Centrist Democrats begin pushing back against Bernie Sanders, liberal wing
More neocentrist bullshit follows.
Read on.
The high-profile stars of the Democratic Party’s populist wing have steered the agenda their way on Capitol Hill this year, but the fight over the party’s direction is far from settled.
As the party faces great expectations of big gains in the 2018 midterms, Democratic centrists are increasingly worried that the disproportionate share of attention shown to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the agenda pushed by his anti-establishment allies will do more harm than good.
“Disproportionate!!!???” That sounds like the Republicans complaining about the so-called “liberal press.”
I don’t see Bernie Sanders being featured on the front pages or lead TV news of the dominant mass media outlets. Do you?
That direction, the thinking goes, will energize liberals in places that Democrats are already winning by big margins. But it might drive away the voters needed to win inland races that will shape the House majority and determine which governors and state legislators are in charge of redrawing federal and state legislative districts early next decade.
More importantly, “that direction” might steal the thunder from the presidential fix being set up for 2020. They are afraid that…if they can manage to demonize Trump sufficiently to get him outta there, they’ll comfortably go back to the usual “good candidate/bad candidate” routine, because whoever wins the nominations in 2020 will be neither a fire-breathing outlier or a “socialist.”
Enter a group called New Democracy, a combination think tank and super PAC trying to reimagine the party’s brand in regions where Democrats have suffered deep losses.
Leaders of the group want to focus on rebuilding in states where, during the Obama presidency, Democrats lost nearly 1,000 legislative seats and more than a dozen governor’s mansions.
“Our most important work will be done outside of Washington,” Will Marshall, founder of New Democracy, said in an interview.
Right again. It will be done in the backrooms of the controlled media, just as it has been done since the day JFK got shot.
The effort is publicly being labeled as “supplemental” to the emerging agenda being crafted on Capitol Hill, including the highly populist “Better Deal” proposal touted by party leaders in the House and Senate last month. But the new group’s leaders do not see that agenda, including a push for lower prescription-drug prices, as particularly helpful to Democrats in exurban districts or key Midwestern states where President Trump won last year.
“That is an accurate reflection of many Democrats who represent deep blue districts. But it has limited appeal beyond the coasts,” Marshall said.
–snip–
These people are even further to the right than Pelosi and Schumer, and that is saying something!
It goes on…and on and on and on…with this foolishness. I do not believe that these Democrats particularly want to win, they just want to make sure that no outliers tumble their braead basket again.
New Democracy is taking shape under the failure of another Clinton — Hillary — whose loss to Trump helped solidify the already growing divide between Democrats and voters beyond large urban centers. Several dozen Democrats have signed on with New Democracy, including Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto and Rep. Stephanie Murphy (Fla.), a freshman rising star.
In other words, centrist HRC was not centrist enough to win.
I can see the posters now.
Hickenlooper for Preznit!!!
The perfect name.
Who’s writing this shit? Charles Dickens?
Unbelievable.
But true.
The two Democratic wings could be headed for a fierce clash over what the party needs to stand for in the wake of the stunning 2016 defeat. Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other liberals have been making gains in getting congressional Democrats to support ideas such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage, some form of free college and demanding a full-frontal assault on big banks and big corporations.
“A fierce clash.” Oh, I hope so!!!
So far, however, the minimum wage and college plans pushed by Sanders have not been in the “Better Deal.” Senior Democratic advisers say that their effort has been to embrace economic populism without focusing on less politically popular liberal ideas.
Oh.
Kinda like…centrist Republicans.
Riiiight…
The early portions of the “Better Deal” agenda tilt in the populist direction, with calls for stronger antitrust regulations and its tough talk on trade deals. Their belief is that white, working-class voters — millions of whom voted for Barack Obama but then switched to Trump — felt left behind in an economy with fewer manufacturing plants and those jobs went offshore or disappeared through automation.
Marshall and other Democrats fear that the populist tone is built around a negative message of casting blame and lacks the optimistic tones around which Bill Clinton and Barack Obama built their successful presidential bids.
“Optimistic tones.”
What more can I say?
Can you eat them?
Spend them?
Count on them to help you when you are in trouble?
Hell no!!!
We need massive reform, not “optimistic tones.”
Give people a reason for optimism, like a fair deal. Then maybe they’ll vote for you.
In fact, “A Fair Deal” cuts the recent Democratic Party slogan “A Better Deal” to shreds!
A “better” deal leaves the rhetorical question open, “A better deal for whom?”
A “fair” deal guarantees a better deal for everybody except maybe the .01%.
Somebody get Bernie on the phone!!! Quick!!!
–snip–
“Obama’s success has masked the narrowing of the party’s appeal,” Marshall said, fearing that Democrats are not reaching beyond liberal elites. “Dogma seems to be in the driver’s seat.”
Dogma my ass!!!
The driver’s seat is…still…thoroughly occupied by corporate interests, which are working overtime to get this Uber-type Trump out of their business.
It’s gonna get ugly, I think. We are nearing a generational shift throughout this country. Will the young…who have largely rejected the entire mass media hype machine in favor of getting their false news in less centrally controllable forms…go for this new hustle?
I hope not.
One honest sentence from Bernie Sanders is worth all the DC neocentrist hype in the world.
I hope.
Later…
AG
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here
Here:
Here
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here:
Here:
And…
Here:
Wake the fuck up!!!
The long-time fix is falling apart at the seams!!!
Every man for himself!!! (And every other sex as well.)
WTFU.
Coup coming.
Watch.
AG
Looks more like two million that sat out in 2012 showed up for Trump in 2016. That’s a sloppy assessment, but not as bad as the “millions of whom voted for Barack Obama but then switched to Trump.”
I should probably make the effort to run the numbers by states, but why bother when facts are so discredited these days.
How much did the voter pool grow in four years?
Otherwise it looks like two million voters who were on the sidelines in 2012 decided to vote for the guy who wasn’t a politician but said he would stop the politicians from screwing them. That would explain the Midwest if indeed that’s where the extra voters came from. Then again, maybe the vote was smaller in 2012 because a few million lost Hope that anything would ever Change? Or it may be as simple as two million mailine Protestants could not bring themselves to vote for a Mormon. Or a little of all of the above?
A lot. Quick & dirty (from Wikipedia FWIW) 12 million, and 11 million between 2008 and 2012.
Don’t know what it is for MI, PA, and WI. What I do have is totals for Dem, GOP Lib, and Grn and reported turnout.
MI
PA
WI
None of the favored little hypotheses appear to have much explanatory value. For example, Mitt received 3,xxx more votes in WI that Trump did. In PA – Clinton was down 64,xxx from Obama in ’12, but turnout for the top four was up 353,xxx. This is consistent with what was seen during the primaries. And here we have to compare ’08 to ’16. GOP turnout exceeded that for Democrats and in several states where Obama and Sanders had been competitive with HRC, she did worse in ’16 than in ’08.
○ The Most Valuable Voters of 2016 | The Atlantic – Feb. 2016 |
I got yer “Demographics,” right here!!!
I think Bernie Sanders would have won.
So did the DNC, apparently. That’s why they concentrated on shooting him down.
I think the black population would have eventually figured out that Bernie’s plans were beneficial to working people of all races and cultures while Trump’s plans were not, and they would have turned out to vote for him. So would have a lot of other people of all cultures and economic levels. I also think that most of those people who voted down ticket but not for president would have voted for him as well, and I further think that there would have been an overall larger voter turnout that would have heavily favored Bernie. I mean…Trump got out the voters who fell for his line, but HRC? Her line simply wasn’t very good. Too much “Public/Private” and “Deplorables.” Trump ran against the system while HRC was the system.
The neocentrist DNC had no control over who got nominated by the Republicans, but they certainly did regarding Bernie Sanders. Meanwhile, the equivalent centrist forces in the Republican party simply fucked up. Big time. They were supposed to non-person Trump and put Butch III up there…a proven Deep State quantity from a proven Deep State family that would have made the election a referendum only on which edge of the Deep State sat in the White House…the usual U.S. electoral fix at least since 1968. But Butch III simply wasn’t up to the task, to say the least. Trump flayed him alive in the debates and the rest of the candidates were deeply flawed as well. Butch III looked defeated from the get-go. His heart simply wasn’t in it. Trump won, Ms. Public/Private Deplorables wasn’t up to the task either…nor was the DNC…and here we jolly well are, aren’t we. In the midst of a media war on the White House that is quite likely to force Trump to ramp up a war big enough to force them to lay off of him.
When that war comes, we can thank the Democratic party as it now stands…and will likely continue to stand if the Hickenlooper Brigade above has its way…for whatever happens.
Whatever happens, from some sort of centrist coup right on through nuclear winter.
Thanks loads, fellas and gals.
Great work.
As are the people who still support them.
So it goes.
Down like a motherfucker!!!
Later…
ASG
I doubt that Sanders would have done any better than Clinton in turn-out and percentage with the AA electorate. Clinton struggled to get younger AA voters and Sanders would likely have struggled to get older AA voters.
The difference is that against Sanders, Trump and his “populism” would have been more obviously shallow and fake. A crude version of Romney. That would have cost Trump some votes in a few states. OTOH, Sanders would have had to limit his loss of “status quo” Democrats (who would either have sat out or voted for Johnson) and more than make up for that loss with a higher millennial turnout. Not a slam dunk. But at least it wouldn’t have been a general election between two candidates with net negative approval ratings.
There are always states identified as “battlegrounds” by the press and the campaigns and the two candidates spend more assets (time and money) in those states that their team has so identified.
Turn-out (not as easily quantified as the graph suggests — states report as a percentage of registered voters (CA SOS 75.27) — and those that use votes as a percentage of voting age population are doing guesswork as to the current population and don’t appear to be discounting it for eligibility) is always expected to be lower in states where the outcome is pre-determined. HI was low in 2008!
Looks as if they used some Monday morning quarterbacking to come up with nine “battleground” states. The difference between Trump and Clinton is that he saw lots of battleground states and she saw none. That’s a bit unfair because her team did recognize that she needed either NV or NH and worked both of them. As did Trump (and he’s still pissed that he didn’t get NH). The first state that he gave up on was VA, but that really was the only one. While he was battling to get to 270, Clinton was adding icing to her 270 cake, unaware that the cake hadn’t been baked.
I wonder how much was Kaine and how much was NoVa.
Do favorite sons still help? Was Kaine a favorite son? i.e. did Virginians like him enough to be influenced?
Although federal direct employment has been going down since 1980 (and you know why!), their corporate replacements still live near the Beltway and can see that “small government” rhetoric means their jobs are in jeopardy, hence should tend to vote (D). Same applies to Springfield IL which stays reliably (D).
If you work for federal programs, it doesn’t matter who your direct employer is, you know the money comes from Congress. Congress giveth and Congress taketh away …
No! No! I just can’t finish that!
The Obama admin kept NoVA ‘defense’ industry fat and happy; so, it was always going to be a bit of a push for a GOP nominee in 2016. After the selection of Kaine, Trump made no serious effort there. That likely informed his decision at that time. However, a more astute candidate (which Trump wasn’t) would have also taken note that the US intel industry was beginning to publicly weigh in for Clinton around June/July 2016.
You raise an interesting point wrt voter behavior based on a local economy being dependent on federal ‘defense’ spending and employment and spending in general. Warrants more thought and consideration than my usual slapdash comments because there are several interacting variables in play. For now:
That was far easier for people to see when federal programs almost always equaled direct employment or direct benefits. (We’ve entered the era of “Keep government away from my Medicare.” Completely ignorant but politically powerful.) Even then it wasn’t viewed strictly as a question of Congress but Congress and the WH. The FDR period was great for racist southern Democratic politicians because they could take credit for the bucks that flowed in and reinforce racism. That was when the GOP offered neither.
Signing off on privatization/outsourcing is the second dumbest move that Democrats have ever made. That’s when they began offering neither. NoVA is unique in that once GWB left an opening for a Democratic administration, it was able to keep and increase the bucks flowing to NoVA. Other places heavily dependent on federal spending, mostly military and ‘defense,’ had been too effectively appropriated by the GOP to shift without a significant increase in funding. It isn’t merely a question of finding and distributing more dollars to those locations, but doing so without alienating their base.
I decided to look up what I knew were big Navy areas on the East Coast.
Portsmouth NH, 1’st Congressional district. home (as of late 1990’s) to a major defense contractor and a Naval base. Considered a swing district, currently (D) Carol Shea-Porter. She keeps winning,losing,winning,losing.
Norfolk VA, 2’nd Congressional district. Like Portsmouth but even bigger. Heavily Republican. In many recent elections Dems didn’t even have a candidate, despite a quite large black population.
Charleston SC, 1’st Congressional district. This used to be Mendel Rivers’ personal fief in my day and the joke was “if Mendel Rivers adds another defense installation to Charleston it will sink into the ocean under the weight” (R) Mark Sanford Republican since 1981!
Typical for that period and far from the worst. Strom Thurmond first bolted from the Democratic Party in 1948 but continued to run as either an Ind Dem/Dixiecrat or Dem until 1964 when he switched parties. Rivers’ didn’t follow him and his godson who succeeded him wasn’t half bad.
Still painful to read of Rivers’ attacks on one of the more recent great heroes, Hugh Thompson, along with Larry Colburn and both of whom fortunately lived long enough to receive the Soldier’s Medal.
However, SC (and NC for the most part) was in lockstep with the deep south and not solidly and consistently Republican until 1980; whereas, VA diverged in 1948 which makes it a more interesting, to me, laboratory for study. VA, particularly NoVA, marches to a different drum.
I’m sure TarHeelDem knows more of its history than I do. I knew Mendel Rivers was “boss of bosses” but the wikipedia article is an eyeful. Almost cliche.
wrt “favorite son” in presidential elections, it’s lost its punch in general elections but is still alive and well in primaries. Don’t view Kaine as a “favorite son” anyway, but a former mayor, Lt. governor, governor and current Senator carries some clout in-state on a presidential ticket. It was worth at least two points to Clinton and that was enough to carry the state.
A US House Rep at the bottom of a ticket is close to worthless. A sitting Senator and Governor has more weight than a former Sen/Gov or one that resigned or is not standing for reelection to his/her seat to run at the top or bottom of a ticket (unless state law precludes being on the ballot for two offices in the same electioin). (Edwards was worthless for Kerry in ’04.)
It’s also less easy to define as candidates are personally more mobile and claim multiple home states. Had Gore been a sitting TN Senator in 2000, he would more likely have carried the state. Trump had no chance to carry his real home state, New York, the transplant New Yorker had that sewn up, but he nabbed the other state that he also claims as a home, Florida.
And the hits just keep on comin’.
Yup.
AG
Not sure Turner is exactly a winning campaigner, and hers is a movement that needs to show that it can win more than a few rhetorical battles regarding the DNC’s “tone”. She does great if running unopposed, as her record as a state senator shows. With opposition for anything more significant than a city council seat, her record is not so great. In fact, she got crushed. I will give her credit: her legislative efforts to highlight the inequality between men’s and women’s reproductive health issues are right on (one might even say she digs on the same sorts of identity politics I find appealing, but which my progressive “betters” would deride me for), and at least she and I stand eye to eye with regard to the Democratic Party being worth fighting for (which it is). And so on.
Even better, none other than the “neocentrist deep-stater” (or whatever buzzwords those crazy kids use these days) Bill Clinton endorsed her in her 2014 re-election bid to the Ohio State Senate.
I dunno about Nina Turner, but I do know about the DNC and I’ve got a pretty good idea about where Bernie Sanders stands.
National politics is show business. Gotta have candidates with image to win. Charisma. It’s been that way since Nixon/JFK, and it’s not going to change. I initially thought that Sanders didn’t have a sharp enough image to compete…and maybe I still feel that way. But he…and the English pol Jeremy Corbyn…have recently proven that good ideas and positions can function as “image” even in this overall dysfunctional (Antifunctional?) media system.
I still think he’s too old for 2020, but any port in a storm.
AG
What’s the difference between Trump and GWB? Style. That seems to escape committed Democrats these days. Alex Nichols details it in Things are bad, and David Frum makes them worse.
Why oh why are Democrats now hugging GWB, Kissinger, Kristol, et. al? Are they deaf, dumb, and blind?
Alex Nichols tweet:
David Dayen
Because The Resistance TM isn’t fussy about allies to take down Trump?
Because the Resistance is fake?
Expanding on what I wrote in this thread:
You, I, Arthur Gilroy, Karl Pearson, even Centerfeilddj and ILJimP, just to name a few, are concerned with policy and it’s effects. Others like Marduk and Beaumont are just sports fans cheering for Team Blue and whatever it stands for today. The pols themselves only care about the long green in those white envelopes.
They would sell their mother to a white slaver for enough dough.
It’s as real as the teabag movement, except directed by Alan Smithee instead of Cecil B DeMille.
Appropriating a previously successful model means fully understanding the it and why it worked. So, far, The Resistance TM has made every possible mistake.
Luckily, no “white slaver” would be interested in their mothers, I am quite sure.
Every temptation eliminated is a good thing for people like them.
And their mothers.
Later…
AG
LOL!
Co-opted. Can’t offend those big donors. The envelopes might stop. And as anyone who grew up in Chicago or its shadow knows, the envelopes are the whole reason for politics.
AG, You’re correct that some of the Dems don’t want to win. Otherwise, they would offer a combination of a Square Deal and a New Deal, not a Better Deal. If the Dem elites don’t change, they will become a permanent minority party that shrinks each election cycle, until it goes the way of the Whigs. Also, it doesn’t appear the Dems have benefited much from Pres. Trump’s low approval ratings. That’s a bad sign.
Never mistake “not knowing how to win” for “not wanting to win.” How many on both sides of the aisle (including people here) squandered time being perplexed as to why Trump was even running for President. My simple answer was always because he wants to win. That was rejected by others who claimed that he didn’t want to win. A claim that they pulled out of you know where.
Party Democrats are at the moment still shell-shocked. They and their standard bearer most definitely wanted to win and both were 100% sure that they knew how to win (most experienced and qualified candidate evah!). They didn’t. Now they’re flailing because they can’t accept that truth. That’s why they haven’t benefited from Trump’s low and sinking approval ratings.
Instead of a sober analysis and practical action plan, they’re looking for instant gratification. The EC will bolt and save us, a million pink pussy hat march on Washington will wake up Americans who will save us, the FBI/CIA/etc. will expose Trump as a Putin stooge and save us, Republicans in Congress will impeach him and save us, the insubordination will reign at the Pentagon and save us, and on and on.
And the House minority leader isn’t concerned about losing in ’18, because she believes that Democrats always win when the GOP is in office and goes too far. Yet she has yet to wrap her mind around how fleeting those victories are; whereas, when Republicans because voters have said “enough!” with Democrats, their wins last through many more election cycles.
It’s not that they don’t want to win exactly, Marie, It’s that they don’t want to win enough to take the chance that their positions might alienate their financial supporters. And I do not mean just their political financial supporters. Being a Congressperson is a lucrative business. Like any well paid worker, they do not want to cross their bosses.
i cannot find the following on the net, but i read it long ago in either a book or article written by Gore Vidal or an interview with him. It impressed me enough that I have never forgotten it.
He was a member of a prominent and wealthy Oklahoma Democratic family and grew up in a privileged position in Washington DC. When he first became famous as a young writer David Rockefeller invited him to his upstate NY mansion for lunch. A helicopter picked him up in NYC and flew him to Rockefeller’s estate, where he had a long meeting and lunch with Rockefeller. Vidal had political aspirations at the time.
Apparently Rockefeller was trying to make him understand how the game was played and Vidal was at least somewhat resistant. After the meeting was over and Vidal was heading back to the helicopter, Rockefeller asked him how he had emjowed the food. Vidal answered that he had enjoyed it a great deal, that it was sopme of the best food that he had ever eaten. Rockefeller then said to him “Gore, you must understand. I hired cooks to make that food. I hire politicians the same way.” or words to that effect. Vidal never forgot that, and neither have I.
AG
“enjoyed” the food
I hate that phrase. Darrel Issa has $400M. IMHO his net worth is zero.
When did he become Senator? Is Dianne Feinstein really Darrel Issa in drag?
No.
The reverse.
AG
Still disagree. They are on the same page with their wealthy donors and who are perfectly fine with being insulted during a campaign because they are fully informed of the candidate’s “private positions” as Hillary bluntly stated to them.
The problem for most of them is that they aren’t skilled liars. Leftish populist speak from them during a campaign doesn’t sound authentic and inauthenticity is what defeated Clinton. (Not to be overlooked is that no other politician has had decades of training on how to speak in ways that appeal to real people as Clinton has had. Sure she started with little to no talent but that’s hardly unusual for politicians, many of whom have less talent than she does. However, training, particularly over many years, ups their game.) Much easier to lie believably if it’s not far from the private truth. That’s the sweet spot they now seek.
Problem that they’re not recognizing is the extent to which that sweet spot has been disappeared over the past eight years. A larger proportion of the public has learned how to see/hear through that.
This is mostly of Democrats own making. Bernie only gave it a nudge. They shot their wad with their best liar — and he’s no more than moderately good at that. Look closely at his campaign rhetoric and it becomes more apparent that he stuck closely to his private positions and only phrased it in ways that allowed listeners to interpret it as what they wanted to hear. An example from 2008 — “we’re going to renegotiate NAFTA.” That was an authentic statement as to his agenda, but listeners didn’t take that to mean that he wanted to make it better for the haves and worse for the have nots. His significant push for TPP exposed him on that. His “Grand Bargain” exposed his other private positions. (His constant ’08 claims that Social Security was going broke and therefore, had to be fixed was a tell. And no amount of instruction from an economist like Krugman explaining that that wasn’t true could get through to him. As Obama isn’t dumb, the only other explanation is that he planned to “fix” Social Security and there is only one direction for all the so-called “fixes.”)
Clinton, also a TPP advocate, was left exposed when people woke up to what Obama was pushing. On this, both Trump and Sanders were nudging the exposure of both Obama and Clinton. Over his almost eight years, Obama had exceeded whatever the allowable limit is for flip-flopping. Then came Clinton who had previously been near, at, or over her flip-flopping limit. Did anyone on her team if get why, “I’m a progressive who like to get things done” one day and “”You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center,” Clinton told the audience at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio. “I plead guilty.” another day was so deadly? Which one is the authentic Hillary ends of mattering less than the obvious evidence that in at least one of those two appearances, she lied.
An electorate which decided, through the Electoral College, that an outrageous liar and fraudster with oligarchic, racist and sexist beliefs should be the President cannot be declared to have “…learned how to see/hear through…” a goddamn thing.
Your “… larger proportion of the public…” participated, one way or another, in allowing Trump to squeak through. That showed an incredible lack of sophistication from the public, as represented by those who were allowed to vote. The current Administration will make the overall economic circumstances of working-class Americans much worse, not better, trade deals or, as is becoming apparent, no trade deals.
But this Administration is making it clear that poor and middle-class white Christians who obsess over their own identity poltics will remain higher up on the rhetorical pecking order than other Americans, so these “favored” people will have to be satisfied by that thin, foul gruel, because they’ll be hurt by the overall policies of this wrecking crew.
Working people would have been much, much, much better served by a Hillary Clinton Administration. The general electorate made a mistake. You believe the Democratic Party primary electorate made a mistake, so you’re familiar with the concept.
A goodly part of that electorate saw through both hustlers (and all of the media hustle) and either left the presidential ballot blank or simply didn’t show up.
Unfortunately, the dummies prevailed. Had HRC won, the dummies would also have prevailed, choosing Scylla rather than Charybdis.
As did you, undoubtedly.
Either way, the U.S. would have been in deep shit. It would be moderately different deep shit, but the only real difference between the two piles would be that HRC tries to use political Febreze (The “Public/Private” brand.) while Trump says “Get used to the smell!!! I like it, myself. It smells like home to me. My grandfather and father smelled like that, too. So have all of my wives and other women, when you get right down to it. It’s the whore smell.”
Either way, shit is still shit.
AG
You write:
There is a difference between “donors” and “owners,” Marie.
Donors come and go.
Owners can destroy you.
Physically, if necessary.
i think that the last president of the U.S. that was not “owned” by the Corporate/Spook alliance was Dwight Eisenhower.
The Kennedys suffered from severe hubris. They thought hat they could play electoral pattycake with their owners and then turn around and bite them.
Not a good ending.
Nixon too, in another manner. Post-assassination tactics took him down. The kinder, gentler sort of assassination. By media.
Since then?
Maybe Jimmy Carter was innocent enough not to realize what was happening. He got taken down from behind and only lasted one term. From then on until now? Butch I, Clinton I, Butch II, Obama? they knew damned well what their job was and who owned them.
And now? The very king of hubris.
He’ll go down faster than any of them.
Watch.
AG
How will he go down?
I keep having this vision of “his” generals walking into the Oval Office with an armed guard and gently informing him that they have decided enough is enough, and does he want to come along peacefully or what?
Never forget the two statements for which James “Mad Dog” Mattis is most famous:
And:
Believe it.
If it comes down to survival, reality will bite!!!
Watch.
AG
LOL. The Manly Man Mattis and his crew are going to stride into the West Wing and pull the plug on Trump- this is the fantasy you proudly declare? Very illiberal and unconstitutional, this idea of yours.
After finishing your post, I hope you had enough tissue close by so you could wipe the moisture off the keyboard before it damaged your computer.
As usual, you seem to assume that because I think that something is possible, I am therefore recommending that it does happen. I am not. But…considering the state of this country and the world now, it is quite possible.
So is nuclear annihilation.
Do you think that I am “recommending” that?
Grow up.
AG