ChrisWeigant.com

The Trump Party?

[ Posted Thursday, July 9th, 2015 – 16:59 UTC ]

Donald Trump is truly the gift that keeps on giving. For Democrats, that is. Democrats wake up every day to hear what Trump has recently said, and it's like a big old birthday present each time.

Today, a new interview ran in the Washington Post. Their editorial staff got to sit down with Trump for a half-hour, and of course there were the usual amusing bon mots from Trump, including his impression of Mitt Romney in the debates, last time around. Romney, Trump said, was overhandled and overrehearsed, or as The Donald put it: "He became a frozen jellyfish. He spent so much time in prep he couldn't speak." Say what you want about the man, but he does come up with some great metaphors from time to time. Mitt Romney as "frozen jellyfish" is an image it'll be hard to forget, actually.

Of course, there are always a few lines from any Trump interview which are memorable for a different reason. This time around, Trump predicted he will "win the Latin vote." So he's all prepared for his "Vini, vidi, vici!" moment, one assumes.

Amusing quips aside, Trump did say something interesting which should send chills down the back of Reince Priebus and all others in the Republican establishment. Here's the relevant part of the article:

In a wide-ranging, 30-minute interview with The Washington Post, the billionaire real estate mogul and reality television star said he has serious concerns about other Republican candidates and refused to commit to supporting the eventual nominee in the general election.

"So many people want me to run as an independent -- so many people," Trump said. "I have been asked by -- you have no idea, everybody wants me to do it. I think the best chance of defeating the Democrats and to make America great again is to win as a Republican because I don't want to be splitting up votes."

Pressed about whether he would back the Republican ticket if he fails to win the nomination himself, Trump left the door open for a third-party bid of his own. "I would have to see who the nominee is," he said.

Will we have the Trump Party alongside the Democrats and Republicans on the ballot next fall? Your guess is as good as mine. Trump's got the cash to stay in the race as long as he wants to, which includes running in the general as an independent. He wouldn't have to convince donors, he'd just have to finance getting on the ballot in all 50 states. Would he make that kind of commitment? He did hedge a bit, further on in the article:

But he posited that he would consider dropping out of the race if he does not believe he can win.

"I have a huge staff -- I have a big staff in Iowa, New Hampshire, all over," Trump said. "I absolutely stay in. If for some reason I think it's not going to happen, I'm not a masochist. You understand that, right? I'm like a smart person. I went to the Wharton School of finance. I built a great company."

Trump just polled in first place in his first state-level poll, in North Carolina. He's polled in second place in at least two other states. He has to, at this point, be considered one of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination. So it's not all just Trump's ego speaking -- he's getting the lion's share of attention from the media, and he's rising fast in the polls. Any of the other Republican candidates currently polling below ten percent has to be pretty envious of Trump right about now, in fact. He's even in danger of owning the "face of the Republican Party" label, much as that discomforts many Republicans.

But discomfort will quickly turn to downright shaking-in-your-boots fear for establishment Republicans when faced with the prospect of Trump mounting a third-party bid. It's pretty obvious that if Trump is beaten by Bush for the nomination -- but not by as wide a margin as everyone predicted -- then a Trump third-party bid would draw pretty much all its voters from the Republican Party's ranks. Trump would be the Republican Ralph Nader, except on steroids. If Trump does launch a third-party bid, pretty much anyone the Democrats put up would almost be guaranteed the victory, since the Republican vote would be so splintered.

Which is why even contemplating the prospect of the Trump Party being on the ballot in 2016 is the biggest slice of birthday cake any Democrat could get, right now.

birthday cake

All Democrats would be making the same wish as they blew out the candles, too:

"Oh, please, please, please run as an independent, Donald!"

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

80 Comments on “The Trump Party?”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Oh, please, please, please run as an independent, Donald!"

    No thanks. I'm registering (R) and I want Trump to be my party's nominee.

    “Let’s assume that the studies, which say that I’m wrong, are true. That doesn’t mean that I’m not right.” - The Donald

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    Yep!

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    John From Censornati -

    For me, it was: "I'm like a smart person." Deconstruct that!

    Heh.

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    It just occurred to me...

    Many on the Right ridiculed an unknown black senator from Illinois.. They said there is NO WAY this guy could be POTUS..

    And he went on to be America's first AA POTUS..

    So, I wouldn't be so giddy if I were ya'all... Stranger things have happened than a TRUMP POTUS'ency :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since Trump is the topic du jour once again, I have to ask.... again..

    Can anyone tell me EXACTLY where Trump's facts are not in order??

    Because, we're ALL about *facts* here...

    Right???

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would have thought ya'all would LOVE Donald Trump..

    He has his own money so he is not beholden to ANY special interest group or lobbyist...

    I mean, ya'all hate $$$ in elections, right?? Trump's richer than god... Ya'all wouldn't have to worry about him being bought off by special interests like Hillary...

    Looking at the facts (There's that 'F' word again) one would think Donald Trump is ya'all's dream candidate.... :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is what a Democrat and 2 Independents think of Donald Trump..

    They think he’s real, that he’s under nobody’s thumb, that maybe he’s a big-mouth but he’s a truth-teller. He’s afraid of no one, he’s not politically correct. He’s rich and can’t be bought by some billionaire, because he is the billionaire. He’s talking about what people are thinking and don’t feel free to say. He can turn the economy around because he made a lot of money, so he probably knows how to make jobs.

    He is a fighter. People want a fighter. Maybe he’s impolitic but he’s better than some guy who filters everything he says through a screen of political calculation.
    -http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-appealand-its-limits-1436479851

    That pretty much describes how I feel about Donald Trump..

    And not one single person here can argue the validity of those points...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    If illegal immigrants continue to murder and rob and rape innocent Americans, and we all know that they will, then Donald Trump has a real shot at becoming the next American President...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I love that The Donald is oranger than The Orange Man. Trump is The Topper.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    I have to concede one point.. If Trump does pull a Ross Perot, it will likely lead to another Dem POTUS... Possibly even if Sanders is the Dem Candidate..

    This country cannot handle another Dem POTUS...

    Let's hope Trump realizes that...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-8

    So, you agree with Peggy Noonan's three anecdotal friends. These three may be real, living breathing people with SS numbers compromised by Chinese hackers, but I suspect they are merely the handy rhetorical devices of an editorial columnist. Noonan (ex Bush speech writer)formally quotes the three friends only twice, and both quotes enclose the same single word: "yeah." Now that's what I call economical use of quotation!

    Noonan's editorial isn't exactly flattering to The Donald. By extension, it doesn't paint her phantom friends in a very kindly light either. A sample of quotes from Noonan's editorial:

    "No one who looks at Donald Trump will then look at Jeb Bush, John Kasich or Rand Paul and question whether he has the presidential temperament."

    "He’s a squid: poke him and get ink all over you."

    "He has the power of the man with nothing to lose. If he won he’d be president. If he loses he’s Donald Trump, only a little more famous."

    "He puts individuals and groups down in a mean and careless way. He has poor impulse control and is never above the fray. He likes to start fights. That’s a weakness. Eventually he’ll lose one."

    " Blowhards don’t wear well." That's the take home from Noonan's article.

    Noonan's squid analogy is even better than she realized. Squid are masters at blending in with whatever environment they happen to pass through, they can change colors in the blink of an eye. They are very intelligent, but short lived. If Trump should form a third party, a squid would be the perfect symbol, with red white and blue colors shifting depending on the viewing angle.

    By the way Michael, have you by any chance met Noonan and had a short conversation?

  13. [13] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-11

    Trump doesn't even have to "pull a Ross Perot" and front a third party. All he has to do is bulldoze the eventual Republican nominee so far right that he/she still turns off persuadable voters in critical states come November.

    The Dems Luv them odds!

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    For the record, this what frozen jelly fish look like.

    http://img.21food.com/20110609/product/1305249755828.jpg

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    but I suspect they are merely the handy rhetorical devices of an editorial columnist.

    Based solely on the fact that you don't agree with what they say...

    This isn't the first time I have heard of Democrats agreeing with Donald Trump..

    Names like Boxer, Clinton and Feinstein come to mind.. :D

    " Blowhards don’t wear well." That's the take home from Noonan's article.

    Which proves what I said.. You only take away what you WANT to hear..

    Whereas I concede BOTH points.

    Yes.. Trump is an arrogant blow-hard..

    But he is ALSO laying out the facts that politically correct types are afraid to say...

    Still waiting for someone to point to me where Donald's facts are in error...

    Trump doesn't even have to "pull a Ross Perot" and front a third party. All he has to do is bulldoze the eventual Republican nominee so far right that he/she still turns off persuadable voters in critical states come November.

    You mean, like how Bernie is "bulldozing" Clinton so far Left that she has to turn off persuadable voters in critical states come November...

    I am amazed you walked into that one. :D

    The Dems Luv them odds

    Yea... Clintonistas loved them odds in 2008 too.. :D We know how well that turned out for Clinton.. :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shall we ask Kathleen Steinle and Jamiel Shaw what they think of Trump's statements on illegal immigrants??

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump speaks FACTS to POWER... No other candidate, Left OR Right, can make that claim... In all fairness, however, Bernie does come close...

    That alone makes Trump (AND Sanders) worth the price of admission..

    Trump makes the Ruling Class nervous because Trump doesn't NEED the Ruling Class... Again, no one on the Left OR the Right can make that claim...

    That says it all...

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Trump spouted Left Wing red meat instead of Right Wing red meat, ya'all would be all gaga over Trump, even more so than ya'all are over Bernie....

    Think about it... Am I wrong??

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, but Michale ...

    ... you always forget about this very important factor - the Left is usually right and the Right is mostly wrong ... so to speak. Ahem. :)

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    .. you always forget about this very important factor - the Left is usually right and the Right is mostly wrong ... so to speak. Ahem. :)

    But if the Left is Right and the Right is Wrong, who's on first? :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    All I am saying is that all the arrogance and pomposity and politically incorrectness that ya'all slam Trump for, ya'all would applaud if he was saying what ya'all wanted to hear...

    That's my point...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I'm not sure what point you think you're making.

    If Trump was ... say, an up-wing kind of candidate and said the right things and advocated the right policies and expressed a vision for the future that was progressive and positive, then, of course, I and many others - here and elsewhere - would applaud him, even if he was being an arrogant, pompous you-know-what!

    But, he is not and there isn't a snowball's chance in you-know-where that he will.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    But he IS being "up-wing"...

    He wants to protect the Kathleen Steinles and the Jamiel Shaws of this country...

    And his message is resonating with ALL Americans, both Right *AND* Left *AND* Independents...

    The only people who don't like what he is doing is the Ruling Class....

    The professional politicians....

    And THAT is just fine by me....

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    This would be a lot easier to discuss if anyone could tell me EXACTLY which statements of Trump's are not factually accurate....

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    I and many others - here and elsewhere - would applaud him, even if he was being an arrogant, pompous you-know-what!

    Well, we have JFC slamming Trump for the color of his skin.. We have had MANY commenters slam Trump for his hair..

    HONESTLY...

    What does Trump's HAIR have to do with ANYTHING!???

    Attack Trump for his FACTS....

    {{chiirrrrrppppp}} {{chiiiiiirrrrpppp}}}

    Apparently, no one can do that...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look how many TRUMP commentaries and TRUMP mentions we have had in Weigantia in the last week or two......

    CNN said "Donald Trump" 239 times in a 24 hour period...

    "Me thinks thou doth protest TOO much"

    I'm just sayin'....

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "we have JFC slamming Trump for the color of his skin"

    Does loving something translate to slamming it in bizarro cancervative world? Wait, never mind. I've often heard christians (R) talk about how they "love" the sinner and they clearly mean the opposite. Oh well, I suppose I can see how it gets confusing for you down in that rabbit hole since I don't talk like that, but I've given Trump nothing but rave "reviews". I've stated my very sincerely held intention to change my registration so that I can vote for him. I even gave him credit for owning his homophobia rather than blaming some imaginary sky daddy, but now I have to wonder what The Donald meant when he said "I love the Mexican people". Was he slamming them for being rapists and dope mules? I probably don't understand all of the GOP dog whistles.

  28. [28] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "we have JFC slamming Trump for the color of his skin"

    Does loving something translate to slamming it in bubble world? Wait, never mind. I've often heard christians (R) talk about how they "love" the sinner and they clearly mean the opposite. Oh well, I suppose I can see how it gets confusing for you down in that rabbit hole since I don't talk like that, but I've given Trump nothing but rave "reviews". I've stated my very sincerely held intention to change my registration so that I can vote for him. I even gave him credit for owning his anti-gay bigotry rather than blaming some imaginary sky daddy, but now I have to wonder what The Donald meant when he said "I love the Mexican people". Was he slamming them for being predators and drug dealers? I probably don't understand all of the GOP dog whistles.

  29. [29] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "I dare anybody to show me one word from Trump that isn’t accurate" - Ted Nugent

    LOL! Somebody really should tell that dimwit about the google.

    BTW - he did set the bar pretty low on his dare, but he didn't go into much detail about what the dare actually involves. Maybe he's going to shoot anybody who shatters his delusions?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    LOL! Somebody really should tell that dimwit about the google.

    Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational argument and must therefore resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks. Your concession of my superiority is appreciated albeit irrelevant... :D

    BTW - he did set the bar pretty low on his dare, but he didn't go into much detail about what the dare actually involves. Maybe he's going to shoot anybody who shatters his delusions?

    And yet, STILL not one single fact to refute Donald Trump's statements...

    :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The One Who Watches Words is getting all PC on me again.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    LOL! Somebody really should tell that dimwit about the google.

    Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational argument and must therefore resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks. Your concession of my superiority is appreciated albeit irrelevant... :D

    DOH!!! I missed the quote part of your comment...

    My bust.

    ArgleBargle!! :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    The One Who Watches Words is getting all PC on me again.

    NOW yer just being plain nasty... :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh.. And just in case everyone missed it..

    Oooo that crazy Donald Trump is at it again!!!

    "Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs. The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement.

    Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes.

    Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world.

    Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."

    Oh... Wait.....

    That was Harry Reid who said that..

    My bust... :^D

    So.... Does ANYONE wanna tell me how "wrong" Harry Reid..... er... I mean Donald Trump is???

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    But he IS being "up-wing"...

    Actually, from what I have heard of his stance on the big issues of the day - like climate change, for example - Trump is a very decidedly down-wing candidate.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, from what I have heard of his stance on the big issues of the day - like climate change, for example

    Why should anyone care about "Climate Change"???

    We might as well be concerned about Earth Orbit....

    We have as much control over THAT as we have over the planet's climate....

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    In case you missed it, every computer model that has been constructed to prove the theory of human caused climate changed has been wrong..

    "FAILED... FAILED... IMPRESSIVELY FAILED.."
    -Doctor, ARMAGEDDON

    Here's a free *REAL* science clue...

    When *EVERY* Model designed to prove a theory has FAILED....

    It's time to re-think the theory...

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    GOP Gospel

    Global Warming has little to no empirical support, relies on highly inaccurate computer models that cannot forecast current, much less future, weather, and is not supported by a broad scientific consensus. To the extent there is warming going on, it is due to the sun. While these facts do not conclusively prove that global warming is not occurring (it’s impossible to prove a negative), they certainly suggest that it is not. God is still up there and His Dominion Mandate has never been withdrawn and is still in effect. It was originally given to Adam & Eve and then confirmed and modified to Noah after the Great Flood. It is, therefore, appropriate to raise the question of how well the Dominion Mandate is being implemented by the nations of the world. A basic component in the mandate was the establishment of traditional marriage as the basis for establishing the population required to accomplish the other components of the mandate. It’s pretty clear that the nations have failed miserably in this regard. They have given lip service to traditional marriage in their legal codes, but polygamy, same sex marriage, and cohabitation without marriage have become very common. So, in spite of all the advances in science and technology that have been made, mankind has still got a long way go to go before we reach our goal of subduing the Earth. Convincing well intentioned Christians to believe and defend demonstrably false ideas is the Devil's greatest triumph.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooo those crazy "scientists"...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

    NOW they are saying we're heading for a mini-ice-age...

    Heh

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Face the facts, people...

    Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption or whatever the current marketing term is these days....???

    It's a POLITICAL/IDEOLOGICAL issue...

    It's as far reviewed from real science as Aunt Fanny's underwear....

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    dsws wrote:

    I have in mind that "Daily Mail" is British for Midnight Star.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I think a description of "up-wing" is in order.

    It's a term used by one of my favourite political analysts, William Bradley, and was derived from an idea that former Senator Gary Hart showed him to characterize political figures using a past-future spectrum instead of the usual right-wing/left-wing classification.

    To paraphrase Bradley, this past-future spectrum naturally runs from the up end to the down end of the spectrum, with the futurist end characterized by new technology, creative utilizations of existing technology, and new structural forms to pursue enduring values and new visions.

    The up-wing leader places a special emphasis on big think/think big future-oriented and enlightened policies in an effort to position a society on the global cutting edge, even in the midst of great challenges and crises that would paralyse a more down-wing political leader.

    Additionally, to quote Bradley, "big thinking, big ideas need not be about big items per se. In fact, some of the biggest thinking is about small things, or more accurately, how to bring smaller things into play to solve problems that big things might make worse."

    This is a far superior method of characterizing the current crop of presidential candidates than the out-dated and tired left-wing/right wing labels because it identifies the candidate most capable of outlining a coherent vision for the future and of possessing the courage to carry it out.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think a description of "up-wing" is in order.

    I agree cuz I had NO IDEA what you were talking about. :D

    But, given the definition ya gave, compare and contrast Trump's rhetoric with Bernie's rhetoric...

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    given the definition ya gave, compare and contrast Trump's rhetoric with Bernie's rhetoric...

    I'd rather leave the down-wing candidates for others to analyze and instead focus on who the up-wing candidates might be or, at the very least, what an up-wing vision for the future might look like in terms of specific policies and strategies.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd rather leave the down-wing candidates for others to analyze and instead focus on who the up-wing candidates might be or, at the very least, what an up-wing vision for the future might look like in terms of specific policies and strategies.

    Fair enough...

    But at least we agree that Bernie and Trump are "down-wing" candidates. :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think that's true.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well then, in this issue, we have nothing to debate... :D

    Wanna talk about Iran?? :D heh

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, it might be best if we wait until there is a deal (or not) to talk about.

    And, then, we can figure out if what was agreed to, if there is a deal, is worthy of our support.

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I agree cuz I had NO IDEA what you were talking about. :D

    Heheheheheh. That made me laugh out loud!

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, it might be best if we wait until there is a deal (or not) to talk about.

    And, then, we can figure out if what was agreed to, if there is a deal, is worthy of our support.

    Troo.. We can't talk about a deal that doesn't exist yet..

    But we CAN talk about the process... Which I find fascinating..

    It's funny.. I was reading about how th Greeks are negotiating and it struck me how much Greece and Iran have in common...

    They both know they're dirty, they both know they're on the wrong side of morality and history and they both are just biding time, using negotiating as a stalling tactic..

    The similarity is staggering..

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, if that is what they are doing, it won't get either one of them very far.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, if that is what they are doing, it won't get either one of them very far.

    Agreed...

    This is becoming a habit.. :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This is becoming a habit.. :D

    Since we are evidently on a roll, would you also agree with me that a deal with Iran on its nuclear program that satisfies US objectives and those of its allies is possible?

    I ask because so many critics of the deal apparently believe that no deal is possible and that there should not even be negotiations between Iran and P5+1.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since we are evidently on a roll, would you also agree with me that a deal with Iran on its nuclear program that satisfies US objectives and those of its allies is possible?

    I honestly don't believe a good deal is possible for one simple reason..

    Iran's going to cheat. That's a given. They have already been caught cheating within the last month or two...

    So, the ONLY way a "good" deal would be possible is if Iran allowed the kinds of inspections that would CATCH Iran when they cheat...

    That means unannounced inspections of ANY facility under Iranian control..

    *ANY FACILITY*

    Iran will never allow that and THAT is the only way that a deal with Iran would be a "good" deal...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    I gotta ask one question..

    Why does Kerry bother with setting ANY kind of deadline???

    It's obvious that there IS no deadline and the P5+1 just look like idiots when they blow thru another "deadline"....

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think too much importance is being placed on these deadlines and the failure to meet them.

    I fully agree with Kerry when he says that the P5+1 won't rush to get a deal and they won't be rushed.

    Look, you always say that Obama is too quick to get a deal because he desperately needs a deal ... for his legacy or whatever. I think Iran is far more desperate for a deal for pure economic reasons.

    The problem for Iran is that it also needs to vilify America for political reasons.

    Something has to give and I don't really care how much longer it takes so long as Iran continues to live by the interim agreement. I think Iran will, in the not too distant future make the hard decision that it is better to swallow the bitter political pill of signing an agreement that meets the P5+1 objectives than to risk the wrath of its negotiating partners and suffer great economic hardship under the sanctions regime.

    What's important here is that Iran remains isolated if it fails to sign on to the interim framework in the form of a final agreement. I think that is basically why Kerry is willing to extend the time for negotiations - to make it crystal clear to all involved in the negotiations and to all observers that Iran will have to take full responsibility for the failure to reach an agreement and will have to suffer the consequences as a result.

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    News Flash!

    Iran will never allow that and THAT is the only way that a deal with Iran would be a "good" deal...

    I have it on excellent authority that Iran and the P5+1 have come to a workable compromise on this issue and all of the other sticking point!

    As we write, the negotiators in Vienna are dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's so to speak and than the announcement of an agreement is imminent.

    I'm really looking forward to a great debate here on the merits of this agreement ...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Something has to give and I don't really care how much longer it takes so long as Iran continues to live by the interim agreement.

    But that's just it. Iran is already cheating.. They have been buying nuclear technology from Germany in violation of the interim agreement..

    I have it on excellent authority that Iran and the P5+1 have come to a workable compromise on this issue and all of the other sticking point!

    Link??

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hate links. I thought you knew that ... :)

    No, I just heard an interview Fareed Zakaria did with Joe Cirincione and Karim Sadjadpour on CNN's GPS program.

    Cirincione and Sadjadpour are my go to guys on this issue - they know what's what.

    Iran has been living up to the interim agreement and if they cheat after signing the final agreement they will be caught and punished!

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just to be clear, Iran is living up to the terms of the interim framework. They didn't actually sign that interim document and think of it only as a kind of memorandum of understanding, or whatever ...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    But that's just it. Iran is already cheating.. They have been buying nuclear technology from Germany in violation of the interim agreement..

    http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/aktuelles/meldungen/me-20150630-vorstellung-vsb-2014

    But let me make clear..

    ANY deal that does not force Iran to submit to No-Notice-Any-Time-Any-Where inspections is a bad deal...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even if an agreement is somehow reached, it won't survive the 60-Day Congressional review...

    Just to be clear, Iran is living up to the terms of the interim framework.

    Not according to the German Intelligence services...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The P5+1 negotiators say that Iran has lived up to the interim framework. Period.

    Have they cheated in the past? Yes. Will they cheat in the future? Indubitably. Should Iran's history of cheating and possibility for future cheating be a deal breaker? Of course, not!

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ANY deal that does not force Iran to submit to No-Notice-Any-Time-Any-Where inspections is a bad deal...

    Critics of any deal with Iran always make this argument and it is wrong to do so.

    It is possible to have an effective verification and inspection regime and, indeed it is critical to any deal with Iran on its nuclear program.

    It doesn't have to be quite as absolute as you think!

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    The P5+1 negotiators say that Iran has lived up to the interim framework. Period.

    The P5+1 negotiators said the deal would be done by 30 Jun..

    I wouldn't put much stock in ANYTHING the P5+1 says..

    It's documented by a reputable intelligence agency that Iran has cheated..

    Put another way, the Bundesnachrichtendienst has absolutely no reason to lie that Iran is cheating..

    The P5+1 has every reason to lie that Iran is NOT cheating...

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is possible to have an effective verification and inspection regime and, indeed it is critical to any deal with Iran on its nuclear program.

    It is NOT possible to have an effective verification and inspection regime if Iran is in control of when and where the inspectors can inspect..

    It is simply NOT possible..

    Put another way.. Let's say you have a teenager that has smoked pot in the past. As the parent, you put your teenager on notice that you will be inspecting every inch of his life at any time. And if he passes the inspection, you will give him a $5000 reward...

    The teenager comes back with, "I can't accept that. But I will let you inspect my room ONLY and you have to give me an hours notice before I allow you to come in my room. My car and my school locker are OFF LIMITS to any inspections.. Can I have my $5000 now??"

    What parent in their right mind would accept that kind of "deal"??

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Put another way, the Bundesnachrichtendienst has absolutely no reason to lie that Iran is cheating..

    The who?

    :-)

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    What parent in their right mind would accept that kind of "deal"??

    More accurately, would that kind of deal curtail the anti-social behavior of the teen??

    Or facilitate it??

    THAT is the question that needs to be asked vis a vis Iran....

    Obama is on record as stating that he WON'T allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons...

    Would the deal as it is outlined prevent that??

    Or facilitate that?

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It is NOT possible to have an effective verification and inspection regime if Iran is in control of when and where the inspectors can inspect..It is simply NOT possible..

    Take a deep breath, Michale.

    I said "not absolute" ... not "Iran in control" ...

    Remember ... let's wait for the deal ... should be coming shortly ...

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    I said "not absolute" ... not "Iran in control" ...

    If the deal is as is being reported than Iran will, indeed, be in control of the inspection regime...

    But I will hold my water and keep my powder dry until the deal is official....

    Maybe.. :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way, the Bundesnachrichtendienst has absolutely no reason to lie that Iran is cheating..

    The who?

    The German intelligence service that is reporting that Iran has been trying to acquire nuclear and missile technology...

    You can bet that our own CIA and DIA has the same and likely even MORE damning intelligence...

    But it's being kept under wraps because Obama needs this deal...

    I am also constrained to point out that the reports that a deal is imminent are coming from the Iranian negotiators...

    Likely to put pressure on the US...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that the reports that a deal is imminent are coming from the Iranian negotiators...

    Well, that's not where I got my information, as I have already indicated.

    I've noticed that when it comes to reports, you only look at the ones that support your spurious arguments.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've noticed that when it comes to reports, you only look at the ones that support your spurious arguments.

    Not at all.. I look at ALL the reports...

    But I also look at the background. I look PAST the reports and assess motivations...

    Kerry is saying there is no deal, that there are still obstacles to a deal..

    Iran is saying there IS a deal..

    Now WHY would Kerry say what he said if it weren't true???

    We KNOW why Iran would lie...

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, the Iranian foreign minister is saying that there is not a deal quite yet.

    Kerry is saying that there is a bit more work to be done with respect to the drafting of the agreement. It's about 100 pages long, you know.

    But, just remember that, when the deal is announced tomorrow, you read about its imminent announcement here first! :)

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, that was a deliberate use of the root word (announce) twice in one sentence, for emphasis. :)

  76. [76] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's a quote just for you, Michale, courtesy of a recent tweet (whatever that is) by Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as he quotes the Greek historian Herodotus ...

    "If an important decision is to be made, they (the Persians) discuss the question when they are drunk and the following day the master of the house where the discussion was held submits the decision for reconsideration when they are sober. If they still approve it, it is adopted; if not, it is abandoned. Conversely, any decision they make when they are sober is reconsidered afterwards when they are drunk."

    This, according to the Greek historian Herodotus, is how the ancient Persians made their decisions.

    I think we should try that here! :)

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think we should try that here! :)

    Oh, wait ...

    :-)

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hehehehehe I like the way you think! :D

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, just remember that, when the deal is announced tomorrow, you read about its imminent announcement here first! :)

    As per my usual MO, I will give credit where credit is due.. :D

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of the OTHER deal that is in the news..

    Ya gotta hand it to the Greeks...

    The vote NO against a deal that they felt was too harsh..

    And now they are being forced to accept a HARSHER deal BECAUSE they voted NO on the previous deal..

    Liberal logic at work.. :^)

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.