Two theories about why Steve Bannon midwifed such a bad executive order

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

It’s been a few days since the White House issued an executive order regarding refugees and visa holders that generated just a wee bit of legal and political blowback. There seems to be a whole lot of confusion about how things went down and why. So let’s stipulate a few facts before speculating on some possible explanations.

FACT #1: This was Steve Bannon’s baby. We know from the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush that Bannon has gained greater influence over Trump at the expense of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and everyone else in the West Wing not related to Trump. Bannon’s appointment to the National Security Council has raised more than a few eyebrows, and it’s indicative of his influence.

According to multiple news reports, Bannon was the architect of much of the first week of the Trump administration. Regarding this order in particular, my Post colleague Karen DeYong reports that, Bannon “was directly involved in shaping the controversial immigration mandate.” CNN’s reporting offers some details backing this up:

Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen — did not apply to people with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green cardholders.

The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President’s inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case-by-case basis, DHS could allow green cardholders to enter the U.S.

-more-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/30/two-theories-about-why-steve-bannon-midwifed-such-a-bad-executive-order/?tid=pm_opinions_pop&utm_term=.48a1fcccd9be

[rzemanfl]

1. I know that is the title of the article, but yuck, the thought of midwifery and Bannon

made me throw up a little in my mouth.

[dmr]

2. This was interesting to read

I'm glad you posted it.

I don't think it's far fetched at all, & I believe malice was the intent.

Read the comments, most of them agree, too.

[Johonny]

3. Most of these EO seem to be written by a 5th grader

They sound stupid, vague to the point of unenforceable, unconstitutional, petty, and short sighted.

Trump should can this guy not expand his role. He's killing his presidency before it starts.

[KittyWampus]

4. Wish you'd skipped the top and jumped to the FACT this is intentional malevolence:

Political theater to harden Bannon's base.

this executive order to get as much publicity as possible. He wanted the ACLU involved. He thinks this will be a PR win….

Both sides think that maximum exposure is good for them. Liberals think middle America will be appalled at Trump’s callousness. Bannon thinks middle America will be appalled that lefties and the elite media are taking the side of terrorists. After a week of skirmishes, this is finally a hill that both sides are willing to die for. Who’s going to win?

Drum thinks this was done for domestic politics reasons, which leads to the second explanation: This is security theater. Trump spent his entire campaign whipping up hysteria about the terrorist threat. As previously noted, this executive order does not accomplish that, but it does make a big splash. It’s a highly visible action that might make Americans somehow feel more secure. That it hurts foreigners is just a bonus for Bannon.

This is possible, but it is worth noting that this action, as well as the counterproductive rhetoric toward Mexico, has harmed rather than helped Trump’s approval ratings.

It is possible that we will never know the precise mix of malevolence and incompetence that led to this outcome. What we do know, however, is that the outcome has significantly harmed America’s standing in the world and its national security interests.

snip

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

6. An obvious fault with Bannon's idea

Last edited Tue Jan 31, 2017, 08:35 PM - Edit history (1)

He assumes most people are as bigoted as him and consider all Muslims to be terrorists.

Outside of those in rural America most of us have dealt with those of the Islamic faith and while we may not share that faith we know better than Bannon's stereotype.

[etherealtruth]

5. i am also inclined to think it was a test to see how far republicans would go ....

... to stop something repugnant that their racist/ bigoted voters support. apparently, nothing is too malevolent or morally offensive to interrupt their legislative mandate.

I would venture to say the republican politicians were more upset that tRump said they would lower insurance premiums and co-pays/ out of pocket expenses on health insurance than they were tRumps repulsive order

[KittyWampus]

7. I agree. See how many would being willing to accept atrocities.