I’m not that great with knowing a lot about the people who ran for and lost the presidency, particularly in the 19th Century, but I think it’s got to be impossible that we’ve ever had a more transparent scoundrel than Donald Trump this close to the White House.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
37 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
More transparent? Probably not.
Degree of conscious malevolence? Not so sure. We certainly are not out of the woods on that one, either.
The closest by recently documented reputation would be Aaron Burr, although there have been attempts to rehabilitate him.
On the scoundrel level, Trump might not be ambitious enough. Who would seek to carve his own country out of the West these days? On transparency, it is unlikely that future historians will fail to see clearly Trump’s sleazy moves. No one in memory has sought from the beginning to capitalize a Presidential run as a profit-making venture. It’s generally been a cost of status.
BTW, Richard Ned Lebow and Daniel P. Tompkins, Washington Monthly: The Thucydides Claptrap is an awesome and well-timed piece. I hope someone special in the Democratic Party takes it to heart.
Donald Trump is essentially a grifter whose ability to escape criminal prosecution is rooted entirely in the wealth to which he was born. No, the 19th century didn’t give us anybody quite like that.
The Hill — In Canada, Obama rebukes Trump on trade
Well, isn’t that special.
Billmon:
Yawn.
Yawn. With a few months to go, WJC was going to resolve the I/P issue and BHO is going to accomplish something on greenhouse gas emissions (instead of just touting the mythical “clean coal.”)
And Carter was going to bring the Tehran hostages home and LBJ was gonna end that Vietnam War.
LOL Both back-stabbed with impunity by their Republican opponents, too. Must protect appearances, no?
The Northern Echo – Anti-Corbyn ‘traitors’ not welcome at Durham Miners’ Gala
HuffPo Angela Eagle’s Local Party Has Backed Jeremy Corbyn
David Miliband is what I am reading…
Unsure why this news item is in this thread, but that vote of no confidence in Corbyn by Labour MPs passed by something like a 3 to 1 margin. And yes, it’s just advisory, but much of the ‘shadow cabinet’ resigned. No matter how you cut it, Corbyn has lost the confidence of Labour MPs. Corbyn is saying what the hell, I’m elected by Party members, not Labour MPs, so piss off. Is that credible in a parliamentary system? I have no dog in this fight, but given the choice between replacing the leadership and replacing rebellious Labour MPs, it’s hard to see how the latter is sensible.
The reason for Labour MPs wanting to get rid of Corbyn is that they feel he did an awful job of campaigning in support of the “Remain” vote in the recent EU referendum.
Corbyn’s performance on Brexit might be a part of it but the Blairites have been opposed to him from the start. It will be interesting to see if they can find a Labour MP who was anti Iraq War that would be willing to stand against him as a replacement.
According to the exit polls, Labour voters voted Remain in about the same proportions as the voters of SNP (the scots). So while his feelings and campainging for Remain might be luke-warm, it is hardly what lost the referendum.
Brexit is a smokescreen. They want to get rid of him because on economics he is not a Third-way politician (like Blair and Clinton), he was against the Iraq war and will probably condemn Blair and his ilk when the Chilcot Inquiry is due in a couple of weeks, and finally because they need that central party high ground to defend themselves from primary challenges (or deselection as it is called in the UK).
Ironically, the attempt to overthrow Corbyn has neatly sorted out which MPs needs to be deselected, and gives Corbyns supporters zero reason to hold back.
Trump is undoubtedly a bold grifting con-man, who weasels his way out of a lot sleazy schemes via being white, male, rich and connected in various ways.
That said, there’s loads of sleaze out there to share around. The BushCo Clan made money initially via deals with the Nazis, and W, at least, was one of those Harvard MBAs who made money trashing good enterprises to make money for himself and his investors. He was closely associated with Ken Lay (whom I still claim is not dead) of Enron infamy.
Then there’s Bishop Mitt RMoney, who lavishly enriched himself via predatory Bain – trashing very good businesses, again to enrich himself lavishly at the expense of those he later lambasted for being the moochers in the 47%.
I could go on. Those are a few examples. The GOP has been run since the days of Nixon – another known sleazy crook – (and really before that) on the racist, sexist, homophobic Southern Strategy, which is documented. It’s just that the Donald uses the inside voice, rather than the outside voice. You gotta know that all the rest of them think, feel and believe exactly the way that Trump does.
The fact that so many of the hypocritical elite are now distancing themselves from Trump shows how much in disdain and loathing they hold their “base.” Trump is an amoral, lying grifter who would dump his base in heartbeat should he get elected, but he’s not all that different from the rest of them. Just more outspoken.
Of course, Trump is utterly incompetent for the position of President. But then again, so was W.
JMHO, of course.
I got four woids for ya, and they ain’t “Happy Goddamned Boithday, Sucker!!!.”
1-Nixon
2-Reagan (Or was it his wife’s astrologer?)
3-Kissinger
4-Cheney.
“…this close to the White House?”
In the White House, those four murderous motherfuckers.
In it, all the way up to their criminal necks.
AG
Won’t argue with you this time, AG. True dat.
Would that be a Brooklyn accent you’re trying to represent, AG? Or Queens? My father grew up in Brooklyn, as far as I know, and while he had some sort of NYC accent, I never heard him say anything resembling “woids” or “boithday”.
Vaudeville, actually. Another whole locale.
Why do you ask?
AG
I’m just fascinated by accents and dialects….
Me too.
P.S. Throw in Alan Dulles and LBJ while you/re at it. I pra that I live to see the day when LBJ is outed for complicity in the JFK assassination.
AG
We’ve had some truly noxious, racist presidents. Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears comes to mind. But honestly, Nixon, LBJ, Wilson and both Roosevelts were all 20th Century presidents with horribly racist statements and views under their belts. At the same time, people are not cartoon characters. LBJ, for instance, signed the Voting Rights Act and appointed Marshall to the Court.
Trump is more transparent than other candidates in recent times.
Benjamin Dixon, Progressive Army, Exclusive: Full Letter From 60 Black Democrats Opposing Cornel West and Bernie Sanders’ Platform Amendments:
Yes, bring on more of those “talks” because they’ve been so productive over the past past two decades.
Elizabeth Milos Rieloff’ comment: These 60 politicians would have been among the ones calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist.
Wow. Double wow, given Netanyahu and Obama.
Where are the names?
My word. Just had a brainstorm…are Trump voters the New Palestinians?
Please explain because I sure don’t follow.
A population that it is permissible to abuse for bringing their difficulties upon themselves, TOTALLY!
Even seen Republican elites telling them to move or die. Called “dirty butts” in respectable online magazines…
No empathy for them as fellow citizens as they have been thoroughly demonized and devalued.
The “undeserving”, in common practice these days.
Not that I intended to minimize the difference in degree that Palestinians experience in any way.
60 black Democrats would have called Nelson Mandela a terrorist?
Never mind, Joel, there’s a bunch of rhetorical kerosene being thrown around here these days. They intend to offend and get reaction, or just dominate the comments threads when we withdraw from the provocations. It’s not like a reasonable dialogue can be formed around statements like these.
They appear angry and desperate, and have lost perspective. All the world appears to have reduced to dissecting language in the Party platform for the time being. That, and making use of the Brexit outcome and fallout to make some suspect claims about how this relates to our Presidential campaign.
An apt description of the comment threads here for the last several months. Still love the posts though and the occasional nugget in the comments. Thanks for this one.
Hm, alright. I’ve only been reading and commenting here for a few months, so there is no doubt history that I’m ignorant of.
I always enjoy BooMan’s posts. Still need to learn to ignore Steven D’s conspiratorial rants. Many thought-provoking comments if one if willing to sift through all the ranting about “Hillary Clinton is the Spawn of Satan”.
We do have our share of sanctimonious know it alls. Jesus Christ, they consider themselves experts on EVERYTHING. Drug abuse? Check. Brexit? Check. Every category of history? Check. Polling? Check. Forensic accounting? Check. Isreal? Check. Economics? Check. Republicanistic can talking points? Check.
‘Here, let me whip out a 1000 word analysis on that subject, and argue with anyone who points out all my made up shit’.
.
The climate here was more collegial last year. We’re not immune from the contentious primary fight, but I didn’t expect quite this level of vitriol and unwillingness to participate in reasonable discussions. Things will get better here, though.
Those darn snafus! No one could figure out a way to get him OFF the list. Kinda like the NO FLY one.
“The terrorist designation finally proved too embarrassing for the U.S. government to ignore. In April 2008, during the last year of the George W. Bush administration, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a Senate committee that her department had to issue waivers for ANC members to travel to the United States.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/us-government-considered-nelson-mandela-terrorist-until-2008-f2D11
708787
You would appear to be commenting here on a particularly stupid, inane bureaucratic snafu. What has it got to do with the apparent assertion (at the bottom of Marie3’s remarks) that 60 African American Democrats would want to label Nelson Mandela a terrorist?
In the 1960s, the U.S. did oppose apartheid, and supported arms embargoes against the South African government. But the Cold War changed that.
South Africa was staunchly anti-communist and an ally against the Soviet Union. The Soviets helped back the African National Congress. Starting in the 1970s, the U.S. and U.K. supported the apartheid government.
The collapse of the USSR in 1989 meant that the National Party could no longer use communism as a justification for their oppression. The ANC could also no longer rely on the Soviet Union for economic and military support. By the end of the 1980s, the Soviet Union was in political and economic crisis, and it was increasingly difficult for the Soviet Government to justify spending money in Africa.
In 1989, President F.W de Klerk, the last apartheid Head of State, unbanned the African National Congress, the South African Communist Party and the Pan Africanist Congress. He states that the collapse of the Soviet Union was decisive in persuading him to take this step:
The article was mocking us for using “snafu” as an excuse while …”the Defense Department stood by its language, and Mandela and other ANC officials remained on the terror watch list even as President Bush welcomed Mandela, newly released from prison, to the White House in 1990.”
Perhaps the poster’s Mandela comment was to underscore the shock of seeing 60 AA Dems supporting Netanyahu’s apartheid state and his treatment of Obama.