Posted on 01/26/2016 7:10:54 AM PST by Theo
When the publisher of National Review Magazine, Jack Fowler, called and asked me to write 300 words on why I oppose Donald Trump for president of the United States, my first thought was about the derision that was sure to come from Trump supporters.
I was not disappointed, or rather I am disappointed that no one who reacted negatively rebutted any of the arguments I, or the other contributors, made about why we think a President Trump would not pursue conservative goals.
Sounding like Trump, I was called a "loser" and someone for whom one writer said he had "lost all respect." Sure, there were some who called me "brilliant" (I'm filing those away), but the name-callers resembled their political master. Trump also refused to address our arguments. Instead, he mislabeled the magazine a "dying newspaper" and said it had lost circulation and no one reads it. Many are reading this issue.
One friend said he is convinced that Trump is "teachable and we can move him in the right direction." On June 14, Trump will be 70 years old. By then, most people have long been settled in their worldview. Trump likes to cite Ronald Reagan, who was a Roosevelt Democrat before he famously said he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left him. But Reagan spent many years honing his conservative principles in speeches, articles, and radio commentaries. He did not have, as some nominees to high office experience, a "confirmation conversion."
Quoting myself would be redundant (read us all at National Review.com), so here is the key paragraph from the lead editorial:
"Trump's politics are those of an averagely well-informed businessman: Washington is full of problems; I am a problem-solver; let me at them. But if you have no familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, get rolled. Trump has shown no interest in limiting government, in reforming entitlements, or in the Constitution. He floats the idea of massive new taxes on imported goods and threatens to retaliate against companies that do too much manufacturing overseas for his taste. His obsession is with 'winning,' regardless of the means -- a spirit that is anathema to the ordered liberty that conservatives hold dear and that depends for its preservation on limits on government power."
In the February 1 issue of The Weekly Standard, Stephen F. Hayes writes: "The Republican frontrunner is a longtime liberal whose worldview might best be described as an amalgam of pop-culture progressivism and vulgar nationalism. His campaign rallies are orgies of self-absorption, dominated by juvenile insults of those who criticize him and endless boasting about his poll numbers. He's a narcissist and a huckster, an opportunist who not only failed to join conservatives in the big fights about the size and scope of government over the past several decades but, to the extent he was even aware of such battles, was often funding the other side, with a long list of contributions to the liberals most responsible for the dire state of affairs in the country, including likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton."
What is the counter argument to these substantive opinions? Anger against the "Washington establishment" is not one. Those who worship Trump have an obligation to say why he is worthy of their faith. Given his liberal background and poor explanations of why he now believes differently, how do his supporters know he will govern conservatively should he win the White House? He once said his sister, who is pro-abortion, would be an excellent nominee to the Supreme Court. His story of how he supposedly became a pro-life convert lacks credibility.
Electing a president, especially in a dangerous world, is important work. Anger and emotion should not govern the choice. Considered judgment should. Trump appeals to the former, but not the latter.
Apparently, Cal being born in 1942 is irrelevant to this innocuous hit about Trump's age. Like Trump of whom you imply is 'settled in his worldview' as something bad is nothing like your effing 'worldview'....... Go suck it you conniving deceitful, masquerading old twit.
Now watch the braying trumpeters continue to refuse to address any of the substance of the article and instead call it irrelevant and then shoot the messenger....cuz the Donald, why he’s just soooooo dreamy.
What an elitist jackass. All he's really saying is some people's opinions are worth more than others and the American people being blued, screwed and tattooed by Washington for decades isn't a good enough reason to be angry.
He best be glad I can't reach through this monitor, or I'd SHOW him 'angry'.
Time to put America back to work.
Pundits and Politician need not apply. Only product members of society wanted.
How an Obscure Adviser to Pat Buchanan Predicted the Wild Trump Campaign in 1996
The Week dot com ^ Michael Brendan Dougherty
Posted on 1/20/2016, 2:17:11 AM by WayneLusvardi
Imagine giving this advice to a Republican presidential candidate: What if you stopped calling yourself a conservative and instead just promised to make America great again?
What if you dropped all this leftover 19th-century piety about the free market and promised to fight the elites who were selling out American jobs?
What if you just stopped talking about reforming Medicare and Social Security and instead said that the elites were failing to deliver better healthcare at a reasonable price?
What if, instead of vainly talking about restoring the place of religion in society something that appeals only to a narrow slice of Middle America. You simply promised to restore the Middle American core, the economic and cultural losers of globalization to their rightful place in America?
What if you said you would restore them as the chief clients of the American state under your watch, being mindful of their interests when regulating the economy or negotiating trade deals?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3385923/posts
That is “Productive”, not “Product”. Sorry about that.
So you write a long emotion based screed based on the logical fallacy of stating your opinion as fact and you expect to be treated with anything BUT contempt Cal?
Try writing a rational reasoned piece instead of a emotional diatribe Cal, and we might take you seriously.
This is the second one today. They’re doubling down. Boy they’re really showing us!
Even Jeb Bush's record is far more conservative than Trump's, whose record up until very recently was that of a Manhattan liberal. Trump claims a very recent conversion to conservative principle and asks to be taken at face value. This would be far more persuasive if he reacted with anything other than anger and insults to anyone who questions him.
When someone who the day before yesterday was on the other side claims to have changed his mind, he should not demand a leadership role as a matter of right. He should be willing and able to discuss his new-found views rationally, and with civility to those who ask to be persuaded, not harangued.
Hmm if you consider emotionally hysteric hyperbole and the logical fallacy of stating your opinions as facts “good writing” then yes, it is a “good” piece.
I hope I am wrong about that, but something just doesn't add up when your political 'awakening' happened last year.
And for those of you calling the likes of Dana Loesch part of the GOPe, you have some delusions of what 'conservative' actually means.
The People like Cal don’t seem to understand that one of Trumps attractive qualities is that has got the entitled elites buzzing like a hive of angry bees. They are so arrogant in their belief that they are entitled to rule the Little People (from either side of Congress) that his popularity has them s*** scared. He could take it all away from them! I read very recently that Mitch Mconnell has amassed $24 million during his stay in the Senate. Can anyone confirm or refute this?
Yeah, God forbid somebody worry about little things like “principles” when we are dealing with a billionaire who “knows how to get things done”! I really do think the people on this page who have posted things that have had to get deleted by the moderator in the past are now the ones supporting Trump.
“His obsession is with ‘winning,’ regardless of the means”
Cal Thomas must have turned idiot. The United States faces foes who are obsessed with winning.
The United States won WWII by using any means necessary.
They are now finding out tha they can't make things happen....they're only allowed to watch, and that's their original job anyway.
Cal can't come up with enough of his own valueless opinions he has to borrow some of Hayes psychoanalytic analysis. Stick foreign policy Steve.
Like you, I have smelling the stench of their fear of a Trump presidency. They will be unemployed word hacks.
NR has committed a Macy*, and they will not recover.
*Macy = suicide by expressing vile hatred against Trump!
So what are we going to get, first is 22 NR contributors limited to 300 words; now they get to take another bite of the apple? Why not give them 1500 words in the first place? We know how they feel already, we know they find themselves justified for various reasons. That’s all factored in.
Watch the mindless TDs sufferers continue to insist that the logical fallacy of stating thier opinions as fact and posting the usual emotionally hysteric diatribe are “substance” arguments”.
No children, we are done trying to reason with your sort of welded shut mind throwing your standard issue daily hissy fit. Instead, we simply point at you and laugh instead at your childish antics.
You think Cruz could win in the General? He can’t even win in the primaries - why do you think the General would be different?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.