Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-02-20 at 11.46.30 AM
The greatest.

***

  • ***

********


« | Main | The GOP can't move beyond Trump until ... »

June 19, 2017

Comments

Ivory Bill Woodpecker

That two apparently otherwise sensible people could STILL prefer the Russian Usurper to HRC is a grim tribute to the efficacy of the long propaganda campaign against the Clintons. It couldn't keep or throw Bill out of the Oval Office, but it did manage to deny it to HRC--and to Al Gore before her.

 Peter G.

Which begs the question, how did Hillary Clinton go, prior to announcing her intention to run, from being literally the most admired women on the planet to the demon from hell. We have it on the authority of a senior Republican congressman that the whole point of the Benghazi investigations was to achieve exactly that. Would the Republicans have treated or will treat any Democratic candidate any differently? It is a fact that Obama chose to run on a minimal legislative record, a single unfinished Senate term, on the sound advice that the longer he remained in the Senate, the greater would be the legislative voting record that would be used against him. Basically this locks the Democratic Party into candidates who go by the name of who? Young, articulate is good. Untarnished by experience seems necessary. The names Trudeau and Macron spring to mind as examples elsewhere. This is a profound shame for it also produces Trumps, ignorant dimwits as devoid of any inkling of knowledge as deep space is of matter. But who speak to voters of a similar bent.

Max

Hillary won't be running in 2020. You're right about the "grim tribute": the $half-billion spent smearing Hillary since '92 took a toll (although really overall she held up better than most considering the effort to smear her). The right wing will start smearing any Democrat who looks promising.

People have already forgotten how even pre-Sanders, Hillary ran on one of the most progressive platforms in recent democratic history.

I'm with PMC on not the Bernie left. Why, wasn't it just a year ago Bernie addressed the House Democrats, declaring "Elections aren't about winning . . ."? He still hasn't learned, won't learn, can't learn, wants to lose (except his own seat).

Jason

Within my little circle I know quite a few Trump voters. I don't know a single Trump supporter. Their reasons for voting for a man they knew was a total shitbag is exactly the same as you put it. They hate Hillary with a visceral rage that confounds any ability to articulate why. They're not much fonder of Democrats in general so I don't know that a fresher candidate with less baggage would've fared much better. Bear in mind these folks don't watch Fox News (or any news really), but the smear campaign against Hillary, Obamacare, etc was promulgated as much by mainstream news, and the message still got through.

Marc McKenzie

Agree with all of this, Peter.

I do not think that Hillary is running in 2020. If she chooses to step away from politics for the rest of her life, I do not blame her. The abuse she took from the Right--and from some quarters on the Left--would have crushed anyone else. That she is still standing is testament to the incredible courage and resilience she has.

If someone goes the Obama route for 2020, that would be a plus--maybe even a clue to how to win. Sanders would be too old, too much to the Left--and as the Democrats found out in 1972, that won't cut it. Both Clinton and Obama were young (mid-40's) and appealed to the center, not one extreme end of the spectrum.

Marc McKenzie

"I'm with PMC on not the Bernie left. Why, wasn't it just a year ago Bernie addressed the House Democrats, declaring "Elections aren't about winning . . ."?"

Ugh. And yet, why am I not surprised? For the far Left, winning means you lose your purity because you then have to, you know, do the work of GOVERNING. There is something about the far Left that is more interested in staying pure instead of actually getting your hands on the levers of power in order to affect change.

WDC

The people I know or worked with don't trust 'smart people'they feel their being talked down to. Joe Biden and Bill Clinton have that rare talent to come across as an average joe and also be intelligent.

Max

In '72 at least George McGovern ("The most decent man in the Senate" - Robert Kennedy) was an actual Democrat and a WWII hero; he was not on welfare in his thirties; he and his wife Eleanor did not honeymoon in the Soviet Union; he was not a big fan of Fidel Castro . . .

Anne J

Sadly, the right found other reasons to hate Obama, but tried mightily and failed miserably to hide their true reasons for why they really hated him. Sure, they would have trashed a white, male democrat but not nearly as savagely as they attacked and obstructed Obama. The rise of Obama exposed just how bad racism still is in this country. Trump simply normalized it and in 2016, racism won.

Max

Yes, exactly. I've noted here the modern American left has a death wish. If we want to win (and WE do) then we need to ignore the left and focus on people who will actually vote Democratic.

Anne J

The people who say that they want someone to bring the country together are full of crap. Just exactly who would that person be? What they really want is someone who will tell them what they want to hear and do what only they want them to do. Neither party has anybody that will do that. The democrats have no one because the republicans will tear him or her down. The republicans have no one because they have no intention of bringing the country together. A divided country makes it easier for them to rule.

Peter G

I hope, just hope mind, that you are not completely right about this. Lots of countries have two main parties that dominate the political landscape. But only the US has institutionalized the two party system to the degree that you have done. This has been done to such a degree that third or other parties can only really act as spoilers or, causes one of those rare sea changes occurs that cause the natural tensions within to dissolve completely like the whigs.

I like to call the American party system the Strange Bedfellow system. Occasionally this occurs in parliamentary systems when a minority government forces it. It is a regular feature of the Israeli Knesset. But only America really forces disparate interests to make common cause within one of two parties as a regular part of their system.

Long story short, within the Republican party there has to be salvageable elements that can be attracted the Democratic cause. Else Democratic party majorities cannot be fashioned. It will not take many to succeed. Check your racist and religious bigots at the door. Don't need them and don't want them.

Peter G

Not that I'd want to inflict undue mental distress on you but Duff's site is perhaps the clearest example of what I know to be true. They inveigh against what they call political correctness. They hate it with ever fiber of their being. Did not Trump constantly speak to this to the loud applause of his audiences? But what they really want is not to rid us of political correctness but for their racist and sexist beliefs to once again BE politically correct. This is why the Duffs of this world urge acceptance of this bullshit as if political success hinged on the Democratic party reinfecting themselves with it. This is what they mean by bringing the country together. And that is neither necessary nor advisable.

If you are wondering why I keep addressing this stuff to you it is because you keep saying stuff that helps me clarify my thinking.

Peter G

You probably recall as well as I that the principal line of attack on Obama during his first presidential campaign was his lack of experience. That was in both the primary and as the party nominee. Community activist? It was pretty close too and had not the economy blown up just when it did and McCain look like a fool (for selecting Palin not least of all) it might have worked. There is a danger inherent in going with the new blood.

Max

The Electoral College guarantees a two-party system. How many Electoral votes did Ross Perot win? What? - but but one in five voted for him!

I agree with you on what can be attracted to the Democratic base. Once Trump departs - whenever that is - his departure will split the Republican party. There will be a small but significant number of moderates who have had it with the Republican freak show.

JTL

I hope you're right, but I doubt it. Once Trump is gone, they will breathe a sigh of relief and go back to hating Democrats openly again. I bet if Pence became president tomorrow, his approval would skyrocket and the media would gush about how the adults were back in charge. I am not optimistic that the right will pay any long-term price for Trump. That said, they may pay a price for the awful policies they ram through, but then much of the damage will be done.

Max

The party will split because Trump has a constituency independent of the party hierarchy. This is something new. Whether the right-wing will pay the price they ought to will be entirely dependent on the Democratic party. Obama was hindered in that he could not be the fierce partisan (which we could have used) like Roosevelt, Reagan or Truman. And we know why he couldn't be a fierce partisan, outside of his own temperament. The era of the definition of a liberal is one who won't take his own side of an argument needs to come to an end.

Max

"There is a danger inherent in going with the new blood." There is, but we are now in a situation where the old blood is exhausted.

New Blood included: Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. There was no way of knowing three years' prior to their nomination it would be each of these. Surely we can nominate a quality candidate in 2020 who is not in his/her 70s.

Anne J

I hope I'm not right about this either. What's going on now is brand new and difficult to predict.

Marc McKenzie

Agree that it can also backfire, Peter. That is on me, and yes, I certainly do remember the s**t Obama got for also being a community organizer--and that was from both sides.

Marc McKenzie

Very true, Max. McGovern was a good man, and was a dedicated public servant and veteran. And yet, the slime campaign launched by Nixon was enough to turn millions against McGovern and to re-elect Nixon.

Marc McKenzie

And that, Anne, is worrying to me.

Anne J

And you help me clarify mine, Peter. The evidence of what you say about the Duffers of this world is overwhelming.

Max

All true, but. I worked for McGovern in the Primaries and he was the first presidential candidate I voted for. He was a good and decent man. He peaked too late - July, '73 (! - no kidding) . . . but McGovern didn't help himself. Last week I noted his delusional attitude towards Ted Kennedy being his running mate was a big contributor towards his being defeated. I knew a lot of folks who hated Nixon but voted for him anyway because McGovern scared them.

David & Son of Duff

I oppose applied 'political correctness' because a) I don't like strangers telling me what I can or cannot say, especially when the 'invigilators' are self-appointed!

I think George Orwell had some words on the subject!

Ivory Bill Woodpecker

Awright, who said the troll's name five times?

Ivory Bill Woodpecker

Or are only three times needed, as with Beetlejuice?

Ivory Bill Woodpecker

HELP! HELP! HE'S BEING REPRESSED! HE'S BEING REPRESSED!

jsrtheta

Nixon slime didn't beat McGovern. The 1972 Democratic National Convention did.

Max

You have a point. It was so utterly mismanaged McGovern spoke at 2:48 AM. Hunter Thompson's account - Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972 - is a must-read.

Max

You mean like "Freedom of speech is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear"?

Anne J

Max, do you think that when the smoke clears at the end of this dark period in our history the extremes of both parties could break off and join together?

Max

They loathe one another so much I suspect not and that they will just continue to flail away.

Marc McKenzie

Fucking snowflake...

Anne J

Peter G., now you've done it! You up and triggered the worthless limey piece of shit snowflake!

Peter G

And yet you seem anxious to apply it to those you disdain. Welcome to the new world. There was always a price to be paid for holding unpopular opinions and there always will be. No one is actually telling you what you can and cannot say but for the limits any decent society imposes. You cannot urge death or violence on any group or individual you do not like. If you feel that is an undue restraint on your personal freedom well tough shit. If you want to publicly condemn the LGBT community because of your personal religious beliefs have at it. But if you think they have an obligation to respect your views and not publicly rebuke you for it then you have, let us say, a very strange view of what free speech really means.

The term politically correct only reflects what the the majority of the people in any given polity believe is acceptable discourse.

Max

Really, DO tell us about Orwell.

Max

... who cites Orwell, without any actual quotes . . . as though the mere mention of Orwell's name is an answer from the right (!); as if Orwell would have sided with the American right-wing. If Orwell were alive he would be cursing at the Duffs. You might find comfort in the new Thomas Ricks' book"Churchill & Orwell: The Fight For The Freedome." (I'm reading off and on.)

Have

How about this for a Story?

The right wing presents American politics as a false choice between capitalism and socialism.

The reality is different: on one hand, pure socialism is a failure because it stifles human ambition and the wealth-creating engine of the free market. On the other hand, pure capitalism is a failure because it’s rigged in favor of people who are already wealthy, and creates a situation where everyone works to create wealth, but it all gets vacuumed to the top.

Experience shows us that a successful nation needs a balance between 3 things: a capitalist free market to create wealth and utilize resources; a social safety net to make sure everyone benefits from the prosperity; and investments in the labor force (education, health care), infrastructure, R&D to make sure the country stays competitive.

This balance(TM) used to exist in the 1950s-70s, and that’s why America boomed and the middle class prospered. Since the 80s, a small group of extreme anti-government ideologues have worked to destroy 2 out of the 3 pillars of national success. According to the values of people like Paul Ryan, a country should be like a crack house with a steel door: really well-defended from the outside, but not maintained in any way on the inside.

Over the past 30 years, these people have succeeded in weakening the 2 pillars, and this has caused the stagnation and decline of the middle class. America is an incredibly rich country that feels poor because the money and resources are being hoarded at the top.

We need to restore the Balance(TM) in order to be successful and prosperous again.

Take that, firehose it for 30 years through every media outlet you can get to.

Anne J

Kind of like how they mention George Soros as if merely conjuring up his name is some kind of liberal kryptonite?

Max

Ha! Yeah!

The Dark Avenger

Yes he did David but if he was a blogger today I doubt he would have the cojones to comment on other people's blogs what they should or should not discuss as in your case here.

You can't have it both ways, old bean. The freedom to run your own blog as you see fit necessitates that you extend the same courtesy to our gracious host Mr. Carpenter. I think Orwell was perfectly clear about that point, unless you were invoking him as some sort of protective titular god of the Liberal Pavlonians around here.

How's the

The Dark Avenger

Yes he did David but if he was a blogger today I doubt he would have the cojones to comment on other people's blogs what they should or should not discuss as in your case here.

You can't have it both ways, old bean. The freedom to run your own blog as you see fit necessitates that you extend the same courtesy to our gracious host Mr. Carpenter. I think Orwell was perfectly clear about that point, unless you were invoking him as some sort of protective titular god of the Liberal Pavlonians around here.

How's the

Tony

You mean three principles instead of just one? But,.....but, that's SO complicated. It so much easier to be intellectually lazy and try to squeeze the entire country through one nozzle, the Nozzle of Capitalism! (Much more profitable, too, for the Truly Deserving, that is.)

Seriously, this is a great post. America is fated to be an object lesson to the rest of the world in the self-destroying nature of pure, uncompromising, and unthinking capitalism. RIP?

David & Son of Duff

Precisely and exactly so, Max!

See what you can achieve when you try using words with more than four letters, er, even when you have to quote them!

David & Son of Duff

Thanks for that book tip, Max, it sounds fascinating.

David & Son of Duff

I don't "want it both ways", DA. I run my blog on more or less the same principles as Mr. Carpenter, dammit, I even put up with Peter G droning on and on. Admittedly, my patience might be tested by Max and his four-letter, premature ejaculations!

The Dark Avenger

David, you have on several times here opined about what should and shouldn't be discussed here, a right that clearly belongs exclusively to Herr Carpenter and nobody else.


David Duff said in reply to Peter G....
It wasn't a "request", Peter, merely a polite invitation so as to avoid boring the PMC readers to an early death!

http://www.pmcarpenter.com/2017/06/mrs-may-in-june.html#comments

Your struggle to be taken seriously here could make for an autobiography, David, something like My or Mine ...........

Max

Fucking snowflake. Fucking liar.

Max

Like.

I would say 37ish years - going back to the early 80s, when the Grand Old Party and our Captains of Industry declared war on the middle class. It was in the early-80s that management broke their half-century covenant with labor. Data point, when this started, the early 80s, the average CEO-to-average-employee salary gap was 44:1; by 1990 it was 90:1, today it's well over 500:1. But it's still not enough. Because there IS no "enough."

Max

You might learn something.

David & Son of Duff

DA, I think my first sentence sums up my approach accurately.

And please don't fret about my "struggle to be taken seriously here", it simply does not exist.

The Dark Avenger

Please don't play us for fools here, old bean. But thanks for releasing us of the necessity to take you seriously.

Anne J

Or Mein

The comments to this entry are closed.