Translation provided. No matter how hard you, or Ross Douthat, or any other pundits try, you're not going to get sensible people to buy into nonsensical political revisionism. The GOP made him. Let them suffer the consequences.
This is soft-headed. They didn't create him; the GOP accepted Trump's help when he looked useful to them, just as the Democrats have welcomed their own demagogues into their big tent when it suited them. Trump is attempting a hostile takeover of the party machinery that has looked at him the same way the Democrats have looked at Michael Moore and Al Sharpton: bomb-throwers who were useful as long as they concentrated their fire on the External Enemy and had plausible deniabilty.
Bernie Sanders is (sort of) Trump's Democratic mirror image. A crony capitalist on one side, a leftist ideologue on the other. Attempting a putsch from the outside with foot soldiers owing no particular allegiance to the party. Both have roused rabbles who see the machinery they want in corrupt hands, and who aren't bothered by the consequences of their actions to the parties in question. If Trump fails in his bid his supporters will slink off back under the rocks they came from; if the Sandernistas don't prevail they (for the most part) won't become loyal Hillary supporters.
Both parties are reaping not what they intentionally sowed but the result of dissatisfaction from their fringes. I blame this most on the efforts to suppress third parties that both the incumbent parties have engaged in for the last hundred years. Sanders doesn't belong in the same party as Clinton. Trump doesn't belong in the same party as Mitt Romney. Rand Paul doesn't belong in the same party as Mitch McConnell. But step outside those two big tents and a campaign for office gets much, much harder.
So the fight is going on inside the big tents because they made it hard to live outside. Maybe this will lead to schisms, with the Republicans spawning a UKIP-style right-wing party and the Democrats spinning off an openly socialist party. The Main Street centrists can have what's left and we can have an honest four-way discussion for a change. I don't see this happening; both parties will do their best to co-opt the radical fringes and will risk burning down those tents rather than lose influence. But a guy can dream.
So, what does it mean to this "truth" if Trump is not elected President?
In some way, shape, or form, a succeeding President always is a reaction to the preceding one.
Yes but the choice of candidate reflects just how pissed off the electorate was. If Trump fails to become POTUS, and not due to fraud or assassination, then fair play. But the final result will still show that the establishment GOP candidates got BTFO.
This is the point that everyone is ignoring by fixating on the letter mentioned above this paragraph.
Nobody is ignoring anything. We just don't agree with your self-evident "truths", nor are we reluctant to call out obvious blame deflection. GOP voters who are dissatisfied with Trump, and perhaps more importantly those who believe Trump deserves their conscientious support, should look in the mirror.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 29, 2016 - 1:36pm
kurtster wrote:
This is the point that everyone is ignoring by fixating on the letter mentioned above this paragraph.
Trump, of course, is not running against Obama, but the letter reflects a truth of politics: Each president is a reaction to the previous one. When (a majority of) the country sees the incumbent as a failure, the pendulum swings hard in the opposite direction.
Again, someone like Trump is what you get after 7 years of someone like Obama.
So what is so hard to admit about this ?
So, what does it mean to this "truth" if Trump is not elected President?
In some way, shape, or form, a succeeding President always is a reaction to the preceding one.
Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the party this winter, with thousands doing so to join the Republican ranks, according to the state’s top elections official.
Secretary of State William Galvin said more than 16,300 Democrats have shed their party affiliation and become independent voters since Jan. 1, while nearly 3,500 more shifted to the MassGOP ahead of tomorrow’s “Super Tuesday” presidential primary.
The primary reason? Galvin said his “guess” is simple: “The Trump phenomenon,” a reference to GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, who polls show enjoying a massive lead over rivals Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and others among Massachusetts Republican voters.
This is the point that everyone is ignoring by fixating on the letter mentioned above this paragraph.
Trump, of course, is not running against Obama, but the letter reflects a truth of politics: Each president is a reaction to the previous one. When (a majority of) the country sees the incumbent as a failure, the pendulum swings hard in the opposite direction.
Again, someone like Trump is what you get after 7 years of someone like Obama.
In a thoughtful letter desparate attempt to reassign blame, reader Edward Sukenick offers a pointed view of the Trump phenomenon. He writes: “Obama has diminished the pride Americans have in the greatness of our country failed to refuse to show leadership in the face of GOP whining. His apparent conviction that we are notan exceptional country unwillingness to be cowed by the GOP into remaking America into a neocon theocracy is robbing us of the essence of who we are. Exposing the GOP's hollow political stances and gutless obstructionism for what it truly is.Through Trump, people are out to do to Obama what his policies have done to the country — shove it down his throat. punish the GOP leadership and the Koch-funded candidates for failing to keep their absurd promises of stopping the ACA, and otherwise interfering with Obama's electoral mandate”
Translation provided. No matter how hard you, or Ross Douthat, or any other pundits try, you're not going to get sensible people to buy into nonsensical political revisionism. The GOP made him. Let them suffer the consequences.
In a thoughtful letter, reader Edward Sukenick offers a pointed view of the Trump phenomenon. He writes: “Obama has diminished the pride Americans have in the greatness of our country. His apparent conviction that we are not an exceptional country is robbing us of the essence of who we are. Through Trump, people are out to do to Obama what his policies have done to the country — shove it down his throat.”
Trump, of course, is not running against Obama, but the letter reflects a truth of politics: Each president is a reaction to the previous one. When the country sees the incumbent as a failure, the pendulum swings hard in the opposite direction.
That’s how we got Obama, the ultimate anti-George W. Bush. And with the nation polarized and the world in chaos, the pendulum is swinging far again; in every conceivable way, Trump is the ultimate anti-Obama.
Exceptionalism (and hubris in general) tends to not end very well...
Aside from being a self-serving myth. It does fit rather well with the "exceptional" Trump.
PS: In just as many aspects Obama has been no different from Bush. So much for the pendulum.
In a thoughtful letter, reader Edward Sukenick offers a pointed view of the Trump phenomenon. He writes: “Obama has diminished the pride Americans have in the greatness of our country. His apparent conviction that we are not an exceptional country is robbing us of the essence of who we are. Through Trump, people are out to do to Obama what his policies have done to the country — shove it down his throat.”
Trump, of course, is not running against Obama, but the letter reflects a truth of politics: Each president is a reaction to the previous one. When the country sees the incumbent as a failure, the pendulum swings hard in the opposite direction.
That’s how we got Obama, the ultimate anti-George W. Bush. And with the nation polarized and the world in chaos, the pendulum is swinging far again; in every conceivable way, Trump is the ultimate anti-Obama.
Eh, flanny ? It really isn't rocket science ... and again, I made this very point long ago ...
The opinion bolded above is pure poppycock. Obama hasn't diminished the pride Americans have in the greatness of our country. That's yet another Fox News strategy to somehow push the thought that Obama doesn't have the best interests of the country at heart and is somehow set on destroying the country. And it's just total bullshit.
I mentioned it a few months ago,Trump is what you get after 7 years of Obama.
Blame Obama for the rise of Trump.
Nice try. How much does Fox News pay you for online revisionism? Die hard conservatives disliked Obama long before he was elected.
They only recently became fed up with the GOP leadership (McConnell, Paul Ryan, etc.) to the point of rejecting party establishment directives.
Arguing that Obama is an evil genius who is somehow orchestrating Trump's popularity with the GOP's base is a sure symptom of stage V ODS.
From Dave's article above ...
In a thoughtful letter, reader Edward Sukenick offers a pointed view of the Trump phenomenon. He writes: “Obama has diminished the pride Americans have in the greatness of our country. His apparent conviction that we are not an exceptional country is robbing us of the essence of who we are. Through Trump, people are out to do to Obama what his policies have done to the country — shove it down his throat.”
Trump, of course, is not running against Obama, but the letter reflects a truth of politics: Each president is a reaction to the previous one. When the country sees the incumbent as a failure, the pendulum swings hard in the opposite direction.
That’s how we got Obama, the ultimate anti-George W. Bush. And with the nation polarized and the world in chaos, the pendulum is swinging far again; in every conceivable way, Trump is the ultimate anti-Obama.
Eh, flanny ? It really isn't rocket science ... and again, I made this very point long ago ...
So how do they do it? Simple, it’s war – a thermonuclear political war. There are no boundaries, there are no rules, there is nothing too far, there is nothing held back.
They will run attack ads, they’ll shout names and make up malicious smears; they’ll follow the candidate around to make noise at rallies; they will lie about anything and everything; they’ll pay anyone and everyone to assist, and they don’t care if the high-information voter knows what they are doing; it’s all part of the overall scorched earth plan.
They’ll pay people to do and say anything, ANYTHING. Winning is all that counts. Destroying the opponent is all that matters. Every means justifies that end. Period.
The GOPe have already hired actresses and actors to appear in the attack ads and to make personal appearances, as actors, during Trump events. The hiring agency is Talent Direct Agency (TDA) – The actors and production teams are working out the script details right now.
A last ditch, total war assault of racial smears by the establishment before Super-Tuesday.
Donald Trump’s runaway success in the GOP primaries so far is setting off alarm bells among neoconservatives who are worried he will not pursue the same bellicose foreign policy that has dominated Republican thinking for decades.
Max Boot, an unrepentant supporter of the Iraq War, wrote in the Weekly Standard that a “Trump presidency would represent the death knell of America as a great power,” citing, among other things, Trump’s objection to a large American troop presence in South Korea.
Trump has done much to trigger the scorn of neocon pundits. He denounced the Iraq War as a mistake based on Bush administration lies, just prior to scoring a sizable victory in the South Carolina GOP primary. In last week’s contentious GOP presidential debate, he defended the concept of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is utterly taboo on the neocon right. (...)
No, I don't trust Trump any more than anyone else. Trump, imo, just has the highest potential of delivering what he is talking about that I agree with. Its all a crap shoot. Don't know until they get into office, regardless of who we are talking about.
Is this just plain stuff or is a display of that nuance thing you keep mentioning ?
So you are impressed by him because you have the (unfounded IMO) belief that he has the potential to deliver on promises that you admit may be utterly insincere? At my age I've learned to look beyond what people promise, and scrutinize what they have done in the past, particularly when they thought no one was paying attention (i.e. before the white house was a gleam in their political eye).
Trump does not strike me as a good negotiator, any more than he would be a good poker player. He may be able to use bluster and leverage to intimidate small time players in the same way someone with a 20 to 1 advantage at a no limit poker game can pick up small pots despite being a poor reader of other peoples' tells, but he has obviously not had much successwhen dealing with people who see through his bluster and are not cowed by his wealth or belligerence.
just what I was thinking... not blaming Obama but just noting that the machinery of Washington is pretty fixed in its ways.
