Posted on 05/06/2016 9:47:39 AM PDT by OddLane
I had the pleasure of attending an informal discussion held by writer/political pundit Fred Barnes recently, where the topics ranged from his biography of Jack Kemp-co-written with McLaughlin Group colleague Morton Kondracke-to his thoughts on the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. Taking place prior to the New York primary, and subsequent devastating losses by Ted Cruz to the now presumptive Republican nominee, it served as a fascinating overview of the internal divisions within the conservative establishment, which are even more pronounced now that the worst nightmare of many has come to fruition.
Even as Fred Barnes-like a handful of other Republican Party stalwarts-has maintained an anybody but Clinton posture-while delineating his many disagreements with Trump both tactically and strategically-the vast majority of thought leaders among formerly influential conservative think tanks, periodicals-as well as statesmen-seem to have taken the opposite tack. Some even going so far as to wholeheartedly embrace a woman who until relatively recently was seen as the bete noire of the establishment right. This is a process which seems to be accelerating with each day that elapses.
A Trump critic in the audience-who nonetheless came to the conclusion that he was infinitely preferable, given the options, to Hillary Clinton-asked a compelling question. Namely, from where does this deep-seated animus-and unrelenting energy to thwart Donald Trump’s election, to limited effect thus far-stem? Granted, he breaks from Republican orthodoxy on a number of issues, but if that’s the crux of the problem, then why were there no comparable anti-Romney or anti-McCain movements by the conservative intelligentsia during previous presidential elections?
(Excerpt) Read more at american-rattlesnake.org ...
This guy is a horrible writer.
GOPe Ivory Tower Elites. lol
Very good read.
What, specifically, do you have a problem with?
Too many subclauses through abundant use of commas — and other means — really breakup the flow — if there is a flow— and make his message. - if he has a message — difficult to pick out.
"And the more true conservatives maintain that the primary concern of millions Americans is immaterial to true conservatism, the more irrelevant these high priests of conservative dogma will become".
Put a little Butt Hurt Cream on it.
It might make the pain go away.
Delusions???????
I think they are projecting.
He said nothing, while trying to sound shiek be using, I presume, french idioms... I dont appreciate having to look up idiums from other languages I dont care to understand.
All of it.
Are you G. Perry?
I will give you one example.
“Even as Fred Barnes-like a handful of other Republican Party stalwarts-has maintained an anybody but Clinton posture-while delineating his many disagreements with Trump both tactically and strategically-the vast majority of thought leaders among formerly influential conservative think tanks, periodicals-as well as statesmen-seem to have taken the opposite tack. Some even going so far as to wholeheartedly embrace a woman who until relatively recently was seen as the bete noire of the establishment right. This is a process which seems to be accelerating with each day that elapses.”
The above goes on too long with too many disconnected unnecessary words without the proper use of dashes. He misuses dashes throughout.
Compare to:
Barnes, like a handful of other Republican Party stalwarts, has maintained an anybody-but-Clinton posture while delineating his tactical and strategic disagreements with Trump. (And use another sentence for the next observation).
And.
“This is a process which seems to be accelerating with each day that elapses”.
So many unnecessary words and redundancies. It makes it boring and hard to follow the author’s point.
How, for example, is the above better than “This is a process which seems to be accelerating with each day.”
Why do you need “that elapses”?
And how about this: “this process is accelerating by the day”
7 words vs 14 words without the unnecessary and self-negating “seems to be”.
Or if you want to use “seems”: “this process seems to accelerate daily” — six words from 14.
Yeah.
This is the operative statement in the article:
And the more true conservatives maintain that the primary concern of millions Americans is immaterial to true conservatism, the more irrelevant these high priests of conservative dogma will become.
If this is really the case, “true conservatism” needs to go. Or at least those who “practice this form of conservatism” do.
You see it as well.
Put a banana in his mouth and the picture is complete!
The impetus to defeat Trump in all quarters.stems from his key issue.
Sealing the border and ejecting aliens who should not be here.
I too find the piece awkward and verbose. One paragraph, the one about the nature of the #NeverTrump complaints, was entertaining. I think the premise is about right. #NeverTrump is fighting for relevancy and control, for status quo. People are going to be losing income and some will lose their vocations.
Yep.
I am not addressing the author’s point.
To the Rattlesnakes - these comments are meant to be helpful.
Well, I am certainly one who had to be convinced that Trump was a better choice than Cruz (or one or two others at an early stage). I am nine tenths of the way there. It is probably wise that Trump understands that people might have lingering doubts based on such things as personal ethics, full range of knowledge necessary, and willingness to reach out beyond a narrow base (which is going to have to happen or there won’t be a Trump presidency).
But having said that, there are also many signs of a great presidency being possible, and we all know that it’s going to take probably two good to great presidents in a row (serving eight years apiece) to get America back on the right track and moving away from the nightmare destination that the Obama-Clinton-Sanders spectrum would imply.
Cruz supporters need to get past the mental block of thinking that it is either/or Trump and Cruz. Supporting Trump does not mean turning against Ted Cruz, what we do need is for Trump to achieve some of the goals of Ted Cruz such as greater respect for the constitution, limitation of the power of the federal government, and overall economic growth. I’ve never been that convinced that Donald Trump was less committed to any of those goals but he hasn’t always come across as seeing them all as priorities (the economic growth, yes).
I think a lot of people would be inspired by a Trump-Cruz ticket but at the same time, we get roughly the same jolt from a Trump-Palin ticket with Cruz perhaps headed for either A-G or Supreme Court (maybe the latter and Chris Christie as A-G).
Many who read this probably know that I live in Canada. My dog in this hunt is that a strong and prosperous and liberty-loving United States is a great concept for the western world in general and makes it somewhat easier to push for the same goals in our own countries. We are doing that anyway, but if America becomes a giant Venezuela then who are we kidding, Canada will be dragged down regardless of what Canadian conservatives may or may not be doing.
I could see Donald Trump evolving into a second Ronald Reagan. But he has some distance to go yet. However, wasn’t Reagan well behind Carter in the polls as late as September of 1980? Not that the polls are the only measure, but for Trump to be a great president, first he has to be a president.
I would say to any GOP moderates or doubters who read this, take the test of history, what do you see happening here? I see the last good opportunity to reverse the decline of the last two to three decades. Unless you really think there’s a better alternative, best to unite behind this one.
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.