GEORGE WILL: ‘DO WE REALLY WANT TO GIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO DONALD TRUMP?’

Breitbart ^ | August 16,2014 | PAM KEY

[Hojczyk]

On “Fox News Sunday,” conservative columnist George Will said voters will eventually turn on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump when they ask themselves “Do we really want to give nuclear weapons to Donald Trump?”

Will said, “What’s going on is that those deemed least qualified to be president, are most qualified to do what the voters want done today, 160 days before the first votes are cast in Iowa, which is send a message. That was George Wallace’s engaging theme in 1968. He said, ‘Send them a message!’ The antecedent of the pronoun ‘them’ was anything you wanted it to be. So, that’s what they’re doing. This is a version of the 1960s fad called primal scream therapy, you’re supposed to shout, and get rid of all your repressed pain from childhood. This is, of course, particularly so for Mr. Trump, and what makes him fragile as a candidate is, first of all, he’s a one-trick pony. He consists of saying, I’m rich, everyone who disagrees with me is stupid, and all our problems are simple, if you’ll put me in charge. Second, people haven’t yet reminded themselves of the peculiar intimacy we live with our presidents now. They’re in our living room every night, they’re constantly in the national consciousness. And third, since we are, at the end of this, going to send a president, people have to say, ‘Do we really want to give nuclear weapons to Donald Trump?’ At which point, I think things change.”

[Nifster]

Why not? We gave them to the commie that is the DiC and his beard

[martin_fierro]

[Califreak]

I was watching these guys on faux today.

They are spinning so hard it’s unbelievable.

It makes no sense.

How can DT be #1 in all these polls yet still be the “least likeable”?

Who are all of the people saying Heb is the most qualified candidate?

The sampling of the R voters couldn’t have gone beyond the walls of the studio....

[hoosiermama]

Where DID Kaddaffis gold go ?

[Melinator]

Well obviously the Obama democrats because he said America can absorb first strikes

[smoothsailing]

You're so right, Will has been predictably worthless for many, many years. It goes back to at least 1974 when he was trash-mouthing Ronald Reagan.

..............

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.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3324893/posts

[Leep]

“I want to snatch off those spectacles and crunch them under my heel.”

Goerge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLyiKeCLBf4

[tcrlaf]

Do we really want to give Nuclear Weapons to HILLARY CLINTON??

She’s liable to Nuke south Florida, just to silence Rush Limbaugh.

[Yosemitest]

George Will is a DemocRAT who got so OFFENDED by the DemocRATS, that he couldn't tolerate being associated with all 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 TO 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 .

[Tucker39]

Hey George!
Where’d you get that WE stuff? Ya’ got a mouse in yer pocket?

[Company Man]

Hells to the yeah!

Trump towers.

[itsahoot]

“Do we really want to give nuclear weapons to Donald Trump?”

Why not we are giving then to the Ayatollah?

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: 1964 Goldwater checklist.

I remember..

this is getting ridiculous first

• in the words of Nelson Rockefeller's public relations head, Stuart Spencer,
  • "We had have to destroy Barry Goldwater Donald Trump as a member of the human race."
• now this
  • Daisy Attack ad
• What's next?
  • That Trump is linking up with German neo-Nazis and visiting Hitler's favorite hangouts?
  • That Trump was asked about the JFK assassination and he replied with a brusque "No comment."

[smoothsailing]

[ThePatriotsFlag]

Yes we do, better than Bernie Sanders.

[Awgie]

George, Go play with your baseball bat.

[DesertRhino]

Yeah yeah,,, heard this about Reagan. He’ll wake up one morning and nuke the world. Go away bowtie boy.

[tumblindice]

Well George, thanks to mutts like you we elected a president who is giving nuclear weapons to his fellow muslims whom he swore to stand with—twice.

[MUDDOG]

Trump was asked about the JFK assassination and he replied with a brusque "No comment."

Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man.

[moehoward]

"I wish a few more people asked this question about Obama. And the mullahs."

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on Will to, he likes to impress the All Star Panel with tales of the inconveniences of Hussein coming over for dinner.