« Syria Strategy for R+6 | Main | UAVs in the ME wars. »

25 February 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



There is something wrong with your post. I understood every word of it. pl

Dr. Puck

I have almost no confidence in the Dems figuring out how to unify to concoct an attractive populist 'leftism.'

I suspect the fundamental challenge for Trump/Bannon is how to deconstruct the AS, drain the swamp (meaning, nowadays, erasing the utopian 'left,') and not allow the GOP to dial up their plutocratic designs via supply-side, trickle down, special interest favoring, budget-busting, neo-Reaganomics.

Will supply-side bust the economy in our age of hyper-financialization--a condition not anywhere near as prominent back in 1982?

What then, if deconstruction unfolds beautifully, but the economy quickly tanks as the Trump tax cuts flow into the paper economy rather than into the productive economy?


Ok, I'll reflect on it:

more randomly: or on recent related matters. Whoever felt I didn't respond, thus paid no attention. In this specific case optimax, I did follow his links. But also reduced it to "necessary or helpful VIP". ...

Beyond that: shutting up for a while. ...

ex-PFC Chuck

To the paymasters of the Democratic Party the whole point of the pink kitty cap demonstrations is to be a "Look over there!" that distracts the party's sheeple from realizing that it was the party leaders' policies and modus operendi that has caused the catastrophic collapse in popular support. The paymasters and the current leadership is perfectly fine with the way things are. Whatever disruption the demonstrations might inhibit the Trump administration from gaining traction is a side benefit.

Eric Newhill

You realize that 1. the quote you just posted doesn't mean the CNN anon. source, from the quote you posted earlier, is real. They are not exactly saying or talking about the same thing and nuance is important enough, let alone entire phrasings and context. 2. I am unaware that Mansoor is McMaster's official spokesman and is qualified to speak on his behalf. So Mansoor is just another guy getting paid to express an opinion. How well does he actually know McMaster? These are the kinds of thoughts and questions that leap to the forefront of my mind when looking at a "news" story. But then I am interested in finding out what is actually going on. I don't want my biases confirmed, I want as pure info. as possible.

You, on the other hand, are grasping at straws in an effort to demonstrate your biases; that Trump is stupid, evil and crazy and there is "chaos" and divisiveness within the Trump admin. . It's really obvious.



I think that the phrase:

"Trying to give their voters the impression: we'll stand up for you? But also somewhat misuse them in the process?"

Amounts to a job description of the political class in general (to include our good President Trump).

Eric Newhill

"Even the Republican rank-and-file has been awestruck at the ferocity of the reaction they received when they announced they were going to "repeal the ACA." "

This concept does pass muster. There simply aren't enough people enrolled in the ACA to cause such a scary blow back relative to other salient issues and, furthermore, I don't think most of those enrolled in the ACA are Republicans. More bias confirming fake news?

You're also not entirely correct about the clean water thing. Living in a rural farming community, my neighbors and I keep a close eye on these issues. The dairy farmers were worried because the local lawyers were saying that the presence of manure piles could be an issue. Rain water runs off the piles and then goes places. That could a big problem under the clean water act, but try running a dairy farm (or a horse farm) without building up a manure pile at least in the winter when you can't drive a spreader.

English Outsider

On 17th May 2005 a British MP, George Galloway, was allowed to appear before a Senate Subcommittee. There he launched a ferocious attack on members of that committee and on American policy generally. I have rarely heard a politician speak with such conviction and passion and it left an indelible impression.

For all that I was on George Galloway's side I was impressed with the Subcommittee's response. They heard him out in dead silence and the questioning afterwards, though sharp, was formal. It's a great contrast to the hooligan barracking Sahra Wagenknecht, speaking on similar topics, is subjected to in the Bundestag. Quite a contrast also to the prep school antics we've got accustomed to on occasion in our own House of Commons. The European parliaments aren't as bad as the Verkhovna Rada, where the politicians are considerably more accomplished in unarmed combat than they are in debate, but they often don't look like places where much serious politics gets done.

I occasionally see other videos showing Americans public life - Senate hearings, press conferences and the like - and have always thought that though it's quite often a shambles it's a more civilised shambles than the norm in European politics. For that reason it is in fact easier for politicians who are going against the flow to get a fair hearing than it is here. That's got to be a good thing for anyone who, like me, still harbours the perhaps illusory hope that democracy can actually work as it's supposed to. It'd be a pity, therefore, if American public life went the same way as ours.

William R. Cumming

Nice! Thermador?

The Twisted Genius

Eric Newhill,

I'm confident he stories about McMaster's comments at his all hands NSC meeting will be batted down soon if not true. From what I'm reading, his views are congruent with these comments.

In a CSIS in May 2016 he said, “groups like ISIL, who use this irreligious ideology, this perverted interpretation of religion to justify violence. They depend on ignorance, and the ability to recruit vulnerable segments of populations to foment hatred, and then use that hatred to justify violence against innocents.”

In his 21 Nov 2016 speech at VMI he said, "we will defeat today’s enemies, including terrorist organizations like Daesh, who cynically use a perverted interpretation of religion to incite hatred and justify horrific cruelty against innocents.”

I'm going to listen to a few of his talks to get a more complete idea of his thinking on this matter. He does seem to be at odds with the inner White House view that Islam itself is the problem and that terrorism is inherently Islamic. That view is stupid, evil and crazy and it will lead to bad decisions.

William R. Cumming

He may yet fail but the President refuses to not make choices. This speech will be designed to achieve multiple objectives, and make no mistake it is designed.

The Twisted Genius

Trump and the Republicans are right to smirk over the Perez victory. They didn't destroy the Clinton DNC. They left it to turn into a shuffling, rotting zombie. Looks like the Sanders Progressives will try to reform it from within for now. That's a step backward in my opinion, but we'll know for sure in about a year.


I expect we will see a "wheat vs chaff" filtering process for all player blocks, i.e.:

1. who can distinguish (and work with) the office of the presidency vs. the idosyncracies occupant of that office. Those unwilling or unable to do so are then not in a good position to insist that the occupant himself do this.

2. who will expend political capital to please party backers and seniors regardless of personal policial stances

3. who will cross party party lines or where will independents coalition

This kind of thing. At another level, the speech will be for the public and eyes and ears will be on reactions from that sector. With public and local feedback, DT will be able to calculate who he can deal with based on each individua's electability prospects, obligations to promises, etc..



I think more of us departed than has been reported. A comedian at a comedy club asked for a show of hands of Trump supporters. I think I was alone but when I was leaving some young women whispered to me that they voted for him too but didn't want to admit it.
Kasich is right. You have to now root for the pilot flying the plane.
I did your hash tag. We'll see.



Sanders told Tapper this AM that he will not turn his mail list of former donors over to Perez at the DNC. Sanders raised a lot of money and he said he will use his leverage to move the Democrats far to the left. If Trump manages to increase GDP growth and re-patriate a lot of money through a corporate income tax cut the Dems will be out of power for a long time. pl



Trump isn't into the foreign intervention of the HRC-Kissinger-Negroponte helicopter type.



"Everything you said might be true but it doesn't matter because I said so and I declare myself the winner".

Dis guy.

>my sides
>to the moon

Never change with your half ass argument by assertion. 2020 gonna be amazing.



I assumed he was being facetious and you were not based off the "eroding support" phrase.

But thank you regardless.



I didn't say you were a well paid shill. Just a poorly paid one grasping so tightly at straws you're making hay bales.

The Twisted Genius


That news about Sander's increased cantankerousness is heartening. In line with that I received this message from Bernie's group "Our Revolution" that he started well before the election.

"I’m sure this DNC election has stirred up similar feelings to the ones you felt during and after the primary. It did for me. While Tom Perez ran a good race, many who supported him used tactics that were uncalled for. But he also made promises about building a grassroots party. We are going to hold his feet to the fire. One of the first steps he could take is to reimpose the ban on lobbyist money that President Obama put in -- and which those at this meeting shamefuly refused to support. There's too much at stake to let the Democratic Party continue its old (and losing) ways. With Trump and his allies controlling Washington we have to take it upon ourselves to elect progressives even if elements of the Democratic Party are locked in complacency."

You're right about the importance of Trump succeeding or failing on the home economic front. That is what will change the political direction of our government. He will certainly provide the "populus" with the circuses, but he must also provide the bread.



Should I understand that you are a Democrat? pl

The Twisted Genius


Much more so than a Republican. I couldn't fill in the circle for Trump or Clinton in this election. I supported McAuliffe over Cuccinelli, but I would have supported Hogan over Brown in Maryland. I still consider myself a Bernie Bro and feel even a closer affinity to Gabbard's politics. I get emails from both Our Revolution and Team Tulsi, but I told the DNC to piss up a rope.

You've characterized the lefties and the coastal elites pretty well. Could you briefly do the same for the fly overs and deplorables? They cannot all be white supremacist, clash of civilization types. That has to be foolishly simplistic caricature.


Dear Colonel and TTG,

Sanders raised (past tense) a lot of money. And then he lost to HRC with it and did not use it to fight (the DNC) against an unjust loss.

Now there are three factions competing for the Democratic party - the 0.01%/globalist (CNN/MSNBC), the hysterical left (CNN), and the progressive (TYT) -Sanderista - faction. TYT (The Young Turks) reflects the progressive and believes they can win out over the money. Since Trump will not overturn citizen's united, and the DNC sees no reason to play fair, I agree with your assessment of out of power zombies.

Particularly, since the Republican progressive faction (InfoWars) argues for recruiting dispirited Sanders followers. I think they tap the mood of the country.

Having read about the formation of new parties in the US, do you think the Democrats (shuffling rotting zombie) could disappear? My gut tells me this is not a zero probability likelihood. I think if Trump disappoints the deplorables in the only way that counts - jobs - this probability increases.

Eric Newhill

OK. You are quoting the man himself as opposed to CNN.

I still don't hear where McMaster is saying that using the term "radical Islam" is dangerous. In fact, he seems to be singling out "radical Islam" and saying that it is the problem and is not true Islam; rather a perversion.

Of course the our host, the good Colonel, has helped us understand that there is no "true Islam". Islam is whatever a Muslim or group of Muslims interprets it to be. Ergo, the Jihadis are just as Islamic as any other Muslim or sect of Muslims. So McMaster, a non-Muslim, is trying assume the role of Immam of all Immmams? How is that going to play with Muslims? I don't know, but if I was a Muslim I might think it a bit arrogant.

Anyhow, Trump - and by extension America - has Bannon that thinks there is a clash of civilizations and he/we have McMaster who thinks that the civilizations can live together *if the radicals are removed from Islam*. Seems to me like a good thing to have a balance of opinions informing the WH. Unless you are totally sold on one concept or the other.

I am sensing you believe in McMaster's position. I do not. I am more of a Bannonite on this issue; "more of" means leaning in that direction, but definitely open to reasonable persuasion towards McMasterism. But then I am a 50% descendant of an ancient culture, the first officially Christian culture, that suffered horribly under Islam and then was almost rubbed out completely in 1915. That colors my views, I admit. I'm in my early 50s. My entire life time the religion of peace has been most un-peaceful. I get the same from reading history. I'm sure somewhere, some time, there is opportunity for the Islam that McMaster knows, real Islam to prevail and live in harmony with Jews and Christians and progressive western society generally.


TTG, please note that the following critique is of the email and Democrats in general (including Bernie, who is also a long time member of the establishment for all his hippyish quirks), and not of you personally.

This sort of political messaging is very vague... with no purpose except to soothe the Bernie Dem masses. "Hold his feet to the fire"... "building a grassroots party" and "elect more progressives" are phrases I saw/heard for many years when I was still a progressive Dem and even joined the netroots. This strategy has never worked... never... to improve the Democratic party. Yet they keep playing their same game, and all tribal members play along. It's a feel good belonging sort of thing, I guess.

No delineation of what exactly is meant by "its old (and losing) ways." Is this because he expects you all to intuitively know what he means? The evidence I've seen so far in Democratic-friendly media and amongst my liberal friends is that they do not at all seem to understand why they are losing.

No specifics about what items or issues the Democrats should push now to benefit all Americans and widen their support beyond urban areas.

There's a reason that so many, like myself, have left the Democratic Party in the last 10-15 years. It's an outdated wreck with no new or fresh ideas, and many are finally getting fed up with the overdone political correctness.

I didn't vote for Trump as I'm a third party voter, but like you I hope he is able to trigger some economic improvements. But where does that leave the Democratic party? As the party who is so anti-Trump that they want his attempts at bettering the average American's lot to fail? Howz that gonna work out for ya?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad