Friday, October 20, 2017

Trump's Big CON: For the Republi-CON Party, The Havest is Here

"[W]hatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Thank you Republi-CONs for the Franken-Trump/Trumpenstein (© And thank you to its puppet master Steve.

Read the Washington Post, Faster, Steve Bannon. Kill! Kill!, which states:

"Rarely has a political party more deserved the destruction the Republican Party may be about to suffer at the hands of President Trump’s former strategist, ideological guru and onetime puppeteer Steve Bannon. It was obvious during the earliest days of the campaign that Trump never intended to be either the leader or the protector of the Republican Party. He had contempt for the party. For one thing, it was a proven loser. For another, it crumpled like stick figures under his steamroller. Who could respect people who fell so easily, and so willingly?

Party leaders were especially contemptible in Trump’s eyes. They couldn’t even see what he was doing to them, or if they did, they were too cowardly to stop him. He had contempt for them when they tried to distance themselves from his racist, sexist and all around antisocial behavior. But he had even more contempt for them when they nevertheless came crawling back to him, again and again, pledging their fealty. He knew they came back not because they approved of him but because they feared him and the political following he commanded. He had stolen the hearts of their constituents, and therefore he owned them. He would use them as needed, and dispose of them when he could, knowing they could do nothing about it. 'I saw them at Munich,' Hitler said of his British and French counterparts, whom he dubbed 'little worms.'

Now the conquest is in full swing. Trump and Bannon put on a little Kabuki play for us this year. After a few months, it became clear that Bannon had become a lightning rod in the White House, the target of endless sniping from disgruntled Republicans and fellow staffers, unable to get anything done in the sludge of the Washington bureaucracy. He was hamstrung. And so they decided he could do more for Trump on the outside. Trump would play the constrained madman, surrounded and controlled by the 'adults,' occasionally letting his true feelings be known to his throngs. Meanwhile Bannon would play the gonzo political maestro on the outside, running Trumpists in primaries to knock off establishment types, even hardcore conservative ones. Trump could even pretend to support the establishment’s choice, but his voters would know better. The result would be a rout. Some establishment Republicans would lose, either in the primary or the general; others would be afraid to run for reelection; others would try to suck up to Bannon in the hopes of persuading him not to unleash the hounds; all would try to mimic Trump. And it didn’t matter which path they took: These would all be victories for Trump."

Trump's Big CON: Stay Quit & Pledge Loyalty, Or Else, CONt.

UPDATE: The article was "updated with Bannon's comments Monday night" and renamed:

"Former chief White House strategist Steve Bannon picked up that argument Monday night during an appearance on Sean Hannity's TV show.

'It's totally unacceptable in a time of war,' Bannon said of Corker's comments. 'We have troops in Afghanistan. In the Northwest Pacific and Korea, we have a major problem that could be like World War I. In the South China Sea, in the Persian Gulf, we have American lives at risk every day.' . .

Bannon's argument is especially specious give we've had troops stationed overseas on a constant basis since World War II, and that we've been in tense situations with unpredictable enemies pretty much that whole time (think: Cold War, ISIS, etc.). He's basically suggesting it's really never okay to criticize a president. Yet that's exactly what Trump did for eight years under Obama."

Read the Washington Post, The Trump White House’s dangerously authoritarian response to criticism.

"President Trump, as the White House will often remind us, is a counterpuncher. You hit him; he hits back twice as hard. You bring a knife; he brings a bazooka.

But while the White House thinks Trump's counterpunching is only fair, this is not a two-way street. And yet again Monday, the White House made the case that it is simply not okay to criticize the president in the manner he goes after others.

After Trump attacked Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) over some veiled criticisms last week, Corker tweeted Sunday that the White House was an 'adult day-care center' and later suggested Trump's threats to foreign countries could lead to World War III. Appearing on 'Fox and Friends' on Monday morning, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said that this was not okay.

Host Brian Kilmeade teed it up nicely, saying, 'What a demeaning tweet at the president.' . .

The subtext of all of this is: How dare you criticize the president? He is doing important things and speaking out against him only undermines his efforts to “\'Make America Great Again.'

Whatever you think of Trump, that's a very authoritarian argument to make. It suggests dissent is unhelpful. It suggests it's unpatriotic. And it's hardly the first time Conway and the White House have gone down this road. . .

[T]he White House still thinks it's above this kind of criticism. It still thinks the president should “not be questioned,” at least to the extent Corker did.

What's most notable here as that a lot of these criticisms pale in comparison to what Trump has said about his opponents. He has questioned the war hero status of John McCain. He has attacked a Gold Star family. He called his primary foe a liar — repeatedly. He called his Democratic opponent a criminal who should be jailed. And most importantly, he was one of the most vocal critics of the last president, even suggesting he was a fraud whose presidency was illegitimate.

All of that was okay, but suggesting President Trump is volatile and dangerous is not, apparently. . .

It's not only a double standard; it's a willful campaign to suggest that even criticisms that might be valid are beyond the pale if they undermine Trump. The White House isn't disputing the criticisms; it's suggesting they shouldn't be tolerated and aren't good for the country. That's a stunning posture for any White House to take."

Read the Washington Post, Kellyanne Conway and the White House’s very authoritarian attitude toward criticism.