The Deep State or the Steady State?

OK, so what’s your point?

To a wise observer, it is trivially obvious that Seward was neither the savant nor savior that he imagined himself to be, and that had disastrous consequences for this country. The same is true today of the coward who wrote the op-ed piece published by the NYT which, as noted earlier, is aptly comparable to a work of fiction.

And on a previous occasion in this nation's history an arrogant and self-promoting *statesman*, Secretary of State William Seward, also thought he knew what was best for the country and that Abraham Lincoln was an incompetent country bumpkin. Seward's back channel, mixed-messaged communications with the South led directly to the destruction of this country and ultimately to war. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

seward went behind Lincoln's back via back channel? first I've heard of it.

seward went behind Lincoln's back via back channel? first I've heard of it. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Seward was in communication with agents from the South and sent mixed-messages regarding Ft Sumter which ultimately left the South feeling betrayed by Lincoln when Union reinforcements arrived in Charleston Harbor. Neither Seward or Lincoln were actively engaged in double dealing, but Seward was making promises that didn't represent Lincoln's intentions. Thus, the South was provoked by the apparent duplicity of the Lincoln administration and came to view Lincoln as dishonest and not to be trusted in protracted negotiations.

The story has been out there for years, but it's a part of Civil War history that modern "identity politics" historians don't want to talk about.

War could have been avoided. Read at: Phil Leigh.

That all "smells" of the diplomatic mess with respect to Iraq in Bush I's administration ... duplicitous and/or unauthorized remarks.

War could have been avoided with a clear message. But today that's being a "bully" and "unstable"!

That all "smells" of the diplomatic mess with respect to Iraq in Bush I's administration ... duplicitous and/or unauthorized remarks.

War could have been avoided with a clear message. But today that's being a "bully" and "unstable"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Or possible with a more competent representative to Iraq who knew a little about how to communicate. There are too many incompetent people appointed to diplomatic positions because of political favors being paid back.

Both parties, for many years, but getting worse. It has been quite a while since it was deemed necessary to actually appoint a competent SecState or ambassador.

Or possible with a more competent representative to Iraq who knew a little about how to communicate. There are too many incompetent people appointed to diplomatic positions because of political favors being paid back.

Both parties, for many years, but getting worse. It has been quite a while since it was deemed necessary to actually appoint a competent SecState or ambassador. Originally Posted by Old-T

It's called "The Swamp"!

too many Swamp Things.

Thank you for correcting me on that. Carson is just crazy. But if he was such a brilliant brain surgeon, why isn’t he still doing it? Maybe he was smart enough to get out before people got hurt by his industriousness.

Michael Jackson’s doctor??? What does he have to do with this discussion? Or are you simply blowing dog whistles about ancient racial stereotypes? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Well, you are welcome. Dr. Carson retired from the active practice of medicine.

As for the laziness of Michael Jackson's doctor, I was trying to frame the reasons for the classifications in light of your attention to the topic.

I hate lazy mother fuckers.

Are you talking the Senate, the House, or a combination of both?

If the Democrats win only 4 additional seats in the House I would not deem it close to a "Blue Wave".

My opinion for a Blue Wave would be Democrats taking control of both the House AND the Senate. Or the Democrats winning an additional 40+ seats in the House and not losing any seats in the Senate. There are other scenarios that I say would be significant victory for Democrats but not come under the category of a Blue Wave. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

SEnate not house. For the house, i'd say 10+ seats one way or the other would qualify as a wave.

SEnate not house. For the house, i'd say 10+ seats one way or the other would qualify as a wave. Originally Posted by garhkal

I would agree with you on the Senate. Not on the House. A 10 seat swing is nothing in the mid-term elections. Thanks for responding!