Tim Kaine attacks Gary Johnson, and the New York Times reports it!
Kaine: “Two of the three candidates clearly don’t have an understanding for the role of our military and the role that a commander in chief needs to play in supporting our military.”
And according to a Johnson campaign email I received today, "Over the last week, Hillary and her Super PACs have unleashed thousands of online commenters, bloggers, and spin specialists to attack our campaign."
Yeah, the Democrats are finally waking up to the fact that the Libertarian Party could cost Hillary the election. Hopefully the LP has some kind of public response in mind to take advantage of all the publicity the Dems plan to unload on its candidates.
And according to a Johnson campaign email I received today, "Over the last week, Hillary and her Super PACs have unleashed thousands of online commenters, bloggers, and spin specialists to attack our campaign."
Yeah, the Democrats are finally waking up to the fact that the Libertarian Party could cost Hillary the election. Hopefully the LP has some kind of public response in mind to take advantage of all the publicity the Dems plan to unload on its candidates.
Therefore, anything he says should be taken with the same concern one has with any wind-up toy.
Kaine speaks the truth and he knows he is saying it in a way that will be misunderstood.
The military was polled on who they trust to be commander in chief. They rejected both Trump and Hitlery, and chose Gary Johnson. Kaine knows this, but, like his running mate, he has no respect at all for the military.
I would love to be there watching when Kaine and Hillary are executed in a military coup.
That would make my century.
Just Julian code for the unawakened and the yet to be awakened.
"It's focusing public attention on Syria and the Middle East, an issue on which Clinton is especially vulnerable."
A focus on Syria and the Middle East or any foreign policy issue benefits Clinton (for me anyway). She blows away all other candidates in foreign policy experience, hands-down. If we were voting for Secretary of State, I'd vote for Clinton. I suspect Democrats and maybe some moderate Republicans share this view. I imagine some Republicans going from Trump to Clinton if/when $hit suddenly gets serious. (I don't have a handle on public opinion, so I could be completely wrong.)
"it's giving the LP credibility as a party and Johnson as a candidate, giving him a certain status"
I suspect Clinton wants to be president badly and does not care about the long-term status of the LP. She doesn't think the LP will beat her this time, and that's all she cares about.
"Kaine's attack is part of an attempt to slow down or reverse the defection of Clinton supporters to Johnson"
This backfires with me. I like that Johnson and Weld are so respectful toward Clinton. I don't like Kaine making petty criticisms of Johnson.
Yes, her experience proves beyond any doubt that she is a complete incompetent in foreign affairs and is capable of starting a world war that would centralize power and increase government to an extent not seen since FDR. Just the exact opposite of what you want, CG.
.
Right. When it comes to gov't taking action, she's one of the top experts in the world. I want less gov't action, so she's not my first choice. We were talking about whether attention on problems in Syria hurt her. To the extent that people think the US gov't should do something about Syria, I say it helps her.
She is one of the top "experts" in taking the wrong action and hiding her guilt. She is not an "expert" in govt action of any rational kind.
How anyone could possibly feel Hillary is qualified for ANY job in public service is beyond all reason.
I think Clinton is highly competent at a job I don't want done.