I think the only way Iraq is the answer is if they didn't invade in the first place.

The answer to your first question, if we confined it to "something the Dems could have done" which seems to be your implicit assumption is something between "definitely not unless they could all collectively see the future" and "lol of course not what're you smoking?"

Yes, Trump was never big on the anti-gay thing and so basically represented an implicit point when the right conceded on SSM- they never admitted it of course and it was abandoned at the same time they were throwing a lot of other principles overboard so what can ya do?

Heh, you clearly didn't pay attention to the SSM issue much before the mid aughts. In the 90's a lot of the gay rights groups thought SSM was a terrible idea because it was "heteronormative".

I agree the supreme court would eventually have given way on SSM. When gays got equal rights to serve in the military under Obama's first term the gig was up and the social conservative route was starting*. I think a Romney victory would, possibly, have made the courts hesitate a bit longer on Obergefell than they did under an Obama victory.

And we agree Trump was going to happen. The dysfunction on the right was eventually going to summon Trump or someone like him and i don't think that Liberals were going to snap around on Immigration absolutism or on Free trade absent Trump happening.

But it seems like your point was strictly counterfactuals which is entirely fine; I appreciate you clarifying.

*It is interesting that, for all his stomping on Trans matters, neither Trump nor his social con eunuchs have made even gestures at going after SSM. It may be too soon to be sure, but I do suspect that it signifies the final waving of the white flag on SSM. Note, Jay vis a vis our previous discussion on the matter, that the right never did any "We were wrong about SSM" self examinations; they never overtly reversed their positions or pulled out their policy planks or did any of the repentance self flagellating self-examination stuff you think the left needs to do about DEI. They just... stopped emphasizing it and stopped talking about it.

You and me both but I got what I wanted which was to find out if this was simply an appeal to counterfactuals (it seems to be) or if there was any deeper meaning or implication (seems to not be the case) so I'm actually pretty content with the response I got.

Obama had two choices on the subject- consume his entire term punishing, persecuting and reversing W's atrocities or sort of mumble past them, stop doing them where possible and do other things. I don't think it speaks well of him that he chose not to do the former but it's very understandable that he looked at his historic mega-trifecta and said "I'm expected to squander this on Bush?!?!" and went for the ACA instead.

Counterfactuals are extremely hard to run, to put it mildly, would Pres Romneybot have had a Dem Senate in '12? Would the GOP have taken full control of Congress in '14?

I think the only thing we can say with any confidence is SSM would have been pushed back a few years and the Iran deal would have never occurred. Since I, and most liberals, consider both of those good policies obviously Romney would have been a terrible trade without even assuming his normal Republitarian tax cut nonsense would have been an awful trade for the gridlock that Obama had. There's also a non-zero chance that Romneybot sends boots in when Syria uses chemical weapons which would have been a W style clusterfish. Does Pres. Romneybot butterfly away Trump? Maybe in 16. Do I think Hillary would have beat him? If he beat Obama how on God(ess?)'s green earth would he have lost to Hillary??! Anything post 2016 is, frankly, nonsensical to even speculate on.

Like I said, the counterfactuals break down fast. Romney didn't narrowly lose to Obama, remember, he got pretty firmly walloped.

Which brings me back to the core question: were liberals incorrectly or unfairly unsupportive of Romney? Hahaha God(ess?) no! Would a world of a Romney presidency be a brighter one from a liberal point of view? No, not even if we assume only one term.

And would Romney have prevented Trump? I'd say absolutely not. Trump took over the GOP because of the gaping chasm between the GOP's ruling elite and their voters on tax policy, gov spending and immigration along with the shriveling of the social conservative movement that papered over it. Romney wouldn't have addressed any of those problems and, if anything, would have likely exacerbated them.

It could be just presentism and the fact that Ronal Regan was before my time but by the numbers for tax cuts, budgets exploded and horrific utterly useless wars embroiled in Bush W seems to have Ronny beat handily. I am not even sure how to balance Iran Contra against W's torture regime, but I feel that the latter is even more atrocious than the former.

I'd agree and you and I probably also find a certain bitter commonality in that we both think that Bush W still wears the feces caked crown of the most destructive American President for the welfare of the union in modern American history. Trump is horrible but for all his embarrassments, idiocies and flailing he hasn't come close to W yet in terms of material devastation to the American standing and welfare.

As far as I've seen from your writing style and your substantive positions the answer to that question would be: absolutely yes, always have been, my goodness how could you possibly think otherwise?

And I don't even use it pejoratively, it makes me feel like I'm in my 20's and 30's again when I read your stuff.

It's always bemusing when you return to this well and I just have to ask what your assertion is?

Like, was Romneybot treated unfairly when he ran in 2012? Any objective review at how Presidential candidates in the recent past were treated, especially on the left, would have to answer that question "no, not particularily". LIkewise are you suggesting it'd have been better for liberals if Romney had won in 2012? As in trading a term for Obama for 1-2 theoretical terms of Romney and the obvious rejoinder is "LOL of course not". So that, then, begs the question as to what your core assertion vis a vis Romney is?

I think it's really good for posterity that we host the neocon writers we host- it's always good to remember just how they used to argue and how they were; if for no other reason than to remind ourselves of why it is that Trump, of all people, was able to utterly defenestrated them out of their own party.

Depressing, another writer lost to twitspace.

2016 was a very different election than 2016- "the Resistance" was driven by a rising tide of the new identarianism that likely peaked in 2020 and has been slowly subsiding. 2024 blew a huge hole in a lot of that identarianisms core conceits and the 2024 election was a very different bird from the 2016 one so the component elements and assumptions are very different. There's a lot more intra-Dem and intra-Left arguing this time around for one thing. It's probably going to be healthy in the mid to long run but it's going to be uncoordinated in the short run.

I see Hanley post on Facebook and follow him on Substack. I'd say he remains very principled and crankily libertarian in the strict original sense which means he's not fond of either of the major parties and, in typical Hanley fashion, saves the lions share of his vitriol for whomever is in power at a given time. So he was utterly scathing on Biden and now is utterly scathing on Trump.

I'm not on Bluesky so I don't know anything about Jason but if he's writing anywhere that isn't twitlike I'd love a link since I've always enjoyed his writing.

I imagine the Trump fatigue is going to be epic in two years. Holy buckets.

Hanley remains a "pox on both their houses" libertarian as far as I've seen and trains his venom on whomever is in the White House at a given time.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the thumbs on the agriculture side conservatives pretending the subsidies were for "farmers" while the Neolibs were on the other side of that deal pushing food stamps (which actually do go to hungry poor people)?

I thought that Freddie article paired very interestingly with what I could see of his article where he talks about how progressives (himself included) need to accept that they have to take an L on the immigration subject.

Yes, friend of the blog Hanley made a substack directly about how that is exactly what is happening and what Trump and Musk will likely bog down in.
https://jameshanley.substack.com/p/flooding-the-zone-with-lawsuits

In a sane government or a government facing an actual fiscal crisis, benefit cuts to entitlements would be married to spending cuts on right wing shibboleths like defense along with tax increases weighted towards the wealthy and upper middle class which would result in no one being happy and thus everyone ending up accepting it.

Contra your understandable libertarian fantasies if Trump or his Muskrats gets even close to entitlements with these stunts they'll get politically exploded like a toad struck by lightning. Trump is keenly aware of this which is why, when they briefly interrupted Medicare access portals, they promptly backtracked furiously in a frenzy of denials and pledges of fealty to Medicare.

Ah yes, I see your point now, thank you. Yeah, I sort of doubt Musk has a set of replacement plans for various things he might try to axe nor do I think his intention is to try and divert (allegedly) corrupt or grafted funds that Dems aligned groups are (allegedly) enjoying and divert them to their ostensible purpose or to Republican aligned graft groups. Though who knows what exactly he thinks he’s accomplishing crawling around in the organizational bowels of the Federal government. I have my doubts even he knows what he’s trying to accomplish beyond triggering liberals and nosing around where he’s not supposed to be. I don’t doubt he’ll, given enough time, come up with something he’ll want to do with this access and power- if he isn’t evicted by the courts which seems to be an event that’s coming up fast. I’ll also note that I’d take allegations of graft and corruption, coming from this lot, with a Minnesota salt truck sized serving of salt until/unless they file charges and furnish evidence.

No surprise there.

I'm not a lawyer but I have a suspicion that the Supremes would view "I just took the money appropriated by congress for one thing and spent it on this other thing I like better instead" even more dimly than they'd view impounding.

Saul, Lee, I'll reiterate that you're both laying out lots of reasons for thoughtful people to conclude that Trump will defy court orders and I have no quibbles with them. I will, merely, reiterate that few people have lost money betting on the venality and cowardice of Donald Trump.

I wouldn't say your thoughts are irrational or unreasonable, but I will reiterate that direct overt confrontation when facing a firm opposition has not, historically, been Trumps MO. It's entirely possible that, with his current clique of courtiers stiffening his spine, Trump could do what you're talking about but it's an overt and risky move that Trump has, historically, shied away from. Remember: Trump doesn't believe in this stuff in the slightest, heck, he basically got into office in 2016 by undercutting libertarians more than any other group of the rights coalition except for the neocons.