Debate Prep
The second debate of the Republican nomination race is fast approaching, so in preparation I thought it would be a good time to take a look at the entire GOP field once again. First, though, a word about the debates themselves.
The host of the second debates is CNN, who got shamed into changing their rules for who will appear on the main stage (so as not to exclude Carly Fiorina). Everyone seems to have agreed Carly "won" the first debate, despite her not even being in the prime-time event. This "win" was always a bit overstated, which I'll get to in a moment, but what it means is that there will be 11 people on the main stage this time around.
That's a lot of people, and when you divide it up it means only a few minutes of microphone time for each candidate. My guess is that future debate hosts are going to be looking for ways to even further limit the participants, in order to give those who really seem to have a chance much more time to make their case. The first thing likely to happen will be the elimination of the "kids' table" debates altogether. If candidates aren't in the top ranks by now, there really isn't a whole lot of reason to provide them with free airtime. "But what about Carly's rise?" some might ask -- again, I'll get to that in a moment. I should also add I'm not predicting what I would like to see happen here, I'm attempting to predict what is likely to happen. And the first thing to get jettisoned will be the afternoon debates between candidates struggling to pull more than a single percent in the polls.
The second round of limitations will be to draw the line for who gets onstage a little tighter. Right now it's relative -- if a candidate is in the top 10 slots in polling, they get to debate. But sooner or later the debate hosts are going to draw a much more absolute line. If, for instance, CNN were to limit Wednesday's main debate to "those candidates polling above five percent," this would currently limit the field to only five candidates. If they were a little more generous and drew the line at four percent, it would mean only eight candidates would be on stage. Look for a future host network to set a hard dividing line of this type.
But for now, we've still got a crowded field, so let's take a look at each candidates' chances and possible strategy. I'm using loose groups to define them here, based on their average national polling (from Real Clear Politics), and listing them from bottom to top.
The kids' table
Rick Perry has dropped out, so he won't be appearing at all Wednesday night. Oops!
Jim Gilmore didn't satisfy all of the conditions for a serious candidate (like having a paid staffer in all the early-voting states, for instance), so he won't be appearing Wednesday either. No real loss there.
Keeping Gilmore company in the "Why are these people still running?" category are George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, and Rick Santorum. All of these campaigns have flatlined (they're all currently polling at or below one percent), and should be considered beyond hope. Santorum didn't even bother to jump into the middle of the recent gay marriage/county clerk drama, when the last time he ran he definitely would have been all over that one. The only candidate in this group who even seems to have a strategy of making it out of the basement in the polling (call it "attempting to follow in Carly Fiorina's footsteps") is Bobby Jindal.
For the past few weeks, Jindal has gone all-in on a "hit Trump as hard as possible" strategy. This has provided some amusing moments (comparing Trump and "winning" to Charlie Sheen melting down, for instance), but so far it has not provided Jindal with any reaction at all from Republican voters. Look for Jindal to be as savage as he can manage in the undercard debate, made easier by the fact that Trump won't be in the room to answer him back. This effort will likely fail, but at least Jindal's got some sort of strategy, which is more than Santorum, Pataki, and Graham can say.
The one interesting thing about the undercard is that there will only be four people on stage -- a much better ratio for getting to speak more than a few minutes. The kids' table participants might just get more screen time than most of people in the main event. Of course, if nobody's watching, that might not turn out to be any sort of advantage at all. But hey, it worked for Carly, right?
Relieved to be on the big stage
The three candidates at the bottom of the main stage's polling -- John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Chris Christie -- are all quite likely to be relieved they made the cut this time. They're all in danger of slipping out of the criteria for future debates though.
Chris Christie is doing the worst of this bunch, polling at a dismal 2.2 percent. He was a very early favorite in the field, but that was many moons ago. These days, his poll numbers are going nowhere. He has promised both an entertaining and feisty performance Wednesday night, where he'll likely attack Donald Trump with his usual blunt style. Christie has two problems with this strategy, though. He was one of only two candidates in the first debate (the other was Rand Paul) to take on Trump directly, and it didn't do him one bit of good afterwards in the polls. Plus, his entire political persona is pretty close to Trump's in the first place (what might be called "shouty and belligerent"), and the voters have already apparently decided they'd prefer Trump shouting and being belligerent to Christie -- which is not likely to change.
Rand Paul was the other candidate to directly challenge Trump last time, and his ratings have been gradually falling ever since. He's currently polling at 3.6 percent, down from 4.5 percent before the first debate. Paul could either replay his "attack Trump" strategy from last time or sit back and let others try the same thing on Wednesday, but it's likely that neither strategy is going to do Paul much good. One way or another, Paul will likely be less prominent during the second debate.
John Kasich was seen as a minor winner in the last debate, but his numbers were already slightly edging up before the debate even happened. Unfortunately for Kasich, his poll numbers topped out at five percent, and have since fallen back to 3.6 percent, tied with Paul. Kasich's strategy is twofold, at this point. He's trying to move into the "safe establishment guy" position that used to be held by Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. Secondly, he hails from Ohio, which will be a crucial battleground state next year. Unless he captures lightning, however, he seems to be setting himself up to be at the top of everyone else's "possible vice presidential candidates" list.
Bottom of the pack
There are three candidates who are still -- barely -- seen as having an actual shot at winning, but they're all currently polling below five percent, so perhaps that's being generous. Things could change, however, for this group (either way, actually).
At the bottom of this lower group is Mike Huckabee, who fell quite a bit after the first debate (from 6.8 percent down to his current 4.0 percent), but whose poll numbers have at least flattened out since then. As always, Huckabee is driving hard for the evangelical vote, but they seem to currently be much more enamored of Ben Carson. If anyone goes after Carson hard on Wednesday night, it will likely be Huckabee, since they're both really fishing in the same pond of potential voters.
Next is Scott Walker, and boy, how the mighty have fallen in his case. Walker was actually leading the entire pack a few months back, but his lackluster and confused campaigning has hit his poll numbers hard. Walker -- on every issue except how much he hates unions -- has tried to straddle every fence he can find. He tries to spout vague language that can be read either way whenever he's asked about any issue, and then the next day he seems to reverse himself. Walker has seen his poll numbers fall further and faster than any other candidate in the field (he was over 10 percent not that long ago, and he's now only managing a paltry 4.2 percent), so he must be getting pretty desperate. Who knows what he'll try on Wednesday? He's got to get his name in the headlines somehow, and at this point he has little left to lose, so he may provide some fireworks.
And finally, Carly Fiorina. Fiorina's supposed rise in the polling has been vastly overstated by just about everyone. It is true, she was universally seen as the "winner" of the first debate. She even got a clip of her performance played during the main debate. She certainly got a lot more media attention. And she browbeat CNN into including her on Wednesday. But when you look at the actual numbers, Fiorina isn't doing as well as all the hype would have you believe. Before the first debate, she was polling at barely one percent. She did get the most dramatic and immediate "bump" from the first debate, and rose quickly to 6.3 percent -- impressive enough, in this field. But since then, she's fallen back to 4.4 percent, and her trendline is gradually down right now.
Two things bear keeping in mind about Fiorina, heading into the next debate. The first is that she's been one of Trump's biggest critics. Look for her to snarkily attack Trump, and look for Trump to hit back hard on her abysmal corporate leadership history. The second thing worth considering with Fiorina is that she might also be very high on the list of possible veeps for other candidates -- especially if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. The vice presidential campaign role is traditionally to be the attack dog, and nobody really does this sort of thing better than Carly, at least not so far. She's got that whole sneering contempt thing down pat, really. It will indeed be interesting to see her and Trump interact directly this time around, that's for sure. But keep in mind, she's still only in sixth place overall and she's below five percent support. If she does get another poll bump from the second debate, she might vault into the ranks of those with a real shot, but so far she hasn't gotten there yet, no matter what the pundits say.
Waiting for Trump to fall
We now come to the top of the pack -- the group of candidates who are waiting in the wings, desperately wishing for Donald Trump to fall flat on his face sooner or later. These three still have an excellent chance to step in and pick up the pieces, should that ever actually come to pass. There are currently three candidates polling between five and 10 percent: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush.
Marco Rubio seems to be doing a good job of standing in the shadows. He hasn't exactly caught fire in any way, but then again he hasn't crashed and burned either (as Walker has, for example). He's currently polling at 5.8 percent, with a pretty flat trendline (he's been falling ever so slightly of late, but not nearly as bad as some other candidates). Rubio will likely not engage directly with Trump on Wednesday, and will likely continue his attempt to appeal to serious-minded (even "wonky") Republican voters. Look for deep dives into positions and policy from Rubio in the debate, but probably not any fireworks.
Ted Cruz has been following the most interesting strategy of all the Republicans since the first debate. He's now officially Donald Trump's "coat holder." Cruz deferentially supports Trump in all he does and says, and has even taken to appearing on the same stage as Trump in public. This has indeed helped his poll numbers, although not anywhere near as much as Trump's dramatic rise. Cruz was polling at 5.5 percent before the last debate, and he's up to 7.0 percent now. Even this modest rise is notable, since only four GOP candidates have really seen any rise at all. Cruz is obviously hoping that sucking up to Trump now might pay off later, if Trump ever does spectacularly detonate (leaving Cruz to sweep up all of Trump's support in the aftermath). Cruz will almost assuredly not attack Trump (although he could possibly attack Carson) on Wednesday, and instead will likely try to focus Republican voters' anger on the Republican-led Congress. Cruz is spoiling for another government showdown, and he'll likely use his time Wednesday night to make his case for doing so (hint: "Planned Parenthood" will figure prominently).
Which brings us to Jeb Bush. Now, Jeb hasn't fallen quite as spectacularly as Scott Walker, but that's not really saying much of anything, at this point. Bush's psychological fall is bigger than his fall in absolute poll numbers. Bush was already sinking in the polls before the last debate (down to 11.8 percent), and his numbers have continued their downward trajectory (Bush is now at only 8.2 percent). Bush, however, used to be leading the pack, and he's now struggling to stay in third place. That's a big step down, folks.
In the previous debate, Bush tried to essentially ignore Trump. Like all of the Republican establishment, Bush figured Trump was a shooting star that would soon burn out on his own, and therefore Bush didn't need to even get involved -- he could safely stay above the fray and remain the favorite candidate not named Trump. This is no longer an option for Bush, in the second debate. He cannot afford to continue ignoring Trump, and he's been much more willing to challenge Trump out on the campaign trail. However, Bush doesn't seem to have much of an inner attack dog to draw upon -- at least not so far. Bush almost has to directly engage with Trump this time around, but Trump might very easily run rings around Bush in response. If Bush's numbers continue to sink after the second debate, and he slips to fourth or fifth place, his donors are going to start bailing on his campaign -- that's my guess, at any rate. Look for Bush to take his best shot at Trump, but Bush's best shot might be woefully inadequate, in the end.
The frontrunners
Astonishingly, in a field of 16 candidates, only two are now polling in double digits. That's a pretty all-around weak field, in general. Every experienced Republican has almost no voter support, and neither of the top two have any experience at all in politics -- which says something about the state of the Republican Party. This Wednesday night, however, Ben Carson and Donald Trump are doing so well that they'll likely only be playing defense against attacks from wannabe frontrunners (or, in Bush's and Walker's cases, "used-to-bes").
Ben Carson's rise has been what I would call quietly spectacular since the first debate. He has moved his poll average from 5.8 percent to a whopping 16.8 percent -- a bigger absolute rise than any other candidate, including Trump. Nobody has any clear answer why Carson's doing so well recently, but it could be a combination of evangelicals settling on their preferred candidate (sorry, Huckabee) and Carson's personality being so antithetical to Trump's. Carson is restrained in speaking -- even sleepy, at times. He isn't a big fan of personally attacking other candidates. He makes even extreme positions sound reasonable. And, so far, Carson has been lucky because with everyone else in the field aiming at Trump, nobody's even bothered attacking Carson on anything. This could change Wednesday night. Attacking Carson might be seen as a lot easier than attacking Trump, for other candidates struggling to break out. Poaching Carson's voter support might look a lot easier than stealing Trump's supporters away, in other words.
Which brings us to the far-and-away leader of the Republican pack: The Donald. At this point, Trump is riding a wave that continues to grow bigger, defying all predictions. Trump doesn't have to make a big splash at the debate, but then he always makes a big splash wherever he goes. Last time around it was little noticed that Trump did keep to his debate plan -- not instigating attacks against others, but instead merely "counterpunching." He will likely do the same thing later this week -- only responding to direct attacks rather than going after anyone without provocation.
Trump is sitting on a monstrous amount of voter support, roughly double what even Ben Carson's been getting. He's over 30 percent in the polls, and still climbing. He knows that if this continues, he may soon start to become almost inevitable as the Republican nominee. Plus, he still seems to be having a whale of a lot of fun beating all the other Republicans at their own game.
Trump will be playing defense on Wednesday, but that certainly doesn't mean he will be boring in any way. His counterpunches are often remembered more than the punches others throw at him, and I fully expect that to be the case in the second debate as well. Trump's biggest challenge will probably be from the debate moderators themselves rather than the other candidates, in fact.
Whatever happens Wednesday night, one thing that's almost a surety is that Donald Trump will again claim the next day that he was responsible for another record-breaking night of television ratings. And he'll be right about that, too. Love him or hate him, America's fascination with Trump certainly isn't over yet.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Does anybody remember Teabagger Matt Bevin? He was Mitch McConnell's challenger in the GOP senate primary election. According to Mitch, Matt is an "east coast con man" and Mitch's argument was persuasive. Bevin appeared at a pro-cock-fighting rally and, even in KY, that's not a good idea. Well, he's running an "outsider" campaign for governor and he won the primary in a competitive field of four because of GOP "disarray". Now we'll have to see if he can win the general election against the current AG. McConnell has given the Dems a great start and GOP governors are few and very far between in this state. The situation reminds me very much of Trump and the GOP clown car campaign. The GOP really wishes they had one of those other guys who destroyed each other and enabled the Bevin menace, but maybe he can ride the idiotic Trump wave to victory this fall. If a leader as stupid as McConnell says he's a con man, Bevin must be just like us.
Hey CW
Just want to reiterate how effing great it is to have you following the clown car action... so I can do anything else.
I hope the fireworks materialize.
A
We'll owe Trump a debt of great gratitude if he really does destroy JEB, but I suspect that JEB is just sort of slouching along until the time comes to lower the $100 million boom. The Bush clan is not going to sink without sliming Trump on the way down. He may be too late though. Trump has already Willie Hortoned JEB. Low energy.
I can't watch live. I have to be able to fast forward while Cruz or Fiorina or Huckabee or JEB or really any of them other than Trump is puking up their focus group tested talking points.
Trump is boycotting Oreos now. They're Mexican.
John From Censornati wrote:
"The GOP really wishes they had one of those other guys who destroyed each other and enabled the Bevin menace, but maybe he can ride the idiotic Trump wave to victory this fall. If a leader as stupid as McConnell says he's a con man, Bevin must be just like us."
Funny thing about Bevin. His main issue is ending Obamacare in Kentucky. He will do this primarily by turning Kentucky's state run exchange into a Federally run exchange and going back to Medicaid the way it was. This despite the fact that everyone in Kentucky, including state Republican officials, love their state exchange. It has lowered the uninsured in Kentucky from 20 percent to 9 percent, and is about the most successful and well run exchange in the nation. So much so that it is being held up as a model for other states. Oh, by the way, did I also happen to mention that everyone agrees that doing away with it now at this point, would actually cost Kentucky MORE money than simply continuing with it as is!
Michale,
Re. our little discussion on the European refugee crisis.
I think the EU is not handling this well at all. Props to Germany, though, for really stepping up to the plate where all of its EU partners have not. Yes, Germany has now taken steps to restrain the influx of refugees but the rest of the EU nations need to take a few lessons from Germany's lead and from their own history.
What is the purpose of the EU if it cannot react collectively and effectively to this crisis? If the EU fails in dealing with this crisis, then we may witness the unraveling of this union. Which I think would be a very bad idea.
Of course, we need to look at the root cause of this increasing refugee crisis and begin to get serious about solving the political problems that have led to so many people fleeing for their very lives.
Syria would be a good place to start. And, the same kind of diplomatic effort that produced the Iran nuclear deal should be undertaken by the US and its partners and Iran to promote a political solution in Syria. This won't be an easy task but the outcome could very well be more than worth the effort.
Elizabeth (7):
FWIW re: root causes, I read a thread yesterday at DailyKOS (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/13/1420014/-The-refugee-crisis-is-a-portent) which discussed "a peer-reviewed scientific study explicitly linked the Syrian war to climate change."
Root causes may be far bigger than politics.
"Trump is sitting on a monstrous amount of voter support, roughly double what even Ben Carson's been getting. He's over 30 percent in the polls, and still climbing."
I'm not convinced about either the 30% or the still climbing. From the linked RCP Republication 2016 page, the six polls taken from just before the first debate until just before the 2nd look like this, in order appearance, Trumps percentages are:
"Trump is sitting on a monstrous amount of voter support, roughly double what even Ben Carson's been getting. He's over 30 percent in the polls, and still climbing."
I'm a bit skeptical about that. Take a look at the linked RCP 2016 Republican Primary Poll Page. Ignore the chart below it, I'll get to that. For the moment, just focus on the six most recent polls, starting at just before the 1st debate and ending just before the 2nd. Trump's percentages, in order of appearance:
28,29,30,32,33,27
"The vice presidential campaign role is traditionally to be the attack dog, and nobody really does this sort of thing better than Carly"
"Release the hounds." - Montgomery Trump
"Trump is sitting on a monstrous amount of voter support, roughly double what even Ben Carson's been getting. He's over 30 percent in the polls, and still climbing."
I'm a bit skeptical about that. Take a look at the linked RCP 2016 Republican Primary Poll Page. Ignore the chart below it, I'll get to that. For the moment, just focus on the six most recent polls, starting at just before the 1st debate and ending just before the 2nd. Trump's percentages, in order of appearance:
28,29,30,32,33,27 (avg. 29.8)
Over the first 5 polls he gains a total 5%, at rate of about 1% a week on average. Then, on the last sample he loses it all plus 1. In other words, net gain over the six periods, minus 1 percent. Strictly speaking, if you believe the individual tallies, Trump basically stalled in the six weeks after the debates.
But, each of these polls has a sampling error of roughly 3%, and each was conducted by a different polling outfit with a unique systematic bias which is probably highly speculative in this particular instance because bias is usually measured Rep vs Dem not Rep vs Rep.
Back to the RCP graph of the polling data. Trump's popularity line climbs seems to climb like a jet fighter over the six weeks between the two debates. Part of this is due to the fact that the Y axis is capped at 30%, which exaggerates slopes both up and down. Another factor is that RCP plots rolling averages,not individual poll results (RCP doesn't make the details public, for which they have been justly criticized). The advantage of this approach is that it smooths out random error and can reveal long term trends. The disadvantage is that it lags the onset of a trend, as well as the reversal of a trend. I'll be watching the tables over the next couple of weeks, not the rolling average.
One other thing....I've had a lot of trouble with inadvertent posts this week. It's as if my preview and submit buttons have merged. Here's hoping the problem goes away after my next system update from the the good people of MS. Or my reflexes return. Whichever.
CW-
No doubt about it, I'm having some troubling with getting things to submit without big lags, and with lots of double posts. So, if you could just dump 8 and 9 everybody will be less confused. Assuming this short messages posts properly. :-(
John From Censornati [1] -
Thanks for the KY update. I thought Maine was the winner in the craziest gov around, but maybe KY will give them a run for the money.
altohone [2] -
"Paying attention to mind-numbing stuff so you don't have to since 2007!" That's our motto!
JFC [3] -
Anti-Trump ads are starting to deploy, from the big bucks side of the GOP. It'll be interesting to see if they have any effect at all, though.
JFC [4] -
See comment to comment [2]. I'll watch both debates live, so you don't have to! Heh.
Oh, program note: not sure whether I'll post a column before or after the debates this Wednesday... might do snap reactions, might wait until Thurs... no promises...
JFC [5] -
I heard about the Oreo boycott but never bothered to read why Trump won't eat them anymore. Really? They moved the plant to Mexico or something? That's his beef? I did hear a reporter tried to entice Trump to eat an Oreo during an interview... heh... this race is going to be one for the ages, that's for sure.
The Stig [9] -
Yeah, but those were the first 30+ numbers Trump has gotten -- and nobody else on the GOP side has even cracked 20 before very recently, I believe. That's an impressive amount of support, and I still don't see a ceiling in sight. I think more and more GOP voters are now seriously considering supporting Trump, and that the dismal performances by some of the other candidates might be driving this too.
JFC [10]-
"Release the demon sheep."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWlOxhSIKk
Heh.
TheStig -
Sorry about the website problems. I'll check the spam filter to see if anyone else is being caught...
-CW
"Release the demon sheep."
That's very good. I could draw up a really good cartoon for that idea.
It's already been done, JFC!
With Trump and Carly?
I knew about the demon sheep, but I just watched the video for the first time. Most of it anyway. It's more bizarre than I'd imagined and really long. Was there a shorter version that played on TV?
JFC -
There's an even-longer (7+ min) "demon blimp" ad, too, from Carly's CA Senate campaign. I think both were cut down to air on tv. I know I saw both on TV at the time, and I can't imagine they were longer than 60 seconds, max.
-CW
Hi JFC!
With Trump and Carly?
No, there wasn't one with Trump.
But, I'll tell you what! It's not hard to imagine that you would do a better job than Fred Davis!
Michale, where are you? I miss you already ...
Paula,
Climate change is a very serious problem with serious national security implications and requires a very serious effort to mitigate it as the planet becomes increasingly less habitable.
However, I do not believe it should be the primary focus of what will be necessary to resolve the civil war in Syria. Climate change and the Syrian drought may have been contributing factors to the initial political unrest there but the actions of the Syrian government throughout the unrest and ensuing civil war have made this crisis what it is today.
CW -
"Yeah, but those were the first 30+ numbers Trump has gotten -- and nobody else on the GOP side has even cracked 20 before very recently, I believe."
I don't disagree with the above, but the number of polls in the period between the debates is small and the total variance is likely high. Like I say, I'm a bit skeptical about whether Trump is merely doing well, or actually breaking out.
The Betfair Prediction Market has shown Trump trading flat for quite some time now. Even though the market is predicated on something many months out, their is money to be made on chumps who bet too high low on trump in the short term (the cash just exchanges hands after the nomination is actually decided. And yet, Trump remains flat, a bit below 15% implied probability.
Contrast that with Carson, who has steadily risen from an implied prob. near zero to something close to 7% or 8%. At this very moment he is spiking at 11%, but this looks to be rapidly collapsing bubble. Carson may be nibbling at Trump's lunch.
I posit everybody this. If somebody manages to make Trump look foolish for a few days, do his numbers stay high? I say they don't, because Trump can't tolerate looking like a chump and will sulk, and his followers won't tolerate him looking chump-ish either.
Interestingly, JEB! is still holding level at Befair, about 35%. Clinton, for all the E-mail discussion is still around 70%, having slowly but steadily declined from her high of 80%. Sanders saw most of his gains early after announcing, he's looks to be plateauing somewhere around 15%
Elizabeth (22)
Syrian drought may have been contributing factors to the initial political unrest there but the actions of the Syrian government throughout the unrest and ensuing civil war have made this crisis what it is today.
Agreed. My point really was that Climate Change is going to be creating problem after problem -- resolving the political repercussions will require dealing with the underlying causes. Hard to say if the EU can meet the challenge -- would be encouraging if they can.
Paula,
Are you following things in California Re. Climate change ... the golden state is leading the way, for America and for the rest of us out in the world.
Thanks to Governors Brown and Schwarzengger and Davis ...
Ms Miller... nope... don't like that...Hi Liz
I try not to crash conversations uninvited, but this line from one of your comments to Paula caught my attention-
"I do not believe it should be the primary focus of what will be necessary to resolve the civil war in Syria"
For those of us interested in ending the war in Syria, I would ask you to reconsider the establishment line that it is a "civil war".
The militants the Saudis sent in to start the war, and the billions that SA has been pouring into the war (which has been well documented at this point) and the $400 million the US has been spending annually on our covert regime change effort (slightly less well documented by the MSM in this country at least) should really be taken into consideration.
If we are going to address the root causes, we just can't ignore our officially stated regime change policy for Syria, nor the outside backing for it.
Of course, the aid and support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are now factors as well, but aren't in the "root causes" category.
A
LizM,
Who is Fred Davis?
He's the "zany ad man" who created the Demon Sheep spot and a few other political ads.
Ms Miller!?
Heh. You're right, Al ... it still sounds terrible. Makes me feel 20 years older, truth be known. :)
More on civil wars, later ... after another Blue Jays victory, on the way to World Series champions ...
Hey, Al ... the Blue Jays have this game well in hand ... so,
For those of us interested in ending the war in Syria, I would ask you to reconsider the establishment line that it is a "civil war".
What would you call it?
Al,
Of course, the aid and support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are now factors as well, but aren't in the "root causes" category.
That support and aid have been factors from the very beginning.
And,
If we are going to address the root causes, we just can't ignore our officially stated regime change policy for Syria, nor the outside backing for it.
at the beginning, the Obama administration was not calling for regime change in Syria but rather for the Syrian government to implement necessary reforms. Now, the only pathway toward a political solution in Syria involves a transitional government.
Hi Liz
Hmmm.
I guess "war" is the least complicated.
I'll give that further thought though.
How has the summer been in Ontario?... other than the baseball.
I used to spend 9 days every summer at my mom's boyfriends cabin on Grindstone Lake up there... If I remember correctly it was still about 6 hours driving from the border, the last couple hours on dirt/gravel roads... Land of 1000 Lakes area or something like that.
Lots of good memories.
Outhouse, propane refrigerator, fishing, swimming most years... a couple years it was too cold... frogs, beavers, loons.
A
Hi Liz
"That support and aid have been factors from the very beginning"
Factors yes, but root cause no.
Russia, Iran and Hezbollah didn't want the war.
They were happy with Assad.
"at the beginning, the Obama administration was not calling for regime change in Syria"
True... not publicly.
But the covert effort supporting the Saudi regime change effort began long before Obama made that official US policy... and they were spinning pretty hard and keeping mum about the Saudi effort to make it appear it was an internal conflict.
I don't have author or date info, but the NYT did a piece mentioning our involvement about 4 and a half years ago... and there were articles from outlets in Greece, Spain and Lebanon detailing our arms shipments back when we were officially only supplying non-lethal aid.
The truth isn't quite as pleasant as the establishment wants us to believe.
Assad went from being a rendition partner to a target very quickly.
Al,
What are the root causes, in your view, of the conflict in Syria?
Hey again Liz
"Now, the only pathway toward a political solution in Syria involves a transitional government"
Sounds like it's still regime change or nothing, eh?
A
By the way, Al, the truth, when it comes to the Middle East, is not pleasant, anyway you wish to slice it.
Middle easterners themselves, collectively comprise the biggest obstacle to peace in their region. Middle eastern leaders, and I use that term loosely, need only look in their mirrors to see the root causes of their many difficulties.
Sounds like it's still regime change or nothing, eh?
That is the reality of the situation.
Hi Liz
The trigger for the violence was foreign militants shooting Syrian cops from within the crowds of peaceful protestors.
But the root causes were the majority Sunni unhappiness with the hereditary Assad dictatorship, Saudi aspirations for regime change, and an Israeli desire to cut off and isolate Hezbollah.
It's been reported that quite a few Israeli intelligence types were extremely reluctant about supporting the regime change effort because they were, and continue to be concerned about spillover and the type of regime that might replace Assad... but they were overruled by the politicians.
Israeli concerns are supposedly the main reason the US has refused to supply the Sunni militants with heavy weapons, and ground to air missiles... and that has allowed Assad to maintain his air advantage.
Hi Liz
"By the way, Al, the truth, when it comes to the Middle East, is not pleasant, anyway you wish to slice it"
Fair enough.
True about both our allies and enemies in the region.
But the US government hiding the truth from Americans is likewise an unpleasant truth.
Americans are being denied both debate and input, and most have no clue that we are partially responsible for the destruction and refugee crisis for example.
The US aiding the group that attacked us on 9/11 would not go over too well if our "leaders" were being honest.
It's also true that Syria had basically a secular government that maintained decent living standards and protected the Christian and other minority groups... who continue to support Assad to this day... protected the cultural heritage sites and was safe for tourists.
Compared to the Islamic State, I'm not sure our regime change effort was a wise course of action.
Sounds like it's still regime change or nothing, eh?
"That is the reality of the situation."
I think that means a lot more unnecessary death, destruction and expense than we've seen thus far... and an ever growing menace from IS and al Qaida.
My opinion would be to reconsider that neolibcon demand.
As I understand it, a lot of analysts in US intelligence agencies are saying exactly what I'm saying.
I'm not insisting that I'm right, just that the options to Assad are now recognized as harder to swallow.
A
The US aiding the group that attacked us on 9/11 would not go over too well if our "leaders" were being honest.
I'd be very interested in knowing how you factually back up a statement like that.
But the root causes were the majority Sunni unhappiness with the hereditary Assad dictatorship, Saudi aspirations for regime change, and an Israeli desire to cut off and isolate Hezbollah.
The root causes of the Syrian conflict go back quite a long way, as is the case for the conflicts throughout the Middle East. We should not ignore the role played by the Assad regimes, historically and today, in bringing Syria to its current sad state of affairs.
The long and short of it, Al, is that the brutal behavior of the Assad regime in this current conflict has assured that its time in power is limited.
Hi Liz
"We should not ignore the role played by the Assad regimes, historically and today, in bringing Syria to its current sad state of affairs"
I specifically mentioned the Assad dictatorship...
But, like in the Greenwald article I posted for you, it is worth remembering that we partnered with Assad in a realpolitik relationship of convenience.
Taking offence at historical factors now, when we were content to ignore those things then is clear hypocrisy.
"The long and short of it, Al, is that the brutal behavior of the Assad regime in this current conflict has assured that its time in power is limited"
Well, setting aside the obligation as a ruler of a sovereign nation to defend his country from outside attack, the extremist Sunni militants doing the attacking happen to be on the US list of terror groups, and I will repeat what I've said once before... I can't blame him. Speaking for myself, I'm still a little pissed about 9/11.
Then you have to consider the brutality of those who would likely replace him.
The "moderate rebels" who post videos online of themselves cutting out and eating the heart of one of their victims, looting and blowing up cultural heritage sites, beheading captives, raping...
Then a comparison to the brutality of our "allies" in the region would seemingly be only fair.
In other words, I think you're applying a standard selectively, and one that also just happens to be in line with the neolibcon establishment who, you may have noticed, don't exactly have a track record of success or wisdom.
"I'd be very interested in knowing how you factually back up a statement like that"
Sure. Click over to HuffPost right now... about the 6th story down on the main page is a story with a headline something like "US trains 4 or 5 fighters in Syria".
The second half has some of the details about the CIA effort that has funded, trained and equipped over 10,000 fighters from bases in Jordan.
(according to this article, we are now spending a billion dollars a year... not just 400 million as I mentioned)
If you look at previous news reports, al Qaida, often referred to as al Nusra in Syria, is the "most effective fighting force" attacking Assad in the southern regions of Syria. Most of the fighters we have trained and armed have joined al Nusra or are fighting alongside them.
My original information was obtained in real time as the conflict had just begun.
This was back right before HuffPost made the switch to FB comment logins, and there was a whole crowd of folks in the comment section posting links to stories from regional media outlets, including Israeli ones, who weren't blacking out this stuff like the American media was doing.
The Spanish and Greek journalists I mentioned earlier had discovered that the CIA was buying weapons in Bosnia if I remember correctly, and then flying them from Cyprus to Jordan.
Obviously, I had no firsthand knowledge of these things, but these were multiple sources from multiple established outlets... and, about a year ago the CIA training effort was officially acknowledged... just keeping many of the sordid details quiet.
In other words, the journalists who put all the pieces of this puzzle together turned out to be right... this is not some conspiracy theory.
The internet is a wonderful thing.
And you may have noticed, this is one of my areas of interest, and I am a bit of a junkie for it.
A
Hi Liz
Update
A bunch of debate stories have bumped the story on HuffPost lower down the page... about 20th now.
Here's the title and details if you don't read this until tomorrow and need to search for it...
"Pentagon Syria Program has only produced "4 or 5" fighters. But there's more to the story"
By Akbar Shahid Ahmed
Foreign Affairs Reporter- The Huffington Post
Posted 9/16/15
I'll figure out the link posting thing here soon... I know it's not difficult, I've just been putting it off.
A
Al,
You said: The US aiding the group that attacked us on 9/11 would not go over too well if our "leaders" were being honest.
Then, I said: I'd be very interested in knowing how you factually back up a statement like that.
I'm still waiting ... you can't wiggle out of that one!
By the way, Al, one of the last places I would ever go to for reliable information is the Huffington Post.
Hi Liz
Just so I know how you are approaching this...
Did you read the Greenwald article?
Did you read the article on HP?
If you don't trust them, do a Google search for the NYT article I referenced.
WaPo.
McClatchy.
Foreign Affairs.
Haaretz.
Are you curious, or would you rather not know, or don't you care?
I'm not going to hold it against you wherever you stand, but I don't want to waste my time.
You seem a little reluctant, and this shit bores the hell out of a lot of people.
A
I'm afraid I cannot have a serious discussion with you, Al, until you explain your following statement:
"The US aiding the group that attacked us on 9/11 would not go over too well if our "leaders" were being honest."
Hi Liz
OK.
Fine.
I am willing to explain it, but are you willing to read the info I provide?
Are you curious enough to look into it yourself?
Do you want me to do the searches for you?
If so, what sources are acceptable to you?
I've been reading CW on HuffPost for a long time, so your generalization about them is a little startling... or do you question the reliability of the info they provide from him too? HP aggregates from almost every media outlet after all... is everything tarnished by that association in your opinion?
We clearly disagree on this topic to some extent, and out of everything I've written, your only response is to question one thing.
That gives off the impression that either you accept my arguments or that your mind is made up and I am wasting my time... and it seems like the latter.
Give me a clue here as to what you are thinking.
For example, do you think Assad has a right to defend his country if attacked by a foreign force?
Or is he such a bad guy that he has relinquished that right?
I've got some things to do for a while... but I'll check back in a few hours.
A
I don't have time for games, Al but, I really don't understand your reticence when it comes to explaining what you meant when you said,
The US aiding the group that attacked us on 9/11 would not go over too well if our "leaders" were being honest.
You can take your time but, my patience is limited.
Hi Liz
I guess what I'm really asking is, do you require an official statement from the US government acknowledging what I said in order to be convinced or is journalism on the story acceptable?
We are talking about a formerly covert CIA operation after all.
I would appreciate an answer to those other questions too though.
I really do have to go now.
I'll be back.
A
We're done here, Al.
Hi Liz
I hope if there are journalism sources you trust they have at least informed you about how al Qaida and the US are fighting on the same side in this war.
And I likewise hope you are curious about who is funding and supplying al Qaida... and the necessary logistics behind it all.
You will discover that your impatience was misdirected.
A