Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
4896 messages in 209 discussions
Latest Mar-16 by MelanGEE
Latest Mar-11 by PTG (anotherPTG)
5892 messages in 176 discussions
Latest Mar-14 by NISSY (NISSY2)
Latest Feb-28 by Harold27Z
754 messages in 15 discussions
Latest Mar-13 by ElDotardo
17297 messages in 766 discussions
Latest 8/12/21 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Latest Mar-1 by OSarge (AKA Finkle) (mahjong54)
Yes, but recovery will take a long time
The Trump presidency made a deep descent in December. The departures of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, the appointment of senior persons of lesser experience, the abandonment of allies who fight beside us, and the president's thoughtless claim that America has long been a “sucker” in world affairs all defined his presidency down.
Donald Trump was not my choice for the Republican presidential nomination. After he became the nominee, I hoped his campaign would refrain from resentment and name-calling. It did not. When he won the election, I hoped he would rise to the occasion. His early appointments of Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Nikki Haley, Gary Cohn, H.R. McMaster, Kelly, and Mattis were encouraging. But, on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions last month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.
It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided. But policies and appointments are only a part of a presidency.
To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.
The world is also watching. America has long been looked to for leadership. Our economic and military strength was part of that, of course, but our enduring commitment to principled conduct in foreign relations, and to the rights of all people to freedom and equal justice, was even more esteemed. Trump’s words and actions have caused dismay around the world. In a 2016 Pew Research Center poll, 84 percent of people in Germany, Britain, France, Canada, and Sweden believed the American president would “do the right thing in world affairs.” One year later, that number had fallen to 16 percent. This comes at a very unfortunate time. Several allies in Europe are experiencing political upheaval. Several former Soviet satellite states are rethinking their commitment to democracy. Some Asian nations, such as the Philippines, lean increasingly toward China, which advances to rival our economy and our military.The world needs American leadership, and it is in America’s interest to provide it. A world led by authoritarian regimes is a world — and an America — with less prosperity, less freedom, less peace.
Good discussion with the author . . .
Full disclosure: I am a constitutional conservative. I am NOT a Republican, and have not been a party member since Watergate, and even prior to that I had to hold my nose when casting the first votes of my life for Richard M. Nixon . . . twice.
Mitt Romney’s op-ed crystallizes all the reasons the old GOP establishment has been pushed aside
Henry Olsen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and author of “The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue-Collar Conservatism.”
Mitt Romney’s op-ed Wednesday in The Post is being widely praised by the usual suspects in Never-Trump Land. This should be your first clue as to how wildly out of touch the senator-elect is with Republican voters.
What are some others? Let’s start with the article’s premise that President Trump’s character is more important than his accomplishments or principles. Most Republicans simply don’t accept this argument. Many instead see Trump’s pugnacious and sometimes crude talk as an essential part of his virtue — he fights while other Republicans cower. Others would prefer he tweet less and do more, but still prefer Trump’s fallen angel to a Democratic devil.
Romney would like you to believe you can have your cake and eat it, too — that you can be against Trump’s character but for his policies. But that doesn’t work in the real world. Railing about character hurts the president, and Republicans know that.
Romney’s obliviousness comes through in other parts of his piece, too. He explains what aspects of Trump’s tenure he supports, and — lo and behold! — they are the same as those he purportedly supported during his two failed attempts to become president. Notably absent from this approved list? Trump’s immigration proposals. But these have everything to do with why he won. The vast majority of Republicans want illegal immigration controlled now. Nearly half want immigrants living here without legal authority to be deported, and more than 80 percent want Trump’s wall.
Likewise, Romney omits Trump’s tariffs and trade policies, which are far more extensive than simply confronting China. You can debate their effectiveness, but his renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement and his ongoing trade negotiations with the European Union are seen as attempts to reset the global trade rules so that the United States keeps a larger share of the higher-paying jobs that manufacturing creates. Republican voters in the primaries thought that foreign trade was costing the United States jobs, and they like Trump’s current stances even in the face of the near-unanimous opposition from the GOP establishment.
I see Mitt Romney leading a division in the GOP, getting enough support to end the Trump/Pence/Putin administration
He's welcome to try, but then, they don't call the GOP the Stupid Party for no reason.
After caving a bit on his opening volley at President Trump, Mitt Romney is still on his backfoot, trying to explain again that he's really a nice, reasonable guy, because apparently the day earlier's retreat on CNN, didn't quite work.
Here's his new statement, trying to explain out that nasty attack he wrote in theWashington Post the other day as just namby pamby stuff about working together on stuff he agrees with and working apart on stuff he doesn't.
Oh, give us a break.
An attack like that, targeting President Trump right down to his character, isn't a thing about agreeing and disagreeing.
Where were Romney's character criticisms against President Obama, who spied on reporters, sent the IRS to target Tea Party dissidents, and then used the FBI and a phony foreign dossier paid for by the Democrats to try to derail candidate Donald Trump? Where were Romney's character scoldings on Obama officials' unmaskings of innocent Americans caught up in spy dragnets, or Hillary Clinton's illegal private server, set up to evade Freedom of Information Act public record requirements? Where was Romney when James Comey was laying out his hypocrisies all over the place as he touted his virtue? He seems to only get excited when the target is Trump.
And that puts his credibility at zero.
He's going to need to show a lot of agreeing before anyone is going to believe him about the 'working together' claim. When is he going to understand that we are tired of all the attacks on President Trump and think he deserves better? If we wanted attacks on Trump, we'd go to the Democrats.
It makes no sense. There's reason to be concerned about this whole thing, given that Romney, in his op-ed, has obviously sought the good will of the Washington Post, a paper that attacked him relentlessly and unfairly back when he was running for president.
Cliff Kincaid, who knows a thing or two about how the swamp works, put out a theory a few days ago on Renew America about what Mitt might really be up to as he seeks to assure us he's a nice guy while hurling arrows at Trump:
The new leader of the anti-Trump resistance in the Senate, Mitt Romney, will take the oath of office January 3. The former Massachusetts governor and failed GOP presidential candidate represents what could be called the reemergent Rockefeller wing of the GOP.
You may recall that Romney delivered the most scathing anti-Trump speech by a Republican during the 2016 election cycle, calling Trump a "phony" and a "fraud." Romney wrote in his
That was the last North African white Rhino! He died!
This is something (else) I don't understand about your electoral process.
Can a Republican challenge their own incumbent President and run against them in 2020?
This cannot happen here. Yes, there are leadership spills which have resulted in... I've lost track of how many PMs we've had in the last decade... let's call it a clusterfuck.
I don't consider it democratic that 40 self-serving politicians can override the election results and change the Prime Minister.
So can Romney run? If Cruz ran, would you support him over Trump?