I doubt that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee.
I’m not sure whether this is a serious post or not.
— How likely is it that Donald Trump, if elected, would serve more than a few months of his term? How likely is it that he will even continue as the nominee much beyond the convention?, Me, Angry Bear, Jun. 3
That sentence is how I ended that post. A few days later I read, on Politico, I think, that conservative Republican donors (yes, that’s redundant, but that’s what the article said) are trying to persuade the RNC to pass an emergency rule change at the opening of the convention to release the delegates from their primary commitment on the first ballot. (The article said this group was leaning toward favoring Scott Walker as the nominee, to which I said to myself, “Please do. That’ll put the Rust Belt states in your corner!”)
But last night, after I posted this post arguing that the Dems and progressive pundits should not conflate media coverage of and about Trump himself, which obviously is extensive, and media coverage of Republican congressional policy proposals, which is almost nonexistent and which Ryan says Trump has assured him that he will help implement, I read this piece by the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. It’s titled “Trump exploits Orlando’s tragedy to smear Muslims and Obama.” Posted at 6:35 p.m. it ran through all of Trump’s many statements yesterday, and one by Trump surrogate Roger Stone.
As I read that, I realized that Trump likely won’t be the nominee.
I recalled reading a news report late last week that I had expected to gain significant traction. Titled “Florida AG sought donation before nixing Trump University fraud case,” by CNN’s Tom LoBianco, Drew Griffin and Scott Zamost, it is stunning even by current standards: The Florida AG, Pam Bondi, announced in 2014 that she was considering having Florida join litigation by several states alleging fraud by Trump U. There had been many complaints to Bondi’s office by former victims. A few days later, Bondi, who was running for reelection, solicited a $25,000 campaign donation from Trump, who obliged. A few days after the check was received, Bondi announced her decision against having Florida join he lawsuit, claiming insufficient evidence.
My first thought was that Trump wouldn’t be calling Clinton “Crooked Hillary” much longer. My second thought was that Trump will be indicted after a plea deal with Bondi.
The article was posted at 9:31 p.m. on Friday. Perfect timing for Sunday’s papers. Then there was the Orlando horror, barely more than 24 hours later. And Trump’s appalling reaction, on Sunday and throughout the day yesterday, and I guess into today.
And mainstream Republicans’ reactions to Trump’s, which Greg Sargent recounts.
Politico’s Jake Sherman reports today that Trump will meet with House Republicans on July 7:
“Since Mr. Trump became the presumptive nominee, members have asked for us to organize an opportunity for our conference to spend time with him before the convention,” an aide to McMorris Rodgers said. “The chairwoman announced to members at the morning’s conference that on July 7th they will have the chance to meet with Mr. Trump; share their policy priorities, learn about his plans to unite the party; and get details about his plans to move America forward. This was the first date that worked with everyone’s schedules for a special conference. Details of exact time and location will be forthcoming.”
I’m interested in what they tell Trump are their policy priorities. And what happens 11 days later, when their convention begins.
____
UPDATE: Greg Sargent writes:
After President Obama ripped Donald Trump today for betraying American values and further endangering the country with his ban on Muslims and all around hatemongering, Trump responded in a brief statement to the Associated Press:
“President Obama claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies, and for that matter, the American people.
“When I am President, it will always be America First.”
He titles his post “Republicans discover nominating world’s most famous birther might not be a great idea.” Perfect.
I meant to say in my original post, but for forgot to, that I think the Republicans will say that their primary motive in refusing as a party to nominate Trump is based not on ideology but on Trump’s clear mental instability, which poses am existential threat to this country. For some of them, that will be their motive. For others it will be ideology.
I think they’ll point out that Trump did not win a majority of that primary and caucus popular vote, and they’ll say that since the effective end of the primary season more than a month ago Trump’s mental instability has become obvious enough that some voters who voted for him probably would not do so now.
I do suspect–possibly naively, I recognize–that for many party elites, concerns primarily about ideology and even the likelihood of devastating electoral losses are starting to seem like unaffordable luxuries.
Added 6/14 at 5:16 p.m.
Based on no evidence whatsoever, I have been harboring the suspicion that if Trump IS the nominee, and by some hook or crook were to win the election, that someone on the right would take a contract out on him.
Idle speculation, but hey, it’s a hot, summer day and I’m bored.
I joked last week in a comments thread here that Paul Ryan might do it. At this point, I’m not sure it’s still a joke.
As much as I suspect that he can beat HRC in the general I have to admit the recent moves are really dubious. Barring the Wapo Amazon Shopper’s reporters? Yeah that’ll work.
Bev,
I have a conservative friend who gave me 20-1 odds on Trump not running several weeks ago. I took it because of some of what you are saying and the simple fact that he will figure out real quickly he has no shot to win.
Trump U; the screwed contractors; tax returns; lack of funding, etc.
People just cannot seem to understand the incredible differences between a primary and general election. And this is far from the first time Trump has failed to understand something.
I just added an update to this post quoting a Greg Sargent post this afternoon in which he reports on a statement Trump released to the Associated Press this afternoon in response to Obama’s comments today. I add that I think the Republicans will say that their decision to refuse to nominate Trump is not based on ideology but instead on the clarity at this point that he’s seriously mentally unstable.
I say that for some of them, that probably will be true. I say, “I do suspect, possibly naively, I recognize, that for many party elites concerns primarily about ideology and even the likelihood of devastating electoral losses are starting to seem like unaffordable luxuries.”
I think you made a good wager there.
I hope.
At this point I believe that refusing Trump the nomination will stop a huge amount of GOP racists from voting in the election. That’s about half of them.
Bev, I doubt it. I think the party is going down with the ship.
Since he threw his hat in the ring, I’ve been telling people I know that I expect him to be the next President. (Whether he should be elected is a different question. Of course,whether Hillary or any of the potential contenders should be the next President is yet another question.)
Perhaps because I have said he will win, acquaintances have told me they were going to vote for him. At first it was just a handful, and they seemed pretty bashful about it. Despite expecting him to win, I am surprised at the number of people I know who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 who cast a ballot for Trump in the primaries and will vote for him in November. That includes registered Democrats and both men and women. It also includes a few who I happen to know donated money to and canvassed door to door for Obama in 2008. And they are all college graduates.
The fact these people are being written off as racists, misogynists, gun nuts, or uneducated misses the mark severely, and makes it more likely that Trump will get elected.
what happens if both Trump and Hillary are indicted before November?
MK,
If you know anyone who voted for Obama and plans to vote for Trump, you need to change your lifestyle in order to stay as far away from them as you can.
Meanwhile, back in the real world I know 20 to 30 people who have voted Rep their entire lives who are planning to not vote for anyone for President while punching the straight GOP ticket.
Not really close friends, but at least I am not scared about their sanity.
And what would they tell the 13 million Tea Party Republicans who voted for him? The same ones who Trump threatened to unleash violently at the convention if the insiders took the nomination away with him? The same ones whose gathering energies essentially took down the Speaker of the House of Representatives and who have emasculated the current Speaker of the House of Representatives to the point where he says the nominee makes racist statements, is a religious bigot and has proposed a deportation program I do not support — but I will vote for him?
GOP elites, insiders, donors and elected authorities have totally lost control of their party, and for at least 6 years haven’t shown either the courage to take on the yahoos who are their base or the understanding of how to do it. They still don’t have control and they still to continue to flounder — catastrophically with Trump as their nominee. They are sunk.
Come on people who is the greater sleaze one selling an over priced real state scheme or the one selling the office to those who would donate to the Clinton foundation.
Yeah all those RW nutcases……
Think!
Obomber says: “we can’t call the radicals because that will make them hate US more”!!!
While Obomber sends Reapers out to count coup on Taliban “leadership” who are replaced the next day!
There is no strategy while Obomber and Clinton saying “you can’t make them mad at US” is ridiculous while US spends trillions to accumulate body count!
RW bubbas don’t think!
ilsm:
You are a pretty intelligent commenter here and on other sites where I have read you. This is not typical for you.
Hey ilsm,
Disregarding al there wherefroms and why-to’s and how-it-came-to-be’s, you ought to be aware that if you were to fall into the hands of the Taliban — or your mother — they would be thrilled to put you in a cage, pour gas all over you and set you afire, laughing at your screams and videotaping it to spread across the internet, alongside Trump’s pic.
American imperialist aims create enemies wherever we go, but sometimes there are groups who are a clear threat to the lives of any and all whom they declare their enemies: Christians, muslims,, jews; americans, Africans, arabs… Their hatred and violence is indiscriminate. You kill them or they kill you or others who are totally innocent of the slightest offense.
Bill, ilsm was obliquely explaining why a lot of us are more scared of Clinton than Trump…probably also explains why some of Mike’s friends, who were Obama voters, will now vote for Trump…
In the interest of informed debate I surfed myself on over to hillaryclinton.com to try to educate myself on what Madame Secretary has in her arsenal to get people to support her. I immediately found this helpful link https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/112-reasons-and-counting-hillary-clinton-should-be-our-next-president/ dating from Dec 2015. I figure at the very least this should amount to the strongest possible arguments, after all it’s on her website. Right on the top page. Paid for by her many supporters. Okay then.
And immediately realized (again) how doomed she is. For a campaign selling competence and leadership it’s a pretty big bag of nothing. Quite a lot of assertions without much prescriptive policy I could discern. Which reminds me a lot of her campaigning style on the stump. She has goals and aspirations aplenty; she “will work”, she’ll “empower”, and mentions a lot of things “we need” without saying much about what she’ll actually do.
There are some really amazing clunkers in there too that beg a general question of editing. Try number 69, conveniently displayed in bold type: “She knows what’s going on in Laos”. Is she telling us? Is this something we need? Or maybe just some kind of statement of things she knows, in case it comes up on Jeopardy! ?
Or maybe number 74 also emphasized with bold and a picture: “It’s time we had a grandmother-in-chief”. Really? Why is that? What do our military leaders think of this aspiration?
I can’t help thinking she’s trying to play on The Donald’s turf but without his manipulative media savvy mad skillz. He’s not selling policy either but has managed to convince a lot of GOP primary voters that he’s “our best hope,”. In the words of this anonymous NCO quoted in a Vice article, “He’s the most Reagan-esque candidate since Reagan. He’s got strength, he’s successful, he loves America and that’s why I’m for him.”
“As a leader in the military, you look for someone who’s strong—you look for someone who can make a fucking decision, and who do you see that in?” he adds. “You see that in Trump.” from http://www.vice.com/read/what-american-soldiers-are-saying-about-donald-trump
The entire trainwreck reminds me way too much of the catastrophe of the 2012 and 2014 midterms. “You can’t beat something with nothing” is how those elections were described which sounded pretty accurate to me.
And it ought to be a caution to certain people who think Trump’s supporters should be excluded, marginalized, ignored, and isolated. Because I strongly suspect it’s exactly those tendencies that put them at his rallies.
And while I acknowledge I disagree strongly with this anonymous NCO quoted above, we do agree on this: He is by far the most Reagan-esque candidate since Reagan. Who was also laughed at. Until he wasn’t.
Amateur Socialist,
Brother, I think comparisons of Trump to Reagan are really daft. Never mind the ideas Reagan had, at least there were ideas, some organized thought for what he presented, some ideological framework to point to — and argue against. And he was upfront about what he thought — none of this “there’s something going on” crap. And far, far more politically significant, he had abundant charm and humor which provided him with the power to disarm and not inflame his opposition. Reagan wasn’t a cheat or a fraudulent actor or an habitual liar or a hater or changed his mind from one day to the next without a moral or political compass
His ideology still pollutes the public sphere and holds an irrational power over the GOP, but at least he had one. Can one say of Trump that he has ideas, or charm, or a disarming sense of humor or respect for the truth or respect for others? Can one imagine Reagan dancing in self-congratulation after a mass killing? I can’t.
As per AS, Reagan was known as the Teflon Candidate. Trump has the same characteristics.
Also, Trump doesn’t need to sell policy. He is running as a non politician. And just as many rank and file Republicans were displeased with the Bush brand by 2008, many salt of the earth Democrats seem displeased with the Obama brand after 8 years. Romney may have been a weaker candidate than Hillary in terms of a built in voter base but he was smart enough to keep his distance from GW during the campaign. Hillary has not figured out not to run as Obama’s third term. Maybe it’s partly because she was an insider, but it is among the many things that scream lack of self awareness to a lot of people.
Ironically it is the mirror image of the problem Al Gore had, which is choosing to distance himself from what was then a well regarded sitting president, and one beloved within his own party.
MS 57 I guess your mileage varies as they say. I was 24 years old in 84 and was shocked at how pitifully the Democratic party managed to engage Reagan’s “morning in america” pageant. My argument about his electability is (STILL!) not about ideology. Or governing philosophy. Or (sorry to say) policies. Like Saint Ronnie he knows how to sell a story. To people who want to hear one.
And I will just turn your challenge around. Try my experiment. Go look at HRC’s website. Do you see ideas there? Ones that can be easily articulated to people who “want strength”? Who are looking for “someone who can make a F’n decision?” I didn’t. I honestly wanted to.
And Mike K we agree – the biggest (self made) problem HRC has is her insistence on aligning the campaign with the Obama administration.
Which doesn’t look like it is trying to get more popular. E.g. his continued willingness to flog the disastrous TPP. I guess the latest plan is to sneak it in on the lame duck session. God help us.
Amateur Socialist,
Yeah, I was 27 in ’84, and likewise overwhelmed by the DP’s impotence, which I don’t think was so much an extraordinary impotence as it was an emasculation accomplished by Reagan — a sign of his true political skill and dominance of the day, and the ensuing generation.
I think you have to start with the stunning fact that 50% of the population “strongly dislikes” Clinton and 60% or more of the population “strongly dislikes” Trump. Welcome to American Democracy!
I will not dispute the fact that Trump’s supporters “want strength” or are looking for “someone who can make a f*****g decision,” like the NCO you quoted or referred to. Clinton can just write them off, just as Trump can write off probably the same percentage — who really knows the numbers?; it’s become harder and harder to think pollsters are getting accurate results — who would vote for Clinton if she shot someone down on 5th Avenue. That’s going to leave you with, let’s say, a middle 20%, which is about what presidential elections normally come down to. So, who will capture their vote?
I think opinions for or about Trump are in many ways already set in stone. It is inconceivable to me that he is going to attract any more of that middle 20%; in fact it’s far more conceivable, far more probable that they will become more and more turned off by him. The middle 20% are not intellectuals or ideologues; they are reasonable, sensible, practical: they voted for Obama twice, whose faults may be many to some, but he exemplifies caution and intelligence and practicality. These folks may watch The Apprentice, but when they turn the TV off they realize it’s just TV.
Trump offends. Just to stretch the metaphor a bit, these folks are turned off by an attitude or persona who’s trademark phrase is “You’re Fired.” What real hope does he offer? What passes for thought or careful consideration about what he will do for others? In his universe, others don’t exist. There is only The Donald. Those in the middle 20% perceive this every bit as much as the GOP donor class, the Foreign Policy establishment, the “lamestream media” and moderates, who still exist even if they have been excommunicated from the GOP.
And the campaign hasn’t even begun yet, i.e., the fullness of Trump’s rudeness hasn’t reappeared. I do not believe he will attract people who still have some regard for manners, for being polite and moderate rather than crass, rude and selfish. It’s as much aesthetics as anything else — who wants to listen to this lying blowhard attacking everyone for 4 years? It’s just not how they see a President behaving.
I’m not one to defend Clinton. But I see Trump as an existential threat to the Constitutional order of the country — in much the same way Reagan proved to be in Iran Contra. No, I’m voting against Trump, not for Clinton. I live in upstate NY. Wherever I’ve lived in the last 30 years the outcomes of the elections were always predictable. But I’m going to make sure and vote this year against this scumbag — not for her, against him.
I’ll type it out again more slowly for the people in the back.
You can’t beat something with nothing.
And no, “My god not Trump” isn’t something. It’s less than something. In that it’s a not-something. Nor is “Obama 2008 but with with xx chromosome flavored identity politics” something. Not in 2016.
I agree with you. Trump is awful. And will be awful for the country. Like Reagan was.
The reason The Donald is dangerous and sorry to disagree but quite probably very electable is because like Reagan he knows how to sell a story. Even an ugly hateful one.
Reagan also knew the value of a well timed television lie that the media had no interest or capability to debunk.
Amateur Socialist,
You can’t beat something with nothing, but you can win if he beats himself.
Ok then. I guess we’ll count on that. Or hope for it. Something.
And the great thing about him blowing his own campaign is that it will be covered. Very well covered. Everywhere. Worldwide.
and that is no small thing, brother. authoritarians around the world will find no comfort from these democratic elections… that’s no small thing… we may not elect the best but we cede no ground to neo-fascist swine…cheers, hermano…
Sure sure. And not to undermine the overall triumphalist flavor of “it can’t happen here” etc… But please consider thoughtfully and carefully 2 small but important possibilities:
1> A small but significant number of Trump supporters refuse to acknowledge their support in polls. Or are embarrassed to admit it. Whatever. There is some evidence for that in that Atlantic piece a few weeks ago interviewing the 22 year old Trump supporter.
2> A replay of the 92 election dynamic wherein the winner claims a plurality but not a majority of the popular vote. But this time with widespread disgust of DNC/RNC registering with Libs/Greens instead of Perotistas.
You only need about 5-10% effect of 1 or 2 (and I can’t help thinking both will play out in some way) in just a few states before things get pretty bad for Madame Secretary’s inaugural. Just in case you wanted to get comfortable with his dismal unfavorables etc.
Put another way, what if the question isn’t whether or not “Trump Offends” but whether or not Hillary inspires?
Amateur Socialist,
Well, truth be told, she doesn’t inspire many while he offends a ton. As I said, welcome to America. The interesting thing about that is, like negative campaigning, which people always complain about but research shows it works, a growing realization of how dark this guy is will motivate a lot of people to vote against him. And I don’t see a damn thing he can say or do to rally any more support than he already has. I think in fact the opposite will happen, that folks will rally more and more against him. When a Meg Whitman, for example, who ran Romney’s finances in ’12, openly compares him to Hitler and Mussolini, it’s a very bad sign.
This guy won @ 12 million votes in the primary. Romney lost the election with @ 56 million. How in the hell does Trump get to 57?
The point about the polls not representing all his supporters is well taken, and hard to know. I suspect it’s truer than we think.
The problem with comparisons to ’92 of course is the lack of a third party candidate who’s polling above 10%, like Perot did.
Run,
On using the “R” word, both Obama and the Fox press are tossing red herrings away from the wretched state of US hegemony.
Body count don’t work. Body count by drone don’t contribute to ends.
MS,
Google what a hellfire missile does to an automobile or a house. It happening to me slower with gasoline is kharma. It happening to a Taliban is nearly senseless.
Does it feel good to see some Taliban leader immolated?
I just know a better you as a commenter.
ilsm
i think i hear you.
but look around… has there been a president, or leader of any country, since Bomber Harris was turned loose on German cities, who would hesitate to immolate innocent people for political purposes?
Ilsm,
“‘God is great,'” the Taliban militants shouted as they roared through the hallways of a school in Peshawar, Pakistan.
Then, 14-year-old student Ahmed Faraz recalled, one of them took a harsher tone.
” ‘A lot of the children are under the benches,’ ” a Pakistani Taliban said, according to Ahmed. ” ‘Kill them.’ ”
By the time the hours-long siege at Army Public School and Degree College ended early Tuesday evening, at least 145 people — 132 children, 10 school staff members and three soldiers — were dead, military spokesman Gen. Asim Bajwa.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/world/asia/pakistan-peshawar-school-attack/index.html
“They are the Pakistani version of the Taliban — and they too have had New York City in their sites.
Tehreek-e-Taliban, or TTP, the murderous militant group that massacred more than 130 children at a Peshawar school Tuesday, dispatched a Pakistani-American named Faisal Shahzad to bomb Times Square in 2010.
Cops found enough fuel, fertilizer and explosives to ignite a massive fireball and kill scores of people.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pakistan-talibans-killed-130-kids-bomb-nyc-article-1.2047480
(CNSNews.com) (2014) – The Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) slaughtered about 700 Turkmen civilians last month, including “children, women, and old people,” United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) Iraq chief Marzio Babille told Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA).
Navi Pillay, the UN’s high commissioner for human rights, warned of the increasingly desperate plight of thousands of Turkmen who have been under seige for two months in the village of Amerli, which is located about 110 miles northwest of Baghdad.
In a statement released Monday the UN reported that “at least 13,000 members of the Shia Turkmen community in Amirli in Salah al-Din Governorate, among them 10,000 women and children, have been besieged by ISIL and associated armed groups since 15 June. Residents are enduring harsh living conditions with severe food and water shortages, and a complete absence of medical services – and there are fears of a possible imminent massacre.”
“Such cold-blooded, systematic and intentional killings of civilians, after singling them out for their religious affiliation may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity,” the UN high commissioner said.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/un-isis-massacred-700-turkmen-including-women-children-elderly
By June 2014, according to United Nations reports, ISIL had killed hundreds of prisoners of war and over 1,000 civilians. Specific incidents involving the killing of military prisoners including the mass killing of up to 250 Syrian Army soldiers near Tabqa Air base, and killings that took place in Camp Speicher (1,095–1,700 Iraqi soldiers shot and “thousands” more “missing”) and the Shaer gas field (200 Syrian soldiers shot). ISIL was reported to have beheaded about 100 foreign fighters as deserters who tried to leave Raqqa.
ISIS has tortured and murdered local journalists… ISIL fighters have reportedly been given written directions to kill or capture journalists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_captives_by_ISIL
On the evening of 13 November 2015, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks occurred in Paris, France and the city’s northern suburb, Saint-Denis. Beginning at 21:20 CET, three suicide bombers struck near the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, followed by suicide bombings and mass shootings at cafés, restaurants and a music venue in central Paris.
The attackers killed 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan theatre, where they took hostages before engaging in a stand-off with police. Another 368 people were injured, 80–99 seriously… The attacks were the deadliest on France since World War II, and the deadliest in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004. France had been on high alert since the January 2015 attacks on Charlie Hebdo offices and a Jewish supermarket in Paris that killed 17 people and wounded 22, including civilians and police officers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
It’s one thing for the military to fire a Hellfire missile at what they think are military targets. It’s another thing to purposely target women, children and the old.
In the face of the existence and aims of these people you can do one of 3 things: ignore them, attack them from the air or put troops in the field. Which do you prefer? If you were a Turkmen merchant, or a Shia practitioner, or the parent of a murdered Pakistani school kid, or the wife of a sidewalk vendor killed by a bomb in Times Square, what would you do?
Well if you are in a Huey with an M60 and strapped in while hanging out the door, you just don’t lead the women and children as much as the men. Ain’t war hell? A few of us have been . . . .
Coberly,
The first city bombed in WWII was Warsaw, flattened by the Nazis. The second major city was Rotterdam, flattened by the Nazis. The third was London. What do you think Bomber Harris should have done?
i suppose you could argue that the first city bombed in WW2 was Guernica, but are you seriously arguing that we should set our moral standards by Hitler’s?
According to the history’s I have read the Bomber Harris bombing of cities had no effect on ending the war. He should have sent his bombers to protect convoys from submarines.
note “cities” is not “war plants.”
and in any case i said “no leader has refrained from bombing innocents for political purposes.” whether or not Hitler “started it” (I have heard contrary claims) has nothing to do with the fact that “no leader has refrained…”
and what does ISIL does it have to do with the wisdom of our doing it. we are alienating the whole islamic world for the pleasure of killing a few bad guys and the “less than 30” innocent people who are “acceptable collateral damage.”
that’s not the way George Washington won the war. It is the way Banastre Tarleton lost it.
Coberly,
Of course we ought not set our moral standards by those of Hitler. But to mention Bomber Harris’s carpet bombing campaign, which was next to useless, without enclosing it in the context of WWII, when all of Europe was aflame and half of Asia, is to shave history a little too close for comfort. By the time he put his plans into effect morality was of little use to anybody. There was only winning, which meant defeating the Nazis at all costs. The avowed intent by all parties in that war, all of whom engaged in bombing civilians, was to terrorize the civilian populations into surrender, which had the exact opposite results everywhere.
The wisdom of our doing it, which is really not wisdom but necessity, is to stop ISIL from doing what they’re doing. To say that “no leader has refrained from bombing innocents for political purposes” is to imply that Obama does bomb innocents for political purposes, which really is to go too far.
Disregarding Tricky Dick and Hank the Crank in Vietnam, and W and his boys in Iraq – all of whom ought to be subject to war crimes tribunals (particularly the latter clique) – there is sound judgment and a moral basis to defeat the murderous ISIL, namely, to keep them out of your town and to save tens of thousands of innocents from their rampages. There are plenty of Muslims in that region who would be very happy to live long enough to see them defeated once and for all, which is particularly true for all Shia Muslims, who are the primary targets of ISIL.
“This guy won @ 12 million votes in the primary. Romney lost the election with @ 56 million. How in the hell does Trump get to 57?”
Simple he did not belong to Bains Capital or in Clinton’s case support unfair trade deals or help destroy the social safety net.
ms
you are reading too much into what i said. i said “no leader has refrained….”
that’s all i meant.
you, yourself, say that terror bombing is counterproductive. i do not know enough (eye of god) to know who to “blame” for the bombing in WW2. i just a read a pretty convincing account that the bombers would have done a lot more good protecting convoys.
and i don’t know if obama is shooting only bad guys. that’s not what i have been hearing. i personally believe… and i am far, far from being an expert… that you can’t win a war without boots on the ground.
and i don’t think killing the ISIL and Taliban leaders is doing as much good for us as harm.
but that’s only opinion, and i don’t worship my own opinion.
Coberly,
We’re cool.
No, the bombing in WWII was terribly ineffective, primarily due to technology: navigation was shaky, bomb sights were lousy, etc. Even in Vietnam it wasn’t particularly effective. It was always just a lousy tool to defeat someone. Even now – they’ve flown somewhere around 30,000 sorties by now against ISIL, which one might imagine would have defeated anyone by now, but obviously hasn’t. And the point about ground troops is well taken. But Obama has been pretty insistent that the ground troops would have to come from the Iraqis and Kurds and wouldn’t be ours. He has resisted a lot of pressure from the military establishment so as not to commit Americans, a stance I’m not sure Clinton would take. In exchange, though, has been a very large campaign from the air. They’ve gone after oil infrastructure and transportation. They’ve hit warehouses where ISIL has stored their money, with the effect that salaries have been cut leading to a lot of internal pressure. Commanders are no longer comfortable travelling from Iraq to Syria because so many of them were getting killed. And they’ve supported the Kurds and Iraqis in taking back ground/cities that ISIL took just a few years ago.
The drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere do piss off a lot of people and has tended to make more enemies than friends, but those have been directed mainly at Al-Qaeda and their offshoots and at the Taliban. They do kill a lot of innocent people, but they get a lot of these people, too, none of whom have anything but the most malevolent desires for you and me. But ISIL is a truly murderous bunch. I am by no means a militarist but sometimes – fairly rarely actually, which never seems to stop us – there are legitimate enemies, and I think ISIL is one.
Cheers, brother.
MS,
Injudiciously, US executing evil doers from 20000 ft, controlled 8000 miles away.
Bombing don’t work against small units, unless you send in foot soldiers to kill them and hold the ground. It don’t work against whole countries unless you send in foot troops to kill them and hold the ground. ISIL targets are expensive body count, body count is a metric it has proved to be wrong strategy in each application.
US bombing in Southeast Asia from 1963 to 1975 was pointless and it had better everything including more tonnage than WW II.
The bombing since 2003 has been even less effective and targeting, control and mission planning are at gigabit speed.
Bombing is a tactic and it don’t work if in a vacuum like every bombing campaign since and including WW II.
The US paid for strategic bombing with 20,000 fewer and lesser tanks, the Germans diverted a 1000 88 mm guns and several thousand lower quintile soldiers for air defenses, and a few fighters which could do other things when off bomber patrol.
WW II US paid a huge opportunity cost, while the Germans and Japanese devoted relatively little.
While factory output was scarcely more expensive.
Bomber Harris would have been hanged for war crimes, along with Lemay and Arnold.
Coberly,
More broadly I can think of no president since Lincoln who came slightly close to running a just war, but he blew it by letting Sherman and Sheridan loose.
The last war that came even remotely close to meeting St Augustine’s definition of just war was the abolitionist motives of the US Civil War.
Bombing cities is evil, RAND got paid a lot to call it “counter value”, that is take out the economy which is immoral making innocents suffer.
Anyone who bombs economic targets violates several issues that make a war “just”.
I suggest Rapaport’s answer to Schilling et al on nuclear wa and game theoryr.
ilsm:
Like I said, I know a much better commenter named ilsm.
I don’t like ISIL much either.
but i am afraid our Afghan and Iraqi friends may be as useful to our interests as our Vietnamese friends were.
otherwise i have no quarrel with what you say.
Ilsm
at the risk of sounding self contradictory, I agree with you too.
Even about Lincoln, though it pains me. From what I have read Lincoln was morally above my pay grade going into the Civil War (I wouldn’t have done it. He thought freeing the slaves and preserving the Union was morally more important than the horror of war was bad.
I think he paid for his choice. Look at the pictures of him. That is a man in deep moral pain. I don’t think Lincoln quite undertsood the cost of war when he started. He did by the end. I think he would have wanted to make the same decision anyway if he had it to do over. But it would have been much, much harder for him.
Of course they aren’t friends any more than the South Vietnamese were but they are essential to any ground action if there is to be ground action. There is no way American ground troops in sufficient number and for a sufficient period of time are going to be utilized. The underlying political and religious divisions in the area dictate that as was amply demonstrated in Iraq. The only alternative is to simply step out and let what will be be. I doubt there is real support for that.
Cob,
I am re-reading Sherman’s memoirs. He was called insane after he said the western army needed 200000 soldiers. Sherman learned a lot at Shiloh about the horrors of war and how bad it would be by the time the rebellion was squashed. Grant was on the same line.
While early on Halleck, Mc Clellan, etc. thought a ‘few battles and done’…….
ism:
Slow-trot Thomas was a pretty good general also.
ilsm
can you tell us more about Rapaport and Schilling.
Run,
Sorry to disappoint.
Trump has no experience with organized murder. Which puts him far ahead of his adversaries.
Obama is same as W, LBJ, Truman, Wilson and Bill Clinton. Hillary would be worse than W.
All morally reprehensible.
When Obama infers “we will make them hate US more by calling them radical jihadists’ he is nuts, unpresidential.
Ilsm:
Just write in plain English.
re sherman
i want to like him because he was a better general than the others (except for Grant and maybe Thomas)
but he was not a kind man.
thing about Generals is, they are hired killers. if you need one, you need the best. but you still don’t want them making the rules.
I was wrong on spelling
See wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling
A couple of books on strategy. Game theory with doomsday machines. He did a short stint at RAND in early 50’s.
Anatol Rapoprt argued with the logic and mathematics behind game theory as well as the immorality of nuclear war. Labeled a pacifist!
Cob,
I sometimes think it is not moral to study war at all.
I would add Sheridan to the Union list.
A general has to be a killer and has to accept loses in the army he trained to get the goal, as Sharra Sr portrayed Lee in Killer Angels.
On the other side Lee, Jackson, AP Hill were killers.
ilsm
i sometimes think that too. but in my life i have met many bad people. and i have to assume there are bad people in other countries too, who will study war.
and come and kill you if they think they can.
leaves us with the problem of telling when and who, and how much to study to defend ourselves… and of course to guard the guardians.
i was very happy when i had Fella and Pepper and Crazy Eddie to walk with me through the Valley. They were homicidal maniacs but they were on my side and never killed anyone without permission.
Now, of course, everyone has a big killer dog they got for the purpose. My guys were just friends i met along the way. It’s a difference of attitude.
Finally, the first direct evidence of how Trump the tyrant in waiting would govern — and why he is sunk:
From a rally in Atlanta yesterday:
“‘You know the Republicans, honestly folks, our leaders, our leaders have to get tougher,’ he said. ‘This is too tough to do it alone, but you know what? I think I’m going to be forced to. I think I’m going to be forced to. Our leaders have to get a lot tougher. …And be quiet. Just please be quiet. Don’t talk. Please be quiet. Just be quiet to the leaders because they have to get tougher, they have to get sharper, they have to get smarter.’
For all my concern about his ability to win this I admit this first hand account of a rally makes the campaign sound completely inept. https://storify.com/tressiemcphd/that-time-i-went-to-a-trump-rally
Maybe it is just a vanity and megalomania thing. Or some collusion with the Clintons. It doesn’t sound like a campaign that is going to close the gap in the next 4 months.
What we have here is a vast wasteland.
” Or some collusion with the Clintons.”
Another ten thousand brain cells gone……
Charles Pierce weighs in on whether or not he is trying to win here: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a45882/trump-tv-network/
Trump TV! Hyooge!
I have to admit on reading the referenced Vanity Post article this seems more ingenious than egotistical.
If people will watch Trump TV you can probably sell them just about anything. Trump University was chicken feed compared to the potential of this. And obviously some people will.
yesterday CIA director John Brennan explained something that i had been thinking about trying to explain on this thread but never got back to…
CIA Chief Just Confirmed “War on Terror” Has Created A Lot More Terrorists —
Yes.
In the case of assisting Lybia, and if we had assisted the anti-Assad forces in Syria early on, though, I don’t think that would have been the case, because I think most religious Islamists viewed us in Lybia, and would have viewed us back then in Syria as assisting the good guys.
Now, though, we’re using drones to kill civilians in Syria, albeit accidentally. And if we had stayed in Iraq, as McCain says we should have, that surely would have been an ongoing recruiting tool for ISIS and the other groups, as it was when we were still there.
Which is one reason why McCain’s claim yesterday was so wacky. There were other reasons, too, of course.