Hillary: Donald Is Dangerous On Foreign Policy

This ought to be good:

Hillary Clinton to Portray Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Positions as Dangerous

Little Ms. Libya speaks and anyone with an irony-poor diet ought to listen.

Hillary Clinton plans to deliver a scorching assessment of Donald J. Trump’s foreign policy prescriptions on Thursday, casting her likely Republican rival as a threat to decades of bipartisan tenets of American diplomacy and declaring him unfit for the presidency.

This characterization of Trump, while accurate, will be news to no one. So will it change anyone's mind?

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign aides said the speech, which she will deliver in San Diego, would be the start of a persistent assault to portray a potential Trump presidency as a dangerous proposition that would weaken American alliances and embolden enemies.

He will weaken our alliances and embolden enemies. Yeah, Trump is a loose cannon who so loves the sound of his own voice that he is likely to indulge in riffs that criticize the Brits, mock the French and leave the Saudis feeling abandoned. My goodness, he might even engage in a bit of live improv to invent new policy, to the surprise of his national security advisers.

Yet the Republic has endured.

Jonah Goldberg reprised an interesting argument I have grappled with at social occasions:

During a panel Q&A, a passenger on the cruise made a strong case for voting Trump. He ably argued that we know Hillary will be terrible, while we can only suspect Trump will be. Trump will probably do some things conservatives will like — Supreme Court appointments, etc. — while we know for a fact Hillary will not.

And here’s what I said: I agree. If the election were a perfect tie, and the vote fell to me and me alone, I’d probably vote for none other than Donald Trump for precisely these reasons.

Hmm, "Better the devil you don't know"? I have said (and blogged? Tweeted?) that with the deciding vote I would pick Hillary in a heartbeat. She will be a mediocre President in all the ways we have seen before. Tempermentally she is slightly left-of-center but in order to rally her skeptical base she will need to inflame wars on women, ethnics, gays, and anyone else who might be near a political fault line. Bringing the country together would be an electoral disaster for her, so, as with Obama, it won't happen. But, like Obama and unlike Trump, she will at least pretend that national unity is aspirational.

 

As to policy, anyone who like the crony capitalism of the last few decades will welcome Hillary. Big business has nothing to fear; nor do stock market players and other investors. On foreign policy, her instincts are notably more hawkish than Trump or any normal Democrat acceptable to her party, but Ladyparts!

 

So sure, she will be a debacle of a very conventional and predictable type. Trump, on the other hand, is a deliberately inflammatory demagogue whose actual principles and level of knowledge are scarce. Republican voters respond to his press conference improvisations with a "Donald being Donald" shrug - ISIS is Putin's problem, we are going to bomb the hell out of ISIS, whatever; he will retire the national debt, he won't, whatever. Taxes on the rich will go down, they might go up, whatever. Unless we are confident we can train the world to respond as Republican voters do to his blatherings, electing Trump will be a full-employment act for press spokesman and spinners everywhere.

 

So to Jonah's point - maybe a world in which we all learn to tune out the US President would be a better place, but is running that kind of Bold Experiment an example of conservative prionciples? Trump v. Hillary boils down to a mean/variance exercise. I'll grant that a Trump Presidency has more upside for conservatives and (we might hope) the nation, but it is crystal clear to me that it has a lot more downside as well. So, even if a voter thinks that Trump has a higher expected value (for conservatives, anyway), should that voter maximize (possible) opportunity by betting Trump or minimize (possible) regret (i.e., MiniMax avoidance of a downside disaster) by voting Hillary? Not obvious!

 

Hillary will be a conventional dumpster fire owned by the Democrats. Trump on a good day will easily be better than that. However, Trump on a bad day will be - well, some metaphor worse than dumpster fires, but with Hiroshima fresh in my mind I'm stuck.

 

Comments

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

-- Tempermentally she is slightly left-of-center...--

She would destroy the first and second amendments without a moment's thought.
She no more believes in the Federalism upon which our country is built than Ho Chi Minh did.

In the modern Dem party which now consists of New Left red diaper babies like Hillary and Old Left slightly reformed Stalinists like Bernie she may be slightly left of center, but that's like saying Lenin was slightly to the left of Trotsky.

In the great and long tradition of American political thought, outside the present nightmare era that has ensued because of the capture of the Dem party by the ethos of the sixties Marcusian Marxists this hideous hag would disappear off the charts to the left.
Even actual socialists like Henry Wallace, heck even Soviet agents like Alger Hiss, at least didn't believe in the family destroying social insanity the Dems at all levels now shove down our throats.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Strike "red diaper babies" as Hillary was not one, but it sounds good.
I bet Bill wears them, anyway.

[JMHanes]

The very "safe vs risky" argument I prophesized weeks ago debuts.

[James D]

TM, I respect you immensely, and I am grateful for this wonderful site and community that you provide.

But, and I say this with all due respect, you are OUT OF YOUR FLIPPING MIND!

Tempermentally she is slightly left-of-center but in order to rally her skeptical base she will need to inflame wars on women, ethnics, gays, and anyone else who might be near a political fault line. Bringing the country together would be an electoral disaster for her, so, as with Obama, it won't happen. But, like Obama and unlike Trump, she will at least pretend that national unity is aspirational.

So she will deliberately divide the country, and stand proudly on the side of people who despise you and everything you are (white, male, heterosexual, married with children, presumably Christian of some flavor), but that's OK because she'll keep up the pretense that she's not really trying to do that.

And that's somehow preferable to a guy who openly recognizes the division the left is pushing, and who stands firmly on the side of people like you against those who despise you, because...why exactly?

[cheerleader]

I don't read or listen to Michael Savage very much, except when he interviews Mr. Trump, but I've heard him call them "Maoists".

[jimmyk]

When the status quo is verging on catastrophe, you want risky over safe. Like the 'Hail Mary' pass in football, or an experimental drug when you have terminal cancer.

[Miss Marple 2]

I have no civil way to respond to this, so will keep my mouth shut, except to say I vehemently disagree.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

JM,
I suspect it is a losing argument in a country that has watched itself sliding into irrelevancy by doing what people like Hillary think is "safe".
We the people know they only mean safe for their positions and disaster for the rest of us and the rest of the world.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Too bad NK isn't here to answer this for us;
Why do Greek statues have such small penises?

[James D]

Hillary will be a conventional dumpster fire owned by the Democrats

I'm sure that will be a lot of comfort to the people who are left unemployed and hopeless when Hillary's EPA Administrator puts their factory out of business.

And to the people who are left defenseless when Hillary's Attorney General frees felons to prey upon them while at the same time neutering their police department.

And to the people whose neighborhoods and schools are devastated by Disparate Impact lawsuits filed by Hillary's U.S. attorneys.

And to the families of soldiers killed thanks to Hillary's Pentagon focusing on social engineering to placate radical progressives, rather than on national defense.

But, hey, at least the Democrats will "own" all that, and maybe the GOP will pick up some House seats in 2018, right?

[Captain Hate]

I don't read or listen to Michael Savage very much

Smart move.

[Beasts of England]

We have nothing to fear with Hillary appointing the next head of the EPA or the next Attorney General or the next three Supreme Court justices or the next Secretary of Labor or the next...

[Beasts of England]

James D. beat me to it!! :)

[Miss Marple 2]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ucla-campus-shooting-victim-gunman-safety-protocols/

Shooter appears to have been a foreign student, Mainak Sarkar.

[cheerleader]

What don't you like about him? I don't like any talk radio, just listen if someone posts a link that looks interesting.

Savage understands the stakes, and he supported Mr. Trump from day one, so he has that going for him.

[cheerleader]

Savage is a big proponent of the wall.

[Beasts of England]

Hillary had at least 22 emails containing information so sensitive that they couldn't be released in redacted form. Those levels of classification exists because compromising that data could cause grave danger to the national security of our country. It's also been suggested by a few in the intelligence community that those emails dealt with deployed assets - spies - including names.

She has demonstrated that she cannot be entrusted to place our nation's security above her convenience. Does that not matter?

[Thomas Collins]

There is no way anyone who showed such disregard to his or her country's national security interests should even be considered for POTUS. This is the slammest of slam dunks. Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of this election for me is that individuals who should know better, such as TM, could prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

Slightly left of center? It takes a village of indoctrination to believe she's not a nanny leftist. Bloomberg would be more respectful of the individual.

Temperament? Hillary is notorious for having a horrible temper. Trump has had to suck up to local types, arrogant one percenter types, and all other types in his career as a developer, name licenser, reality show host and beauty pageant runner. There have been far fewer reports of Trump losing it than Hillary Clinton. And given the predilections of the press, if Trump showed mental instability in private, we'd know about it.

Hawk? The Libyan debacle was not hawkish, but recklessly indifferent to any plausible strategic interest of the US.

Downside? There is a guarantee of reinstalling the currently most corrupt political machine in the US in office if Hillary Clinton becomes POTUS. The most plausible downside for Trump is that we'll have four or eight years of Rockefeller Republicanism.

Downside? There is substantial certainty that Putin and Xi have access to the emails going to and from Clinton's server. How's that for a downside?

Weakening our alliances? Failure to convince the NATO countries that they need to step up on defense will destroy NATO. Trump is a far better bet to be able to do this than Clinton.

Loose cannon? I would say that selling out the US for Clinton Foundation donations, which is substantially likely to occur in a Hillary Clinton POTUSey, puts loose cannons and incendiary devices all over the US.

TM's thread starter is a good example of why I think the Dem will win. The utter depravity of the current ruling class is simply not recognized by a good portion of the electorate.

But by all means, let's have another eight years of nanny state crony capitalism from an individual who is most likely the most blackmailable POTUS in US history.

[Captain Hate]

Savage just creeps me out; he sounds like he takes things one step too far. I'll admit it's very subjective and the same thing could apply to Levin when he starts screaming about something; but Levin takes the time to frame all his rants in the historic context. I never know where Savage is coming from.

[Thomas Collins]

" Does that not matter?"

To a great portion of the electorate, BOE, it either doesn't matter, or it is a stark reality being overlooked.

[jimmyk]

TC, I continue to think (and hopefully not deluding myself) that the fence-sitters will come around to Trump, whereas the Bernistas and independents will never rally around Hillary. The MSM's "sky is falling (again)" approach to Trump isn't gaining a lot of traction with those groups.

[Thomas Collins]

I hope you are correct, jimmyk. Hill is back in charge in Reuters Rolling, and is inching ahead again in RCP Average. Plus, whoever ends up the Dem nominee will have the entire party behind him or her and will have $$$$$$ up the kazoo for the election day ground game. I'm not optimistic.

[cheerleader]

One thing Savage said in his June 1st interview with Mr. Trump, (linked to by the CTH), was that Trump should connect the Hillary's disaster in Libya with the refugees flowing into Europe, and blame her for it. I thought was a good point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxdAdYhrx5Y

[Sue]

Dear Leader,

I was hoping you would follow my lead and just vote republican, thereby negating the necessity of actually putting your mark next Trump's name. Maybe you could reconsider?

[cheerleader]

Tom Collins, Mr. Trump hasn't even started yet.

[Beasts of England]

If only we had an opposition party controlling both houses of congress, TC. Maybe they could have done the job that Judicial Watch had to do. Grrr.

[daddy on the iPad]

"It’s not that Obama can’t speak clearly. It’s that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up."

Imagine how frightening it'd be to have somebody this verbally stupid being your pilot and him trying to communicate with Chinese or French or even American ATC, not to mention the rest of the crew.

Imagine yourself as a passenger on a flight in turbulence and the Captain comes on the overhead and says in intellectual stutter "if, if , if ,if, if, if, if, if, if, ...uhhh,.."

But he's a genius according to Michael Beschloss.

Interesting to note how 3 years ago the best flick of the year was about the terrible consequences to the English Speaking World if the English King in War Time was not able to speak in public without stuttering like the village idiot, yet now to our Domestic Press, Obama's stuttering idiocy is now a sign of verbal brilliance rivaling Demosthenes, who as you'll all recall practiced for years with pebbles in his mouth to defeat his stuttering because he knew it made him look and sound exactly like the village idiot.

Can't link, but if I could I'd put a gif up of Porky Pig saying "Tha, Tha, Tha,, Tha, Uhhh, thats all folks!"

[Thomas Collins]

The best argument for The Hill is the most gruesome one that none of her supporters will mention. The argument is this: Kojeve is correct that we are at the end of history, that the historical process has evolved to the extent that life is now all meaningless ceremony, and that we need nanny leaders who will preside over the end of history. As a rat packer, Trump won't do this.

I happen to think Kojeve's end of history argument is wrong, but at least he had the balls in his lectures on Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit to state clearly his position.

[Beasts of England]

We're at the end of history? Well, then, I'm taking the afternoon off...

[sbw]

Let’s see:

A) Constant, never-ending lies with no accountability

Versus

B) temporary theatric exaggerations leading to sensible policies for which one is held accountable.

And there is confusion as to which is preferable?

[Porchlight]

"Safe" behavior is installing a private, unsecured server over which to conduct matters of national security.

"Safe" behavior is repeated ignoring of security requests from your ambassador in the most dangerous outpost in Libya, then leaving him and the rest of the consulate to their fate after your secret arms deal blows up.

[Dave (in MA)]

Daddy,

okee doke.

[Porchlight]

But, like Obama and unlike Trump, she will at least pretend that national unity is aspirational.

Evidence? Trump talks about national unity all the time.

I almost get the idea that people who don't like Trump never read or listen to anything from him in video, audio or written form.

[sbw]

Words matter.

Political post-modernists say they don’t; that they are used to mold consensus.

Stupid post-moderns! Why then do post-moderns use words to try to convince us words don’t matter?

Counterfeit money is made because real money is useful. Counterfeit history matters because real history matters. [H/T Great Courses’ Prof. Allen C. Guelzo]

[sbw]

You can’t trust one word of an Obama, a Clinton, or any of their cronies.

If you would vote for someone who holds you in complete disdain, please help me understand.

[daddy on the iPad]

All Trumps family/families have been out on stage.

When are they going to trot out Hillary's brother and his history for the photo-op and human interest angle?

It's like "the dog relative that didn't bark."

[Captain Hate]

From the last thread:

Almost half a century ago, a couple buddies and I figured out that the only way to get any good at basketball was to play at a gym that was almost exclusively AA. It was smart conceptually and how it played out. A side benefit was the trash talking; it was like being immersed in a verbal carnival and you quickly learned how to deal with it, either by becoming adept at it or just STFU. Guess which path I took.

I don't recall anybody using "okie doke" or if anybody did it was something quickly ignored, like Zippy should be

[Miss Marple 2]

My hope is that Trump WILl unify a good portion of the country across sex, class, and racial lines.

If you look at his crowds, I notice one other thing: they are HAPPY.

Presidents do not do detail work (except for Jimmy Carter and we see how well THAT worked out). They set long-term goals, like "We win, they lose."

Most of all, they do not lecture the people and tell them they are stupid, racist, homophobic, or whatever the pejorative of the day is. They care about the people of THIS country.

I want patriotism back. I do not want dreary Hillary, who might as well be the boot on our face forever. I want a happy warrior who will go to bat for THIS country.

I am for Trump, don't care what the smart people say.

Now to run the first load of junk up to my sister's.

[daddy on the iPad]

One thing Savage said in his June 1st interview with Mr. Trump, (linked to by the CTH), was that Trump should connect the Hillary's disaster in Libya with the refugees flowing into Europe,

That sounds like the Dalai Lama. You sure it was Trump said that?

[Momto2]

I almost get the idea that people who don't like Trump never read or listen to anything from him in video, audio or written form

That is SO true. If they would listen to an entire speech and not the snippets that get on the news, they might have a different opinion.

I am totally baffled how anyone who has children or grandchildren could even *consider* voting for H. Their future is balanced on the head of a pin and some seem to think that doesn't matter...really saddens me!

[DebinNC]

I need to reread Bill Whittle's excellent "Tribes" essay, his response to the 2005 Katrina Dem bloodfest, because HC and the Dems intentionally foment national disunity at every opportunity to serve their evil ends.

[glasater]

Savage is a big proponent of the wall

So is TM's hero Mickey Kaus..

[cheerleader]

sbw, it's because words matter so much that the pomos use them as their primary weapon.

[JMHanes]

Ignatz:

"I suspect it is a losing argument...."

I hope you're right, but with even TM saying he would cast a deciding vote for Hillary (in a heartbeat, no less), I'm not optimistic. And notwithstanding the patent SCOTUS stakes, if voting for Trump still feels like jumping off a cliff to me, you've already got a problem with "likely Republican voters" before you even get to Independents. Will Trump manage to change the underlying demographic dynamics? We can only hope so. I do think his choice of VP could make a really big difference.

[Thomas Collins]

The more I think about the Veep pick, JMH, the more I think Trump needs to convince Nikki Haley to run with him.

[cheerleader]

Oh, dear God, NOT NOT NOT Nikki Haley.

[Thomas Collins]

Politics makes strange bedfellows, cheerleader. Trump-Haley is no more strange than Reagan-GHWB.

[Thomas Collins]

Trump-Corker or Trump-Gingrich is not going to help with the persuadables as much as Trump-Haley.

[Sue]

How about Mia Love? Then it could be Trump/Love. ::grin::

[James D]

JMH, WHY does it feel like jumping off a cliff?

What is SO scary and horrible about him?

Yeah, his rhetoric, but how is it truly different than the rhetoric of countless other candidates of both parties who are viewed somehow as infinitely more respectable and "normal" than Trump?

Yeah, his lack of economic knowledge and lack of concern for the details of policy, but what exactly have the experts and geniuses and policy wonks (of both parties) done for us? Obamacare, $19 trillion deficit, stagnant wages, hopelessly broken immigration system, a hideously corrupt and damaging education system, and overwhelming government intrusion into every sphere of life and every profession. How can Trump's ignorance possibly be scarier or more unreasonable than the knowledgeable people who have given us all those disasters?

You all talk as though he's some mentally ill freak who will crack open the nuclear football if somebody looks at him funny, and if you really think that, you are not seeing the man himself but buying into a false narrative being sold by Hillary and her enablers in the press.

[glasater]

Rick Santelli just had on his show Jim Bianco talking about BREXIT that was pretty interesting.

They believe if the UK leaves the EU that will be the huge story of the here with Trump winning the presidency second.

The reasoning goes something like this:

The people here are sick and tired of 'the establishment'..well so are the people of the UK.

We and the people in the UK are 'tired of the leverage' the establishment gives to the non-productive..

I tend to agree that the breakup of the EU would indicate a YUGE change in our world that would make whether Hillary or The Donald are elected small potatoes.

[daddy on the iPad]

When Hillary in 1993 came out and tried to ramrod National Health Care down our throats, that was simply "a slightly left of center...conventional, predictable type."

What's the punch line, TM?,..or did Typepad leave off the "Knock, Knock. Who's there? intro?

Knock, Knock.
Who's There?
Saul Alinsky disciple, Marxist Hillary.

Knock knock.
Who's There?
Fired from the Watergate Investigation for lying, Rose Law Firm, Cattle Futures, Mena Arkansas, Whitewater, FBI Files, Bimbo-Gate, Join the Marines Hillary.

Knock, Knock.
Who's There?
"We were dead broke when we left the White House," $500,000 College speeches, E-Mail Gate, "At this point what does it matter," Chelsea doesn't care about money---that'll be 60 thousand for her speech" It was a Video...We're going to put the Coal Companies out of Business, right Tim!" Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, cackle, cackle..."

Knock, Knock.
Who's a there?
"A slightly left of center,...conventional, predictable type."
"Well come on in Hillary!"

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

Please not Haley.

[Porchlight]

Trump-Haley is no more strange than Reagan-GHWB.

I disagree, TC. Reagan battled GHWB for the nomination. GHWB was seen as a tested rival, plus he had experience in the Ford adminstration and national security expertise as former CIA director.

Haley brings little, honestly, except her gender and ethnic background.

I would prefer to leave the token picks to Democrats.

[DebinNC]

From Haley's January SOTU response:
"During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices," Haley said during that speech from the governor's residence in Columbia. "We must resist that temptation. No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country."

Trump's VP? No way, Jose.

[glasater]

Please not Haley

Amen..

[jimmyk on iPhone]

"Trump-Corker or Trump-Gingrich is not going to help with the persuadables as much as Trump-Haley."

Depends which persuadables. The Rockefeller Rs in NE states that will go for Hillary anyway? Or the conservative base in swing states that Trump will actually need to win?

[cheerleader]

Tom,

Mr. Trump is not playing the game "Politics as Usual".

[Thomas Collins]

Trump/Love would send the Dems crazy, Sue. I wonder whether Love is being considered.

I not only consider The Donald a slam dunk over The Hill, I consider The Ivanka a slam dunk over The Hill! In fact, Ivanka might be able to teach her father something about being tough while being more reassuring to the feeler voters.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/13/ivanka-trump-donald-trump-women/

[Janet]

Amen to TC's 10:59.

[Truthbetold5]

Trump is going to pick Gingrich.

[JMHanes]

Thomas Collins:

I appreciated your bracing exhortation! The problem with someone like Nikki Haley is the "getting to know you" downtime while she is introduced to the national stage. I suspect most ordinary voters don't know much about her. I think Trump needs someone whose national reputation is already made, although I'm afraid I don't have any actual names in mind. Or someone who is a wizard-with-words spokesman.

[jimmyk on iPhone]

Too bad John Tower isn't available, it could be Trump-Tower. How about Andrew Card?

[daddy on the iPad]

that the only way to get any good at basketball was to play at a gym that was almost exclusively AA. It was smart conceptually and how it played out. A side benefit was the trash talking;

White guys can't 'chump.'

June Cleaver, on the other hand....

[Thomas Collins]

She also brings gubernatorial experience and would be a bridge to the Duke and Dukers, Porchlight. It really depends on how one views the electorate. I view the electorate as one similar to 2012, except that Trump may get more AA support, Trump will get less female support, Trump will be ground game hurting, and bringing along Duke and Duke is more important than many in the Trump camp are acknowledging. If one disagrees with my view, Corker or Gingrich would be sensible choices.

[sbw]

jimmyk, stop it!

[cheerleader]

jimmyk, :-)

[Thomas Collins]

If already known is key, JMH, Ryan would seem to be the logical choice. Trump and Ryan hold a joint news conference in which it is widely expected that Ryan will announce support for Trump. Ryan does that, and, in a prearranged sequence, Trump then offers the Vice POTUSey to Ryan, and Ryan accepts.

[cheerleader]

He doesn't need a governor. He says he wants someone who can navigate Congress.

[Porchlight]

TC, if a bridge to Duke and Duke is desired, I'd think Trump would want a little more for his money than Haley. She's weak. And Trump doesn't need help in the executive department. And he doesn't need help with SC.

If one had to go for a Duke and Duke governor, it could at least be a popular one from a swing state.

[cheerleader]

TC, I'll bet you a dollar he will not get less female support. That notion comes from the dishonest media blockade, not from what's really happening.

[boris]

"crystal clear to me that it has a lot more downside as well"

TM looks like a lost cause to me.

Even if Trump outsmarts the GOPe, the MFM, and the Clintons it doesn't count because it means he's just a good con artist and doesn't have the "credentials" to run a country.

[boris]

feh

[JMHanes]

Speaking of walls....

Via Instapundit, US military eyes 'extremist Islamic movement' in Latin America includes what strikes me as a key observation:

[Adm. Kurt Tidd] said terrorists are attracted to illicit smuggling networks in Latin America, its material and people. But, he said, the U.S. and its partners should focus on the networks rather than exactly what they are smuggling, such as animals, drugs, weapons and people.  "It's the ability that these networks have to pretty much be able to move anything that I think should give us all concern," he said.  "If we focus on the networks we may have a better chance of catching things moving through," he said. 

Terrorist webs and existing criminal networks. A perfect storm.

[DebinNC]

Trump needs a VP with foreign policy bona fides, familiar and generally well-regarded by voters, preferably a female like Condi Rice who would inspire confidence, at least to me.

[cheerleader]

DebinNC,

I don't think Mr. Trump would want such prominent Bush supporter in his camp.

Don't forget that Jeb, despite signing the pledge, and W, will not be supporting Mr. Trump or going to the Convention.

It is really a war between two visions of America and the Bushes lean more toward the left's globalist vision, and that is not compatible with how Mr. Trump sees things.

[daddy on the iPad]

"Trump-Corker or Trump-Gingrich is not going to help with the persuadables as much as Trump-Haley

I don't know Corker (If we're doing Tennessee I'd rather have Instapundot) but I have no problem with Newt. If we're going to lose I'd rather we do it with a team that has the balls and the smarts and the verbal ability to go after the Left and the Media as hard and as sharp as possible and then if we lose, what the hell, at least we lost on a hill worth fighting for with clear unambiguous arguments and principles. Probably unfair, but Nikey Haley strikes me as little better than Christie Todd Whitman in waiting. Hope I am wrong.

Let's try to win this thing outloud, outright, and without cowering.

[Porchlight]

Agree, daddy.

Also agree with cheerleader that Condi doesn't fit the bill. Trump is very explicitly trying to repudiate the Bush way of doing things.

[Appalled]

I wonder if TM stands in the same relationship to his comment section as the GOP stands in relationship to its base...

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

I am definitely on board with Mia Love. She may not pass JMH's unknown quantity caveat, which I think is a legit concern, but it should throw a bone to the recalcitrant "conservatives" and either have them jump on board or make up another reason to be a stick in the mud.

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

Strobe Talbot in a skirt would never jump on board.

[Porchlight]

I want someone who knows his way around DC and can twist arms as needed. And/or a Cheney type with foreign policy chops.

No token picks. They will be seen for what they are - pandering.

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

When I'm king, use of the word "persuadables" will be punished by death.

[JMHanes]

DebinNC:

Condi Rice is an inspired choice, assuming she could transcend the Bush Administration baggage, which I think she might well be able to do. I would sure love to see her slice and dice Obama's foreign policy. Interestingly enough, her original area of expertise was Russia. Would team Clinton go batshit crazy, or what? Alas, I'm afraid she doesn't like politics enough to accept the challenge, but even if she were, I suspect she's no more enthusiastic about Mr. Trump than the Bushes are.

[DebinNC]

Mia Love wiki. Says her parents came here from Haiti on a "tourist visa" and her birth here later allowed them to stay. Does that mean they were illegals until then? Don't see how that helps Trump with voters hoping to stop the current invasion.

[jimmyk on iPhone]

Question about Pagliano taking the 5th: I thought he was given immunity, or was that someone else? And why shouldn't he be given immunity now in any case?

[Thomas Collins]

Uh-oh, CH. I like that word. If we are having dinner in Cleveland and I use that word, are you going to knock me out and drive me to The Hough? :-)

[Hanzo]

Maguire, I think a lot of your articles are pure, unadulterated bs. But this takes the cake, have you taken leave of your senses?

Two words: Supreme Court. 'Nuff said.

[Thomas Collins]

I should have added drop me off in The Hough.

[Thomas Collins]

For those not familiar with Cleveland, unless things have changed, The Hough has a lot of people who, as they say, need to turn their lives around!

[daddy on the iPad]

If already known is key, JMH, Ryan would seem to be the logical choice. Trump and Ryan hold a joint news conference in which it is widely expected that Ryan will announce support for Trump.

TC,

I don't think that would work because we know in our hearts that Ryan's support would be fundamentally dishonest, and everybody would know it. Why waste a VP choice on promulgating a lie when the Trump Campaign is based on stating Truth's that everyone knows but is afraid to voice, especially when there are other good options as VP that have genuine support for Trump and his opinions and would be correctly viewed as honest and not dishonest? Ryan does not in his heart support Trump---that is obvious. I think Ryan is definitely a wrong road to go down.

And ask yourself this--- who would you rather see in a VP debate against whomever Hillary chooses? Ryan or Newt?

[cheerleader]

Whoever it is, will have to be high energy and able to keep up with Mr. Trump, who works non-stop. It takes a lot of energy even to keep up with his campaign. It's not going to be a laid back comfortable job as it was for Biden.

[Thomas Collins]

Perhaps Pagliano was given use, not transactional immunity, jimmyk. If all he was given was use immunity (that is, nothing that he said to the FBI or DOJ could be used against him), he wouldn't have immunity for what he said in a civil deposition. Even if he was given transactional immunity, there could be an issue as to how far that immunity extends.

In any event, if Pagliano speaks truthfully to the DOJ and FBI, I'm fine with him clamming up in a civil matter.

[Captain Hate on the iPhone]

Hough isn't nearly as bad as it was when you were here, TC. All of East Cleveland is much worse.

[Thomas Collins]

"I'd think Trump would want a little more for his money than Haley."

I'll resist the temptation to take that totally out of context, Porchlight! :-))

[glasater]

Trump/Cotton :-)

[Theo]

For what it is worth, I think TM's post makes a lot of sense.

I despise Rodham and do not think that I could bring myself to vote for her, but I agree with our genial host that her election would be unpleasant but not anxiety inducing.

I would also not concede her eight years. If elected she would be the most unpopular person ever elected. I think that by 2020 the country would be eager to throw her and the Democrats out.

I know that some here think that the country or the constitution or western civilization or human life will not survive four years of her (the rhetoric here gets very heated), but I agree with TM. We will survive this and perhaps be stronger for it. Almost certainly stronger than with Trump.

[pagar a bacon, country ham and sausage supporter]

From the link in the previous article.

"Indeed, Hillary went so far as to blame Foster for all the Clintons' problems and accuse him of failing them"

IMO, she will destroy any human being she wants to.

As for foreign policy, IMO Obama has destroyed the relationship between the US and any so called ally. Hillary owes everyone of the bribers who have contributed to her and Bill. Her foreign policy would be who sent her the most money under the table IMO.

IMO, Hillary Clinton will force the end of the USA as a free nation.

I simply can not believe that there are Americans who would " I would pick Hillary in a heartbeat."

Thomas Collins says it much better than I can in his comments at 10:59 AND I thank him.

[Beasts of England]

And her two or three lifetime Supreme Court appointments, Theo? Will the country be stronger for those?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--I have said (and blogged? Tweeted?) that with the deciding vote I would pick Hillary in a heartbeat.--

Pretty sure that qualifies TM for that list JMH is always asking me to compile. :)