These two reports really need to be read, revisited, properly digested. There is a lot at stake and our government is simply not prepared to face an opponent who does these things.
Go ahead, read the whole document. Robert F. Kennedy Election CyberSecurity
The American Autumn is John Robb’s recent post on Donald Trump’s open source insurgency. The whole thing is excellent as Robb always is, but this paragraph in particular caught my eye:
The Trumpificationof the Establishment >> Trump isn’t running a campaign, he’s running anopen source insurgency (see my earlier article on this) that makes him nearly immune to personal attack, and it is working. He has secured a whopping 7 points (47 to 40) lead over Clinton in a recent national poll by the LA Times/USC — despite the fact that nearly EVERYONE in the media, academic, government, and political establishment is working against him. This loss of control has infuriated the establishment, leading to increasing levels of paranoia, hyperbole, and anger (particularly in the media). In short, the establishment is starting to act increasingly like Trump does — exaggerating and amplifying everything.
Robb closes by noting the line of talk that has become bipartisan:
Trump’s rhetorical suggestion that Russian hackers should find Hillary’s deleted e-mails. This has led many people in the establishment to contend that Trump committed ‘treason and is now a clear and present danger to the security of the US.’
Bannon looks as bad in this photo as Breitbart did in February of 2009. Let’s review …
- Andrew Breitbart – dead 2/29/2012, heart attack
- Mandy Nagy – disabled 9/3/2014, massive stroke
- Mike Flynn – dead 6/24/2016, heart attack
And honorable mention goes to Erick Erickson, who narrowly escaped death due to a blood clot in mid-April of 2016. Hate is corrosive, even if you’re in a position where you feel you’re besting the other party.
Not gonna touch this with that proverbial ten foot pole, just nothing this for future reference …
Any postmortem should start with the fact that there were always two Tea Parties. First were people who believe in constitutional conservatism. These folks sense the country they will leave their children and grandchildren is a shell of what they inherited. And they have little confidence the Republican Party can muster the courage or will to fix it.
Second were lawyers and consultants who read 2009’s political winds and saw a chance to get rich.
For 18 months ending in 2013, I worked for one of these consultants, Dan Backer, who has served as treasurer for dozens of PACs, many now defunct, through his law and consulting firm. I thus benefited from the Tea Party’s fleecing.
The PACs have little connection to results:
The PACs’ electoral record for the little money that did trickle to candidates is terrible. According to POLITICO, $3 million of $43 million raised from 33 analyzed groups did support candidates in 2014. But finding races they positively affected is difficult. They played absolutely no role in that cycle’s biggest Tea Party victory, the scalping of Eric Cantor. The victor, however, had lots of new friends the next morning fearlessly tweeting support for their new champion, Dave Brat.
This is also a problem on the left; I get a steady flow of emails that involve standing up to this or that problem. Actual funding for people who really DO stuff about the problems? Nope, that’s way too edgy …
This AMA with John Robb is just the saddest piece of crap ever. There are half a dozen good questions, and a whole lot of Trumpkins asking foolish leading questions about Hillary Clinton, her foundation, and the like. Given his star power, I am amazed at the poor quality of conversation seen here.
The most interesting thing in here to my mind is Robb’s thoughtful answers on Trump’s insurgent followers:
Here’s the foco reference: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/08/iraq_and_foco_i.html
Trump is would be the foco (he challenges the establishment brazenly and isn’t shut down) yet this is more of an open source insurgency. Lots of people with different motivations for disliking the corruption of the establishment coming together. Trump fits an open source movement perfectly. He doesn’t have an agenda. His goal is merely to reflect what his supporters want.
The Trumpkin pormanteau is dismissive and it’s one I use often. There are serious thinkers in the mix and if they actually manage to influence things … well … that could get ugly fast. The flow of conversation addresses the reformist potential of the Trump movement, but I think it’s closer to the seeds of civil war.
What’s missing here? Not one Occupier or Black Lives Matters question in the mix. Those are also open source insurgencies, but left leaning ones. Their reflexive dismissal of the type of skills Robb and those who follow him bring to any conflict have limited their effectiveness.
Yes, American Spies Really Think Trump Is Putin’s Guy is an editorial by John R. Schindler, @20committee. Of all the people around Trump to worry about, Paul Manafort is the worst:
Perhaps most troubling is the pivotal role played by Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman, who’s spent a lucrative career as a fixer for unsavory politicos and dictators around the world. One of them was Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s corrupt ex-president and Putin’s man, who fled to Russia after he was booted from office in early 2014. It’s not clear if Manafort still has a financial relationship with Yanukovych—which, given his client’s position as a guest of the Kremlin and a ward of its intelligence services, seems like an important question to ask.
Me nodding and agreeing with Schindler is notable in and of itself … and I’ve been doing that a lot the last few weeks, given how pointed he’s been about Trump’s flaws.