Richard Armitage: Former Republican Deputy Secretary of State Endorses Democrat Hillary Clinton

[Miles Archer]

Richard Armitage: Former Republican Deputy Secretary of State Endorses Democrat Hillary Clinton

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Richard-Armitage/112074478804992

Armitage told Politico Donald Trump "doesn’t appear to be a Republican, he doesn’t appear to want to learn about issues. So I’m going to vote for Mrs. Clinton." He served under George W. Bush.

[Else You Are Mad]

1. I don't know...

If this is s good or a bad thing... But I am leaning towards bad.

[geek tragedy]

2. it means Trump is so obviously insane that sane Republicans would rather

live with a Democrat in the white house than hand him the nuclear codes.

At some point, basic fitness for office trumps ideology.

Imagine if the Democrats nominated Charlie Sheen. You'd have Democrats refusing to support the nominee.

Thankfully, that's impossible as our party is not batshit crazy.

[Else You Are Mad]

3. Oh, I agree.

I am just worried that there may be a turn right to court more of the se orphaned republicans.

[choie]

9. Um - wouldn't call Armitage a "sane" Republican

More like a sociopath.

[socialist_n_TN]

24. Yep. Another neo-conservative in the HRC and "Democratic Party" camp.........

But that's all right. It shows exactly where her support lies.

[jamese777]

26. If Bernie had gotten 3.8 million more votes

every day a different Republican would be endorsing him as well. That's had bad Donald Trump is.
Senator Mark Kirk of Illnois also endorsed Clinton. Senator Kirk said that he couldn't bring himself to vote for a bigot and a racist.
Yesterday it was former Republican Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota.

Here's how real hard core conservatives feel about Hillary Clinton. From the American Conservative Union: "Another interesting fact in our analysis is the stark reminder that Sec. Hillary Clinton is no moderate. While many in the media portray her as more centrist than self-described Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or fringe activist Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Clinton’s lifetime rating of 8.13% is within two percentage points from those extremists. And shockingly, all three of these presidential hopefuls are even more liberal than President Barack Obama’s Lifetime Rating of 10% from when he served in the U.S. Senate. If America wants a third Obama term, three candidates will not disappoint."

[Number23]

23. Well said, geek. And I think you're 100% right

Trump is so obviously insane that sane Republicans would rather live with a Democrat in the white house than hand him the nuclear codes.

[Miles Archer]

4. I don't see it as a good thing

I've been around DU for a while...I remember a lot of Armitage threads. This is one of those "OK, thank you, bye now" endorsements. The best thing for Clinton would be for him to crawl back under his rock.

[CorkySt.Clair]

8. I doubt they'll be hitting the trail together.

And his name would be met with shrugs by literally 99 percent of the electorate if you could ask them collectively who he is. This is inside baseball stuff.

[choie]

10. When is Kissinger going to endorse her?

he can join Armitage on the list of sociopaths and war criminals that endorse her.

[Miles Archer]

12. Kissinger needs to adopt the Blankfein "more harm than good" tactic

Blankfein didn't offer a direct endorsement to the media because he knew, in his own words, that it would be "toxic."

[Nye Bevan]

13. Hillary endorsed by not one but two Nobel Peace Prize winners?

That would be something.

[choie]

17. I hope you're joking..

[jamese777]

27. Kissinger is a Trump Advisor

He's teaching Trump about foreign policy (in 1968).

[frazzled]

7. Well, he called for withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2006

against the policy of the Bush administration at the time, and admitted the war had been a mistake. He wasn't the most insane of the Bush administration people, and he got out of that administration early himself. So let's call him ... well, a halfway sane Republican. (Aside from the Plame thing.)

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2006/10/20/8188/armitage-iraq-withdrawal/

[choie]

11. You clearly don't know his history

[frazzled]

19. Yes, I do

I'm trying to find reasons and a patch of common ground. After all, he did NOT endorse her. He just said he'd vote for her. A lot of establishment Republicans, especially of the older guard, are saying that. Trump is THAT bad.

[TwilightZone]

15. He had three choices, Clinton, Trump or neither.

Choosing Clinton shows that there are at least a few reasonable Republicans left in the face of a dope like Trump.

I doubt it will influence many, but the goal is to win the presidency and swing the Senate D. The more independents and moderate Republicans that see Trump for what he is and are publicly vocal about it, the better.

[leveymg]

5. It's like being endorsed by Herman Goering.

You welcome every vote, but pay a certain price.

[bobthedrummer]

6. !

Thanx! K&R

[jamese777]

30. What price is that?

No candidate can pick and choose who votes for her or him.

[leveymg]

32. Reputational cost.

HRC should issue a disclaimer on this one. Here's another example: recall that when David Duke endorsed Ronald Reagan, Reagan's press person demurred.

[Nye Bevan]

14. Plenty of Republicans are terrified of Trump's batshit craziness,

and lots of these folk are going to vote for Hillary and announce their intentions to this effect.

Hillary's response should be something like: "I understand that with Donald Trump being the worst Republucan presidential candidate in living memory, many people who would normally vote Republican are going to vote for me".

[Miles Archer]

16. That's a balancing act...

...I know opinion differs greatly on DU about how many Democrats are "for" her, but while I absolutely get the validity in what you're saying, these endorsements potentially don't add enthusiasm to Democrats who are sitting on the fence.

Just a different way of looking at it. Personally, I'd tread lightly, thank them, and keep moving forward.

[TwilightZone]

18. There aren't many Democrats on the fence.

The CBS News poll just released has it 81/6 for Hillary, so only 13% total for other/undecided and it's not even convention time yet.

Other recent polls have similar numbers. There's little reason to believe the conventional wisdom around here that Democrats aren't going to vote for her. It was always a bit of a silly argument in the first place, considering that she won them by nearly 30% in the primaries.

[Nye Bevan]

20. Absolutely. After 5 more months of racist, xenophobic, batshit-crazy mysogynistic crap from Trump,

how many Democrats, exactly, are still going to be muttering about how Sanders was robbed by DWS and stay home on election day? This is one of those things where there is a chasm of difference between DU and the real world.

[Miles Archer]

21. OK, let me ask you a straight question.

You do know that on DU, polls...whether they showed Sanders or Clinton results...were met by their supporters with enthusiasm, while the people who weren't supporters usually replied with "that's just a poll, you can't take them seriously, we're five months away from the election"...a whole litany of reasons why the polls should be taken with a grain of salt, unless the poll was favorable to the candidate of their choice.

You honestly believe that a CBS News Poll speaks for every Democrat?

[TwilightZone]

22. In the real world, Democrats are going to vote for Democrats.

This election is going to be like any other presidential election - most Democrats, Sanders Democrats included, are going to vote for the Democratic nominee. The polls only reflect what we pretty much already know from experience and from the available data.

Clinton overwhelmingly won the Democratic vote in the primaries, to the tune of 64/35. There is little reason to believe that they're not going to support her in November. She also tied Sanders with those who identified as "very liberal" and won easily with "somewhat liberals" and moderates. She got millions more to the polls than Sanders did, and certainly more Democrats.

The Democratic vote for Hillary will probably be even more pronounced than in most elections because Trump is one of the most abhorrent presidential candidates anyone can ever remember. She also has one of the best infrastructure and GOTV organizations in politics and will be getting assistance from many of the people who helped Obama win in 2008.

Finally, there simply isn't a huge group of disgruntled Sanders Democrats that are going to stay home in November. Most of them are already on board. Many will follow when Sanders concedes (assuming he does) and endorses Clinton (ditto). More will follow after they contemplate President Donald Trump for a bit.

Emphasis on the word Democrat -- keep in mind that many of Bernie's supporters aren't Democrats; they're Greens, Independents, etc., as many of them were rather fond of telling us the past few months. Many of the ones who insist they'll stay home in November probably weren't Democrats to begin with.

[jamese777]

31. Don't Like The CBS poll?

There are about thirty reputable national polling organizations. Of the ones that have recently released polling data:
"If the general election was being held today, for whom would you vote? Clinton or Trump.
Rasmussen Reports: Clinton +5
Reuters/Ipsos: Clinton +9
Bloomberg: Clinton +12
Fox News: Clinton +3
The Economist/You Gov: Clinton +3
Investors Business Daily/TIPP: Clinton +5
Quinnipiac U. Polling Institute: Clinton +4
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Obviously there are alot of Democrats supporting Clinton over Trump.

[Pastiche423]

25. Din't he leak Plame?

Self-admitted.

[eastwestdem]

28. Who else would he vote for, Deranged Donald? nt

[azurnoir]

29. Armitage aka "The Man Who Said Too Much" crossed over long ago-he was the leak in the Plame affair

On November 15, 2005, journalist Bob Woodward of The Washington Post revealed in an article that "a government official with no axe to grind" leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003. According to an April 2006 Vanity Fair article (published March 14, 2006), former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee said in an interview "that Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption", though Bradlee later told the Post that he " not recall making that precise statement" in the interview. The following year, on March 2, 2006, bloggers discovered that "Richard Armitage" fit the spacing on a redacted court document, suggesting he was a source for the Plame leak. In August 2006, the Associated Press published a story that revealed Armitage met with Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003. The information came from official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act.

Robert Novak, in an August 27, 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, stated that although he still would not release the name of his source, he felt it was long overdue that the source reveal himself. Armitage has also reportedly been a cooperative and key witness in the investigation. According to The Washington Note, Armitage has testified before the grand jury three times.

On August 29, 2006, Neil A. Lewis of The New York Times reported that Armitage was the "initial and primary source" for columnist Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 article, which named Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative" and which triggered the CIA leak investigation.

On August 30, 2006, CNN reported that Armitage had been confirmed "by sources" as leaking Wilson's CIA role in a "casual conversation" with Robert Novak. The New York Times, quoting people "familiar with his actions", reported that Armitage was unaware of Wilson's undercover status when he spoke to Novak.

In the September 4, 2006 issue of Newsweek magazine, in an article titled "The Man Who Said Too Much", journalist Michael Isikoff, quoting a "source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities", reported that Armitage was the "primary" source for Robert Novak's piece outing Plame. Armitage allegedly mentioned Wilson's CIA role to Novak in a July 8, 2003 interview after learning about her status from a State Department memo which made no reference to her undercover status. Isikoff also reported that Armitage had also told Bob Woodward of Plame's identity in June 2003, and that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald investigated Armitage's role "aggressively", but did not charge Armitage with a crime because he "found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward".

On September 7, 2006, Armitage admitted to being the source in the CIA leak. Armitage claims that Fitzgerald had originally asked him not to discuss publicly his role in the matter, but that on September 5 Armitage asked Fitzgerald if he could reveal his role to the public, and Fitzgerald consented.

[Octafish]

33. Iran Contra Old School

Guy knows how to cojoin making war and making a buck.

https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/profile-armitage.php

Big bucks.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKarmitage.htm

Wasn't he also first to out Valerie Plame?

Great endorsement.