McConnell: Let’s not nominate a bunch of crazy Tea Party people, folks
POSTED AT 10:01 AM ON DECEMBER 19, 2015 BY JAZZ SHAw
The long awaited voice of reason for the 2016 election has finally weighed in. Mitch McConnell took time out from his busy schedule of cutting budget deals with the Democrats to caution everyone against going crazy next year and nominating a bunch of wacko birds who can’t possibly win. Let’s tune in to a short segment of the sage advice. (The Hill)
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Friday warned Republican voters to steer clear of nominating Tea Party candidates who can’t win in next year’s general election.“The way you have a good election year is to nominate people who can win,” he told reporters during his final Capitol Hill press conference of 2015.He urged Republican primary voters to avoid the mistakes of the past, mentioning several Tea Party candidates who went down in flames in recent Senate elections.“What we did in 2014 was we didn’t have more Christine O’Donnell’s, Sharron Angles, Richard Mourdocks or Todd Akins. The people that were nominated [last year] were electable,” he said of the last midterm cycle.
I seem to recognize this argument from somewhere, but where was it? Oh, that’s right… it was me. I was making the same case in 2012 after watching the wreckage of a handful of totally winnable races two years earlier which slipped away. But a few years of observing the antics of Congress after we supposedly took control of both chambers has cured me of much of that. That’s not to say that we don’t need to do careful vetting of candidates… we absolutely do. Christine O’Donnell was a disaster of a candidate and in retrospect we probably should have seen that Akins had too much baggage to carry for the race he was in. But the “you’re too conservative to win” argument has long since begun to fall flat in my own ears by this point. (With the caveat that you need to understand the temperature of the district or state you’re running in, of course.)
I notice that McConnell wasn't limiting his comments to Senate races, either, though he was being a little coy about it.
McConnell said the same standard applies to the presidential race, reiterating a statement he made earlier in the week.“We’d like to have a nominee who can carry purple states because unless the nominee for president can carry purple states, he’s not going to get elected,” he said.
Something has to change. Soon.)
58 comments:
McConnell is starting to physically resemble Harry Reid.
There is not a dimes worth of difference between them.
So says the turtle king.
Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same filthy coin, who only disagree on how to spend our money, and in reality agree on 95% of that.
I know. That's why George Bush Senior and George Bush Junior were so electable. They were the most conservative candidates in the field.
I have to disagree Ritmo. George Senior won because he was supposed to be a continuation of Ronald Reagan. "No New Taxes." When it was clear that he was not a populist alternative
(Perot) turned the election to Clinton.
George W barely won because he did not turn out the base and the Clinton scandals turned enough people off of Gore that he was able to squeak in.
Electablity is a chimera. We were told that McCain and Romney were "electable." The conservatives were told to sit down and shut up and for the establishment candidate. How did that work out?
I say lets go in a totally different direction. I would be happy if Cruz gets the nod. But other then him there is not a dimes worth of difference amongst the rest of them. So I like Trump because he is great on my two principle issues. Immigration and the war on terror. He doesn't want to invade every country in the world and spend America's blood and treasure. He wants to cut deals where he can and bomb the shit out of them where he can't. Don't you think he can cut a deal with Putin about Syria? Don't you think he can put enough pressure on Mexico to stem the tide a little?
Then if that's true the only thing going for a Republican victory is if people hate Obama as much as you think they do. I don't think they do. They certainly don't hate him enough to think that a do-over for the George W. Bush's of the Republican party is in order.
Ted Cruz is hated by everyone Republican and non- alike and Trump is not a conservative. Ben Carson got to be the flavor of the month for a shorter period of time than Herman Cain did. Nice guy but they know that brain surgery ain't bean bag. It's Trump versus the Establishment and apparently neither one are really all that conservative.
People want conflicting demands. I'd think in business this is clear. Customers can be stupid as hell, no matter how much you have to please them. Trump's got the anti-immigration thing down and that's it. The base knows he's not a tax cutter for billionaires, or a bomb everything in sight guy, or a save the zygotes guy, or anything else. This is the same conservative "base" that likes their Medicare, etc.
So I like Trump because he is great on my two principle issues. Immigration and the war on terror. He doesn't want to invade every country in the world and spend America's blood and treasure. He wants to cut deals where he can and bomb the shit out of them where he can't. Don't you think he can cut a deal with Putin about Syria? Don't you think he can put enough pressure on Mexico to stem the tide a little?
I think you got the right idea, there.
Whether he can deliver is another issue.
Something that involves negotiation, like foreign policy, might work out well for him. If he figures out when and how to keep his mouth shut long enough to keep involved parties adherent.
Electability is about timing as much as it is about adjusting things for a district. 1980 is not 2016 and not everything that worked for a candidate then would work now. And none of them now are Him, then. (I capitalize out of respect for the Great Man).
You are mistaken if you think the conservative base is the one pushing Trumps candidacy. Some of his support is from conservatives like me. People who want to stick a thumb in the eye of the establishment. He is good on two of my main issues and that is enough for me to support him.
But he also has a lot of support from people who never vote. Who are being brought into the process by Trump's celebrity. As well as his straight talk. The hard core conservatives are going with Cruz. I would be happy with Cruz if he is the nominee. What Trump is doing is helping Cruz. He is adsorbing the outrage of the media and the Republican establishment. Trump is taking the hits and shrugging it off. He is opening the Overton window big time. If Trump was not there the Establishment and the Media would be eviscerating Cruz 24/7.
You can't fight the last war. Trump is amazing in the way he dominates the conversation. He has already done yeoman's work in utterly destroying Jeb Bush and pushing out losers like Perry and Walker and Jindal. The way he exposed the FOX news network is also very illuminating. He punctured the self righteous balloons of a whole bunch of so called conservative pundits and commentators. If Trump runs and loses and throws his support to Cruz it will be the best of all possible worlds. That can very easily happen.
Wouldn't be ironic if Bernie Sanders is the one who runs third party and ensures Ted Cruz's victory just as Perot did for Clinton.
Bernie Sanders is not stupid enough to do for Republicans what Perot did for Clinton.
A campaign run by the guy hated by everyone left and right, Ted Cruz, would be a dream run.
No doubt if that were to happen, once he went down in flames, a new conspiracy would have to be identified.
I think you are catching Insurgent Fever. Not every insurgent is the messiah or somehow playing a role in bringing about the messiah's vision.
What you don't think Bernie and the hot red Occupy Wall Street won't decide on a third party run if they feel they were screwed by Hillary and the DNC? It was publicized that Hillary was stealing Bernie's stuff and that Hillary is financing the DNC. It is totally possible that Sanders could get his balls twisted and decide to do what he could to fuck Hillary.
She has that effect on people.
Also you can be hated by everyone and still get elected. Even elected in a landslide.
Nixon won twice. Just sayn'
If Cruz is seen as the only alternative to Trump even the Rhino Faggots will come on board. They want their rice bowl and want jobs just like anybody else. If they can stop Trump with Cruz they will do it in a minute.
Remember Trump is the threat to the Duopoly. Not Cruz.
Trump can prove his point and lose and still support Cruz if he wins fair and square. Hey he wouldn't do it if it was Jeb who won. Then Trump definitely would go Third Party.
He still might if he wins it fair and square and some sort of brokered convention bullshit gives it to someone else. And you know what? He would be right.
So what? Bernie got the DNC to reneg after threatening suit for breach of contract. Apparently some outsiders actually know how to get the system to work for them. He is just not as self-defeating as some people might hope.
1968 was a strange year. Bobby Kennedy would have won if he wasn't killed. Imagine that.
And Nixon could get away with a lot more lying in 1972 than anyone can get away with now. My my the times have changed.
Imagine if Trump wins the most delegates but not the eight states required to get the nomination on the first ballot. Then all the consultants and Quisling Congressmen and pundits and what not get together to give it to someone like Rubio. Or even someone who didn't run like Mitch Daniels. Then all bets are off.
It would be like the Bull Moose moment. Only it would be the "Stupid Moose and Squirrel" moment.
Wait Nixon got away with more lying? More lying than Hillary? Or Obama?
Even Nixon didn't lie at Obama's level of lying lies.
"If you want to keep your doctor you will get to keep your doctor."
"ISIS is just the JV."
"The attack on Benghazi was caused by a youtube video."
Seriously?
Lying is the only thing that Hillary's got.
If Cruz is seen as the only alternative to Trump even the Rhino Faggots will come on board.
Lol. Uh, this sounds a little... how should I say it... emotional, maybe? It's not only Republican votes that matter. Cruz would get crushed in a general.
I thought it was "RINO". "Rhino" sounds like rhinoceroses, which are actually sort of cool as far as animals go.
Rhinos are at least as cool as elephants.
McConnell is begging for his people not to be primaried.
Let's primary all of 'em.
Rhythm and Balls said...
I know. That's why George Bush Senior and George Bush Junior were so electable. They were the most conservative candidates in the field.
It's why they won.
Then if that's true the only thing going for a Republican victory is if people hate Obama as much as you think they do. I don't think they do. They certainly don't hate him enough to think that a do-over for the George W. Bush's of the Republican party is in order.
Yeah, those Miss Me Yet signs are just an illusion. Just like the shellacking the Demos took when Pissy insisted the '14 elections be about him.
1968 was a strange year. Bobby Kennedy would have won if he wasn't killed. Imagine that.
Maybe the nomination, but that's it.
You know who most resembles Bobby Kennedy in this race?
Trump.
They were both the candidates of the white working class.
That sure as hell ain't Hillary.
Wait Nixon got away with more lying? More lying than Hillary? Or Obama?
Totally.
You're not putting those quotes into context.
Lying is the only thing that Hillary's got.
Comparing HRC to Nixon isn't lost on me. Believe me. But it's not just how someone twists and bends the truth. First, I was comparing first runs. So that doesn't rule out at all a scandal that Hillary could commit during a first term and blow her chances for a second.
She was doing some sort of student committee on Watergate, though. So she might actually be, if nothing else, wary of repeating the same mistakes Nixon made. Or at least, wary of committing them as egregiously.
It's not just a fib or stretching things or whatever. It's the paranoia. Nixon knew what he did was wrong. He kept tapes. The guy was crazy. Certainly you could levy any of these charges at Hillary, too. But it's moot. One of them won a first term, first, and both of them could. Let's leave talk of scandals for when they matter: While in office.
Ben Ghazi is a bunch of stupid partisan bullshit that the Republican committee admitted was just a way to batter Hillary in preparation for her run. It hasn't worked.
Here's some advice on not knowing when to give up. When you flat-out admit that The (so-called) Greatest and Most Horrendous Military Scandal of All Time was basically a ploy to get your opponent some bad publicity through partisan hearings and ganging up on her in public, and she still leads a major party nomination, and still beating nearly every opponent in the polls, then it might be time to give up.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to election with the public that exists. Not with the hyper-partisan conservative public that you wish made up the entire composition of the American people.
It's why they won.
HW maybe. W because people said they wanted to "have a beer with him."
Yeah, those Miss Me Yet signs are just an illusion.
Oh wow! A sign! Everyone knows that putting up a billboard makes for political truth. Just like the Soviets propagandized. Yep, if you put up a sign that says, "Dewey Defeats Truman" then ed would tell you that made it so.
Ed, maybe you could put up a sign that says... aww fuck it. I'm not that mean.
Nixon viewed himself as being in a grand war against the American people. The guy had an enemies' list that was a joke, with the popularity of many of the people on it.
Hillary is craven and keeps scores and grudges. But as of yet she doesn't view herself as being in pitched battle against as broad a slice of the American people as Nixon did.
Of course, I could be wrong. But the amount of plotting that occupied that guy's mind was legendary, and intense.
Hillary just wants to plot out the details of her own grandiosity.
Minor difference, but it makes for a hugely different outcome. Americans love a narcissist. (Witness Trump).
A paranoid plotter, not so much.
Hillary just lied when she said she did not tell the Benghazi families that the attack was because of a video. She knew it was a planned terrorist attack and said so in her emails. That is not partisan bullshit. That is her lying to the face of Americans who just had their family members murdrered by Uslim Terrorists. That alone is enough to disqualify her from being President. Period.
DIsqualified?
That's for the people to decide. And they're disagreeing with you.
To not see that is grandiose.
When Americans get attacked by terrorists, they focus on that. Not on what the supposed "grievance" was.
As we know, all the terrorists "grievances" are bullshit anyway. They just want to kill Americans.
Hillary might have tried out some grade-A bullshit with that one, it's true. But it didn't overshadow the fact that Americans don't like seeing Americans get killed, and know that they're in greater danger when abroad. But they're loathe to make a kangaroo court out of the Americans who present themselves as passionate enough to want to do something about it, no matter how incompetently. Look at how much of the benefit of the doubt Americans gave W. on 9/11.
But see, now we're getting into territory where you and I might agree. Propagandizing away from the truth that terrorists are crazy and have bad doctrines and can never be allowed to blame things on Americans or what we say is a huge line, and Hillary should not have crossed it. I should be able to say that Muhammad was (insert the least flattering thing about ed here) and that should be that. Was she propagandizing against "insulting" "Islam"? Who knows. I sure as hell hope not. I would hold her feet to the fire on that as firmly as I would anyone.
So again, I never had any love for Hillary. But whether you or I can find something that sticks to her is another matter. I'm just pointing out what absolutely hasn't stuck and what wouldn't stick, from what might.
It makes it harder to take on Hillary when some people get a reputation for wanting to throw her into solitary confinement for plucking the wrong eyebrow hair, or whatever. And then admitting it.
Rhythm and Balls said...
DIsqualified?
That's for the people to decide. And they're disagreeing with you.
To not see that is grandiose.
To see it is delusional.
And last I looked, Queen Cacklepants only has the approval of the DNC.
For Ritmo, that may be enough, but the rest of the country would like their voices heard at the polls.
Silly little detail, I know, but "conservatives" like ritmo are supposed to be up on this stuff.
And last I looked, Queen Cacklepants only has the approval of the DNC.
For Ritmo, that may be enough, but the rest of the country would like their voices heard at the polls.
Ed, when you get a job as a pollster, go let me know how it was groups other than "Americans" whose opinions were collected.
The polls are out there. Disagree with them all you want. But remember that polls have gotten better and better over time.
Also, realize that confusing my agreement on the accuracy of a poll with my opinion on whom I prefer to be president just proves that you're too easily confused to argue politics.
somebody is dancing with themself.
I was asked a question (or challenged). I answered.
I've given these things some thought. I could be wrong, but I'd like to know beforehand, if someone can point out why.
I'm dancing around the American people's capacity for self-delusion, if anything.
I mean, they made billy idol popular at one time (during Reagan's 1980s). So they obviously don't know everything.
Rhythm and Balls said...
The polls are out there. Disagree with them all you want. But remember that polls have gotten better and better over time.
Quite the opposite. The polls have gotten worserer and it's a real concern in the polling biz - what few polls are actually unskewed any more.
Don't trust me.
Here's
The Gray Lady
US News
The New Yorker
Even National Pubic Radio
Sorry.
I didn't know that. But I like Jill LePore and figure that the New Yorker article has it most accurately. The NYTimes has a grudge against Nate SIlver ever since 538 schooled them in 2008 and then they got him in-house in 2012. Since then he's left to attend to an enterprise that's expanded beyond politics. So tell me if I'm wrong, but Lepore talks about "data science," which is exactly what Nate Silver liked to do. We're talking about expanding the methods to be more data-intensive and data-driven. So if people say traditional polling methods are faulty, I don't disagree with that. That's precisely aligned with preferring the newer methodology that I'm talking about.
Hillary has not be tied to that yet. The Republicans are busy beating each other up.
But imagine a TV commercial with families of the people that were killed at Benghazi. They will stand there and say something like "My son was killed protecting the Embassy at Benghazi. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama told the Military to stand down and let them die. Then when their bodies were brought home Hillary lied over their coffin and said it was because of a video. When she knew it was not true because she said it in an email to her daughter the day after the attack. Then she tried to hide her emails from the American people.
Hillary. She lets the terrorists Americans. Then she lies about it. And covers it up.
I am Ted Cruz and I approve of this message."
Hillary is Nixon with a twat.
Besides what was considered an impeachable offense under Nixon is just a mere bag of shells under Obama.
Enemies list. Check.
Abuse of the IRS to attack Political opponents. Check.
By passing Congress with Executive orders to impose an Imperial Presidency. Check.
Wiretapping the conversations of Americans without a warrant by NSA. Check.
Obama defined Presidential Deviancy down. What was anathema under Nixon is business as usual under Obama. Nixon was only impeached because the Republicans agreed to throw him out. That won't happen this time. We are past that. The Democrats will reap what they sowed with Obama. The shoe will be on the other foot.
Good thing Diebold owns the voting machines, right ed? It's good to know that we can have absolute confidence in the voting machines, especially if we can't trust the polls.
Trump is a populist and a nationalist. That is why I support him. That is why many unusual parts of the electorate would come out and vote for him. He can cut into the black vote. Not the Hispanics but that is fine. He can position himself to win.
Cruz's path to victory is not through Hispanic outreach either. It is a false premise for the Republicans to reach out to minorities. We can not out promise the Democrats. They will give them more free shit. We have to make it a turnout election with an emphasis in preventing voter fraud. That should do it.
But imagine a TV commercial with families of the people that were killed at Benghazi. They will stand there ...
Imagine... propaganda.
Imagine, The Triumph of the Will.
Imagine there's no heaven. It's easy if you try.
Imagine all the people...
I thought you were saying I was the one confusing my opinions with reality? Confusing an honest assessment with shilling for someone?
Abuse of the IRS to attack Political opponents. Check.
Done not through Obama but through a conservative running the IRS. Check.
By passing Congress with Executive orders to impose an Imperial Presidency. Check.
I looked up the word "imperial" and it means related to empire. Which is exactly what Republicans, not Obama, want to impose throughout the world and especially through the Middle East. Check.
Wiretapping the conversations of Americans without a warrant by NSA. Check.
Started under Bush or even earlier. Check.
You hate your enemies too much to realize where your idols are just like them or worse.
We can not out promise the Democrats.
Oh yes you can! You can promise tax cuts AND a balanced budget!
You can promise a thousand mile wall that MEXICO will pay for! (A very pretty, nice wall, at that). ;0
Those are some hefty promises.
They will give them more free shit.
Don't worry. Your own party's grassroots won't let you cut Medicare, either. We'll make sure of that.
But the military budget should definitely be doubled. At least. And we should station at least a hundred thousand troops in every Arab country indefinitely.
The Saudis will pay us to do it. Or something.
But imagine a TV commercial with families of the people that were killed at Benghazi. They will stand there and say something like "My son was killed protecting the Embassy at Benghazi. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama told the Military to stand down and let them die.
Imagine a service member's family actually not wanting to turn their loved one's death into propaganda as badly as you'd want them to.
John Stewart can barely get Congress to deliver PROMISED health benefits for 9/11 first-responders and you think you're going to kick Hillary's ass on account of four dead Americans in a civil war in an Arabian hellhole.
How can you be serious?
"It would be like the Bull Moose moment. Only it would be the "Stupid Moose and Squirrel" moment."
Ha. Funny, yet Historical.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Good thing Diebold owns the voting machines, right ed? It's good to know that we can have absolute confidence in the voting machines, especially if we can't trust the polls.
Since Dr Evil has a big interest in the companies that program them, knowing the polls are a crock is about all ritmo can hope for.
But imagine a TV commercial with families of the people that were killed at Benghazi. They will stand there and say something like "My son was killed protecting the Embassy at Benghazi. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama told the Military to stand down and let them die.
Imagine a service member's family actually not wanting to turn their loved one's death into propaganda as badly as you'd want them to.
Imagine Sean Smith's mother starting a Swift Boat campaign.
Imagine Tyrone Woods' father and Glen Doherty's sister joining it.
Ed -
If you and four equally unknown friends of yours went into Syria and died, guess what?
It wouldn't affect a presidential election, either.
It shocks Republicans to know that people die in dangerous places.
Keep fighting against reality.
The next Republican talking point will be about the travesty of there being inadequate controls at railroad crossings to keep suicidal people from jumping into oncoming trains.
Or inadequate jumping barriers on high bridges.
If only Republicans cared about bridges. Or roads. Or trains.
The people who think no American is expendable enough is here, making a presidential campaign talking point, after years of failing to gain traction on it, on four Americans dying in a dangerous part of the world. A part of the world so dangerous, in fact, that their other talking point is about how we need to ban anyone from those places from immigrating here.
Take a second to wrap your mind around the incongruity of that.
Again, these are the people who think it's better to be uninsured than to pay high premiums, that we should pray instead of improving health care access, that don't care about the homeless (even homeless veterans), or the poor, or the working poor, or the wretched state of the Veterans Administration.
But they care about Hillary not making sense in talking about how four people died in a place where people regularly get killed.
If you asked Republicans to point out a faraway star in the night sky, they'd take out a microscope.
No perspective, no ability to focus on the things that matter.
They remind you of lunatics in psycho wards, babbling about things that have nothing to do with the reality right in front of them.
I don't think Americans want their country governed by lunatics.
But ed does.
I guess he relates better to them.
Ed - let me know when you start your Republican Talking Points tour.
Ritmo thinks it's OK those guys were left to die and 30 more got out because the cavalry, much delayed, got through.
If he ever sticks his face out of his gated compound, it would be fun to knock him on the head and drop him in Bed-Stuy wearing nothing but a Confederate flag and a KKK hood and see how blase he is about being cut off behind enemy lines and left to die.
Rhythm and Balls said...
I don't think Americans want their country governed by lunatics.
So why would you think they support a brain-damaged, alcoholic megalomaniac?
The American people don't think you have any credibility on 4 dead in dangerous zones that we probably shouldn't be in while you openly advertise how little you care about thousands who die every day that shouldn't die right here in America.
You never ask yourself why this never gets any traction. Why it doesn't go anywhere outside of the bubble.
It's because they know you're a sanctimonious bunch of pricks.
You only care about things that are politically expedient to care about.
Blame that on me, if it makes you feel better. And throw in more ethnic/political rivalry jokes, too.
Ridicule those divisions. Don't get anything done. Pretend to care about the only Americans you actually do care about: Those in war zones.
Never ask yourself why the American people aren't with you.
BTW, that scenario you imagine, it's kind of like knocking you in the head and dropping you in a corporate setting where they do job interviews and you're naked.
But then, that's pretty much how your job search normally goes, asshole.
Get some basic fucking manners. Lecturing people online makes you feel more important than you are in life, I get that. But I'm giving you an explanation for why your particular obsession here is going nowhere politically.
Not that you cared. It's all about making you personally feel important.
Fight last stands that are destined to lose ed. In fact, name some new ones.
I'll be glad to lead you to them.
Low information Obama voters do not represent "the American people." They are a dysfunctional slice of a much larger pie.
I just did my Uber driver. He is from Brazil and I guessed Mexico and he was insulted.
His name was Diogo not Diago.
I was like whatever Pepe get out of here!
Rhythm and Balls said...
I know. That's why George Bush Senior and George Bush Junior were so electable. They were the most conservative candidates in the field.
You guys are seriously going to have to stop letting Mr. Balls lead you by the nose by using distraction (and not very well) by ringing up to presidents that have almost no relevancy to anti-american citizen horror show that is congress. Comparing past presidents to people who want to be president is no comparison at all. I'm surprised you guys didn't see that a mile away how Mr. Balls dropped another steaming turd of derailment again. lulz.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Get some basic fucking manners. Lecturing people online makes you feel more important than you are in life, I get that. But I'm giving you an explanation for why your particular obsession here is going nowhere politically.
I think I can just let that one sit there in all its glory.
They say what we hate in ourselves, we castigate in others.
Fascinating the tantrum he throws when his hypocrisy is put in the limelight.
Rhythm and Balls said...
It shocks Republicans to know that people die in dangerous places.
No, I think it shocks people to know that Americans die in dangerous places. Especially, when they asked for help and never got it and they had to stand on their own knowing their country just fucked them over. Want to add insult to injury, the further asking from the same democrat who didn't send the required of those four americans who died wanting in her last debate performance more money for Vets and the VA because get this, wait for it, because they are asking for help. Total congitive dissonance on the fact that the VA in general is an unmitigated disaster and past presidents, but particularly this current one has made hollow and empty promises to vets and the VA, just like the hollow and empty promise of help to 4 people in Libya because of a video.
No, not shocking at all. Not shocking at all to know that you country sold you out, then lied to your family, then lied to the public about selling you out and their families. One indignant lie after another. Then having the temerity to ask those very people, oh pretty please with sugar one top, please please please elect me president because I have a vagina and you owe it to me. No, not shocked at all.
Please continue your clown show, clown. I think your clown car got tipped over from the sheer weight of the high center of gravity of your faux righteous maudlin hysterical indignation.
It's possible that something horrible and deliberate and horribly out of the ordinary occurred in Libya, but I just don't think that's going to stick. People are going to give the benefit of the doubt. Is it possible to say that the Obama administration doesn't care about the American people - at home or abroad? I don't see how. Again, thousands died in 9/11. People gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, and didn't want to think that no matter how incompetent he turned out to be, that he should have been blamed as someone who nefariously placed Americans in harm's way. Hell, a huge majority now thinks that warring in Iraq was a bad decision, almost as many think that it made us less safe, and still they aren't going to put him on trial like Republicans did to Hillary. Put it to you this way, there's a loud chorus of Americans who think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes. I think they're ridiculous, but they exist and are an unavoidable, if minority voice. Do enough people agree with them to make that happen? Of course not. That's the best analogy to Hillary and Libya. These are dangerous places, our leaders make the best decisions they think they can, and the majority of the American people want to leave it at that. The only fight they want to hear about Libya or Iraq or Syria or any of these fucking hellholes is a debate between politicians on what each one's best plan of action is on them. However, once it starts getting political though, with each politician threatening the other with censure or jail or political excommunication for any of this, most of the people tune out. That's just how it is. They simply don't think there's much room for black and white and right or wrong in a part of the world that chaotic, and they're not interested in importing judgment calls that stark onto our leaders here. Unless the fuck-up was massive, which is not possible when it comes to four people in a war zone.
Lies were told about Pat Tillman, too - as well as the circumstances and meaning of his death.
It's not going to go anywhere.
There is a long history of lying for political and patriotic cover when it comes to war and tragedy.
Apparently it's not going away.
Post a Comment