Posted on 01/22/2016 8:39:33 PM PST by Amntn
National Review's publication of the collective anti-Donald Trump missives from 22 self-appointed conservative potentates has caused quite a stir in Republican circles.
The nationwide responses range from, "Wait, I thought National Review went out of business years ago," to "Ed Meese? Seriously?"
The Gang of 22 have officially become parodies of themselves. One would have to reach back to the days of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew to lift an adequate quote to describe them.
"Nattering nabobs of negativism," "vicars of vacillation," "pusillanimous pussyfooters," "the decadent few," "ideological eunuchs," "the effete corps of impudent snobs," or "the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history" - take your pick, because they all apply about equally well to each and every one of them.
So clueless is the Gang of 22 they can't even see how they've stumbled right into the narrative Trump's been communicating so successfully for months. Just like the elected officials from both parties, the Gang of 22 has been GREAT at complaining about stuff, year, after year, after year.
But getting anything accomplished? Not so much.
Many of the Gang of 22 have been hanging around and chattering for decades, and some are active cogs in the Conservative Entertainment Complex, deriving their income by pandering to conservative anger while offering no real solutions.
Donald Trump represents a threat to these ineffectual poohbahs in the same way he represents a threat to do-nothing public officials.
Jealousy is also seriously at work here. Trump is inspiring and exciting a broad spectrum of the country like no member of the Gang of 22 ever has, or ever will.
In just seven months of campaigning, Trump already has more Americans listening to a Republican message than the entire Gang of 22 could muster over decades. Trump understands that before you can advance the ball, you have to convince people to take time from their busy lives to listen. No one on the GOP side since Ronald Reagan has accomplished that like Trump.
No one else has come close, and certainly no one from that "effete corps of impudent snobs" to which the National Review thinks we should defer.
The Gang of 22 had their chance. They've done a lot of bitching over the years, and it paid well for some.
But Americans care about results. They can plainly see that all of the empty talk from the Gang of 22 got us eight years of Barack Obama, and a loss in pretty much every conservative battle there was to lose.
At the same time when Americans look at Donald Trump's life they get a lot of assurance that here is finally a man who shares their focus on actually getting results. And Trump returns the respect by recognizing regular hard-working Americans are a lot smarter than any of the "ideological eunuchs" in all of their pontificating glory.
The "pusillanimous pussyfooters" love to nitpick Trump's words, but what voters are looking for this year is competence and accomplishment. Donald Trump has an actual record of delivering both in spades.
The Gang of 22 is right to be terrified. A President who could get things done would expose them as the irrelevant creatures they truly are.
It can't happen fast enough.
Celebrity business magnate Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday, telling reporters he will not mount an independent campaign if Romney is the Republican nominee.
Trump, who has repeatedly flirted with the possibility of his own White House bid, revealed his decision in Las Vegas two days before Nevada’s Saturday caucuses.
“It’s my honor, real honor, to endorse Mitt Romney,” Trump said, with Romney and his wife standing nearby. Calling Romney “tough” and “smart,” Trump said, “he’s not going to continue to allow bad things to happen to this country.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/02/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html
Look at what happened when new governments where formed during the English civil war & later the glorious revolution, and in France between the 2nd empire to 3rd republic after the defeat @ Sedan, not to mention Vichy of course. (Don't even need to mention Germany after WW 1 & 2.)
I really believe there's a real chance of prosecution. If Trump lets everybody off the hook, he'll have made his first mistake. The minute after he's sworn in, he should sign a federal warrant for every evil doer.
If NR is so ineffectual, how can it have handed Trump the election?
By “right enemies” you apparently mean actual principled conservatives. What does that make Trump, and you?
Perhaps I have you wrong, but assuming you were also with Trump on the Cruz Birther issue, well according to Fox only 10 % said it would prevent them from voting for Cruz, just the lunatics.
A week from Monday can change everything, not that anything has changed even other than the MSM narrative that Trump has already won.
But the truth is there were 3 Iowa polls out 2 days ago, all on same day, yes CNN had Trump up 11, but as John King of CNN already pointed out, take the turn out methodology with a grain of salt, and added they also asked in the poll only those who actually showed up to caucus in Iowa 4 years ago, when they were asked same poll had Cruz up 2
2 other Iowa polls out same day
1 had Cruz up by 2, the other Trump by 1
the election is not over as you suggest.
Cruz wins Iowa and that`s the story, the NRO story is only a memory.
You are also forgetting that Trump is now being embraced by Bob Dole and washington establishment etc
I understand that does not fit your narrative.
If you think RINOs are "principled conservatives" we know what that makes you.
In September of 2012, who did you expect them to be making a case for? 0bama?
Brent Bozell is a great guy
If you think Trump is ANY kind of conservative we know what that makes you.
If you want Jethro anointed we know what that makes you.
Romney was inevitable as early as 2011 - or did you forget how Newtâs campaign wasnât 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 âtoo harshâ on immigration.
National Review is right and those who believe this âTrump is a conservativeâ fairy tale are gullible fools.
“Do you want the trains running late?”
OMG, THAT is just one of the funniest lines I’ve seen all year!
Would be a great punchline in a one-liner in a standup routine.
I notice the gang did not endorse Ted Cruz, either. Big tell there.
—
Bingo! NR is not interested in conservatives, they’re interested in the GOPe insider club. They’re probably still pining for Jeb.
I agree, a list that includes crazy Glenn Beck. Also, the Hollywood left that includes Jane Fonda, Rosie O, and Harry Bellafonte have organized against D. Trump and threatened the media regarding giving him too much air time. The left sure is frightened of Trump.
Here, here!! ‘nuff said.
And we proceed to fallacy one in the Trumptard playbook: If you oppose Trump, you must support (or are on the payroll of) Jeb (or Hillary, or Bernie, or...)
No, I don’t support any of the above. I support actual conservatives, several of whom were chased out of the race because of the imbecilic antics of Trump and his cognitively challenged supporters. Of those who are left, I support those who are most conservative - but damned near any of them are MORE conservative than Trump based on his own pronouncements.
So who would be winning right now had Trump not entered the race?
The gang of 22 are the 22 “conservative” writers that wrote anti Trump pieces in NRO.
No way. There's no Ford in this race, no sitting President. Romney passed, so no carryover GOPe candidate.
If Jebbers was neck-and-neck with Trump, you might have an argument. But Jeb is already hamburger - 60 freaking million spent (unwisely by Oneforyou-Twoforme Murphy and associated PAC toadies) and can't break 10%.
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.