for his personal benefit. Likewise there could be (and usually will be) groups and networks of such individuals, both formal and informal, who have their own interests and goals. When these groups align on a goal they can be very effective and powerful. And as I've indicated, their agenda, their goals, may not always be in the people's best interests.
When talking about a government, these people can collectively be referred to as "The Deep State".
This isn't really that complicated, nor does require much in the way of paranoia or conspiratorial thinking.
Robert Cook is absolutely correct.
Whatever else Snowden did, for this he deserves great credit.
That mass of intelligence agencies is extremely dangerous.
The Deep State is real.
You can see it in the attempt to bring down a democratically elected President.
You are really foolish when you say that it can't be real when such disparate elements of the political scene are part of it. Jeff Flake, John McCain, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin all agree. They want open borders and spying on American Citizens. They want the government elite to control the direction of both foreign and domestic party. Some of them are personally courrpt like John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Some of them are morally corrupt like Denny Hastert, Ben Sasse, Carlos Danger and Bill Clinton. All of them serve at the beck and call of the Deep State.
So called journalists are taxed with protecting the Deep State and advancing their interests. Rachael Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Bill Kristol, George Will and Jonah Goldberg agree more than the disagree. There is not a dimes worth of difference between them.
Our only hope is that the God Emperor can stay in office long enough to upset the apple cart and perhaps break a few of their rice bowls. That is what they fear. That is why they hate him so. That is why Chuckie hates him so much. He is very dangerous to him and they will tell any lie and commit any crime with the expectation that it will be covered up. Perhaps if we have a new special prosecutor more of this will be revealed into the light of day.
Nonapod: "When talking about a government, these people can collectively be referred to as "The Deep State".
This isn't really that complicated, nor does require much in the way of paranoia or conspiratorial thinking"
The dem talking points are that it is paranoia.
And surprise surprise, LLR Chuck is all in on that narrative.
Unexpectedly.
langford peel: "Perhaps if we have a new special prosecutor more of this will be revealed into the light of day."
We may not need a second Special Prosecutor if the "non-DC based prosecutor" that Sessions put in place last summer and has been working alongside IG Horowitz does his/her job properly.
Of course, some are arguing that the cases built by that prosecutor, given the severity and broad swath of characters involved, will have to be handed off to a Special Prosecutor (or just make the current DOJ prosecutor a Special Prosecutor).
While I don't have time to search the site, I am sure you've described yourself as an election lawyer. I know an election lawyer in New York, a Democrat (though he worked for Pat Buchanan - the check cleared),, which probably means he's competent. So yeah, you being a Michigan election lawyer, does imply that you are in fact, an expert.
If we'd known you were just some schmuck, maybe we wouldn't have had such high expectations of you, and not been so universally disappointed.
Wow, what a fraud. Thanks, Cliff Clavin.
Achilles: "Think he will be the first to turn on everyone?"
McCabe has threatened to bring others down if he is forced to the wall.
But then, how could he bring others down if there wasn't a conspiracy?.....and what would be the point of making an empty threat if there was no "there" there?.....
Lots of questions that must be disturbing to LLR Chuck's dem allies.
Regulatory agencies regularly coordinate with "activists", NGOs, and consulting firms. This has been documented over and over. And moreover there is a revolving door between these private-public entities. The activists/NGOs sue agencies - or rather, regulators invite suits, in order to to get sued, they fold instantly, implement regulations, and then force the private sector to hire compliance consultants.
This is the "sue and settle" scam.
There are plenty of other such scams.
This is the operative side of the "deep state", the private-public collusion that goes on between elements of a single caste (the regulators=activists=consultants, they are the same sort of person) that lives through leveraging the government.
Blogger Chuck said...
Drago, I emailed your question to Abbe Lowell and Jamie Gorelick, and that is how I came up with "Jared Kushner."
3/19/18, 12:42 PM
Since those are relatively serious people with careers, it is not possible to believe that they wrote you back with anything more than a form letter or a cease-and-desist letter. So that seems unlikely.
LLR Chuck: "Drago, I emailed your question to Abbe Lowell and Jamie Gorelick, and that is how I came up with "Jared Kushner."
What I love most about that comment from Chuck is that he really thought he was being clever.
LOL
He was probably giggling when he wrote it!
Or maybe he's really in DC, obsequiously commenting his ass off for the Deep State.
This seems rather more likely.
He was probably masturbating when he wrote it.
He likes to mix it up.
He gets tired of whacking his bag to torture porn starring Greta or photos of Trumps children.
Gentlemen, gentlemen.
Decorum, please.
Even Althouse is getting tired of his act.
That's says a lot when you consider how she puts up with Meade.
I mean really. She is very patient.
the private-public collusion that goes on between elements of a single caste (the regulators=activists=consultants, they are the same sort of person) that lives through leveraging the government.
I saw a lot of that as a planning commissioner in Orange County.
The developers fund the "public interest" law firms. They sue the city alleging inadequate "Affordable Housing." The state forces the city to comply, the developers build the section 8 housing and then the legislature raises the requirement of affordable housing and the game begins again.
I don't know what they do now.
I left.
“Drago, I emailed your question to Abbe Lowell and Jamie Gorelick, and that is how I came up with "Jared Kushner."”
Wasn’t Jamie Goerlick the DoJ attorney with the most blood on her hands for 9/11, thanks to her infamous “wall”? Who then was rewarded for that, by putting her on the Fannie Mae board of directors, as she and her Dem party functionary cohorts drove it into the ground through subsidizing the sub-prime mortgage loan fiasco, costing American taxpayers hundreds of billions? Venal, corrupt Dem operatives maybe, but I would stop far short of calling her a serious person.
Michael K: "I don't know what they do now."
One way they do it now is to establish Foundations or Global Initiatives in the family's name where political influence/business decisions are made with hundreds of millions of dollars flowing from the happy parties to the established political leaders with the named foundations.
Not that LLR Chuck would ever mention anything like that.
The "deep state" is extra deep because it not limited to the government.
A great teaching tool is "Yes, Minister". Yes, it is almost forty years old and its British, but the systems, the incentives, and purposes are identical. It doesn't matter whether the government in question is Chinese or British or American. It is extremely educational.
It would be one thing if we were just talking "Yes Minister" style unaccountable bureaucratic culture; besides also the caste identity required for that - again, see "Yes, Minister" for the old boy network with universities. The US has exactly that.
But what "Yes Minister" lightly touched on is the relationship with extra-government entities such as NGOs and Quangos and the private sector. There are a couple of episodes on this - see "Jobs for the Boys", Series 1, etc. The depth of the deep state comes from that intricate collusion based on tribal membership.
"Yes Minister' is played for laughs, and much of the naughtiness in there is amusingly trivial, but a lot is not, there is a very dark thread running through "Yes Minister".
What you have in the US is a very similar thing on an enormously larger scale than what appears to be the rather quaint foolishness of Britain a half-century ago. Washington and its subsidiaries in every US state - Albany, Sacramento - are vastly larger. And they play for extremely high stakes, and with more brutality than anything in "Yes, Minister".
Decorum and civility is for the bow tie wearing pansey of the Washington Generals wing of the Republican party.
Acolytes of the Glorious God Emperor of the Cherry Blossom throne have no use for it.
Decorum is what leads to speakers being run off campus and people losing their jobs because they don't believe in abortion.
You have to fight fire with fire.
Antifa and Chuckie don't play that.
Shorter Chuck: Leave Me Alone While I Defend And Deflect For The Dems!!!
A critical component of the American "deep state" that does not exist in quite the same way in Britain is the MSM. In Britain even fifty years ago there were elements of their MSM, notably the BBC, that certainly were "deep state", it couldn't help it, it was government owned. But much of the rest was truly independent, and still is.
The US has the great mass of the professional MSM integrated entirely with the "deep state", through public-private collusion. The surface of this could be seen in all the people in the Obama administration with family ties to every major MSM entity. They were literally "family". Deeper than that you have other ties, cultural, "old boy" academic, and financial.
I honestly don't understand the obsession here with Chuck. Opinions, as they say, are like assholes: everyone has one. Let Chuck have his opinion.
Prole: "Let Chuck have his opinion."
Did someone surgically remove an opinion somewhere?
Those people had just totally lost their manhood and would go along with anything to keep their paychecks (and quite generous paychecks, I might add) coming, even to authorizing payment to contractors for work they knew had not been done, when told to do so from Washington.
During WW2, my grandfather helped build the Japanese internment camp at Tule Lake. He was pressed by some of his superiors to sign off on invoices for work that he knew hadn't been done. He refused, and shortly thereafter he was transferred to the East Coast for deployment to the European theater. Luckily the war ended before he was shipped off. But I wouldn't consider that the deep state. More like ordinary corruption.
Did someone surgically remove an opinion somewhere?
I'll put it differently: If you believe he's a troll, don't feed him. If you don't believe he's a troll, address his arguments and not his motives.
I presume your grandfather was not a registered professional engineer and and an officer and gentleman by act of Congress?
Let Chuck have his opinion.
We’d love Chuck to have his opinion unfortunately, he insists on sharing it. He’s like an eight-year-old flashing his older sister’s friends.
Earnest: "If you don't believe he's a troll, address his arguments and not his motives."
If you had paid attention ample evidence of said deep state has been presented, with commentary.
Which LLR chuck claims is simply paranoia.
Its not.
Did you have any other complaints?
Yeah, there is Google and Facebook that is giving the deep state a run for it's money.
Gahrie said...
[No it doesn't. Breeding mistrust in the government is toxic.]
You misspelled patriotic.
It doesn't seem that long ago the left claimed dissent was the highest form of patriotism. I'm always amused they're so partisan they can't even be smart about hiding it.
I respect Althouse's effort to make the left become what it claims to be. But ultimately the plan is futile because the left is not and does not want to become what it claims to be.
Sorry. I am still a bit excitable when these memories are stirred.
The question would of course be about your grandfather's superiors.
But ultimately the plan is futile because the left is not and does not want to become what it claims to be.
There are good people that fall for the superficial initial allure of the left.
You guys say paranoia like it's a bad thing. The Air Force Academy grad NBA head coach *you people* love to hate (Gregg Popovitch) identifies "appropriate fear" as the right winning attitude.
Howard: "Yeah, there is Google and Facebook that is giving the deep state a run for it's money."
You got that right homeboy. Should Trump go all "Teddy Roosevelt" on "they a**"? (I was projecting NBA-speak due to your Popovich reference)...
Chuck, for someone who doesn’t seem to like Trump, you’ve certainly adopted his worst impulses, whether real or imagined. Personal insults: check. Conflation and exaggeration: check. Self-aggrandizement: check. If you don’t think they work for Trump, why do you imagine they will work for you?
Look, before Trump was nominated, I sympathized with your professed position. Unlike you, I couldn’t even get myself to vote for Trump, though I did have the “luxury” of living in a non-swing state where my vote would be moot anyway. However, the intensely personal manner of argument you’ve taken up makes you come across as at best unhinged and at worst, as if you actually believe it’s all about principals, principles be damned. This seems to be a common thread with all the most vocal of the Never Trumpers, who willingly parrot the most unconsevative, unlibertarian, and Democratic partisan talking points that should otherwise be anathema to them if they believed in principle.
I’d suggest taking a break. Leave politics for a while. Figure out what you really care about. And if you then find out that what you really care about is “getting” Trump and his supporters, then maybe you were never a principled “constitutional conservative” anyway.
The thing is, I was worried about Trump, as I saw him as someone who cares about very few things, top among them “making the deal”. Fortunately, with the Democrats gone into resistance mode from day one, they weren’t around to make a deal with. This is what reveals the Never Trumper conservatives/liberatarians as especially feckless. If they had a strategic or principled bone in their body, they would engage Trump instead of trying to bring him down. Trump is one man, and at best he will be in the presidency for seven more years. However, a real change to the structure of our state could redound to our rights and benefits for a lifetime.
There are no true angels in the real world, least of all among politicians. Expecting them to be more than human is a fool’s errand.
(And there are no angels in government service either. As anywhere, some are more altruistic, some more selfish, and most don’t want to rock the boat by disagreeing the other two types. Without accountability, both the selfish and the “altruistic” can be dangerous. My guess is that this is the essence of what most people intuitively understand as the “deep state”. This is also the essence of the “public choice theory”.)
I started talking about Leviathan a bit earlier than average.
I prefer the term Leviathan because it has a longer heritage.
The term "Deep Politics" has been around for decades. I believe Berkeley Professor, Peter Dale Scott, coined it, when talking/writing about the international drug trade and the Kennedy murder. Scott's generally considered a left of center fellow.
In the modern era, I associate "Deep State" with "Deep Politics" and mostly think of Edward Snowden and his trials and tribulations.
There are good people that fall for the superficial initial allure of the left.
Yeah, I once was lost but now I see.
"Chuck" is still lost.
Keep it up, Chuck.
You're like compost.
Good for something.
Rigelson: "If they had a strategic or principled bone in their body, they would engage Trump instead of trying to bring him down."
This point has been made time and again.
The dems could have joined with liberal republicans and gotten a deal on obamacare after the Ryan/McConnell fiasco. The dems/liberal republicans could have gotten a deal on the DACA and some other immigration related items.
The dems could have had deals all over the place...but they, like the NeverTrumpers, went ALL IN on the collusion lie and the dreams of forcing Trump from office by summer of 2017.
The dems so spooled up their base with hatred and vitriol and "resistance!" that they can't walk it back now even as the corruption of the obama/clinton/deep state/LLR's collusion with Steele/Putin pals becomes more and more clear (and will become even clearer very soon).
The dems could have turned populist Trump into middle of the road populist Trump. Instead, we got the most conservative governance in 50 years because that's where Trump could get traction.
Trump wants to "win". He wants to make deals. But the dems and NeverTrumpers have made it clear that they will NEVER be open for any deals.
So we get a "More Conservative Than Reagan" Trump. It's good for me, but talk about missed opportunities for the left.
Resistance, de-platforming, Antifa, 24/7 Russia.
Everybody bitches when a turnaround artist descends on your company town.
Rigelsen said...
Chuck, for someone who doesn’t seem to like Trump, you’ve certainly adopted his worst impulses, whether real or imagined. Personal insults: check. Conflation and exaggeration: check. Self-aggrandizement: check. If you don’t think they work for Trump, why do you imagine they will work for you?
I had zero record of such disagreements here, before Trump. I have taken a completely inordinate amount of abuse from Trump fans who don't like the way that I have criticized him. I take a lot of that abuse without reaction. But not all of it.
As for "conflation and exaggeration" and "self-aggrandizement," I don't know what you are talking about.
As for Trump "making deals"; Trump can't even make a deal among Republicans.
Trump couldn't broker a deal between Lindsey Graham and Stephen Miller on immigration.
Trump couldn't broker a deal between Paul Ryan, Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins and Rand Paul on health care.
LLR and #StrongDemDefender Chuck: "As for "conflation and exaggeration" and "self-aggrandizement," I don't know what you are talking about."
LOL
There is a direct correlation, possibly a near perfect correlation, between exposure of democrat lies and deep state corruption related to improper actions by obama/hillary henchmen and the testiness of LLR Chuck's postings.
You should feel free to draw obvious conclusions.
LLR & #StrongCNNDefender Chuck: "As for Trump "making deals"; Trump can't even make a deal among Republicans."
Trump has done nothing more than expose which republicans have no interest in actually passing legislation they claim to have supported for years.
Republicans could simply have tried to pass the bills to repeal obamacare that they had voted on multiple times prior to Trump becoming President.
What we saw was the "real Flake" and the "real (insert republican name here)" that never really wanted to vote for those bills in the first place and had been lying to their own base for nearly a decade.
As Flake himself recently said, maybe its time to let the democrats run things.
LOL
That's the kind of republican LLR Chuck adores.
To Chuck's credit, at least he isn't trying to continue his lying in support of Blumenthals multiple Stolen Valor lies.
Baby steps people. Baby steps.
So, to return to topic, despite LLR Chuck's democrat narrative supporting drivel, there is such a thing as a deep state and it is being exposed more and more each day.
Expect LLR Chuck to melt down when the Horowitz report is released.
These comments pages look like a Drago Twitter feed. One after another, 3-4 line attacks on me by name.
I just counted 33 posts by Drago on this page, with all but a few of them mentioning me by name and attacking me personally. With a relentless narrative; that I am a Democrat and/or a defender of Democrats.
"Bad (or sick) guy!"
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/837996746236182529?lang=en
Blogger Chuck said...
"These comments pages look like a Drago Twitter feed. One after another, 3-4 line attacks on me by name."
Dear Chuck: Tell someone who cares.
"Do you seriously wonder why people find your comments annoying? Think about it!"
Be gentle Professor.
I, for one, simply must ask Althouse to do something about Chuck's constant attacks on Drago.
Seems kind of stalkerish.
Perhaps even dangerous.
We all remember his vile threats regarding diminutive Greta van Sustern. SAD!
FullMoon said...
Chuck's constant attacks...Seems kind of stalkerish.
Why, what makes you say that, FM?
Chuck said...
What I was going to do...to you, Althouse
Earnest Prole said...
Did someone surgically remove an opinion somewhere?
I'll put it differently: If you believe he's a troll, don't feed him. If you don't believe he's a troll, address his arguments and not his motives.
3/19/18, 3:33 PM
We dopey commenters are a big disappointment to you, Earnest.
Maybe it would help if you would just tell us what we should say and then we could say what you tell us is the right thing. Better write it down so we don't forget.
Just so that Althouse doesn't catch you feeding us our lines, though, you could post it on your own blog. Then you could always be sure that it was the right thing.
Got your Deep State right here.
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: DUNNING-KRUGER PANDEMIC
LLR Chuck: "that I am a Democrat and/or a defender of Democrats."
I have never accused you of being a Democrat.
It is impossible not to notice that you are completely operationally aligned with the dem/left on a daily basis.
LLR Chuck: "I just counted 33 posts by Drago on this page, with all but a few of them mentioning me by name and attacking me personally."
LOL
Feel free to post an example of a "personal attack".
Don't worry. No one will be holding their breath or anything...
We dopey commenters are a big disappointment to you, Earnest. Maybe it would help if you would just tell us what we should say and then we could say what you tell us is the right thing.
New bottle, same old whine.
New bottle, same old whine.
You can quit drinking anytime you like.
Post a Comment