Posted on 03/25/2016 10:54:37 PM PDT by Abiotic
Members of the GOP foreign policy establishment are open to supporting Hillary Clinton for president if that’s what it takes to prevent Donald Trump from becoming commander in chief. As The Hill reports, a number of prominent Republicans who signed a scathing open letter denouncing Trump said they aren’t wavering from their opposition to him..."Donald Trump is not a Republican. ... He is a caricature of classless wealth. ... He is a caricature of the ugly American."
“What’s happening is you have a lot of people who are desperate to get anybody in there other than Trump. ... People are going to go for Cruz, because at the end of the day they think he’s considerably less bad than Trump,” said Eliot A. Cohen, a former adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) who also served in the George W. Bush administration.
Cohen, along with Bryan McGrath, organized an open letter opposing Trump that was signed by more than 120 members of the Republican foreign policy establishment. The letter declared that Trump is unfit to be president because his views of American power are “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” The Hill contacted 13 of the people on the letter and heard back from all but two of them...
“Donald Trump is not a Republican. ... He is a caricature of classless wealth. ... He is a caricature of the ugly American,” said McGrath, the deputy director at the Center for American Seapower at the Hudson Institute who is now working with the Cruz campaign.......... snip
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
"We decide. Not the stupid wacko-bird people who vote.
We will get free money. From the people who live to serve us.
We will be served. By the people who exist to please and pay us.
And if you dont like it, then we
we continue to unleash the IRS against you."
And Hillary is better????
You “do” realize that she is the alternative??
Now you're talkin'
The 1924 Republican platform was darn good. Google it sometime.
These people are socialists plain and simple, that’s the ONLY reason a person would support Hillary or the Democrat Party Agenda.
And Hillary is a shining example of classy wealth. /sarc
Hilary is not that wealthy. They were broke when Bill Clinton left office. But yeah, Hilary Clinton has a heck of a lot more finesse than Donald Trump, certainly far less crude, crass and vulgar than Donald Trump is. Trump has ZERO finesse.
Jesus H. what do you consider wealthy?
Mostly the neo-con artists and their open borders toadies.
Yes! And it is a big part of his appeal. The GOP-e is Judge Smails.
“its a sad America anymore....a banana republic....”
In some ways you may wish! If the US were truly a “Banana Republic”, it would have far cleaner and more efficiently run elections.
Great post; thread. Thanks. BTTT!
LOL
Trump and Cruz both need to keep a list of those who would sell them out to the Democrats, if for no other reason that to ensure that they are not employed by their administration.
Of course they also need a really big list of those Democrats in the bureaucracy who broke and are breaking the law, to insure they are fired, if possible prosecuted, and barred from future government employment, or hired by businesses that contract with the US government.
These republicans who are talking about supporting Hillary are NeoCons. Hillary is a Liberal Interventionists. Liberal Interventionists and NeoCons are natural allies on foreign policy. Both NeoCons and Liberal Interventionists are Idealists in that they subscribe to an idealist foreign policy based on nation building and humanitarianism. But, NeoCons are unilateralists and Liberal Interventionists are multilateralists.
In the GOP there are 3 foreign policy groups: NeoCons, Realists, and Isolationists.
In the dem party there are Liberal Interventionists, Realists, and antiwar pacifists.
NeoCon Republicans and Liberal Interventionist democrats are natural allies
Republican Realists and democrat Realists are natural allies
Republican Isolationists and Antiwar dems are natural allies.
There are also a large number of Realists who are not aligned with either political party: they are/were careerists in the State dept, Defense Dept, the military, CIA, NSA, etc. For example: SecDef Ashton Carter is a Realist and a careerist(defense dept), he has never been aligned with either political party. Another good example is retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering(state dept).
Isolationist republicans and Antiwar democrats don't have much influence on foreign policy so Realists(republicans, democrats, careerists), NeoCons(republicans), Liberal Interventionists(democrats) determine foreign policy.
A republican prez's foriegn policy team is always made up of NeoCons and Realists. A dem prez's foreign policy team is always made up of Liberal Interventionists and Realists. Under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush the Realists were the most influential. Under Bill Clinton the Liberal Interventionists were the most influential. Under George Bush the NeoCons called the shots. Under Obama the Realists have been most influential.
The NeoCons supported Rubio and Scott Walker and weren't thrilled over Jeb Bush (because he named the prominent Realist, James Baker, as an advisor), but definitely have opposed Trump, Cruz, and Rand Paul(Realists).
Libya is a good case study. When events began to unfold there, the NeoCon republicans immediately began agitating to unilaterally intervene there. But the Realists, led by then SecDef Bob Gates, were opposed. Eventually, the 3 liberal interventionists, Power, Rice, and Hillary, worked up a multilateral coalition on Libya, and Obama finally agreed to intervene. He also hired Victoria Nuland, a NeoCon who had worked for Dick Cheney, and Nuland became best known for the Benghazi talking points memo. Later she would be appointed to oversee the Ukraine conflict and the senate republicans confirmed her without one question about Benghazi. Victoria Nuland's husband, NeoCon Robert Kagan, who also worked in the Bush administration, was one of the first NeoCons to publically state that he was supporting Hillary.
After Obama agreed to intervene in Libya, the NeoCon republicans praised him, even calling him a "Born Again NeoCon". But they also criticized him saying he should have gone in immediately when they told him to. They also criticized Obama for going in multilaterally, which is "leading from behind". Some of the hardcore NeoCons like John Bolton criticized Obama saying he didn't go far enough and should have put boots on the ground in Libya.
After Obama agreed to intervene in Libya, two prominent Realists(Henry Kissinger and James Baker) published an editorial in WaPo in which they warned that Libya was a mistake that would probably blow up in our face, which it did(Benghazi).
Lots of Republicans (up to 40% of primary voters) stating they cannot support Trump, and the Trumpkins don’t see a problem. In fact, they relish it like some kind of prize. Then, they expect to win a general election. Petulant children.
And he doesn't need to sell American secrets and influence to foreigners to finance his lifestyle.
So you're backing a Cuban who had Canadian citizenship until 2014 instead, because why?
So you're backing a Cuban who had Canadian citizenship until 2014 instead, because why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.