More Thursday Male Beauty

 

The Potential Cost of the Felon's Primary Wins

Since returning to the White House the fellow has focused on (1) enriching himself and his family in the most open and corrupt way, (2) seeking revenge against his political foes, real or perceived, including against Republicans who have displayed in his mind insufficient loyalty, and (3) vanity projects like the Marie Antoinette ballroom.  In the recent Republican primaries, the Felon has backed challengers to Republican officeholders who have sworn fealty to the Felon but are perhaps less likely to be able to win the a general election.  Given the extremeness of the GOP primary voters, these likely flawed candidates have defeated the Felon's targets for revenge yet some may be so extreme that rank and file GOP voters may find it hard to hold their noses and pull the GOP lever.  For Democrats and those who value loyalty to the Constitution rather than the orange vengeance crusader, weaker GOP candidates are welcome.   Add to this the Felon's plummeting poll numbers and Democrats are expected to at minimum pick up control of the House of Representatives.   A piece at The Atlantic looks at the potential downside of the Felon revenge campaign:

Is Donald Trump strong or weak right now? Usually, telling whether a president is up or down isn’t difficult, but the past few weeks have offered reasons to believe both.

Last night, Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who has been publicly critical of Trump’s policies throughout his second term, lost a primary to Ed Gallrein, a candidate recruited and backed by Trump. The president’s attempt to turn that race into a referendum on himself seems to have worked: Massie, who’s just as idiosyncratic now as he was when the voters of his district elected him to the first of seven terms, ended up about 10 points behind Gallrein.

This flex was the latest in a string. On Saturday, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, whom neither Trump nor voters ever forgave for his vote to convict Trump in his 2021 impeachment trial, came third in a Republican primary. And earlier in May, several Republican state legislators in Indiana who had opposed Trump’s gerrymandering push lost primaries to Trump-backed challengers, fulfilling a vow of revenge from the White House.

A common thread in commentary on these races is that they demonstrate Trump’s enduring grip on power. . . . “This is @realDonaldTrump’s Republican Party. The rest of us get the privilege of living in it,” the proudly submissive Representative Randy Fine of Florida declared last night.

Yet Trump’s standing seems to also be deteriorating. This week, a New York Times/Siena poll found the president at 37 percent approval, his lowest in the poll ever and a four-percentage-point drop from January. The paper’s polling analyst, Nate Cohn, was led to wonder whether the much-vaunted “floor” in Trump’s polling is starting to crack. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released yesterday has him even lower, at 35 percent—12 points below where he began his term in the same survey. Much of his issue polling is even worse. That means some Republicans are rejecting Trump’s decisions, even if they retain a fondness for the man himself.

How do we reconcile these contradictions? If you’re a regular reader of this newsletter, the answer will not surprise you: Trump’s hold on the MAGA base is still powerful, but the same actions that help him maintain it also help erode his standing with the broader public—and threaten to lead Republicans to defeat in November’s midterm elections.

Primary voters—and especially primary voters in Indiana, Louisiana, and Kentucky—are not representative of the general electorate. . . . . They aren’t even necessarily representative of the Republicans who vote in the general election, a group that is likely to be less engaged, less ideological, and less politically extreme overall. As a result, votes in November are more likely to hinge on issues such as inflation or the Iran war.

Yesterday, Trump finally issued a long-awaited endorsement in next week’s Texas runoff for U.S. Senate. The race pits Senator John Cornyn against state Attorney General Ken Paxton. Cornyn is a longtime mainstream Republican who has mostly been a loyal if unenthusiastic foot soldier for Trump; Paxton is, to use the political-science terminology, a real piece of work.

Trump was initially expected to endorse Cornyn, but polls showed Paxton ahead and one found that even a Trump endorsement wouldn’t change that. Trump dithered, then waited until the last minute to back Paxton. That effectively guarantees that Trump will back the winner, but it could be a Pyrrhic victory: Republican senators are now afraid that a Paxton nomination could cost the GOP the seat in November.

Although the idea of a MAGA crack-up may be nothing more than a pipe dream of Trump critics, Cohn’s data are real. MAGA isn’t collapsing, and the base remains devoted, but it is shrinking. Trump’s sinking numbers may not matter as much to him, because he won’t face voters again, but they matter a great deal to other Republican officeholders. Many of them would like to find ways to distance themselves from Trump’s unpopular policies (and they may try as the general election gets close), but cases such as Massie and Cassidy remind them that the immediate political risk of crossing Trump outweighs the dangers of being yoked to an unpopular agenda. The latter might well end your career, but the former almost certainly will.

The irony is that Trump would probably benefit politically from a GOP Congress that was more willing to challenge him, because it would restrain him from his worst ideas. . . . An uncowed Republican Congress might have pushed Trump harder on affordability measures, and it might not have supported the war in Iran, had he asked for authorization—but he didn’t, calculating that it wouldn’t take action to block him.

Politics is a pendulum, so Trump may get a more antagonistic Congress despite—or because of—his efforts to resist it. . . . Even if Paxton doesn’t blow the Senate race, Democrats remain the favorites to retake at least the House of Representatives. That would be one clear indication of Trumpian weakness.

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Wednesday Male Beauty

 

Days After Hosting Trump, Xi Deepens Ties With Putin

The Felon has made much of his visit to China last week and discussions with Xi Jinping even though few concrete results of the visit have been revealed.  To many observers, Xi knew how to flatter the Felon and play to his vanity while giving up little and warning the Felon about aid to Taiwan.  This week Xi hosted Russia's Vladimir Putin and treated Putin with equal pomp and circumstances and, unlike with the Felon, it appears that Russia and China are deepening their relationship and holding themselves out as a counterweight to an imperialistic America. Meanwhile the Felon and his idiot Secretary of Defense are withdrawing troops from Germany and Poland - a major gift to Putin. One can well imagine that Xi views the Felon as a buffoon, albeit it a dangerous one, who is ushering in a decline of America both on the international stage (where long time allies have been alienated by the Felon) and domestically where the main goal of the Felon is to enrich the already obscenely wealthy while allowing regular Americans to suffer.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the Xi/Putin summit:

Less than a week after holding talks with [the Felon] President Trump, China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, met with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Beijing on Wednesday, casting the two countries’ relationship as a stabilizing force in a world thrown into tumult by the United States.

“The tide of unilateral hegemony is running rampant,” Mr. Xi said to Mr. Putin, according to Chinese state media, in an oblique reference to the United States, which this year launched a war in Iran and violently seized the leader of Venezuela.

Speaking to Mr. Putin inside the Great Hall of the People, Mr. Xi called for a “complete cessation of hostilities” in the Middle East, warning that it would be “unacceptable” if fighting renewed. . . . Mr. Xi acknowledged the pain the crisis is inflicting on China, which relies on the strategic waterway for about 40 percent of its oil imports. There is also growing concern that Iran’s ongoing shutdown of the strait could devastate global trade, the chief engine of China’s economy.

The two countries are expected to strengthen bilateral ties and sign economic and trade deals during Mr. Putin’s two-day visit. Mr. Xi said on Wednesday that “China-Russia relations have entered a new phase of more active engagement and faster development.”

But beneath that show of solidarity lies an uneven relationship. Russia has become increasingly dependent on China since launching an invasion of Ukraine four years ago that has turned into a costly stalemate, as Russian soldiers struggle to gain ground and the country’s economy falters.

Russia also relies heavily on China for dual-use technologies — civilian capabilities that can be applied to the battlefield. Mr. Putin will want to ensure that China maintains that supply.

At the same time, the oil shortage caused by the war in Iran has only enhanced Russia’s position as an energy supplier to China. Mr. Putin, who is traveling with Russian energy executives, has been urging China for years to agree to open a major gas pipeline between the two countries, and will likely renew those calls during the meeting.

Known as Power of Siberia 2, the pipeline would link Siberian extraction sites with northwest China through Mongolia. Beijing is concerned the pipeline would make China too dependent on one nation for energy supplies.

By meeting so soon after Mr. Trump’s visit, Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin are signaling their commitment to serving as a counterweight to the West. Mr. Xi on Wednesday cast China and Russia as model nations defending “international fairness and justice” and he hailed their close ties “despite countless trials and tribulations.”

Even as Mr. Xi deepens ties with Mr. Putin, he has invested heavily in courting Mr. Trump, whose tariffs, technology restrictions and support for Taiwan can hurt Beijing’s interests. The Chinese reception of both Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin reflected the balancing act Mr. Xi is striking between the two leaders.

Mr. Putin’s red carpet welcome was similar to Mr. Trump’s, featuring an honor guard inspection, a 21-gun salute and a group of cheering children.

While Mr. Trump had been greeted at the airport by Han Zheng, China’s vice president, Mr. Putin was met by China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi. Yun Sun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that in her view, Mr. Han was the more senior official, but Wang Yi played a more active role in foreign policymaking.

During last week’s summit with Mr. Trump, Mr. Xi was friendly, despite the frequent tensions between the United States and China. Mr. Xi took [the Felon] Mr. Trump inside the secretive Chinese leadership compound in Beijing known as Zhongnanhai on Friday and seemed to signal that he was being granted rare access.

Mr. Trump asked Mr. Xi if he had hosted other world leaders there. “Very rarely,” Mr. Xi said. “For example, Putin has been here.”

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

 

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Monday Male Beauty

 

The Felon Totally Misread Iran

Crude oil futures are over $102/barrel this morning, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and no end of the Felon's war of choice or no exit strategy exists.  Having fired experienced and competent State Department officials and senior military leaders and replaced them with loyal "yes men", the Felon forged ahead ignoring warnings of Iran's ability to strangle the flow of oil through the Strait. Now he finds himself plummeting in polls at home, largely isolated from long time allies that he has insulted, belittled and failed to consult, and learning a harsh lesson on the limits of brute military action.  Again, ALL of this could have been foreseen by anyone not drunk on power and the belief they know more than experts and seasoned military leaders. A column in the New York Times looks at the failure confronting the Felon who is alternating between either claiming "victory" or  threats of annihilation - and war crimes - against Iran.  Here are column highlights that look at the lessons the Felon should have learned before his misguided attack on Iran:

In January, Stephen Miller gave a blustery and revealing interview to the CNN journalist Jake Tapper. Flush with the triumph of the military raid to abduct Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, Miller was taking a victory lap. America was done being the world’s nice guy, footing the bill for a global order that no longer served its interests. From now on, he said, the gloves were off. America would act boldly and with unapologetic force to impose its will on the world.

This was seemingly the purest expression of Donald Trump’s theory of power, spoken by perhaps the most hard-line member of the administration. Indeed, America is the most powerful nation the world has ever known. Its economy is, by most measures, the world’s largest, and its currency dominates global markets. Above all, it commands the most advanced military on the planet, fueled by expensive, high-tech wizardry and the derring-do of its special forces.

It was with this pugnacious certainty that the Trump administration barreled into a reckless, unprovoked war against Iran more than two months ago. Trump clearly thought it would be a showcase of American might, unshackled from what Miller called the “niceties” of international law and powered by ruthless “kinetic” action, to borrow a favorite word of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

It hasn’t worked out that way. Despite losing its leader and many other top officials, Iran has mounted a formidable response, inflicting widespread damage on America’s regional allies and military bases. By seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has grasped something akin to an economic nuclear weapon, sending fuel prices soaring and prompting shortages of key goods in many parts of the world.

“We live in a world,” Miller told Tapper, “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” The painful fallout of the Iran war provides an eloquent rebuttal. But the Trump administration has done more than misjudge American force and the wherewithal of its adversary. It has fundamentally misunderstood what power is, conflating it with the capacity to inflict violence when the two are, in truth, opposed.

Miller’s chest-thumping recalls one of the most ancient and influential texts about war, Thucydides’ “History of the Peloponnesian War.” Across eight detailed books, it tells the story of an epic fight between two rival hegemons in the Mediterranean, Athens and Sparta. “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” the powerful Athenians tell the citizens of Melos, a neutral Greek island, ordering them to submit or be slaughtered.

[T]he Athenians laid siege to the city, slaughtering all its men and enslaving its women and children. But the triumph at Melos was a false victory. Drunk on the violence they mistook for power, the Athenians blundered on to a far riskier gambit, an invasion of Sicily. The Athenians, initially divided on the war, were eventually persuaded by leaders who believed that the Sicilians were weak and corrupt. They were sitting ducks, unable to defend themselves against so fearsome a foe. It would be an easy victory bringing Athens greater glory.

But strength was not enough. The timbers of Athenian ships, enforcing a long blockade, rotted; supply lines dried up. The Athenians, increasingly short of money, had to impose new taxes to fund the war. Finally, in a fierce battle at Syracuse, they were routed. It wasn’t the end of Athens’ hegemony, but it was the beginning of the end.

It is not hard to see the parallels to America’s situation. Like the Athenians, the Trumpians saw their romp in Venezuela as a sign of their irrefutable power. And like the Athenians, they overreached — attacking an enemy they underestimated with muddled motives, uncertain support at home and no clear plan for victory. Entranced by their own capacity for violence, they thought their power to effect their will was limitless.

Their strategic mistake rested on a misreading of power. . . . . We see this dynamic playing out in the stalemate with Iran today. For all America’s military prowess, its endless ability to inflict violence, including Trump’s barely veiled threat to use a nuclear weapon, Iran has not capitulated. Its brutal theocratic regime may be widely reviled by its own people, but in the face of obliteration many Iranians have rallied around their government. Years of economic isolation wrought by sanctions have honed the country’s survival skills.

Trump has been reduced to playing down Iranian attacks on American destroyers trying to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, calling them “a trifle.” Evidence has emerged of widespread damage to American military bases across the Gulf, turning barracks and mess halls into heaps of rubble and ash. The war has already cost $29 billion, according to the Pentagon, in what is surely a huge underestimate. And American intelligence officials have reportedly concluded Iran could endure the blockade for months.

Trump’s support back home, meanwhile, is in free fall. In poll after poll, large majorities of Americans say they oppose the war, do not understand its purpose and deeply dislike the havoc it is wreaking on their pocketbooks. Seeing the political peril ahead, Trump has urgently sought an offramp, promising an imminent deal even as he issues empty threats of total annihilation and baseless claims of total victory. Few seem to believe him.

For all his defiant projection of unbound command, the war has revealed extraordinary weakness at the core of his presidency, the true puniness of his power.

This weakness is hardly limited to the war. When Trump tried to use violence to prosecute his harsh deportation agenda in Minnesota, he was defeated by the relentless efforts of a coordinated, nonviolent civic opposition, which rallied public opinion against him. The vast operation in Minneapolis has been almost entirely abandoned, the presence of federal agents in the state dwindling from thousands to hundreds of agents, not much more than before the operation began.

Many of Trump’s attempts to rule through the different force of executive orders have met a similar fate — be they imposing tariffs, slashing government spending or building opulent monuments to himself. In the court of public opinion and even, at crucial moments, at the Supreme Court, Trump keeps losing his fights. . . . His entire theory of power, and perhaps Trump’s presidency, is in peril.

Yet America, unlike Athens, faces no Sparta. Its only credible rival for global hegemony, China, has shown little interest in foreign adventurism. Instead, it has set about strengthening its power in an Arendtian fashion: through the accumulation of willing allies rather than coerced vassals, using trade deals, foreign investment and diplomacy. These are precisely the tools that the United States once used to great effect to build its power and wealth.

The Trump administration, however, has shown nothing but contempt for the patient work of building durable power based on consensus, preferring the blitzkrieg of violence. Last week’s long-awaited summit in Beijing underscored the divergence. “Our two countries should be partners rather than rivals,” China’s president, Xi Jinping, pointedly said. For the beleaguered Trump, the scale of defeat must have been unmissable.

Monday Morning Male Beauty