Thursday, March 31, 2016


As I noted last week, The Donald is the best opponent liberals could hope for (Ted Cruz is a close second) and not merely because of upcoming election.   The Donald has exposed the ideological fatuity of movement conservatism and that can't be undone.  Daniel Henninger is correct about the final outcome, cosmically wrong about the cause:
“Barack Obama will retire a happy man. He is now close to destroying his political enemies—the Republican Party, the American conservative movement and the public-policy legacy of Ronald Reagan.”
This "creative destruction" was set off by The Donald and for that alone, we should be glad he decided to run.


Ken Hoop said...

The happiness should be correlated to a belief that the Dems can overthrow their party's neolib liberal internationalist Elite, who compose an equal enemy of the people.
In that regard, we see the fault lines--the Bernie or bust folks who are correct, and the naive who (if at least worthy in intent) believe the neolibs can be reformed out of the party.

Or have you not considered these things from that angle? You know, an angle, which among many issues, includes the fact that Cruz, married to a Goldman Sachs free trader wants to give Obama TPP authority.

Ken Hoop said...

BTW, has Political Animal had anything to say about Obama-Clinton sponsored atrocities?

"Donald says:
April 1, 2016 at 5:21 pm
During the Iraq War I was pleasantly surprised to see so much moral outrage about the Bush torture policies–I figured we probably would commit atrocities, but only the usual suspects on the far left (and I suppose places like this, but I didn’t know about Daniel Larison then) would denounce them. I figured the mainstream would just look the other way. I did suspect it was partly partisan politics.

I was wrong–it was almost entirely partisan politics. Democrats despised Bush already, for good reasons, and the torture scandal was just too juicy to ignore. But now that Obama is helping the Saudis commit massive war crimes, the lack of reaction is more what I would expect from mainstream America. Most Republicans, as you say, can’t go after him for doing just what they want him to do more often–support brutal allies as they murder people. And partisan Democrats (almost the only kind that exists) could not care less, since this can’t be blamed on evil Republicans."

Steve J. said...

Or have you not considered these things from that angle? I have considered this & I am concerned about neoliberal hawks in the Democratic. For me, it's a question of choosing the lesser evil.

Steve J. said...

"Democratic Party"

Anonymous said...

Hillary for the Hague, Sanders for President, Trump for deserved chaos.

Ken Hoop said...

Seeing particularly as how alternative parties are votable, the strategy certainly begs the question of how much evil is permitted before the choice?....cop out?.....becomes ethics-prohibitive.