George Will: Beating Hillary Less Important Than Stopping Trump

Brietbart's Big Government ^ | December 24, 2015 | Ben Shapiro

[2ndDivisionVet]

As the end of the year approaches, Donald Trump is solidly ensconced at the top of the Republican polls nationally. The man just behind him? Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) , an establishment bugaboo. The establishment’s favorite candidate, Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) , is currently running far behind in national polling, a distant third in Iowa, and in a deadlock with Cruz and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for second in New Hampshire.

Panic time.

So, here’s the establishment roundup for Christmas week.

If You Support Donald Trump, You Want to Lose. Earlier this week, Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal unleashed a petulant column accusing all Trump and Cruz backers of begging for defeat. “Let us now pledge to elect Hillary Clinton as the 45th president of the United States,” he snarked. “Let’s do this because it’s what we want. Maybe secretly, maybe unconsciously, but desperately. We want four—and probably eight—more years of cable-news neuralgia. We want to drive ourselves to work as Mark Levin or Laura Ingraham scratch our ideological itches until they bleed a little. We want the refiner’s fire that is our righteous indignation at a country we claim no longer to recognize—ruled by impostors and overrun by foreigners.” Stephens specifically singled out Cruz for criticism, calling him a flip-flopper “happy to be on any side of an issue so long as he can paint himself as a ‘real Republican.’”(continued)

[achilles2000]

I lost my respect for him about 1980 when he wrote one of his typically pretentious editorials opposing Al Kahn’s deregulation of the airlines. I think the bowtie constricts the blood flow to his brain.

[driftless2]

I don’t like Trump, but I’ll gladly pull the lever for him to keep Hillary out of the Oval Orifice.

[MHGinTN]

You give him too much benefit of the doubt. He is not stupid, but he has sold his soul long ago, to keep his media title. George Will serves those who now own him.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Agreed. Merry Christmas.

[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 .

[a fool in paradise]

Someone has thrown his hat in with the oligarchy establishment.

[xzins]

How old is George? Is he dementia eligible yet?

[Awgie]

Accurate. I really dislike people putting their spin into the mouths of others.

[Carry me back]

They dont want Repubs and Dems uniting to throw off the chains of the establishment. Trump would get many Dem votes.

[Impy]

Nothing is more important that beating Hillary. Hillary=More Libs on the Supreme Court=Game over.

[combat_boots]

Imagine.

Instead of 0bama as

Dictator for Life

we get

Hillary as

Dictator for Life

[Texas Eagle]

Idjit George. Does he think Trump would trample all over The Constitution to get his way the way Hitlery Abedin Rotten surely would?

[infowarrior]

Everyone who lives in Washington DC and environs has it

I must take exception to this, as there *are* those of us who live in either DC or the environs who shun and abhor groupthink in all its various permutations...

the infowarrior

[lentulusgracchus]

Oh, please. He's wrong, he may be obnoxious to you, but he doesn't deserve to be put down like a mad dog. Not even close.

[Altura Ct.]

GFY Will!

[samtheman]

I did not say put down. You said that. Try to keep up.

[lentulusgracchus]

Go back to your original post, Brainiac.

Putting down is what one does as a remedy with a problematic (and you do stipulate Will is a problem) "mad dog .... foaming at the mouth".

Your words, Dr. Schweitzer. Back to you. And no, I'm not brooming up your poop.

[samtheman]

I did not say put down. You said put down. Keep up.

[CincyRichieRich]

Liberal pansy...go hang out with some other NPR woosies.

[itsahoot]

The dirty truth is that besides Reagan who they hated the gop is not conservative.

The Royals stick together lest the vulgarians get out of control.