The Washington Post says it’s going to be okay. Whew…

all right

The news out of the capital is pretty dire, sometimes almost apocalyptic. Wars and rumors of war, the possible collapse of the Republic, and so forth.

The Washington Post‘s semi-new tagline, Democracy Dies in Darkness, expresses a grim determination that seems suited to the times.

But the Post has it’s softer, more soothing, side as well.

I was searching for the latest on Turkey’s assault on our erstwhile ally, when I clicked and, instead of an update from Syria, got the above screen.

Whew. I feel so much better…

58 thoughts on “The Washington Post says it’s going to be okay. Whew…

  1. bud

    There is at long last some actual good news to celebrate. Perhaps the Washington Post is recognizing as much. In the latest RealClear polling averages Elizabeth Warren has taken slight leads both nationally and in Iowa in the Democratic primary fight against the extremely disappointing Joe Biden. Democrats are finally starting to see what has been so obvious to me all along. Joe Biden is just not a worthy candidate to represent the Democratic Party in the coming election. He is highly flawed in many ways. Elizabeth Warren on the other hand, is an energetic fighter, a battler, a scratch and claw ruffian who will wage war for the values we cherish. That fighting sprit is exactly what we need now not some milquetoast has-been. Hopefully this positive trend will continue.

    Just as an aside, I really like Corey Booker the best of all the candidates but sadly he is not catching on. Just don’t get it.

    We need to get this country calmed down. Once we’ve accomplished that, I’ll be happy to discuss other priorities with you…

    Reply
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Actually, that’s bad news, although fortunately things can shift back in a better direction. There’s time.

      Why is it bad news? Well, you just explained it. Elizabeth Warren is the last thing we need: “an energetic fighter, a battler, a scratch and claw ruffian who will wage war…”

      You just described a guy featured on the NYT’s “The Daily” podcast today. His name is Mike Davis, and he’s the Republican fighter, battler, and scratch-and-claw ruffian who “waged war” successfully in discrediting Christine Blasey Ford and getting Brett Kavanaugh confirmed.

      Go listen to him, and it will give you an idea how fighters, battlers, and scratch-and-claw ruffians all sound to me.

      There’s no such thing as GOOD fighters, battlers, and scratch-and-claw ruffians and BAD fighters, battlers, and scratch-and-claw ruffians in American politics.

      I’m opposed to all of them…

      Reply
      1. Brad Warthen Post author

        Now watch. We’ll hear all about “false equivalence.”

        But there’s nothing false about it. I’m dead serious, and I really, truly mean it.

        Now are there some things about Elizabeth Warren I can find to like? Sure. But she cancels them out by being a fighter, battler, and scratch-and-claw ruffian who wants to engage in politics as though it were war.

        And here’s where I lose Bud, but I completely mean it — nothing false about it… I’m sure that if you give me a few minutes with him I can find some things to like about Mike Davis. But then, he cancels that out by being a fighter, battler, and scratch-and-claw ruffian who wants to engage in politics as though it were war….

        Reply
        1. Doug Ross

          “fighter, battler, and scratch-and-claw ruffian”

          She pretends to be all those things. She’s better suited to being a school librarian telling the children to “hush”.

          Plus how can you be a fighter when you constantly talk about being a victim as a woman? The latest fabrication about being fired for being pregnant when she was a teacher is contradicted by her own words from ten years ago when she said she quit on her own because teaching wasn’t for her. She’s got a story to match whatever message she wants to sell.

          Reply
      2. Brad Warthen Post author

        Oh, and if you want to see what is really, truly wrong with American politics, go look at the childish way a lot of people on the left reacted to this NYT podcast. They’re FURIOUS at The Daily for dispassionately presenting information about this guy and what he does, info that provides valuable insight into why things happen as they do in these partisan fights.

        I very much appreciated it. But these screamers are just OUTRAGED that this guy was allowed to speak without the interviewer calling him an a__hole or something. A sample of what I mean…

        Reply
        1. Barry

          Doesn’t matter to me at all.

          The democratic nominee has my vote even if they nominate a shelter dog or a can of sweet peas. .

          I learned a lot from the trump skirt biters about not caring what a candidate says, or does. They made a great point. I’m sold.

          Reply
          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            But see, preferences matter. Sure, anyone is better than Trump.

            But I don’t want a can of sweet peas. I want Dixie Lee field peas, and I want them fresh…

            Reply
          1. bud

            Cory is in need of a ‘lude. Now that’s a constructive, and persuasive comment. What you’re doing Brad is making style arguments. You don’t like Warren because she uses the word fight too much. You don’t like Cory because he gets over-excited. (I’ve heard the exact opposite criticism of Cory so go figure.) You accuse Bernie of being a nihilist. Mayor Pete looks like the high school valedictorian. And on and on. Maybe you could help Trump select some insulting nicknames for the Democrats. But no one can hold a candle to Biden’s horrible optics. The hair sniffing, terrible debate performances and the endless gaffs. And now the Ukraine mess. (Which, for the record, I don’t think amounts to anything). Not to mention his obvious age and health issues.

            But this election should be about substance, not style. And when you talk substance on past and future issues there is just no way anyone who wants to move the country forward should consider voting for Joe Biden. (At least not in the primary). His past decisions, which have been well chronicled here and elsewhere show a man who is marred by horrendously poor judgement. And for the future Biden offers nothing but, well, the past. He doesn’t reflect the values of the Democratic party who, as a whole, want to move the country forward, away from the “good ole days” of the cold war. They want healthcare for all, affordable college, an aggressive approach to global warming and to address the ever burgeoning income inequality gap. It’s time to show the neocons, polluters and the plutocrats the exit door so that a prosperous and equitable America can shine forth. Elizabeth Warren (and some of the others) are equipped to help deliver such a future. Biden? Not so much.

            Reply
            1. Zombie Mao

              “He doesn’t reflect the values of the Democratic party who, as a whole, want to move the country forward, away from the “good ole days” of the cold war. They want healthcare for all, affordable college, an aggressive approach to global warming and to address the ever burgeoning income inequality gap. It’s time to show the neocons, polluters and the plutocrats the exit door so that a prosperous and equitable America can shine forth. Elizabeth Warren (and some of the others) are equipped to help deliver such a future.”

              Totally agree!

              Smash the “four olds”: old ideas, customs, culture, and habits.

              Reply
              1. Brad Warthen Post author

                No, no, no. The older the better. Think “Restoration:”

                But seriously…

                When you find yourself saying something like, “It’s time to show the neocons, polluters and the plutocrats the exit door so that…,” then you have strayed onto a dark path.

                Put any words you like in place of “neocons, polluters and the plutocrats.” Say, “socialists, atheists and libertines,” or “abolitionists, Know-Nothings and flat-Earthers,” or whatever. If your goal is to crush your perceived enemies, then you’re wrong.

                The goal should be to find ways to work with people who are different from you, not to find new ways to defeat those you hate.

                Start by emphasizing what we have in common, instead of what divides us. And work from there.

                By the way, you may have noticed that only one leading Democrat speaks this way…

                Reply
                1. bud

                  Put any words you like in place of “neocons, polluters and the plutocrats.” Say, “socialists, atheists and libertines,” or “abolitionists, Know-Nothings and flat-Earthers,” or whatever. If your goal is to crush your perceived enemies, then you’re wrong.
                  -Brad

                  Ok. I’ll play. How about serial killers, child molesters (remember NAMBLA), Nazis, Communists or false equivalenciers. :) (Sorry, couldn’t resist). At some point you HAVE to “show people the door”. And I’m talking about in a political sense not in some “dark” way as you suggest. That statement is ridiculous. I don’t want polluters making policy regarding clean air and water. I don’t want Plutocrats deciding issues related to banking regulations and commerce. And I certainly, absolutely, positively do not want neocons anywhere near the decision making process when it comes to foreign policy. So yes we need to show certain unsavory types the door.

                  That doesn’t mean we can’t compromise on issues where appropriate, like the minimum wage or how much to spend on the military. Other issues can’t be compromised, like the safety of our water. Nor do we want flat-earthers making decisions about science. But to suggest we must listen to everyone is not something I can cotton to.

            2. Brad Warthen Post author

              You go your way, and I’ll go mine.

              This election is about restoration. It’s about restoring the country we had from 1789 to 2016.

              You can hawk your social programs later. I want to save the republic.

              Oh, and I don’t think I ever called Bernie a nihilist. At least, I don’t recall it. I HAVE called Trump supporters that, for their efforts to destroy the country without any sane plan for what would replace it…

              Reply
              1. Doug Ross

                The country still exists. It hasn’t been destroyed in any way, shape, or form.

                What has been destroyed is the naive notion that we have unbiased journalists and media members who only report the facts. The past three years have exposed that lie. Everyone has an agenda these days. And that agenda is driven by one thing: money.

                Reply
                1. Doug Ross

                  If you can’t see the change in American news media over the past three years, you’re willfully blind to it. Objectivity is dead. Opinion rules.

              2. bud

                I HAVE called Trump supporters that (nihilist), for their efforts to destroy the country without any sane plan for what would replace it…

                Put any words you like in place of “neocons, polluters and the plutocrats.” Say, “socialists, atheists and libertines,” or “abolitionists, Know-Nothings and flat-Earthers,” or whatever. If your goal is to crush your perceived enemies, then you’re wrong.
                -Brad

                How do not see how profoundly hypocritical you are with this combination of statements? You really need to keep track of what you’re saying.

                Reply
  2. Doug Ross

    Obviously we’re going to be okay… Ellen Degeneres has said we need to be kind to people like her friend George W. Bush. Let bygones be bygones. What’s a few hundred thousand innocent lives lost and the worst economy of the past 75 years between friends?

    I checked Bush’s approval rating. His second term AVERAGED 39% and that was with a consistent decline by the end to a 22% nadir. He would have loved to have Trump’s numbers, even today.

    Even as of today with all the Ukraine and Kurd news, I still say Bush was worse than Trump. You can’t change my mind.

    Reply
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Yeah, I know no one can change your mind.

      Even though what you think is grossly absurd. There are two categories of presidents — this one, and the 44 who went before — and the difference is like ones and zeroes.

      Sure, I’ll entertain an argument that maybe Buchanan was as bad as Trump, but you probably won’t persuade me even of that. Suggesting that ANY president in postwar America is anywhere near the ballpark of Trump, much less worse, is outrageous. It’s willfully ignoring the plain truth in front of your face.

      Seeing that Ellen Degeneres was getting a bunch of crap from the kinds of people who were furious that the NYT explained the point of view of a Republican operative ALMOST made me say something a day or two ago about how far partisanship had gone in this country. It’s an outrage that she had to defend herself for being friends with a former president.

      But I didn’t, because what’s the point? You can’t change the mind of a hyperpartisan, either.

      I hope everyone appreciates the irony of Doug, who just diagnosed himself as a sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome, is the very guy who accuses the rest of us of the same thing with regard to Trump…

      Reply
      1. Brad Warthen Post author

        Oh, and by the way… since your standard for judging presidents is on the basis of “innocent lives lost” — a standard by which FDR was by far our worst president ever — I hope you’re keeping count of those being lost in Syria this week. Not just innocent lives, but lives of people who had been shedding their blood to fight OUR enemies for us over the last few years…

        Reply
        1. Doug Ross

          Let me know when we get to hundreds of thousands of innocents killed by American soldiers. See the difference?

          But you gotta do what you gotta do… you’re in that same teeny tiny slice of Americans who still think the Iraq War was justified… Even Joe Biden has backpedaled on that.

          But I understand how Trump’s tweets could be balanced against, checks notes…, an undeclared war built on a fabricated case, torture of enemies, massive economic downturn, Hurricane Katrina response, and being Dick Cheney’s puppet. Hey, George is a painter now… so he’s all good in the hood.

          Reply
          1. Doug Ross

            Bush had the highest disapproval rating of any president since FDR… You have to be a major screwup to reach those levels.

            So when you try to convince me, you also have to convince 2/3 of the rest of the country too.

            Reply
            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              I couldn’t care less.

              You don’t have to be a major screwup to be unpopular. You just have to be unpopular.

              Perhaps this is a good moment for one of my many reminders to y’all that I never much liked having Bush as our president. I wanted McCain in the 2000 primary, and I was sort of torn between Bush and Gore in the general.

              But I have to stand up against y’all’s absurd exaggeration of how awful you thought he was. Especially when you suggest that he, or Nixon, or any other president in living memory, was anywhere near as bad as Trump. It’s incredible. Trump does 10 awful things in a course of a day that those guys would never, ever have considered doing. He did more than that at that rally last night in Minneapolis. It is absolutely impossible to image any other president of the United States saying such thing.

              Perhaps I bother to stick up for W. because you see him as the embodiment of all evil for favoring something I favored, too. Perhaps I take it a bit personally. But I don’t think that’s it. I think I’m pretty dispassionate about him, and y’all are not…

              Reply
              1. Doug Ross

                Why do you think Bush’s approval rating sank from 90% post 9/11 to 22% by the time he was leaving?

                Because he screwed up time and again. Not in his words (well, “you’re doing a heckuva a job, Brownie” wasn’t his finest moment)… but because of his actions. He led us into a war on flimsy (at best) evidence… a war that has continued for 18 years — I heard someone say that the War on Terror is now old enough to enlist to fight the War on Terror. That alone should relegate him to the bottom of any Presidential ranking. That doesn’t include the Patriot Act which gave the government unprecedented power to spy on its citizens, the implementation of the second worst government agency (after the IRS), the TSA, the most corrupt, evil Vice President in history (Cheney), and to put the icing on the cake, total denial of the coming economic crash (you’re buddy McCain was also in that camp).

                I judge Presidents on policies and actions, not tweets and bluster. I wouldn’t support Trump on the basis of the deficit growth, That’s reason enough for me. The other stuff is just foolishness from a blowhard. But I saw a LOT of people in Minneapolis who were onboard with Trump. That means something…

                Reply
              2. bud

                But I have to stand up against y’all’s absurd exaggeration of how awful you thought he was.
                -Brad

                The horror of the W years can’t be exaggerated.

                Reply
      2. Barry

        “I hope everyone appreciates the irony of Doug, who just diagnosed himself as a sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome, is the very guy who accuses the rest of us of the same thing with regard to Trump…”

        I can’t believe you just noticed it.

        Reply
        1. Doug Ross

          Hmm.. I mention Bush once and that is derangement (especially when it was just in the news the same day)?

          While you Trump haters wake up every morning looking for something to complain about?

          Ok. I’ll admit to being deranged about Bush if you do the same about Trump? Fair deal?

          Reply
          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            Nope. My response to Trump is that of a rational person who understands the way he degrades and disgraces this country every minute he holds our highest office.

            I know you don’t care, but I do. And no one who cares can shrug at this situation the way you do.

            Reply
            1. Doug Ross

              It’s not just me. It’s the majority of people. We don’t let the actions of Donald Trump define our state of mind.

              Did you see the crowd at the Trump rally in Minneapolis last night? There’s enough people out there who are fine with him that he’s going to have a very clear shot at winning again (assuming he is around to run), especially against Biden or Warren. I won’t vote for him but he is nowhere near George W. Bush in general approval.

              Reply
              1. Brad Warthen Post author

                “We don’t let the actions of Donald Trump define our state of mind.”

                Yes, you do. Or you would not defend him otherwise. Those people wouldn’t be supporting him if they hadn’t surrendered their ability to think to him. If they hadn’t, they would have risen up in protest at the things he said at the rally.

                My state of mind is just fine. I still see things with clarity. I would be seeing things with clarity even if I were the only person in the country who still did. But since you value popular opinion so much, I should probably point out that what I see is what the majority of Americans see.

                I don’t think that lends my view extra value, but since you keep bringing it up, it’s a fact I thought I would mention…

                Reply
                1. Doug Ross

                  I don’t value popular opinion. I recognize it. Two thirds of Americans are at or below average intelligence. That doesn’t mean they’re right, just that they have the power to be influenced to vote for candidates who appeal to dumb people. That’s why we have the government we have – it’s the government of the gullible.

                  See the difference? I don’t support Trump but I can see how he (and Obama and Bush and Reagan) came to exist. People are generally apathetic and uniformed. They get what they want.

                2. Barry

                  “ don’t support Trump but I can see how he (and Obama and Bush and Reagan) came to exist. People are generally apathetic and uniformed. They get what they want.”

                  Sad, it true.

          2. Barry

            “I’ll admit to being deranged about Bush if you do the same about Trump? Fair deal?”

            My thoughts on Trump really boil down to the fact he is the cancer In the gut of the pig.

            I can’t influence Trump – or people to not support him. What I can do and have done is rid my personal life of those that embrace him

            Reply
            1. Realist

              “I can’t influence Trump – or people to not support him. What I can do and have done is rid my personal life of those that embrace him”

              After he is no longer in office, will you welcome back into your life those who embraced him after kicking them out because of their personal choice of someone to support? Or will you continue to consider them being beneath your largess and umbrella of inclusiveness?

              Powerful claim to make because of political and perhaps socio/economic differences. My wife and I taught our children that sometimes strong differences allow them to grow to be better citizens by listening and not denigrating another person’s beliefs.

              I don’t agree with bud on many, no most issues but would never consider ridding him from my personal life if he and I were acquaintances or friends. I have too much to learn from him, Doug, and others on this blog, agree with them or not. In my family and friends circle, there are strong Trump supporters and Trump haters but never would I consider ridding them from my personal life. That is one of the main reasons the divide in this country is ever increasing and the blame can be placed on both sides of the aisle.

              However, it is your choice to cut people maybe even family out of your life, not mine.

              Reply
              1. Brad Warthen Post author

                I agree with you, Realist. Of course, if I were to cut people out of my life over a political development, it would be the rise of Trumpism.

                I’ve lived my life according to what you teach your children (“that sometimes strong differences allow them to grow to be better citizens by listening and not denigrating another person’s beliefs”). I’ve done it quite frequently in the face of great derision from the partisans (who accuse me of such things as “false equivalence” for my efforts to see all sides), and watched in extreme dismay in recent decades as tribalism has grown and people have dehumanized those who disagree with them, dismissing them as “bigots” or “cucks” or what have you.

                But Trumpism isn’t a difference of opinion; it isn’t a system of thought. It is, to the contrary, a negation of thought. And it is directly inimical to the principles and institutions that uphold our republic. And it’s far bigger than Donald Trump. He’s just one idiot who came along at the right moment.

                The harm that Trumpism does is reaching a crescendo. His followers are so detached from reality that serious people who don’t normally engage in alarmism (I never thought I’d see Thomas Edsall write something like this) are seriously worrying about whether he will ever leave office peacefully — whether because he is impeached and convicted or even if he loses the election next year — given his penchant to cry “fraud” when he doesn’t get as many votes as he thinks he’s entitled to.

                And he has this following that is totally detached from reality, so much so that they believe the things he says that are completely incompatible with available facts are true.

                It’s a very dangerous moment…

                And because of that, it’s very, very hard to just be tolerant of people who support what’s happening to the country, and want more of it. We have to keep the lines of communication open as much as we can, but it’s hard to have conversations with people who can’t even agree to acknowledge basic facts…

                Reply
                1. David T

                  “But Trumpism isn’t a difference of opinion; it isn’t a system of thought. It is, to the contrary, a negation of thought. And it is directly inimical to the principles and institutions that uphold our republic. And it’s far bigger than Donald Trump. He’s just one idiot who came along at the right moment.”

                  Wow, this guy has really gotten into your head hasn’t he.

                  “And he has this following that is totally detached from reality, so much so that they believe the things he says that are completely incompatible with available facts are true.”

                  So are you still talking about Trump, or Bernie Sanders???

                  If I felt this way as deeply as you appear to I’d probably be going to counseling. You’re got one foot over the deep end. I seriously doubt anything Trump is doing, has done, or will do truly affects your day-to-day life unless you sit there and convince yourself that it has. But in your head you’ve already decided that he’s ruined life for everyone in this country. It’s time to step away from the television, newspaper, social media, etc… you’re convincing yourself that we’re only crematoriums away from a second Holocaust. It’s going to be a long 14 months (minimum) if you keep on this road.

                2. Brad Warthen Post author

                  “Wow, this guy has really gotten into your head hasn’t he.”

                  You have it backwards, David. If you believe the things he says, then it’s YOUR head he’s gotten into.

                  If you don’t, then that’s fine. But I have the impression you do…

                3. bud

                  …it’s hard to have conversations with people who can’t even agree to acknowledge basic facts…
                  -Brad

                  But who gets to decide what “basic facts” are? Certainly not Brad Warthen. You’ve denied basic facts regarding the Iraq war, global warming, population explosion, Bernie Sanders (calling him a nihilist) and more. So please excuse me if I don’t bow at your feet in your sanctimonious rant that you are beyond reproach when it comes to establishing “basic facts”. As much as I dislike Trump I’m growing a bit weary of this constant alarmism from people (false equivalency warriors) who are partially responsible for his rise to power.

                4. Brad Warthen Post author

                  “You’ve denied basic facts…”

                  No, I have not. I may have disagreed with some of your opinions, which you hold to be facts.

                  Don’t be insulted by this. It’s sometimes hard for smart, fair-minded people to agree where the line is between fact and opinion.

                  We ran into this problem all the time with op-eds and letters to the editor. We had some big arguments about them internally. I or another editor would say, “We can’t let him say this; he’s asserting something as a fact that is not true.” Then another editor would say, “No, he’s merely stating an OPINION that this is true, however right or wrong he may be.”

                  These arguments didn’t break down along ideological lines. The two people arguing frequently agreed on what the facts are, and on the fact that the author of the piece was bull of bull. But it was not always easy to determine where the line was between fact and opinion….

                5. Brad Warthen Post author

                  Those impasses were tough to deal with, because you have to decide which imperative to serve.

                  You have to decide between:
                  — Allowing the writer to express what he honestly believes.
                  — Your responsibility to all the OTHER readers, who deserve to read the truth, and not fantasies masquerading as the truth.

                  Usually, I erred on the side of letting the writer say what he wanted. But not always. Sometimes the danger of other readers being misled was too great. For instance, if, in the course of arguing with something we had published, the writer misrepresented what we had said, I would not allow it. Yell at us all you want for what we DID say, but don’t spread the lie that we said X when we never did say X, and wouldn’t dream of saying X because we did not believe X…

                6. David T

                  “You have it backwards, David. If you believe the things he says, then it’s YOUR head he’s gotten into.”

                  Okay, I’m not the one who’s losing sleep over anything he says or does.

                7. Brad Warthen Post author

                  Neither am I, so you don’t need to sit up worrying about it.

                  I shouldn’t have to point this out, but this is a political opinion blog. What would be abnormal is if I did not express my opinion of the person who happens to be president of the United States.

                  It’s not a sign of something being amiss that I do…

              2. Barry

                “ After he is no longer in office, will you welcome back into your life those who embraced him after kicking them out because of their personal choice of someone to support? Or will you continue to consider them being beneath your largess and umbrella of inclusiveness?”

                I appreciate your post.

                Close family members that might support him are fine. We don’t discuss such issues.

                Former friends? No. Those relationships are already damaged beyond repair. It wasn’t one sided. Several refused to continue communication with me because of my lack of support. So those friendships are over permanently. One was a former 25 year mentor of mine. But that’s life. I’m ok with it at this point. I wasn’t at first but now I’ve actually lost touch with him.

                Reply
                1. David T

                  I wonder how some of you would handle a real tragedy. Say a spouse, child, or parent dying. A house fire. Losing your job and being homeless. I suspect some here would eat a gun if they had to face any of these things.

                2. Realist

                  Thank you for your honorable reply. In your original post, it was not clear about the refusal of others to refuse communication with you. Under those circumstances, I probably would have reacted in the same manner but still hold out hope that one day they will come around and understand what Trump is doing to this country. If they refuse the hand of friendship over an issue with Trump, then it is a flaw in their character that needs to be addressed, not yours.

                  It was not until Trump decided to withdraw troops from Turkey that left the Kurds completely vulnerable to an invasion by Turkey was the straw that finally broke the “camel’s back” for me. Whether any of the anti-war posters agree with me or not, that is up to them but the US made a commitment to an ally and on a whim, no other way to describe it, this immature adult occupying the White House did more to damage this country with his one foolish decision than anything close to the reason Democrats and some Republicans are pushing for impeachment. His irrational decision may have been the final straw for his supporters other than the extreme hard core.

                  We, the United States, are in the ME due to a long and arduous buildup of events that culminated in the 9/11 attacks that sent the world into a different direction. While GWB was not the choice of many on this blog to be POTUS, it was his unfortunate circumstance to occupy the White House on 9/11. Again, our leadership in DC and the Pentagon didn’t have the experience and leadership of the veterans of WWI, WWII, and Korea to guide us through a difficult time. Hate him, despise him, demonize him, or be the polar opposite, GWB was the POTUS at the time and I believe he made decisions based on being an honorable man who was given bad advice.

                  Trump is a tinhorn POTUS and his decision making is a clear reflection of his inability to grasp the entirety of any situation and the realities of his position in the world at POTUS because he believes only he has the answers to all issues. This is all about Trump and what is obvious, the absolute need to win according to his standards and to engage in fights with people he should ignore and pay attention to being POTUS. Instead he has become more of an embarrassment and now a real and present danger with his ignoring of advisors across the political and military spectrum and withdrawing troops that have been the stalwart defense and relative peace of the region he is abandoning. To me, this is much more egregious than an ill-advised conversation with the president of the Ukraine. Quid pro quos are common among politicians and leaders across all geographical boundaries.

                  I believe the man to be unhinged and incapable of making a rational decision at this point. It is time for him to either resign or for the Democrats to get the hell off the pot and bring formal impeachment proceedings against Trump if they have enough actual proof to do so. It is also time for Republicans to stand up and tell Trump, “no damn more”. If ever a Goldwater and company confronting Nixon moment is needed, it is now, not later.

                  If my position is enough to drive friends and family away, that is their choice, they will still have a place in my life and heart. I still highly value differences of opinion but am finding it more and more difficult to accept and defend what is so obvious to anyone who is capable of reasoning without becoming overwhelmed with emotion.

                  I have also come to another conclusion about Trump. He is not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Socialist, etc. I believe he is like the shrike bird whose purpose is to hunt down other birds and impale them on barbed wire or thorns just for the sheer pleasure of being a destructive animal. In that sense, I do believe one of his goals is to destroy the Republican Party. He is very close to achieving his goal and the unfortunate aspect is that they are sharpening the very knife he will us to cut their throats. Strong analogy but appropriate under the circumstances.

                3. Barry

                  “I wonder how some of you would handle a real tragedy. Say a spouse, child, or parent dying. A house fire. Losing your job and being homeless. I suspect some here would eat a gun if they had to face any of these things

                  You are whipping that straw man something fierce.

                4. Barry

                  “I still highly value differences of opinion but am finding it more and more difficult to accept and defend what is so obvious to anyone who is capable of reasoning without becoming overwhelmed with emotion.”

                  I’ve always enjoyed good, honest political debate.

                  I can’t accept blind political loyalty. When someone you are having a political conversation with will accept ANYTHING a certain politician does and support him/her regardless, it’s not an honest debate. It’s brainswashing and worship of a politician.

  3. bud

    The jury is still out on Trump but he’s not looking too good right now. An extremely corrupt man for sure. Probably worse than Nixon. Caging children, disastrous response to Maria, crazy trade policy, reprehensible approach to environmental policy, soaring budget deficits and an abomination on healthcare. But the economy is still ok. No new wars. As for Dubya. The man’s presidency was a complete disaster. Just can’t follow Brad’s awkward defense of that awful president. But I’ll cut Ellen DeGeneres some slack. Time to move beyond those dark years.

    Reply
    1. Doug Ross

      The cages were built by Obama. The Maria response looks a lot different now that Puerto Rico’s governor has been canned. Hard to help a corrupt government. Trade policy will take time to assess. Yes, budget deficits are bad. I’m glad we can agree on that and elect a President who will not continue them, Right?

      Reply
    2. Doug Ross

      I agree we should move on from those dark years. But moving on doesn’t have to mean “we’re friends now”. Until Bush asks for forgiveness for his inhumane military decisions, he should remain in his home painting his awful, amateur portraits.

      It’s similar to the politicians who still cozy up to decrepit, heinous Henry Kissinger. He doesn’t deserve anything but public shaming.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *