For all of us that couldn’t bear to watch any moments on TV. And also knew that much of the best or more important stuff at natiional conventions doesn’t make it to TV anyway.
Matt Taibbi: Trump’s Appetite for Destruction Another masterpiece. That I’ll only risk spoiling a small bit for others. And only because it illustrates a point that some like me need occasional remainders of.
From other written reports and skimming the text of Trump’s speech, I gleaned enough to state earlier:
…
Trump has no vision. Only recycled sound bites from presidential campaigns since 1968. Expect in one of the debates, he’ll pull out, “the question is are you better off today than four years ago?”
…
Not wrong. Observationaly. But in the hands of a real writer (and a lot of attention to details and history), this is what it looks like:
… It was a relentlessly negative speech, pure horror movie, with constant references to murder and destruction. If you bought any of it, you probably turned off the tube ready to blow your head off.
But it wasn’t new, not one word. Trump cribbed his ideas from the Republicans he spent a year defaming. Trump had merely reprised Willie Horton, Barry Goldwater’s “marauders” speech, Jesse Helms’ “White Hands” ad, and most particularly Richard Nixon’s 1968 “law and order” acceptance address, the party’s archetypal fear-based appeal from which Trump borrowed in an intellectual appropriation far more sweeping and shameless than Melania’s much-hyped mistake.
He even used the term “law and order” four times, and rehashed a version of Nixon’s somber “let us begin by committing ourselves to the truth” intro, promising to “honor the American people with the truth, and nothing else.”
In place of Nixon’s “merchants of crime,” Trump spoke of 180,000 illegal immigrants roaming the countryside like zombies, hungry for the brains of decent folk.
…The tragic story of Sarah Root, killed by a released immigrant, was just Willie Horton without the picture.
…
Billmon:
In my next life, I want to be able to write like Taibbi.
Me: In my next life, I want to be able to write like Billmon. (As the step from me to Billmon is likely a bigger one than the step from Billmon to Taibbi, it’s within the dream realm of the possible. Like Taibbi is a fantasy too far for me.)
Citizens shooting policemen just begged for a replay of those Republican “law and order” tropes. Don’t think it would have widened his appeal any, though. His voters want the disruption of status quo, no? Who DO they think will be putting down that disruption for the 1%?
Policing for Profit is just as erosive of support among non-minority poors.
I’d say that he’s hit peak wingnut support. Necessary for a GOP nominee but insufficient should up to 20% of voters opt out or go third party.
I really enjoyed the whole thing. Billmon was comparing Taibbi favourably to Hunter S Thompson and it definitely had bite but to me Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail remains in a class by itself.
More from Billmon:
Sometime a few years ago, I had to acknowledge that Taibbi had surpassed Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail.
The “Hitler’s landscapes” comment was awesome, granted.
I hope Taibbi does as well…and as honestly…in Philadelphia.
I hope so.
AG
The raw material he’ll have to work with won’t be as good. But whatever exists there, he’ll describe and draw conclusions from it much better than anyone else.
Really, the material won’t be as good? It’ll surpass all expectations.
Depends upon one’s perspective. For those amused by exposure of the farce of national conventions, D list celebrities and politicians make for better copy than A and B list celebs/pols.
We’ll have to wait and see if the DNC email leak will spin out of control or team Clinton can adequately control the issue. I expect the latter.
Or maybe not, but the brooms are furiously sweeping it under the carpet. KPPC — Debbie Wasserman Schultz out as Democratic chair after email leak
Last night DWS still had the gavel but was axed as a speaker.
Oh goodie — not a sacking but a lateral:
She’ll get her big promotion after the general election because HRC is such an awesome decision maker.
She must have too many keys to the kingdom or knows where too many bodies are buried to cut her loose. And she’s just the sort of person that would play her cards in revenge.
Time for a timely car accident?
Please don’t go there.
DWS is merely a symptom and moving her out of the DNC leadership (after she completed her task) is as meaningful as Rove’s resignation in ’07. Yes, we do focus a lot of attention on the hired help poster children, but it’s not a place that we should waste emotional energy and passion on. Reserve that for the ones at the top and beyond. Like Kissinger. Blankfein. The new guard of Silicon Valley gazillionnaires.
I’ve been reading on other blogs speculation that he switched his support to Hillary because she threatened his wife and grandkids. I don’t believe it, but that shows you what (admittedly – some) people think of the Clintons.
Now Trump is the leftmost candidate if you discount Stein which most people do. That’s if you beleive that Trump is anti-TPP and pro-tariff on low wage nations like he says. I think it unlikely, but more likely than HRC saying she is now anti-TPP while selecting a pro-TPP running mate.
But don’t worry, I’ll probably not vote at all. What has voting got me in the last 50 years? I’ll tell you what Democrats that are more anti-worker than the Republicans of my youth and Republicans that were laughed out of the party in the 1950’s. That the Republican establishment attacks Trump for being too far Left is a point in his favor. But leaning toward joining the majority that doesn’t vote. Bernie switching sides and embracing Wall Street just cut my heart out.
I get the heartsickness, but I also think you’re over-reading what Bernie has now done. He said from day one that his campaign was not about him. Don’t put him on a pedestal. That like all politicians he’ll have moments where he’s forced to choose from bad options and that many that agree with him won’t always do so. And he respects his fellows travelers who have to disagree with him when he makes his hard choices.
Remember, one reason why Bernie has succeeded in his political career as an Ind and leftie is that he’s a gentleman whenever possible. I appreciate that because early in my business career I would have been dead if my older male colleagues hadn’t been gentlemen and which is what allowed them to accept me, the first woman, in their ranks. Maybe not as their equal initially. But over time as I demonstrated that a woman could handle the job and brought some fresh perspective, etc. to the operation, a valued equal. It was those my age and younger that were more difficult for me. Few had grown up in a time of learning good manners. And for them I was competition.
Why I urge you not to loss heart is because Sanders isn’t Dean. At any time, including today, I would have supported Sanders. Not so with Dean. He burst on the scene at a particular moment in time when the Democratic Party was reeling and cowering as if they were lost in the wilderness. Dean still had a spine and the party was in need of one and a fifty state strategy was at least a strategy and couldn’t be done in the old divide and conquer mode of ’90s dems (Clinton). Policy wise, he his track record hewed closely to the DLC. As a physician and from a small rural state, he had initiated a healthy by two program that is well within the tradition of progressivism, but came more out of his medical experience than political orientation. By 2002 he had recognized the folly of NAFTA; so, he could profit from the use of facts. Again that came from his science background and not politics. Good politicians need to be more prescient than that. Going with civil unions instead of marriage revealed his cautiousness, but it was under court order and may not have revealed his head or heart although my impression of him is that he’s not an ‘ist of any form.
The remaining available criteria on which he could be judged in ’02-03 was the Iraq War. He aced that one. But so too did Al Gore, a minority of Dem Senators and a majority of House members.
Personally, I would have preferred Al to run again in ’04. I may have always overestimated his overall political skills and talents, but I also thought that he’d come to see and begin to reject Clintonism. OTOH, it was also apparent to me that had he tried to run, the Clintons and MSM would have done their best to destroy him. Plus, Tipper took the ’00 loss very hard (her censorship of rock lyrics may have been the margin of victory in critical states, but Al never viewed it that way) and her health had suffered; so, another campaign would have asked more of her than she could like give.
So, at the end of 2002 and with Al out, that left Dean, Kerry, and Edwards. (I dismissed the others as nonstarters.) Edwards wasn’t an option for me. Too conservative, had sponsored the IWR, and slim political record. I also detected an overly ambitious, opportunistic phony. I’m a decent read of character, but it’s more sense driven and therefore it’s hopeless to try to make a case on this basis for those that had fallen under his spell.) Had Kerry voted against the Iraq war, I may have drifted toward him in the early going because he had a more liberal record than Dean. But I still doubted that his political chops could beat Bush. Overall, I thought Dean might be able to pull it off.
(Once some debates got under way, I was surprised at how not good he was. Expected that he would improve quickly. He didn’t. But still there was almost a year to go before he’d have to face GWB.)
Had Kerry won, he might have been a better President than Obama, but if so not by much because his liberalism is from a rarefied perspective and lacks that earthier component that give is heft.
Obama, better than HRC, and as that was all I expected (hoped for better) I’m not bitterly disappointed. Losing another eight years not doing what needs to be done is more lost opportunity costs but the opportunity hasn’t been there in such a very long time, no need to waste time being bitter about it. (Horrified that so many liberals view Obama as one of the best ever, but Republicans said the same about Reagan and he was ga-ga.)
Trump is like an appetizers only (high fat/high salt) cafeteria on policies and the menu changes daily except for the racist soft serve for dessert. A total crap shoot with the guy, but with odds for the people more like that at a roulette wheel.
Sure wish there was an option to defeat both Trump and HRC. So far there isn’t. And I still don’t have a crystal ball.
“FUDGE!!!???”
I know nothing about her, but really…the name alone ought to disqualify her.
Fudging is what the bureaucracies that Clinton represents do best!!!
AG
What a gooey mess this whole Clinton business is turning out to be. Where’s her Bill to come to the rescue?
She’s just hoping to get through the general election without Bill creating more gooey messes. Today, he’s only effective with those that idolize and don’t challenge him.
Arjun Sethi:
And time his murder spree for exactly five years from the day 77, mostly young, Norwegians were slaughtered by a neo-nazi.
RT Munich shooting not connected to refugees or ISIS, was inspired by Breivik – Bavaria police
Echoes of the Sandy Hook School murderer, but obviously not as out of touch with reality and didn’t have access to as many weapons and ammo.
Like many Iranian immigrants the murderer may have viewed himself as Persian and western.
A slut for his 15 minutes of fame?
And lifetimes of agony for many people, including his own family.
The Guardian – Boris Johnson rebuked for blaming Munich shooting on terrorists
Need a lot more rebukes by a lot more people in public office when public officials make such irresponsible statements.
Here’s one on my list:
Brad Sherman tweet
Unfortunately in CA two top candidates primary, Sherman won with 61.1% and will face the Republican that came in second with 14%. The candidate that supported Sanders came in third with 8.9. So, no way does Sherman pay a price for his coup cheerleading.
Mark Ames tweet:
Billmon riff:
Glenn Greenwald:
Billmon takes it and DNC emails from there:
Barry Eisler tweet
Politico Obama on DNC hack: ‘Experts attribute this to the Russians’
Zaid Jilani tweet
Because the DNC hired “experts” provided the answer that HRC/Obama wanted/likes and top USG folks unlikely to confirm.
Don’t know who Ben Swann is or the size of his audience on CBS 46, but this is hard hitting (reminds me of what wasn’t rare back before deregulation:
worth the 2 minute investment