I don’t see why this is so brilliant. Smart, maybe, but brilliant? Where the Democrats have some say in the matter, give them a nominee that they would find more palatable. They can react as they like. That doesn’t strike me as rocket surgery of any kind.
The “Trump’s Razor” interpretation is that Trunp really likes the nickname “Mad Dog” and the way it’s gonna sound to the rally crowds.
“General ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis. [cheers from crowd; Trump smirks] Mad … Dog. Mad-Dog. He’s great, isn’t he folks? [more cheers] Mad Dog Mattis, everybody. Just amazing. Are we having a great time or what? [cheers]”
But it could be a sign of political genius. Our first postmodern president - all interpretations will be valid and true, and we can choose the one that fits our ideology or temperament or just seems like the most fun. And we can argue about whether that’s a strategically deliberate move by Trump or not, too! Whee!
I suspect Trump’s got very little to do with picking the people who will be on his cabinet. He probably gives a nod after Pence and other trusted individuals tell him who he should go with. Isn’t Trump pretty busy with his Victory Tour right now?
Trump doesn’t strike me as too politically connected or knowledgeable, so why would you assume he knows who should go where?
Dems should save their powder. Don’t give him any votes, but don’t give the opposition anything to use in the next election, either.
It’s also not enough to sell. We’re going to find out if Trump can do.
And he’s going to be President; he’s going to be facing a level of scrutiny he’s never faced before. If he fails to deliver what he’s sold, people will know it.
A few might even care.
Big.
Fucking.
Deal.
People have been exposing this little lying shit since day one and it hasn’t made a difference. The asshole even wrote a book on how to take advantage of rubes, and they still believed him when he said, “But you can trust me-you ain’t no rube, right?” wink
I’m agnostic on the issue, but there’s a case to be made that worrying about Democrats paying a price for obstructionism is self-defeating. See this Lawyers Guns & Money piece: Not Even the Fee For the Gaming License - Lawyers, Guns & Money
Also the Politico piece it refers to: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498
(These pieces aren’t talking about Mattis, and I personally am skeptical that Mattis is a hill worth fighting for - haven’t seen that he has any burning issues, unlike say Flynn. I’m just bringing up a more general objection to the idea that Democrats need to worry about being tagged as uncooperative. I think it’s at least clear that it didn’t hurt Republicans too much during the Obama administration, and that it’s at least arguable that Democratic cooperation is going to help Trump more than the Democrats.)
All pretty true IMO (although I think the exposes did make a difference, but obviously not enough of a difference in the right places.)
I’m still inclined to think that his election was something of a fluke - in other words, it’s going to be hard to replicate. You can fool 40-some percent of the people sometimes, but can you fool the exact right 40-some percent in the exact right places twice in a row?
Not very comforting, obvs. And having control of all three branches makes replication easier.
‘Mad Dog — The Sane Choice’.
Mad Dog is a career Marine officer. He definitely knows war and what it’s about. Probably this is a good selection.
My favorite Mad Dog quote…
“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
That’s a warrior right there. 
Due to the current law there has to be a vote.
Mattis is a non-interventionist. I think you will find him less likely to advocate for war unless there is no other option. He understands the cost.
That sounds exhausting. And sounds like it involves a constant exfil.
[QUOTE=Duffel Blog]
Mattis, 66, was summoned to Trump’s New York City penthouse on Saturday to discuss the possibility of his being named as Defense Secretary.
As part of his pre-trip planning, sources say that Mattis wrote a five-paragraph order with detailed plans to kill everyone on his way to the building, to include TSA workers in the security screening area at his home airport, the pilots flying him to New York, all the passengers on the aircraft, the taxi driver who picked him up, multiple people who were rude to him on the subway, and staff in the lobby of Trump Tower.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure it was given as orders to troops serving in Iraq / Afghanistan. It’s since been widely-disseminated and adopted by law enforcement officers (and I imagine all sorts of security-conscious people). I don’t think he meant for every American citizen to be constantly plotting ways to kill the people around them.
I don’t have a plan but I’m a good guy.
You and you and you … I’m not so sure about. Maybe I should have a plan …
I don’t have an issue with him as SoD from what I know, and he’s likely the best possible person that could be expected in this scenario. I think he would be a moderating force on Trump and the war hawks flocking around him. That said, I still think there is a pretty high chance of military conflict with Iran in the next couple of years, and that North Korea will be ignored until it is too late
I think you missed my point. Up to now, Trump’s been a relatively minor figure. His failures could be swept under the rug.
That isn’t a luxury a President has. From now, any failures by Trump will be front page news.
Speaking of North Korea, I am nostalgic for the good ol’ days when in a confrontation between the U.S. and North Korea, we would just have to worry about whether the North Korean leader was bat-shit crazy enough to do something really stupid!
Yep. Now we have to worry about both bat-shit-crazy leaders with their stubby fingers on the nuclear buttons.