Before the conventions

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

Dozens of the Republican Party’s most experienced national security officials will not vote for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, they wrote in an open letter released Monday.

“We are convinced that [Trump] would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being,” said the former officials, many of whom held top positions in the George W. Bush administration.

“Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President,” they added. “He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.”

Signers include some of the best known intelligence, defense and security experts of the past two decades: Michael V. Hayden, the former director of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency; Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge, both of whom served as secretaries of Homeland Security during the Bush administration; Dov Zakheim, a former under secretary of defense; John D. Negroponte, a deputy secretary of state and a former director of national intelligence; Eric Edelman, a top national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney; and Robert Zoellick, a former deputy secretary of state, United States trade rep and president of the World Bank.

Trump said in response to the letter on Fox Business Tuesday morning that the people who signed the letter were not a part of his campaign but “would have loved to have been involved.”

“Look where the country is now on national policy. Look what we are in defense. Look where we are. Look at the mess we are in. Whether it’s the Middle East or anyone else,” he said.

“And these were the people that have been there a long time. Washington establishment people that have been there for a long time. Look at the terrible job they’ve done. I hadn’t planned on using any of these people,” Trump added.

“They don’t feel relevant because of that and they form a group and they go out and try to get some publicity for themselves and they hope that somebody else other than Trump wins because that way they can get a job.”

However, the letter, which was first reported on by The New York Times, represents yet another blow to Trump’s ongoing effort to win over top Republicans. That job that has become significantly more difficult in recent weeks, as Trump has feuded with the family of a fallen soldier and threatened repeatedly to abandon NATO.

The missive also raises questions about who might agree to serve in a hypothetical Trump administration and offer the former reality TV star advice on national security issues.

Trump has repeatedly sought to distance himself from some of the most controversial policies of the Bush administration, such as the war in Iraq, which Trump claims he opposed in 2003. Even so, it’s safe to assume that Trump’s campaign would have welcomed support from top members of the national security apparatus.

In closing, the 50 officials wrote, “We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.”

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

You can bet this election is going to be the Republicans come to Jesus moment as they are going to get thrashed.

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

I don't know about you, but I'm getting the distinct impression that the Establishment really dislikes Trump:

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

He's not a Republican.

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

I believe it was Dick Jauron who famously said, "It's not his party, but he's the leader of that party."

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

He's not a Republican. There are three distinct branches of the Republican Party, and he represents none of them:

1) Religious types that vote on social issues like abortion and gay marriage,
2) Defense Hawks that want to wipe Russia off the face of the earth and spend endless money on military,
3) Free Market Types that support Free Trade, light regulation, and lower taxes. True Free Market types also support free movement of labor, read immigration is welcome.

At best he might appease a small amount of the three above with all of his policies in conflict. For example, he'll pay lip service to veterans, but at the same time he is giving Putin a free pass. "Yeah go ahead and keep Crimea."

I come from three as both fiscally conservative and socially liberal in my views. I'm voting Libertarian as I did when McCain ran. You can bet this election is going to be the Republicans come to Jesus moment as they are going to get thrashed.

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

Aren't some prominent conservative intellectuals now arguing--in light of Trump's success--that the party needs to recognize its alignment with the white working class and develop an economic platform that more closely reflects the interests of this constituency?

See for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/us/politics/as-trump-rises-reformocons-see-chance-to-update-gops-economic-views.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

The Democrats abandoned New Deal liberalism for neoliberalism in the early 1990s. There's no reason why the Republican party can't radically redefine itself as well.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting the distinct impression that the Establishment really dislikes Trump:

I think he is though. Trump is the classic eastern seaboard liberal Republican which existed during the 50s and 60s. He fits that mold perfectly.

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

what we are truly headed for is an elimination of both parties. The end is nigh for republicans and after four years of Hillary (R) the democratic party will be in shambles too. Much like society, you'll start to see the micro parties spring up, the defense hawks, the religious right, the free things for everybody, etc. It's just too hard to fit everybody under two umbrellas these days. This election is another step forward in that progress in that you have a republican running as a democrat and vice versa.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

OK, but there's definitely something different about Trump, too--namely his implicit treatment of white people--particularly working -class whites--as an aggrieved or marginalized minority. In this sense, he is trying to reconceptualize "whiteness" as an "ethnic" voting bloc.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Trump is so toxic that they have to disassociate themselves from him in order to have any political credibility. You get the sense that the election could not come soon enough for the Republican establishment types.

His nomination should bring about a reset for the Republican party. They will have lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections if they lose.

They will have to change their strategy and tactics if they are going to win national elections. They will have to become more inclusive. Trump's nomination represents the last bastion of the old Neo-con guard. Not that he is a Neo con but his campaign has been based on the conservative principles of 1970. The Demographics don't exactly mesh with the sort of population which existed in 1970. They have to reroute or they will continue to lose elections.

The economic adviser team that he rolled out was also straight out of the supply side lower taxes Reaganomics playbook too. Don't know if that is necessarily a winner either.

They had that moment after the 2012 election. They made this big presentation talking about all of their "faults", but then they went and doubled down on all of those very same faults.

Exactly!

One could argue that they lost the election because Obama is a superstar politician.

It's pretty obvious that Romney is far superior to either of these candidates and he had no chance against Obama.

One could argue that they lost the election because Obama is a superstar politician.

It's pretty obvious that Romney is far superior to either of these candidates and he had no chance against Obama.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

No he isn't. Mitt Romney is a 2 time loser for President.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting the distinct impression that the Establishment really dislikes Trump:

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

One could argue that they lost the election because Obama is a superstar politician.

It's pretty obvious that Romney is far superior to either of these candidates and he had no chance against Obama.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

Hillary would have been too if she had tried in 2012.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

He is but his biggest problem IMO was the belief that the Republican Party is the party of the rich and the bigots. He didn't do anything to change that. With the changing demographics in this country you would think they would have made the shift away from Mexican bashing.[

It would be a poor argument. The Republicans were in shock when the results of 2012 were getting tallied. They hadn't accounted for the changing demographics in many key states and areas. They also didn't foresee how handily the minority votes would go toward Obama.

After getting beaten, I still remember them all promising to be a more diverse party and that they were going to court women and minorities and that they would stop being the party of "stupid." (I think Jindall said that). Limbaugh was up in arms and said they'd be betraying Conservatism.

So, what happened? Four years later, they nominate a white racist with no knowledge whatsoever as to how the world works. Great job!

tmz has this, i this guy shows at a trump really it'd be all over the place already

http://www.tmz.com/2016/08/09/hillary-c ... her-rally/

He couldn't even get pass John McCain in 08. Hillary amassed the most votes in 08 and is still the most formidable challenger that Obama has faced.