Posted on 01/26/2016 4:54:07 AM PST by 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.
-— So we’re gonna fight the GOPe by nominating a liberal democrat like Trump?
I don’t see how that helps us. -—
He’s going to use his “make America great again” plan to make America great again.
His plan makes more sense if you ignore everything he’s ever done.
I call: BS on this CYA.
Each candidate does the same thing.
All of them are running, guaranteed all are in Iowa or NH this week. Heck, even Mr. Trump himself even found religion this past weekend and went to church (he is on record of saying he only goes for Christmas and Easter) in Iowa.
For example, Ted Cruz has 7 events today...
http://www.eventbrite.com/o/8321610348
I voted for NR’s poster boys - McCain and Romney, and where did that get us? It got us Obama. These two did not stand up to the Imam in Chief during the campaigns, and now we’re in a world of hurt. We now have two strong candidates who are not interested in “reaching across the aisle” with the Dims, or who tell us they want to stop undocumented democrats from walking into this country by building a wall. Yay! NR and the elites don’t like these two, and I don’t care. Keep supporting Jebby, maggots.
This author is not a great thinker. He didn't even do his homework. But no no we're the ones who are making the thoughtless choice. Pshaw Lame.
I have to explain as usual that I know Trump is not that conservative. Duh. What he promises to do is stop cultural rot. Curtail big government. Lower corporate taxes and regulation to make America great. That’s enough for me.
So support of ethanol subsidies and calling for future regulations increasing ethanol additives is now good conservative policy?
You are 100% correct, not a single vote has been cast yet BUT...(and this is a big “but”), the man is a brazen, loose canon.
He’s a wild, uncouth, egomaniac SOB who sometimes puts his foot deep into his mouth but so far, he has talked brass tacks.
He is the ONLY one that has thrown the critical issues into our faces so we can face a very stark reality of what the last 8 years have done to this nation and our standing in the world.
It is very possible that America now needs and unpredictable leader, a leader, a leader, a negotiator who will attempt to restore the US to its former Superpower status.
He’s a crude person who tells it like it is and that is his appeal.
I honestly do not believe the motivation is as “HUGE” as is being made out.
Outside of places like FR, his following is NOT some love fest like is being portrayed. Quite the opposite. I see and hear people who want nothing to do with him.
Tack on the fact that he has NOTHING in common with us as conservatives... I honestly do not see him being the sure thing he claims he is.
Particularly when we have such an amazing candidate (from a conservative perspective) in Ted Cruz.
But, but Rich Lowry himself invited her ! She has to be smart ! My Great Uncle has letters ! She’s a 27 year old kid - at least she has a job I guess.
Just a few years ago when I met Katie Pavlich she was still a student at Arizona State. Now she is an arbiter of who is, and who is not a conservative? I would laugh it it wasn’t so serious. It’s nice that her great uncle was friends with William F. Buckley. Well Rich Lowry couldn’t shine Bill’s shoes. He would have opposed Pau Ryan as Speaker. Lowry’s NRO endorsed him and celebrated it just two months ago. NRO has systematically driven out their best conservative writers because they aren’t PC enough for the weasel Lowry. NRO is a shell of what it once was. Pity.
I’m not sure his objectives are so pure.
I honestly think he craves power and fame more than anything else in this world. That is a VERY dangerous proposition with the battle we face.
He’ll be the kind of leader which leads from behind. Flaps in the winds of popularity. Why? Because power is everything to a a narcissist. Being adored is the goal. Not saving our country. Not fighting the good fight.
Just because he says “let’s build a wall” does not make him a leader: it makes him savvy, as he noticed a vacuum on our side, but not a leader.
Think honestly about who he is, what decisions he would make once he has that power, and would it go to his head?
One look at his campaign answers that for you. As soon as he had enough of a perceived lead, he has already started tacking back to the left. Once out of the primary, someone obsessed with popularity has to appeal to both sides: square in the middle.
When people offer serious rebuttals of his principles (or lack thereof) what does he do? He personally attacks them on his Twitter feed or in his stump speeches.
Its grotesque, and amazing that people are falling for it.
Same here. Both were reluctant (McCain just because Palin was his VP pick)
Yet the GOP has seemed to be singularly uninterested in American improvement.
At all. Everything is “go to China, send jobs to Asia” for one entire generation (BOTH) parties have been disgustingly sold out. Every single one of them.
Trump is right. He is completely right.
And he is not for sale. At all.
Support for Trump is the best example of cutting off your nose to spite your face! YES we’re mad at the establishment but to go to the extreme of electing someone so.unpredictable is dangerous and it will be painful.
I agree that nothing is a sure thing even more so in politics. But Trump is a phenom that
has appeared on the scene and is attracting lots of attention. Now as you say it may not
translate in votes come voting day. But he’s raised the noise level much higher than
has been seen in many elections, maybe going back to Kennedy.
Trump’s objective if he’s going to win is to get the noise level voters to the polls on primary
day in each of the states. I never thought Trump would have a shot at Iowa but polls say
otherwise. Polls and caucusing are different things but we’ll know in five days about 9pm CDT.
A vast majority of my friends and family really think Trump is a mean spirited bully.
That is the truth.
I like most of what he says, but I’ve been fooled before and don’t trust him. Trump loves America but Trump is for Trump first and foremost. I’d vote for him over any rat, 10 times out of 10.
Trump needs to soften up on fellow republican candidates and hammer away at the rats and our corrupt government if he wants to make gains nationally.
Pavlich has never been considered conservative in any sense of the word.
Townhall has become an elitist irrelevant rag.
well said!... agree!
Funny that ‘tantrums’ were mentioned.
I normally admire Thomas Sowell and probably will continue to do so. But his NRO tantrum against Turmp failed to pass the giggle test.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3386992/posts?page=42#42
‘[deal making] one of the biggest criticisms of today’s Congressional Republicans’
— BAD deals. That is the very point of the Trump campaign. They are horrible deal makers. Fifth-columnist-bad. So that’s actually a trick on Sowell’s part.
[Thought I’d never accuse Sowell of that.]
‘politically successful deall than that which Neville Chamberlain ...’
Also a trick. Chamberlain was an appeaser. How can ANYONE say that Trump is appeasing muslims?
Goofy trick. He jumped the shark twice.
‘Barack Obama just make a deal with Iran ...’
Doubling down on Jump the Shark 2.
‘Kelo v. City of New London’
Finally, he scores!
Kelo was the only effective argument he made, and he buried it. Was Sowell drinking when he wrote this?
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.