"But in the nine months since [he introduced his Cabinet as a 'phenomenal team of people'], Mr. Trump has fired or forced out a half-dozen of the 'incredible, talented' people in the Cabinet Room that day: his secretaries of state and health, along with his chief strategist, his chief of staff, his top economic aide and his press secretary.... ''There will always be change. I think you want to see change,' Mr. Trump said, ominously, on Thursday. 'I want to also see different ideas.' That could include replacing Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser. Three people close to Mr. Trump said that he has concluded that he should remove General McMaster, but that the time and successor were not yet something he had disclosed to others.General McMaster has often been at odds with Mr. Trump on policy. But unlike last year, when General McMaster tried to conform to please the president, he is now ready to leave and is merely waiting for Mr. Trump to ask, two people familiar with the adviser’s thinking said...."
Write Michael D. Shear and Maggie Haberman.
ADDED: Even stronger preporting
at WaPo by Ashley Parker, Josh Dawsey, Philip Rucker and Carol D. Leonnig:
President Trump has decided to remove H.R. McMaster as his national security adviser and is actively discussing potential replacements, according to five people with knowledge of the plans, preparing to deliver yet another jolt to the senior ranks of his administration.
Trump is now comfortable with ousting McMaster, with whom he never personally gelled, but is willing to take time executing the move because he wants to ensure both that the three-star Army general is not humiliated and that there is a strong successor lined up, these people said.
पोस्ट्स
१०८ टिप्पण्या:
Without clicking on the link, what's the over-under on whether "chaos" or "tumult" appeared in the story. I believe it's in the NYT stylebook now as mandatory for any story on Trump.
Rumor is McMaster has been anti Trump campaign supporters, and favors more establishment types hires.
And people are policy.
I am amazed by how well the US is doing on foreign policy.
We purport. You deride. --NYT
I think anyone who has worked for a successful company would question whether constant turnover at the top will yield success.
I'm sure the Trump defenders will explain yet one more thing away. That's their greatest talent.
McMaster and the others have been undermining the Trump agenda, leaking, etc. Buh-bye.
But the message in the media is "chaos" instead of "leadership". Okay. Sure, I guess. Whatevs.
Trump will not quit until he gets it right. He dreams of having a chain of command that starts at the top and goes down instead of starting outside of the Whitehouse and going where an outsider wants it to go. But he had to staff the place with who was avilable 14 months ago.
Never let it be said that the Althouse commentariat can't learn from past mistakes. The people who were laughing at the Times for having supposedly blown the "Tillerson will be forced out" story are kind of quiet now.
But I am someone who tries to keep my promises; and in November of last year, when the Times first reported the "Tillerson will be forced out" story, I wrote:
"For my part, I don't know if it is true or what any of it might mean. I am no great fan of the Times -- certainly not their editorial board or many of their columnists -- and I know that they have gotten things wrong in the past. As I have written to Althouse many times, I'm a Journal guy, not a Times guy. I appreciate her reading the Times so that I don't have to.
"But I think I will make a point of bookmarking this page, to come back to it if and when Tillerson does leave in the way that the Times is reporting that its sources are saying.
"And lean into the people here who claim that because it is the Times it must be wrong."
Leaning.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=5120217524336886059
Trump may believe he's just taping a new season of "Celebrity Apprentice," and so, on schedule each week, he must utter the words to someone, "You're fired!"
Chuck, you are a brilliant Journal guy. A keen observer of prescient political journalism. But what was the Journal preporting about Tillerson last November? Anything?
Shorter Chuck: "I have no idea what will happen and am certainly not going to stick my neck out by putting skin in the game. But I'll be happy to bookmark this page so I can lord it over anyone who seemed to take a stand and came out wrong."
It's really quite baffling why he's not more beloved around here.
but is willing to take time executing the move because he wants to ensure both that the three-star Army general is not humiliated and that there is a strong successor lined up,
Well the WAPO certainly isn't going to let that happen!
“Three people close to Mr. Trump,” and “two people who are familiar with the advisor’s thinking,”
versus “five people with knowledge of the plans...”
It’s close, but yes, WaPo wins. The NYT might have re-used one person among their three- and two- people. -willie
Chuck, it's not fair to bring that stuff up because you're the mostest smartest, coolest and insightful person who has ever made a comment on any blog anywhere. And did I mention honorable? No? My bad, you're the most honorablest and all around keenest, too. Althouse is not worthy of your patronage.
For what it's worth Chuck, I predicted much turnover throughout this administration, and I believe it will continue as a means to get new ideas into the Oval Office.
McMaster has served honorably, but the question is what he would have to offer Trump after a year or so on the job. Trump is an ideas guy, and at some point your people run out of ideas. You then either let the status quo harden and your options narrow, or you get new people with different points of view.
All of McMaster's thinking is baked into the Administration's at this point. Whatever he had to offer on NORKO, for example, is already baked into the battle plans and has been practiced by many of the units. What might someone else have to offer before it must be carried out?
The President is the decider and likely harms himself by being too loyal to his people. We've certainly seen that in past administrations.
As for Tillerson, I don't think it's a major coup to report someone might leave who leaves months later. They might as well report that Trump will be stepping down from the Presidency, so that when his tenure finally ends they can be "proven right".
When you preport everything and anything about Trump, you will be right. Eventually.
It's going to snow in January here in Madison. A whole lot. People will be stranded. It'll be one of the biggest storms ever! And you know what? I'm correct in that prediction. But it is meaningless.
ok Chuck times is not wrong nor wapo. The President of your country is a businessman first and a Newyorker and the bosses of those rags know well that your President will not take bs from no generals ceos or politicians he is the Boss. So relax, obviously you are so desperate that you live in the Prof's blog in the hope that she blogs the President so that you can enlighten us on his faults. Frankly neither you or all the others that they claim he is a failure know the word failure. If you all look at a mirror you may perhaps discover failure, I doubt it... but there is always hope.
Meade said...
Chuck, you are a brilliant Journal guy. A keen observer of prescient political journalism. But what was the Journal preporting about Tillerson last November? Anything?
Well, the Journal didn't break the story, but they got an interview with Tillerson and had some good reporting:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-declines-to-squash-speculation-about-rex-tillersons-ouster-1512064209
I wish the journalists would report news, not rumors....Why can't we wait until the event has occurred, FPS?
These rumoring journalists are sowing discord and I guess should now be indicted, now that that's a thing...
Suppose for the sake argument Trump doesn't run for a second term. Who would the GOP replace him with? Pence?
Just watch Althouse's new word "preport" get adopted.
If Limbaugh picks it up, Trump will tweet it soon.
OED entry is next for AA.
NYT throws out McMaster Bait.
It was a trap. The Washington Post walked into it.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/03/15/intelligence-pr-firm-gets-caught-in-leak-trap-wapo-runs-story-of-mcmaster-firing/#more-146983
I preport Trump will be leaving Washington DC in shame.
Inga, didn't you also preport a Hillary victory? Many times?
Geebus, Mr. Surfed; I had never seen that website before. I had heard mention of "The Conservative Tree House," and I confess that I did not know of it as an Alt-right loony-bin.
Now I do. So thanks for the heads-up, via that link.
Here they are, trashing the story that Tillerson would be replaced with Mike Pompeo, and telling the world that it was deep-state propaganda and the Trump foreign policy team was solid!
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/01/president-trump-declares-nyt-rex-tillerson-report-deep-state-fake-news/
Reminds me of a story: When I was in Bodhgaya India the first time, my daughter was pregnant with her first child. I sat under the bodhi tree for 45 minutes then preported to my daughter that she would have a girl. Sure enough, she had a girl. My daughter was amazed.
The second time I was in Bodhgaya, my daughter was pregnant with her second child. I again sat under the bodhi tree for 45 minutes and preported that she would have a boy. Turns out she had another girl, and my daughter mocked me for my 50% Buddha predictive ability.
I am preporting that Creighton beats Kansas State tonight.
Get your bets down now with Meade.
Chuck said, "Never let it be said that the Althouse commentariat ..."
I am sick of your pretentious and condescending bullshit.
You are a loser who uses the internet to pretend otherwise..
Bob Boyd at 7:48 AM
Suppose for the sake argument Trump doesn't run for a second term. Who would the GOP replace him with?
I think it's likely that Trump will be challenged in the Republican primary.
I hope that Ted Cruz runs against him.
"I hope that Ted Cruz runs against him."
Interesting. How come?
Chuck at 8:48 AM
I had heard mention of "The Conservative Tree House," and I confess that I did not know of it as an Alt-right loony-bin.
I have read The Conservative Treehouse regularly for several years, and I never have thought of it as Alt-right.
When I began reading it, I thought of it as an investigative website.
For past three years, I have thought of it as a pro-Trump website.
I don't consider Trump to be Alt-right.
Bob Boyd at 9:11 AM
Interesting. How come?
At the end of the 2016 primaries I was supporting Ted Cruz, and I voted for him in my New Jersey primary. I generally agree with Cruz on the issues.
I favored Trump in late 2015 because he was the most hawkish on the immigration issue. However, Cruz eventually satisfied me on the immigration issue.
I always have considered Trump to be personally obnoxious, and I disagree with him on other issues.
I was happy to vote for Trump in the 2016 general election and would be happy to do so again in the 2020 general election. However, I would be even happier if Cruz ran against him and beat him in the 2020 primary elections.
Mike Sylwester said...
Bob Boyd at 9:11 AM
Interesting. How come?
At the end of the 2016 primaries I was supporting Ted Cruz, and I voted for him in my New Jersey primary. I generally agree with Cruz on the issues.
I favored Trump in late 2015 because he was the most hawkish on the immigration issue. However, Cruz eventually satisfied me on the immigration issue.
I always have considered Trump to be personally obnoxious, and I disagree with him on other issues.
I was happy to vote for Trump in the 2016 general election and would be happy to do so again in the 2020 general election. However, I would be even happier if Cruz ran against him and beat him in the 2020 primary elections.
Wow, I wish I could get away with writing that, mi amigo.
Well, I wasn't exactly "happy" to vote for Trump. "Unapologetic" is how I might put it, although even that is pushing it. Here's hoping we won't ever have to do it again.
Francisco D said...
Chuck said, "Never let it be said that the Althouse commentariat ..."
I am sick of your pretentious and condescending bullshit.
You are a loser who uses the internet to pretend otherwise..
Have a nice day!
Chuck, I agree with most of what you write about Trump.
@ Mike Sylvester
I followed basically the same path.
But now I think Trump won because he was able to create something exciting that many people wanted to be a part of regardless of party. Who else could do that? It would have to be someone who could pick up the torch.
Bob Boyd said...
...
But now I think Trump won because he was able to create something exciting that many people wanted to be a part of regardless of party. Who else could do that? It would have to be someone who could pick up the torch.
Two words. Milo. Yiannopoulos. The flame needed for that torch.
Bob Boyd at 9:29 AM
I think Trump won because he was able to create something exciting that many people wanted to be a part of regardless of party. Who else could do that?
White working-class males have moved massively from voting Democrat to voting Republican.
One side-effect of that move is that Donald Trump won in 2016 largely because he criticized free trade. Trump ran against trade agreements and for tariffs.
Cruz eventually became about as hawkish on immigration as Trump was, but Cruz favors free trade. In the end, that's how Trump beat Cruz in the primary elections.
The Republican Party got the White working-class males, but it got also Trump as part of the deal.
I am also preporting that the global temp will be 0.0001 degrees higher in the year 2100.
We purport. You deride. --NYT
Hat tip to Meade. If I were wearing a hat. I'm not.
McMaster was a poor choice, anyway, whose policy ideas have never meshed with Trump's.
Blogger Mark said...
I think anyone who has worked for a successful company would question whether constant turnover at the top will yield success.
I'm sure the Trump defenders will explain yet one more thing away. That's their greatest talent.
3/16/18, 6:53 AM
Trump is unused to public sector employees. You're going to run through a few of them until you find one that 'gets it'.
I'd be happy to explain.
I don't care.
McMasters firing means more to you.
"Alt-Right" is just a tell that the reader is consuming #FakeNews, as are the terms, "sources close to," "white supremacy," "anonymous staff," "administration insider" and every headline on CNN.
WSJ (Ballhaus et alii) this morning: "Mr. Trump has decided to oust Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster and has conveyed that decision to John Kelly, his chief of staff, according to administration officials. The timing of a departure was unclear, with one official saying it could happen 'imminently' and another saying it could be weeks, even months. Mr. Trump doesn’t yet have a replacement in mind, and is unlikely to force a departure before he has one, the officials said. The president wants a more graceful exit for his national security adviser than he afforded Rex Tillerson, the former secretary of state he fired via Twitter earlier this week, one official said."
I'm less interested that Mr Trump is replacing Gen McMaster than I am in who the new NSA will be. Am not sure about Amb Bolton myself but I'd love to hear about the media heads exploding.
"The Republican Party got the White working-class males, but it got also Trump as part of the deal."
I'd say it was more the other way around. The Republican Party got Trump (leadership didn't like it), but he brought the white, working class males and victory with him. If that's the case, how can they keep those votes without Trump?
I've grown tired of all the breathless reporting about how significant or, rather, catastrophic Trump's cabinet turnover is, and how it is indicative of something really, really horrible & sinister that should cause us to remove him as POTUS.
-sw
Bob Boyd at 10:20 AM
... he [Trump] brought the white, working class males and victory with him. If that's the case, how can they keep those votes without Trump?
That's a good argument.
If Cruz or some other Republican runs against Trump in the primary elections, then that challenger will have to largely adopt Trump's issues -- in particular the two issues of immigration and free trade.
Cruz, for example, would have to criticize trade treaties and support tariffs.
The challenger's argument would be that Trump is too squishy and too ineffective on the issues, and so a more effective politician should take over.
Isn't this more "pre-reporting"?
It gets boring - especially since it takes forever for these people to actually leave.
Tillerson was supposed to be fired last summer. Sessions has been "fired" any number of times. Bannon and Preibus were fired in Feb 2017 and every month before they actually left.
Dude bookmarks his comments. Nuff said.
-sw
"The challenger's argument would be that Trump is too squishy and too ineffective on the issues, and so a more effective politician should take over."
That's a heavy lift. So much of the winning formula is emotional.
There has been a report that McMaster was imminently going to be fired about every month since he was put in the position.
Also, Mattis and Mnunchin were supposed to have a "suicide pact" with Rex Tillerson and resign when he was fired.
Kelly has supposedly been on his way out most weeks since he was hired.
All these folks who detest anyone and anything to do with Trump still have deep inner knowledge of private conversations that--shocker--keep turning out to be utter BS. No consideration is given to reality, like that McMaster didn't need the job but when Flynn left Trump badly needed someone respected as him in the military community to have it. Kelly is similar.
Where is the accountability for all this fake news?
The issues are more important that Trump's character.
If in 2020 Republicans perceive that Trump has been effective on the issues, then they will nominate him again, and I think he will win the general election again.
If, however, he will be perceived to be squishy and ineffective, then a challenger who adopts Trump's issues might be able to beat him in the Republican primaries. Then Trump's character might become a decisive consideration.
Paul Mac;
You inspired me! To do a search of "suicide pact" with the names of Tillerson, Mnuchin and Mattis. To see where that story originated, and who has disseminated it.
It's an interesting meta-story; as far as I can see (just a casual, quick search) it was a "Daily Beast" story that got spread through a lot of anti-trump (and a few pro-Trump) outlets.
But the Times, the Journal, NPR and a lot of other outlets seem to have stayed away from it. That story may actually have been "fake news." It originated with one guy from Buzzfeed, who cited "one U.S. official" as the source of the report.
This one seems to me to be a good case study in "fake news." And the usual suspects (NYT, WaPo) seem to have not fallen for it. I don't have the time to chase down all the angles, but it is interesting to see how it spread, and the limits of that spread...
I wrote "Daily Beast" just above, then corrected it to "Buzzfeed." "Daily Beast" is incorrect, and "Buzzfeed" is correct.
Here's the Buzzfeed link:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnhudson/tillerson?utm_term=.bpNqqr4Ne3#.dwNwwlLq93
I wish I could go back and edit the comment but I can't.
Previous reports were that Mattis and Kelly wanted McMaster back working in the military. We'll see how this plays out.
I think anyone who has worked for a successful company would question whether constant turnover at the top will yield success.
I'm sure the Trump defenders will explain yet one more thing away. That's their greatest talent.
The Union won.
brylun: "Inga, didn't you also preport a Hillary victory? Many times?"
Inga AND self-described Michigan electoral expert LLR Chuck.
LLR Chuck, and his lefty allies, are still trying to recover from the most conservative year in governance in 50 years.
It will take them awhile to get over that.
Mark; "I think anyone who has worked for a successful company would question whether constant turnover at the top will yield success"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heritage-donald-trump-has-achieved-more-than-ronald-reagan-in-first-year/article/2646849
LLR Chuck and lefty Mark hardest hit.
I am also preporting that the global temp will be 0.0001 degrees higher in the year 2100.
Higher than what?
I will note that if the temperature is 1 degree higher in the year 2100, your prediction is still correct. Any value greater than 0.0001 will work because if the temperature is 1 degree higher, it's also 0.0001 degree higher. :)
Nitpickingly yrs,
MadisonMan
Shorter Chuck--"I am an asshole and I will always be. . ."
So if McMaster isn't out, and the rumor was indeed a plan to identify leakers, I for one expect the leakers to be fired, with the media claiming their firings are examples of the chaos in the administration. Time will tell.
Shorter Chuck--"I am an asshole and I will always be. . ."
LLA.
While he's firing people, why doesn't Trump fire McCabe?
"While he's firing people, why doesn't Trump fire McCabe?"
He can't. Remember: the DoJ and FBI are the 4th branch of government.
We finally saw Sessions get a little more active.
Maybe he's hearing footsteps.
Never liked McMaster, Trump a genius
While gamely attempting to maintain acceptable standards of personal hygiene, Hillary is mugged by gravity once more.
"HILLARY CLINTON FALLS YET AGAIN, FRACTURES WRIST IN PALACE BATH ACCIDENT"
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-falls-fourth-time-18-months-and-fractures-wrist-847551
Certainly NYT, WP, etc. are more careful about their language when spreading rumors, but I wouldn't say they are unwilling to do so just because they didn't spread that one.
They've been talking about the tensions and unrest that could cause the imminent departure of Tillerson, McMaster, Sessions for a long time.
There is just to me something dishonest about continually re-reporting these rumors, even labeling them as such. Especially when not noting how many of these rumors don't end up coming to past.
Here the WaPo mentions the "suicide pact" rumor https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/10/05/the-energy-202-here-are-the-trump-officials-who-went-to-a-mining-meeting-at-trump-s-hotel/59d553e530fb0468cea81d70/?utm_term=.77e12c44579b
Here in July they report "rumors" again of the same people we are still talking about maybe being fired today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/25/rumors-abound-about-other-imminent-white-house-firings-and-resignations/?utm_term=.7ecd33479897
Only one left reasonably soon after the rumors, and another just recently, most are still there but that they "might" leave is somehow still news.
Certainly these folks can say the news isn't fake, they did report they were just rumors. Still I feel like treating that as an excuse while constantly covering that some drama might be going on and someone might leave are about exactly how you get more Trump and less credence on legitimate news.
"HILLARY CLINTON FALLS YET AGAIN, FRACTURES WRIST IN PALACE BATH ACCIDENT"
Goddess Kali obviously feels that there is only room for one destroyer of worlds in India at one time. If I were Hillary I would get out of India as soon as possible.
"HILLARY CLINTON FALLS YET AGAIN, FRACTURES WRIST IN PALACE BATH ACCIDENT"
Another senseless fisting mishap. When will it end ?
I preport Trump will be leaving Washington DC in shame. - Inga the Liar
You promised to leave this blog and not return until Trump is indicted. Yet, here you are. Making more, stupid predictions.
Kid that like predicting ten of the last four recessions?
Mike Sylwester said...
Bob Boyd at 9:11 AM
Interesting. How come?
At the end of the 2016 primaries I was supporting Ted Cruz, and I voted for him in my New Jersey primary. I generally agree with Cruz on the issues.
I favored Trump in late 2015 because he was the most hawkish on the immigration issue. However, Cruz eventually satisfied me on the immigration issue.
I always have considered Trump to be personally obnoxious, and I disagree with him on other issues.
I was happy to vote for Trump in the 2016 general election and would be happy to do so again in the 2020 general election. However, I would be even happier if Cruz ran against him and beat him in the 2020 primary elections.
3/16/18, 9:22 AM
You can't really think that Trump could do badly, be primaried, lose to Cruz, and Cruz beats whoever. I mean, is that what you think? The party sinks or swims with the President.
BL: "The party sinks or swims with the President."
This is now clearly true.
Which is why LLR Chuck is so intent on getting rid of Trump since that would open the way back for the dems to regain total control.
And the next time dems get control, look out. You thought obama's Pen and Phone form of legislation and DACA pronouncements were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Though I should be careful opining about the outcome of total dem control as it makes LLR Chuck shake with uncontrollable excitement.
Bad Lieutenant at 2:12 PM
You can't really think that Trump could do badly, be primaried, lose to Cruz, and Cruz beats whoever. I mean, is that what you think? The party sinks or swims with the President.
If Trump does reasonably well until 2020, then I think he will be re-elected, and I will be happy to vote for him on Election Day.
However, if Cruz or some other immigration-hawk challenger would run against Trump in the primary elections, then I probably would vote for the challenger.
Let's suppose that Trump becomes squishy and ineffective on all the issues -- immigration, international trade, gun control, etc. If he does, then someone (e.g. Cruz) might challenge him.
I would prefer that Trump be firm and effective and that he therefore will not be challenged.
Trump is obnoxious. If he turns out to be also squishy and ineffective, then the Republican electorate should fire him.
Having arrived unemcumbered by minions of political hacks from the swamp, Trump was free to experiment with a wide array of people. Some were swampers, some not.
His worst appointment, Sessions, partisanship and Trump hatred aside, has the approval of the swamp and has earned it.
Part of the price Trump is paying for appointing many independent people is that, unlike the Obots, they don’t cover his ass.
BL: "The party sinks or swims with the President."
Drago:"This is now clearly true."
Exactly, yentlmen
One word: Reagandemocrats
I preport that “Jim at” will fall face first in his soup and drown.
Inga: "I preport that “Jim at” will fall face first in his soup and drown."
That must be some bowl of soup!
What a value!
Where do I get one?
Howard: "One word: Reagandemocrats"
The question for the republican party is can they recruit candidates for lower offices that reflect the same outlook, in general or at least thematically, as Trump?
If the republicans keep putting up Charisma/Policy Anti-Matter candidates like that Saccone guy then the Reagan Dems will keep voting for Trump but will revert for the lower offices.
In a way, that would be very similar to obama who was personally popular (no one really knew at the time that he was the stealth Stasi President, spying on domestic political opponents) but lost over 1,000 seats at lower levels during his tenure.
“That must be some bowl of soup!
What a value!”
Borscht is cheap.
“Where do I get one?”
Mother Russia.
Democrats voted for Trump. They didn't turn into Republicans, as PA-18 shows.
"Let's suppose that Trump becomes squishy and ineffective on all the issues -- immigration, international trade, gun control, etc. If he does, then someone (e.g. Cruz) might challenge him."
-- Anyone primarying the sitting president is pretty much sacrificing the presidency. And this is coming from someone who would like a lot of different, non-Trump Republican choices. But, whoever does it, will pretty much ensure that it is President Harris, Warren, Clinton or whoever in 2021.
Matthew Sablan at 3:38 PM
Anyone primarying the sitting president is pretty much sacrificing the presidency.
Usually that's true.
Trump, however, is a special case.
He might fail spectacularly.
I hope his Presidency goes well and that he will be re-elected.
However, his Presidency has been a wild, bumpy ride so far, and it eventually might go off the rails.
Inga: "Mother Russia"
Jim at is in Russia? Did you read that in another hoax dossier?
Just another laughable lie that you would buy into!
Bob Boyd: "Democrats voted for Trump. They didn't turn into Republicans, as PA-18 shows."
A few did (+50,000 registered dem district), but your point is truegenerally.
Since General McMaster has not yet been promoted into a new position (which is how a move to open the NSA slot would go), we should turn our attention to hillarys latest physical mishap.
I wonder if Tomahawk Elizabeth Warren knows any good natural treatments for a fractured wrist?
Blogger Mike Sylwester said...
Matthew Sablan at 3:38 PM
Anyone primarying the sitting president is pretty much sacrificing the presidency.
Usually that's true.
Trump, however, is a special case.
He might fail spectacularly.
I hope his Presidency goes well and that he will be re-elected.
However, his Presidency has been a wild, bumpy ride so far, and it eventually might go off the rails.
But this implies things would be in a disastrous state. How do you figure, Cruz is a political turnaround artist and can win where Trump can't? Cruz, or anyone, primarying and beating Trump for the nomination just means that it is Cruz who loses to whoever. Did anybody whatsoever think that the Democrats were going to win in 1968 after LBJ dropped out? It was a bloodbath and so would this be.
Wobbly or not, Trump is the only thing standing between America and a Democratic presidency in 2021. Unless Chuck manages to assassinate him and President Pence does a really really good job. Nope, if he goes wobbly, you're just going to have to decide who is wobblier, Trump or Kamala Harris.
“Jim at is in Russia? Did you read that in another hoax dossier?“
I doubt it, but I was thinking about you and your love for borscht.
Trump could maybe survive a Kasich primary or an equal sore loser. But once one person throws their name in, it'll become a clown show.
So the revelations about judge contreras and his contacts with strzok and page, which are clear conflict re the flynn plea.
I don't know anyone who voted for Trump who is ready to abandon him at this point.
If anything they are pleasantly surprised. I think any Republicans who want to challenge Trump in a primary will receive a chilly reception.
But 2 years is a long time in politics these days.
Inga: "I doubt it,.."
Then you've contradicted yourself.
Again.
Unexpectedly.
Lol
Just because Trump has set up a CREEP doesn't mean he will run for a second term. I give it a 25% chance he will want to run again. It's not like he gets a better retirement package with 2-terms.
Inga.
Althouses own Margret Dumont.
" Inga. Althouses own Margret Dumont."
Actually, Inga is Althouses own Ron Burgundy. Anything you put in a hoax dossier, and I mean a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g, she will immediately believe and regurgitate.
Literally anything.
Even funnier, if you refuse to believe the patent nonsense she constructs her life around, she questions you!
They run this story about every 6 weeks. Bound to be right at least once.
In others news
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/16/dc-capitol-police-american-bridge
"HILLARY CLINTON FALLS YET AGAIN, FRACTURES WRIST IN PALACE BATH ACCIDENT"
"Bath accident?" Is that what they're calling a drunken stumble-and-fall these days?
Robert Cook: ""Bath accident?" Is that what they're calling a drunken stumble-and-fall these days?"
We all know, in particular Inga, that Putin pushed her.
Obviously.
"HILLARY CLINTON FALLS YET AGAIN, FRACTURES WRIST IN PALACE BATH ACCIDENT"
Huma crossed her legs unexpectedly.
I give it a 25% chance he will want to run again. It's not like he gets a better retirement package with 2-terms.
Personally, I think he is having fun. He especially enjoys leftists going nuts.
Me too.
ark said...
I think anyone who has worked for a successful company would question whether constant turnover at the top will yield success.
I'm sure the Trump defenders will explain yet one more thing away. That's their greatest talent.
3/16/18, 6:53 AM
LOL, another armchair Einstein giving us his sage advice/sarc! Fortune 500 CEOs have turned over by 50% over the past six years. What say you Mark?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा