I’ll admit that my eyes were kind of glazing over as I listened to Ted Cruz deliver his speech tonight. He was talking about freedom and basic conservative ideas that virtually all Republicans agree with. He even seemed to be warming up to making some kind of tepid case for Trump by talking about Brexit and how people worldwide are sick and tired of the political establishment. And then, rather suddenly, the New York delegation began making a lot of noise. There was commotion in the hall. Cruz stumbled on his words and stopped. He looked down at the crowd and said, “I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation.”
But that only seemed to egg them on.
Cruz tried to continue but it was difficult to ignore the heckling he was taking. And then Trump arrived in the hall which caused the cameras to pan and a little more of an uproar and a commotion. Pretty soon, the lights seemed to dim and Cruz had disappeared from the stage.
Almost immediately Tweets started arriving in my feed informing me that Heidi Cruz needed to be escorted out of the arena for her safety and that Cruz had nearly been assaulted near a luxury suite. Then I heard he had been turned away from Sheldon Adelson’s suite.
It all seemed highly coordinated to humiliate Cruz.
My suspicions on this were heightened when I saw that Trump had told a reporter that he had loved the Cruz speech and then Tweeted that he’d seen the speech two hours before it was delivered and let him deliver it anyway. I saw a Cruz aide say that the Trump people knew for two days that he wouldn’t be specifically endorsing him.
But when I watched the reaction on television and social media, it was a totally different story in which Cruz had sandbagged Trump and bravely dissed him by being critical and unexpectedly refusing to endorse him.
So, I was confused. In my thinking, Trump had identified the point in the speech where Cruz called upon people to vote their conscience as the point at which the New York delegation should erupt in protest, and then he timed his entrance for just after that. Others were prepped to savage Cruz for violating his pledge and call him persona non grata in Cleveland and in the party. It was Trump’s final revenge.
No one else saw it that way, though, so I began to doubt myself. Had I simply imagined what I thought I saw? Had I totally misinterpreted what was happening right in front of my eyes?
That’s when I found the transcript and tried to identify what it was that Cruz had actually said that would have caused the whole New York delegation to spontaneously erupt in anger. After all, I had admittedly been watching the speech in a detached state of crushing boredom. Perhaps I had missed obvious cues. Here’s what I found:
And, if we stand together and choose freedom, our future will be brighter. Freedom will bring back jobs and raise wages. Freedom will lift people out of dependency to the dignity of work.
We can do this. Forty-Seven years ago to this day, America put the very first man on the moon.
That was the power of freedom. Our party, the Republican party, was founded to defeat slavery.
Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
Together we passed the Civil Rights Act, and together we fought to eliminate Jim Crow Laws.
That’s our collective legacy, although the media will never share it with you. Those were fights for freedom, and so is this.
Sergeant Michael Smith stood up to protect our freedom. So do the soldiers, and sailors, and airmen, and Marines everyday fighting radical Islamic terrorism.
And, so did the family of Alton Sterling who bravely called to end the violence. So did the families of those murdered at the Charleston-Emanuel AME Church who forgave that hateful, bigoted, murder.
And, so can we. We deserve leaders who stand for principal, who unite us all behind shared values, who cast aside anger for love. That is the standard we should expect from everybody. And, to those listening, please don’t stay home in November.
If you love our country, and love our children as much as you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the constitution.
[BOOING ERUPTS]
I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation.
I gotta be honest. I don’t see why these words would, by themselves, prompt such outrage. First of all, it wasn’t clear what Cruz was going to say next. How could people know that he wasn’t going to tell people to vote for Trump in his next sentence?
Secondly, he was telling his own supporters not to stay home in November, which was little more than an acknowledgment that a lot of his voters are reluctant to vote for Trump. Only by a kind of presumptuous inference could people take Cruz’s words to mean that Trump is not a man of principle and cannot be trusted to uphold the Constitution. The imprecation to love and forgive and to cast aside anger was only a slight to Trump if you already believed that Trump would do none of those things.
Even if you felt the sting of that “vote your conscience” phrase, remember that Cruz began his speech by saying “I want to congratulate Donald Trump on winning the nomination last night. And, like each of you, I want to see the principals that our party believes prevail in November.” And then he spent considerable time laying out a case against Obama and Clinton that Cruz and Trump voters alike would find pleasing and agreeable.
In other words, he simply didn’t say anything at that particular point in the speech that would logically inspire a spontaneous stomping protest of outrage. On the other hand, if you had read the speech ahead of time and were planning to boo Cruz off the stage, that was the logical point to do it. It was the point in which he failed to say the magic words. That was knowable with the speech in hand, but not knowable if you were just listening to the speech and had no idea what was coming next or how it would end.
To me, it’s clear that Trump coordinated the whole thing, told the New York delegation when to protest, timed his entrance for just that time, prepped his running mate and others to have their talking points ready, and “loved” the result, as he said.
Yet, as clever as this was, he didn’t consider that he’d be letting Cruz become a martyr and a conscientious objector.
Anyway, that’s the way I saw it as it unfolded and that’s the way it still looks to me.
Maybe I’m crazy.
I think you’re right.
Michael Steele is saying the same thing on MSNBC right now.
Not the best ally to have on this, but it’s comforting to know that someone saw what I saw.
Michael Steele has become someone who offers a half honest perspective on the Republican Party,in my opinion
The whole Republican brouhaha — ha ha ha — is and will continue to be a golden example of the old saying that “Truth is where you find it.” And that is because Trump himself is a black hole of truth — if his lips are moving you know he’s lying. So in contrast, any of these other liars — including Cruz — are liable to become fountains of veracity at any moment.
There is no doubt you are right about this. Once you understand he is a narcissistic showman entering at the precise moment, he is creating a show for the viewers. Vote your conscience means vote for him, but it could mean something different for Cruz, so NY stand up and support the star of the show. Nice choreography. And this guy wants to be President? Some,guys on CNBC this morning were thinking how great the whole convention has been thus far including last night. It’s what cnventions are supposed to be about. Wonderful.
It was pretty obvious his entrance was orchestrated.
.
So it was Trump’s idea to give the Democrats video footage of the Republican National Convention booing the idea of voting one’s conscience?
Either way, Trump got destroyed tonight.
Read this very carefully:
Cruz delivered the exact speech that Manafort said that he expected.
There’s no question Trump knew what Cruz was going to say and allowed it intentionally. If he were planning to spin Cruz’ tepid conscience remark as an endorsement he could have had the next few speakers say that conscience demands they vote for Trump. So I think you’re right and the goal was something like establishing his dominance: showing that anybody who resists him, even mildly, will be brutally punished. Apparently it did come off rather that way in the hall. He just didn’t realize that on social media Cruz would come off as a brave principled hero. (Blech, did I just write that?)
Trump didn’t realize it because he doesn’t do “brave, principled hero”.
I should have said that I’m completely willing to believe that this was yet another Trump bungle. The end result was certainly very negative for him, at any rate.
Dunno, the vote your conscience thing is a #NeverTrump signifier and the GOP is always quite attuned to code words, having heen using them for almost 50 years.
On the one hand you think Trump can coordinate this but missed that Cruz would look like a man willing to suffer for his principals?
That Trump could coordinate a humiliation of Cruz and miscalculate how it would play is the most believable part of my theory.
Hmm, considering Trumps tweet you may have a point. It would be a call back to the primaries in a way, where they both used each other to get what they wanted. But if 95% of the media think Cruz successfully dissed Trump, then the effect will probably be as if Cruz dissed Trump. If Trump loses Cruz is well positioned and its still more likely than not Trump will lose.
Is it possible that he was mostly focused on how it would play to the immediate audience, and to die-hard Republican voters?
Or is he already in such an epistemological bubble that he doesn’t realize there’s a difference between how things play to his supporters vs the rest of the electorate? Most of the very wealthy are already far less “assimilated” into US culture than any immigrant community, and he seems like the sort of person more likely to surround himself with sycophants than with useful advisors.
It was staged professional wrestling style, cues to the audience, sudden appearance of the opponent in the arena. But it would seem Trump completely missed, as you say, the bigger narrative in which he’s the mark. Could Cruz have been so cunning as to play it straight down the line and yet achieve this important strategic objective? He had a mighty smirk on his face at the time.
What an entertaining convention!
But would it be a miscalculation or does he just not care how it plays to a wider audience?
I don’t know what to believe. By all appearances, Trump is deeply incompetent about a lot of things that go into running a successful campaign and a successful convention. Manafort also doesn’t strike me as a strategic genius, so I can’t decide whether we’re witnessing a plan that worked as intended; a plan that worked but with unintended consequences; or historic dumbassery.
Sure, because it’s Trump to a T.
I keep looking for a way “suffer for his principals” could be a clever intentional pun rather than a typo.
Got some nasty sciatica right now, so I’d respectfully ask for a pass. Also mobile keyboards are too small for my fingers.
Also Newty clearly thought it was a diss because his remarks laying out Trump as the principled conservative Cruz meant were NOT in his prerelease remarks.
Since I can’t bear to watch or listen to Cruz will have to take the word of others that Cruz delivered the same speech that he proposed to Trump’s team.
Cruz may have figured that he got away with a fast one in getting approval for a speech in which he doesn’t endorse Trump. Seems as if Cruz underestimated the media skill of team Trump.
An aside: who know that:
Not science, not technology, and not lots of money but “freedom” put a man on the moon. And the USSR space program never existed at all. Wonder how he explains that today, only Russia can put men on the space station and return them to earth.
Obama
I come here for a different perspective, and this one seems very possible to me.
I’m sure Ted Cruz is running for 2020, but martyr is not a natural role for him. He likes to be the inquisitor.
Or, while dressing in the morning he happened to look down and amazingly discovered that he still had testicles.
I have a new theory:
As background, I have never watched a single episode of any reality show, but it seems like it would be a challenge to make it interesting – you’re just filming what’s supposedly normal reality and yet people are watching it to be as entertained as a show that’s been scripted to have an interesting arc.
So Trump’s reality show was apparently one of the most successful and he did it for years. My new theory is that he’s unable to differentiate an episode of The Apprentice from a day on the campaign trail. He instinctively causes some conflict that will make for an entertaining “episode”. In this case, he allowed Cruz to speak, not get an assurance of it being a pro-Trump speech, or perhaps even knowing that it would be negative. A situation was created with booing, threatening of Cruz’s wife, Trump entering at a strange moment. I’m not saying that Trump calculated this, but I think he instinctively does things that result in what would be high ratings for an episode of reality television, and he nearly always succeeds. Of course, much of this is disastrous for his campaign and his party – and the country and the world – but he’s not wired to care about that – he’s wired for reality television.
Interesting theory, but I think it’s more likely that the disruption of cruz’s speech was spontaneous. Delegates seemed to be truly pissed at him. He’s such a little weasel, his speech was too cute by half. “Vote your conscience” is code language and the delegates knew what he meant.
>”Vote your conscience” is code language
Yeah, that definitely was what set them off, but if Trump is telling the truth (haha) about having seen the speech in advance, they could have used that line as coordination.
But actually I don’t think it was planned – at least not carefully. I think the guy just has a sixth sense for creating or enabling scenes that play well on television. It’s almost like he doesn’t care whether he or the GOP win – he just wants the TV ratings for the spectacle to be through the roof. And again, I don’t think his conscious brain reasons this out – I think he does everything by instinct and that instinct is to create spectacle, not to further his political objectives. Like Wagner and Hitler, psychoanalyzing this guy will provide years and years of fodder for PhD theses on mental illness.
Trump is the present avatar of Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle
If you want to know what Trump’s thinking . . . he’s NOT thinking. He’s just acting and reacting, representing what he appears to be, which is all he can do and what his followers admire. That’s him, that’s his admirers, and that’s the media.
You write:
Or…
He understands a large part of the U.S. culture today well enough…consciously understands or gut-level understands, it makes little difference…that he knows “through the roof” ratings is the path to winning. The only path for the RatPubs, or possibly the only path for him and forget about the party.
AG
I think that’s likely true. Good observation.
I wonder if Joan Rivers and Donald Trump got along.
they were pretty much best friends. Joan Rivers won The Apprentice one year when Trump chose her repeatedly despite clearly deserving to be fired.
Funny how this manufactured scandal on the convention floor reminded me how-in-your-face Joan Rivers operated. This kind of obnoxiousness can only be nurtured in NYC and surroundings. HRC cracks me up when she calls NYC her town! It will be interesting to see how she tries to take Donald Trump on or to ignore him with all her might.
talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/okay-it-got-much-weirder
Josh is being hopelessly dense here. He started with the 100% wrong assumption that Cruz did anything unexpected or unapproved by the Trump camp. And now he’s trying to figure out how his whole impression of the thing can still make sense.
But Trump completely wanted Cruz to deliver that speech and he primed the New York delegation to pounce on Cruz at the assigned time. And then he made sure to make an entrance at that point in the speech, too, just as Cruz was being drowned out in boos.
This is no longer in any doubt in my mind.
Did you read his third one? I think he compensates and gets it right, but I’d be curious your take on it.
Look at the picture that accompanies it. Pence has just finished his narcotizing “There’s an adult on the ticket” speech, it’s supposed to be the climax of the evening, and out waddles Trump. He gives a few short-fingered “Get a load of this guy!” points, then does a sort of sarcastic air-kiss on the top of his head. Translation: Nice job, sonny boy.
As a pathological narcissist, Trump fears being upstaged the way normal people would fear burial alive.
FWIW, RedState supports your view.
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/07/21/ted-cruz-really-proved-last-night/
It’s actually a positive that Trump is so consistent in placing his mental needs above any other objective, it makes him predictable and manipulable.
Yep. I expect Obama in particular to play Trump like a matador plays a bull.
I think this might have been the tell, from earlier that day:
Trump’s plane interrupts Ted Cruz rally, crowd boos
Cruz should have realized right then that he would be ratfucked later that evening.
>Since I can’t bear to watch or listen to Cruz
Right? He’s like fingernails on a chalkboard – he causes physical pain to my ears and eyes.
from Wiki;
Cruz’s vote your conscience is code for vote for your own wishes not the party wishes, or Ted’s way of saying if you really don’t want tRump vote for somebody else. Since most inside the convention are political junkies they know exactly what that quote means. His addition of up and down the ticket was to remind people to try to save congress for the GOPers.
tRump and manifort might have tried to manipulate the convention for their benefit but the people around the country uneasy with tRump, can receive a different message then the clueless tRump was sending them.
Since Cruz has to wait till 2020 for his next chance, if tRump crashes and burns, Cruz can say I told you so, only if it is a rerun of the 2000 election but with Hillary squeaking by a few votes in a swing state and winning by 10 or less electoral votes this might come back to bite Cruz.
This week this is a day or two news story only with a very close election where trump loses, does it effect the 2020 election cycle. If tRump is looked on in 2020, as the wasilla hill-billy is today, Cruz has nothing to worry about.
Check out the various stories at “redstate” for their take, they are already cheering Cruz on. Cruz is consolidating the right wing conservative part of the GOP with what he did tonight.
He can consolidate all he wants. Cruz’s base is that part of the Religious Right that can’t see beyond the narrow prism of biblical social issues. The social issues these people are most interested in now are dead issues. They lost. This is simply another step in the long march of Bonnie Prince Charlie (simply another lost cause).
Ted Cruz wants to be the successful Huey Long of his generation. He is most likely to be Harold Stassen.
Oh, please, oh, please, oh, please let it be so.
My understanding is that it requires a lot more cash to be a perennial Presidential candidate than it did in Stassen’s day. Stassen also wasn’t loathed by his GOP colleagues and mostly played well with them.
Cruz is more likely to become the 2020 version of Santorum in 2016 then anything like a real contender.
Your probably right. Especially since I doubt that Cruz will win a primary fight the next time he runs for Texas office.
Well, he hasn’t endeared himself to the Bush family. And while as candidates, the Bushes appear to be a spent force, they still retain power among the elites. Open question as to whether there’s anyone in the TX GOP that could successfully challenge for the 2018 Senate nomination. Expect Abbot to run for reelection (prelude to a 2020 Presidential run?)
Also recall that in 2012 Gov Perry made it through the Iowa caucus (with a dismal 10% showing) and this time he was out by September.
Very Interesting, credible theory. gives pause as to how truly nasty the guy is
I’ve been thinking about this and I’ve changed my mind (again). I think this is what happened:
This sounds most credible to me. Trump himself certainly didn’t read cruzs speech beforehand. He doesn’t read much of anything.
The times:
So the Trump people chased an endorsement, and Cruz basically acted like the asshole he is, which led Trump to act like the asshole he is.
The Times mentions the Rockefeller speech in ’64 where the GOP basically came apart. I don’t think it gets to that level, but what a fuckup.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-mike-pence-rnc.html?hp&actio
n=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region®ion=t
op-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Good for Cruz! I wish Bernie Sanders had not specifically endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Who knew that Cruz had more moral credibility?
Right; because that’s the kind of luxurious situation we’re in, where we can play effete games with party unity.
Did you see the latest NYT stuff with Trump and the Russian border states and NATO? This guy’s going to start a fucking war before we’ve even got through the conventions. What part of “unhinged, power-mad idiot vindictive racist/sexist demagogue” don’t you understand? We’re looking at a serious fucking global crisis that we’re within an eyelash of avoiding, and you want to go through some kind of Kabuki theater procedure to scold our nominee for not taking the right health care position at the right time or something like that. Please, all of you, wake up.
What does obligations even mean here? Dont the Baltics fulfill them just by existing?
That said I dont have confidence the Europeans would actually go to war with Russia over say, Estonia.
Ah, the 2% GDP military spending? It didnt even occur to me because 2% from Estonia as opposed to Britain or Germany is miniscule.
I don’t read TPM, but glancing at the Trump-Nato story, I get the impression Josh has bought the neocon propaganda about Russia. “Recent Russian aggressions”??
And what’s so scary about the US maybe pulling back some of its many military bases abroad? Frankly, I’m generally in agreement with the Donald on most of his points.
There’s no threat by Russia to unilaterally invade the Baltic states. that’s US/Nato/Baltic propaganda to provide a justification (now that the Iran excuse has sort of been exposed as bogus) for beefed up Nato/US military exercises in the area along Russia’s western border.
I agree in general about the bases but disagree on Russia. It is mostly posturing but if Russia thought it COULD get away with it, it would. Hence the exercises.
Well, I don’t see it making any sense for Putin — who has been trying hard to resolve the situation in Syria with the US (latest talks with Kerry in Moscow) and also bring the US and Russia into a formal military partnership to destroy ISIS, playing the statesman — to then turn around and provoke the US/Nato in the Baltics and completely undo the diplomatic gains for no good reason.
Nearly all of the negative media about Putin and Russia in recent years (excepting the domestic issues re LBGTs) is just govt/media propaganda designed to whip up concern and anger over what is really a non-threatening non-foe. But the govt, and their media mouthpieces, need to keep the MIC going strong, and a New Cold War atmosphere of fear helps that process along.
Perhaps you will remember the part where after Putin first became president, he set about quashing whatever press freedom existed, jailing his political enemies, and generally turning the nascent Russian democracy into a Potemkin village version thereof.
Annexing Crimea and arming Ukrainian rebels was propaganda? Systematic destruction of all rival domestic political power bases (what ErDOGan is doing in Turkey right now) via state power and pretexts?
To me it makes sense to try and work with US where you can but still seak to undermine its allies elsewhere. Countries can do more than one thing or work together against a common problem while still competing elsewhere. The US setting lines is part of that if we signal we dont care anout the Baltics then that creates a space for Russia to fill, against the wishes of the people living there.
But the fear that Russia will invade the Baltics is not based in reality. it’s fearmongering. why in the world would Russia invade the Baltics? and don’t reply with something about Crimea unless you first set out clearly the differences between Crimea and the Baltics
I’m actually thinking more about eastern Ukraine. There, Russian caused massive chaos by supporting Russian minority rebels. This same situation exists in the Baltic republics, Russian minorities and some level of tension over culture/language. Though its less serious than in Ukraine. But it doesnt seem farfetched for Russia to arm some hotheads and get local sympathizers to call for Russuan intervention.
Moreover, like Crimea, Russia had a significant history of dominance and rule in the region which makes sense geographically but the Baltics chose otherwise. Half of Crimea felt the same way but they didnt get to go to the polls.
Its not as much a fear of sudden invasion, its that without strong committment, destabalizong tactics could lead to war in the region. From Russia’s pov why wouldnt you want to break a powerful alliance against you? Without American guarantees, with their small defense budgets would the other European states be willing to fight Russia?
it’s a mistake to think crimea was dominated by Russia – for 200 plus years Crimea was/ is Russian. saying Crimea was dominated by Russia is like saying South Dakota was dominated by the United States – well, yes, 200 years ago it belonged to the Sioux and others and there is a % of Sioux population. People in Crimea speak Russian (2014 census 65%), their history is Russian – etc etc. voting to rejoin Russia was a no brainer. that’s point one; It contains Russia’s major [historical] warm water naval base; to have it suddenly surrounded by NATO is point two in the Guardian link that’s what it covered.
The Baltic countries aren’t Russian, though have Russia minority population (20%, 25%, 4%() they have centuries of non Russian history, culturally, linguistically (especially Estonia which isn’t even Indo European, it’s Finnic). Russia dominated them at times but so did a whole bunch of other neighbors; there’s no argument that the people are Russian. It sounds like you’re thinking someone is going to make some kind of Sudetenland argument, but there’s no basis in reality to think that’s in anyone’s interests except the ppl trying to sell more war or cold war. economic spheres of influence, that’s another matter. and the connection between NATO and economic spheres of influence. actually taking over another country involves huge expenditures, the UN and all kinds of things – certain interests in many countries want us to get involved in their internal conflicts because they think the cash will flow freely. I fear the end of the Age of Obama b/c I think a lot of people are going to try to drag us into conflicts they can make $ off of. I know this is rambling, but there’s too much info to cover
The key point is that the russians in [parts of] E Ukraine are majority, not minority. what did you hear about the voting in Crimea and the population numbers? but if it’s presented as they are a minority then I can see someone extrapolating a Sudetenland argument, but that’s not the case.
and i assume that you know the situation of the Russian naval base in Crimea
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/07/ukraine-russia-crimea-naval-base-tatars-explainer
Yes, and the history as I’ve read about the Muscovite/St.Petersburg struggle with the Ottomans in the region.
sorry, I missed your comment here, was replying above.
Right. Invasion and annexation of Crimea was actually an accident: those Russian soldiers in uniforms without insignia simply got confused, got on the wrong bus, and wound up in Crimea. And once they were there, Putin was so embarrassed that he had no choice but to annex the territory. Thanks for clearing that up.
If your main concern is war with Russia, you should be volunteering for Trump. He’s the one who admires Putin and is willing to let him do what he likes. Hillary is the one whose special brand of “smart power at its best” is going to have us shooting down Russian warplanes over Syria.
I’ll never vote for him, for a thousand other reasons, but oddly he’s the only one occasionally making sense about our overly aggressive foreign posture, including the existence of Nato, which has no reason for being.
I can’t think of a single Dem who’s been speaking out along these lines, calling for a re-thinking of our FP attitude generally and for a renewed effort to work in cooperation with Russia.
It seems Obama is quietly coming around to the realization, as evidenced by the Kerry visit to Moscow for talks with Lavrov and Putin, that the US cannot continue provoking Russia and not working with them productively in areas like ISIS and Syria. As Stephen Cohen noted the other night, Obama is virtually alone, no party backing, maybe just a few favoring it in his national security chain, in undertaking these recent talks.
It took him 8 years, but at least finally he seems to be doing the right thing. But the Russians, given our sorry past record, will expect actions consistent with any agreement, not mere promises.
Obama isn’t coming around, he’s been doing it for years, just downplaying it because everyone else wants to gin up a war. how do you think we got the Syria chemical weapons agreement? Iran agreement?
Well, that’s a generous assessment of Obama, in an 11-dimensional way. And it’s produced near-brinkmanship in our relationship as the US and Nato continually provoke Russia to the point where its leaders are calling such provocations a direct threat to their national security.
Was that what Obama had in mind, seeing how far he could push the big bear before backing off? I doubt it.
Imo Obama didn’t support the Ukraine adventure; notice he hasn’t ok’d any military support [ppl write about this occasionally here, Tarheeldem was the first iirc]
NATO has no reason for being? Good Lord, I disagree with that. Dissolving NATO at the same moment that the EU has become extremely shaken, in the middle of a refugee crisis which has helped foment the rise of white supremacist nationalist political parties in numerous European nations, and while Russia has shifted to a more aggressive military stance and greater suppression of domestic dissent…no, I think NATO is an important brace against World War III, myself.
Au contraire, Nato seems to be a major malign force in edging us closer to WW3. And when Nato/US acts, Russia not surprisingly reacts, usually within its own sovereign borders, and then we call Russia the aggressor.
Eric, cumulatively you’re coming from a strange place with your reactions to Trump and Clinton (as increasingly demonstrated over the last few weeks). Specifically today I recommend you read this — and rebut it, if you think it’s warranted:
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12247074/donald-trump-nato-war
Trump has a point about this buried in all of the bluster.
NATO obligates members to spend a certain amount on defense. But very few do – because they know they can rely on the United States.
So if the Europeans don’t meet the obligation, why should the US risk war to defend them.
get a grip. the adults, Kerry and Lavrov, are conversing in Moscow as we speak. NYTimes can’t wait to have a war, let’s hope they have to wait
they’re not border states, they’re Baltic states
Nobody because Cruz doesn’t have any. He’s just acting like a sore loser. For months, and unlike the other contenders, he kept as close to Trump as possible because he thought that was his path to the nomination.
One of the unwritten rules in competing for the nomination is that the loser is to endorse the winner. A candidate doesn’t have much room to challenge that “rule” during the primary campaign because being a contender depends on not being frozen out. Had Sanders known then what is clear now, he could have added a tag to his “I look forward to a vigorous campaign on the issues” stance and included “fairness within the party and the counting of the votes.” He didn’t; his options were limited to being a conventional honorable loser or a sore loser. He expects his supporters to be sophisticated enough not to confuse his capitulation on the endorsement form) with a capitulation on the issues (substance). And also recognizes that “lesser evil” is a powerful habit among liberal Democratic voters.
Cruz, OTOH, received maximum positive consideration from the GOP for his campaign. Far more than was warranted based on his obstruction of and grandstanding against the party during his time in DC. Unlike Sanders, he’s a conflict junkie continually in search of feathering his own personal nest.
Nicely done, Martin. Your explanation sounds the best of any I’ve read. And Josh Marshall has been doing outstanding analysis of the Trumpf goings-on, but on this one he’s insisted on filtering everything through his “Trump’s Razor” (which has been a very useful device in most cases) and missed this one.
Keep in mind that the fact that Trump would use his nominating convention in such a way is just another outrageous, completely unprecedented, way way way over the line absurdity. You just don’t do this kind of thing. But this is what the GOP base lives about Trump – yeah, he may treat a lot of his own base like shit, too, but they love how he bullies everyone else.
Marshall is now open to the staged possibility but seems to be busy freaking out about the NATO part of Trumps NYtimes article.
Trump couldn’t bear to have Pence be the center of attention. (Especially with The New York Times reporting that a Republican victory would make Pence the de facto President.) Mission accomplished. Anything else arising from this will be forgotten by tonight after his own speech, when he pledges to conquer Peru and found a pure race with Ivanka. Give Trump credit for this: he has taken the measure of our attention span.
As for Cruz, maybe he didn’t plan on his wife being threatened, but this is a man who is comfortable being loathed by his associates. “Vote your conscience” isn’t even a dog whistle; in that context, it’s wearing a JOHNSON 2016 shirt. And it was a masterful launch for his 2020 campaign.
Didn’t watch but I’m persuaded. That Trump entered the hall at that moment clinches it. Trump’s stagecraft is straight out of WWE. It’s all about when and how you enter the arena.
“Wait! That’s… that’s Trump’s music! What’s he doing here?!”
We don’t get television any more in our house, so we can’t watch any of this crap. No loss. We cut the cable for broadcast TV two years ago and don’t have antennae attached to the two screens that have TV tuners in them. Mostly thankful I’m no longer even slightly inclined to try to watch broadcast or cable news or commentary. Mainstream media has been a disgrace here for over 15 years now, so we not only don’t watch it any more, we can’t.
We haven’t had a working television in our house nearly ten years now. But before I got married I stopped my own cable subscription, and that was well over 20 years ago.
Seems so Nixonian to me. Revenge on those who oppose you. Contrasts rather sharply with all the messages of what a nice guy/father Trump is.
Interesting possibility. I read somewhere – who knows where now – that allegedly Cruz changed is speech from the one he showed Manafort, and that’s why Trump got mad, did his WWE entrance and allegedly Heidi had to leave with security.
Who knows?
What little I heard on the radio – no tv, thank the dog – indicated that the pundits thought Cruz’s lack of endorsement is what led Trump to do his entrance and the NY delegation to get raucus. The “vote your conscience” is code that the NY delegation would definitely pick up on.
Well this is just grist for the mill and in another day or so will be gone down the memory hole. Clearly Cruz is running for 2020. That’s my main take-away.
Cruz Insurrection Just Beginning . . . (none / 0)
Latest: “Ted Cruz Won’t Endorse Trump `Like A Servile Puppy'”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-rnc-2016_us_5790c893e4b0bdddc4d340e2
Reminds me of that line from Penny Lane — “And though she feels as if she’s in a play, she is anyway.”
So will somebody please pass the popcorn? Because insofar as this is a play, I’m totally rooting for Cruz. Imagine expecting Cruz to kiss Trump’s ass after Trump insults his Goldman Sacks wife and insinuates that his father helped Oswald assassinate Kennedy — especially since it was not in reality, but only in a play written by the Warren Commission, that Oswald assassinated Kennedy.
But insofar as this is not a play, let Cruz and Trump can both beat the shit out of each other, and while they’re at it may they destroy what’s let of that putrid excuse for a party known as the GOP.
Clinton campaign video release:
Jonathan Cohn response tweet:
It turned into a ballroom blitz
by Tim F.at10:59 am on July 21, 2016
This morning Martin Longman made what I think is the first correct interpretation of what happened with Ted Cruz last night. Yes, the Trump campaign had Ted Cruz’s speech in advance. I am sure that they read it. They almost certainly discussed it with Cruz. So how could such a disaster happen with their eyes open?
The answer is that it all happened just like Trump wanted. In wrestling terms Trump lured Cruz on stage and surprised him with a heel turn.
……………………………………….
Consider a few things.
Well, let’s see. In your quoted excerpt, Cruz name-checked:
a. the defeat of slavery,
b. the Emancipation Proclamation,
c. the Civil Rights Act,
d. the elimination of Jim Crow Laws
were good things;
with the last also illustrating the cost of insanely permissive gun laws.
How dare he?!?!
Like proposing the GOP retreat back to dog-whistling, just as they were feeling so liberated by Trump from all that!
I dunno, your theory is intriguing, but the above also looks like ample red meat to arouse outrage from the rump wingnut remnant of the GOP.
Nate Silver read the prepared remarks but noted that the way Cruz delivered them made it a significantly harsher statement than it came across on paper.