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
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
I might have more to say later, but all the reviews of Carter's presidency emphasize his character, his success in the Mideast, and inflation/gas prices.
But left out of all that: His Cold War policies were abject failures and left America in a precarious situation by 1980. /1
Not only did the Soviets run wild during Carter's presidency, they hated him personally, seeing him as an unserious man giving them Sunday School lectures. Some of America's allies felt the same way, esp after Carter hosed the Germans on the neutron bomb issue. /2
When Carter finally became a born-again Cold Warrior in late 1978, he amped up multiple nuclear programs (which people mistakenly associate with Reagan) and in 1980 issued PD-59, a pretty extreme nuclear warfighting doctrine that convinced Moscow that he was completely nuts. /3
So, a few words about this new Russian nuclear doctrine, but here's the short version: It's not a doctrine, it's a ploy.
/1
The old Soviet Union had a formal military doctrine, and it mattered. (Trust me. Wrote my doctoral dissertation and first book on it.) It mattered because the regime believed in ideology, and in conforming its policies to ideology and communicating that to its institutions. /2
Soviet military doctrine was a means of intra-elite communication and policy guidance. Yes, some of it was just bullshit, but it was a real thing that was meant to make the various parts of the USSR defense world (strategy, industry, etc) fly in formation. /3
Okay, I admit, I've been kind of rope-a-doping some of the people angry over my "it's okay to drop friends over politics posts." So I'll wrap up:
I don't recall anyone on my right getting mad when I wrote this in a right-wing - now insanely right wing - magazine in 2016. /1
The reason I got very little pushback, I suspect, is that no one expected Trump to win. But now, people on the right are stuck having to defend what they've done and itchy about it.
But interestingly, the same magazine also now has this:
/2
If you're angry over dropping friends and family over Trump now, but weren't in 2016, or aren't over calls now to de-recognize other citizens as Americans (and I assume that means friends who voted for Harris)...well...
/3