David Brooks Does Not Foresee Peace For Our Time

David Brooks pans the proposed Iran deal:

3 U.S. Defeats: Vietnam, Iraq and Now Iran

Interesting - given what Biden and Obama were saying about Iraq prior to the 2011 US troop withdrawal and the 2012 election, one might well pin two of those defeats on Obama.

The purpose of war, military or economic, is to get your enemy to do something it would rather not do. Over the past several years the United States and other Western powers have engaged in an economic, clandestine and political war against Iran to force it to give up its nuclear program.

Over the course of this siege, American policy makers have been very explicit about their goals. Foremost, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Second, as John Kerry has said, to force it to dismantle a large part of its nuclear infrastructure. Third, to take away its power to enrich uranium.

Mr. Brooks continues to enumerate the administration's stated goals, but we all know where this is headed:

As a report from the Foreign Policy Initiative exhaustively details, the U.S. has not fully achieved any of these objectives. The agreement delays but does not end Iran’s nuclear program. It legitimizes Iran’s status as a nuclear state. Iran will mothball some of its centrifuges, but it will not dismantle or close any of its nuclear facilities. Nuclear research and development will continue.

Iran wins the right to enrich uranium. The agreement does not include “anywhere, anytime” inspections; some inspections would require a 24-day waiting period, giving the Iranians plenty of time to clean things up. After eight years, all restrictions on ballistic missiles are lifted. Sanctions are lifted once Iran has taken its initial actions.

And what does it mean?

Wars, military or economic, are measured by whether you achieved your stated objectives. By this standard the U.S. and its allies lost the war against Iran, but we were able to negotiate terms that gave only our partial surrender, which forces Iran to at least delay its victory. There have now been three big U.S. strategic defeats over the past several decades: Vietnam, Iraq and now Iran.

The big question is, Why did we lose? Why did the combined powers of the Western world lose to a ragtag regime with a crippled economy and without much popular support?

The first big answer is that the Iranians just wanted victory more than we did. They were willing to withstand the kind of punishment we were prepared to mete out.

Further, the Iranians were confident in their power, while the Obama administration emphasized the limits of America’s ability to influence other nations. It’s striking how little President Obama thought of the tools at his disposal. He effectively took the military option off the table. He didn’t believe much in economic sanctions. “Nothing we know about the Iranian government suggests that it would simply capitulate under that kind of pressure,” he argued.

The president concluded early on that Iran would simply not budge on fundamental things. As he argued in his highhanded and counterproductive speech Wednesday, Iran was never going to compromise its sovereignty (which is the whole point of military or economic warfare).

And to be fair:

The president hoped that a deal would change the moral nature of the regime, so he had an extra incentive to reach a deal. And the Western, Russian and Chinese sanctions regime was fragile while the Iranians were able to hang together.

Under Obama the US was never going to play the military card. The Russians and Chinese, not to mention the Euros, are not enthusiastically united behind the economic card. In short, Obama was not playing with a full deck.

This administration has given us a choice between two terrible options: accept the partial-surrender agreement that was negotiated or reject it and slide immediately into what is in effect our total surrender — a collapsed sanctions regime and a booming Iranian nuclear program.

Many members of Congress will be tempted to accept the terms of our partial surrender as the least bad option in the wake of our defeat. I get that. But in voting for this deal they may be affixing their names to an arrangement that will increase the chance of more comprehensive war further down the road.

Iran is a fanatical, hegemonic, hate-filled regime. If you think its radicalism is going to be softened by a few global trade opportunities, you really haven’t been paying attention to the Middle East over the past four decades.

Now maybe it is Mr. Brooks who has not been paying attention - some Iranian women bought Nick Kristof's kids some ice cream, so peace is at hand.

With all that said, the political motivation behind Obama's offensive and absurd linkage of Iranian hardliners and his Republican opponents is obvious - Obama can't make a calm, reasoned case for this deal but if he can instigate a partisan food fight both sides will hustle to their own barricades and he will have veto-proof minorities in both chambers.

Too bad Chuck Schumer missed the memo. And can we assume Amy is still on board with Obama?

BONUS THOUGHT: Mr. Hope and Change circa 2008 has now taken to rallying his base by means of ongoing gender and ethnic incitement and partisan name-calling. Does he imagine himself to be making common cause with the "Death to America" crowd in Iran, who no doubt need their own home-grown agita to rouse their base and prop up their power?

I suspect the irony would be lost on Team Obama.

LATE ADD: Michael Gerson expands on the 'food-fight' strategy:

So: While Iran tests the limits of the deal — rubbing Obama’s face in the weakness of his enforcement position — he turns his anger on critics of the deal.

What to make of this strategy?

First, exercising the rhetorical version of the nuclear option has an obvious political benefit. It is now evident that the Obama administration reached its agreement in a march of ever-more humiliating concessions: on anytime, anywhere inspections, on accounting for past nuclear activities, on lifting the conventional arms embargo. Better to have a referendum on the Iraq war than serious congressional scrutiny of the embarrassing manner in which the Iran agreement was secured.

If Obama can make support for the deal a partisan, ideological cause, he can bring along enough liberals in Congress to save it. So break out the Iraq comparisons. Adopting the tone, language and reasoning of your average MSNBC panelist has some cost to the institution of the presidency. But in the age of Donald Trump, who will notice?

This rhetorical strategy, by the way, is not directed just at Republicans. Obama won the presidency by attacking Hillary Clinton from the left for her vote in favor of the Iraq war. Now he is reminding moderate Democrats in Congress: The liberal base will not be happy if you defy me.

Obama really does need to remind people about one of his rare moments of insight in the Middle East, back when he opposed stupid wars (e.g., Europe in 1941 but almost surely not 1939). Referendums on the Bush surge in Iraq, pulling our troops from Iraq in 2011, ISIS as the "junior varsity", arming the Syrian rebels, drawing and erasing red lines in Syria, or overthrowing Qadaffi and causing a quagmire in Libya might not go so well.

FROM THE ARCHIVES: Ron Fournier blasts Obama's Middle East efforts, with a link to a similar blast from Peter Baker of the Times, and I pile on. Baker's lead is a shocker from the Times:

WASHINGTON — When President Obama addresses the nation on Wednesday to explain his plan to defeat Islamic extremists in Iraq and Syria, it is a fair bet he will not call them the “JV team.”

Nor does he seem likely to describe Iraq as “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” with a “representative government.” And presumably he will not assert after more than a decade of conflict that “the tide of war is receding.”

As he seeks to rally Americans behind a new military campaign in the Middle East, Mr. Obama finds his own past statements coming back to haunt him. Time and again, he has expressed assessments of the world that in the harsh glare of hindsight look out of kilter with the changed reality he now confronts.

 

Comments

[MarkO]

First?

[Running like gazelles]

Fought like rabbits on the run
Cantering, stumbling, oh, what fun.

[MarkO]

This game was over months ago. Obama let the sanctions coalition dissolve. There is no going back. He has so stated.

It simply doesn't matter what the emasculated Congress does. Iran will have the bomb. I'm not Nostradamus or even Jimmy the Greek, but I said years ago that Obama would let Iran have the bomb. It's been that clear. Even I knew.

Obama is a nasty little man.

[Ricebutt, the Hero]

Or did he say 'Fleeing like gazelles'?

[MarkO]

"I suspect the irony would be lost on Team Obama."

Progressives have no sense of humor. They enjoy only ridicule. (cf, Jon Stewart)

[Extraneus]

Who the hell is Amy Schumer?

[narciso]

Shes the blond shrillet version of Sarah Silverman.

[The Green Blob pales into chartreuse.]

The trouble, oft spelled 'trubble', is the certainty in which they dwell about that Imam.

[narciso]

Trofimov had an interesting piece in the journal that seems to skirt the real problem Sunnis have perpetually posed in Iraq. Which is why the communists and the da'wa aside.

[Jack is Back!]

I think it benefits the Republicans to have Bozo veto the Iran vote rejecting his blooper of diplomacy. Except for the obvious safe dem seats in Congress (i.e. California, Mass, New York) there are still some competitive seats across the country. This is not polling well with Americans and I'll bet its even worse with likely voters.

[Er, the climate's changed.]

Compare with the Dem's rush to deny Saddam the Bomba.

[MarkO]

After the, as Trump noted, "stupid" Senators changed the rules on treaties, there will not be enough votes to override a veto. We all know that. It was built into the negotiation.

Stupid Republican seems like an oxymoron these days.

[narciso]

Cruz corrected him on that point, of course zaphod found his peanut gallery in xaksria

[Cecil Turner]

As a report from the Foreign Policy Initiative exhaustively details, the U.S. has not fully achieved any of these objectives. The agreement delays but does not end Iran’s nuclear program.

Ludicrous nonsense. The agreement might delay Iran's nuclear program if the Iranians adhered to it, but there's absolutely no reason why they should. The mere act of negotiating, at great length--and whilst allowing ongoing enrichment--hastened rather than delayed the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Moreover, this agreement, and the very generous monetary incentives that accompany it, ensures the Mullahs can weather the fiscal storm their nuclear ambitions have engendered. Which removes their main stumbling block and clears the way for an all out effort.

The proper course of action was to keep all sanctions in place until Iran agreed to relinquish all nuclear ambitions (most definitely including the "right to enrich") . . . while keeping a credible threat of military action on the table. The precipitous drop of oil prices and the financial crisis for the petrodollar dependent regime made this a can't-lose no brainer . . . until team Obama stepped up to the negotiating table with their any-deal-to-preserve-peace-in-our-time mentality and a chief negotiator with a long track record of working for the wrong team.

Neville Chamberlain is no doubt cheering from his grave . . . because these guys make him look gooood.

[GMax]

I am not sure the legislature can change the "rule" on treaties. I believe the Constitution gives the Senate the right to review and approve or reject treaties with a fairly high threshold of votes. Nothing the squish from Tennessee did approaches a Constitutional amendment. Not sure why he did it, although I will admit that most of what that guy does triggers the same response from me.

[James D]

JiB @ 12:27

That's true, politically.

but it's not worth the cost. I'd rather lose the White House and the Congress than see a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. Or DC, or Manhattan, or...

[Cecil Turner]

After the, as Trump noted, "stupid" Senators changed the rules on treaties . . .

The President changed the rules. I agree the bill was a bad one, but this isn't a treaty because the President refused to submit it as one.

[squaredance]

They will not even get enough votes the first time around to stop this.

The Dems are just giving Chuckie "plausible deniability", and what paper thin plausibility it is. He will shrug and give is patrons some goodies somewhere else and that will be that. Everyone will have done their posturing all round, and the nation be damned.

The Senate will never get enough votes even if their "leaders" wanted them to. Impossible. More to the point: If they could vote it down, even overcome a veto, Obama would just go ahead and implement it anyway. Then what?

Kerry tells us that treaties are no longer possible to negotiate. The GOP evidently agrees.

It is all just madness; it is all just the work of lazy and feckless politicians far removed from any reality or sober judgement thereof. It is perhaps the most irresponsible poltical act in the last 45 years.

[squaredance]

Gmax: They are not presenting this as a treaty. That is just the point.

[Buckeye]

James D

If we don't win the WH, I think the probability of the mushroom cloud increases dramatically.

I would take it much farther than Carly, in fact I would take it right to the brink and beyond if necessary, but I won't have a thing to say about it.

I am quite confident that Hillary or Biden will be perfectly happy to preside over the formation of the next North Korea. And it will be worse, because the Iranian clerics are not only crazy they are ideological in a very ugly,
driven way.

[James D]

squaredance, you're right.

About the only options the GOP has, if they truly wanted to try and stop this madness, are:

Impeachment, of Kerry and of Obama. If Boehner actually cared, he could probably get it through the House. But since the Dems are all traitors and criminals, the Senate wouldn't convict even with every single R onboard (which wouldn't happen anyway).

Defund State entirely, withhold ALL the money, leading to a government shutdown and a full-blown Constitutional crisis.

Seeing as how I work about five blocks from what would be a likely Ground Zero for an Iranian bomb if it were detonated in DC, I'm in favor of either of those options being used to scuttle the deal - and to prevent the $!50 billion in assets from going to Tehran.

[Extraneus]

The President changed the rules.

No, he didn't. The Congress allowed him to violate them.

[Those who preceded were generally more able.]

Obama's sort of tyranny is not without precedent.

[Jack is Back!]

JamesD,

Ik ook (me too) but there are not the votes in the Senate espeically to over-ride a veto. Ipso facto no votes to reject the deal as a treaty either. The only thing to do is win the WH and significant majorities in both chambers, nullify the deal and reimpose harsh financial controls on them (the Carly plan). Reality says that Iran has the bomb virtually and physically in at least 18 months. So we need a strong republican leader who is willing to rebuild the military and our relations with Israel.

But to me the cat is out of the bag.

[Steve]

Full Video: 2016 First Republican Presidential Debate- Top 10 Candidates

http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2015/08/full-video-2016-first-republican.html

[DebinNC]

Dr. Ben Carson's take on the Iran deal, last night's debate, and the R-candidates.

[squaredance]

The cat is out of the bag unless local actors in the ME do something about it.

Far fetched I know, but that seems to be the only solid hope at all of turning this around before they go nuclear.

And the EU amazes me here. They really think that Iran would not use a nuke on them too?

Forget about Israel; what about Rome?

It has been compared to The 30 years War, the conditions yonder, but it more seems like the 1903 to 1913 period. We all know where that led to.

[narciso]

The Saudis would seem more disposed to give Israel the airspace to procede for airstrikes then Katy bar the door.

[Cecil Turner]

No, he didn't. The Congress allowed him to violate them.

Sorry, but this is clueless. The President never had any intention of submitting this as a treaty, and the Senate can't make him. Rerun this thing without the Iran bill, and we'd have a binding agreement through the UN right now (or as soon as it's ratified by the Iranians). It just wouldn't be a treaty (but guess what: it isn't anyway).

[glasater]

I've held to the belief that since God created us, He's the only one who can take us out.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Somebody better get a hold of the crazy broad running Houston before she gets her fair city bankrupted as she now attempts to crush Christians by theft through eminent domaining two pesky churches out of the way.
This is the same creep who was sued for harassing Houston churches previously in a jaw dropping violation of their 1st amendment rights.

[jimmyk on iPhone]

" there are not the votes in the Senate espeically to over-ride a veto. Ipso facto no votes to reject the deal as a treaty "

You only need 34 votes to reject a treaty.

[DebinNC]

Living in GA, it's hard to imagine a mayor who tried to subpoena church sermons getting elected anywhere, much less a major city in TX.

[GMax]

Not presenting does not make it not a treaty. And we should be pointing that out that you dont get to use semantics to end run the Constitution.

[jimmyk on iPhone]

A president who cared about the country would want an agreement to be a treaty hat could be ratified by the Senate. A petty ideologue uses whatever means possible to impose his will. Just as with Obamacare.

[James D]

Cecil @ 1:22

Fine. If he had done that, the Congress could have pushed back, refused to drop the sanctions, passed legislation prohibiting the transfer of funds/assets back to Iran (and maybe even done it with a veto-proof majority).

Maybe that would have led to a shutdown crisis. Or maybe to the Supreme Court.

But there WERE options other than the crap sandwich the Corker bill gave us.

Ugly options, sure. But still options.

[Have a look.]

Well, the retrospectoscope will reveal and settle.

[Captain Hate]

Are there examples of a Repub President doing an end run around the Senate on something that fits the definition of a treaty but is declared something different? I want to be armed for battle against any prog toadies and lickspittles that claim Ronald Raven did it.

[Still the best way to kill crows is dynamite.]

I really like Ronald Raven. Wise ol' birds, those.

[GMax]

I am pretty sure the LGBT mayor is going to get her head handed to her by a Texas court. The laws in Texas dont allow a taking for this purpose and were written in direct response to the Kelo decision.

[Captain Hate]

Those Tepid Gas and the source post in Legal Insurrection are very confusing. Obviously some Kelo type shenanigans are being proposed despite Texas having passed a post Kelo law prohibiting that from happening, over and beyond doing it to a church. The stories are lacking details on the underlying reason for doing it and who are the perpetrators.

Ordinarily I'd blame AllahPander and Poppin' for running with something incomplete to satiate their Clown Hall overlords' thirst for blog clicks but LI is, oddly enough, just as bad.

[Frau Hosefalten]

Brooksie is going to be hauled into the WH by his leash faster than a streak of lightning. He must have forgotten the first and last time he dared question our overlords.

Which reminds me: last night no one was asked about Reinhold Niebuhr.

[Appalled]

Not presenting does not make it not a treaty. And we should be pointing that out that you dont get to use semantics to end run the Constitution.

Actually, Obama's last two years is about demonstrating all the ways you can do an end run around the Constitution. He's only really failed on immigration.

If Republicans are serious, they will start thinking now about actual, real, pass bills legislation to put an end to a lot of this, and kill the filibuster if necessary to accomplish it.

[henry]

Does he imagine himself to be making common cause with the "Death to America" crowd in Iran?

More likely the Farrakhan "Death to Whitey" crowd in Chicago.

[Captain Hate]

and kill the filibuster if necessary to accomplish it.

You just gave McTurtle a high colonic.

[narciso]

There was the workaround the Boland amendment but that was a piece of legislation. In fact didn't we even abide that ridiculous salt treaty.

[Appalled]

CH:

Obama and his successors need Congress to remain broken, so they can aggrandize more power. I don't really like the idea of ditching the filibuster, but the filibuster really is what allows Obama to continue to rule by decree.

Obama, alas, is better at this power thing than many of us like to admit, and his simple defiance of traditional lame duck behavior has appealed to the political science nerd in me, while scaring the beejeesus out of me too. The people sent him a message with the Midterms, and he has gotten away with ignoring it.

[Captain Hate]

Thanks, narc; of course it never occurred to mensa Corker to try and pull something similar which might have hardened the mashed potatoes in Lurch's lantern jaw and made his speaking even more tortured.

[Captain Hate]

Obama, alas, is better at this power thing than many of us like to admit

He's good at identifying gutless cowards who are afraid to push back against him. Remember, that horrible Ted Cruz screwed the chances of taking the Senate...

[Threadkiller]

Luntz unavailable for comment.

[narciso]

Only judge hanen, has yelled stop and held the line. Everywhere else there has been capitulation

[Cecil Turner]

Fine. If he had done that, the Congress could have pushed back, refused to drop the sanctions, passed legislation prohibiting the transfer of funds/assets back to Iran (and maybe even done it with a veto-proof majority).

We do very little business with Iran anyway. Our sanctions are only effective because the international community recognizes them. An agreement blows them up (and there is no chance of a snap-back either, for the same reason). Which all was the White House plan from day 1.

The President is allowed to waive sanctions (under most sanctions laws he's also allowed to "find" they no longer apply, but I'm not sure if this is one). And any congressional action can be vetoed (and good luck overriding it . . . the reason the current deal looks like it does is precisely because it was the most Congressional dems would go along with).

I'm not defending the Iran bill, I think it was a very bad precedent. But the idea that it materially changed the playing field is just wrong. As long as 1/3+1 of Congress is willing to back up the President's lawlessness, he can get away with it. And as long as they run the media, you can't even make a good public case about it.

[Captain Hate]

Is that an online poll, TK? The Ronulans used to be masters at flooding the results on behalf of Crazy Uncle; maybe they've become Donulans.

[Threadkiller]

Latest numbers still have Trump out front.

http://www.drudgereport.com/now.htm

[Threadkiller]

Online, CH.

[Buckeye]

"prog toadies and lickspittles that claim Ronald Raven did it."

CH. That has a nice ring to it. And I didn't see any copyright notice so I am going to steal it.

[Cecil Turner]

Too early. First reliable polls won't show a shift for several days. I'm hoping it results in Carly at the adult's table for the next one: she earned it.

[Michael (fpa Patriot4Freedom)]

Ig - Thanks much for the link to Kasparov's article
(at 9:49) on the previous thread.
He is always a pleasure to read, and often has a compelling insight into the fight for freedom.

[Threadkiller]

The poll question is specifically tied to debate performance, Cecil.

[Captain Hate]

Welp this didn't take long:

http://www.weaselzippers.us/231061-obama-surrogates-go-after-schumer-for-standing-against-him-on-iran-deal/

With any luck it will end up as Jonestown 2

[jimmyk on iPhone]

"Obama, alas, is better at this power thing than many of us like to admit"

I don't think any of us have been under any illusion that someone who doesn't think much of the country, the voters, or he Constitution, and for whom the end justifies the means, can't inflict a lot of damage.

[Threadkiller]

Here is a 7min video of Trump on the Fox morning show discussing polls related specifically to the debate:

https://youtu.be/cbsizgOFzHQ

Notice how they are so offended when he calls Luntz a "slob" but immediately go into a giggle fit describing Trump's insult to Paul as "hilarious."

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--The Ronulans used to be masters at flooding the results on behalf of Crazy Uncle; maybe they've become Donulans.--

I've been thinking for a couple of weeks that a lot of Trump's followers sound just like Ronulans in the cult like way they defend him and crucify anyone with the temerity to criticize anything he says.
Not here but in other comments sections. Gettin weird.

[Cecil Turner]

The poll question is specifically tied to debate performance, Cecil.

Doesn't matter. The only measure that counts is support (and how it shifted), and that won't be available until a couple iterations of the three-day polls come out. I know waiting is hard, but . . .

[narciso]

Different demographic cohort, although there is some overlap.

[Threadkiller]

Truly a polarizing person, Ig.

[narciso]

Having thAt weasel pfeiffer should be a badger of honor

[Threadkiller]

It does matter if you are thinking I posted a national popularity poll.

I was trying to clarify it for you. But one again...

Oh well.

Nothing Moby to see here, move along.

[clarice]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-the-insult-comic-dog-1438968585

[Threadkiller]

...once...

[Threadkiller]

Does anyone here still do the Google trick to cheat WSJ out of their income?

Doesn't seem like the conservative or Christian thing to do.

Just curious.

[Cecil Turner]

It does matter if you are thinking I posted a national popularity poll.

I got it the first time. My observation was a general one about debate polling. A debate performance poll doesn't matter (and they matter even less since the ronulans got so good at gaming them), both because it's unreliable and a bad indicator of how national support/popularity will shift. However . . .

Debates certainly do shift public opinion and support for candidates. But it's too early to see that shift for last night's debate.

Nothing Moby to see here, move along.

We've had several infestations. You have flashes of brilliance and moments of willful obtuseness, which are prime indicators. I'm back to undecided, which is the best you can hope for, at least for a while . . . if you care (and I can't imagine why you would).

[clarice]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/what_if_the_media_had_treated_barack_obama_liked_fox_journalists_treated_donald_trump.html#ixzz3i9RQW950

[clarice]

exactly, Cecil

[Threadkiller]

I do care, that is why I get grumpy.

Can we agree that it is reasonable that I thought your poll observation was directed at my poll comment and that my reply was a clarification not a hostile engagement?

[Threadkiller]

During and since the debate, Cecil and Clarice, members of this forum have speculated on the performance of the candidates in the debate.

In essence we have been running our own poll that may or may not jive with the various other polls of the same subject.

[Captain Hate]

Cecil, I apologize for lashing out at you yesterday. I could've responded more effectively but just didn't for whatever dumb reason.

[narciso]

That was rhetorical, one had all the proper mindthought and one is speaking too much crime think with the subtlety of a battering ram.

[Miss Marple]

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-has-most-watched-primary-debate-ever-24-million-tune-in/269157

[sbwaters]

Which reminds me: last night no one was asked about Reinhold Niebuhr

Hahahahahaha!

[Cecil Turner]

I do care, that is why I get grumpy

The fact that I respond at all means I find your post at least somewhat interesting (though I was responding to both comments). I wasn't sniping, nor confused about what the poll portended.

[Cecil Turner]

I apologize

Accepted. I tend to inartful comments that frequently come across as snippy, for which I also apologize.

[Rick Ballard]

I don't believe the Trumpets will have the staying power of the Ronulans. Trump doesn't have a mother ship circling Area 51 does he?

[narciso]

Lindsay Graham people!!! Thinks the debate was a wasted opportunity

[Captain Hate]

Likewise accepted because that's exactly how I took it and violated my "do not post when pissed off" rule, with the usual result which reinforces the maxim.

[narciso]

That last came from Elizabeth price Foley at instapundit.

[clarice]

"Told you 158 times I can't stand little notes on my pillow. 'We're all out of cornflakes. F.U.' Took me three hours to figure out F.U. was Felix Ungar!" -- Oscar Madison

[Extraneus]

As long as 1/3+1 of Congress is willing to back up the President's lawlessness, he can get away with it.

Dems would have hauled a Republican president into court over this treaty thing in an eye-blink, assuming they didn't support it.

[jojo]

I guess being insult comic dog's an improvement over being a cancer

[Cecil Turner]

Dems would have hauled a Republican president into court . . .

The only Constitutional remedy is impeachment.

[glasater]

I have some friends who are even more conservative than squaredance and my mail in-box has been inundated with Trump superlatives from them.

These are long time political operatives who've fought in the trenches of conservatism for decades.

[jojo]

don't forget the cruzbots who freak out if anyone says the least thing negative about Ted

[Appalled]

glaster:

Is the joy of throwing off all the bounds of political correctness (and decency, and manners your mama taught you) just so potent, that your Trump friends can forgive all else?

[glasater]

I'm afraid to ask them, Appalled..

[Threadkiller]

Why did you tell me to "go away" last night, Glas?

[glasater]

You're getting testy over Trump, Appalled. I've never voiced any great support for the man.

My interest is when talking to various people I come across who express an interest in speaking about the man..why they think/feel the way they do.

And I happen to be on the mailing list of every conservative/GOPe group under the sun.

[Appalled]

Glasater

What has worried me for years (and it does make me testy) is that there seems an emphasis on tone -- preferably high volume angry -- over content with certain candidates, and too many GOP primary voters just can't get enough of it.

In 2012, the GOP"-E" candidate was Obamacare's Father-in-Law, so I get the dynamics of that season. This year, there really is a candidate for each wing of the party, so maybe the GOP could fight out some of its long-standing issues, and come to some consensus on things. So in walks Trump, and a whole lot of folks swoon, and it is going to take months for those who must be angry to fall out of love with him. Which means, at least for a while, the face of the GOP gets to be Mr. Trump. The media will be very happy to oblige.

I don't want Hillary, so that's bad news. I don't think Trump wins the primary, and I am guessing he does not win it for Jeb. But the longer the professionaly irritated swoon for this guy, because he has the stones to retweet some guy callin some sassy girlie a bimbo, or something, the bigger the chance Trump takes his ego and goes third party.

[Extraneus]

I have some friends who are even more conservative than squaredance and my mail in-box has been inundated with Trump superlatives from them.

Interesting, isn't it? Based on this and the Christie boomlet of a few years ago, one could infer that lots of American voters would go for a blunt, tough-talking Jersey Shore type.

Too bad NY or NJ would never elevate a real conservative to a high statewide office.

[Extraneus]

So a lot of people were blaming Ailes for a bad debate last night...

24 Million Watch GOP Debate on Fox News; Most-Watched Cable News Program Ever

People seem interested in an opponent for Her Majesty.

[narciso]

I concur that this debate did a disservice, although there were some good spots,

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/212090/

the democrats don't spend their time, ticking off every segment of their coalition do they, it's an echo chamber, and it works,