So we get President Greene and the first female President is Republican.
Thanks for tonight’s nightmares.
People also keep forgetting that if trump wins election in 2024 and somehow there is no dictatorship, just massive graft, and there is an election in 2028 right on schedule with trump serving out his term and going home in triumph on Jan 6 2029, whoever is VP from 2024 to 2028 has the major yuge inside track to be nominated as the R candidate in 2028.
One of the better ways to become pres yourself is to be VP during the second term of a president. Even better if that president’s terms were non-consecutive so it’ll only the second term of your party as president.
For all these reasons (plus sudden incapacitation), being trump’s VP candidate in 2024 is very, very valuable. Yes, if trump wins and they do become VP that person will be forced to publicly eat a lot of shit, just as Pence did. But I can see many of the current no-hopers being willing to make that bet. And if trump loses they’re still better positioned for 2028 than they would be by remaining a nobody in 2024.
I agree with all you said. This is true in almost all cases. Almost…
I wonder if VP Harris has a real shot in 2028 if Biden wins re-election.
I guess this is a hi-jack so, for another thread. Just saying.
IMO, The orange toad will never pick Nikki Haley as his VP. Not after that response about pardoning him.
If she said something like “I’d pardon him because he is completely innocent! The election was completely stolen! Witch hunt!” then she’d have a shot. But mentioning his age and claiming that’s the reason of said pardon, he’s probably steaming.
Not to mention she’s a woman. I think Trump is about as misogynistic as they come.
That’s what was taught in 1970’s AP US history texts. The consensus has moved on from that: competing reasons are thought to be little better than a joke.
Josh Marshall at TPM:
I could write a whole post about why what Haley is grasping haplessly for here is a sanitized version of Lost Cause ideology. From the last decades of the 19th century, Southern apologists no longer defended slavery as such on its merits. It was just that it happened to be a dispute related to slavery — a much misunderstood institution, in their telling — that led liberty-minded southerners to finally decide to make a stand against oppressive government.
In fact, you need only look at the Mississippi articles of secession: it’s all about slavery and there’s no mention of tariffs or state’s rights.
Back to Haley. The question was a softball for a Democrat, and not that hard for right wing nuts either. Josh Marshall:
Conservatives today are generally pretty willing to say that owning people as what amounts to human livestock is one of those cases where government needs to step in and say, “no, you can’t do that” and move on to other topics. Indeed, the irony is that Republicans have developed a pat and serviceable if mendacious and trolling answer to the question. The odious ferret Tom Cotton actually took to Twitter to repeat it, almost as if throwing Haley a lifeline.
As Cotton put it: “The Civil War started because the American people elected an anti-slavery Republican as president and Democrats revolted rather than accept minor restrictions on the expansion of slavery to the western territories.”
As I said, it’s the perfect response for the modern GOP. Accurate enough to end the conversation for most reporters; clearly anti-slavery (that’s a plus!); but also packaged into a dishonest and trolling attack on Democrats. It’s perfect for Republicans. And it’s just sitting right there!
All of this amounts to a lesson in what we probably already know: Haley is not at all ready for prime time, not in the abstract and not for today’s GOP. That’s not a measure of ethics or ideology or simple right and wrong, just the basic blocking and tackling of politics. Her political chops are as much a figment of press imagination as her purported surge in the polls.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/sad-the-comical-rake-stomp-opera-of-nikki-haley
I would say Mississippi’s reasons to continue slavery were based in economic reasons and they used state rights as a cover. The moneyed interests and power structure wanted and needed slavery and sought to continue it.
Make no mistake, I agree with you 100%…slavery was the basis for it all. I think that is very clear. I am just saying a lot of things were built on top of that base which reinforced their need to continue slavery.
There’s no discussion of state’s rights in the Mississippi articles of secession. Relevant economic reasons listed were all connected to slavery.
I understand the high school historical consensus has shifted away from, “A complex constellation of underlying factors,” as well as away from, “A controversy among historians, some saying slavery others emphasizing economic tariffs and disagreements about the proper role of government…”
ETA: Whack-a-mole: Sorry, I understood your position. Let’s see if I can express myself better. In the 1940s, they taught Lost Cause. In the 1970s, I learned, “Well some historians think it’s about slavery (eg the author) but others point to other factors.” I thought it was about slavery then, but I also thought that reasonable people can disagree. It’s my understanding that later the consensus became: “It was about slavery, and things connected to slavery. No slavery, no Civil War.” Yeah, we both agree that it was ultimately about slavery, but I’m saying that Haley really didn’t need to rely on warmed-over Lost Cause rhetoric.
I think you missed what I was saying.
I agree it was about slavery, as I have said every time. I’ll not argue this further.
Is it though? Don’t want to hijack the thread, but this has worked just once in the last four tries:
Nixon in 1960, lost to Kennedy
Humphrey in 1968, lost to Nixon
Bush in 1988, beat Dukakis
Gore in 2000, lost to Bush
But, as you say, it would be after one GOP term, rather than two, as were the others listed above. So, who knows?
Yeah. Which would also be my response to @Whack-a-Mole’s hopeful comments about Haley in 2028.
Being VP works well if your president is term limited after this one, but your term will only be number 2 in a row for your party. Parties three-peating is all but impossible in the modern era.
Although with luck the Rs will paint themselves so far out into loonie land after they fail in 2024 that even in 2028 they still won’t be electable. I am not however taking bets on that prediction.
Only twice has a Vice-President qua President of the Senate counted the votes electing them President: Martin van Buren and George H. W. Bush.
Which, ironically, was the reason that Roger Taney went as far as he did in the Dred Scott decision. They (Taney and president Buchanan) thought that by ruling that Black people couldn’t qualify as citizens under the Constitution that the issue of slavery would be resolved and the country would just move on. Of course they were mistaken then, just as Haley is mistaken now by thinking pardoning Trump would lead to the country just moving on. Maybe she does need a history lesson.
For background, do you think it was wrong of Ford to pardon Nixon for the same reason?
No, because the situations are different. It’s the difference between the fire department saying “your house already burned down, so there’s no point in sending out a truck to spray water on it” (what essentially happened with Nixon) vs. “the fire is just getting started, and we could put it out if we tried, but we don’t like that house, and the guy who lit the match is my cousin who I like, so I’d rather it burn down. No fire trucks or water for you” (what is an ongoing event with Trump).
ETA. In Nixon’s case it actually was time to move on. Nixon was obviously not going to be a political force in the future. Trump himself is obviously not yet ready to move along. To paraphrase, Trump hasnt had any kind of “I’m going away, you won’t hear from me again, and you won’t have Trump to kick around anymore” moment.
That “moment” only lasted 6 years for Nixon before he rose again like Dracula from his crypt and took the country down a truly dark path. You can’t spare the stakes with these ghouls.
For what it’s worth, Nixon famously said that you won’t have him to “kick around anymore” after he lost the race for California governor in 1962.
(I think he should have been tried in court for his crimes)
My mistake. But none the less, the situations are completely different. Nixon really did go away after he resigned (the election of his disembodied head as president of some alternate Earth in 3000 not withstanding 
). Trump has obviously not gone away, and has not shown any interest in doing so. Therefore, IMHO, comparing Ford’s pardon of Nixon to some potential pardon of Trump by Haley isn’t a fair comparison.
It is if you want to assess Haley’s apparent disregard of History. Does she really want to use Gerald Ford’s worst political decision as her model for success in a Presidential election?