Not sure if it’s factual or GD, but it’s Trump, so GD.
Trump just took a hit, bigly, to his platform, less than 3 weeks from taking office.
The ban was one of his earliest campaign promises that he repeated all through the campaign.
Has any new Prez taken such a big hit to his platform so early on?
Worse. President Harrison caught pneumonia during his inaugural address and croaked a month later.
Lincoln’s “Let’s Keep the Union Together” initiative fell apart pretty quickly.
What “hit” do you mean? The appeals court upholding the travel ban suspension?
I don’t think it’s a big deal. You are possibly misled by the illusion that Trump has particular policy aims that he cares about accomplishing.
What he wants is attention, adulation, and bragging rights. So as long as he does something his supporters will like, and appears to be resolutely fighting to accomplish others, I don’t think it matters to him that much what it is he’s doing.
Remember that Trump’s key policy priority is Pissing Off the Liberals. That’s what his base elected him to do, and that’s one of the few things that he absolutely must do to keep their support. So as long as he just carries on attempting various stupid and/or evil initiatives, it won’t particularly matter whether he achieves them, because he’ll be Pissing Off the Liberals anyway.
He has stopped talking about “draining the swamp” or reducing prescription drug prices or “locking up” Hillary Clinton, because he’s not going to attempt those things, and probably never seriously intended to. This is going to be his standard operating procedure: talk very vehemently about the crucial importance of the things that he either is doing or is able to blame somebody else for stopping him from doing, and not talk about the things he’s given up on doing or never really meant to do in the first place.
TL;DR: I disagree with the OP’s assumption that this counts as a “hit” at all, from Trump’s POV. It’s a win, in that it keeps him in a very visible conflict with someone/thing that he can portray as an enemy who will be responsible for any negative consequences. Conflict, drama, all very good for the ratings.
The way I’d phrase itt, “Has any other President had such a big win so early in his term?”.
Answers to the revised question are invited…
It’s probably the happiest day of his life. Now, no matter what terrorist attacks may occur on his watch, he can blame the courts. Why fix a problem when you have a scapegoat on hand?
“Don’t ask, don’t tell”
Timing is about right … NPR has been interviewing early Clinton staffers and the problem is all the appointed staff position are empty … it will take months if not years to fill up all those positions again … this issue blew up on them and there’s was nobody around to help … about the same position The Donald is right now …
I agree with some degree with Kimstu. This was a hit to Bannon not to Trump (well kind of not too more on that in a second). I think Trump is mainly ego driven not ideologically driven. Of course, based on what we learnt about Bannon today he’s probably telling Trump that he is the “Grey Champion” and this has to sound good to Trump’s ego. It is starting to become clear why Trump is so drawn to Bannon.
So although I think this was a Bannon policy that took the hit, I don’t think it hurts Bannon that much. We’re already see Bannon (through Trump) questioning the legitimacy of the judicial system. They will continue doing this and it plays into Bannon’s plans to tear the system apart. In a way there was no way to win. Now when there’s a terrorist attack, which lets face it is inevitable although it’ll likely be by an American citizen, they will point back to this and say “See the judges won’t keep you safe, only Trump can keep you safe.”
It’s just not a big hit. The appropriate way to do this would be to just quit issuing visas (not block visas already issued) and/or pass new legislation.
I think the big first hit will be the failure to confirm Gorsuch to Supreme Court. And this will be because of Democratic payback for not even considering Obama’s nominee.
I think this is a big hit to his ego only. Can’t they rewrite this to accommodate the Constitution, but still achieve a similar goal?
And if the perp turns out to be someone who wouldn’t have been stopped by the ban anyway – a native-born American, or someone who’s been naturalized for decades – they’ve already laid the groundwork for an Orwellian world where facts don’t matter. The spin machine will go into high gear spreading lies and obfuscation like driven snow, and Trump supporters will eat it up. Those who can see through the lies would never vote for Trump anyway. Sean Spicer already tried to use the Quebec City shootings as evidence for why the ban is needed, even though it was a white supremacist and Trump supporter who was shooting Muslims. Facts didn’t bother him one bit.
There you go … if Quebec City is included in The Donald’s travel ban … we have a serious territorial jurisdiction problem …
Not to mention the beginning of Lincoln’s second term.:eek:
JFK had the Bay of Pigs invasion debacle. While that happened three months into his term, it was indisputably a huge disaster with a number of long-term effects – much worse than Trump losing a court decision will be.
Except that the Bay of Pigs wasn’t uniquely a Kennedy thing – it was planned and initiated under Eisenhower nearly a year before Kennedy was even sworn in. So it crossed partisan boundaries and political administrations and was more a sign of the times than a sign of any lack of judgment on Kennedy’s part. For good reason, Kennedy is remembered today more for his carefully balanced handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis than for the Bay of Pigs.
In contrast, Trump has, all by himself, launched an unprecedented string of missteps, blunders, insults, and general chaos in just the first few weeks of a disastrously incompetent presidency. If Trump had been running things in 1962, today either the earth would be a glowing ball of radioactive dust or we’d all be talking Russian and living on collective farms owned by the state.
This is along the lines of what I’ve been wondering. Are there enough folk, in enough red states, who are happy enough with his posturing, that they won’t care or notice if he doesn’t overhaul ACA, if unemployment rises, etc.?
You and I might be dismayed at Tweety president, calling out allies, running his office for profit… But if enough voters find it entertaining and satisfying for whatever reason, our dismay and outrage may not matter.
]
That’s true looking at it fifty years later. AT THE TIME, it was a huge embarrassment for Kennedy and he was widely blamed for his stupidity, deserved or not.
The court ruling against Trump’s dumb travel ban is not even now one twentieth the fiasco Bay of Pigs was at the time it happened, and frankly it’s not going to be much remembered at all, unless it helps Trump in the form of a terror attack happening soon (which needn’t be carried out by a person from one of the listed countries; Trumpists won’t notice such a detail.)
We should be so lucky.
I think a more apt simile might be the block to the initial New Deal proposals, that FDR had to deal with.
There too, the Supreme Court was preventing him from enacting his programs. It was only a temporary problem.
This “hit” is almost meaningless, save in the minds of the more desperate-to-imagine-Trump-failing people. Trump has already signed over two dozen executive orders, and this wasn’t the most important one. All that Trump has to do to make this minor road bump go away, is write a new version of the order, slightly altered to get past the objections of the courts.
What “ban” are we talking about? You mean the same type of temporary curtailment that Obama himself did, and no one seemed to care? The only ones making this an issue are doing it out of hate for Trump, nothing else.
Could you guys make up your mind and stick with one story? Was Obama banning Muslims or was he trying to turn America into a Muslim country?