Former UN ambassador Nikki Haley resigned from Boeing's board of directors, saying she was philosophically opposed to efforts to win a government bailout, the firm said Thursday.
Haley, a former governor of South Carolina, said she had hoped "to be part of helping" Boeing as it contends with the coronavirus crisis on top of the travails with the 737 MAX.
But Boeing's leaders and board "are going in a direction I cannot support," Haley said in a resignation later included in a Boeing securities filing.
"While I know cash is tight, that is equally true for numerous other industries and for millions of small businesses," she said, adding that she has "long held strong convictions" against government support.
Boeing is seeking at least $60 billion in federal support for the aerospace industry as the grounding of much of the global airline fleet due to coronavirus obliterates nearly term demand for commercial planes.
"I cannot support a move to lean on the federal government for a stimulus or bailout that prioritizes our company over others and relies on taxpayers to guarantee our financial position," she said in her letter, adding that she would remain a "strong supporter of Boeing and its workforce."
Haley, who is seen as a potential Republican party candidate for national office, was named to the board in February 2019, shortly before the MAX was grounded following two deadly plane crashes.
She praised Boeing leadership and expressed confidence in the 737 MAX, which remains grounded following two deadly crashes and still must clear some important regulatory hoops before it will fly again.
A Boeing spokesman said, "We appreciate her service on the board and wish her well."
"The View" addressed who they think Vice President Joe Biden should pick if he ultimately becomes the official Democratic nominee. According to the co-hosts, it must be a woman.
"I still think, though, if he chooses a woman, Trump is going to kick Pence out and put in Nikki Haley," she said. "Because I think they're going to go toe-for-toe. Like you want to identity politics me, I'll identity politics you. I think they're gangster."
Co-host Joy Behar said that the president's luck is changing right now and given Pence's more-stable leadership on coronavirus, Trump might falter. Others think that Trump has named Pence as the head of the coronavirus task force because if it goes awry he can throw the vice president under the bus.
"I don't know if the party would like that, to take Pence out," said Behar.
"I think they would. They need the win," McCain replied.
CNN's Paul Begala strongly believes President Donald Trump will dump Vice President Mike Pence -- so strongly he's even predicting the date.
The political analyst predicted Trump would drop Pence from the ticket on Thursday, July 16 -- exactly four years after he was formally announced as the 2016 running mate, reported Huffington Post.
“That’s the date the Democrat gives her or his acceptance address,” Begala said Monday. “On that day, to interrupt that narrative, Donald Trump will call a press conference at Mar-a-Lago.”
“This is not a prediction," Begala added, "it’s a certainty."
Begala told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference that Trump set Pence up to fail by placing him in charge of the coronavirus response, and that would give him an excuse to replace the former Indiana governor on the 2020 ticket.
“He’s going to dump Mike Pence and put Nikki Haley on the ticket to try to get those suburban moms,” Begala said. “You watch -- guaranteed.”
The recent events in Iran have led many to rail against a supposed “Trump cult.”
But suggestions that supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump are exhibiting cult-like behaviour isn’t helpful in an era of significant political polarization.
Since Benjamin Zeller, an American scholar of new religious movements, published “The Cult of Trump? What ‘Cult Rhetoric’ Actually Reveals” last fall, allegations that Trump has spawned a cult are appearing more frequently in the media.
There’s a #TrumpCult hashtag on social media platforms.
And Steven Hassan, a former member of Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church who is now a self-described cult deprogrammer, argues in a new book that Trump is a cult leader.
What does it accomplish to allege a Trump cult?
Generally, it substitutes a value judgment in place of a sorely needed argumentative analysis of how voters generate their own political feelings, fantasies and attachments. And this feeds the cycle of polarizing political identities and political institutions.
‘Brainwashed’
Examples from Twitter, the media and in Hassan’s The Cult of Trump highlight instructive differences in how the cult concept is being used — and its impact.
Hassan argues that Trump supporters have been “brainwashed” by a charismatic leader. He sees them as deluded zealots who need his help to “wake up from the Cult of Trump.”
Hassan’s approach ignores their agency as well as decades of public education from organizations like INFORM, an independent educational charity that provides information about minority religions and has done important work on discrediting concepts of “brainwashing,” “deprogramming” and “cults.”
It’s worth remembering that the suggestion that Republican leaders were “chosen by God,” as former energy secretary Rick Perry recently described Trump, is nothing new. It was all the rage under George W. Bush and other Republican politicians who have catered to evangelicals.
Without question, Trump’s insistence that “we have God on our side” in the upcoming 2020 presidential election poses a problem for journalists and for public life.
But to describe the entire party as a cult lead by Trump is problematic. If journalists are going to heed calls to refer to the party as a cult and its supporters as cultists, they must define what cult means. Otherwise, they are assuming that a cult is some obvious phenomenon and everyone knows what the word means.
“Pretty telling that it’s a rite of passage into the Cult of Trump and the modern Republican Party that you have to publicly legitimize the Confederacy, a racist, treasonous, nightmarish dystopia founded on white supremacy and stark economic hierarchies.”
In this example, the cult comparison is incidental to the commentator’s argument about Republican ideology and partisanship. He isn’t arguing that Trumpism is a cult in any serious sense. Cult serves as shorthand for Trump’s base that simply adds a rhetorical flourish to a condemnation of Trump supporters on the grounds of their political beliefs.
Moral denunciation
But whether literal or figurative, cult discourse hurts critics’ ability to understand Trump’s appeal. The cult diagnosis isn’t a reasoned argument, or even an objective description: it’s moral denunciation.
There’s no question Trump policies that hurt people and endanger the world should be denounced. But the cult epithet doesn’t speak to those policies; it draws a line between Trump opponents and Trump supporters. And it oversimplifies the way people think and feel about their own beliefs and those on the other side of that line.
Indeed, the fact that we’re all susceptible to this kind of in-group/out-group thinking shows that politics is not just about reason, it is also about emotion. Political emotions are often layered with religion for Trump-supporting evangelicals who believe in a tough love that will lead to salvation for America.
Faith leaders pray with Trump during an ‘Evangelicals for Trump Coalition Launch’ in Miami on Jan. 3, 2020.
(AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)
To dismiss such people as being under the sway of a cult misses what Trumpism offers them. It therefore makes it harder to understand Trump’s power. It also makes it more difficult to understand the circumstances of Trump supporters’ lives. It makes other people’s feelings seem foreign, when they may be fundamentally common.
In conclusion, while there are many legitimate ways to critique Trump, demonizing his voters doesn’t help us understand why they are attracted to him, how their worldview has developed and how to do something about it.
On Fox News Monday, "The Five" co-host Jesse Watters casually suggested the mainstream media is "mourning," the death of Iranian general Qassim Suleimani.
"I bet the people that came out to morn Suleimani were people that were backed by the Iranian regime," said Watters. "And it's funny that the media is taking the same perspective as the Iranian regime. Think about it. They mourned Suleimani, both of us, and then they blamed Trump for shooting down the airline, both the American media and the Iranian regime, and then they said that the street protests, oh no, there's lots of reasons for people to be on the street, maybe some were shopping! Maybe they were just out getting a breath of fresh air!"
"But that fundamentally misunderstands the threat of protesting in Iran," Watters added. "You can get put to death if you chant 'Death to Ayatollah,' which they were doing. It doesn't take any bravery to chant 'Death to Trump,' 'Down with America, it's an evil empire,' everybody does that over there and they're doing that because they get paid to do it."
Watters' comments echo those of former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who claimed Democrats are "mourning" Suleimani's death, and Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), who recently apologized after claiming Democrats are "in love with terrorists."
In his typically blunt fashion, Republican consultant Rick Wilson claims the U.S. will never be rid of the Trump family if the president survives his impeachment trial and is re-elected in 2020.
Getting right to the point in his Daily Beast column, Wilson writes, "Eight years of Trump sucks, right? It’s terrible, isn’t it? I mean, it can’t get worse, right? Right? Oh, you cockeyed optimists."
Adding, "If he wins in 2020, we’re never getting rid of these dolts," Wilson said the re-election of Trump will guarantee, "the rise of the Imperial Trumps, a family cult built on the remains of the moldering corpse of the GOP, featuring all the warmth of North Korea’s Kim dynasty and a kind of Hapsburg-jawed je ne sais dumbf*ck rien."
"Get ready for Donald Trump Jr., a man who speaks the fluent assh*le dialogue of the own-the-libs Trump Party, to rise to the top of the 2024 GOP primary ranks. The dynastic talk that was once treated as a joke (even by me) is already growing around both Don Jr. and Ivanka. Poor Eric is left out, but then again, he always has been," he continued.
As Wilson sees it, the Trump family has found a personal goldmine by inhabiting the Oval Office, allowing them to funnel money into the family coffers with no restraints -- least of all from fellow Republicans.
"The Trump family—including the creepy automaton Jared Kushner—will continue to view the American government not as a sacred trust but as an ATM for their crapulous enterprises and nation-state-level grifting," he wrote. "By the fall of 2019, it was clear that Trump had even managed to suborn the military into spending money that benefited his resorts and golf clubs when stories broke of Air Force cargo flights to the Middle East making unusual stops at his golf resort in Scotland for hotel accommodations and fuel."
"The ambition that drives the Trump spawn these days is powerful, and the corruption and collapse of the GOP as a party will enable their dynastic fantasies to play out with real consequences for the country. The Orange Kardashians will have the brand power of Trump, as well as the shameless hucksterism of Fox and the degraded conservative media, behind them," he continued. "Mark my words, even the “respectable” elements of the conservative media will soon be producing think pieces on why Don Jr. is the bridge from raw Trumpism to a smoother, smarter populist nationalism."
Wilson then took on each of the president's kids one at a time.
"Ivanka, though never accepted in Washington, still hopes to shape an image of the smart, Aspen- and TED-Talk-friendly modern technocrat who just happens to be the daughter of the warlord. I once had a 'serious journalist' with robust access to the Trumps tell me, 'She stops so many bad things. She’s a net positive.' Bro. Just because Ivanka calls you and says, 'I’m stopping bad things' doesn’t make it so, but like her father, she knows how easily duped the media can be. Her presence was deeply unwelcome at a number of events where she tried to run with the big dogs of world affairs, sparking an #UnwantedIvanka hashtag that ran wild on social media. She drew grumbles and cold shoulders from other world leaders offended that the adult child of a reality-star president was treating them as props in the drama of her personal ambitions."
The he turned his focus on Don Jr.
"Don Jr. might as well have a Pepe back tattoo, given how beloved he is by the alt-right and how frequently he boosts the social-media posts of the assorted race-war flotsam that follows his father," he explained. "He’s already teased about running for governor of New York or mayor of New York City, but a better bet will be a quickie relocation to Montana or some other state, at least nominally, before he launches his political career. Junior has spent a lot of time on the campaign trail and has learned the ropes. Expect to see him at the center of the Trump efforts in 2020 and as a constant presence on social media."
"Even Eric the Wide-Gummed and Tiffany have been dragged along for some of the high-profile state visits and glam events. Trump wants to maximize the reach of the brand, even for the children he loves the least. This is how real dynastic politics come to America, not with a bang but a reality show," he wrote, adding, "Yes, the Imperial Trumps are here to stay. Get ready for four years of the right-wing press writing strained profiles of the Strange New Respect that Ivanka is generating among conservatives, and how the first woman Republican president might not be Nikki Haley but rather the deceptively smart and successful fashion icon supermom Ivanka Trump, who is surprisingly down-to-earth. They’ll “discover” she has an easy, self-deprecating sense of humor."
"One other factor about the soon-to-be endless presence of Trumps in our lives: They’re breeding like rabbits, so if we don’t play our cards right now, they’ll have enough offspring to get a majority in the U.S. Senate before long," he concluded.
Among critics of the killing of Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani, one would be hard-pressed to find any U.S. politicians who view Soleimani as a positive figure: typically, those who oppose the killing are quick to point out that although he was part of a brutally oppressive regime, his death will add to the instability in an already troubled part of the world. But that hasn’t prevented Republican supporters of President Donald Trump from shamelessly describing opponents of the killing as terrorist sympathizers — and Never Trump conservative Max Boot calls them out in a blistering Washington Post column.
Two of the worst pro-Trump offenders in the GOP, Boot asserts, are Rep. Douglas A. Collins of Georgia and Rep. John Rutherford of Florida. Collins claimed that Democrats who opposed the killing of Soleimani are “in love with terrorists,” while Rutherford accused Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of being part of a “squad of ayatollah sympathizers.”
“While dismaying and appalling,” Boot writes, “their vile comments are hardly surprising coming from such rabid Trump apologists.” But Boot quickly adds that although he would “expect better from former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley,” the ex-South Carolina governor asserted, “The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat presidential candidates.”
Boot laments that sadly, demonizing critics of military inventions has been going on in the U.S. for generations.
“If truth is the first casualty of war, dissent is the second,” Boot explains. “The United States has a long, ignominious history of attacks — both physical and rhetorical — on critics of its conflicts. Loyalists during the American Revolution were sometimes tarred and feathered. Southern sympathizers in the North during the Civil War were arrested and held without trial. Critics of America’s involvement in World War I were arrested and deported. Anti-Vietnam War protesters were investigated and harassed by the FBI and attacked by police and blue-collar workers.”
Boot criticizes himself as well, asserting that he regrets attacking opponents of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as unpatriotic.
“I was guilty of some over-the-top rhetoric myself,” Boot writes. “I wrote a strained op-ed in early 2003 arguing that anti-war protesters made conflict more likely by encouraging (dictator Saddam) Hussein to hold out against U.S. demands. I now cringe when I read that column because, of course, the anti-war protesters were right, and I was wrong: the invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea even though Hussein was a terrible person who deserved what he got.”
Boot wraps up his column by noting that during World War I, it was a Republican — former President Teddy Roosevelt — who asserted that dissent had its place during wartime.
“In 1918,” Boot recalls, Roosevelt “protested his successor Woodrow Wilson’s attempts to criminalize wartime dissent: ‘To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.’ So, by Roosevelt’s definition, guess who is being ‘treasonable?’ Hint: It’s not Trump’s critics.”
It is entirely possible to express negative views about the late Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani yet believe that killing him was a terrible move on the part of the Trump Administration: for example, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice told NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday that one of the negative consequences of Soleimani’s death is the U.S. having to suspend its military campaign against the terrorist organization ISIS (Islamic State, Iraq and Syria). But some Trump supporters have been conflating opposition to the killing with loving the repressive Iranian government, and journalist Paul Waldman asserts in a Washington Post op-ed that such rhetoric underscores the contempt Republicans have for the majority of Americans.
“Perhaps it’s no surprise that the possibility of yet another war in the Middle East has brought out the worst in so many conservative supporters of President Trump,” Waldman asserts. “But even if that prospect seems to have been put off for now, it’s likely that the ugly impulses that have surfaced will emerge again and again as we approach the elections in November.
Waldman cites some examples of the type of things Republican Trumpistas have been saying about opponents of the Soleimani killing. Rep. Douglas A. Collins of Georgia asserted that Democrats are “in love with terrorists. We see that they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families.”
Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley claimed, “The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership,” while White House Senior Adviser Kellyanne Conway insisted, “The alarmists and apologists show skepticism about our own intelligence and sympathy for Soleimani.”
And on Thursday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) smeared Nancy Pelosi, saying: “I never thought that there would be a moment in time when the speaker of the House of Representatives would actually be defending Suleimani.”
Waldman writes, “Republicans are quite certain not only that the American public shares their belief that the Soleimani assassination was the right thing to do, but that anyone who disagrees must love terrorists.”
The journalist goes on to note that according to a USA Today polls, 55% of the public believe Soleimani’s death makes them less safe.
“America, it seems, is a nation of ayatollah-sympathizing, terrorist-loving Soleimani-mourners,” Waldman asserts. “Or maybe, most people just don’t buy the proposition that unless you support every decision Donald Trump makes, you’re a traitor.”
Ugly rhetoric from Republicans, Waldman stresses, will only increase between now and the November election — and Democrats will need to call them out.
“As we get closer to the election and the possibility of Democratic victory becomes real,” Waldman warns, “Republicans will get more extreme in their words. Their predictions of cataclysm — the governor of Mississippi, Phil Bryant, recently said that if Democrats win the Senate, ‘we will take that first step into 1000 years of darkness’ — will regularly bleed over into accusations that if you don’t support Trump, then you wish for the apocalypse and therefore, hate America. That kind of rancid bile shouldn’t go unchallenged for a second.”
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough blasted President Donald Trump -- and anyone who believes his lies about Democrats and Iranian general Qassim Suleimani.
The president and his Republican allies have been claiming Democrats are mourning the death of Suleimani, who was killed last week in an airstrike Trump ordered, and the "Morning Joe" host ripped everyone who's buying those lies.
"Donald Trump saying that (House Speaker Nancy) Pelosi defendants Suleimani -- it's a lie, it's a damnable lie," Scarborough said. "It's disgusting and disgraceful, we expect nothing less than that from him. It's a total lie."
"Anybody who believes Donald Trump is just stupid as hell," he added. "If you believe Donald Trump that Nancy Pelosi's defended Suleimani, let me be very clear -- you're stupid as hell. You're one of those people I say should not be allowed around household appliances. You will take off some fingers, if not your entire hand. Don't be dumb, don't believe what Donald Trump says when he says Nancy Pelosi and the 'radical Democrats' are defending Suleimani."
The president is also lobbing slurs at conservatives who have criticized the way Trump ordered the assassination.
"(Sen.) Rand Paul actually doesn't defend Suleimani, but he opposed the attack," Scarborough said. "(Sen.) Mike Lee, by the way, he's a Republican, conservative Republican actually, and the same there. Libertarian Party, we'll be talking to the head of the Libertarian Party in a little bit, they don't defend Suleimani, but they also don't think that a president should be an imperial president and just assassinate people when he damn well feels like it when there's not an imminent threat."
Scarborough singled out Nikki Haley and Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) for pushing Trump's lie about Suleimani.
"How shameful, seriously?" he said. "How disgusting, Nikki Haley. Nobody is mourning the loss of Suleimani in the Democratic Party that I've seen. If they are, shame on them, but certainly not Nancy Pelosi."
According to the columnist, President Donald Trump is using the same ugly rhetoric that the Bush administration deployed in the run up to the disastrous war on Baghdad, including bogus patriotic flag-waving and accusations of coddling terrorists.
"Is it just me, or is some of the rhetoric being bandied about by Republicans reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war?" he began. "We see it when Lindsey Graham says that Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul are “empowering the enemy.” It’s evident when Nikki Haley suggests that Democrats are "mourning" the death of Qassem Soleimani—and when Rep. Doug Collins says Dems are “in love with terrorists.” And we see it when Liz Cheney says the War Powers Resolution dishonors every member of America’s armed forces. We see it when Lou Dobbs compares Mike Lee to Benedict Arnold."
According to Lewis, skepticism is in order with regard to the killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Suelimani based on a claim of an "imminent threat" for the Trump administration.
"It’s appropriate to question whether Soleimani’s existence posed an imminent threat or whether Congress should have at least been consulted," he suggested. "Further, it’s legitimate to question the wisdom and prudence of killing him, even as almost everyone (yes, even Democrats) concedes he was a bad guy. We still don’t know the long-term ramifications. Reports that a Ukrainian jet taking off in Tehran might have been downed by an Iranian missile adds even more volatility. We find ourselves in a precarious situation where some rando Iranian lieutenant could accidentally start WWIII."
"The irony, of course, is that after initially supporting the Iraq war, Donald Trump has been highly critical of George W. Bush, going so far as to suggest congressional Democrats should have impeached him over the Iraq War," he continued. "It’s also ironic that the same intelligence community that facilitated the killing of Soleimani (and the same intel community that allegedly said doing so was urgently needed to prevent future attacks) has been the focus of so much Trump condemnation."
Writing, "There’s no telling where this will go," Lewis continued, "Trump’s foreign policy is incoherent and inconsistent, so he could revert. But there is a possibility that we are entering a new election-year phase... When he predicted that Barack Obama would start a war with Iran in order to help insure his own re-election, was Trump really telling us that is what he would have done if he were in Obama’s shoes?"
With that he gave a warning to Republicans who are uncritically backing the president's latest gambit in light of trying to avoid impeachment.
"If you think the 'Dear Leader' mentality was creepy when it was merely advancing a self-serving cult of personality, just imagine how dangerous it can be when employed by a commander in chief seeking re-election as a 'war-time president,'" he concluded.
It is entirely possible to express negative views about the late Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani yet believe that killing him was a terrible move on the part of the Trump Administration: for example, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice told NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday that one of the negative consequences of Soleimani’s death is the U.S. having to suspend its military campaign against the terrorist organization ISIS (Islamic State, Iraq and Syria). But some Trump supporters have been conflating opposition to the killing with loving the repressive Iranian government, and journalist Paul Waldman asserts in a Washington Post op-ed that such rhetoric underscores the contempt Republicans have for the majority of Americans.
“Perhaps it’s no surprise that the possibility of yet another war in the Middle East has brought out the worst in so many conservative supporters of President Trump,” Waldman asserts. “But even if that prospect seems to have been put off for now, it’s likely that the ugly impulses that have surfaced will emerge again and again as we approach the elections in November.
Waldman cites some examples of the type of things Republican Trumpistas have been saying about opponents of the Soleimani killing. Rep. Douglas A. Collins of Georgia asserted that Democrats are “in love with terrorists. We see that they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our Gold Star families.”
Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley claimed, “The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership,” while White House Senior Adviser Kellyanne Conway insisted, “The alarmists and apologists show skepticism about our own intelligence and sympathy for Soleimani.”
And on Thursday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) smeared Nancy Pelosi, saying: “I never thought that there would be a moment in time when the speaker of the House of Representatives would actually be defending Suleimani."
Waldman writes, “Republicans are quite certain not only that the American public shares their belief that the Soleimani assassination was the right thing to do, but that anyone who disagrees must love terrorists.”
The journalist goes on to note that according to a USA Today polls, 55% of the public believe Soleimani’s death makes them less safe.
“America, it seems, is a nation of ayatollah-sympathizing, terrorist-loving Soleimani-mourners,” Waldman asserts. “Or maybe, most people just don’t buy the proposition that unless you support every decision Donald Trump makes, you’re a traitor.”
Ugly rhetoric from Republicans, Waldman stresses, will only increase between now and the November election — and Democrats will need to call them out.
“As we get closer to the election and the possibility of Democratic victory becomes real,” Waldman warns, “Republicans will get more extreme in their words. Their predictions of cataclysm — the governor of Mississippi, Phil Bryant, recently said that if Democrats win the Senate, ‘we will take that first step into 1000 years of darkness’ — will regularly bleed over into accusations that if you don’t support Trump, then you wish for the apocalypse and therefore, hate America. That kind of rancid bile shouldn’t go unchallenged for a second.”
On Wednesday's edition of CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum laid into President Donald Trump for abdicating his responsibility to be a president for anyone who did not vote for or support him.
"This president has insulted the state of California, he says he hates the state of New York, says that Baltimore is a rodent and rat-infested mess, he said that Chicago is a disgrace to the nation, he has described Atlanta as a disgrace to the nation," said Frum. "And just in the immediate aftermath of the targeted killing of General Suleimani, the president retweeted one of his most fervent supporters, who said that the Democratic leadership in Congress were the equivalent of Iranian terrorists."
"The person who is jockeying for the job of replacing Mike Pence as his running mate in 2020, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, said that Democrats mourn the death of Suleimani, which no Democrat has done," continued Frum. "And when challenged on that said, well, they've regretted it. And the two people who most conspicuously regretted it are members of Trump's party, Rand Paul and Trump's favorite TV host, Tucker Carlson."
"So the president, it has never even occurred to him that this is part of his job," said Frum. "He thinks his job is to put on makeup, raise his chin, go on TV, and say things. And then the people should applaud. And if they don't, it's their fault and not his fault."
Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley is under fire for attacking Democrats with lies in an attempt to defend President Donald Trump – a strategy some say she is employing to get Trump to see her as a replacement for Vice President Mike Pence on the 2020 ticket.
Monday night Haley went on Fox News to deliver what some journalists are calling “categorically false” and “ridiculous, inflammatory and dangerous” remarks.
Haley told Fox News viewers – which includes President Trump – that the “only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat Presidential candidates.”
And she even posted the clip of her remarks herself:
— (@)
That is false – no one in Democratic leadership and no Democrat Presidential candidate is “mourning the loss of Soleimani.” What Democrats are disturbed by is the questionable legality of an assassination of a foreign government official, and the process by which Trump made the decision to order the killing of Soleimani – without calculating the consequences, which are now disastrously unfolding.
Many are responding, angry about Haley lying, and noting she has ruined her reputation as a moderate Republican who might have had a chance in 2024.
