ChrisWeigant.com

Blame John McCain For Donald Trump

[ Posted Wednesday, January 20th, 2016 – 17:02 UTC ]

Yesterday, Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump for president. "Of course she did," was the most common reaction to this news -- heard from both left and right. It is not only the most natural progression, but in fact it completes a circle of sorts. Because Palin really was the original Trump, in the world of Republican politics. Which is why I blame John McCain more than anyone else for the fact that Donald Trump is the clear frontrunner of the Republican pack right now. McCain's pick of Palin as running mate truly set the stage for where the GOP finds itself now.

John McCain was the original Republican "maverick." He got this reputation by occasionally disagreeing with the party's leadership, or breaking from Republican orthodoxy and working across the aisle with Democrats on bills he felt were worth a bipartisan effort. How quaint this all seems now, when today's mavericks of the GOP seem to only want to tear the entire party down and rebuild it in their own image. But that's indeed how McCain portrayed himself, at least in his first presidential run.

Of course, he lost that run to George W. Bush. Still itching to sit in the big chair in the Oval Office, McCain then reluctantly embraced Bush's agenda -- even the parts he didn't personally like. McCain got a lot less mavericky between 2000 and 2008, but the media still loved the maverick image and helped McCain continue to promote it in his 2008 run.

From reports of campaign insiders, McCain's big showdown with the party bigwigs happened right before the Republican National Convention. McCain had a truly maverick idea when it came to selecting his running mate. He'd pick a conservative Democrat, and really shake the race up! A bi-partisan ticket -- that would indeed have been something new on the American political stage. Alas, the establishment Republicans recoiled in horror at the idea (even considering how uber-hawkish Joe Lieberman was), and forced McCain to reconsider.

McCain then took a look at his "short list" for the veep slot on the ticket, and decided to make another maverick move -- he'd pick an obscure but photogenic governor whom few had even heard of. Thus, Sarah Palin was elevated to national political prominence.

This move was designed to stick a thumb in the eye of the Republican Party's bigwigs by ignoring all the "safe" choices McCain could have made from within the party's ranks. Palin would also be only the second woman ever to run for vice president, and the first Republican to do so. All around, it was seen as a gutsy -- if risky -- move by McCain.

Then she started campaigning. It became immediately obvious that Sarah Palin was just not ready for primetime, but the choice had already been made and so she had to be supported by all good Republicans. The party flocked to Palin's defense against that nasty "lamestream media" (as she so colorfully put it), and declared her to be even more qualified than Barack Obama (this was before she quit her governorship, halfway through her first term). They doubled down on Palin, because the Republican establishment really had no other choice. By doing so, they elevated the idea that someone like Sarah Palin was qualified to be president. Which is precisely why I blame McCain for Donald Trump's rise.

If John McCain had made a different choice for his running mate, we might never have seen Michele Bachmann run for president (or rise in the polls, if she had). We might not have had 17 people (some with zero elected experience) run for the Republican nomination this time around. Tina Fey would not be anywhere near the comedy star she is today. We all might never have learned to use the term "word salad." The abstinence lobby would have had to get along without a spokeswoman who inexplicably keeps having babies out of wedlock. "What if" is always a fun game to play, isn't it?

Snark aside, though, the political landscape would likely be a different one. By elevating Sarah Palin to a candidate for vice president, John McCain lowered the bar for entry into presidential contests for his party. Anyone could plausibly run, if Sarah could conceivably be leader of the nation. No experience was necessary, and no quip was too outrageous to utter on stage. Fringe candidates, instead of being ignored by almost everyone, suddenly were given the party's official seal of approval.

Donald Trump is a slightly more coherent version of Palin. They both talk in similar "word salad" style. Palin has problems even constructing a meaningful sentence when speaking about politics, but Trump manages to do so much more competently (although he still has problems fitting those sentences into rational paragraphs). At least with Trump, people understand the basic gist of what he's saying, rather than the head-scratching Palin routinely engenders (read her endorsement speech in full, if you want a walk down Memory Lane to her word salad days of yore).

Psychologically speaking, Palin was pure id. Trump is exactly the same thing -- he says whatever's on the top of his mind, consequences be damned. Palin's endorsement of Trump was not only unsurprising and entirely appropriate, it was also the completion of a path John McCain started his party down. If Sarah Palin could be contemplated as president, then why not Trump? The Republican Party at large, by defending Palin so fiercely during the 2008 campaign, appears to have permanently lowered the bar for who can be seen as an acceptable presidential candidate to Republicans.

Many Republican Party bigwigs and conservative pundits are now cowering in disbelief, because they've been predicting for over half a year now that Trump would eventually burn out and leave the race. This has obviously not happened, and (as of now) shows absolutely no signs of happening in the near future. They really have only themselves to blame, and Sarah Palin's re-entry onto the Republican stage only proves it. If she was an acceptable candidate, then so is Trump. You really can't have it both ways. So for those establishment Republicans grasping for someone (anyone!) to blame for the state of their party today, I offer up John McCain as scapegoat. Because if McCain hadn't picked Palin, we likely would not be where we are now. With Palin's endorsement of Trump, this circle is now complete.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

76 Comments on “Blame John McCain For Donald Trump”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    It still stuns me that McCain didn't pick up the phone and talk serious policy topics with Palin for a few hours before he made his decision to pick her as VP. She stumbled from the starting line with the Couric interviews - and it isn't like Couric was out there tripping her up any more than any reporter would. The transcripts are hilarious now, but just like Trump, there was the worry at the time that this clown might win the election.

    It sometimes seems that the more absurd the "intelligent, educated" [1] voters find a Republican politician, the more a larger and larger segment of Republican voters like them. Are they picking their politicians for themselves or just to piss off as many people as possible?

    [1] http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/03/972-ray-mummert.html

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    McCain probably thought or assumed that his advisors had done their homework in that regard.

    McCain's campaign wasn't in great shape and it needed a "game changer" if he had any hope of beating who they thought of as the upstart celebrity Obama.

    McCain's advisors were more concerned about who could help him win than anything else, including their desperate tactic of not looking more than superficially at a potentially game-changing running mate.

    By the way, here is another fascinating look at the McCain campaign team and the game-changing impact of Sarah Palin:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/the-real-game-change-pali_b_1371232.html

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By elevating Sarah Palin to a candidate for vice president, John McCain lowered the bar for entry into presidential contests for his party. Anyone could plausibly run, if Sarah could conceivably be leader of the nation. No experience was necessary, and no quip was too outrageous to utter on stage. Fringe candidates, instead of being ignored by almost everyone, suddenly were given the party's official seal of approval.

    It could be rather robustly argued that lowering the bar began a little earlier than the McCain campaign's act of desperation in picking Palin.

    The Bush/Cheney administration not only began lowering that bar but gave new meaning to things like experience and qualified. Or should I say that their actions took the meaning right out of what experience and qualifications bring to a presidential run and administration.

    But, I agree that it was the antics of Sarah Palin during that incredible 2008 campaign that really set the stage for the vicious tenor of presidential politics that we see today on the Republican side.

  4. [4] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Phrases like "set the stage" [EM 3] are better than "blame" in this situation, I think.

    At the time, Palin was considered a "hail Mary" type choice (which fits with any narrative describing McCain). I'm doubtful that McCain knew how unqualified she was. This makes his objective contribution clear while being careful to avoid the more subjective statement of realizing he was doing it (i.e. not really inflicting Palin on us on purpose).

    I would also avoid going all in on a single factor. There are many factors that contributed to where the GOP find themselves. Palin, as a choice, was definitely one such contributing factor. There are others.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Speak,

    Oh, I think blame is the appropriate word to be used here.

    McCain and some of his top advisors, notably Steve Schmidt, have deep regrets for their role in creating Palinism and its lasting and deleterious effect on the nature of the Republican party.

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Palin seems more like Grannie Clampett all the time. I don't think her endorsement is a positive. He's already doing well with that demographic. Trump apparently wants to dominate The News Cycle at all times and doesn't care how he does that, but a real Strong Winner wouldn't hire a loud, dim-witted quitter like her. I think he's lying about that.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    You make a very good point, as usual.

    Still, I think he's playing with fire ...

  8. [8] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    He is playing with fire. I was going to vote for him until he called her a "special person" and said he might hire her. I won't vote for a contestant who talks crazy like that. I can't be the only one.

  9. [9] 
    John M wrote:

    Elizabeth wrote:

    "It could be rather robustly argued that lowering the bar began a little earlier than the McCain campaign's act of desperation in picking Palin."

    I agree. Doesn't anybody remember the First Bush's choice of Dan Quayle as Vice President??? Remember how much ridicule that choice engendered??? And deservedly so, I think I might add. Despite how much I liked the first Bush, Quayle had me scratching my head completely.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    ohn McCain was the original Republican "maverick." He got this reputation by occasionally disagreeing with the party's leadership, or breaking from Republican orthodoxy and working across the aisle with Democrats on bills he felt were worth a bipartisan effort.

    Too bad the Democrat Party didn't have a John McCain..

    This country might be a LOT better off today... :^/

    nd declared her to be even more qualified than Barack Obama

    Which was factually accurate, to the dismay of the entirety of the Left Wingery...

    John McCain lowered the bar for entry into presidential contests for his party. Anyone could plausibly run, if Sarah could conceivably be leader of the nation.

    Actually, it was Barack Obama's ascension that proved that ANYONE could be President. Even a no talent, no experience huckster with a funny name...

    Nice commentary, CW, but you don't get to blame Trump on the GOP or McCain or anyone else..

    If this country and it's prestige hadn't been TOTALLY and COMPLETELY decimated by Obama and the Democrats, then Trump wouldn't have even run and, if he HAD run, would have fizzled out with the first bonehead (but absolutely accurate) statement he made..

    It's the lack of coherent governance by Obama and the Democrats that has beget President Trump..

    These are the facts. And they are indisputable..

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John,

    I remember that.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    He is playing with fire. I was going to vote for him until he called her a "special person" and said he might hire her. I won't vote for a contestant who talks crazy like that. I can't be the only one.

    It's a darn good thing she endorsed him, then. Because, whoa, that would've been good ...

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Too bad the Democrat Party didn't have a John McCain..This country might be a LOT better off today...

    Actually, they had (and have) someone even better. His name is John Kerry. And, things would have been UNBELIEVABLY better, you have no idea ...

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's try that again, shall we ...

    Michale,

    Too bad the Democrat Party didn't have a John McCain..This country might be a LOT better off today...

    Actually, they had (and have) someone even better. His name is John Kerry. And, things would have been UNBELIEVABLY better, you have no idea ...

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    And, you're right about one thing ... if Republicans weren't so afflicted by Obama Derangement Syndrome, then we may very well not be talking about Trump and Palin this very early morning.

    I'm guessing that this is one of the contributing factors alluded to by Speak, up near the top of this thread ...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, they had (and have) someone even better. His name is John Kerry. And, things would have been UNBELIEVABLY better, you have no idea ...

    Comparing John Kerry to John McCain is like comparing General George Washington to Benedict Arnold... :^/

    McCain served honorably...

    Kerry betrayed everything the uniform stands for..

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ?

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Besides, I was comparing Kerry to GWB.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Remind me, Michale, how Kerry "betrayed everything the uniform stands for."

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Come and listen to a story about an Id named Palin
    A poor vice-presidential loser, barely kept her grift agoin’
    And then one day she was drinkin’ at some bar
    And that TLC channel decided to make her a star

    Reality that is, TV gold, loony Tea

    Well the next thing you know Grannie Sarah’s a millionaire
    Kinfolk said "Gosh darn move away from there"
    Said "Scottsdale, Arizona is the place you ought to be"
    So they loaded up Truck and Tripp and Trunk and Track and moved to Arizony

    A Z, that is - border walls, reality stars

    Well now it’s way past time to say goodbye to Sarah and all her in-bred kin
    And they would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin’ in
    You're all invited to Trump’s big show when he visits your locality
    To have a heapin’ helpin’ of xenophobic resentment and hostility

    Chritian Identity that is - set a spell, take your PC filter off

    Y'all come back now, y'hear?

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Make sure you get THE facts straight, though. And, I don't mean YOUR "facts".

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    <I.And, you're right about one thing ... if Republicans weren't so afflicted by Obama Derangement Syndrome,

    If Obama hadn't given the Republicans EVERY REASON to be deranged, then there would have been no ODS...

    See? I can do it too.. :D

    Also remember, the ORIGIN of the Derangement Syndrome syndrome comes from the Democrat Party and their Bush Derangement Syndrome.. :D

    Besides, I was comparing Kerry to GWB.

    Oh.. Well, in THAT case, my response is MORE apt..

    Kerry would have been hiding under his desk on 11 Sep 2001 channeling his inner Steve Martin, saying "Make the bad people go away!!!"

    Kerry is worse than useless.. His brokering of the Iran Nuclear Weapons Giveaway shows he does not have this country's best interests at heart.. If his cowardly acts in Vietnam didn't already prove that beyond any doubt...

    On the plus side, I am coming around to your way of thinking on Saudi Arabia...

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_end_of_saudi_arabia.html

    So, that's something.. :D

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "It's a darn good thing she endorsed him"

    Well, in my case, Rant Paul ruined everything anyway. He bought himself a presidential caucus and I'm not about to caucus for Trump. That would require spending too much time with the enemy.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC, that was a little joke, you know ... :)

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    On the plus side, I am coming around to your way of thinking on Saudi Arabia...

    Yes, well, armed with the facts - real facts, not your facts - you'll be coming around to my thinking on just about everything! :)

  26. [26] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Mine too.

  27. [27] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I hope that, if President Trump does feel compelled to hire Palin, he makes her ambassador to SA. Maybe she won't return.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What?

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It still stuns me that McCain didn't pick up the phone and talk serious policy topics with Palin for a few hours before he made his decision to pick her as VP.

    I think that may be a clear reflection of what McCain and his crack team of advisors thought of the institution of the vice presidency. Very little, apparently.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny to see that, 7 years later, Sarah Palin can STILL get the Left Wingery's panties all in a twist.. :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It's hilarious that dead people are endorsing Trump now. Trump's not looking for voters so much as marks.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's hilarious that dead people are endorsing Trump now.

    You mean, as opposed to all the dead people that actually VOTE Democrat???

    Yer right. It's a hoot... :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remind me, Michale, how Kerry "betrayed everything the uniform stands for."

    By standing up and agreeing with everything the enemy was saying about America....

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    And still doing it today by making deals with governments who lead shouts of DEATH TO AMERICA....

    If a GOP'er had done that, ya'all would be batshit hysterical over it...

    But the guy with the '-D' after his name not only gets a pass, he gets and 'AttaBoy' too...

    Jan 2017 can't come fast enough...

    292 days
    7010 hours
    420642 minutes
    25238570 seconds

    But whose counting, eh? :D

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    McCain can also be blamed for GWB and Citizens United.
    In the 2000 primaries it seemed to me that Mccain wasn't really running against Bush, he was running as a "maverick" to pull enough independent primary voters away from Bill Bradley so that Bush could run against Gore. It seemed a little suspicious that as soon as Bradley dropped out McCain made a "blunder" and dropped out shortly after, probably with some sort of promise on Mccain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. And Citizens United is a result of a challenge to McCain-Feingold.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iddn't it funny how Democrats are NEVER to blame for ANYTHING!??? :D

    It's uncanny!!! heh

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    OK. McCain gets some of the blame for GWB. Democrats get some of the blame for nominating Gore instead of Bradley.
    But maybe Democrats will finally blame McCain and themselves and stop trying to blame Nader.
    note: I am not a Democrat. Bradley was one of the few Democrats I voted for. I vote mostly third party, independent or I write in my own name rather than vote for a major party candidate.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    I'm just givin' ya a hard time.. :D We agree on a lot more things than we disagree on...

    But I just find it noteworthy how one Party tends to be the epitome of all that is bad and wrong and the other Party is goodness and light..

    It just depends on who is talking.. :D

    Don't take it personally.. It's just me... :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    note: I am not a Democrat. Bradley was one of the few Democrats I voted for. I vote mostly third party, independent or I write in my own name rather than vote for a major party candidate.

    I knew you were a kindred spirit.. :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By standing up and agreeing with everything the enemy was saying about America....

    I have no idea what you're talking about.

    And, that would make two of us. Oh, wait ...

    Are you afraid to tell me what you're talking about?

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If a GOP'er had done that, ya'all would be batshit hysterical over it...

    In reality, a Republican leader - at least any of them in power today - probably would not have put the effort required into diplomacy and, instead would have gone straight to war with Iran.

    The thing is that no Republican leader in power today has been able to make a decent case for that strategy or understand what the consequences would have been or clearly outline how they would have forced Iran to do what Iran has already done under this deal.

    Do you know what Iran has done, so far, Michale, to render its nuclear program a strictly peaceful one? I don't think you do, seriously.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have no idea what you're talking about.

    And, that would make two of us. Oh, wait ...

    Are you afraid to tell me what you're talking about?

    Am I afraid to speak what's on my mind??

    Have you MET me???

    Kerry testified to alleged American military misconduct during Vietnam.. Basically Kerry was parroting EXACTLY what the enemy was saying...

    And yea, a couple of things turned out to be somewhat accurate.. But VERY few of his accusations were accurate..

    Even if they WERE accurate... You don't side with the enemy during wartime... It's not proper....

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know what Iran has done, so far, Michale, to render its nuclear program a strictly peaceful one?

    Yea.. They tested a buttload of ballistic missile technology in violation of the agreement.

    Even Bonehead Obama concedes this...

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You really don't know ... and, I'm talking about Iran's nuclear program, Michale. You really don't know what they have done in that regard?

    Implementation Day has come and gone ... when you weren't looking, I guess.

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Sophisticated arms sales to Saudi Arabia spurring regional arms races

    With billions of petro-dollars, Saudi Arabia has been buying very modern, deadly weapons from America.

    Many of the systems on order, such as the M-1A2 Abrams main battle tank, M-2A2 Bradley armored vehicles, F-15E Strike Eagle attack aircraft and Patriot surface-to-air missile, are the top-of-the-line systems deployed with U.S. forces."

    Source: http://fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm

    Iran's development of missiles is part of the arms race they have with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

    They sort of know that Israel won't launch a nuclear strike against them, and now feel more comfortable that the U.S. isn't going to invade, plus the Saudi's don't have the bomb, so backing down on that and relieving the sanctions makes sense.

    They will continue other programs however, and the most effective sanction we can put in place is stopping our arms manufacturers selling to SA (not likely), or SA running out of buckets of cash to buy anything they want from us (slightly more likely).

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth:

    Just watched "Game Change" on HBO after reading the link you posted.

    Thanks.

    While it is most likely the "Hollywood" version, if the high level story is correct and there was a mix up on who was going to ask Sarah difficult questions like "What is the head of Government in the UK called (hint: it isn't the Queen)" or "who did we fight in the second world war?", then the whole fiasco makes more sense.

    What a clown - I mean, in a party that stopped off at the clown school and loaded up over the last couple of decades, Palin, to date, has got to be the worst that got anywhere close to the White House.

    Of course, we have Trump up next.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yea.. They tested a buttload of ballistic missile technology in violation of the agreement.

    That didn't violate the nuclear agreement, Michale. But, I believe it did violate UN resolutions which is why the US has put new sanctions on Iran for its violation.

    Try to keep up.

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, Neil, I have it on very good authority that Game Change (the movie, not necessarily the book it was based on) was very much on point.

    Glad you enjoyed the film. I did, too.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    You really don't know ... and, I'm talking about Iran's nuclear program, Michale. You really don't know what they have done in that regard?

    I am talking about the bonehead deal that Kerry and Obama concocted...

    But if you want to go where you want to go, fine..

    Do you really BELIEVE that Iran is serious about shutting down it's nuclear weapons program???

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    With billions of petro-dollars, Saudi Arabia has been buying very modern, deadly weapons from America.

    But are those weapons pointed AT America??

    No they are not...

    So what's yer point??

    Are Iran's weapons pointed AT America??

    Yes they are..

    THAT is the point..

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you really BELIEVE that Iran is serious about shutting down it's nuclear weapons program???

    I don't know what Iran's intentions are with this deal. But, that's the beauty of the deal. We don't have to know what Iran intends to do or trust that Iran will do what it signed up for.

    If it doesn't do what it has agreed to do, then the P5+1 powers will act accordingly.

    The fact of the matter is that which you cannot demy and that is that Iran has lived up to all of its obligations under the deal so far and that is why we have past the milestone of Implementation Day.

    Now, we will see how the deal progresses, or not. Time will tell, as they love to say. :)

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it doesn't do what it has agreed to do, then the P5+1 powers will act accordingly.

    Yea??? So you believe that Russia and China will re-impose sanctions, eh?? :D

    The fact of the matter is that which you cannot demy and that is that Iran has lived up to all of its obligations under the deal so far and that is why we have past the milestone of Implementation Day.

    Sure I can deny it... But it will make little difference as all the facts in the world won't change your mind... Because this is Obama's legacy..

    So it HAS to be right and good...

    Now, we will see how the deal progresses, or not.

    And all the blood from Iran's terrorist attacks will be on Obama's and every person's hands who supported this deal..

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    At least until we have a GOP POTUS sworn in a year from now who will kill this deal and force Iran to stop pursuing a nuclear arsenal..

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I have concluded that you have no interest in discussing matters here, with me or with anyone else.

    You may continue denying reality all you want but, I don't want any part of it.

    And, if Chris allows this to continue for much longer without objection, then he must live with what this situation means to the credibility of his blog.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, let me add that your obsession with Obama's legacy is just that ... YOUR obsession.

    So, don't project that sort of nonsense on me!

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have concluded that you have no interest in discussing matters here, with me or with anyone else.

    Oh, I have a LOT of interest in discussing matters here..

    I just have no interest in simply agreeing with anyone here solely and completely because they WANT me to..

    If anyone here wants agreement from me...

    It will have to be earned..

    And, let me add that your obsession with Obama's legacy is just that ... YOUR obsession.

    Oh that's a load of felgercarb... Obama has been obsessed about his legacy from day one.

    And ya'all have been the enablers of that obsession. Obama can do no wrong..

    Have you ever wondered *WHY* every acheivment that Obama crows about has been AGAINST the will of the American people??

    Ya'all can't even admit the facts and *I* am the one who is obsessive?? :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Sarah Palin would be the perfect VP for Trump. With the establishment of his own party disliking him more than the opposition party and a penchant for recommending policies that are constitutionally questionable, Trump has impeachment written all over him. Would anyone dare to do so with Palin in the ready to take over?

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    Bashi [58] - Brilliant! I never thought of that :)

    Seriously, I think even The Donald is too smart to let Tina Fey run three months of Sarah jokes again.

    On the other hand, since Trump is an entertainer, how about Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin for VP?

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth:

    Whether we like it or not, Michale is the catalyst for many of the discussions on this board. Also, personally I'd like to thank Michale for delivering us some insight into the poorly formed and abysmally educated minds that concoct the fantasies intertwined with conspiracy theories, with a soupçon of plain whacko, that is the grist of the right wing of the Republican Party at the moment - otherwise I'd have to listen to Beck or Limbaugh to find out what craziness they are up to next.

    Just joking Michale ;)

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whether we like it or not, Michale is the catalyst for many of the discussions on this board. Also, personally I'd like to thank Michale for delivering us some insight into the poorly formed and abysmally educated minds that concoct the fantasies intertwined with conspiracy theories, with a soupçon of plain whacko, that is the grist of the right wing of the Republican Party at the moment - otherwise I'd have to listen to Beck or Limbaugh to find out what craziness they are up to next.

    Yer welcome.. :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    But keep in mind one thing..

    This plain whacko has been right a LOT more often than he has been wrong..

    So what does THAT tell ya!?? :D heh

    And when Hillary DOES get indicted...... Well, let's just say I am grinning ear to ear right now. :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    And when Hillary DOES get indicted......

    Oh... Sorry...

    We're not supposed to talk about that...

    My bad... :^D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    I tell Michale that I'm through with him at least once a month, of late. Just because my frustrations with him bubble up to and boil right over the top, from time to time.

    Plus, he ain't the only around here who is insufferable and revels in it, you know. :)

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yea??? So you believe that Russia and China will re-impose sanctions, eh?? :D

    One more thing before I go, Michale ... :)

    Russia and China may not reimpose sanctions if Iran materially violates the agreement. But, that is yet another beauty of the CPOA - the way the process for snap back sanctions is set up, neither Russia nor China nor any other permanent member of the UN Security Council can veto the reimposition of UN sanctions if one of the P5+1 signatories to the agreement call for sanctions to snap back.

    I'm pretty sure that any serious violation of the agreement would also see EU sanctions reimposed.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russia and China may not reimpose sanctions if Iran materially violates the agreement. But, that is yet another beauty of the CPOA - the way the process for snap back sanctions is set up, neither Russia nor China nor any other permanent member of the UN Security Council can veto the reimposition of UN sanctions if one of the P5+1 signatories to the agreement call for sanctions to snap back.

    Of course Russia and China can't VETO the re-imposition of sanctions..

    That's the beauty of a sovereign country.

    They can simply IGNORE them and do business with Iran anyways..

    And the sanctions ONLY worked and forced Iran to the table because China and Russia were on board..

    That's why the "penalty" of reimposing sanctions was such a joke...

    If China and Russia choose to ignore the sanctions and just do business with Iran anyways, there ARE no sanctions...

    THAT's the point that you ignore...

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Plus, he ain't the only around here who is insufferable and revels in it, you know. :)

    Awwwwww... And here I thought I was speeshal... :D

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You know what, Michale, neither of us know how well the snap back sanctions will work. I'll bet that the P5+1 member countries don't know how well they will work, either.

    The point that you ignore is that the snap back sanctions were set up pretty well and we'll just have to wait and see how well they are enforced if that indeed becomes necessary.

    But, so far - and here is another reality you refuse to acknowledge - Iran has lived up to its end of the deal and, in so doing, has substantially restricted its nuclear program, just as the agreement was designed to do.

    Will Iran continue to live up to the agreement? I'm sure no one can say.

    Will the P5+1 signatories to the agreement fully enforce the agreement if and when Iran materially violates it. That is also to be determined.

    Will Iran continue its nefarious behavior on any number of other fronts, outside the parameters of this nuclear agreement, and what will the international community do to deter and punish that behavior? We will see.

    But, it is time for you to acknowledge that this deal has a chance of working the way it was designed and of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons in a far more manageable and cost-effective manner than any of the options put forward by its detractors.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know what, Michale, neither of us know how well the snap back sanctions will work. I'll bet that the P5+1 member countries don't know how well they will work, either.

    They won't work AT ALL if China and Russia are not on board..

    And China and Russia have made it clear that they are in bed with Iran to stay...

    The point that you ignore is that the snap back sanctions were set up pretty well

    What "set up"?? The deal says that sanctions will snap back if Iran cheats...

    Doesn't provide ANY penalties to ANY country that ignores the snap-back...

    Will Iran continue to live up to the agreement? I'm sure no one can say.

    Anyone who knows the history of Iran from 1979 forward can say.. Can say with great accuracy..

    Remember, we are talking about a regime that KILLS gay people for being gay... We are talking about a regime that is THE go-to country for world wide terrorism??

    They ONLY people who "can't say" are the people who ignore that reality...

    Will the P5+1 signatories to the agreement fully enforce the agreement if and when Iran materially violates it. That is also to be determined.

    That's already been established. China and Russia have made deals with Iran that CANNOT be stopped or revoked...

    China and Russia will NOT honor any sanctions against Iran. This is fact...

    Will Iran continue its nefarious behavior on any number of other fronts, outside the parameters of this nuclear agreement, and what will the international community do to deter and punish that behavior? We will see.

    We have already seen... Ballistic Missile tests in violation of agreements..

    You want to ignore that...

    But, it is time for you to acknowledge that this deal has a chance of working the way it was designed

    It has NO chance of working because we are talking about Iran...

    Would anyone here agree that a deal with Republicans has a "chance of working" because Republicans CAN be trusted??

    Of course not....

    So, how is it that Republicans (Americans, yunno) CAN'T be trusted, but a terrorist regime that executes gay people CAN be trusted??

    If you can explain that to me we have a good chance of finding common ground...

    But you can't because that concept of NOT trusting Republicans but trusting a terrorist regime is so far out in space as to be in the Pegasus galaxy....

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    China and Russia will NOT honor any sanctions against Iran. This is fact...

    Except they did for 9 years (2006 - 2015), which is what brought Iran to the negotiating table.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except they did for 9 years (2006 - 2015), which is what brought Iran to the negotiating table.

    Exactly.

    They DID... Right up to the time that Obama let them off the hook and they made long-term deals with Iran...

    China and Russia will NOT re-impose sanctions against Iran..

    This is fact...

    Without China and Russia on board, the so-called snap back sanctions are a toothless farce...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Without China and Russia on board, the so-called snap back sanctions are a toothless farce...

    And with the threat of any sanctions removed, Iran will be able to do anything it wants, unfettered by the threat of sanctions and with BILLIONS in new capital with which to do it..

    Good job, Obama!!! He just guaranteed that Iran will become a nuclear power sooner rather than later...

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    But getting back to Trump...

    Donald Trump leads the polls nationally and in most states in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. There are understandable reasons for his eminence, and he has shown impressive gut-level skill as a campaigner. But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace

    As a demonstrable and proven political agnostic, I just have one question..

    What's yer point???

    While I am not sold on Trump yet, I basically see him as an American version of Vlad Putin.. A person with the will and the fortitude to do what needs to be done, but tempered by AMERICAN values... A person that will advance American interests w/o a thought to political correctness..

    I have to say that such is attractive to me and to the Joe and Jane SixPacks in this country.....

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    But getting back to Trump...

    Donald Trump leads the polls nationally and in most states in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. There are understandable reasons for his eminence, and he has shown impressive gut-level skill as a campaigner. But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.

    As a demonstrable and proven political agnostic, I just have one question..

    What's yer point???

    While I am not sold on Trump yet, I basically see him as an American version of Vlad Putin.. A person with the will and the fortitude to do what needs to be done, but tempered by AMERICAN values... A person that will advance American interests w/o a thought to political correctness..

    I have to say that such is attractive to me and to the Joe and Jane SixPacks in this country.....

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    And further....

    "Further-the-less is not a word! Stop using it!!"
    -Charlie Sheen, Spin City

    :D

    ..... if Donald Trump was running with a '-D' after his name and based on ya'all's previous declarations against lobbyists and special interest groups and their money, ya'all would be all over his candidacy like stink on kaa-kaa.....

    Of this I have ZERO doubt...

    I can name a half dozen or more Trump policies and declarations that is catnip for the Left Wingery....

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I can name a half dozen or more Trump policies and declarations that is catnip for the Left Wingery....

    you don't have to; conservative media is doing it for you.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420093/presidential-candidate-donald-trump-double-agent-for-left

Comments for this article are closed.