I have to say that I’m finding the outrage among senior Republicans about the latest scandal to hit Donald Trump pretty ridiculous. Where the hell were they when he was calling Mexicans repists and threatening to make the Mexican Government build a wall between the two countries? Where were they when he was threatening to ban Muslims from the US?
I am dismayed at the way some media outlets, including the BBC, have minimised Trump’s comments. Grabbing a woman in an intimate area is not “lewd talk,” it’s an admission of a serious sexual assault and should be treated as such. His so-called apology, if anything, makes things worse. Leah McElrath put together an analysis of how his words sound very much like those of an abuser.
Even if the GOP decided to get rid of Trump, it’s too late to get anyone else on the ballot in enough key states to actually win the presidency, so they have to suffer the ignominy of going to the country with a candidate who isn’t fit to be an employer let alone be leader of the most powerful western democracy.
I suspect the Clinton campaign will be putting even more effort into voter turnout. People might think that Trump is bound to lose. Brexit proves that electorates can make disastrous choices so there is no room for complacency. That man could still end up in the White House.
It just goes to show how dangerous the US political system is. One man with a lot of money has basically been able to take over an established party. That has to be a cause for concern. Will they now consider stronger curbs on funding and spending limits in their elections? Would the Democrats? Would they be willing to consider measures which could make the political system fairer for third parties? They should, but I can’t see them voluntarily dismantling a system that gives the so much power and influence.
The sense of disillusionment that many Americans have long had for a politics that doesn’t work for them will therefore continue they may yet fall victim to someone with lots of money and populist rhetoric who could win one of the most powerful positions on earth.
At least in this election, Americans have the choice of someone who is not the lesser of two evils, a brilliant, credible candidate who has a serious track record of making things better for the disadvantaged and who wants to dismantle the barriers that exist for women and girls across the planet.
I have been a massive fan of Hillary Clinton for a quarter of a century. I always thought she was the brains of the Clinton partnership. She has been demonised by the press more than any other candidate in US history and she is still standing. I’ve seen people decide to reluctantly support her. If they do now, I think that in four years time, they will be able to back her enthusiastically.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A journey along the Welsh Border in 1963
Recipe for a real change of direction
Day 9304: So Farewell Then, Kier Starmer
Dennis
Chloe
Slamdac
Nonconformistradical
Mick Taylor
22 Comments
Some American commentators are seein this as the beginnings of the break-up of The Republican Coalition; that could be an opportunity for Reform as the reality of 3 (or 4 ) Parties runs up against a system designed for 2.
While we associate Trumps politics more with Latin America ( Peronism ) there is an American tradition of this sort of Populist Nationalism, Trumpism isnt entirely new.
The parallels with the extremist takeovers of Labour & The Tories are obvious & “Big Money” played little part in those.
I’m not a huge fan of the many and varied Facebook memes that infest my news feed, but one a few months ago summed up this US election for me. It was something along the lines of:
“Dear USA whilst you may see this as an election, the rest of the World see it as an IQ Test.”
Even after all the scandals Trump has faced he still seems to stick at over 40% in the Polls. We joke in this country about seats where Labour or the Tories could put anyone up and they would be elected, but this is of a different magnitude. This seemingly despicable human being is still felt suitable to be President by 40 (odd) percent of American’s – they are seriously failing that IQ test.
You are absolutely correct to point out that, thanks to differential turnout he might still win.
I read an interesting article the other day which interviewed some former committed Republicans in suburban Pennsylvania. These interviewees were economically conservative and socially liberal. Between the 1950s style social conservatism of the Republicans and the high spending of the Democrats they felt completely disenfranchised. Maybe this crisis will allow the Republicans to appeal to a broader base over time or maybe the Democrats might reform themselves and be less complacent. One things for sure. Things have to change.
I have been shocked, too, about how UK media outlets have reported this.
The worst is this morning’s Sunday Mail front page (I know, should I be surprised?) — small feature with picture one of the women referred to by Trump in the leaked clips: ‘The actress who could cost Trump the presidency’.
Oh. It’s her responsibility? What b*ll*cks. The words ‘sexist’ or ‘crass’ used by other papers don’t even feature.
Caron,
He has all the qualities I most dislike in a man but if he gets too far behind in the polls then Democrat voters may not bother voting and let him in. I hope they have a good ‘ground game’ to get their vote out.
I’m not sure I agree that he ‘bought’ the nomination and to think that, may miss a key message.
Like a famous beer, he reached the parts the others couldn’t. All politicians need to reflect and ponder. It’s too easy to sneer and claim he got the Ku Klux Klan vote.
His answers to the problems his audience felt they had were crude and brutal but they were answers and his rivals hadn’t got any.
Our political scene is little better with the current leadership telling the people that the EU (and its citizens) are the cause of all our ills.
This nonsense will lead to bitter disappointment and I genuinely fear who may emerge to fill the inevitable subsequent void and what offerings the will have.
For us to strike a pose of outrage and indignation won’t be enough to counter. We need to be radical moderates and extreme compromisers.
Also, hope things are improving for you. Best wishes.
I think Bill Clinton has been the best president in my lifetime and I wouldn’t disagree that Hilary was the brains behind him. However, people always liked Bill and you could have had one hundred “Trump” type videos – with Bill as the star – and he would still have got elected. Many people for whatever reason just don’t like Hilary. This is far from over, the third TV debate is being organised by Fox News and they will not want to help Hilary that’s for sure. I can’t imagine what else they can throw at Trump, Hilary’s campaign have massively outspent him and it’s still fairly neck and neck – in the polls there are still a lot of undecided voters. My guess is many of them might be supporting Trump, but to embarrassed to admit it. I fear the worse, but on the bright side Trump’s advisers have said the UK will be ahead of everyone else for a trade deal!
This debate will go out in prime time from Missouri. On the BBC TV Daily Politics today Andrew Neil said that it will go out on the BBC News Channel at 9 o’clock UK time.
He later said that it will go out at 9 o’clock London time.
NO, IT WILL NOT.
It will go out live at 02.00 on Monday morning on BBC News, at the same time on Sky News, at the same time on Al Jazeera in English and on CNN.
The issue will also be covered on Monday on the Daily Politics.
Coverage on Channel 4 starts at 01.35.
malc: Murdoch likes to back winners. In the UK he has taken opposite lines in different editions of the Sun in England and Scotland.
@Caron “Will they now consider stronger curbs on funding and spending limits in their elections?” No, the US Supreme Court say spending money this way is free speech (I think the ruling was called Citizens United). Curbing that would require a constitutional amendment.
@Caron “Brexit proves that electorates can make disastrous choices” I don’t think Brexit can be compared with Trump, at least not if the comparison is voters making bad choices. But then again I think Brexit wasn’t a disastrous choice. I’m a Lib Dem voter (well, I was) and I’m really happy we voted for Brexit.
Nevertheless I see two parallels with Trump and Brexit:
1. Both prove unexpected results can happen if millions of those who don’t normally vote are suddenly motivated to do so. The pollsters were all so sure we would vote to remain, but then the working classes turned out on mass and made their voices heard shocking the establishment’s cosy consensus.
2. The Republicans will be in trouble if they don’t disown Trump, the Lib Dems will be in trouble in 2020 if they don’t accept Brexit. The reason I believe the Lib Dems will be in trouble if they don’t accept Brexit is because lack of trust by the voters will destroy a political party. Nobody will vote for a party they consider untrustworthy.
The Tories have to implement Brexit because they told the public that a referendum was an acceptable way to settle the question and then had the promised referendum. They can’t now turn round and say to the public “you got the answer wrong, we only offered the referendum because we thought you would vote remain, we were never sincere about actually allowing the country to leave the EU if that is what you, the mere public, voted for”. Only a party who said that the question of leave or remain should not be decided by referendum could get away with that. The problem is the Lib Dems are not that party. Unlike Labour the Lib Dems refused to rule out having a referendum in the 2015 General Election campaign, previous Lib Dem manifestos had promises to have a referendum and they said there should be one under if the circumstances changed. The Lib Dems can’t now say referendums are “tools of tyrants”, not legitimate ways to decide such issues, and that the results need not be accepted now that the referendum has happened and they didn’t get the result they wanted, that looks like they never, ever intended on having an in/out referendum and were dishonest about it.
There is also an issue about judgment. Public figures have to learn fast to control what they do with their mouths. I cannot imagine any senior British politician talking in that way to a journalist. Do we really want someone who (1) cannot control his tongue, and (2) is incapable of recognising obvious risks, with his finger on the nuclear button?
I think these latest revelations will hurt Trump in the polls, though maybe not hugely. Firstly, they will erode his support among women even further. Secondly, they are likely to cause some conservative Christians to abstain. Do not underestimate (2). Boy Bush’s drink driving conviction very nearly cost him the Presidency, and it is possible that being a Mormon actually did cost Mitt Romney the Presidency.
Nigel Farage is correct to say that many men do talk in that way, though I think the reference to part of a woman’s anatomy that Trump made goes way beyond “man talk” and suggests a private fantasy life that is dangerously unhealthy. In any rugby club, any Police canteen, any officer’s mess, one will here that kind of talk. Does that make it acceptable? Absolutely not. Our politicians should be encouraging the best standards of behaviour, not exhibiting the worst.
Malc, is that the same Bill Clinton who deregulated Wall Street – how did that turn out?
I agree with 95% of this article. Trump is an odious creature and it is remarkable that ¾ of Republican voters want him to continue. Worse is to come if, as he has suggested, he decides to go on the offensive and attack a woman, his opponent, for the infidelity of her husband when he should be grovelling to the US public for forgiveness.
I do take issue with “Brexit proves that electorates can make disastrous choices”. It’s a very poor comparison and offensive to put most Leave voters in the same bracket as Trump supporters. Perhaps the Russians electing Putin would have been a better choice.
Clinton has her faults too: she didn’t have enough brains to not use a private email server and thereby potentially compromise global security. Pretty serious lapse of judgement.
“who has a serious track record of making things better for the disadvantaged”
Wasn’t Hilary a Goldwater Girl? She has a record of having poor instincts regarding the needs of the disadvantaged however usually (eventually) ending up on the right side. There is credit to have and not have in that sentence. You talk of whether US politics would step away from multi-millions to ensure a fairer, more representative result yet Sanders faced an uphill (potentially unfairly so) battle when debating Hilary and yet disadvantaged groups responded far better to his suggestions.
Despite the questions that remain with regards Hilary, Trump is not a credible candidate and would be disastrous President for the world. Usually it would be shame that words from 10+ years ago are being used to attack an individual but so much about Trump suggests he still too much that person and his apology was a joke. I would only add that it’s a shame that his “out there” views were liked enough to make him a TV star which started this whole thing.
As Conor McGovern notes, if HRC was the “brains” then presumably she has responsibility for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which dismantled Glass-Steagall which – in conjunction with the Clinton administration’s instructions to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ease mortgage lending criteria – kick-started the risk-on Wall Street mindset that sparked the sub-prime disaster.
I don’t want Trump to win. But I can summon no enthusiasm for Clinton. Look at how Elizabeth Warren led from the front in highlighting the recent scandal at Wells Fargo and contrast that with HRC’s response that was issued 2 weeks later after public opinion had settled.
HRC has repeatedly displayed poor judgment: whether laughing “we came, we saw, he died” at the murder of Gaddafi, or claiming that Nancy Reagan had started “a national conversation” about HIV/AIDS, or inquiring “can’t we just drone this guy” about Julian Assange, or her precipitation of servergate, or …. well, it just goes on and on.
A good leader leads opinion rather than following it. A good leader shows good judgment. A good leader commands the respect of the public. I struggle to see much of that from HRC. But then again I see none of it from D. Trump. What a deeply unedifying choice for the American people.
Much as one despises Trump, I would find it impossible to vote for Hillary Clinton because of her support for the death penalty. In typical Clinton fashion she describes her support as ‘unenthusiastic’.
So that’s all right then.
Caron
Firstly, I agree the Democrats have to fight as hard as before, but actually this is different because of the conservative religious evangelical Republicans, hearing is believing !
It is odd that those not in this category , like Senator John Mcain, himself made fun of more or less , by Trump , waits till now, only Mitt Romney , the best of the Republicans not to have won the presidency, as a man and as a politician , comes out well, his superb denunciation of Trump several months ago is there to see online , in its entirety , if you haven’t, see it now !
I have liked Hillary Clinton since she emerged , in fact age and the myriad of events , has made her far more likeable , more warmth, but gravitas was always there.I do believe she shall win , and very well. I can say I do not understand the intense dislike some have , and issues brought up, even above , are par for the course ,in the list of the many we may disagree on , in a country with a very different backdrop to ours , but there are very similar ones too.
I rate her and her party , which I have always felt affinity with , both before and since, effectively , marrying into that country’s life and , indeed, political, life , and the support that my own family members give it there.
Conor McGovern/Paul Murray
I think firms such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs and AIG etc did as much as anything to cause the crash. From what I understand their actions would have been possible with or without Glass-Steagall. Putting the blame on the Clinton’s for the crash is harsh, there were many factors involved. Although I will agree easing the mortgage lending criteria didn’t help, but at the time many “experts” thought it a good idea.
I am truly glad that I don’t have to choose between these characters, Trump is well documented, but am I supposed to write off these three women, are they just to be classed as liars?
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/09/juanita-broaddrick-kathleen-willey-paula-jones-bill-clinton-sexual-assault/
I’m supposed to believe that this highly intelligent woman didn’t realise that a server in the basement isn’t supposed to be used for highly classified material? That she shouldn’t lie about it to the public or under oath?
There is so much to scare a person about both of these people.
@DJ: The “Goldwater Girl” knock is unreasonable for reasons available to anybody who can add and subtract numbers. Hillary Rodham Clinton was born in 1947 and raised in a Republican family. When Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964, she was 16 (turning 17 shortly before the election). Nobody expects anybody to have fully mature views at the age of 16, or for the rest of their life to be determined by those views. In 1968, at 20, Hillary Rodham was protesting the Vietnam War. In 1972, at 24, she was campaigning for Democrat George McGovern. There’s no reason to suppose that her youthful involvement with the Goldwater campaign shows anything more than an abiding passion for politics — something I think most of us share.
Repeatedly we see so called Lib Dems like El Cid warning , “the Lib Dems will be in trouble in 2020 if they don’t accept Brexit.” I hadn’t noticed anyone not accepting the vote to leave the EU, that was after all, what was on the ballot paper, not “Brexit”.
What I do notice is people like El Cid, who seem to have no sympathy for one of the longest standing foundations of Liberal and Liberal Democrat policy – membership of the EU/EEC/Common Market. I do notice that suddenly all these ‘rules’ are invented about what must happen after a referendum – your not allowed another one, even on a different issue. Even if the leave campaign presented an incoherent pile of lies, we ought to implement impossible and contradictory things, otherwise we are not democratic. There was a decision to leave the EU, there was no decision on what terms to leave, it is entirely reasonable to hold another referendum on these terms, not least because the people who voted leave because they were promised certain things ought to have a say on whether people are delivering what they voted for, otherwise, the disillusion will be even greater.
Caron, do you ever get depressed when (again) you highlight sexual harassment and worst in public life, and (again) a bunch of blokes from internetland use your thread to discuss something else?
I’m a bloke, but I’m seriously considering taking myself off to Mumsnet. They have better conversations over there.
Men of Libdemvoice: there are too many of us opinionating on here, and we’ve driven women off the site.