Meanwhile, outside the boat in dangerous, scary places:
Well, there must be a reason why the GOP hasn’t done this rather than the current strategy of “We won’t take any responsibility for this Iran deal whatsoever but we’re specifically not going to stop it and in fact we’ll basically make sure we can’t do so” but I haven’t figured out what it is yet.
In fact, by getting rid of the filibuster, the GOP-controlled Senate could make things extremely difficult for President Obama and force him to veto all kinds of things, but for some reason they haven’t decided to go this route.
It’s almost like they don’t want to do that.
Mike J
It’s not the filibuster that is keeping the deal alive. It’s the fact that the constitution says a 2/3rds majority is required to override a veto.
Eric U.
seems like it would be pretty easy to rile up Democratic voters. Although Democratic voters tend to turn out in presidential years anyway
ShadeTail
Yup. What most folks don’t bother to think of is that the wheel turns. Sooner or later the GOP will be back in the minority, and they’ll want the filibuster when they are. And unlike the short-sighted folks like Geraghty and his ilk, Senate Repubs realize that. So they’ll bloviate and take the opportunity to throw red meat to their rabid base, but they’ll never actually pull the trigger.
I really wish I was wrong about this. I want to see the filibuster zapped and done away with, and I don’t care who controls the chamber at the time. Let America have the government they voted for. That’s what democracy is all about.
debbie
Yes, of course, playing more politics is clearly the answer to this problem.
Derelict
Perhaps they’ve found that governing via hissy fit was not doing them any favors outside of well-gerrymandered districts?
Oatler.
Chuck Todd likes the cut of his jib.Get that Geraghty fellow on the show, stat!
Cervantes
If I may paraphrase someone:
Derelict
@Oatler.: Todd does have a responsibility to give air time to representatives of all views from the Right to the Extreme Far Right.
Brachiator
@ShadeTail:
Well, no. That’s why we have checks and balances, and vetoes, and votes that require 2/3 majorities instead of just simple majorities.
That said, the Iran deal is going to be a campaign issue. I look forward to it, as well as Trump level stupidity from whoever survives GOP Presidential Apprentice.
schrodinger's cat
They want to cause the maximum damage by taking on minimum responsibility. Abolishing filibuster is taking responsibility, which they are loathe to do.
kindness
What is considered to be ‘serious’ these days is nuts. I am so glad I’m not that author’s neighbor.
Gin & Tonic
Anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that the US is only one of six parties to this deal, and if the Congress manages to veto it, everybody else says “too bad, so sad” and goes on to make money. Wonder how the business wing of the GOP feels about that.
MazeDancer
The GOP doesn’t like to do things, they like to rant about things.
Ranting works for their MSM co-conspirators because it creates profit-raising clickbait. Ranting is what members of Congress “do” now. It’s their daily job.
Ranting is powerful stuff that gets instant reward on the TV. Doing requires actual taking responsibility and being held accountable. There is no upside in that. Especially on the TV.
The risk to not ranting enough is 1) not enough free TV time and 2) possible rant by election opponents that you didn’t rant enough against something.
The risk to ranting is zero. The risk to doing is high.
The National Review has a bit of ancient holdover of the theory that Congress is for governing and, thus, doing. But they support blocking stuff. Blocking is ranting that pretends to be governing.
SP
Congressional procedure, how the f*** does it work?
Congress already passed the proposal that the deal is approved unless they pass a measure of disapproval. For that disapproval to pass, they need to override Obummer’s veto.
Ok, Jimmy says, let’s pass something reversing that earlier framework. Oops, passing that also requires O’s signature or overcoming a veto.
How the hell does a guy keep his job as a political commentator when he doesn’t know the first thing about the basic mechanics of politics? I mean, forget policy expertise or understanding the issues being debated- this is simple counting and logic and knowing the basic structure of our government.
CONGRATULATIONS!
If I didn’t know better I’d think these people were idiots. But they know the truth: this isn’t a treaty between the US and Iran, therefore there’d be nothing to vote on. So none of this filibuster or veto shit matters.
It’s an agreement between the United Nations and Iran, and even if the US backs out the other five nations will still have a treaty in place, and life will go on for everyone except the children playing at being adults in the US Congress.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Also, since the GOP stands a better than even chance of losing the Senate this cycle (the House is lost to us for a long time) they’re not going to give up the only weapon they have. Sixty votes or nothing, no “upperdown” votes, same as it’s been for almost 20 years.
dedc79
Read Geraghty’s post (and the comments) on the Administration’s order renaming Mt. McKinley if you find yourself in need of a laugh.
BGinCHI
Just under 30% of the country is 150% nuts.
D58826
@Gin & Tonic: Well in 1999 when he was CEO of Halliburton, Dark Vader (i,e Chaney) was opposed to the sanctions because it prevented US companies from doing business with Iran. Of course that was then and even Bill; Clinton was better than the Kenyan Muslim facist communist usuper
Calouste
Just reading about Chris Christie’s plan to track people who come into the country like FedEx packages. That’s going to do wonders for the American tourism industry. And the conference industry. And business travel in general.
D58826
@dedc79: I must say that Kenyan sure has a way of getting under the skin of the real Murkins. Have the folks at Faux news taken Hemlock yet in sorrow at what the Kenyan has done?
Brachiator
@Calouste:
What, he wants to drive foreigners around in a truck, and then throw them onto the ground and drive away, denying any damage?
dedc79
@D58826: I don’t/won’t watch that network, but I can say with near 100% assurance that they are apoplectic over this.
Robert M.
@Brachiator:
Uh, should this seem implausible to me?
D58826
So some GOOPER claims that the citizens of Ohio have been insulted by Obama’s restoring Mt. McKinley to its original name – Denali. Couple of things. It’s not Ohio’s mountain. Since the GOOPERS are firm believers in states rights then they should let the citizens of Alaska chose the name, after all it’s Alaska’s mountain. The mountain was called Denali when the ancestors of the good folks in Ohio were still living in Europe It’s also, according to the GOOPER a constitutional overreach by Obama. Odd, I don’t remember seeing anything about naming mountains in my copy of the constitution. An last but not least I wonder how many of the good citizens of Ohio even know that the mountain exists let along how it was named by a gold prospector in the late 1890’s.
Germy Shoemangler
What is Trump’s Endgame?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/what-is-the-trump-endgame.html
Betty Cracker
The cynic in me suspects that if PBO proposes something that genuinely interferes with the upward transfer of national wealth, the Republicans will make an all-out effort to gum up the works (see ACA). Otherwise, it’s all kabuki.
Germy Shoemangler
@Brachiator: The thing I love most about Trump and his bullshit ideas is how he’s forcing the other klown kar folks to intensify their positions. So we have Christie tagging furriners with barcodes so we can track them.
Let your freak flags fly, mutherfuckers! Keep trying to out-trump Trump…
Ruckus
@Robert M.:
No it shouldn’t.
Why would you ask a question about any one of the 17 that would have such a simple answer. They don’t care about anything other than getting in power. They don’t care about you, me or the people that might vote for them. Only about the votes. They don’t care about doing any kind of job if they manage to get it. OK maybe destroy it, but nothing positive, which in their upside down, inside out world, destroying is positive. Not one of the 17 is more mature than a 15 yr old, they want what they want (or are being paid to want) regardless of what the results are or what damage they do.
Chyron HR
Aw, come on. It’s not like they’re writing NYT editorials entitled “Use America’s Nukes to Stop Iran’s Nukes”. You know, yet.
Mike J
@Germy Shoemangler:
Zach Floyd @floyding 1d1 day ago
I want Trump to start claiming things like he’s eaten 1,000 bees in his life so we can see Scott Walker try to eat a bunch of bees.
Patrick
@D58826:
Insulted, eh? Just like people of Alaska were insulted when they named it after some guy in Ohio. Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski applauded the name change. Hell, while we are at it, maybe we should name something in Ohio after some person in Alaska.
boatboy_srq
I’m just glad somebody reads National Spew so I don’t have to…
Jeffro
@Germy Shoemangler: I read that article and had chills…unfortunately, not the good kind. I don’t think the author’s right about either road leading to a Trump 3rd-party candidacy: I think it’s much more likely that Trump comes up short, then threatens to split the party unless a) the party gives the nod to a non-Bush candidate, and b) that candidate must essentially pledge fealty to the Trump Way (particularly in regards to immigration).
Here’s why I got the chills…who’s the most simpatico with The Donald these days, able to take that support from the base and run with it while fully embracing Trump’s nonsensical, demagogical approach to, well, everything?
D58826
@Patrick: Hmmm isn’t there a river in Ohio that keeps catching fire? How about renaming it River Palin?
redshirt
@Gin & Tonic:
It’s amazing, but the Republicans aren’t even pro-business anymore. It’s objectively true they’ve done everything possible to sink the American economy since 2009. Incredible.
Mike in NC
Jim Geraghty: Morning Dolt
lol
@Brachiator:
The makeup of the Senate by itself is already a huge check on things. The filibuster just makes the bar even more difficult to clear for progress.
Between the Senate, the filibuster, registration and turnout, just 5.3 million people can elect Senators who will grind this country to a complete halt.
The real problem with the filibuster is that it obscures responsibility. How many Democrats blamed Obama and Harry Reid for not passing everything they wanted in 09-10? People legitimately don’t get that you need 60 votes to pass anything. It also doesn’t help that the media will report 59 Democrats voting for a bill as “Democrats fail to pass bill”.
scav
@Robert M.: Well, the denying any damage was done to those thrown off the truck stikes me as improbable. The Baying Bashers are more likely to be beating their chests in flag- and culture-waving pride over the bloodied bodies
Bill in Section 147
Conservative Ideas
How come the most complex issues of any time period, in any field of endeavor, some of which require not only experience but also actual specific training and years of research…how come these can always be solved by, “A simple proposal…”
All those Senators. All those years. And. It. Never. Crossed. Their. Mind. That “A simple proposal… and then a miracle occurred.”
It is like a Three Stooges skit, Larry [concerned]: “Give me one good reason.” Moe [while holding up his hand and counting down his fingers till he makes a fist]: “One! I’ll give you five good reasons.” Larry [cringing] “I see your point.”
Brachiator
@Germy Shoemangler:
Yeppity yep. I heard a couple of pundits opine (worry, whine, pearl clutch) that Trump was pushing the GOP further to the extreme, and that it might be harder for the eventual nominee (Bush, Rubio) to do that pivot to the middle dance that the GOP supposedly always does. The interviewer even found a Latino Republican pundit assert that all would be well, and that the eventual GOP nominee (Bush, Rubio) would be able to disavow Trump, appease Latinos and win the national election.
I love it that Trump is dominating the GOP conversation and making the other candidates grasp to look stronger, tougher, and more intolerant than the official GOP stance on immigration. For now, this clearly causes more problems for the GOP than for the nation as a whole. But I also have to note that this craziness is volatile and can have all kinds of unintended consequences.
burnspbesq
@Germy Shoemangler:
Chait is assuming a fact not in evidence when he says “sooner or later — probably later — Trump will come to grips with the reality that he cannot win the Republican nomination. ” All the polling data with which I am familiar suggest that Trump really could win the nomination.
moderateindy
I think I liked this Jim Gigatty fellow more when he was on that Family Guy show
MattF
@redshirt: There’s actually been some media attention this morning to Trump’s heretical statements that it’s time to raise taxes on the wealthy. The funniest winger comments in the WaPo article came from Stephen Moore, a ‘conservative’ ‘economist’ who is the co-founder of an ‘organization’ called “The Committee to Unleash Prosperity.”
MattF
@burnspbesq: Maybe. But Noot Gingrich agrees with you, which should give you pause.
D58826
You know Obama is one smart dude. He knew he would never get a second stimulus passed so as part of his jobs creation effort he throws out these little tidbits once or twice a week. They provide an endless supply of jobs to the ‘outrage industry’ which employs people who other wise would be living in their Mom’s basement after the flunked out of Hamburger flipping school at Mikey D’s. And it doesn’t cost the taxpayer one cent
Truly one smart dude.
BruceFromOhio
@MazeDancer: Was about to pen up a version of this, yours is better. THIS.
@D58826: See also McKinley, Mt.
Calouste
@burnspbesq: The question that should be asked of everyone who says that Trump can’t win the nomination, is who is going to win it instead? Bush is polling below 10% at the moment, behind Carson.
IMO it is not unlikely that the non-Trump vote will be split many ways for a while due to the setup of the primaries (proportional for about the first half), and that it doesn’t look like there will be a clear leader in the non-Trump field, so no reason for other candidates to drop out.
Comparing Trump to the 2012 flavor-of-the-month crazies is not really valid, because Romney never polled much below 20%.
japa21
Everbody talks about the craziness of the GOP candidiates. Actually they are not the cazy ones. The crazy ones are the GOP voters (and don’t tell me it is just the base). The candidates are just doing what they think it will take to win the nomination.
The fact that none of them is even approaching sanity in their approach and proposals tells me that they know that the portion of the GOP voters that would respond postively to that is so low that they don’t matter any more.
What this says about a sizable portion of the American electorate is far more dismal than the quality of the GOP candidates.
Germy Shoemangler
Onion headline:
Trump Unable To Produce Certificate Proving He’s Not A Festering Pile Of Shit
BruceFromOhio
@Mike J:
Dude, I am LMAO over this, and am so stealing it.
Amir Khalid
@burnspbesq:
I concur. Trump has won out in the polls, again and again, where he was expected to lose. Every stupid or racist thing he’s said, every time he squares off against Fox News. Who dares predict his peak now? Now he has a real shot of winning the nomination outright, unless his support vanishes during the primaries. I wonder how well equipped this strange new Republican party is to deal with a rogue nominee.
Germy Shoemangler
trump, watch and learn: Here’s how you talk to women.
MattF
@Germy Shoemangler: ?
ETA: This emoji could come in handy over the next year or so.
Punchy
@Patrick: NFL Hall of Fame Sponsored by Concussions and Sarah Palin?
catclub
@Gin & Tonic:
So maybe two of their 17 candidates?
MattF
@catclub: If they combine their resources.
gus
@boatboy_srq: Since Trump began to dominate the Republican race and news of it, I’ve been reading NR regularly. In fact, I’ve spent a good deal of time in the dumpster fire that is the NR comments. It’s like spending time in an alternate universe. There was an argument in some article that I read today over whether Obama was a Marxist or simply a socialist. Plus people are arguing like cats and dogs about RINOs and Trump, whether Trump is a RINO, etc. Lots of people saying that Trump is better than the GOPe (that’s GOP “elite” candidates for you not in the know), because they promise and promise but never deliver. From a sociological perspective I find it entertaining as long as I manage to keep an intellectual distance.
Mark B.
The Republicans have decided to embrace impotent rage as a political philosophy. Not only does it get the base really excited, it is very low risk. Since, by definition, it accomplishes nothing, it can never disappoint anyone.
gex
@redshirt: Yep. If they shrink the pie but get more than they would have from the larger pie, they don’t really care that they shrunk the pie. In fact, I think the pain that causes for those at the bottom makes them quite happy.
NonyNony
@SP:
Yup – Vox had an explainer about this one months ago when they, you know, passed the law that added all of this rigamarole in the first place.
I don’t want to click the link, but does Geraghty go into exactly how the Senate could pass a law declaring this to be “a treaty” when that would clearly require Obama to sign off on it? Does he think that the Senate has magic powers or something?
Ah – you are confused. His job isn’t “political commentator”. It’s “outrage generator”. His job is to throw up squid clouds of nonsense to make people who read him even madder than they already are.
Face
If true, this revelation will likely cause at least 7 Onion writers to start looking for bridges easy to jump from.
catclub
@japa21:
You could call that the ‘Huntsman fraction’, perhaps the ‘Huntsman scintilla’.
Germy Shoemangler
@Punchy:
http://screenrant.com/concussion-trailer-will-smith-2015/
Will Smith stars in Concussion as Dr. Bennet Omalu, an accomplished forensic neuropathologist who was the first to discover the existence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (or CTE): a disease of the brain found in athletes with a history of repetitive brain trauma. Omalu made the discovery after performing the autopsy of several deceased Pittsburg Steelers players, including Mike Webber.
It ain’t real until someone makes a movie about it. Then people start paying attention.
dedc79
How about an Oliver Sacks open thread?
I re-read his recent piece in the Times and was struck by this passage all over again:
Cervantes
@burnspbesq:
Chait says:
And as far as I can tell, the following is how he reaches that conclusion:
This may be wishful thinking, based on a misunderstanding of today’s Republican primary electorate — and I suspect you agree.
But then you say:
It’s possible, sure.
On the other hand, in 1987, say, (1) numerous polls strongly suggested that Gary Hart would be the Democratic nominee; he regularly came in at over 30% (Mario Cuomo regularly came in second at about 20%) — not to mention (2) other polls suggesting that Hart would beat Bush in the general by more than two to one.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Germy Shoemangler: Chait is full of shit. If Trump doesn’t drop out from boredom, he wins the nom. In a walk. I don’t see any way around it.
redshirt
Does Trump have any actual campaign infrastructure at all? State offices, canvassers, etc? I can’t imagine he does.
NonyNony
@Mike J:
If Trump were to start bragging about eating a thousand bees and Obama were to come out and speak about the dangers of eating bees, it’s possible that the entire GOP field save Trump would be taken out on account of massive bee stings to the mouth.
My only fear is that it would kill the bees.
Peale
@redshirt: yes
Germy Shoemangler
@redshirt: He doesn’t need that stuff. He’s a 21st century candidate. His fans are all excited and emailing each other; lighting up social media. They don’t care what balloon-juice has to say.
Another Holocene Human
@redshirt:
Don’t matter. Small business owners hate the n***** and the immigrant (ie: potential competition) more than they love upturns in the business cycle.
And some people obsess over “buy low” to the exclusion of “sell high”. I guess “making it up on volume” is too much work … so they dream of a good recession.
Another Holocene Human
@Amir Khalid: Did you see the graph over at LGM? Explains a lot. Just by laying into Wall Street alone, Trump carved out a space the other candidates can’t compete in.
DLew On Roids
Geraghty apparently believes that a Senate resolution is all that is required to determine a fact. If I were a senator, I’d use this opportunity to introduce a resolution declaring that Jim Geraghty is now named Seymour Butts.
This sort of thing is why I am not a US senator.
Another Holocene Human
@gus: That argument over what flavor of leftie you are is hilarious. A union friend of mine who is more intellectual than me tossed a book on the counter and said, “I’ve read this book already. This one is from the socialist perspective on the labor movement, the others were from a communist perspective. Just a matter of which banner you wave.”
We all know at one time the divisions in the Left mattered deeply (because Stalin) but from what I can see, a Marxist has “Professor” in front of their name, and all the other labels and parties and splinter groups are for regular peons. Just a matter of which bro-leftie cell was throwing the best party when you were choosing your political orientation.
Another Holocene Human
@gex: Oh! Should have read on before posting–you said it better and with less foul language.
Ruckus
@catclub:
Only if they rub the one working brain cell they each have to each other. But a mind meld of that level could set off, what, a puff of dust?
Another Holocene Human
@Face: T-CUP?
Another Holocene Human
@Cervantes: Given IOKIYAR, why would Monkey Business phase the Republican primary voter?
Matt McIrvin
@Germy Shoemangler:
I don’t love it. I don’t love it because it’s gradually bringing the idea of the ethnic cleansing of the United States into the political mainstream.
White supremacy in the US is in a race against time: before too long, this is going to be a “majority-minority” country, and everyone knows it. If you’re white, you can do two things with that information: if you’re not a racist, you can embrace the future and realize that these are Americans, who basically want the same things you do. Or if you are a racist, you can conclude that it can’t be allowed to happen. And if it’s a matter of electoral demographics, well, demographics can be changed.
For a while, that kind of talk was not something one said in polite company. People who favored it had to use euphemisms. But the euphemisms are falling away, and people of bigoted inclinations are convincing themselves to seriously contemplate things they might not have before.
It may not be 1930s Germany, but there are a lot of horrible things short of mass extermination that could happen in this country.
MattF
@Another Holocene Human: It is not an accident (as the Stalinists used to say) that wingers love to debate about the differences between leftist sects. Or that the founding fathers of modern right-wing extremism were mostly former Trotskyites. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky are their guiding lights, and poor old Bukharin was a faux-communist loser.
Bolshevism is an integral element of the winger political repertoire.
gex
@Another Holocene Human: I’ll have to work harder on the foul language!
redshirt
@Matt McIrvin: Your fears are well placed, but unfounded. Trump will not usher in an American NAZI regime.
And if he does? We deserve it.
Cervantes
@Another Holocene Human:
Sorry for the obscurity. Point was not that “Monkey Business [might faze] the Republican primary voter,” but rather that polls so far out can be misleading; even large leads can evaporate because virtually anything can still happen before the votes are counted.
Matt McIrvin
@redshirt: Maybe not Trump. Maybe the next guy after Trump, or the next one after that. Someone who can make it sound more respectable.
Jeffro
@Brachiator:
Like getting Ted Cruz a shot at the Veep slot…ugh…
redshirt
@Matt McIrvin: Maybe. But we’ve been spiraling down this hole since the John Birch society, while simultaneously making progress on civil rights, lgbt rights, etc.
It’s a war, and I think we’re winning.
Calouste
@redshirt: He does. There was an article in IIRC the WaPo about it about two weeks back. Trump has at least 10 paid staffers in Iowa, county chairs in most counties in New Hampshire. He had a bus driving around Iowa that attracted quite a lot of people and gave them information packages about how the caucuses work and how to get involved with them.
Face
@Germy Shoemangler: Who the fuck is Mike Webber? Do they mean Mike Webster?
Roger Moore
@Cervantes:
It wasn’t generic polling failure that sunk Gary Hart’s campaign, it was a sex scandal. So yes, there’s a possibility that something will come up and derail Trump’s campaign, but Gary Hart’s polling position in 1987 is not a good argument to ignore the polls today.
JoeShabadoo
@ShadeTail: I have to agree. You already need to have the president, the house and the senate vote to pass something. Giving the least democratic of these three even more power to the minority is just bad.
Germy Shoemangler
@Face: Webber/Webster… do you think Hollywood gives a fuck?
Just pay them and shut up.
SFAW
@Roger Moore:
Seconded.
And, I’d add that the old rule-of-thumb, i.e., being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, would no longer inflict polling damage of any significance on a Rethug front-runner. It would just be played as dirty tricks by the Demon-rats and Obummer, and they’d ignore it and move on.
Cervantes
@Roger Moore:
Yes, that was the point — and given Trump’s biography, I think the possibility is significant. Or rather, and perhaps you agree, it’s by far a better argument for skepticism about Trump’s chances than anything Chait came up with in that article.
Also: Are you sure the episode with Donna Rice was a sex scandal (as opposed to an appearance-of-sex scandal)?
SFAW
One wonders if Jim Geraghty is a pen name for Jim Hoft, and Hoft (as expected) wasn’t smart enough to come up with a pseudo significantly different from his real name.
SFAW
@Cervantes:
Po-TAY-toe, po-TAH-toe. In 1987, it would have been a distinction without a difference.
Cervantes
@SFAW:
The distinction was between guilty and not guilty — always a meaningful difference, to me.
Duane
SFAW
@Cervantes:
Yes, but we’re talking about 2015 Republicans, and whether a similar circumstance would derail Trump. There hasn’t been much evidence – if at all – that something resembling the Gary Hart situation would have any detrimental effect on a Trump (or Jeb!) campaign.
ETA: And to clarify a bit: for a 1987 Democrat, especially one like Hart, guilty and “looking guilty” would have yielded the same result – as is evidenced by Bush 41 and Bush 43.
Chris
@Another Holocene Human:
Yeah, it seems like the question isn’t even “are Republicans pro business?” but “how many businessmen are pro business anymore?”
I’ve read several people here arguing that non financial issues – desire to keep workers firmly under control, Republican tribal solidarity, or just sincerely believing all the kool aid – may often take precedence over rational calculated self interest, and I find it hard to disagree.
Roger Moore
@Cervantes:
I doubt it. Trump seems to be remarkably immune to negative consequences that would end another candidate’s campaign. He’s gotten away with political heterodoxy that would be enough to destroy any of the other candidates, and plenty of details of his sordid personal life is already well known. Given those two things, he seems likely to be unusually resistant to scandal. I suppose it’s possible that there’s some scandal out there that could ruin him, but I don’t think finding it is a significant possibility.
Peale
@Cervantes: The news item that’s flashing about today is that an MI6 agent found stuffed in a bag in a safe house 5 years ago had once accessed records on the Clintons and ergo there is another new corpse that inquiring minds want to speculate about. Did he know about the Clinton Foundation? Did they kill him? I mean there wouldn’t be any other reason to off a spy other than a hit ordered by Lady MacKillary herself, amirite…
There is nothing Donald could have done 5 years ago that won’t be forgotten by Republican voters. Past flip flops, the assassination of Merv Griffith, dog sex…all forgiven. Murky pasts only stick to Democrats even when they aren’t murky. I thought we knew that…
Calouste
@SFAW: Gary Hart also basically taunted the press to find something about him. Trump would call the press losers who can’t get laid like he does, and his fans will love that.
Chris
@gus:
“Marxist” or “socialist.” Am I being uncharitable in assuming that they have no fucking idea what either word means? (This is the same lot that thinks they’ve just redefined political science every time they discover that “Nazi” stands for “National Socialist,” after all).
SFAW
@Chris:
Don’t know about “uncharitable,” but you’re certainly accurate.
Here’s another thought exercise (or whatever): Ask them what EXACTLY is so bad about what they are calling socialism, and tell them that “just because” is not an acceptable answer.
Cervantes
@Calouste:
That “basically” is doing a lot of work to prop up the “taunted.”
Not that it matters thirty years later.
boatboy_srq
@Another Holocene Human: ROFLMAO. That’s awesome.
Cervantes
@Roger Moore:
Fair enough. We shall see!
In any case I still think it’s a better argument for Chait’s conclusion than anything he came up with.
schrodinger's cat
Trump could win the nomination, yes but let’s not count the chickens before they hatch. Trump has not won a single primary yet. He reminds me of Howard Dean, not in the policy specifics but being the embodiment of what the base wanted.
redshirt
@SFAW:
I’m sure there’s a word to describe this (totemistic?), but I bet lots of wingnuts have no idea what the words they use mean except for “BAD”. Socialism is BAD. Marxism is BAD. Obama is BAD. Therefore Obama is a Socialist Marxist.
All the different words are like symbols, all reflecting the same idea: BAD.
I mean, Saul freaking Alinksy. Who ever heard of him before the wingnuts decided to add him to their list of BAD?
SFAW
@Cervantes:
I realize my brain has shriveled, but you’re saying, in effect, that Roger’s implied position of Trump most definitely being able to win the nom supports Chait’s conclusion that Trump won’t. Or is the “better argument” coming from some other (unnamed) person?
redshirt
@schrodinger’s cat:
Interesting comparison. Dean was like the lone ray of hope during the Dark Times of W.’s first term, a feeling I assume the wingnuts feel now about Trump.
SFAW
@redshirt:
Well, Hitlery, of course – she and Alinksy were lovers for 18 years before she met Bill.
Cervantes
@SFAW:
I said nothing about “a similar circumstance” — just that something coming up that could derail him appears to be the best thing his Republican opponents, and observers like Chait, can hope for at this juncture.
Thanks for trying to clarify — but your meaning here may be eluding me. If you’re saying that Democrats “looking guilty” is enough for Republicans to demolish them with, sure, that is sometimes true — but that does not answer the Hart-scandal-related question I asked; it merely side-steps it on practical grounds!
gus
@Chris: Reading the comments it’s obvious that no, they have no idea what the words they’re using mean.
Cervantes
@redshirt:
If you’re referring to today’s “wingnuts,” the answer to your question is: lots of people.
Cervantes
@Chris:
No.
redshirt
@Cervantes: Alinsky was widely read and known of prior to 2008? News to me.
Cervantes
@SFAW:
Obviously the better argument was the one I was suggesting!
SFAW
@Cervantes:
You do love your semantic arguments, I’ll give you that.
“Similar circumstance” does not necessarily mean a quasi-sex scandal. It just means something that would call the candidate’s standing or integrity or pick-your-quality into question.
Thant’s because the answer to your question (i.e., sex vs appearance-of-sex) is pretty much immaterial to anyone considering voting for Trump, and was immaterial enough, for enough Democratic voters in 1987, to end Hart’s campaign. For different reasons, to be sure.
SFAW
@Cervantes:
I can’t tell if your “obviously” was supposed to be a joke. I’ll assume it was, until you tell me/us otherwise.
gus
A prime example of the kind of comment you can find at NRO these days:
After the 2014 midterms, I’ve had it with “the best conservative who can get elected,” aka “the best liars and crooks.” This time, I’m voting for an American, someone who believes our so-called public servants are supposed to represent we, the people, not we, the CEOs. Someone who will put country before party and principles before politics.
Yes, I’m voting for Trump… McConnell can KMA.
I’m really loving what Trump is doing to this race.
lol
@redshirt:
Trump’s got the guy who ran Santorum’s Iowa win in 2012 running his operation this time around. Iowa locals are very impressed by his campaign.
That said, I still think the likeliest way Trump loses is his supporters simply not showing up at the caucuses or polls because he’s this cycle’s Dean.
Second likeliest way he loses is the party going nuclear to deny him delegates at various stages because he’s this cycle’s Rick Santorum (but with money).
Cervantes
@redshirt:
Your question was “Who ever heard of him?” and I answered it without precision: “Lots of people.”
If you want a better measure, consider the several books he wrote. Of those, to get a quick answer, look at just the last one: Rules for Radicals. How many editions of it would you guess have been published? How many copies sold?
Cervantes
@SFAW:
Look at my question again. It was purely about Hart — not Trump.
Cervantes
@SFAW:
Sometimes prejudices are all one has to go by!
redshirt
@Cervantes: Ok. So, no.
You miss the point anyways, as usual. Redneck wingnuts had ZERO idea who Saul Alinsky was until it was introduced to them by their Thought Leaders in 2008, and thereafter it entered their lexicon of BAD. They have never read Saul Alinsky and never will but they know he is BAD.
Bobby Thomson
@Germy Shoemangler: Chait is still in Denali about
Trump’s ability to secure the nomination. Not a sure thing but far from a sure non-thing. He needs to show his work.
Edited for clarity.
schrodinger's cat
@redshirt: FWIW, I had never heard of him either.
The only reason I know about anchor baby stuff and tagging immigrants like Fedex, is because I was working on GC application for husband kitteh and used to frequent immigration blogs circa 2006-07.
These vile ideas have been circulated for a while on right wing nativist blogs.
gelfling545
@Brachiator: essentially, yes.
Bobby Thomson
@burnspbesq: yeah, this. It’s Chait’s wish fulfillment masquerading as cool analysis.
SFAW
@Cervantes:
Jimmy? Jimmy O’Keefe? That you, li’l buddy?
was the part you seem to have left out of your selectively-edited response.
And, just to be clear (I hope) I am not saying that the response from 2015 Trump supporters towards Trump (vis-a-vis any hypothetical “scandal”) was, is, or will be the same as the response from the 1987 Hart supporters toward the Donna Rice incident.
Brachiator
@Jeffro:
Has Trump said anything suggesting that this would be a possibility?
Cruz does not seem to have many friends or much political capital. If he did, I could see a Republican president making him Attorney General or even nominating him to the Supreme Court.
Bobby Thomson
@redshirt: he does. He’s spending a lot of money on it. Any story that doesn’t account for that should be ignored.
SFAW
@Brachiator:
Neither does Trump. (Yes, I realize it’s apples and oranges.)
ETA:
If I had any hair left on my head, that statement would have turned it white.
DOR
same reason Boehner refuses to force the House to vote on anything
Republicans in both chambers are well aware that they are not in synch with the electorate on any issue
last thing they want is to have to defend any vote on anything in an election
they have been able to get by, so far, with “are you with us or the black guy”
that is gone in the next election and they will be fully exposed and want to minimize the recoil from all of the anti-populist positions they have taken
Bobby Thomson
@Roger Moore: being nice to brown people would do it. Not much chance of that.
Cervantes
@SFAW:
Yes, in responding to a question of mine, you said a lot of stuff. Not taking anything you said out of context, I commented only on part of what you had said. Does that bother you? It will happen again, I am certain.
Droll, I’m sure.
Rasputin's Evil Twin
@Calouste: Will it involve a mark on the forehead, something like a 666 or something traditional in that line?
SFAW
@Cervantes:
Wow, intellectual dishonesty is so unbecoming.
Just pointing out that you responded to the first half of a sentence, which addressed a slightly different flavor of your “point,” but somehow you were unable to read the second half of the same sentence, which did address your “point” regarding Hart.
Hardly. Just pointing out you’re doing the same thing Jimmy O’Keefe did/does, although with less at stake.
Roger Moore
@lol:
They need to read up on mutually assured destruction, then. If they go nuclear by changing the rules to deny him the nomination, he’ll run as a third party candidate to deny them the chance of winning. At the very least, that’s the way I’ve interpreted his threats to run as a third party candidate.
Roger Moore
@Bobby Thomson:
It depends. If it’s being nice to specific brown people, that’s fine, even praiseworthy because it proves you aren’t a racist. If it involved being nice to brown people as a group, it would be serious trouble.
Not That Guy
When the time comes, this guy will meekly line up to vote for Jeb!? as he is told to do.
gnomedad
@D58826:
Shhh! Just rename this thing “Mt. McKinley”.
Cervantes
@redshirt:
Your previous language (“Who ever heard of him before the wingnuts decided to add him to their list of BAD?” and “Alinsky was widely read and known of prior to 2008?”) asked whether anyone had heard of him, not merely whether “redneck wingnuts” had. The answer to that original question is still “Lots of people.”
Changing the subject seems feeble but, under the circumstances, you must please yourself, I suppose.
Yes, that must be it. Rest easy now, you hear?
redshirt
@Cervantes: You win, Mr. Pedantic!
Steve.from Antioch
for what it’s worth, I see many more references to Alinsky on RWNJ blogs I read than I do on left leaning ones.
Same with Gramsci, too.
As in “these leftist libtards are following the Alinsky/Gramsci play book….”
Steve from Antioch
for what it’s worth, I see a lot more references to Alinsky (Gramsci, too) on RWNJ blogs than I ever see on left leaning ones.
Strange.
WaterGirl
@Steve from Antioch: I read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as part of some course in college in the 1970s, so it’s been around and in play for a long, long time.
J R in WV
@WaterGirl:
I would be interested in knowing how many editions were published, and how many copies sold. I bet a lot.