Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

And yet ... http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2015/07/06/trump-death-wish-the-wollman-rink-and-the-white-house/?singlepage=true

Yes, that was a signal achievement.  Was a time when he had fire in the belly to accomplish something.  Alas, he's learnt that he gets as much attention, and with far less actual effort, with his new schtick.  Be the guy who brings a buzz saw to the dinner table, yeah!

[Ken B]

Yes, that was a signal achievement.  Was a time when he had fire in the belly to accomplish something.  Alas, he's learnt that he gets as much attention, and with far less actual effort, with his new schtick.  Be the guy who brings a buzz saw to the dinner table, yeah!

He seems a total clown these days. I saw a funny fake campaign lawn-sign: "Trump 2016, somebody's doing the raping"

This is funny http://twitchy.com/2015/07/09/whos-laughing-now-we-are-at-the-twerps-who-mocked-romney-for-warning-about-chinese-hackers/

[Karl Henning]

From an Op-Ed in The Boston Globe.

Raise middle class wages. Spank Wall Street.

Hillary Clinton is searching for the safe space that was magic for Bill — somewhere in the middle between left and right extremes. But safety is harder to define today, because of an unlikely Democratic hottie: "#feeltheBern" Bernie Sanders, a 73-year-old self-described socialist.

Sure, there are Hillary activists who are (or, make a principled show of being) genuinely enthusiastic about her;  I run into one, now and again on social media (of course).  I get that Hillary is partly aware of how divisive a figure she is, but she's determined to run anyway (which emphasizes for me her cynical side);  and I get, too, that part of the wind in Bernie's sails is an "anyone but La Clinton" sentiment among many Democrats.  Well, I am looking forward to the debates . . . .

[Ken B]

  Well, I am looking forward to the debates . . . .

You should join the Root Canal of th Month Club.

[Karl Henning]

Oh, I'll be anæsthetized, all right . . . .

[Karl Henning]

Well, a Boston Globe columnist calls Bernie "a major challenger to Clinton".

It's the sort of thing a Boston Globe columnist would say; wonder if it's true?

[drogulus]

     When I was younger and a little naive I thought that it was important for a candidate to appear honest, by which I suppose I meant "really" honest in the sense of telling truths politically unwise to tell. It amounted, amounts, to saying only someone too politically inept to become President is qualified to be President. Notorious liars and trimmers like Lincoln and FDR don't make the cut.

     It's hard because while honesty looks disqualifying it might not always be, while Presidential competence can't reliably be judged in advance. Nixon was the best qualified in history, but his qualifying dishonesty got him in trouble, too much of a "good" thing. On a proper Machiavellian scale how do you pick the Lincolns and FDRs out from the Nixons, or should you try?

     Lindsay Graham says lots of near-demagogic things and good things, too. The Romney template seems to fit, but it no longer fits the radicalized Repubs. Repubs have been tempered in the fires of Obama-hatred for too long for moderation to appeal to them now. There's too much vengeance to allow room for victory. Not that a moderate would win, not with the Repub millstone around his/her neck. We're approaching the point where even Sanders might squeak by if voters get a whiff of the Repub platform, which will be awesome! Can Repubs trumpet their platform while hiding it in the general? I thinks not, but stranger things have happened.

[Todd]

It's the sort of thing a Boston Globe columnist would say; wonder if it's true?

I don't see how Sanders would make a viable national candidate.  Strikes against him: Age, he was once a Socialist (though more in name than substance it appears) and is now a "democratic socialist", no backing of big money donors (though it would come), he doesn't seem to have a great campaign machine, poor speaking and debate style too reliant on platitudes.  Strong (or strong-ish) points: Does the populist thing well, comes across as a down to earth type, reasonably smart.  If he got the nod, the best Republican to take him on would be a younger one.  Rubio, perhaps.

Speaking of Republicans, Scott Walker is now in officially.  Let's watch the meat puppet dance.  John Kasich is slated to announce on the 21st, and one article (in Red State?) opined that Kasich was entering to be a hatchet man going for a top job for the nominee, with his biggest likely primaries target being Walker.  I'd be fine with that.  Kasich should do his utmost to destroy Scott Walker's chances and career, maybe even driving salt into the political earth, so that Walker can never run for anything again.

[drogulus]

"Bernie is a socialist and claims that title," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), an early Clinton supporter. "I just don't believe that someone who is a self-described socialist is going to be elected to be president of the United States."

     Yah he's a typical outsider, and when citizens get a little more of his Brooklynese, Dogpatch Dems will flee for the hills(ery). No, Bernie don't play so good down there, down there being south of Surf Avenue.

[Brian]

I don't see how Sanders would make a viable national candidate.

Of course, if the Democrats nominate Sanders, and the Republicans nominate Trump... that would be a fun one.

Kasich should do his utmost to destroy Scott Walker's chances and career, maybe even driving salt into the political earth, so that Walker can never run for anything again.

Co-sign. (Did you by any chance read the NYT article about how Walker is his own campaign strategist, because the very considerable part of his brain NOT devoted to understanding policy is devoted to memorizing information about media markets, TV buys, political maneuvers, etc.?)

[drogulus]

     Ideologically extreme candidates grab the early lead then fade, and so do the Thomas Friedman approved "nonpartisan" protest candidates like John Anderson, who don't protest wicked policies but fighting about them. They ask "can't we all get along?" to which the correct answer always will be "negative, not if we want to do something".

     Anyway I prefer candidates who can put on a good show, with the courage of their evil convictions, but just a hint of their willingness to govern pragmatically when it comes down to cases. That's what great leaders do, why Machiavellians like Lincoln and FDR came to be viewed as our greatest Presidents, while also being our greatest Presidents.

[Todd]

Of course, if the Democrats nominate Sanders, and the Republicans nominate Trump... that would be a fun one.

The latter will never happen.  The RNC will take out a contract first.

Did you by any chance read the NYT article about how Walker is his own campaign strategist, because the very considerable part of his brain NOT devoted to understanding policy is devoted to memorizing information about media markets, TV buys, political maneuvers, etc.?

I read a blurb that he was, but he will have to cede that function if he hopes to win.  So I hope he keeps that function for himself.  Walker has political smarts sufficient to win elections in Wisconsin, the proud home of Joe McCarthy, but I don't see him as electable nationwide.  Combine that with his profoundly stupid remark that Reagan's termination of air traffic controllers was the most significant foreign policy decision of his lifetime, and though he is politically wily, I simply don't see the uneducated meat puppet as suitable to serve as President of the United States.  He is out of his depth, and his supposed "leadership" skills are not at all reassuring.  Quite the opposite.  He would find out very quickly that Washington is not the same as Madison.  And before his fans try to chime in and say something along the lines of "What about Reagan?", let me state unequivocally that Scott Walker isn't worth the gunk stuck to the bottom of the Gipper's shoes.  If Walker gets the nod, I will write in a different candidate on my general election ballot; I would not be able to vote Republican for President in 2016 - and I absolutely will not be able to vote for a Democrat.  (Oregon will go Democrat no matter what, so it doesn't matter anyway.) 

If Walker picks up steam politically, I may be spurred to break my no political contributions pledge, so far religiously observed, and give to any group, PAC, Super PAC, or anyone or anything else devoted to defeating and/or destroying him.  Preferably the latter.

[(poco) Sforzando]

The latter will never happen.  The RNC will take out a contract first.

The hit man to be an illegal Mexican.

[Brian]

Combine that with his profoundly stupid remark that Reagan's termination of air traffic controllers was the most significant foreign policy decision of his lifetime,

He said that?!??!??!?!?!

and though he is politically wily, I simply don't see the uneducated meat puppet as suitable to serve as President of the United States.  He is out of his depth, and his supposed "leadership" skills are not at all reassuring.  Quite the opposite.

Frank Bruni at NYT agrees with you.
"I see an ambition even more pronounced than any ideology. I see an interest in personal advancement that eclipses any investment in personal growth. These are hardly unusual traits in our halls of government. But they're distilled in Walker, the governor of Wisconsin....

"We know from the biographies of him so far that he has been absorbed in those "political thoughts" since at least the start of college, before he could have possibly developed any fully considered, deeply informed set of beliefs or plan for what to do with power."

[Ken B]

He said that?!??!??!?!?!

Frank Bruni at NYT agrees with you.
"I see an ambition even more pronounced than any ideology. I see an interest in personal advancement that eclipses any investment in personal growth. These are hardly unusual traits in our halls of government. But they're distilled in Walker, the governor of Wisconsin....

"We know from the biographies of him so far that he has been absorbed in those "political thoughts" since at least the start of college, before he could have possibly developed any fully considered, deeply informed set of beliefs or plan for what to do with power."

Walker said that that action established Reagan's credibility with friends and foes, and helped convince the soviets he meant business and would act. It is profoundly stupid to call that profoundly stupid without quoting the full context. Right or wrong it does not, as some would imply, suggest Walker thinks air traffic controllers are a foreign power.
Walker made the point as part of his argument that it is decisive leadership that really matters.

Why is it so f$cking hard for some people to simply be honest?

[Todd]

Why is it so f$cking hard for some people to simply be honest?

Let's be very, very clear about the nature of what Walker said: There is no context in which what he said was in any way intelligent.  And Reagan's action did not have the documented impact Walker himself claimed.  He made a stupid statement, and lied about "evidence".  Your question is a good one: Just why did Walker flat out lie?

(I guess if one puts much credence into what Edmund Morris wrote about Reagan, that can serve as heavyweight intellectual support.  The Schultz claim, if true, is the only one that would carry any weight, but that requires one to place great faith in Peggy Noonan.  Some people do.)

The purpose of Walker's statements is blindingly obvious: Reagan busted unions.  Walker busted unions.  Union busting equates to good foreign policy, because it makes people take the US seriously.  Therefore, Walker would be good at foreign policy.  He'd be a strong guy.  A tough guy.  He's like the Gipper!  It appears that there are some people who take that type of thinking seriously. 

Another entertaining peek into Walker's foreign policy "views" can be observed in his interview with Martha Raddatz.  Clearly, his handlers have since worked hard to get him on message - a simple one so that he can regurgitate it.  (And a dehumanizing one.  Radical Islam is like a virus!  And killing viruses is good!  Amiright?)

Walker is good at the grungy side of politics, but on policy matters he's a very dim bulb.  He should never be President.

[Brian]

LEXINGTON, S.C. – Gov. Scott Walker, who recently expressed support for a ban on gay Boy Scout leaders because it "protected children," said on Wednesday that he did not mean that children needed "physical protection" from gay scoutmasters – but rather protection from the debate over the ban.

In comments published on Tuesday by The Independent Journal Review, a news website that is popular with young conservatives, Mr. Walker said, "I have had a lifelong commitment to the Scouts and support the previous membership policy because it protected children and advanced Scout values." But during a brief press conference in South Carolina on Wednesday, Mr. Walker said the decision on the ban was "up to the Boy Scouts" and added that his earlier remarks were not about protecting children from gay people.

"The protection was not a physical protection," he said, but rather about "protecting them from being involved in the very thing you're talking about right now, the political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that nature."

-

Somewhere, they're having a funeral for logic.

[Todd]

"The protection was not a physical protection," he said, but rather about "protecting them from being involved in the very thing you're talking about right now, the political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that nature."

[Ken B]

LEXINGTON, S.C. – Gov. Scott Walker, who recently expressed support for a ban on gay Boy Scout leaders because it "protected children," said on Wednesday that he did not mean that children needed "physical protection" from gay scoutmasters – but rather protection from the debate over the ban.

In comments published on Tuesday by The Independent Journal Review, a news website that is popular with young conservatives, Mr. Walker said, "I have had a lifelong commitment to the Scouts and support the previous membership policy because it protected children and advanced Scout values." But during a brief press conference in South Carolina on Wednesday, Mr. Walker said the decision on the ban was "up to the Boy Scouts" and added that his earlier remarks were not about protecting children from gay people.

"The protection was not a physical protection," he said, but rather about "protecting them from being involved in the very thing you're talking about right now, the political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that nature."

-

Somewhere, they're having a funeral for logic.

Not so illogical. Some people DO object to talking about it, especially with children. Should we debate BDSM in grade 4? But his concerns are overblown.
I would rather social conservatives just 'fess up. Something like sucking a guy's cock kinda disgusts me and I wish I didn't have to think of it, but you know it's not really my business or the government's business what you do in bed, and the law is settled regarding marriage, so let's just move on.

[Brian]

Not so illogical. Some people DO object to talking about it, especially with children.

Yes, but the way to end the debate and protect the kids from hearing constant debate, is to admit gay people, not to discriminate against them. If they kept banning gay people, the debate would rage on.

Doesn't change that Walker's "backtrack" was a lie.