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.
Something about old dogs and new tricks. So Trump can’t be taught anything because he will be 70 in June. How old is “Ol’ Cal”? What lessons has he missed in the past seven years about what happens to your ability to do anything when you lose elections at the top of the ticket? Even 91-year-old Phyllis has figured that out!
So if not Trump, then who?
I expected a childish response, and you did not disappoint.
Some of them definitely want Cruz, and have said so. Others, would they prefer Cruz over Trump? I'm guessing yes. Speaking for myself, I definitely do not want Trump to the nominee. He's not a conservative, he's immature and intellectually lazy, and I don't trust him for a minute.
Their focus groups and private polling results have probably given them nightmares. Those realities are driving them Bat Guano.
#1 Trump will win big.
#2 NR and similar bs organizations have become irrelevant.
He looks pretty good for 70. I thought he was way younger
What's David Boaz doing in National Review? He's not a conservative, but a libertarian.
The GOPEs and RINOs have already lost this one, dear Preacher Thomas.
Cal Thomas rushed to Bob Beckel’s side when he going down for the third time. Then Cal and Hannity found work for him at Fox News.
Yep...the Cheap Labor/Special Interest Groups/lobbyist bunch is having epic fits over the very real possibility that their gravy train will come to a screeching halt.
Funny to see so much twisting and squirming and especially funny to see poor old Cal attempt to be anything but the squish he is. This is equivalent to Linda Graham calling Trump a jackass. LOL.
“Rubio was/is a tea party Republican who is having trouble getting traction this year because he wrong-footed himself on immigration. But his record is conservative, “
THIS is ‘conservative’?
Marco Rubio Casts Deciding Vote For Obamatrade Without ...
www.breitbart.com/.../marco-rubio-casts-deciding-vote-for-oba...
Breitbart
Jun 23, 2015 - The TPP text for the Pacific Rim trade deal that. Sen. Jeff Sessions ... You’re telling me Marco Rubio voted for a bill without reading it? Are you ...
You need to find out who owns Rubio...and they are NOT on our side.
Paul Ryan was hand picked for DC Politics by one Cesar Conda, open border, free traitor powerful lobbyist who happens to be chief of staff for....MARCO Rubio...one in the house, one in the senate...double Trojan horse! Conda,along with Grover Norquist, Steve Moore of Heritage destroyed prop 187 in Calif and every meaningful attempt to control our borders.
Who is Cesar Conda?
History repeats itself, and this time, we are the NATIVES! Who is Cesar Conda?
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3007546/posts
I'd rather have Cruz. Without Trump we wouldn't even be having this conversation. We'd be moaning about how the establishment screwed us again.
I understand your thoughts about Loesch, but the act of her willing inclusion in the hit piece belies what I’d call honest disagreement, especially when we are confronted with the remnants of a criminal legacy of the Clintons being carried over into this century. It betrays the one possibility we have to defeat this impending probability IMO.
Had these ‘conservatives’ spent this much collective brainpower, historic credibility denouncing Hillary I’d have been more sympathetic. In the end it appears to me just a RINO exclusion that boils down to “we gotta take Jeb” [or Rubio, or Kasich, or Christie] in the same vein as taking it up the keester for McCain and Romney. Ugh.
I WANT Cruz OR Trump. Right now, I’m gonna vote for Trump in my primary but if Cruz comes out on top, I’ll pull the lever hard for him in the General election.
To me, these “Editors Against Trump” are nothing more than quisling (my way or the highway) appeaser RINOs more interested in preserving their gigs and feathered beds in establishment RINOland. They are scared because they are totally unequipped to deal with a political process that isn’t RINOcentric.
The United States today: What some 50 years of voting for politicians has gotten us.
Cal is a reasonable intelligent fellow. Heck, he’s even more intelligent that most.
But he completely misses the mark here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3388495/posts?page=60#60
RR was tough, as tough as Trump when it came to negotiations. He would not comprise an iota with the Soviets or with terrorists.
RR faced in 1980 an electorate that was not conservative, not liberal so much as it was leaderless, rudderless. Reagan was not elected based on his conservatism, he was elected because of his toughness, because of the Iranian Hostage Crisis and because Jimmy Carter was an embarrassing incompetent.
Sounds very much like Trump, doesn’t it? It does.
The electorate didn’t follow RR’s conservatism in 1980, they really didn’t understand it so much. It wasn’t until about the 2nd half of 1983 into RR’s first term that the electorate grabbed onto conservatism not because of its principles and philosophy so much as they had grown to love Ronald Reagan and then everyone wanted to be like RR. So there were a lot of democrats that switched and a lot of moderates who started calling themselves conservative.
But these pseudo-conservatives have soiled the brand and now conservatism is not fashionable because the GOP leaders today are A-holes who are embarrassing and corrupt. They are a joke and they call themselves conservatives.
Note that conservatives long for RR but there’s a new electorate out there. Kids who were 10 years old when Reagan left office are now in their 30’s, etc. And conservatism smells to high heavens because of the A-holes who have been allowed to carry it as a banner.
This is why Ted is not in the lead. He’s not reaching the newbies in the electorate. It’s a whole new electorate out there and they are looking for someone to admire and it’s not a conservative because conservatism has been trashed.
But Donald is able to carry conservative positions not because of conservatism because he is his own force of personality.
That’s the gist of it.
Re: the trade bill. TPA is not TPP.
Yes, seriesly, all joking aside, he has bad hair.
He was just one of the ones that was willing to share his byline with NR I guess. There are DEFINITELY others like Will, Krauthammer and Hume and a whole passel of others that are ideologically ‘with them’ in spirit. All of them are snakes.
Re: the trade bill. TPA is not TPP.
Yes, so? Tpa gave Obama fast track...bipassing the required 60 votes in the senate because it is a TREATY. Anyone voting for it is a traitor, including RUBIO and CRUZ.
All you did was prove you refuse to look at FACTS I gave you about anchor baby Rubio.
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.