At times it has seemed that the GOP nominee is merely trolling the electorate. I saw this the other day:
@KatyTurNBC
“Are people complaining that I said he was the founder of Isis,” Trump asks.
The original audio of Trump’s statement is quite striking. There is no sarcasm (unless he doesn’t know what sarcasm means), and there is no metaphorical connection, like “Obama’s policies created ISIS because … “). He is shouting and emphatic.
Just yesterday, the mercurial Katrina Pierson said President Obama took us into Afghanistan.
These statements don’t feel like mistakes. They feel like a deliberate strategy to disrupt the news flow by trolling it.
Trump’s success in the primaries was based at least in part on not allowing any other GOP candidate any oxygen. They learned quickly that the only way to make news was to take on Trump.
I’m not suggesting a Trump blackout; that would be too stressful to maintain. But I wonder if we should make an effort to focus more on HRC and her upside. (Hey, she had a press conference the other day!) But more seriously, how she would improve the country — less so how he would wreck it.
Thoughts?
johntmay says
Assuming Trump loses, I am concerned with two things. His present actions seem to be setting himself up to still be in the spotlight, maybe even more so. Hillary wins and we get the déjà vu of “her election was a fraud”, only this time instead of the missing birth certificate, it’s something else. Try all you want to ignore, but the media will love this. Donald will remain the master of getting attention. His followers will remain. He remains on the news, over and over again. Trying to ignore him will be like trying to ignore any latest craze. How does this affect how Republicans govern? How do they find a new leader with him still taking all the oxygen out of the room?
Second concern, how does this affect Hillary? Does this give her sufficient cover to stick to the “Tear Down the New Deal” plans of her husband? Or does this give her a glimpse of how popular and powerful she could be if she continued on her present course to the left, away from her neoliberal pals as she fights to take the wind out of Trump’s sails by finally returning the Democratic Party to its support of the working class?
methuenprogressive says
This shit won’t ever go away.
Christopher says
n/t
Mark L. Bail says
of her husband?
Christopher says
…to wonder how close their views are, though I object to JTM’s characterization of Clinton policies more generally. After all, part of the reason I support HRC is that I wouldn’t mind a third Clinton term, and of course a key component of her resume is being a policy-oriented FLOTUS.
SomervilleTom says
I wish there was word besides “sexism” to describe this.
First and foremost, I think we should not kid ourselves about President Hillary Clinton — if she wins, hers will NOT be third term of Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton IS NOT Lurleen Wallace.
Whether we characterize it as “sexist” or not, the premise that Hillary Clinton needs “cover” to pursue or differ from the policies of her husband is not something we would discuss if our nominee was male.
When George W. Bush was running for President, I do not recall claims that he needed “cover” to support or change the policies of his father. I do not recall claims that he was effectively continuing the administration of his father.
Hillary Clinton is a powerhouse in her own right. However we characterize it, the fact that she is so closely tied with the policies of her husband strikes me as heavily influenced by her gender.
Meanwhile, the allegation that Bill Clinton strove to “tear down the new deal” is pure histrionic nonsense.
Christopher says
…if for no other reason than different times, different circumstances, but then even if Bill himself were making a comeback he would be informed by the experiences of his previous term while adjusting for new realities. I actually do think if a man were seeking an office previously held by his wife we would see similar discussions. As for the Bushes, I do recall comparisons and continuation. Many of the same people returned, most notably Dick Cheney, and W. practically admitted that his focus on Saddam Hussein was motivated by a sense of unfinished business and the fact that Saddam tried to have H. W. assassinated.
jconway says
Clinton supporters can’t have it both ways. One can’t say she was the most policy oriented and politically active First Lady and count that towards her qualifications and then cry sexist when anyone suggests the “two for the price of one” team agreed on Bill Clinton’s policy agenda. I think it’s save to say they pursued an agenda for those times and have repudiated the elements that no longer work for our times in this platform. But I also think it’s valid for progressives to have concerns, not just about Kissinger, but about real issues too.
Is there a real risk as Tom Frank and Robert Reich are arguing that she goes neoliberal on us to court Wall Street Republicans and win over a 400+ electoral map? Will she deliver a populist progressive program or was that only rhetoric to win the primary? I can make good arguments either way, but since I am voting for her and not just against Trump, I tend to believe she knows she has to deliver on this agenda. The Wall Street Journal editorial board and the Never Trump conservatives seem to think so, backing Johnson or McMillian since they can’t endorse her agenda. And political scientists show politicians actually try and deliver on their promises a susprisingly high amount of the time. But it’s a debate we can and should have.
johntmay says
You can’t list her role as “First Lady” when you mention her qualifications to become president and then say that there is no connection between her and the actions of her husband.
johntmay says
During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration supported the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, and implemented cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.
And you think it’s “shit” to mention this?
Christopher says
…were the right thing to do at least at the time. I just saw an article today reminding that Bush actually approved NAFTA a month before he left office.
centralmassdad says
negotiated by Bush, and signed just before he left office, which was too late for ratification. That happened with the new Congress, after Clinton negotiated two supplements, relating to labor and environmental issues. Was ratified by bipartisan majorities in 1994, and Clinton signed the implementing legislation.
JimC says
When Trump says, “Obama founded ISIS, and HIllary cofounded it,” what’s the better use of her 30 seconds? Respond to the nonsense, or talk about her tax plan?
It’s becoming a question in my mind. Trump may have entered the zone where fighting the proverbial pig just gets you dirty.
SomervilleTom says
I agree with you that the best use of her 30 seconds is to talk about her tax plan — after she’s called the “proverbial pig” a pig.
Nothing Ms. Clinton can say or do will change the views of his actual supporters (the maroons who think he is actually correct). That’s why it makes no sense to attempt to respond to him any substantive way.
Better is to say that the naked emperor has no clothes and then stay on message.
Mark L. Bail says
the GOP freakshow that birthed him. The difference between Trump and most of the national GOP is that he isn’t housebroken. We need to start taking on their bullshit. The climate denial. The obstructionism. The voter suppression.
“What’s the difference between Trump and all the Republicans that winked at birtherism?”
‘What’s the difference between Paul Ryan’s tax plan and Donald Trump?”
If the GOP is to be saved, it must be destroyed.
SomervilleTom says
The GOP spent the last eight years pouring kerosene on the floor, and Donald Trump lit the match.
johntmay says
….kept asking each other HOW this Trump guy could beat all the others who ran in the Republican field. I explained to them: The Republicans have spent years educating their base that free markets and business are a panacea while government solutions are toxic…..then then run over a dozen government office holders against one businessman in the primary. If Trump had one other business person in the field, he’s gone before the Carolina primary.
Christopher says
…would describe Carly Fiorina pretty well, wouldn’t it? She couldn’t match his showmanship, though she did try the videos that don’t exist trick when it came to Planned Parenthood. It’s too late to ignore him. Too bad nobody thought of that strategy a year ago!
Mark L. Bail says
Hewlett-Packard into the dirt.
IOKIYAR. There’s no success like failure in the GOP.
johntmay says
…but then, she ran for office prior to this. I was thinking more along the lines of a Bloomberg or the guy who owns Papa John’s.
sabutai says
Trump will become the next Sarah Palin — an idol to some irrational people, but a sideshow to many others. However, to the extent that Democrats can make clear that Trump isn’t an outlier in the Republican conversation but its apotheosis, his impact will go beyond November. If the atmosphere that generated him isn’t called out for what it is, it may generate a fellow-traveler next time who isn’t grossly incompetent.
This is a chance to expunge this hatred from American politics, and it won’t be done by ignoring Trump.
jconway says
An imam was murdered in New York City over the weekend, while we can’t know for sure if the perpetrator was inspired by Trump, we can’t argue he has unleashed toxic bile in our political discourse that has led to violence. From his staffers attacking journalists and protestors to the Southie hoodlums who beat a Mexican man near death earlier this year in Boston, all my friends of color are fearful this year in a way they weren’t in 2012.
My wife is honestly asking me to plan an exit strategy if he wins. My sister in law who was nine months old when my in laws moved to America, keeps getting asked if she is illegal and why people like her keep coming to this country. By her peers, at a public university. This is the kind of bigotry that can’t continue. So I won’t ignore Trump, every decent American should fight him with every fiber of their being and vote for the only alternative.
SomervilleTom says
My wife has an EU passport, we are having the same “exit strategy” discussions.
JimC says
I think that’s what my argument comes down to. It’s hard to imagine Trump saying or doing anything worse than he’s already done in the next 12 weeks or so.
But NON-voters are the real scare factor. Her negatives are second only to his. We need to build enthusiasm for her.
johntmay says
As a former Sanders supporter, all I can recall is that “We have to elect Hillary because………TRUMP….”
We desperately need a positive PROGRESSIVE message from her campaign.
What troubled me today as I watched Morning Joe were the comments from far right wing congressman Steve King (R) Iowa who said:
If it’s just Hillary Clinton in a room with no staff and no press, she is someone I can work with this extent: She does understand policy. You can talk business with her. Whether she reacts to that outside the room is unproven as far as I am concerned, but I was in a position where we did that each year for several years when she was Secretary of State and I was the ranking member of the immigration subcommittee. We were required by law to sit down and meet each year and I found those conversations to be reasonable policy based just because there was no one in the room listening.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa
Morning Joe August 15, 2016
As a progressive, those remarks sent a chill down my spine. If I were an independent, those words tell me that it’s the same old business as usual if she gets elected. It’s hard to get people to get excited to vote for business as usual.
SomervilleTom says
You’ve posted this canard countless times here during this campaign. Christopher, in particular, has made multiple responses that each cite websites, policy statements, public statements, and the rest — they fall from you like water from a duck’s back.
Once again you come here and repeat comments from right-wing extremists.
We HAVE had a “positive PROGRESSIVE message” from Hillary Clinton campaign all along — you just ignore them. Ms. Clinton has turned handsprings to emphasize her support and enthusiasm for the agenda of Bernie Sanders. Mr. Sanders himself has endorsed her multiple times now.
All this is still not enough for you. Instead, you continue to repeat the same right-wing invective and groundless accusations against EVERYTHING “Clinton”.
You’ve told us how you react “as a progressive” and as an independent. This comment continues your tradition of commenting as a right-wing Rush Limbaugh/Steve King supporter.
JimC says
But I tihnk johntmay has a point here, one I’ve heard told in positive terms and in negative terms: she’s better, she’s different, in small focused discussions.
THAT is what we have to get out. Canard or no, her negatives are high. Those who hate her have spent 25 years hating her. They might NOT vote Trump (most in that camp will), but they’re never vote FOR her.
And yes I agree that she has been more progressive in this campaign. But she also … well, you know.
Christopher says
…so why are we trying. I’m not making the argument about what settings she is a better communicator in. I’m focusing on the message and the record, which has ALWAYS been more progressive than she gets credit for!
JimC says
Her advantage at the moment is that Trump’s vote is probably capped, whereas hers is expandable beyond the Democratic base.
Her argument about stability and qualifications, while true is weak. Nobody likes the status quo. Saying she’s qualified if like saying she’s qualified to maintain the status quo.
I don’t know if what I’m suggesting is possible, but (miraculously) the GOP nominated a candidate with higher negatives.
johntmay says
Guys like me said the DNC was grossly unfair and you called such talk a groundless accusation. Yup, same old same old from you.
SomervilleTom says
I invite you to cite a link where I characterized the DNC behavior as a “groundless accusation”. In fact, I wrote in multiple places (such as here, here, and here) that the DNC behavior was outrageous.
Please stop lying about me.
Christopher says
His comments told me that even right-wing ideologues who actually have to try/pretend to govern understand that Clinton is much more suited to be President than Trump. THAT WAS the argument all along for those with ears to hear. Even with a more reasonable and qualified GOP nominee, HRC is still the best qualified candidate for President in decades. Her rhetoric and her career also point to a presidency in which she WILL fight every day for ALL Americans. She doesn’t need the assistance by comparison of anyone who might be her opponent to prove that.
johntmay says
“HRC is still the best qualified candidate for President in decades. ”
It’s simply not true. She is very qualified, but to bring it to this level is just wrong.
theloquaciousliberal says
So, who do you think is the “best qualified candidate for President in decades”? Let’s say, starting with JFK’s first election in 1960 (over five decades ago – see list below).
Personally, I’d say only Richard Nixon (8 years as Vice President; shorts stints as a Congressman and as a Senator from CA), maybe Humphrey (a one-term VP but also a 3-term Senator), and George H.W. Bush (a Congressman, Director of the CIA, and an 8-year VP) are arguably close to Hillary’s experience as First Lady of Arkansas, FLOTUS, Senator and Secretary of State.
1960 John F. Kennedy/Richard Nixon
1964 Lyndon B. Johnson/Barry Goldwater
1968 Hubert Humphrey/Richard Nixon
1972 George McGovern/Richard Nixon (Calif.)
1976 Jimmy Carter/Gerald Ford
1980 Jimmy Carter/Ronald Reagan
1984 Walter Mondale/Ronald Reagan (Calif.)
1988 Michael Dukakis (Mass.)/George H. W. Bush (Tex.)
1992 Bill Clinton/George H. W. Bush
1996 Bill Clinton/Bob Dole (Kans.)
2000 Al Gore/George W. Bush
2004 John Kerry/George W. Bush
2008 Barack Obama/John McCain
2012 Barack Obama/Mitt Romney
2016 Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump
johntmay says
And I don’t count her “service” as the spouse. I’m told that’s “sexist”.
So please, she is qualified, very qualified, immensely more qualified than anyone else running in 2016, but that’s it. She is not the “most qualified ever” and so on. That just detracts from the truth and oversells.
SomervilleTom says
You apparently agree that Richard Nixon and George H. Bush are the only two who are more experienced.
Richard Nixon was elected for the last time in 1972, more than four decades ago. George H. Bush was elected just once in 1988, nearly three decades ago.
The phrase “in decades” means two or more decades in my world.
You seem to agree that in the list posted above (dating back more than five decades), only the two aforementioned candidates were more qualified and each of those was more than two decades ago.
Thus, you must have a different understanding of “decades” than the rest of us.
johntmay says
You want to limit that to three decades. Okay.
Hey, by the way, in my world, Democrats stand with labor and does not sell out to Wall Street. You are welcome to join my world at anytime and we can let bygones be bygones. I know, you don’t seem to mind selling out, ignoring morals and duty in exchange for cash “. I don’t know whether or that means Wall Street money, but the money MUST come from somewhere”….but maybe some day you will develop an understanding of real justice.
Until then, have a SUPER day!
Christopher says
…to find the majority of labor unions or specifically the AFL-CIO not endorsing the Democratic nominee? It’s also long past time you let that out-of-context quote from SomervilleTom go!
Another point about Nixon – whereas Obama has been gushing about all the ways Clinton has been involved in his administration, especially including the decision to take out Bin Laden, and of course Bill having plenty of praise for her role in his, don’t forget that when Ike was asked about a significant contribution VP Nixon had made to his presidency the response was, “Give me a week and I may think of one!”
spence says
It doesn’t belong in sarcastic quotes.
Christopher says
I don’t recall trying to persuade Sanders supporters with the Trump bogeyman argument. After all, Sanders could and did make the case he actually polled better than Clinton against Trump, though some of us may have expressed concern about the general election when we still assumed (how silly!) that Trump might mature as the nominee. Also, Tea Partiers knocked off very conservative Sen. Bennett of UT because of from what I can tell the sin of (gasp!) being civil to Democrats. Let us PLEASE not be their mirror image and eviscerate our candidates for being able to do business with Republicans!
jconway says
King and others are gradually giving up the fiction that Trump is qualified and they are making an argument to swing voters that they can work with and serve as a check on President Clinton. Conversely, it shows that they respect her as an astute policy mind and someone willing to look at all sides of the issue.
She is wedded to her platform in November, I am sympathetic to disappointed Sanders supporters and agree we should hold her to high standards and ask tough questions. Opposing Trump is insufficient, but the platform is progressive. If the old triangulator shows up, it’s a tactical mistake.
johntmay says
Believe me, it was a common argument, one I heard daily from my fellow Democrats who wanted me to hop on the Clinton bandwagon.
And for what it’s worth, it’s all I hear now. We must elect Hillary because……TRUMP.
JimC says
We must elect Hillary because TRUMP.
That argument is good enough for, but it’s not going to move enough independent voters.
SomervilleTom says
I agree that all you HEAR is “because……TRUMP”.
You simply do not HEAR the many arguments put forward for Ms. Clinton.
johntmay says
And she is making the progressive “talk” at the moment, but her past concerns me. He “walk” has been much different from her talk, when the microphones are on. If it’s just Hillary Clinton in a room with no staff and no press, she is someone this guy can work with.
Christopher says
For crying out loud she has walked for her ENTIRE CAREER starting with the Children’s Defense Fund, making sure schools really were desegregated, expanding the population with access to health care, etc. Your revisionist history, notwithstanding, Progressive Hillary did not just appear out of nowhere a year ago!
As for Steve King, newsflash, he’s still very likely to be a powerful member of the House majority next year and a President WILL need to work with someone like him in our system. Do you automatically assume she will be the one to cave? I say you should give her more credit than that.
johntmay says
If I hear Children’s Defense Fund, I’ll explode. Yes, we all know about the Children’s Defense Fund. And about health care, what about that “never ever” comment? Is she done? Is there no better way? Is this it? Has she thrown in the towel? Revisionist history? You mean the Clinton Administration that deregulated Wall Street (helped the rich) and super regulated welfare (hurt the poor)? That history? Take the blinders off my friend.
And have a SUPER day!
Christopher says
The economy of the 90s could stand for some deregulation. The politics of the 90s called for tightening welfare, but you conveniently forget that Clinton held off more extreme attempts. He vetoed welfare reform twice before he signed it. On health care it almost sounds like you prefer she throw in the towel. She didn’t get the universalizing overhaul she wanted so she went backs and got what she could, like CHIP. Do you wish she had NOT tried? Even now she proposes expanding and improving on the ACA. Politics is the art of the possible and you need to lose the attitude. Which progressive candidates for Congress have you volunteered for or donated to in order to give President Clinton something better to sign?