'Against Trump': Part II

Townhall.com ^ | January 26, 2016 | Katie Pavlich

[Kaslin]

Editor's note: The views expressed here are those solely of the author. 

It's been nearly one week since National Review published their special edition magazine titled, "Against Trump," a symposium of 22-diverse conservatives making a case against Donald Trump's run for the White House.

I have a signed copy of "God & Man at Yale" on my bookshelf and copies of letters from William F. Buckley, Jr. written to my late great uncle tucked away in a drawer. The two were friends. In 2013, I went through the competitive National Review Institute program and had the privilege of learning from some of the conservative movement's most influential thinkers and leaders. When I got a call from National Review Editor-in-Chief Rich Lowry asking if I'd be interested in participating in the symposium, without hesitation I said yes.

Based on the punditry across the cable news spectrum over the past few days, it's painfully obvious very few people, including many conservatives, Republicans and even straight news anchors, opining on "Against Trump" actually read the entire thing. This is a shame.

The outrage over a conservative opinion magazine publishing a well-documented case against Trump has been interesting, to say the least. Dozens of newspapers each election cycle endorse candidates running for public office. By default, an endorsement means being against the rest of the field. To some, what National Review did is outrageous and "offensive," but do the same descriptions apply when other print editorial boards across the country endorse candidates? The answer is no.

What National Review published is no different than a single endorsement of a candidate and is simply an honest stance about which candidate the 22-author symposium is against. The difference here is that the subject was Trump and the substance of the piece was not favorable to him. Because of this, a predictable tantrum ensued.

I welcome civil discussion, disagreement and even tough debate, but I reject the idea we're only allowed to have an opinion so long as it serves and satisfies a certain candidate, no matter who it is. That's not how the primary process works. 

It is important to note in the days since "Against Trump" was published, I've received far more substantive support for the piece, and my part in it, than negativity. 

That being said, I should point out the impossibility of taking Trump's supporters seriously when they hurl endless names through the internet: degenerate, cuckservative, RINO, establishment hack, c*nt, b*itch, two faced c*cksucker, maggot, part of an "unwise pig pile," etc. Not to mention those who told me, and other authors of the piece, to commit suicide.

There is no doubt Donald Trump would be proud of this type of name-calling and incivility. After all, his supporters have learned from his "leadership."

I'm not going to restate my case against Trump here, as it has already been done, but I will stand by what I said no matter how “offensive” some may make it seem. Further, I strongly reject calls for anyone who disagrees with Trump to "soldier up and get in line" simply because he's winning in the polls. Votes aren't bought and they certainly aren't an entitlement. Votes are earned after trust, especially when a candidate's decades long record is one of supporting big government, progressive ideology and liberal policy.

[Kaslin]

You asked me in another thread how many spams I am going to post.

Here are some screen grabs that I took to show you what spams look like. Notice they are all from the same two persons

[Albion Wilde]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[AllAmericanGirl44]

For everyone who states they hear people we won’t vote for Trump, I can site numerous people in my life who won’t vote for Cruz. It really proves nothing.

Just saying.

[moehoward]

Katie has been making the cable rounds doing her Baghdad Bob, "we're getting many supportive responses too" BS. She normally is very active on Twitter, engaging with others. There's been a noticeable lack of exchanges, looks like she's taken significantly more unsupportive responses.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Thanks for proving my point!

[Kaslin]

The point that is on your head?

[doosee]

Trump is not perfect and we are going to have to rely on conservatives in Congress to hold the line in some cases.

Cruz has been one of the only ones in Congress trying to hold the line. What concerns me about Trump, aside from ethanol nonsense, are his recent statements about making the deals with the opposition. That smacks of Boehner, Ryan, and the appeasers.

[rdb3]

Pavlich has never been considered conservative in any sense of the word.

By whom? You?

Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.

[shempy]

I have decided to caucus for Trump next Monday. Not because I agree with him, not because I like him, and not because I expect him to turn this ship around.

What motivates me is really quite simple: trolling the elites. The smug faced A-holes that shoved Bush on us in 2000, the compromisers, the nannies, the school marms, the professional victims, etc. THEY are the ones that ruined the "brand".

So Trump is just my way of giving the finger to the elites, the pundits, and yes, the dewy eyed true believers that still have hope in our system. They can all stuff it.

[petercooper]

OH, PA, VA, FL, CO, NM, NV, Mi, IA, etc.. Don’t be stupid.

[uncitizen]

Oops. OK she didn’t impress.

[Netz]

If Trump is elected he will have to tone it down, compromise and stop insulting people. He is a childish egomaniac but many of the issues he raises, without fear are pivotal issues of our time and his analyses are correct. If he can fit his Texas size ego into that small Oval office remains to be seen...