I get that @WalshFreedom or Weld or Amash want to take on Trump from within the GOP, but I'm not enthusiastic about any of these primary ideas. I *really* don't want this to mutate into a 3rd-party challenge, which will only help Trump.
In my view, 2020 is a binary choice. /1
Sure, I'd love to see Joe (or Amash, or Weld) rough up Trump from the right, but I'm not sure it will accomplish much. Who's the audience? What's the goal? Trump voters are a cult. They won't defect. And Trump now owns the remaining detritus of what calls itself the GOP. /2
Now, if the goal is to force Trump to divide his attention (and funds), make him completely melt down, and convince the last two people in America who don't get it that they must vote to turn the Electoral College to a Democrat in order to remove Trump from office...well, hmm. /3
What if the goal is to rattle Trump in a primary and then shave just enough of the vote in one or two states in the general to cost Trump the Electoral College?
I don't think that'll work. Moreover, it's not worth the risk of helping Trump. Easier just to vote D for a cycle. /4
And if the goal is to put up a "Republican" just to protect the GOP brand by saying "this is a real Republican here in the primary," count me out. I want no part of that. Trump is a national emergency. I'm not up for overly-clever strategies to rescue the GOP as a party. /5
I respect Joe for stepping forward, owning mistakes, and defending things conservatives care about. If he runs, I hope he drives Trump crazy. (Or, *more* crazy.) But I'm not in favor of anything that even remotely risks Trump squeaking out another Electoral College win. /6
And two other points. First, I can't very well tell Democrats to get their act together and rally around a unity candidate, and then bolt over to a parallel conservative challenge.
The goal is to defeat Trump, period. So I'm staying with my plan of voting Democratic in 2020. /7
Second, as a moral issue, I don't want anything that gives Republicans a safe harbor, where they can say they didn't vote for Trump - but knew they'd get him anyway. I'm tired of people who are okay with Trump but who also want to avoid the moral stain of voting for the man. /9
This is an existential crisis of government, and "I sat this one out," or "I wrote in Bill Weld" just doesn't cut it for me. Yes, it's your right to do it as an American, as is your right not to vote at all.
But I think 2020 is, to steal a phrase, "A Time for Choosing." /10
My heart wishes there were an alternative, but my head tells me there isn't one. Unless someone can show me the math where a primary challenge helps remove Trump, I think my position is the only logical path.
Carla agrees. /11x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When I was a professor at the totally woke Naval War College, I had fellowship 20 yrs ago with the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, which produced this very woke study about going to war in places like, say, Iran. Some of my very woke predictions:
/1
"The United States and the regime in Tehran are avowed enemies, and for good reason. Iran not only is trying to acquire nuclear arms, but is a proven state sponsor of terror."
The same people who had an aneurysm about Lloyd Austin going AWOL for two days are going to defend Hegseth, the most reckless and unqualified SECDEF in history, to the bitter end. /1
You know better than this, @cdrsalamander, and I know that from talking to you. Your comments are in bad faith. But for others who are curious, I'll explain.
NWC's curriculum revision 50 years ago was to prevent another civil-military failure on the level of Vietnam. /1
VADM Turner was explicit about this, and it's been a guiding principle ever since to make sure that NWC graduates are intelligent strategic contributors in the room, instead of pure operators who have no idea how to advise or confer with civilians. /2
Sal is focused on about 30 minutes of a 90 minute seminar out of some 20 meetings. But as I told my students: You need to recognize what drives the arguments of the civilians in the room. If you don't, you'll be the guy sent out for coffee while the grownups talk. /3
The Israelis are calling this a "preemptive" strike. Whether you agree or disagree with this attack, these are not - from what we know tonight - "preemptive" strikes. The Israelis are using that word for a reason. Read on. /1
In tradition and international law, a "preemptive" attack is a spoiling attack, meant to strike an enemy who is *imminently* going to strike you. This is what Israel did in 1967, getting the jump on Arab armies that were about to attack. That's usually permissable. /2
What's going on right now are *preventive* strikes, which are usually NOT permissable in law or tradition. This is striking an enemy far in advance, because you believe time and situation is favorable to you. That, for example, is Japan striking the US in 1941. /3