Hey George Will, Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner? The “Vulgarians”….

The Conservative Treehouse ^ | 8-14-2015 | sundance

[smoothsailing]

August 14, 2015

Hey George Will, Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner? The “Vulgarians”….

By sundance

Donald Trump is a counterfeit Republican and “an affront to anyone devoted to the project William F. Buckley began”

~ George Will

(Excerpt from Jeffrey Lord) Back in April of this year, two months before Trump announced his candidacy, Will was on the panel of Bret Baier’s Special Report at Fox and said this when the panelists were asked how much money they would place on various candidates in Baier’s “candidate casino.” When he got to Trump he said:

..”One dollar on Donald Trump in the hope that he will be tempted to run, be predictably shellacked, and we will be spared evermore this quadrennial charade of his”…

Suffice to say, Donald Trump not only announced his candidacy, he is – as this latest CNN Iowa poll re-affirms yet again – the front-runner. Repeatedly. Consistently. One Establishment prognosticator after another, now George Will included, has gotten Trump wrong.

Last week on Fox News Sunday George Will stated the “vulgar” Trump supporters needed to come to the Republican party based on the terms of the Country Club elite:

[…] These are voters the Republicans want, the Republicans want all voters, and particularly these voters, but to say that [Trump’s] tapped into something;… {shaking head} … Henry Wallace tapped into something, with the far left of American Politics in the late 40’s; the John Birch society tapped into something, George Wallace tapped into something, and it was up to the grown-ups in the labor movement in the late 1940’s, and the grown-ups in the conservative movement in the 1960’s to read those elements the riot act, and say: come back in, but come back in on our terms because we are not going down the road you want to go”…

[Returning to J Lord] It is worth recalling here that once upon a time George Will was as down on Ronald Reagan as he is now on Donald Trump – and has been in the past on Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

In a November 12, 1974 column appearing in the Washington Post on a potential 1976 challenge by Reagan to incumbent Establishment GOP President Gerald Ford, (titled “Ronald Reagan, the GOP and ’76”), Will wrote of Reagan:

“But Reagan is 63 and looks it. His hair is still remarkably free of gray. But around the mouth and neck he looks like an old man. He’s never demonstrated substantial national appeal, his hard-core support today consists primarily of the kamikaze conservatives who thought the 1964 Goldwater campaign was jolly fun. And there’s a reason to doubt that Reagan is well suited to appeal to the electorate that just produced a Democratic landslide.”

“If a Reagan third party would just lead the ‘Nixon was lynched’ crowd away from the Republican Party and into outer darkness where there is a wailing and gnashing of teeth, it might be at worst a mixed course for the Republican Party. It would cost the party some support, but it would make the party seem cleansed.”

Four years later, Will’s first and second choices for the 1980 GOP nomination were Tennessee Senator Howard Baker and George H. W. Bush, neither seen by conservatives of the day as “devoted to the project William F. Buckley began six decades ago with the founding in 1955 of National Review — making conservatism intellectually respectable and politically palatable.” (continue reading)

Sorry George, the “Vulgarians” are coming, AGAIN:

Link to full Jeffrey Lord article

[BlueNgold]

Will is among those I believe Reagan spoke of when he gave his immortal speech before CPAC, “Let them go their way.”

That speech, should anyone choose to read it, rings as true today as it did then.

[Bobalu]

[bray]

Apparently insulting your viewers is a great business model.

Pray America is waking

[ecomcon]

George Will is an Atheist. So he has a huge blind spot and he frequently falls into a ditch.

[VerySadAmerican]

I did the same thing. About two days after we cut cable my wife was looking at the perfect HD picture and said “Why didn’t we do this a long time ago?”

[Shortstop7]

Can’t figure that out either. He’s such a snob. He, Brit Hume, and Krauthammer are all made from the same mold. They get paid by the Washington elite/news media...and love to sit back and like they know it all. Fact is, they don’t know how the people in this country are struggling to pay their bills...and they don’t care. Hence, the selling of Jeb and the like.

Never have liked George Will. Arrogant a** that he is.

[Shortstop7]

True dat. ;)

[ozzymandus]

When Bush I was elected, George Will boldly predicted that there would never be another Democrat President. Why does nobody ever remind him of this?

[ebshumidors]

Somebody needs to make a Trumpnado pic.

[Yosemitest]

George Will is a DemocRAT who got so OFFENDED by the DemocRATS, that he couldn't tolerate being associated with al;l those "CRAZIES" .
Now for a deeper understanding of just WHO George Will IS:

The word "neocons" is ONLY used by LIBERALS, trying to insult Conservatives.
The is no such thing as a "NEW" Conservative.
Conservatives ARE Conservative, plain and simple.

But read this"
Liberals, Conservatives, and Neocons — Learn the Difference!
March 12, 2014

Almost everybody is confused about the word "neoconservative" and its shortened form, "neocon."
I find that liberals/Democrats seem to use it as a sort of disrespectful form of "conservative,"
and probably have no idea the the words have distinct meanings.
On the other hand, I know of some conservatives who define it as "new conservatives,"
meaning people who were formerly something else, but have converted to conservatism.
Both are wrong.
As near as I can tell, "neo-" doesn't apply to any other word that way —
formerly not X, but having become X.
No, "neo-" almost always refers to an ideology that is different from the root word in a significant way.
Neoconfederates are not people who want to secede and become a separate country.
They want the ideals of the Confederacy to be applied to modern politics, more or less, but not all of them.
Neoliberal is a more vague term,
but it specifically applies to people who may have SOME of the attributes of liberals,
but who contradict liberalism in their advocacy of free trade and privatization
and other ideas usually thought of as conservative.
And, finally, neoconservatives are mostly those moderate cold war LIBERALS who defected to the Republican party when the Democrats got totally flaky with McGovern and his ilk.
Their ultimate origin, however, is not the Democratic party but the Trotskyite movement.



Jack Kerwick elaborates.

Read this:
Most "Conservatives" Are Secretly Neoconservatives
12 March, 2014, by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

A colleague of mine has drawn my attention to a Washington Post blog post — “Why Most Conservatives Are Secretly Liberals” — by a Professor John Sides, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

Sides agrees with fellow political scientists Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, co-authors of Ideology in America.
Ellis and Stimson CONTEND that
America is, at bottom, a “center-left nation,”
for while “30 percent” of self-described “liberals” are consistent in endorsing “liberal” policy prescriptions,
the same sort of consistency can be ascribed to only “15 percent” of “conservatives.”
And another “30 percent” of “conservatives” actually advance “liberal” positions.

In short, Americans may TALK the talk of “conservatism,” but they WALK the walk of “liberalism.”
That is, they favor Big Government.

Sides, Ellis, and Stimson, it seems clear to me, are “liberals.”
It doesn’t require much reading between the lines to discern this.
That they associate “liberals,” and “liberals” ALONE, with such virtues as “consistency” and such lofty ideals as “a cleaner environment” and “a stronger safety net” is enough to bear this out.
Yet in peddling the ridiculous, patently absurd notion that
“conservatives” see the media as promoting “conservatism,”
the verdict regarding their “liberalism” is seen for the no-brainer that it is.

There is, though, another CLUE that unveils Sides’, Ellis’, and Stimson’s ideological PREJUDICES:
They equate the term “liberalism” with a robust affirmation of Big Government.
They treat “liberalism” synonymously with its modern, “Welfare-Statist” incarnation.
There is no mention here of the fact that, originally, “liberalism” referred to
a vision that attached supreme value to individual liberty,
a vision in which government played, and had to play, a minimal role in the lives of its citizens.
And there is no mention of the fact that, if “liberalism” is now “an ugly word,”
it is because the very same socialists who made “socialism” an ugly word hijacked “liberalism” when it enjoyed a favorable reception
and visited upon it the same fate that they secured for “socialism.”

In other words, if Sides himself wanted to be bluntly honest, he’d have to admit that “liberals” are secretly socialists.

Still, though their premises are bogus, Sides and his colleagues draw the correct conclusion that
most “conservatives” are NOTHING OF THE KIND.
The truth of the matter is that
the vast majority of contemporary “conservatives” are neoconservatives.

Now, “neoconservatism” is a term that hasn’t the best reputation.
It has ALWAYS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL,
and most of its proponents have DISAVOWED IT to the point of, preposterously, condemning it as an “anti-Semitic” SLUR.
But George W. Bush and his party inflicted potentially irrevocable damage upon the label.
“Conservatism” is a more marketable label.

Nevertheless, the reality is that neoconservatism is indeed a distinct school of political thought.
Beyond this, it is fundamentally different in kind from classical conservatism.
Irving Kristol, the so-called “Godfather” of neoconservatism, an appellation that he readily endorsed, ADMITS this in noting both
that neoconservatism exists
and that “conservative” “can be misleading” when used to describe it.

Neoconservatism, you see, is THE INVENTION OF LEFTISTS like Kristol himself.
When the Democratic Party began veering too far to the Left in the 1960s, Kristol and more moderate leftists began turning toward the Republican Party.
So as TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM traditional conservatives, they coined the term “neoconservatism.”

Neoconservatives, Kristol asserts, are “not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state” —
even if they reject the “vast and energetic bureaucracies” created by the Great Society.
Neoconservatives ENDORSE “social security, unemployment insurance,” and “some kind of family assistance plan,” among other measures.
But what’s most interesting, particularly at a time when ObamaCare has DIVIDED the country, is that Kristol reminds us that
neoconservatives SUPPORT “some form of national health insurance.”

In all truthfulness, however, neither a degree in political science nor an IQ above four is required to know that
neoconservatism has always championed Big Government,
for it is its foreign policy vision more than anything else that distinguishes it from its competitors.
For neoconservatives, America is “exceptional” in being, as Kristol puts it, “a creedal nation,”
the only nation in all of human history to have been founded upon an “ideology” of equality, of “natural rights.”
The U.S.A., then, has a responsibility to promote this ideology throughout the world.

And it is by way of a potentially boundless military — i.e. Big Government — that this “ideological patriotism” is to be executed.

Had the foregoing political scientists been looking in the right places, they would BE FORCED TOP CONCLUDE that most “conservatives” are secretly neoconservatives.

So, you see that those WHO THEY CALL "neoconservatives", are really nothing more than the old moderate side of the DemocRATS.
It's just THAT SIMPLE .

[No.6]

I have a brain the size of a small planet, with no apologies to Douglas Adams or his creation, Marvin.

“Intellectually respectable and politically palatable” has exactly nothing to do with being smart. It means nothing more nor less than “Allying with existing money in opposition to clear, Constitutional principle” or in a word, plutocracy.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

This guy is nothing more than a mouth breathing rino.shame he just wont go away.

[Yosemitest]

Great graphic!

NEEDED: Graphic of George Soros being the Puppet Master of Fox News.

[Islander2]

[I despise elitists.] They all reek of narcissism.

[snuffy smiff]

Indeed! Have always thought he was an arrogant ass. He’s now gone on and proved me right.

[doosee]

George Will - the idiot savant of the effeminate journalist crowd. This guy oozes self confidence as he spouts the nonsense he wants everyone else to believe. Much like Peggy Noonan.

[P.O.E.]

Go back to writing vapid editorials.

[smoothsailing]

Why don’t you?

[AppyPappy]

George Wallace was a Democrat

[matginzac]

Reminding all that one of O’Bozo’s first social soirées in DC after being elected was to have dinner at Wills’ house with “ conservatives” like Dr. Kraut et al...
It’s all about who you rub elbows with....