It’s only about Trump. I do not want him to be Commander in Chief. He’s unfit. I can’t make this simpler.
Congrats Democrats
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
Trump won’t appoint any “freaks” (your word) like that.
Mnuchin could very well come back to run Treasury. Pompeo could be back at State. Hell, I wouldn’t even rule out Barr although I don’t expect it. Burgum seems a safe bet in some capacity. Fears about what a potential Trump cabinet could look like are overblown imo.
I remember people calling Sessions a backbench loser on this board when he was appointed. Tillerson a self-serving oil tycoon.
Careerist, ladder climbers that animate most Democrat cabinet appointments suck. Do-nothing lemmings that hang around the levers of power and collect credentials.
I’m for shaking things up. And frankly I don’t expect all that much of a shake up. Politico took a stab and none of these names scream crank to me.
Who could be in Trump’s next Cabinet? Here are leading contenders.
www.politico.com
Well, I get that Biden has some poor cabinet officials: Gen. Austin seems a bit aloof. Becerra has long been a radical. And don't get me started on Mayorkas. He's a joke.
Biden has some good ones, too. It may be an unpopular opinion among some, but I think that Antony Blinken has done a pretty good job as SoS. Gina Raimondo has a good reputation in DC. Garland....probably should've stayed on the bench, but he's respected in legal circles and came from the 2nd most prestigious court in the country. Say what you want about Buttigieg, but he's a damn smart cookie -- although I'm not sure he's a great fit for Transportation Secretary. Bill Burns is one of the most broadly admired diplomats in modern times, among both parties. I've never been the biggest fan of Janet Yellen's views. But I've never had cause to question her competence.
As for potential Trump noms....I had no beef with Pompeo. After hearing him speak at length a couple times, he came across as more knowledgeable and competent than I had given him credit for. And I thought Bill Barr was great -- but I can't imagine him coming back. Burgum is fine with me, too.
But I can't escape the notion that we're going to be seeing him trying to nominate some of the clowns around him...who will have a hard time being confirmed. And we'd probably get used to seeing the "interim" tag a lot once again.
I'm not sure Mayor Pete is in the right office. But I don't think you can deny that, in general, he's a pretty damn smart dude.
I don’t think he has an ounce of common sense. I cannot stand him. At the time taking paid leave on his quarter mil salary, a benefit no one on the general schedule would have received, so a unique perk conferred to him, home when the country was in the throes of a crisis and his boss is asking trucks to put in overtime bleating about the importance of husbands home with his husband. Terrible optics. Terrible lack of awareness. Zero common sense. That was a critical time as he was new to the gig and he should have been in a lawn chair sitting at the port reading the trucking regs in the cfr and passing out Gatorade. He’s tops of woke politicians I cannot stand.
What string was this?
New Biden Dept. of Energy hire is a nonbinary drag queen — 'an asset,' say queer activists
Queer activists say it's a positive sign of the times.www.yahoo.com
Specific examples of the clowns you fear? It’s not like he’s he would bring MTG, Gaetz or Boebert up for nominations. That’s leftist scaremongering.
Whatever you might think of Yellen’s or Buttigieg’s aptitude, they have undoubtedly presided over some of the worst fiscal and transportation results in recent history. A lot may have been out of their control. But they don’t have track records to be proud of.
Same with Blinken. To the extent SoS’s main priority is to prevent war through diplomacy, he has been an abject failure.
Most presidents , if not all of them, have an IQ well above those of the average citizen.
Maybe, it is about time we had someone who truly represents us
.I honestly have no idea. My point is that so many of the people who would have the competence to serve as, say, National Security Adviser have broken ties with him.
I've had a high opinion of Gen. HR McMaster for years and was thrilled to learn that he was going to become NSA. He is considered one of the foremost experts on the failures of Vietnam. Even with him, they parted ways.
About the only former military leader still in his good graces is that fruitcake Flynn.
I can't argue with that. I agree that they haven't been successful secretaries.
That I don't agree with. For the most part, I think the US has been a vital and stalwart ally of Israel's in this conflict. I realize that Biden and his people have said some things publicly that were critical of Israel. But I think he's had to do that for his own political reasons. If you look at our actions, rather than our words, the US support has been critical to the massive blows Israel has struck upon Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran (by proxy).
Russia and Ukraine are different situation and a different story. And I do have some issues there. But I don't know how much I'd blame on Blinken.
Could it be the current breed of pols going to extremes (not necessarily in philosophy but in outrageous rhetoric) has found some of us with new political pals?
I've never considered myself to be the least bit moderate.
Some of the people who have influenced me over the years include the likes of Milton Friedman, Wm. F Buckley, Thomas Sowell, Antonin Scalia, Charles Murray, Roger Scruton, Allan Bloom, FA Hayek, Barry Goldwater.
I was a proud fan of Rush Limbaugh's -- thought he was (for the most part) insightful and entertaining and will defend him to this day. My newer mancrushes are guys like Mitch Daniels and Javier Milei.
I mean...this is not a list of Rockefeller Republicans.
I had plenty of admiration for Richard Lugar as a man and statesman. But he was never somebody I looked to for philosophical inspiration. I kind of put him in the same category as Lee Hamilton for the Dems -- really competent guy, not terribly ideological, all about good steady governance. Admired them both.
So, nowadays, to be seen as a moderate, you just have to be critical of Trump, his worldview, his temperament, his cultish movement? I'm not moderate -- I'm just not there. Yes, I voted for him -- but only because he pledged to nominate good justices....who (importantly) were not in his general mold.
Hopefully, some day, I'll have a party again that will reflect my general worldview on critical matters. The Republicans do still have plenty of pols who do. And I have no issue voting for those. But Donald Trump himself is not one of them.
Pretty telling that rather than lauding the accomplishments of the Biden team we’re trying to decipher to what extent the disasters they oversaw were within their control.
Tells you pretty much all you need to know.
You like a nice erudite speaker like Pete or Blinken. I get it. I’m a results man myself.
I don't care if someone likes or dislikes Trump. I consider a lot of Trumpers to be moderates.
It’s important to also remember that you bring a unique perspective to judging Pete’s performance as a powerbroker in the private sector of the transportation industry
Everyone except Trump supporters gets that. It's why Arabs are abandoning the Dems, why Trump might win Michigan, and why I am constantly reminded by The Guardian that American weapons are killing Palestinians.
It’s important to remember that
Pete = Kamala Harris
Blinken = Kamala Harris
Even Obama = Kamala Harris
Now Pete, Blinken and Obama are much better at it than Harris. But it’s the same empty calories all the way down.
I can wholeheartedly agree with everything but the last sentence.
He’s not my pick but he’s my only choice to keep these two progressives out of the WH.
I enjoy reading your posts.
Craze, greatly appreciate the outlining of your historical political philosophy.
As someone who takes your Cooler posts seriously over the years there weren't any big surprises.
My only question would be...At this stage of the national political game, are you now in what might be called a moderate ?
Also, you didn't mention Ronald Reagan.
you know youre one of my favorite posters and i'm thoroughly impressed and jealous of your memory for shit. i do think you've misappropriated your time significantly in not knowing about vanderpump rules (the relationship scandal of the 2020s, SCANDOVAL, that was nominated for an emmy) amongst so many other things, but i am no fan of old rush, despite being a conservative. the limbaughs are a real neat family. the first family of cape girardeau lol. they're legends. i got to know stephen limbaugh a little bit, a very powerful guy, who to a person couldn't have been sweeter and who no matter how busy ALWAYS had time to help. just a gem of a person. rush on the other hand imo in many ways represents the genesis of the lack of decorum and just pure nastiness we see in politics and political commentary today. rush and newt combined left a legacy of divisiveness perhaps above anything else
Last edited:
Have to agree with you about Rush.
In many ways he set the stage for the conservative v. liberal extreme divisiveness which we have today along with his idol Next Gingrich.
Rush was the extreme opposite of Bill Buckley who loved differences of political philosophy with a smile devoid of animosity.
Oops, Rush called his style of animosity as being comical satire. He described it as being like a political cartoon.
Rush and Newt ushered in the "politics of personal destruction" era. Both will be viewed with disdain and disgust.
Reagan was great in a lot of ways. I could’ve and should’ve included him. But I was thinking mostly about people who really caused me to think about matters in new ways - largely through their writings.
My first introduction to Friedman was the PBS series that accompanied his mass market book “Free to Choose.” I went on to read that and “Capitalism and Freedom” and they had profound effects on me….in ways that were just different than Reagan did through his speeches and such.
Moreover, I’ve just never fully bought in to the cultural conservatism that made up the other half of the “fusion” coalition that eventually led to Reagan’s election.
I don’t think it’s an accident that I was so enamored of Mitch Daniels, given that he believed that the cultural squabbles were keeping us from solving the major problems facing our society. He was almost prescient in that admonition.
Trumpism is heavy into protectionism, nativism, isolationism, and populist economic arguments that are largely anathema to the principles of conservatism that I cherish.
Also, thank you for the kind words. I’ve long admired you and valued your input here…and the unfailing class and respect with which you approach others on the board. You’re a helluva good egg.
Rush Limbaugh was no more divisive than Don Rickles. Both were hilarious.
Dont know about Newt. He had his blunt moments, but I think he and WJC did some good things together.
The real toxicity in politics started with those who piled onto GWB. Thank the lord Obama came along when he did and he brought us together, whites, blacks, gay, straight, men, women, urban, rural, Christian , atheist and left office with America in an unprecedented kumbaya feeling.
Last edited:
I can understand that. We’re all entitled to our opinions. But, personally, I never found him to be quite as nasty as some other people did. He spent 15 hours a week on the air and most of the 20 second clips that would make their way to other media were the ones that painted him in the worst light.
I thought his show was clever and entertaining, often quite funny, and I thought he often had some compelling and unique takes on current events and the cultural zeitgeist.
It’s worth pointing out that Buckley, Mr. Firing Line himself was a fan. And I absolutely relished the times when Walter Williams would guest host for Rush. That man was as hilarious as he was brilliant - and I always came away from those episodes feeling like I learned something.
I disagree and stand by what I said. Rush was a smart guy and saw a lane to his credit. His rise coincided with the shock jocks like Howard etc. Rush incorporated same into the political entertainment sphere. Conspiracies. Nicknames. Etc.
Have much the same list... And generally agree with what you've posted above. I recall getting into a lot of back and forth with you years ago, before you left.... But on what policy topics I don't recall, since we generally have similar viewpoints.
Maybe it was Trump in 16, who I've viscerally opposed right from the beginning of his initial primary run and through the general. Who knows, but good to see you contributing again...
Listen I was a massive Howard stern fan back then. And I totally agree re being clever and funny and entertaining. I liked rush. I still believe he incorporated that shock jock genre into the political entertainment sphere which contributed to newt and the lack of decorum we see today. It’s hard to be a fan of that in retrospect
Oh man. The Dancing Queen, Splish Splash, songs and other routines making fun of liberals and their issues were down right funny. If he was divisive, that would be on others. The real divisiveness came from those who were deadly serious and wouldn’t know a joke if it was 2x4 across the nose. “Bitter clingers” and “deplorables” come to mind.
Similar threads
