New York Times is perceptive, isn’t it?

Carson Pick Is New Sign of Plan to Govern From the Right
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominees have long records opposing the current administration on social programs, wages, public lands, veterans and the environment.

Bloke on the right gets elected, having campaigned against th current President, and he’s going to govern from the right, against the policies of the current President?

Blimey, slap me with a wet haddock.

Erm, isn’t that what people voted for?

15 thoughts on “New York Times is perceptive, isn’t it?”

  1. The lack of self-awareness is really quite something.

    I am enjoying this.

    Best not to get one’s hopes up, though. Almost all of them disappoint in the end. I remember saying as much to an Obama groupie shortly after he was first elected.

  2. “Best not to get one’s hopes up, though. Almost all of them disappoint in the end.”

    Usually, though at the time I don’t recall Reagan disappointing, even after he invaded Grenada without bothering to tell us (former colony and all that)…

  3. I’m sure they made a typo too; surely, being the NYT, it should be: “Carson Pick Is New Sign of Plan to Govern From the Far Right”? After all anybody to the right of where they call centre is a racist, far right, loon.

  4. My worry is that if the Left are screaming about things like this being signs of the “far right”, Trump actually isn’t being particularly right wing at all. Do they have nothing more right wing to wail about?

    But he’s not taken office yet; there is still time.

  5. “isn’t that what people voted for?” Neither you nor I know. I hope that many of them voted against Hellary on the grounds, among others, that she wanted to launch a war on Russia.

  6. ” after he invaded Grenada without bothering to tell us (former colony and all that)…”

    And have some commie creep at the FO tip off Granada? Get a load of Grenadine military get killed in the LZs for no purpose apart from making the US look bad?
    Reagan was no fool.

  7. No, the good story here is.

    Jeanne Kirkpatrick was asked, well, you know, you’re supposed to advise the Head of State that you’re invading you know. JK being the US UN Ambassador at the time. For, you know declaration of war reasons and all that. It’s perhaps only legalistic, politesse even. But 1 minute before the Marines hit the beach you are supposed to do it.

    At which point JK said Aha! but that’s the point! After the assassination who was the head of state?

    Err, said the FCO, well, you can kill all the PMs you want, or they can but, that’s still HM the Queen you know.

    Oh!

  8. Mmmm… So you’re saying they would have had to declare war on a British monarch? Worked out all right for them the last time round.

  9. The (veracity unknown) story I head about Grenada was that Brenda found out before Maggie so called her (getting the PM out of bed) and very politely asked her to find out what the Colonials were up to.

  10. So Much For Subtlety

    The 1983 Beirut barracks bombings were terrorist attacks that occurred on October 23, 1983, in Beirut, Lebanon

    The invasion was just two days later. There simply wasn’t time to ask anyone for anything. It was rushed and hence was kind of a screw up. Only the fact that they were fighting some drugged up Rastas and a Cuban construction team hid that fact.

  11. The US hasn’t declared war in some time. The President cannot, he does not have that power. He merely invades.
    Congress as I recall has the power to declare war. But doesn’t get to do it before the president orders the troops to invade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *