副总统Pence 呢？这个人貌似不简单
Riverofstars 发表于 2017-8-19 17:31
副总统Pence 呢？这个人貌似不简单
Pence属于传统的Evangelical那派的共和党。他是个虔诚的基督教徒，前段时间曾经传出他给自己定下的准则，除了他的妻子以外，从不和其它女性一起单独用餐，即使完全是工作原因。惹来不少自由派嘲笑。我自己对这条准则谈不上有多赞赏，但也不觉得有什么不好的。
Pence现在的情况很微妙。他知道Trump在未来2，3年里被弹劾的可能性已经挺大，也就是说自己在未来2，3年已经挺有希望成为总统的了。这样一方面他不想和Trump绑的太近，避免Trump的丑闻沾到自己身上，要和Trump在各个问题上的立场有一点点距离。另一方面他又不能被人看作在背后搞阴谋把Trump弄下台，更不能引来Trump对自己的攻击，同Trump的距离也不能太大。他这个balancing act我觉得做得还不错吧。前段时间有消息，Pence已经组成了2020年的acting committee，在为2020年总统大选做准备。作为在任副总统这也是以前闻所未闻的。
就我知道的，Pence的能力还可以吧。他作为Indiana的州长好像干的一般。没有什么特别的政绩，但也不算太差（比如同Kansas的Sam Brownback相比）。他以前当过众议员，和国会打交道的能力能比Trump强很多。如果你是Trump的Make America Great Again的agenda的积极支持者的话，作为传统的establishment的共和党，Pence会让你失望。如果你和我一样是反Trump的那一派的话，Pence取代Trump会是个很好的结果。
五月 发表于 2017-8-19 12:44
问题是显然中国对北朝鲜失去了控制。这个deal即使再美丽也做不了。
打球的时候球也不听指挥的，但一样乖乖地进篮
刚看到的
Why Bannon Lost and the Globalists Won
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/18/why-bannon-lost-globalists-won-215506
https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/4c09aca/2147483647/resize/1160x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fe4%2Fbf%2F985b60ba431c9b9fb0535ee54cad%2Flede-1708214-steve-bannon-5-gty-1160.jpg
The day after Christmas last year, New York Times sportswriter Marc Tracy by chance spotted Steve Bannon in the Atlanta airport and struck up a chat. Tracy noticed a little virtue-signaling from the incoming White House “chief strategist.” Bannon was carrying David Halberstam’s famous history of the hubris that led three presidents to disaster in Vietnam, “The Best and the Brightest.” “It’s great,” Bannon told him, “for seeing how little mistakes early on can lead to big ones later.”
In a White House fond of superlatives, it would be insulting to call any of its mistakes “little.” Bannon’s mistakes were huge, and they not only led to his ouster, but also the collapse of his grandiose dream: a realigned American political map centered on economic populism.
Days after Trump’s election, a giddy Bannon told the Hollywood Reporter that he was an “economic nationalist,” and then went on to explain what he meant:
“The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia … If we deliver … we’ll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we’ll govern for 50 years … Like Jackson’s populism, we’re going to build an entirely new political movement. It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan … It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”
Nothing of this vision came to pass. There is no trillion-dollar infrastructure plan, or anything else resembling a “jobs” agenda. There is no multiracial economic populist movement behind Trump; his approval in the latest Quinnipiac poll is 44 percent among whites and 24 percent among nonwhites. And Bannon has lost several internal White House policy fights to his “globalist” nemeses, as Trump has flinched from junking NAFTA, gutting the Export-Import Bank, branding China a currency manipulator or raising taxes on the wealthy.
Where did Bannon go wrong? His first order of business had nothing to with jobs, let alone bridging racial divisions. He played a singular role in engineering the travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries, cutting Cabinet agencies out of the loop and purposefully dropping it without warning on a Friday to stoke maximum weekend street protest from the left. Courts balked, and Republican members of Congress complained about the shoddy process. It was Trump’s first political defeat as president, a humiliating own-goal that sowed early doubts about the administration’s basic competence.
In an alternate timeline, Bannon could have encouraged Trump to avoid such racially divisive matters in his first week, as well as steer clear of the always politically treacherous health care debate, and put all his weight behind that trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. Top Democrats had been signaling to Trump since the election that they were open to an infrastructure deal, which need not violate their ideological principles. If there was any chance to erase the old partisan lines and start the new administration with a policy win, this was it. But Bannon apparently didn’t try or wasn’t able to stop Republicans from placing the ill-fated Obamacare repeal at the top of the domestic policy agenda.
Bannon fancied himself a policy wonk and ferocious bureaucratic infighter. He posed for pictures in front of his office whiteboard with a detailed list of bureaucratic to-dos. Just this week he bragged to the progressive populist American Prospect that he was removing people from administration posts who had been blocking his plans for economic sanctions on China.
Yet he didn’t have the chops to rebut substantive arguments. Bannon almost persuaded Trump to unilaterally pull out of NAFTA, until Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue showed Trump a map of where trade-dependent farmers reside: states that Trump won. Trump was swayed, saying afterwards, “It shows that I do have a very big farmer base, which is good. They like Trump, but I like them, and I’m going to help them.”
Bannon thought his trade and manufacturing agenda would be easier to execute. In February, he told the conservative Conservative Political Action Conference that Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership was going to usher in a new economic nationalist era. “People are starting to think through a whole raft of amazing and innovative, bilateral trading relationships with people that will reposition America in the world as a fair trading nation and start to bring jobs—high value-added, manufacturing jobs—back to the United States of America,” he said.
But even Trump’s top trade official recently admitted to POLITICO Magazine, “some of the TPP countries don’t want to do bilaterals” because it’s not worth lowering tariffs without wider global market access in return. And while the Trump administration loves talking about the occasional new American manufacturing plant, it has little to say about the likelihood that these plants will be run increasingly by robots.
Attempts to economically punish China have been pushed aside by national security concerns, with State and Defense officials trying to enlist China’s help with the North Korea nuclear standoff. Bannon revealed to the American Prospect that he’s been making the case that “there’s no military solution , they got us” whereas “the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that.” Not even Trump, whose personal obsession with “Chi-ee-na” goes back decades, seems to agree; he has refused to fulfill his own “currency manipulator” campaign pledge while he rants about Kim Jong Un.
“They’re wetting themselves” Bannon told the Prospect of his internal opponents, expressing confidence his proposed sanctions on China would soon resurface. But “they” are still in the administration, and Bannon is not.
Bannon was clearly enamored of proposals that challenged partisan orthodoxy, such as when he floated a new 44 percent top tax rate for incomes above $5 million. But he had no capacity to follow through. His trial balloons were laughed off by conservatives, and his association with the “alt-right” made him a toxic negotiating partner for the left. Bannon’s nemesis, economic adviser Gary Cohn, meanwhile, built up a relatively competent team that ran circles around the poorly staffed former Breitbart chairman.
Contrast Bannon with the record of the last Republican White House Svengali, Karl Rove. President George W. Bush’s top political strategist had big dreams of political realignment as well. He saw Bush as walking in the footsteps of President William McKinley, who established Republican dominance at the dawn of the 20th century. During the 2000 campaign Rove said, “ understood the new economy. It was a period of rapid industrialization. He also understood the changing demographic. Immigrants were now providing the manpower.”
Joshua Green, before he chronicled the rise of Bannon, summed up Rove’s McKinley-inspired vision in 2007: “Rove’s idea was to use the levers of government to … force a realignment himself through a series of far-reaching policies. Rove’s plan had five major components: establish education standards, pass a ‘faith-based initiative’ directing government funds to religious organizations, partially privatize Social Security, offer private health-savings accounts as an alternative to Medicare, and reform immigration laws to appeal to the growing Hispanic population. Each of these, if enacted, would weaken the Democratic Party by drawing some of its core supporters into the Republican column.”
Rove got further than Bannon did. He actually prioritized what he set out to prioritize. He met with Democrats immediately after the bitter conclusion of the 2000 election to talk education, and the No Child Left Behind Act passed with a big bipartisan vote in the spring of 2001. And he worked with Democrats again in 2003 to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.
It was only the second term when Rove took on too much and saw his dreams of Republican realignment vaporize. The sharp Josh Bolten, deputy chief of staff for policy during much of the first term, became budget director and later chief of staff. Rove assumed Bolten’s policy post in the second term, and proceeded to botch Social Security privatization and immigration reform. One official told Green, “ was a strong enough intellect and a strong enough presence that he was able to create a deliberative process that led to a better outcome … Formalizing was the final choke-off of any internal debate or deliberative process.”
Bannon lacked anyone like a Bolten to deftly shepherd policy initiatives, on top of serving a manic president and dealing with a fractious Republican Congress. All he had were Sebastian Gorka, a thinly credentialed counterterrorism adviser whose only duty seems to be going on Fox News, and Julia Hahn, a 20-something former Breitbart writer known for her hair-on-fire hot takes. He had no chance.
Might Trump pursue Bannon’s economic agenda after Bannon is gone? Anything is possible. Simply being surrounded by “globalist” advisers cannot predict the behavior of a president who often revels in doing the opposite of what he is told. But Bannon’s failure almost surely prevents the realization of a broad political realignment in which Trump leads an economically populist rainbow coalition.
Bannon crowed this week that “identity politics” is a loser for Democrats. But his own obsession with identity led him to shelve infrastructure in favor of the travel ban, and arguably racial grievance among whites also fueled the passion to repeal Obamacare. The focus on playing to the white conservative base culminated in Trump’s rationalizing the violent behavior of white supremacists and seeking the protection of Confederate war memorials. All this has poisoned the well. Trump is now irredeemable in the minds of most Democrats and most nonwhite voters, no matter what he offers on infrastructure, trade or taxes.
There were no small mistakes by Bannon. Only huge ones driven by a desire to divide, and an inability to sweat the details. Someday there will be a book about it. It won’t be called “The Best and the Brightest.”
这张今年1月28日的照片，Trump在同普京通话
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/01/29/gettyimages-632914834-6c273ace63bb58a0f17125a8b7047ff7baf3f9d2-s1200-c85.jpg
里面这几个Trump最重要的亲信里，除了Trump没法fire掉的副总统Pence以外，都已经离开白宫了。
Dracula 发表于 2017-8-19 21:31
刚看到的
Why Bannon Lost and the Globalists Won
最恨天朝的班总, 最想和天朝痛痛快快战一场的班总, 在单方面废掉对天朝威胁最大的TPP之后，悄然离开了白宫。
如果说班总其实是战忽局外籍副局长兼北美处处长的，有人信吗？
天朝近年的国运不是一般的昌隆，好得都让俺开始担心起来
{:188:}
Trump 自传的那个ghostwriter 这两天说他给自己辞职铺路呢，没准儿年底前就辞了。
自个儿辞了好啊，省了明后年可能的impeachment.
刚看到的
At Breitbart, Bannon has a brigade of similarly happy warriors. “We’re in a loud bar celebrating the return of our captain!” Breitbart’s Washington editor Matt Boyle told me on Friday night. Breitbart’s defense of Trump has so far helped keep the Russia scandal from gaining traction on the right. But that could swiftly change if Trump, under the influence of Kushner and Cohn, deviates too far from the positions he ran on. If that happens, said one high-level Breitbart staffer, “We’re prepared to help Paul Ryan rally votes for impeachment.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/steve-bannon-readies-his-revenge
那句加重是我加的。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2017-8-21 21:09 编辑
晨枫 发表于 2017-8-19 11:21
在Trump内阁里，最有见识的还就是Bannon，Kushner也不错，但他不大暴露自己的主张，还摸不透到底是什么政策 ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/us/politics/steve-bannon-fired-trump-departure.html
He also advised that ideological softening would buy the president no good will from Democrats or independent voters, whom Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump believe Mr. Trump still has a chance of reaching.
“They hate the very mention of his name,” Mr. Bannon told them. “There is no constituency for this.”
单就这一点来看，Bannon的政治智慧就要比Kushner和Ivanka强不少的。
Dracula 发表于 2017-8-21 07:06
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/us/politics/steve-bannon-fired-trump-departure.html
这家伙是Brilliantly Evil。他不贪恋权势，只想“干事业”，不过他的事业是干不成的，除非把美国国本连根挖起，经济民族主义和民族民粹主义是死路。但那样也就不是美国了。他（还有特朗普）的核心主张是Take back our country，但什么是our country？他们想回到过去的好时光，但火车已经离站了。
晨枫 发表于 2017-8-21 21:33
这家伙是Brilliantly Evil。他不贪恋权势，只想“干事业”，不过他的事业是干不成的，除非把美国国本连根 ...
感觉冷战不仅搞垮了苏联，也带歪了美国
晨枫 发表于 2017-8-21 21:33
这家伙是Brilliantly Evil。他不贪恋权势，只想“干事业”，不过他的事业是干不成的，除非把美国国本连根 ...
Take back our country, 这里的“我们”属于dog whistle，就是暗指信基督教的白人。别的象穆斯林、拉丁裔、黑人、乃至亚裔在Bannon以及Trump看来都是属于他们，是被排斥的范围。
我引这句主要不是想说明Bannon怎么brilliant，民主党base对Trump的仇恨已经到沸点这一点我的帖子里都提到过好多次，而我要搞政治的话下场肯定会很惨的。我是想说Jared Kushner和Ivanka Trump看来连我都不如，如果接下来Trump的白宫会是他们主导的话，别看Trump政府现在非常动荡，整天冒坏消息，未来几个月可能还不如现在呢。
natasa 发表于 2017-8-21 21:44
感觉冷战不仅搞垮了苏联，也带歪了美国
:lol
冷战好啊，垮了苏修，烂了美帝
Dracula 发表于 2017-8-21 21:06
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/us/politics/steve-bannon-fired-trump-departure.html
我怎么觉得从川总到班总到库总到伊总，全都是政治白痴。
这帮人的政治智商之低，实在令人惊奇。甚至有点办公室政治常识的人也不会把牌打成这个样子。
我怀疑这帮人连自己的公司都管不好。
天诛美帝啊
{:206:}
Dracula 发表于 2017-8-21 07:50
Take back our country, 这里的“我们”属于dog whistle，就是暗指信基督教的白人。别的象穆斯林、拉丁裔 ...
我对这个our country更多从经济角度看，而政治含义则是引申的。我会攒一篇小文说明我的看法，到时候请伯爵指正。
五月 发表于 2017-8-21 22:00
我怎么觉得从川总到班总到库总到伊总，全都是政治白痴。
这帮人的政治智商之低，实在令人惊奇。甚至有 ...
Trump的公司破产过6次。他的经营管理的能力我觉得不怎么样。他的才能在于marketing。他在90年代破产的时候到了很低谷，进入21世纪是靠reality TV翻得身。但是show business和运行庞大的联邦政府还是有极大区别的。
Kushner的房地产公司最近一年多遇到很大的财政上的麻烦，前段时间还爆出消息，他的姐姐到北京来想用卖美国投资签证来筹到资金，曝光出来这算是丑闻的，可以看出他们家现在是挺desperate的了。他的经商能力我看到的评论都觉得不怎么样。他和Trump一样都是靠继承拥有巨额财富的。
Trump的政治嗅觉我觉得还是很敏锐的。他凭直觉就能知道他的base想什么。他能在他的base里激起那么大的热情，能赢得大选，我觉得他在marketing 以及操纵媒体方面是很有一手的。他的致命伤是他对具体政策的实际知识接近为零，不论是国内政策还是国际政治，而且还很懒，没兴趣下功夫学。对美国政治制度是怎么运作的知识也极其有限。这样他有了总统的权力，除了喊口号以外实际应该干什么却模糊，就是有点想法，在美国的政治制度下怎么实现，他也不清楚。而且他其实挺嫉贤妒能的，以前在接受采访的时候谈自己的用人管理经验就是不要用比自己smart的人。象Bannon，在他身边的亲信里算是很有才能的了，但是因为Bannon在媒体风头太盛，遮住了自己的光芒，就非常不爽。他这种性格，现在他的政府处于特别的困境也不奇怪。
晨枫 发表于 2017-8-21 22:08
我对这个our country更多从经济角度看，而政治含义则是引申的。我会攒一篇小文说明我的看法，到时候请伯 ...
Bannon的政治主张包括两个方面，文化方面属于极右，我会时不时到Breitbart看看，那里大多数文章的undertone都是反穆斯林、反移民、反黑人以及反犹太人等，当然不是像纳粹党、3K党那么直白，但字里行间尤其是下面的读者评论里是很容易看出来的（他们喜欢说的globalist很多情况下其实是指犹太人的隐语）。Trump也很清楚这是他铁杆的base，因此上个星期那么不情愿直接谴责纳粹，因为他的base对纳粹的很多sentiment其实是挺有共鸣的。
在经济政策上，Bannon其实是挺左的，主张贸易保护政策，大规模基础设施建设，乃至税制改革的时候对富人加税。他上个星期联系左派杂志American Prospect，他认为他和Bernie Sanders代表的民主党左翼在经济政策上有很多共识，想联合他们、甩开共和党里的establishment，来彻底改变美国的政治版图。
Dracula 发表于 2017-8-21 08:43
Bannon的政治主张包括两个方面，文化方面属于极右，我会时不时到Breitbart看看，那里大多数文章的underto ...
政治上的极端主张来源于经济上的缺乏希望，纳粹、西班牙内战、十月革命还有很多历史上的极端时期都可以从经济上找原因。我对马克思的经济基础决定上层建筑还是很相信的，马克思说到经济基础发展后上层建筑要跟着发展，但没有说到的是经济基础相对衰落对上层建筑的影响，现在可以看到了。班农的政治base和经济base是脱节的，这是他的主张的不可实现性的关键。
晨枫 发表于 2017-8-21 23:13
政治上的极端主张来源于经济上的缺乏希望，纳粹、西班牙内战、十月革命还有很多历史上的极端时期都可以从 ...
要是Trump有希特勒那样的能力和政治手腕的话，Bannon这套政治和经济政策我觉得是能实行下去的，尽管我的看法是这对美国的长远利益包括我作为一个移民来说是坏事。Trump的问题他对具体政策的实际知识非常浅薄，执政能力极其的差。另一个重要方面是同Bannon很不一样的是，Trump这个人没有什么高一个层次的政治理念，他一生一切行事的核心目的只有一个就是自己，是典型的narcissist。不管什么政策问题，他看的角度就是一个，自己win还是lose。象Bannon主张的对收入在5百万美元以上的人增税，Trump是不可能接受的，尽管这在政治上会很受欢迎，而且显得自己很大公无私。关于中国政策，我觉得中国可能用过一些桌面下的方法，象我们知道的以超快的速度批准Trump和Ivanka的商标申请，可能还有我们不知道的，Kushner和中国的商业关系可能也是不干不净。而且象Kushner以及他的亲信Gary Cohn等，用Bannon的话来说是Globalists（他们也还都是犹太人，Gary Cohn是Goldman Sachs的President）。属于经济全球化的受益者，当然也不希望和中国爆发贸易战。而这些问题上Trump是听Kushner 这一派的。但这并不表明Bannon这套主义在政治上就根本不可能推行下去。在文化问题上，Trump的做法尽管和Bannon很合拍，但其实也很不顺利，穆斯林禁令不仅开始实行的时候导致特别混乱，而且一致受到法院的强有力阻挠。修墙到现在也还没影，Trump现在对国会的要求其实已经很低了，明年的预算只要20亿美元修墙，好像只够修几十英里，纯粹只是对他的支持者做个姿态，但在共和党控制的国会却根本通不过。
Bannon的主张在政治上和经济上的base谈不上脱节，主要都是在全球化浪潮里被甩下的白人，象这次大选Trump获胜的关键就是rust belt的白人。如果Trump的政治手腕高明的话，他的agenda还是能实现不少的，比如今年2月份的时候就力推基础设施建设，还是挺有可能成功的。实现了之后，通过对中产阶级而不是富人减税，他要是再能管住自己，不在twitter上乱发话，加上美国经济现在很不错，那样的话他的支持率可能会比现在高不少。就是同中国的贸易战，民主党的Sanders那翼也是很支持的。他要是政治手腕高明的话，能挑动的民主党分裂，美国政治彻底整合也不是不可能的。当然，Bannon这个人有政治理想，但是具体实现的能力方面欠缺。Trump则是从理想到能力都没有。因此结果是一事无成。
而且他其实挺嫉贤妒能的，以前在接受采访的时候谈自己的用人管理经验就是不要用比自己smart的人。
这个才是最要命 -- 武大郎开店。。。
知道该怎么吆喝才能让大家爽是一回事儿，真正明白自己有几斤几两又是另外一回事儿。
现在已经是蜀中无大将，连个廖化都找不着了 -- 媒体/公众舆论这么起哄，估计也没人敢在风口浪尖上主动前来效劳。。。 这样下去拖也拖死了。。。