The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Playing Four-Dimensional Chess With the Mooch
Source:
Weekly Standard
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/playi ... with-the-mooch/article/2009110
Published: Aug 3, 2017
Author: Jonathan V. Last
Post Date: 2017-08-03 12:16:34 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 10498
Comments: 45
Whatever else you want to say about Anthony Scaramucci, he was a character. Maybe not a good character, but a character nonetheless. And while the White House will be a better, more stable place with him gone, in a certain way, I’ll miss him. But Mooch’s brief moment strutting and fretting upon the stage provided a nice illustration of one of the aspects of Trumpism that I find most alarming. After Mooch was appointed, I had conversations with a couple pro-Trump friends who objected to my characterization of Mooch as being unprepared and ill-suited for the job of White House communications director. Their arguments to me went something like this: You say that the Mooch doesn’t have any relevant experience and that his temperament is unsuited for his job. But “experienced” guys like Sean Spicer are worthless and Mooch is crazy like a fox. He knows exactly what he’s doing and he’s a genius. Just like Trump, he’s playing four-dimensional chess. But the problem with the “four-dimensional chess” argument is that it’s unfalsifiable. And we saw this on Monday when Mooch was fired. Suddenly my pro-Trump friends were arguing that Mooch’s dismissal was a sign that Trump was being serious and bringing discipline to his White House. In short: Hiring Mooch was a stroke of genius. And firing Mooch 10 days later was also a stroke of genius. In other words, once you start seeing “four-dimensional chess” in one setting, you’re likely to see it everywhere. Consider, for instance, the South Carolina primary debate where Donald Trump accused George W. Bush of treason. Was Trump correct? Did Bush literally—not figuratively—commit treason? And if it wasn’t true, then was making this charge a foolish mistake? Rush Limbaugh didn’t think so. He divined a deeper strategy on the part of Trump that was brilliant in its complexity. Okay. So what about when Trump spent a week in a public fight with the parents of a dead American soldier? Was that a brilliant strategic maneuver, too? Or how about Trump’s decision to start publicly criticizing Attorney General Jeff Sessions? In each of these cases, my pro-Trump friends have assured me that Trump knows exactly what he’s doing. But my concern is that once you go down this road, it becomes impossible to pass judgment on anything Trump does or says. Every policy choice, every utterance, is right and smart and strategically sound simply because it comes from Trump. It’s almost as though Trump’s partisans have lost the ability to analyze actions or statements independent of their source. If Hillary Clinton had hired Anthony Scaramucci (who was a big donor to her, and Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, and John Kerry, and Harry Reid, and you get the picture) would that have been a subversively brilliant choice? Or is the choice only subversively brilliant because it’s Trump making it? In theory, it ought to be easy to wish Trump well and hope he achieves his agenda while simultaneously acknowledging his mistakes and shortcomings. Republicans used to do this all the time with their politicians. But there’s something about Trumpism that makes people insist that all the president does is play perfect baseball. He never makes a misstep and anything that goes wrong is someone else’s fault—the media, the Deep State, John McCain, Bob Mueller, Jeff Sessions. Take your pick. Which is why the Trump Train has always seemed less like a political movement and more like a personality cult. Even so, I’ll miss Mooch. The cult was more fun with him in the mix. Poster Comment: I too miss Mooch terribly. General Kelly is a killjoy. 
Anthony Scaramucci blowing a kiss after answering questions during the press briefing in the Brady Press Briefing room.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Well I was indifferent on Mooch until you posted the pics of those girly faggity sun glasses he wears. Knew he had to go then. And General Officers hate designer sun glasses. So that did Mooch in too.
You appear to have something of a man-crush on this clown. What's up with that? Blowing kisses from the podium to the White House press corps was pretty gay too. Maybe Trump finally found a low-T guy he liked.
I just miss the Mooch. I'm inconsolable, like most of the D.C. press corps. We were all expecting so much fun with the Mooch. C'mon, he left his wife for Trump when she divorced him while 8.5 months pregnant and then his baby was born in late July while he was on the road with Trump at a rally in Ohio. Missed his son's birth! And Trump fired him anyway a week later. And Kelly frogmarched him out of the WH an hour after he became chief of staff. Alas, Mooch, we barely knew ye. (I stole that line from a snarky WS article.) The writer did make a great point there about how amazing it is that Trump played four-dimensional chess to appoint Mooch and then played more four-dimensional chess to fire him only 11 days later. So the question becomes, "Is that really four-dimensional chess or is Trump just kind of blundering around and making a spectacle of his WH staffing issues?". Besides, I've posted a half-dozen Mooch articles total. Unlike you who routinely will post five or six cop-bites-dog, cop-shoots-old-lady stories in the sidebar, one after the next. And you do it multiple times per week. So you don't get to say "Enough with the Mooch already". You less than anyone else at LF.
Wouldn't dream of doing so. Just pointing out your obvious infatuation with the guy. Just come out of the closet already. Geez!! You've posted at least 5-10 times as many articles about Jeff Sessions this year. Do you finally want to come out of the closet and declare your man-love for the attorney-general?
It's not because I adore him the way you apparently do with "Mooch". Not that there's anything wrong with that. You must be a humorless drone if you don't see how hilarious Moochgate really was. It reminds me of that Antarctic expedition 3-4 years back, where they kept getting icebound, running out of food, then rescued, then icebound, then rescued again, until they finally ended up on Antarctica for weeks because all the rescue attempts had already disrupted the vital window for resupply in the summer thaw at the South Pole. I recall some people never understood why it was so funny. Perhaps you are a dour person who doesn't grasp the humorous side of life. Or even some low-brow schadenfreude.
Not homo enough,or they would have demanded he remain. BTW,why do you confuse homosexuality with happiness? In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I think it's 20-30 years too late to keep them from hijacking 'gay' to mean 'sodomy'.
Only because you let them. The Soviets were the masters of using "good" words to describe monstrous programs,and the homosexuals,most of whom are leftists,picked up on that and spun their image by calling themselves "gay",implying being a homosexual is a POSITIVE thing that makes you happy,which by extension means that if you AREN'T a homosexual,you must be sad and depressed. Poor boy! "GAY" means what it has always meant,it means "happy". A homosexual may or may not be happy,but they will always be a homosexual. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
So when you go into town and someone says, "Hey, how are you today?" you'll just answer, "I'm feeling very gay.". But you don't, do you? When was the last time you told anyone that you were were feeling gay? Or that you had attended a gay party? Yeah, I didn't think so.
But you don't, do you? No,but only because it is a work I have never used in normal conversation. I have always said "happy",instead. I HAVE corrected a few homos I have heard describing themselves in public as being "gay" by telling them,"Gay" means happy. *I* am "gay",and you may even be gay too,but sexually,you are a homosexual and I have seen or known any homosexuals who were happy. Quit pretending you are something you aren't." Nobody has EVER won a fight,an argument,or even a discussion after allowing your opponent to control the language and the definitions. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
So you admit that the sodomites never hijacked the word 'gay' from you to begin with. You make a good point but, as I said, you're at least twenty years too late to save the word 'gay'. Which no conservatives ever really liked to begin with until they started resented that the homos had adopted it.
Not really. It kinda pissed me off from the beginning,but I just assumed the offense was so obvious that everybody would start making fun of them,and they would stop that nonsense. It didn't happen,so I started getting militant about it. Words mean things,and words used as propaganda weapons MUST be challenged. We now have at least one generation grown to become adults who have never once associated the word "gay" with it's true meaning. To them it means "homosexual",and the subconscious message they get is that "homosexuals are happy,so if you want to be happy you should try homosexuality." The truth is you would probably have to go to a prison to find a group of people that unhappy on a daily basis. Their whole "lade dah,life is a cabaret" attitude is nothing more than a desperate attempt to convince themselves they are happy. I've had homosexual relatives (dead now) that I grew up around and knew they was something "off and desperate" about them from a time when I was so young I didn't know what sex was. The only doctor in the remote area I grew up in was a homosexual,and everybody knew it,despite him being married and having a daughter. He tried to make a move on me when I was about 12,and I threatened to hurt or kill him if he ever tried it again,and he didn't. He even told me once when he was in his late 70's and I was an adult that he wished he had been a heterosexual because his life had been so miserable. Good doctor that really cared about his patients. You just had to establish boundaries with him early. There may be a homosexual somewhere in the world that is truly happy with his or her life,but I doubt it. PLEASE note that I am not condemning them. If that is what they have to do,that is what they have to do,and so long as everyone involved is willing,it's none of MY business. I'm a live and let live guy. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The word 'gay' became most popular in reference to the 1890's, known as the Gay Nineties. So that generation and their children would refer to social events as gay. By the time the Forties and Fifties rolled around, 'gay' was a word your grandma might still use but not younger people. They might use words instead like 'chic'. Or by the late Fifties, 'hip'. The word 'gay' was a term no one was using any more by the time the homos took it on for themselves. I think it has something to do with the old homos and their insane love for Judy Garland but I've never been quite sure. It is interesting that the primary meaning of 'gay' was "cheerful, lighthearted, joyful, stylish". Now that has become officially the secondary meaning. And young people may not even know that 'gay' is anything other than a reference to homosexuals, having little opportunity to have seen the word in its original context. But now? Oxford Dictionary has this: gay So it refers to (paraphrasing): Words morph and change over centuries. And that is what has happened to the word 'gay'. You're just old enough to recall when it didn't mean 'homosexual'. Oxford says that the word 'gay' started to be used to refer to homos as early as the Thirties and it finally became mainstream in the Sixties when Maybe you should pick another hill to die on. The word 'gay' just isn't worth fighting for now, if it ever was. That battle was lost 30-40 years ago and, with sodomy marriage now on the books, the war is over and we lost.
I may be that old,dunno for sure,but I am old enough to remember when they were called "Queer" amongst friends,and "homosexuals" in public by people wanting to be polite. Maybe you should pick another hill to die on. Why? Language and definitions aren't worth fighting for? What do you think about America being described in the press and even in schools as a "Democracy"? Is that ok with you? Or using the term "liberals" for neo-Soviets who are amongst the LEAST liberal people in all of history? When we allow the left to get away with calling themselves "liberals" it promotes them as having desirable traits to the unwashed young that don't know any better,and these days,the unwashed old that never learned any better. The 'murikan "liberal" politician of today is about a liberal as members of the Soviet Politburo of Stalin's time. We need to call them on that at every opportunity,not meekly surrender without a fight. When we do that,all we are doing is helping them recruit empty young minds. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
America is governed and legislated as a republic of states. Their leaders are elected democratically. It's important to emphasize both, not one at the expense of the other. We're a democratic republic.
Which is one way of saying "Ware are a Republic." In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
We are governed as a republic by leaders selected via democracy. Both are vital to any understanding of America.
Both are vital to any understanding of America. Wrong. The Founding Fathers went to great pains to make sure we were a Republic,not a democracy. They even demanded voters be property owners because they were the only ones that paid taxes and had a vested interest in the survival of the nation. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You're wrong but I really don't care if you are.
Pete isn't completely wrong. Neither are you.
No, I'm simply right. We govern ourselves as a republic. But we transfer power from leaders and officials democratically. Change either of those and it is not an American system.
Yes,but ONLY because the communists infiltrated our political system starting in the 20's,and had laws passed giving everyone the right to vote. Our system was set up so that ONLY land owners,who were the only ones who paid taxes at the time,were allowed to vote,and even they had to prove they were literate because the common opinion was that anyone that couldn't read and write was too ignorant to be able to cast an informed vote,and rightly so! In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
It was a rising movement well before the rise of Soviet communism. Wyoming granted women suffrage on December 10, 1869. Had Wyoming succumbed to communist influence before 1870, fifty years earlier than your reckoning?
When you said Pete was wrong. This was included in his statement he made. What here is true.
Apparently, you and pete don't consider the transfer of power via democracy as an essential element of American governance. You can have republics without elections. The Weimar Republic was the predecessor of the Nazi's Third Reich (the First Reich being the Roman empire and the Second Reich being the German Empire (1871-1918). If you don't grasp that democratic elections and peaceful transfer of power are an essential feature of American government and politics, I don't know how to explain it to you. And I don't care that much. These it's-only-a-republic arguments are stale and poorly considered. While it was good and necessary to beat back the tides of pure democracy the Dems used decades back (and still do when they rant against the electoral college), the fact that America has always been a republic is not diminished in any way by the fact that we change leadership peacefully as the result of democratic elections.
How did you come up with that fiction?
My only point is that Pete was right that only property owners were included in the right to vote originally. I don't know how you spin that into I don't consider the transfer of power by democratic vote legitimate.
Not just property owners. You had to be a substantial white businessman to vote then. America originally was a democratic oligarchy. Only the richest got to vote. However, suffrage is somewhat a separate issue from the basic issue of America as a democratic republic. As opposed to parliamentary democracies or sad-sack republics like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Because it is a republic but it is not democratic and the only people who "vote" are named Kim. Is this really the best thing you can find to discuss today?
Well you never responded to my comment about drive ins. That is what I really wanted to discuss. ;)
Drive-ins.com contains a listing of supposedly 5,000 drive-ins still in business. Well, maybe. I think it's less. Most are just tourist towns or they belong to family that likes to keep them going. Lots of small towns have businesses like this that exist mostly because they've been in the family for 50 years and the town doesn't want to give them up. We have a local fast-food joint that is like that, still in the family, still has the same menu they had in the 1960s, still has ordering from call-box in the cars and from table phones inside, carhops on skates (but they don't require the skates, they just like skating carhops if girls are willing). And no intention to "improve" anything. Okay, I made a substantive post about drive-ins. You can enjoy your Sunday afternoon as God intended.
WRONG. Where did you get that from,the NAACP? If you paid taxes and were literate,you could vote. Unless you were a woman,and I suspect exceptions were made for women who inherited substantial property. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You might read this. I don't think more than half the white men in any state could vote until the 1820s or even much later.
A bit more. Evolution of voting rights from 1789 to today must continue Would you want to return to a system where only multimillionaire property owners are eligible to vote?
Probably not,and they shouldn't have been allowed to vote. If you are not literate,you can NOT cast an informed vote,period. Ironically enough,it was the Dims that kept passing special laws to keep blacks from voting. Then the Dim Party was taken over by globalist bankers,and they figured they needed the black and other minority votes in order to destroy the country by injecting democracy into the mix,so they did a 180 and started sucking up to them, In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
And please splain to me HOW you know that ALL the property owners voted? You DO know that property owners weren't REQUIRED to vote,right? Not to mention the fact that even property owners weren't allowed to vote if they were illiterate. When you start out with a wrong assumption,your conclusion HAS to be false. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You're glossing over a lot of history but whatever. I just don't care that much how much you know about the development of suffrage in America.
At last, another bit of news about the Mooch and his post-WH career. The Mooch now knows he wears women’s sunglasses. And he’s damn proud. Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci responded this weekend to a report from THE WEEKLY STANDARD, which revealed that his famous polarized aviators are, in fact, women’s active sunglasses. Scaramucci donned the shades Sunday during a wide-ranging 52-minute Periscope interview. “I wear women’s sunglasses because one, I didn’t realize they were women’s sunglasses,” he said, his eyes shielded from fluorescent light. “Two, I think they look pretty good with the shape of my face." "Those are the only two reasons," he said, before removing the glasses and getting a little defensive. “And by the way, I own it,” he added, gesturing with the shades. “And so I’m going to continue to wear women’s sunglasses.” Then, casting the sunnies out of frame, he looked into the camera with apparent satisfaction. We remember his 11-day tenure fondly. P.S. You can get your own pair of “Oakley Feedback” shades, crafted “for the active woman,” here. Of course, maybe Weekly Standard made up this story, just out of grief over how brief Mooch's tenure at the WH was.
Comments (42 - 45) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Tooconservative (#0)
#3. To: Tooconservative (#0)
I too miss Mooch terribly
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#4. To: redleghunter (#2)
Well I was indifferent on Mooch until you posted the pics of those girly faggity sun glasses he wears. Knew he had to go then. And General Officers hate designer sun glasses. So that did Mooch in too.
#5. To: Deckard, redleghunter (#3)
(Edited)
You appear to have something of a man-crush on this clown.
#6. To: Tooconservative (#5)
So you don't get to say "Enough with the Mooch already".
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#7. To: Deckard (#6)
Wouldn't dream of doing so. Just pointing out your obvious infatuation with the guy.
#8. To: Tooconservative (#7)
You've posted at least 5-10 times as many articles about Jeff Sessions this year
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#9. To: Deckard (#8)
#10. To: Tooconservative (#4)
Blowing kisses from the podium to the White House press corps was pretty gay too.
#11. To: sneakypete (#10)
#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)
I think it's 20-30 years too late to keep them from hijacking 'gay' to mean 'sodomy'.
#13. To: sneakypete (#12)
#14. To: Tooconservative (#13)
(Edited)
So when you go into town and someone says, "Hey, how are you today?" you'll just answer, "I'm feeling very gay.".
#15. To: sneakypete (#14)
No,but only because it is a work I have never used in normal conversation. I have always said "happy",instead.
Nobody has EVER won a fight,an argument,or even a discussion after allowing your opponent to control the language and the definitions.
#16. To: Tooconservative (#15)
So you admit that the sodomites never hijacked the word 'gay' from you to begin with.
#17. To: sneakypete (#16)
We now have at least one generation grown to become adults who have never once associated the word "gay" with it's true meaning. To them it means "homosexual",and the subconscious message they get is that "homosexuals are happy,so if you want to be happy you should try homosexuality."
I had forgotten the even older use of the word 'gay' to mean brightly colored but I had encountered it before in some old book. gay liberation started after the Stonewall riots. More often, you see references in the Forties and Fifties and even Sixties to "bachelors", "lifelong bachelors", "confirmed bachelors" as a sort of euphemism for homosexual. For that matter, the word 'homosexual' didn't become widespread until after the Kinsey surveys when it became all the rage to see your Freudian analyst and speculate on which of your male friends was a "latent homosexual". I bet you're old enough to recall that phrase being used even if Freud is not talked about much any more.
#18. To: Tooconservative (#17)
I bet you're old enough to recall that phrase being used even if Freud is not talked about much any more.
#19. To: sneakypete (#18)
What do you think about America being described in the press and even in schools as a "Democracy"? Is that ok with you?
#20. To: Tooconservative (#19)
We're a democratic republic.
#21. To: sneakypete (#20)
Which is one way of saying "We are a Republic."
#22. To: Tooconservative (#21)
We are governed as a republic by leaders selected via democracy.
#23. To: sneakypete (#22)
#24. To: Tooconservative (#23)
#25. To: A K A Stone (#24)
#26. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#25)
(Edited)
But we transfer power from leaders and officials democratically.
#27. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#26)
Yes,but ONLY because the communists infiltrated our political system starting in the 20's,and had laws passed giving everyone the right to vote.
#28. To: Tooconservative (#25)
They even demanded voters be property owners
#29. To: A K A Stone (#28)
#30. To: Tooconservative (#29)
Apparently, you and pete don't consider the transfer of power via democracy as an essential element of American governance.
#31. To: Tooconservative (#29)
#32. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#31)
My only point is that Pete was right that only property owners were included in the right to vote originally.
#33. To: Tooconservative (#32)
Is this really the best thing you can find to discuss today?
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33)
(Edited)
#35. To: Tooconservative (#32)
You had to be a substantial white businessman to vote then.
#36. To: sneakypete (#35)
#37. To: sneakypete (#35)
So there weren't all that many eligible white property owners at the time, just as I indicated previously. Consider the realities of the election of 1789, the first election of the new Congress. The overall number of people who were allowed to, and actually voted, was miniscule in state after state. For example, Delaware had a total state population of just over 59,000, but only 2,059 ballots were cast, meaning just 3% of the population. Georgia’s turnout was around 5%, New York about 3% and Rhode Island has what seems to have been lowest turnout of all at an abysmal 0.7%.
#38. To: Tooconservative (#36)
I don't think more than half the white men in any state could vote until the 1820s or even much later.
#39. To: Tooconservative (#37)
So there weren't all that many eligible white property owners at the time, just as I indicated previously.
#40. To: sneakypete (#38)
#41. To: Willie Green, redleghunter, Deckard, sneakypete (#1)
Scaramucci Loves His Women's Sunglasses
In a Periscope interview, the former White House communications director says, "They look pretty good."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]