Posted on 01/22/2016 6:44:33 AM PST by 20yearsofinternet
Trump nevertheless offers a valuable warning for the Republican party. If responsible men irresponsibly ignore an issue as important as immigration, it will be taken up by the reckless. If they cannot explain their Beltway maneuvers - worse, if their maneuvering is indefensible - they will be rejected by their own voters. If they cannot advance a compelling working-class agenda, the legitimate anxieties and discontents of blue-collar voters will be exploited by demagogues. We sympathize with many of the complaints of Trump supporters about the GOP, but that doesn't make the mogul any less flawed a vessel for them.
Some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him. Count us out. Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
You call Thomas Sowell or Brent Bozell (William F. Buckley's nephew) RINOs? Really? In the name of protecting a supposedly recent Democrat convert?
Coulter said something profound ...
Conservative pundits keep assuring clueless viewers that Trump is not a "real Republican." ... Looking at what the party has become, I certainly hope he's not a "real Republican."
We should come to grips with the fact that (R)INO is a relative term of art. Except for a handful of dead-ender party-first (R)epublicrat loyalists today, we can all agree that Ronald Reagan was a wonderful RINO in the 1970's, compared to the then well established GOPe (R)epublicrats Nixon, Agnew, Ford, Rockefeller, Dole, ad nauseum.
The post-Reagan (R)epublicrat reset, which was well underway by his 2nd term, really was just a re-assertion of the same with Bush41, Dole, Lott, McCain, Romney, Ryan and all the rest. History is predictably repeating once again, and calling Trump names as we have seen also duplicate the attacks on RINO Reagan. As no two people are ever alike, Trump and Reagan are not interchangeable, but the lashing out by the establishment in their day is very similar.
So what to do with normally rational warriors like Bozell and Sowell? It's very hard to categorize them in a changing environment like this. Probably the safest thing to say is to just state that they are now blissfully unaware UniParty shills, attempting to preserve the status quo - an illusion of opposition to the socialist government - but is really just kabuki theater to keep the masses from storming the beltway. They are still allies of ours on occasion, but they are willing to sacrifice some of their reputation to a kind of political correctness ( which does not always mean leftist dogma ). In a sense they are more worried about becoming Robespierre than Thomas Paine, and that literally means that socialism and captivity is preferable to revolution or civil war, hot or cold.
Personally I prefer to skip the (R) discussion completely and to ask our luminaries whether they actually believe that doctrinaire (C) or (R) labels will win in the twelve swing states: OH, PA, MI, WI, IN, IA, NC, VA, FL, NV, NM, CO. If we stick to that cold clinical logical electoral approach then there is no need for a philosophical circular firing squad. If they would rather lose on principles in those states to remain philosophically pure they should just say it in plain English, loudly and proudly. I can respect that while completely disagreeing with them.
However, I would expect in return a logical argument specifically addressing those battleground states and no hand-wringing appeals to philosophical authority as they are doing with this insane National Review publicity stunt by the little metrosexual girley-man Rich Lowry.
Before I go away under your orders, are you authorized for my removal order?
I will need a work order for my records when you get the chance...Thanks
Coulter has become more "pro-fund" than profound, for a lot of reasons.
As no two people are ever alike, Trump and Reagan are not interchangeable, but the lashing out by the establishment in their day is very similar.
This is about the establishment being behind Trump, which is what I have been saying throughout his candidacy given the free air time he has been given. This fits the pattern of the last four elections at least, in which the conservative candidates have been starved for air time, other than Fred Thompson which was just a fan dance to dilute the conservative vote and distract attention from the likes of Duncan Hunter.
So what to do with normally rational warriors like Bozell and Sowell? It's very hard to categorize them in a changing environment like this.
Oh but you'll try, to preserve your self-delusion of immovable rectitude.
They are still allies of ours on occasion,
Speak for yourself. Trump is no conservative; he is a con artist.
Personally I prefer to skip the (R) discussion completely and to ask our luminaries whether they actually believe that doctrinaire (C) or (R) labels will win in the twelve swing states: OH, PA, MI, WI, IN, IA, NC, VA, FL, NV, NM, CO.
Against Hillary or Sanders? My dog could win those States.
Since 1986, we have had nothing but "he can win" RINOs nominated for President. You call Trump a change, but here you go again. The GOPe is lining up behind Trump. This is the best and last opportunity we have EVER seen to elect a conservative and you plan to boot the whole thing, because you believe a man who has never demonstrated adherence to conservatism over any substantive period of time, a man who has welched on his loans and cheated on his wives. He has told you in no uncertain terms, he will bring back illegal aliens as LEGAL immigrants, in other words future Democrats. That will be the end. You cannot afford this mistaken loyalty to one who has done NOTHING to earn it.
Spinning terms to the point of subjectivity is not an argument.
Is that some kind of rebuttal? RINO is certainly a relative term. Here, try disputing me, was Reagan a RINO in 1976? Surely it is a subjective term, subject to the era we are discussing. Frankly, you missed the point completely ( NRO and others calling Trump a RINO and/or CINO ). History repeats almost exactly but feel free not to notice.
Coulter has become more "pro-fund" than profound, for a lot of reasons.
Pro-fund? I don't get that, maybe that refers to ca$h or something. Ah well. Either you agree or disagree with what she said ( I do ), but we'll never know since you didn't say. Once again, Coulter: Conservative pundits keep assuring clueless viewers that Trump is not a "real Republican." ... Looking at what the party has become, I certainly hope he's not a "real Republican." Hard to disagree. No?
This is about the establishment being behind Trump ...
Actually it is not. C'mon now, do you really believe they are behind Trump? They are simply being expedient. What is happening in the past few days with Dole or whoever does not erase months, years and decades of their actions! I know that is a recent line of argument from Cruz supporters, but how anyone can really say that with a straight face is beyond me. Have fun selling that one.
Oh but you'll try, to preserve your self-delusion of immovable rectitude.
What is that, some kind of insult? Meltdown underway I see. I'll stick to my characterization of them ( Bozell, Sowell ) as blissfully ignorant shills for the entrenched UniParty status quo. That does not erase their Constitutional fidelity and great work, it just means when push comes to shove and the natives get restless and show up ( again and again ) with torches and pitchforks they will worry about their own asses first and last.
Speak for yourself. Trump is no conservative; he is a con artist.
( Using Billy Crystal's voice from The Princess Bride ) He's not a conservative just mostly conservative. I have to ask you though, since conservative is key criteria for you, exactly what office do you think this nomination is for? Is it RNC Chairman, Supreme Court Justice, House member, Senator, Governor, Pope? I have another question. Who gets to vote in this election? Those are kinda rhetorical I guess, so here is something specific ... If he is a Con Artist, exactly who is he conning? He is not acting as anybody except for himself. Apparently an authentic candidate is totally confusing to folks who are conditioned to only voting for politicians. If anybody is conning anybody it appears to be you conning yourself by projecting something onto him and then beating that strawman to death. Well, carry on then.
Against Hillary or Sanders? My dog could win those States.
I know someone has no electoral clue when I see a comment like that. There is no basis in fact to say that, and only can be explained by wishful thinking. That is indicative of no acknowledgement of past election results, or the current electoral cliff we are standing over, no idea of the enemy headstart, the ongoing demographic shift and where we will be in very few years if nothing changes.
Please help me out here ... If in these primaries where the voters are mostly (R) and (C) and Ted Cruz has only shown strength in a single state, Iowa ... what on Earth happens in a general when the doors in all states open to (D) and (L) and everyone else?
You were doubtful before?
As it is, I think it is safe to call them Cuckservatives...
This is like the guy who stands on the bullet train tracks with his hand up yelling STOP as the train flattens him.
They look like they tried to eat a green persimmon. Bless their little hearts.
Why would RINOs attack a RINO?
Rubio is not the next most most Conservative. He is too the left of Santprum, Huckabee, and others. He just claims to be conservative as he speed talks through his memorized speeches. He was part of Gang of Eight, pushes for amnesty - a slick guy who comes across like a conman. And he has accomplished nothing. With all the red flags pointing to potential scandals and no significant accomplishments, Democrats would have a field day attacking him.
Cruz or lose.
Romney was inevitable in 2011 - or did you forget how Newt’s campaign wasn’t even organized enough to get him on the ballot in several states. Moreover, Romney would have probably been more conservative than Trump, who is playing to the galleries right now - or have you forgotten how he criticized Romney in 2012 for being “too harsh” on immigration.
National Review is right and those who believe this “Trump is a conservative” fairy tale are gullible fools.
Romney was inevitable in 2011 ...
Yep, but let's review to be sure ...
So definitely yes. Considering the stupidity of the (R)epublicrat half of the uniparty, and those shrill voices from the conservative unintelligentsia at National Review who pimped him, I agree he was definitely inevitable. Absolutely, positively, indubitably, beyond any shadow of a doubt, inevitable. Next up, a lesbian hispanic Scientologist with a limp.
More conservative than Trump though? Well that's your opinion only. You and about five other people on Planet Earth.
National Review is right and those who believe this "Trump is a conservative" fairy tale are gullible fools.
Well if by right you mean retarded then I would agree. As it stands though, you managed to make two more mistakes in that single sentence! In the first place, Trump isn't running as a Conservative at least by doctrinaire standards. In the second place his supporters aren't believing any such thing in the first place.
You're pretty much beating a very convenient dead horse ... made of straw!
My comment was not offered as an endorsement of Romney. I did not support him until other, more conservative choices were already out of the running. This is not about the merits of the candidate in the last election.
Romney was inevitable for a much more pragmatic reason than the bombast you present: He was the only one with the ground organization to win. Newt didn’t even have enough of a ground game to get on the ballot in several key states.
The GOP did not “run” Romney. Romney ran Romney, and he did a better job of it than his competitors. The RNC played only a supporting role in his campaign after the nomination was decided, as Romney chose to build on his primary success by relying entirely on his own organization. Those familiar with the sad tale of “Project Orca” know exactly how that turned out.
National Review endorsed Romney because he was the only candidate organized enough to win, and that rationale stands the scrutiny of revisionism.
My comment was not offered as an endorsement of Romney. I did not support him until other, more conservative choices were already out of the running. This is not about the merits of the candidate in the last election.Romney was inevitable for a much more pragmatic reason than the bombast you present: He was the only one with the ground organization to win. Newt didn't even have enough of a ground game to get on the ballot in several key states.
Understood ( And please take no offense in this reply! I'm simply getting more philosophical in my own age. My target is the uniparty ). I respectfully disagree with several key things here though. I believe that the fact that many use GOP rather than GOPe highlights the core issue of our day - illusionary battles for the (R) nomination rather than the reality of an elitist, out of touch, one half of the FedGov uniparty keeping their vulgarians at bay. Romney was the only one with the ground organization to win implies that Conservatives walk onto a level playing field in the primaries and but for some lack of effort have every bit the likelihood of getting nominated as those members of the old boys club. I'm saying that is not only wrong but it is exactly what the GOPe wants everybody to believe because it ensures endless repeats of the charade.
This is exactly what they want us to take away as a lesson: The GOP did not "run" Romney. Romney ran Romney, and he did a better job of it than his competitors. The election season does not begin the day Romney announces, it begins long before when the cheerleaders staffing all these GOPe periodicals and special interest groups pimp their preferred establishment shill, organize and raise money, talk up their guy and smear the competition. It is a multifaceted effort by scores of elitists who literally admit they would vote (D)ummycrat rather than stoop so low as to back an insurgent. Noonan and Brooks are just two of the faces they wear, Romney and Bush are just two of the flavors they prefer, but they all agree on one thing - that it is better to "get along" than to shake things up and especially ... to win.
To believe this is anything except kabuki theater one must ignore the machinations of the GOPe polluted RNC itself. Changing primary rules like election dates, qualifications, debates and proportional versus winner take all. They are and have been operating counter to a majority ( or at least a plurality ) of their Conservative, rebellious, anti-establishment, Constitutional base for so many years. The (R)epublicrat infrastructure coupled with their alleged independent cocktail party chorus of talking heads is precisely how a Dole or Romney or Bush winds up running in the first place and finds themselves as instant front-runners on an alleged battlefield. The Media and pundits and big money donors and push polls and countless other well documented influences betray the myth of a battle of any sort.
Why talk of a Romney "ground game" when the defining issue of the day was Obamacare and the TEA Party steamroller? They kicked them squarely in the teeth and discarded the tee'd up winning strategy. If that doesn't describe elitist hijacking, a disservice to the membership, not to mention suicidal tendencies, then I don't know what does. The fact that there even was a path for Romney in that environment, the minority elitist position successfully stepping over the majority means it never was a "game" at all, just a predetermined sham. And it's not new. Another glaring example was during the Gingrich revolution, eventually toppling the speaker and replacing him with GOPe and NAMBLA darling Dennis Hastert. And of course we cannot forget the Reagan revolution, the one that got away ( well until Trump ). And that's just in recent memory. In truth the GOPe dopes have literally been in charge since the post Teddy Roosevelt era, and you could probably push that back to McKinley ( personally I would place it post reconstruction Hayes and Harrison when they clearly became elitist, tone-deaf and authoritarian with temperance, prohibition, and the income tax among other things. This was the point in time when they delivered black folks right back into the hands of the very same Dummycrat slavemasters they had just allegedly freed them from ). This is a very longed lived establishment indeed.
If you told me that Rich Lowry wrote this: National Review endorsed Romney because he was the only candidate organized enough to win, and that rationale stands the scrutiny of revisionism ... well I would believe because that is what a GOPe press release might say. It could practically be the lead paragraph for the infamous Romney autopsy ( still waiting for a corresponding GOPe press release explaining their racist Mississippi lynching of Chris McDaniel ). No-one should ever believe that National Review is some disconnected outside entity looking in who merely stepped up at the *end* of the primary to finally add their endorsement. You actually believe this even today? Okay then, but I see something entirely different and frankly, so does almost everyone else. In my opinion the actual revisionism is putting forth the notion that there wasn't a massive groundswell of TEA Party and grassroots movement to stop and then later repeal Obamacare, and any hypothesis that Romney was ever a sane or logical choice for a candidate for President in those circumstances. No rationale can be mustered for nominating the only person on Planet Earth so tailored to lose in every single issue on the table. I'd offer up 2012 now as a (R)epublicrat retroactive IQ Test. The only way to top their logic would be to nominate a gay Scientologist demanding open borders and doubling the income tax rates.
Back to the present, the dynamics of the uniparty paradigm are now almost completely exposed. It is creeping globalist elitism, an insidious neo-feudalism. And the conniption fits that are displayed by the uniparty establishment whenever Pro-American or Nationalist or Individualism or Constitutionalism or Anti-Immigration is asserted is all the proof required. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want, but I suggest we focus on the evil of uniparty politics to really understand what we are up against. Thankfully there is an awakening underway and many websites are detailing it. And the people, well, they have awoken yet again. This time around we've got to get the ball into the endzone.
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.