I am a fan of National Review and enjoy reading their articles, but their decision last week to come out against Trump was irresponsible, and displays a disconnect from everyday Americans that evidently even our conservative pundits share. Of course keep in mind, they all do work within the beltway, enjoy six figure incomes, and attend much of the same cocktail parties, so it isn’t difficult to surmise that after many of their collegial, more liberal friends bent their ear about how “offensive” Trump is, at their latest cocktail soiree, the executives at NR decided it was probably best to come out against Trump to shore up their DC bona fides. To me, it exposes them for their lack of appreciation of just how fed up Americans are with their current government and possibly how disingenuous they are when they do pontificate on smaller government, conservatism and states rights. It appears to me that the status quo sets well with the boys at National Review and the last thing they want is some one like Trump upsetting their apple cart. Besides, when a Democrat is in office, conservative publications and opinions sell better. Maybe that’s their end game.
71 thoughts on “Against National Review”
Comments are closed.
Blogs For Victory 
Cluster, are you truly saying that the only reason to find Trump vulgar, offensive, and a potential liability to the conservative cause is obliviousness to the discontent of conservatives? Because that is what you appear to be saying when you write “To me, it exposes them for their lack of appreciation of just how fed up Americans are with their current government..”
This, of course, after you attack not only their intelligence but their honor and motives when you proclaim that they really only point out Trump’s defects to “…shore up their DC bona fides..”
And you assert that you believe “…the status quo sets well with the boys at National Review and the last thing they want is some one like Trump upsetting their apple cart….”
I have two things to say about your thread post.
(1) Bullshit.
(2) Shame on you.
For someone who has so energetically decried the Leftist tactic of attacking the messenger instead of paying attention to the message, you have certainly jumped on that bandwagon in a hurry.
Let me see if I can describe the Trump Bubble accurately.
If I don’t care that Trump is crude and vulgar, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump is a serial adulterer, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump has a history of working with the mob to get his buildings built, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump’s conservatism is very new and that until very recently he praised Hillary and said she would make a great president, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump’s father was a racist associated with the KKK, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump has routinely, over several years, hired illegal aliens, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump lies, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump’s style is to flip out at every criticism and then respond with childish attacks, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump has bragged about essentially bribing politicians to gain business advantages and says this is just the way things get done, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump’s recent alleged pro-life position is, by his own account, based on knowing someone whose mother thought of aborting him who then turned out to be a “superstar”, and not on a core belief in the sanctity of life, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump thinks his sister, a radical feminist Leftist who ardently supports abortion should be a Supreme Court Justice, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump thinks the SCOTUS Kelo decision was great and approves of using eminent domain to take property from people if that means someone else can make a lot of money off it, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump supported the stimulus, the auto bailouts, and the bank bailouts. then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump said in some cases it would be good for the government to nationalize banks then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump bragged “My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body” then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump said “I was [Obama’s] biggest cheerleader” then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump said “This is an un-Republican thing for me to say. . . . I’m going to take care of everybody. . . .The government’s gonna pay for it.” then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump supported the prosecution of hate crimes then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump favored wealth-confiscation policies then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump wrote in his book The America We Deserve that he supported a ban on “assault weapons” then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump called for boycotts of American companies he doesn’t like then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump told bureaucrats to use eminent domain to get him better deals on property he wanted to develop then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump proudly proposed the largest tax increase in American history then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump has promised to use tariffs to punish companies that incur his disfavor then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump says he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that the Justice Department filed suit against the Trump Management Corporation for alleged racial discrimination then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that the Securities and Exchange Commission brought a financial-reporting case against Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc., alleging that it had committed several “misleading statements in the company’s third-quarter 1999 earnings release” then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman accused Trump of defrauding more than 5,000 people of $40 million then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump filed a $1 million defamation suit against former Trump University student Tarla Makaeff, who had spent about $37,000 on seminars, after she joined the class action lawsuit and publicized her classroom experiences on social media then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
(“Unable to prove malice, Trump University lost ananti-SLAPP lawsuit (under statutes designed to thwart legal intimidation of class action participants) and was ordered by a U.S. District Judge in April 2015 to pay Makaeff and her lawyers $798,774.24 in legal fees and costs:)
If I don’t care that in 2015, Trump initiated a $100 million lawsuit against Palm Beach County claiming that officials, in a “deliberate and malicious” act, pressured the FAA to direct air traffic to the Palm Beach International Airport over his Mar-A-Lago estate then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November to call him paranoid.
If I don’t care that Trump was a federal target in a 1979 bribery investigation, and later questioned in a 1981 racketeering probe then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump omittied mention of that investigation in his New Jersey casino license application then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use against him in November.
If I don’t care that according to a New York State report, Trump “circumvented” personal and corporate campaign donation limits in the 1980s by donating money to candidates from 18 different business subsidiaries, rather than giving primarily in his own name then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I don’t care that Trump mocked New York Times investigative reporter Serge Kovaleski during a rally in South Carolina last month, appearing to mimic the effects of Kovaleski’s congenital joint condition, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
If I have decided not to worry about his long term relationship with criminal Felix Sater, or his later efforts to try to appear this was such a casual relationship he didn’t even really remember Sater, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.
And, of course, anyone with any concern that these kinds of things can and will be brought up if Trump is the nominee and the Republicans are stuck with him through the election, making him a liability to the party, getting another Dem in the White House and causing harm to the conservative movement, is really just an Establishment hack conservative pretender trying to preserve cocktail party invites and membership in the Beltway Elite while mounting unfair “attacks” on Trump because he represents an anti-establishment movement, which is simply not known to or understood by said hacks.
Did I get that right?
Please, the next time you get your panties in a wad because you don’t like what is said about someone you like, try to think through your knee-jerk response to see if it makes any sense. This one didn’t.
You didn’t get anything right. I am saying that the most important political thing right now, in my opinion, is defeating Democrats. They have, and are currently ruining this country from Hillary, to Bernie, to Harry Reid, to Schumer, to Kerry, to the progressive leftist agenda that they all push aggressively and while I find Trump to be often times childish, bombastic and unattractive, he is a far better choice than any Democrat, period. So the effort to disavow and attack one of our own candidates in a manner that is equal to or worse than any critique of the Democrats is seriously misguided and ignorant of the clear and present danger of leftism this country faces. A critique of his character flaws and policies in terms of not being the best choice of Republicans is one thing, but for one of them to come out and say that they would vote for Bernie Sanders over Trump deserves scorn.
No, that is NOT what you said. That might be what the voice in your head was whispering to you while you wrote, but what you SAID was:
The writers at National Review “lack (of) appreciation of just how fed up Americans are with their current government”
and that they are “…disingenuous (they are) when they do pontificate on smaller government, conservatism and states rights…” “Disingenuous” meaning “dishonest”.
and that ‘.. the status quo sets (sic)well with the boys at National Review and the last thing they want is some one like Trump upsetting their apple cart..”
because after all “…when a Democrat is in office, conservative publications and opinions sell better..”
Of course, they are showing their “…disconnect from everyday Americans..” and are really only motivated, after ensuring more readership by getting a Dem elected, of course, because they are addicted to those “..six figure incomes” and unwilling to risk being uninvited to those legendary “..cocktail parties..” and “..cocktail soirees..” so they whore themselves out to “..shore up their DC bona fides..”
What a mean-spirited, offensive, borderline libelous load of crap. You wrote it, so at least own it, and don’t try to sanitize it by saying it says what it does not say. Not once did you say the most important thing is “defeating Democrats” or even that Trump “..is a far better choice than any Democrat.”
What you SAID was a litany of personal attacks against people, maligning their intelligence, integrity, political awareness, motives, honesty and basic decency.
Do you really think, for even one single second, that ANYONE who is paying the slightest bit of attention to what is going on in this country is unaware of the discontent, resentment, and anger bubbling up through the American public. Seriously? ANYONE? While there are a few different explanations for it, it is pervasive and the topic of hundreds of thousands of hours or discourse—in print, on radio talk shows, on the internet. How long ago did the TEA Party come into existence, and how often has its origin been described as anger and discontent, regarding the direction the country is headed? Do you seriously think that people whose jobs involve writing about politics really don’t know what the polls about the country heading in the wrong direction mean?
NO ONE is that stupid, yet you blithely brand the National Review writers as simply not understanding that the American people are “fed up”.
What you clearly do not understand is that a level of resentment, anger and being fed up is the ONLY thing that can explain a Donald Trump getting the traction he is getting. Explaining that the rise of an offensive loudmouth lout like Trump could only happen in a nation where so many people feel that they have no alternative.
One person—ONE person—who sometimes has an article in the National Review, said ONE thing —that he would rather vote for Hillary than Trump—and you spin off into some rant about the National Review and all its writers, or at least the other 21 who wrote commentary on why they think a Trump candidacy would be bad for the country and bad for the party.
This is not what I expect of you, I am disappointed by this piece, as it reflects very badly on you, and it is clear someone needs to shake you till your pants fray if this is actually even the tiniest part of how you view Trump and the political climate today, and the conservatives at National Review.
Well it’s obvious whose panties are bunched up. I own everything I said, because I am sick and tired of conservatives eating their own and while Trumps conservatism is legitimately questionable, attacking him and endorsing a leftist, is as you say – a load of crap, and if expressing my frustration with this drivel from the NR doesn’t sit well with you, than quite frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.
I see the job of conservatives as doing whatever we can to make sure the best candidate gets the nomination. That is, the candidate with the best conservative history and credentials, with the best possibility of being elected.
I do not see warning people who have become attracted to a potential candidate of the things that will be used against him if he is the nominee as political cannibalism. I see it as a moral obligation as well as a civic one.
I notice that you still have not addressed a single thing from the NR article you dismiss as “drivel”, choosing instead to make really hateful attacks on the writers. The only comment you use as a reference was not even part of the article.
I’m sorry if you don’t like what I said, and I have taken note of your decidedly Trump-esque response to it.
I could care less if you liked what I said or not. I respect your right to your opinion. I like many of those authors, particularly Katie Pavlich, I think she is very sharp, but I do question their motives for writing such a biting critique of one of our own candidates in the context they did. As I said, had they framed their critique in the context of the GOP primary and based on policy, that would have been different, but they framed their critique in mean spirited, personal degradation and in the context of actually being POTUS.
Any candidate can promise the moon. But politicians have records of success, failure, or plain backsliding by which their promises may be judged. Trump can try to make his blankness a virtue by calling it a kind of innocence. But he is like a man with no credit history applying for a mortgage — or, in this case, applying to manage a $3.8 trillion budget and the most fearsome military on earth.
I will remind the authors that Trump has done more for working Americans than they ever have, and I highly doubt that Trump is a stranger to large balance sheets, so their insistence that only politicians with records are capable of such difficult feats is offensive.
From another thread, but relevant here.
This is a quote from Thomas Sowell:
“The idea that someone quite different from those who led a nation into disaster can be expected to produce an improvement is a non sequitur that has seduced many people in many places and times.
Germany’s Weimar Republic was nobody’s idea of an ideal government but Hitler’s reign that followed was far worse in every way. Many Americans denounced the rule of the Shah of Iran, but he was never a worldwide sponsor of terrorism, like those who replaced him.
A pattern that would appear in many other places and times was one in which people’s hopes became focused on someone new, charismatic and with ringing rhetoric– but utterly untested for the job of governing a nation.
That is where we are today.”
If I were to tell you he wrote this in 2008, about Barack Obama, you would agree. If I were to tell you he wrote this last week about Trump you would probably call him an Establishment NRO hack who is a Trump HATER–or at least this is the impression I get from your posts lately.
Just curious—how do you analyze the qualifications for being the best candidate for being the President of the United States without analyzing the best qualifications for being the President of the United States?
And does your quote come from the NR article in which 22 conservatives stated their personal opinions of why Donald Trump would not be the best Republican nominee? I read the whole article, several times, and not only did it not contain a comment about voting for Sanders over Trump, I don’t recognize this quote. I thought it was this article that brought on your thread post.
That quote is from the article on NRO:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace
…that only politicians with records are capable of such difficult feats is offensive.”
I didn’t see any such claim to a need for any such record of any such “difficult feat”, whatever “feat” you mean. It was an analogy. If someone had compared wanting to be the President of the United States without any prior experience in government to wanting to win the Indy 500 without ever driving anything but a Honda Civic, the author would not be saying that only race car drivers should aspire to the presidency.
“That quote is from the article on NRO:”
Huh? WHICH quote? The Sowell quote is, the Beck misquote is not. Are we calling Sowell a rudderless establishment hack pseudo-conservative cannibal now? Or are you just trying to dodge the observation that you would agree with the quote if it was about Obama and not if it is about Trump?
Just a note in passing: Glenn Beck never said he would vote for Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump. Didn’t say it. It didn’t happen.
The writer of an article about Beck’s support for Ted Cruz put his own spin on what Beck said. The writer characterized Beck’s statement about thinking Sanders is more honest than Trump with the headline He said he even prefers Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” running in the Democratic presidential primary, to Trump.
Beck said: Honesty, faith and truth are basic requirements. And quite honestly, I have to tell you, this probably isn’t going to go over very well, that’s why I like Bernie Sanders,” he said. “Bernie Sanders is like, ‘Yep, I’m a socialist.’
“I can actually sit at a table with a man who says, ‘Yes, I’m a socialist, and yes, I don’t like what we are doing, we should be more like Denmark,’ ” he added.”
He didn’t say, hint or imply that he would VOTE for Bernie Sanders. He just said that with Bernie, what you see is what you get, he is what he is. He didn’t say he LIKES what he is, just that he respects the honesty of coming out and admitting he is a socialist.
Tempest, meet teapot.
Roseanne Roseannadanna, where are you?
So Glenn’s comment about Bernie Sanders was misconstrued? That doesn’t happen much in politics, does it? My first choice is Rubio, my second is Cruz although I am starting to have my doubts if we can win a general, my third is “I don’t know” – it would be either Christie or Trump and from there I hate to think about it. But what we can not have is another Democrat in the white house and eating our own and displaying our dirty laundry for all to see is more detrimental to the cause. I thought we would have learned that by now.
Every single thing conservatives think makes Trump a liability if nominated is not only known to anyone who has been paying any attention, it has been researched, verified, documented, cataloged, and is just waiting for us to nominate him so it can be dragged out and made public and developed, to sink a Republican bid for the White House.
THAT. IS. THE . POINT.
That definitely is crystal ball kind of thinking. And I will also note that all of the heady research, verification, and documentation of conservative thinking has brought us staunch conservatives like John McCain, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Bob Dole, and most recently Paul Ryan who just gave Obama and the Democrats everything they wanted. Maybe the “king makers” in the conservative movement should sit this one out.
No, not “misconstrued”. Misquoted. Wrong. Taken as saying what was not said. And it didn’t happen “in politics”. It happened right here.
Well as you succinctly pointed out:
The writer characterized Beck’s statement about thinking Sanders is more honest than Trump with the headline He said he even prefers Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” running in the Democratic presidential primary, to Trump.
So it did happen in politics and it was misconstrued (interpret something, especially a person’s words or actions wrongly) by another author. Maybe Beck should come out and clarify what he means, because it appears that he, and you, are more fond of an honest socialist than a clumsy capitalist.
Oh, get over it. We can drag this out interminably by quibbling that Beck should have said a lot more about Sanders, beyond saying he could sit down at a table with Sanders because at least Sanders is honest about who and what he is. On the other hand, maybe you should have bothered to find out what he really did say before going off the rails on a shrieking anti-National Review attack. I think it’s clear that the only ones who had trouble figuring out what Beck meant were knee-jerk Trump supporters, or in your case a knee-jerk Trump supporter who already disliked Beck anyway because he sits down and wears “Ivy League sweaters”.
“…because it appears that he, and you, are more fond of an honest socialist than a clumsy capitalist.” Really? You are stooping to a Rusty type of “argument” now?
Nice try, trying to recast Trump’s sordid history, Liberal allegiances, Liberal policies and general loutishness as meaning is just a “clumsy capitalist”.
“Fond of”? Well, if you are intent on adopting a style of discourse that depends on first taking the comment of an observer as something actually said by Beck instead of an interpretation of something said by Beck, and then spinning that into “fondness” I suppose it works for you. I find it, to use your own word, “disingenuous”.
You took an interpretation of what a third party said as what Beck himself said, and then re-interpreted it, so by the time the simple innocuous observation that at least Sanders is more honest than Trump got distorted into BECK WOULD VOTE FOR SANDERS OVER TRUMP you were so agitated that you wrote a ridiculous piece as a thread post, which you still defend, attacking everyone who writes for the National Review for something none of them said, impugning their characters and intellect, justified later by your comment “…for one of them to come out and say that they would vote for Bernie Sanders over Trump deserves scorn.”
And now you are doubling down by attacking me as someone who, as you came right out and said, is “…. more fond of an honest socialist than a clumsy capitalist.” Make that “more tolerant of an honest socialist than a political chameleon whose “values” depend on what he wants and who he is talking to” and you might be in the right ball park. And “MORE fond” is not the same as “fond”. Actually, “fond” is a stupid word to use when the issue has nothing to do with warm fuzzy feelings but objective analysis of sleaze.
The First Rule of Holes is, when you are in a hole quit digging.
The Second Rule of Holes is, when your opponent is in a hole, hand him a shovel.
I’m tired of handing you shovels, but you seem to be doing just fine on your own. (See efforts to redirect the discourse to John McCain, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Bob Dole, and Paul Ryan though even this tactic ignores the fact that I talked about THE DEMOCRATS doing the research on Trump, to use against him, and you are fussing that—well, by this time I have no idea what point you are trying to make.)
At least if it does snow in Phoenix you can make yourself a pretty big bonfire with that huge chip on your shoulder.
You are a legend in your own mind Amazona. You always say that “others” bring out the long knives when they disagree with someone, but is you my dear who has the longest of knives and the thinnest of skins I might add. I have no chip on my shoulder, and I certainly don’t need any shovel from someone like you. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the NRO article before you go on anymore. Here it is again:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace
And then I recommend you read what others are saying, like the folks from Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/01/26/2863193/
But I have noted the fact that when I stray from allegiance to your conservative orthodoxy, the long knife makes an appearance.
MY “conservative orthodoxy”? It was yours, too, till you flipped out in what should have been a “never mind” moment and the, became mired in a desperate attempt to prove Cluster Right Amazona Wrong, no matter how deep into the weeds you had to get.
So I guess this whole thing can be summed up as this:
You think it is wrong to point out the things that might sink a Republican candidate if he is the nominee
You think it is OK claim that people who say things you don’t like are doing so because they are dishonest, greedy, whoring themselves out for invites to fabled “cocktail soirees” and deserve to be labeled as such
You think if someone disagrees with your approach to wholesale smearing of an entire magazine staff, admittedly because of something it turns out was never said in the magazine, it is OK to cast aspersions on that person as well
Whereas:
I think conservatives have a moral obligation to point out things about a potential candidate that have undoubtedly been discovered by the Opposition and will undoubtedly be used against him, possibly tanking the movement’s chance to gain the White House
I think if someone makes what I think is an unfair and unjustified accusation, particularly one as detailed and vicious as yours about the National Review, I should be allowed to rebut it without having so suffer much the same fate
Aside from that, for someone who says he is not a Trump fan you certainly were willing to fall on your sword when anyone said anything uncomplimentary about him.
I’m going to go sharpen those dreaded “long knives” now, in case I run into trouble on those unpaved roads through the wilderness which may, or may not, lead to some degree of Constitutional governance, even if it wends its way through the swamps of single payer health care and abortion activists on the Supreme Court. At least my compass works, even if I am scolded for using it.
Cruz has my full support. I played with Rubio, but the importance of the SCOTUS appointments and the bona fide conservative stand up for your values kind of uncompromising performance I’m looking for goes to Cruz. I think the guy’s the real deal. I know, I could get my heart broken again…. Trump is the Democrat’s answer to lacking a real candidate to run on the left, since they are locked into Hillary. They’ll just run Trump as a Republican then they can’t lose no matter who wins. SCOTUS is the ballgame. Seriously, who do you want making those calls! Scalia’s already got a job.
Mark, I think you are right about the Dems wanting Trump to run. So does the D.C. establishment. The only candidate that has the establishment really scared is Cruz. He IS the real deal.
If we had to run against a charismatic young energetic Lefty who could manipulate emotions the way Obama did, I might go for a lighter-weight charmer like Rubio, but given who is likely to be on the D side of the ticket, and given the tone of the country, I think a lot of people are ready for a grown-up in the White House, maybe not the guy you want to invite to a barbeque (though I think his charm is very underrated given what I have seen of his sense of humor and even whimsy) but the guy you want doing your taxes or investing your money or handling your legal affairs. Or dealing with ISIS or negotiating with Iran and North Korea.
Thank you for bringing up the SCOTUS appointments. I think we are going to have to hold our breaths for the next few months, to see if any of the Libs bail off the Court before the next inauguration, just so Barry can do his thing and pack the Court. If that doesn’t happen, the next president will have appointment authority.
Why are evangelicals going more for Trump than Cruz?
Being an evangelical does not include being immune to populist demagoguery.
If they do bail for Obama, I’d hate to see it be one of the Reagan’s appointees. You are right. There are many other important considerations and an adult would be a refreshing change.
I have to ask, why would the Republican majority confirm an Obama appointment this late in his term? I don’t know, do they have to confirm one of Obama’s nominees or could they try to run out the clock and let the next POTUS fill those seats? It doesn’t seem likely, considering the treatment the Dems have given Republican nominees at their confirmations hearings, that they would confirm Obama’s nominee unless they had to. The Dems nuked them for crying-out-loud, so there is no moral impediment to removing the gloves at this point. The base would love it.
I know the angst in the base over the performance of this Congress leads some to believe Jane Fonda would be confirmed if Obama were to nominate her. I’m mad too, but that’s just frustration talking. I don’t think the “establishment” or rather those comprising Republican leadership are traitors to conservatism. They all should have received the message by now elitism will not be tolerated and I hope they take it to heart. I share your concern that leadership might prefer Trump to Cruz. We all have to coalesce around “our” candidate whether we believe him to be the lessor of two evils or a champion crusader.
I realize Ted’s not considered to be “the life of the party” in Washington social circles, but is that a bad thing? I don”t thinks it is and I’d be suspicious of any evangelical Christian who was. Ted would be most welcome at my BBQ and so would you. “You can be my VP and if you happen to be correct…,” if that was an off the cuff unscripted remark the guy crack’s me up too.
I think Ted Cruz’s wit and humor are seriously underrated. He has come up with enough comments to convince me he might be the life of the party, after all. As for the whining about him being not liked enough, being hated, etc.—who cares? As I said about Romney, I don’t want to date the guy, I want to hire him. An election is a job interview, or at least it should be, and I am always amazed at the people who don’t look at the resume and don’t check the job history or referrals.
I agree, this would be a great time—the best time—for Congress to find a backbone and block any Obama nominee for SCOTUS. With an election looming, some Dems smart enough to see the writing on the wall might even go along with them.
Right now, no – Even our spineless GOPers wouldn’t confirm an Obama appointee. None of them will retire this late in the game, and if any of them die, that seat will remain vacant until next year.
If they do bail for Obama, I’d hate to see it be one of the Reagan’s appointees. You are right. There are many other important considerations and an adult would be a refreshing change.
I have to ask, why would the Republican majority confirm an Obama appointment this late in his term? I don’t know, do they have to confirm one of Obama’s nominees or could they try to run out the clock and let the next POTUS fill those seats? It doesn’t seem likely, considering the treatment the Dems have given Republican nominees at their confirmations hearings, that they would confirm Obama’s nominee unless they had to. The Dems nuked them for crying-out-loud, so there is no moral impediment to removing the gloves at this point. The base would love it.
I know the angst in the base over the performance of this Congress leads some to believe Jane Fonda would be confirmed if Obama were to nominate her. I’m mad too, but that’s just frustration talking. I don’t think the “establishment” or rather those comprising Republican leadership are traitors to conservatism. They all should have received the message by now elitism will not be tolerated and I hope they take it to heart. I share your concern that leadership might prefer Trump to Cruz. We all have to coalesce around “our” candidate whether we believe him to be the lessor of two evils or a champion crusader.
I realize Ted’s not considered to be “the life of the party” in Washington social circles, but is that a bad thing? I don”t thinks it is and I’d be suspicious of any evangelical Christian who was. Ted would be most welcome at my BBQ and so would you. “You can be my VP and if you happen to be correct…,” if that was an off the cuff unscripted remark the guy crack’s me up too.
They’ll just run Trump as a Republican then they can’t lose no matter who wins.
So do you think Trump is lying when he says that he will build the wall, deport illegals, temporarily shut down Muslim migration, build up the military, lower personal and corporate rates, and repeal Obamacare? Or do you think those are Democrat positions now?
“So do you think Trump is lying when he says that he will build the wall, deport illegals, temporarily shut down Muslim migration, build up the military, lower personal and corporate rates, and repeal Obamacare?”
I think the president of the United States does not have the power to do any of these things, unless he follows in the last narcissist’s shoes and thinks he can run this whole country by himself. In other words, what bothers me is that Trump probably DOES think he can do all of these things, when in fact the only way any of them can be done according to the Constitutional division of powers is by Congress.
Lying? No.
Playing to the crowd by saying what he knows they want him to say? Definitely.
Believes it when he says it? Probably.
NO, I think those are pragmatic steps required of the President of the US who swears oath to protect the nation from enemies both forgin and domestic and to uphold the constitution…. Folks have just forgot, because it hasn’t consistently happened over the last seven years and nothings been done about it. Democrats have fiercely defended this nation in the past and will again in the future I’d imagine. Roosevelt did and so did Kennedy. Leopard don’t change their spots. They strike when the opportunity presents itself. Trump’s the same animal with the same limitations. I don’t believe Donald had a genuine Dennis Miller moment. I think winning is important enough to him for him to tell people what they want hear.
Oh, and let me add, as i don’t what to be accused of hedging here, I think Trump will look you in the eye and lie his ares off. He’s a business man and a politician. I think he’ll take every advantage he can. I think that’s how he rolls and I think you know it’s true… come on, you do too, admit it.
Allow me to say something about this “honesty” that Bernie Sanders is so adored for. Yesterday he was blaming big corporations, big insurance, and Wall Street for everyones financial problems and that only he has the solution. In other words, only the strong arm of government can bring about “economic justice”. Isn’t it true that corporations, insurance companies and wall street are simply playing by the rules that big government has already established? Are there not anti trust, and SEC laws that prohibit those private entities from playing outside the rules? Is it not the governments responsibility to hold them to account?
Is that what Glenn Beck thinks is so “refreshingly honest”?
“Allow me to say something about this “honesty” that Bernie Sanders is so adored for.” But then you don’t say a word about his honesty, only about the wrongness of his political philosophy, and in doing so you are not honest, yourself.
Who “adores” Bernie Sanders? Certainly not Beck. Certainly not me. If you can’t be honest about what is said, you can’t have an honest response to it.
And BTW, you are arguing something else that was not said, in addition to the invented “fondness/adoring” meme you keep trying to substitute for what was said. Beck said Sanders is honest about what he believes—that is, he admits to it, he owns it, what you see is what you get. He never said, hinted or implied that he thought Sanders is RIGHT. Sanders is a loon, but he is a consistent loon, who does not change his colors when it is convenient.
Why are you so insistent on trying to shift the discourse from one thing to another? No “fondness”, no “adoring”, no claiming Sanders makes sense.
Because in that line I quoted from Sanders, he is NOT honest. Did you not get that? What’s funny about all of this is that I am not even a Trump supporter, but am being labeled and crucified as such. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of attacking a fellow GOP candidate in a manner equal to the viciousness that Democrats engage in, and yet when I call out the vaunted NRO staff for that absurdity, the attacks ensue. I am interested in what you have to say about the Breitbart staff, or Laura Ingraham. Do they need shovels too?
I believe I have already pointed out that NR has a wide range of authors and opinions.
I have read the cited article, many times. It has been part of a much less emotional discussion and I am very familiar with it.
If you can cite anything in the article that you think is not true, you can certainly address it, and if you could have a discussion about its merits without claiming I have an emotional attachment to a socialist it would be appreciated.
Go back to your thread post and the first two or three posts after that, and the tone of the entire thread is quite clear. I said I thought your hit piece on the entire NR staff was mean spirited and misplaced, and your justification for it was outrage at someone no one had ever said anywhere, much less in an NR article.
You whimper about “long knives” but that seems to cover pretty much anything you don’t like to hear.
Why can’t we all just get along?
Clearly, the Trump phenomena has caused a great deal of heart ache among the non-left of the political sphere. The good news is that the Sanders phenomena might do the same on the left side.
Nothing wrong with a spirited argument. I think the country is at a point now that the gloves do need to come off.
I have very high standards for conservatives, and it bothers me every time I see a self-identified conservative acting like a Liberal. In this case, trying to intimidate and silence people to keep them from expressing what they think, particularly doing it by personal attacks on intelligence, integrity and honesty.
I will always stand up and say my piece when I see what I think is unfairness and hypocrisy. Sneering at me for doing so, calling me names and sniping about my “long knives” only shows me I am right, when I see the Leftist tactics of trying to intimidate people into silence because they have a different point of view.
And it is a weakness of mine, kind of like a cat compelled to follow that string around a corner, to comment on inconsistency. When a discussion supposedly about one thing is abruptly shifted to something else because there is no legitimate argument to be made for the first topic, I do get sucked into pointing that out.
And it appears as though I am not alone in my critique of National Review:
Laura Ingraham explained that if Rich Lowry and National Review’s “Manhattan-based editors” continue to alienate blue-collar Americans who are concerned about immigration, trade and foreign policy, “National Review Editor Rich Lowry and his people will be left preaching their narrow doctrine to a smaller and smaller audience.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/24/ingraham-blasts-national-review-damaging-gops-2016-campaign-anti-trump-tirade/
And if I thought this was anything but an exercise in silliness and pique I could dig up all the glowing testimonials about Obama, as if fooling a lot of people automatically means you are the real deal. I actually did quote one of them: Trump said “I was [Obama’s] biggest cheerleader”
I am seeing the old “big tent” of the GOP being subjected to a strenuous effort to shrink it down and admit only those who agree with a narrow point of view. I have no idea what opinions on immigration, trade and foreign policy these “blue collar Americans” might find offensive in the collected writings of the NR. I get the NRO every day, and when I read it I find a pretty good range of opinions, with a general basic political philosophy consistent with a Constitutional point of view regarding how best to govern the country but with different perspectives on some issues. I may have missed opinions in favor of gun control, amnesty for illegals, open borders, support for Iran and Obama’s negotiations with her, support for North Korea and her nuclear program and threats, and so on. And if someone were to write something I don’t agree with, on any of these issues, it would probably be well written and thought provoking and followed by an opposing point of view, also well written and thought provoking.
I have enjoyed this debate more than any other debate we have ever had, because this is what needs to be discussed within the GOP ranks. Are we pragmatists, or are we idealists? Are we willing to die on the hill of constitutional purity? Or do we have a strategy that will possibly bring us around to Constitutional governance albeit through unpaved roads? Are we willing to fight for and support someone who represents maybe 70% of what we believe in, or is it all or nothing?
I will note that Bernie Sanders is not even a member of the Democrat Party, yet you don’t see Vox, Salon, or HuffPo writing scathing critiques of his credentials to be POTUS. Democrats fight the long game, and this country is worse off for it. Conservatives seem to favor the short game and prefer instead to make excuses why they can’t get things done. Remember when we needed the House to stop Obama? Then it was the Senate we needed. Then it was more of House majority that was holding us back. Well you see where that got us. For all of Cruz’s admirable battles in the Senate, we are still no closer to any of our goals.
I agree with much of what Ted Cruz says but haven’t seen the accomplishments to go with it. I’d like to see us get away from electing lawyers, career politicians and elect someone who has real experience and success in the private sector who knows something about how decisions and changes made will impact it. Trump has a long history of putting his money where his mouth is and doing what he says he’s going to do. I see him as a populist, a nationalist, and an old-school capitalist. All of which we need to build the economy, get businesses flourishing at home again and Americans back to work. It would be great to see a list of advisors each would appoint to his cabinet. One of our biggest national security concerns is our economy so I think it’s critical we have someone on board who actually knows something about economics. Many of those who consider themselves Independents are what used to be Democrats we had some commonality with, not the socialists and progressives that now make up the Democrat party and much of the Republican party. To win the election and begin to reunite the country I believe it will take someone who speaks to a much broader base than Cruz does. If he’s where we want to be in terms of dragging the left kicking and screaming back to the Constitution and conservative policies then we need to do the hard work of reeducating Americans on the value of those principles and try to blaze a trail back to them. I’m not sure we can get there from here, as far left as we’ve been pushed. Maybe a little further down the road a Cruz would be the ticket and more widely accepted. Frankly, were Trump not out ahead taking the brunt of the backlash from both sides of the aisle, I’m not entirely certain Cruz would be doing as well as he is.
Whatever. Identity Politics is like issues—personal preference.
Your Trump is not the Trump I see. You see someone with“.. a long history of putting his money where his mouth is and doing what he says he’s going to do.” and I see someone who has put other peoples’ money where his mouth is and lost a lot of it. You admire him because you ” ….see him as a populist, a nationalist, and an old-school capitalist.” and I think the word “populist” is another way of saying he appeals to how people feel instead of how they think, and being an “old-school capitalist” in his case has meant starting out rich, getting richer by working with criminals and bribing politicians, and in general being the worst stereotype of an “old-school capitalist”.
In other words, I think your Trump is, to a great degree, an invention of Trump and his ego, and I find most of what you like to be the reasons I think he is a bad choice for the country.
But, like I said, Identity Politics. Anyone who wants to know what Cruz has stood for and accomplished can find it, just as anyone who wants to know the facts about Trump instead of his home page bio can find it.
You call this a “debate”? I guess it might qualify as a “debate” on your old web site, and it has a lot of those characteristics. I find it creepy and distasteful, and reminiscent of the Lefty “debates” of yore that also depended on personal attacks, constant shifting of focus, misquoting people and then addressing things that were not said, insults, and general unpleasantness. I can see now why you have argued for allowing those Lefties back on the blog—you actually ENJOY this kind of thing. I think it has been a complete waste of blog space.
It depended, from the get-go, on an inaccurate and mean-spirited attack on a group of people, allegedly a response to an article but really based on something no one said and which depended on a distortion of something that did not even appear in the article. And it went downhill from there.
“Are we willing to die on the hill of constitutional purity?
Yes. Or rather, win on the hill of constitutional purity. You have been one of the most vocal critics of what you call "RINOs" who lay claim to belief in constitutional government yet stray from that path when it seems expedient. Now, today, for the first time I can remember, you are arguing that we need to be "pragmatic" instead of "idealistic".
Your entire argument is ridiculous. It is based on a false paradigm: That the choice offered to conservatives will be an immediate, abrupt, lurch to total Constitutional governance without any understanding of the complexity of unwinding established unconstitutional policies and laws, or a decision to settle for your arbitrary number of 70% "of what we believe in". You have been savaging the writers of National Review for their lack of what you seem to consider an acceptable level of ideological purity, and now you are defending “…possibly bring(ing) us around to Constitutional governance albeit through unpaved roads? “
“Possibly” ? That is your goal? Where you set the bar of acceptance?
“unpaved roads”? WTF?
Are you really saying what I think you are saying, which is that you think we should settle for wandering around on dirt roads hoping we can be a little more than half successful, because you like your tour guide? Who has, by the way, been lost a lot, and had a lot of different versions of not only where he wanted to go but how to get there.
See ,I can’t make sense of what you say even when I try. Unpaved roads, short game, long game, blah blah blah..
At least you are finally approaching Sanders territory, in admitting what you really think. That is that if you like a guy you will do whatever it takes to justify liking him, even if you have to toss a lot (about 30%) of the things you used to say you found important overboard, because that is the “pragmatic” thing to do. And your guy has lived his whole life being a “pragmatist”—working with the Mob, paying off politicians, shifting his allegiances as quickly as he changes his belief systems—-so now philosophical consistency (“purity”) is out and opportunism (“pragmatism”) is the word of the day.
As for Lefties like Huffington not criticizing Bernie, from her point of view, what’s to criticize? He is well within the tolerance of the Left, along with Hillary. Either one of them is a good fit for the HuffPo agenda, so why should they pick at him?
This is not a debate. If this is what floats your boat, I think your old Lefty friends are still out there, waiting for you to come back so you can all indulge in this kind of meaningless bickering, and now that you have mastered their tactics and strategies (“here comes a fact—time to change direction!”) I’ll bet you would really have a lot of fun.
…mean-spirited attack on a group of people, allegedly a response to an article but really based on something no one said
No, it was actually based on the NRO article I linked to which I am convinced you still haven’t read. Here’s what Breitbart said about NRO:
The Unwashed have, however, read enough to know that Democrats never do this — never attack their own voters like NRO and the rest of the Establishment have this year. But maybe — just maybe — because they spend all their time in the Real World and not hiding inside NRO’s erudite reading list, the Unwashed also intuitively understand that what NRO and the Establishment have been peddling for five presidential cycles is pure undiluted, self-serving bull shit.
You are now free to eviscerate Breitbart. In re: to Glenn Beck, I saw what he said as a headline and I didn’t think it was too far fetched, but thankfully you have enlightened me and made sure that Beck is not a voter of Sanders, only that he respects his honesty, or dishonesty as I pointed out. Or in your words, blah, blah, blah.
I first came to know Glenn Beck as a radio commentator back in 2002 on a local station in Houston. At that time, he was a conservative Jon Stewart, very sarcastic and very funny. I really enjoyed listening to him, but then he changed when he went to Fox and became more conspiratorial. I haven’t listened to him much since then.
Well, I’d have to agree this isn’t a debate. Also that it hasn’t been very productive, except maybe as comic relief to liberals and others who enjoy infighting. Probably a lot of energy better used against our Democrat and Socialist opponents and campaigning for our chosen candidates. “Blogs For Victory” we’re going to win no matter how many of our own we have to demolish to do it? When the bottom line is, that whoever wins the Republican nomination is who we have stated we will be voting for anyway. Does it make a lot of sense to point out all the weaknesses and provide more ammunition for the left to use against us or any of our candidates? I don’t think so.
But that’s just my opinion.
” Does it make a lot of sense to point out all the weaknesses and provide more ammunition for the left to use against us or any of our candidates? I don’t think so.”
I don’t think so, either, if those weaknesses are not already known to the other side anyway. Or even if they are suspected, alleged, but not proved or documented.
But if a prospective candidate has to get a lot black votes I think primary voters need to take into consideration that his father was a member of the KKK and that his, the potential candidate’s, business has been cited for racial discrimination in a housing project he owns. That’s not something you want as an October Surprise.
And so on. I am only advocating an informed voter decision, which to me has to take into consideration whatever there is in a prospective nominee’s past that could tank his election prospects. Even if I LOVE the guy, I want to make an informed decision, and that means knowing in advance what he is going to be hit with, and have to overcome, when the Dems go after him.
And I want to know his opinion on things like political graft. If he has made his billions thanks, to some extent, to participating in political graft, I want to know because that is going to influence my opinion of how serious he is going to be when it comes to working to eliminate it. If he has both a history and a personal philosophy of approving of it as just a part of doing business (being pragmatic) then I want to know about it so I can decide how much of my decision will be based on wanting to get rid of corruption and bribery in politics. If he has stated that his stance on abortion is based only on one personal experience of thinking a kid who might have been aborted turned out to be a “superstar” but still won’t put a limit on late term abortions if they are the result of rape or incest or to save the mother, I want to know that, because to me that would indicate that this is or could be a transient position on abortion, that could shift with the next personal experience that moves him.
I want to know things like this before I make such a momentous decision as voting for who will represent me in the presidential election. That’s just me. I am a skeptic, I look more at what someone has done than what he says he will do, especially if he has a lot to gain by convincing me of what he will do.
If your sister is involved with a married man, you are likely to say “Sis, he’s sleeping with you while he’s married to her, and he’ll run around with someone else when he’s married to you, because that is what he does”. At that point she can roll the dice and take her chances, and if she’s lucky he is basically a good guy who was in a terrible marriage and will be a wonderful and faithful husband. But if he is running around on his third wife, and each of his other marriages ended because he was unfaithful, the odds change. This is the kind of thing someone has to know and take into consideration.,
So it goes, in my opinion, with political candidates. The only liar bigger than the guy who wants to sleep with a woman is a guy who wants your vote, and I am all about finding out as much as I can about every one of them asking for it. Not just what he SAYS but what he does, and has done. That includes finding out what the other side has on him.
Your thread post appeared to be an objection, based in extremely strong terms that were quite hostile toward all NR writers, about an NR article in which 22 conservatives wrote short essays on various reasons they thought a Trump nomination would hurt the Republican Party’s chances, and the conservative cause. When I challenged your statements, you justified them by referring to a belief that Glenn Beck had said he would vote for Sanders rather than Trump, which added to my perception that you were talking about the essays written by the 22 contributors, one of which was Beck. When I quoted one of the other contributors, Thomas Sowell, without citing its source, you said it was “from that article”, reinforcing the perception that it was the article with 22 contributors that roused so much of your ire.
But in that same post you linked to a completely different article. ?????????
I HAVE read the 22-contributor article, several times. I quoted it here, and it has been the topic of much calmer discussions with other people in other places. I have scoured it for hyper-emotional attacks on Trump, for vicious attacks on Trump, for untrue comments about Trump. I found none of these. There were certainly things that Trump fans would not like to hear, but I found them to be rational, well stated, and highly relevant to anyone seeking to get enough information to make an educated and informed decision about who to support for the nomination.
I can certainly understand that people who have already signed on as Trump supporters would be unhappy to see these kinds of comments. But I have been astounded, and appalled, at the outbreak of such vitriolic attacks on those who wrote the essays. I went back and read the article linked in your post (which is not the article that contained the Sowell quote, or the Beck essay) and I found it pretty well thought out and reasonably presented. Yes, it too said things a Trump fan would not like to hear. But it said things that will come up against a Dem opponent if he is nominated, and that is what this is all about.
Or is supposed to be all about.
Let me try to find an example that will not prompt more vitriol from you. Let’s say that back in 2008, during the election cycle after Obama had been nominated, the Republicans came up with absolute, verified, documented proof that Obama had been born in Kenya and furthermore that his mother had renounced her American citizenship long before he was born. That he had always called himself a Kenyan citizen and had gone to college as a foreign exchange student. They’ve got the original Kenyan birth certificate with his fingerprint and footprint on it, they have sworn witness testimony, they have all it would take to prove his ineligibility.
Now imagine the perfectly understandable outrage of Democrats when they learn that all of this had been known to the Democrat establishment, but hidden from the voters because the establishment wanted to make sure Obama got the nomination. Those people,watching the Dem chances for the presidency go down the toilet, would be completely correct in saying they should have known about this earlier, so they could have nominated someone without this baggage. I don’t think the Dem establishment could get away with whining that they didn’t let this out because of a sense that this would amount to “cannibalism” within the party, and that Dems have to stick together and not attack each other.
I am not talking about silly stuff like making a big deal out of having six toes or carrying a dog on the roof or not being liked by his roommate in college. That kind of thing IS intraparty cannibalism, and is despicable. It is inexcusable to give the other side something they can use against our nominee, just to gain some traction.
I am talking about pointing out things that are in public documents, that perhaps the average rally-goer might not know about but which for darned sure the Opposition has in its vest pocket, ready to be pulled out when it will do the most harm.
I see the attacks on National Review as the exact same thing you are claiming to find objectionable—not calm recitations of things that will hurt the party and the conservative cause, but just mean spirited vitriolic savaging of people for daring to have a different point of view. Conservatives hoot and holler about the efforts to silence opposing points of view when the silencers are the Left, but all of a sudden a concerted effort to intimidate and shut down a voice on the Right because it dared to challenge a new hero of the Right is not only seen by some as OK, it is cheered and encouraged. Your Breitbart quote is a particularly nasty example of that.
I thought I made it clear that I agree with NRO’s critique of Trump if it was done in the context of the GOP primary, and how Trump may not be the best choice to lead the conservative cause. However, the the article was written in the context of the general election and how Trump can and may destroy the GOP, to which I vehemently oppose. I think people like McCain, Boehner, etc., have done much more damage to the conservative cause than Trump ever has, and all of those candidates were largely cheered on by NRO.
My thinking has shifted a little in light of the fact that Trump is winning, at least in the polls. I am not thrilled about that, but I am also a realist, and if Trump does in fact win, I prefer to take my chances with him than Sanders or Clinton, and I don’t appreciate conservatives who damage that opportunity by highlighting every blemish. I would much prefer Cruz, but have serious reservations about his ability to win the general particularly in light of the lack of evangelical support. Without that, I don’t think he stands a chance. I agree with Shawney in that this country has lurched so far left that at this point we just need to start using tourniquets rather than having the luxury to diagnose the deeper problem and I think that is what Breitbart and Ingraham have also pointed out.
We will know more this time next week, but as it is right now, Trump is winning and some have acknowledged that he could very likely be the nominee. So the question is, do we continue to tear him down and risk the chance of a President Clinton? Or do we support him and try and use our majorities in Congress to guide him down the right path. I prefer the latter.
I was curious how the whole National Review going after the leading GOP candidate would be seen on B4V.
Trump will destroy Hillary or Bernie in the election. Bernie because he is a commie and Hillary because nobody trusts her. She won’t even get the Teamsters vote IMO. Trump made a passing comment about Bill C. being a man-whore coupled with Hillary’s attacks on his accusers and 2 days later even college feminist were arguing about it’s relevance. The notion that Hillary or Bernie is going to use old dirt on Trump is fantastically delusional. The media has been attacking Trump for decades and the public doesn’t care.
Everyone understands that 10-20 million ‘undocumented’ but potentially future new voters from left-wing countries will be added to the electorate as 95% Democrats and that the GOP will cease to exist at the presidential level shortly thereafter.
Conservatives, including the people on this blog have never answered me when I asked what the GOP has ‘conserved’ for the middle class- socially conservative-person with young kids living in flyover country.
Abortion is still legal, gay marriage is legal, DODT overturned, PC run amok in colleges, public education down the toilet, manufacturing is gone, middle class wages have stagnated, 1/2 a million people died in Afghanistan and Iraq for naught including thousands of Americans costing a TRILLION dollars …
WHAT have the National Review Type Conservatives ‘conserved’? They have had control of almost every branch of government for decades. The only thing that comes to mind are tax breaks and military spending. Are those the core issues for B4V participants?
The litany of Trump ‘weak spots’ described above is frankly bizarre. I could go through them one by one but the following in representative:
“If I don’t care that Trump’s father was a racist associated with the KKK, then it doesn’t matter, and the Dems will not use it against him in November.”
On what planet does the public care that in 85 years ago someone, perhaps Donald Trump’s dad was somehow associated to the KKK? Everyone knows the Klan is a ghost nowadays, that Democrats ran the Klan and that people aren’t responsible for their parents. Nobody cares, in fact Trump has black preachers who support him.
Watch out because I heard Woodie Guthrie railed against Trump’s dad!
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/24/politics/woody-guthrie-fred-trump-donald-trump/
“YOU CAN NOT BE SERIOUS!” Johnny McEnroe
dolf, when you dismiss the points I made about what can be used against Trump, you appear to be arguing that only rational arguments are ever made against a candidate in a presidential election. A lot was made of the fact that George W. Bush’s ANG records had not all been saved, or at least filed well enough to be found 40 years later, and wild accusations were based on that. A fuss was made about how Romney carried his dog on vacations. I showed only some of the things that are matters of record that are well known to the Left. If you are convinced that none of these would be used by a Bernie or Hillary campaign, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we?
I was trying to make three points.
One was that of killing the messenger. National Review did not invent these things, nor did they unearth them and reveal them to a previously unsuspecting world and therefore create a brand new cache of negative information. What they did was warn people of the dangers these facts present, and for doing their job they have become targets of a mob frenzy of hatred, personal attack, and general hysteria.
One was the growing passion on the Right for the kind of Identity Politics we have usually ascribed to those on the Left. It was that even after the vast accumulation of information about Hillary some people seem to dismiss it all or deny it, and I am seeing the same phenomenon (not “phenomena”, which is plural of phenomenon) in passion for Trump. It was that merely saying “Oh, I don’t really care about _______” does not mean that _________ will not be a powerful weapon in the hands of the Opposition. Off on the staked plains of New Mexico, it might not matter that Trump’s father was in the KKK, but as an election tool to sway black voters, it might.
And one is that so many of the messages that have stirred so many into excitement over Trump are the opposite of what he has said up until he decided to run for president. People get to decide for themselves how gullible they want to be, how blindly trusting they want to be, and if people know that the man they revere as the Messiah of Conservatism has historically backed the ban of assault weapons, abortion, government-paid single payer health coverage (not the insurance coverage kind of plan of Obamacare) and government buyouts of private industry and now choose to believe he has had a true blinding moment of truth and now believes the opposite of those things, they get to do that. They get to decide for themselves that what he says NOW is what he truly believes and truly wants to accomplish. I am not going to argue with them on that. I have my opinion, which is that this is foolish, but I know better than to try to change their minds. I’ve tried to talk friends out of bad boyfriends and buying a Renault, and I know it doesn’t work. To many, politics is like falling in love—once you have those stars in your eyes, all you will do is look for whatever might support how you feel. I’ve even been there.
BUT—there are a lot of people who only know the Trump they have been presented with in the past few months, so those people have not made the conscious decision that his past doesn’t matter. They may make that decision once they know about his past, once they know what he has done and said and believed and supported, but if they don’t know they are just buying into a slick facade. And I thought it would be a good thing to let them know what is behind that facade, so at least when they get thrills up their own legs about the Donald they will be fully informed and not just bamboozled.
Is there a possibility that black support will erode if it is known that Trump’s father was in the KKK, or that one of Trump’s projects was cited for racial discrimination? It might. Do those black preachers know about this? If they know, and still like Trump, that is fine, and they have put the past behind them. But if they didn’t know, and the Dems use it against Trump once he is the nominee and we are stuck with him, whose fault is that if blacks turn against him and cause the election to go to Sanders or Clinton?
I say it is the fault of people who want to cover up all the faults and defects and time bombs of ANY candidate, to get him or her nominated. The argument that it is OK to discuss negatives in a presidential campaign but not in a primary race is so utterly stupid I can’t even describe it adequately. It is in the primary campaign that the people who are choosing who to run in the election HAVE to know the weaknesses of every single person trying to get the nomination. Once someone is nominated, it’s too late.
DUH
People get to decide for themselves how gullible they want to be, how blindly trusting they want to be, and if people know that the man they revere as the Messiah of Conservatism…
I don’t think any of that is true and just like the NRO article, I think this denigrates the people who do support Trump. I think the many, many people who are in the Trump camp have no illusions that Trump is the “Messiah of Conservatism”, nor do I think they are completely ignorant of his past. I honestly think that he has the support he does because he is speaking to the two issues that are killing the middle class and this country; immigration and trade. Like Bardolf said, so many of the NRO supported “conservatives” in the past have not been able to move the needle at all, and I think people are tired of that and ready to “blow the place up”. I think the political class including both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the Trump phenomena and the media is having a hard time wrapping their head around that. I also agree with Bardolf that Trump can easily beat Clinton and Sanders, and so could Rubio, but I worry about Cruz’s chances.
My sister, brother in law, mother and two brothers are supporting Trump and I can assure you that they have always voted Republican, know Trump’s past very well, and do not consider him to be the model of conservatism, but they now want a businessman to start putting this country back together. The political class has failed, on both sides.
Hooray for the success of winning by redefining terms!
Now it is “immigration” and “trade” that are “killing the middle class”. I guess if you can convince enough people that this is true, and then convince them that expanding the size, scope and power of the United States to deport more than 11 million people will solve the “immigration problem” you really ARE a champion! I guess if you can convince people that the economic disaster of the tariffs imposed during the Depression in a short-sighted effort to boost the American economy won’t be repeated here, you really are the master of the deal.
I don’t dare refer to Trump’s magic wand (he will no doubt tell me it is “long and beautiful”) but it would take a magic wand to do what he says he will do. Not can do—will do.
How will he deport more than ten million people? How will that work? What will it do for the “middle class”? Can it be done without a vast expansion of federal size, scope and power? What will it cost? Where will we take these people? Are we willing to use force to evict these people? Which force? Army can’t operate as a police force in this country, only governors can call out the National Guard. What’s the plan?
What is his proposed trade policy? What is the percentage of imported goods to domestically produced goods in this country right now and what will be the economic impact on the middle and lower economic strata if the costs of those imported products rises?
Not sweeping platitudes, which is mostly what I find on the Trump support web sites. Specifics. Surely your support for Trump is based on analyzing and agreeing with the specifics of how he is going to get things done, and not just on the concept that “he knows how to get things done”.
Once we “blow things up” who will put it back together again? Who will decide how it will look when it is put back together again? Who will be in charge of putting it back together again? How is this “blowing up” going to effect the country while the pieces are still lying around? What, exactly, will be “blown up” and will this explosion of whatever impact things like national security and the economy?
Is Trump the only one who wants to get aggressive about illegal immigration? If not, what is more appealing to you about his approach than any other?
What are the other potential candidates’ positions on trade agreements, tariffs, etc? How are they different from Trump’s, and/or why are his better?
How much authority do you think a President Trump should have?
What people, or kind of people, do you think Trump would appoint to the Supreme Court?
I am just observing a phenomena Amazona. A situation of which you are finding difficulty with yourself obviously. Unfettered immigration and bad trade deals HAVE hurt the middle class and many people are believing in Trump to resolve those issues. Again, just an observation so please spare me the tongue lashing.
And while I agree with the discussion and the need to vote on which political philosophy is best to govern the nation, I think we are light years away from actually having that conversation considering the dumbed down populace of this country. It would be like taking elementary children into an advanced physics class. At this point, I am just hoping that the legions of idiots don’t elect another Democrat and destroy this country. Anything outside of that, I think I am ok with.
As for what “everybody knows…”
“Everyone knows the Klan is a ghost nowadays”…yet its existence, no matter how far in the past, is still a symbol of racism and is brought up as such
“Everyone knows” that Democrats ran the Klan”….yet Liberals get a lot of traction out of claiming that it was Republicans who wore the hoods and tried to block civil rights movements
“Everybody knows” that people aren’t responsible for their parents” yet there is huge national support for the death penalty of children of rapists. Unborn children, who have never committed any crime, who should pay for the crimes of their fathers.
It is “a phenomenon” “phenomena” is plural.
Oh dear. Is that a “tongue lashing” or just a slash of a “long knife”?
I am observing the phenomenon of Trump popularity as well, though not from the inside out, which I do think gives me a better view of it.
You say your support of Trump is based, at least so some extent, on your perception that he is at least “…he is speaking to the two issues that are killing the middle class and this country; immigration and trade. “ But when I ask you if he is the only one “speaking to …. immigration and trade” you refuse to answer. Logically, if this is a reason for choosing him it is because he is the only one doing so, but you don’t seem to know—or care—if anyone else is doing the same thing.
You clearly don’t know exactly what he proposes to do about “immigration” much less how he would or could do it, what it would involve, or what it would cost (in dollars as well as human suffering). You clearly don’t know—or care—what other approaches have been proposed to deal with what you now qualify as “unfettered immigration”. You clearly don’t know what policies he proposes regarding “trade” or if anyone else has addressed the same topic.
Is “speaking to” something all that you care about? That, to me, goes back to what we have said here about Liberals, that merely being FOR something is all that matters. You have agreed with that. Now it seems that merely being FOR some kind of radical “solution” to the problem of “unfettered immigration” is all that it takes to impress you. You cite his “speaking to” trade. What does he say in this “speaking to”?
I understand that what I say makes you uncomfortable, and even angry. But that is not the same thing as giving you a “tongue lashing” or dragging out those “long knives” you comment on. You are uncomfortable because you toss out platitudes and partial answers and when you are asked to fill them out with facts and details you resent that. I get it. But that does not make me mean—it makes you unprepared.
If you don’t demand depth of understanding and thought from your candidates, you won’t get them. If you don’t demand actual policies you won’t get them. If you don’t care about thought, depth of understanding or actual policies, you won’t get them.
Nothing you say makes me feel angry or uncomfortable. I think you have actually become a caricature. Have a good life.
“I think we are light years away from actually having that conversation considering the dumbed down populace of this country.”
So let’s not start?
“It would be like taking elementary children into an advanced physics class. “
It might be, if you are starting off with clinically stupid people, and if you begin with some elaborate “intellectual” approach. I wonder if you have ever tried. I have. Breaking it down the way I have so many times—-a basic choice between a federal government strictly restrained as to size, scope and power, with most authority left to the states, or a federal government which is allowed to expand without restriction and assume most of the power and authority in the country with little left to the states or the people—is not hard to understand. You don’t have to read the Federalist Papers or get into the mechanics of the Commerce Clause to make the original basic choice.
But you don’t advance the concept of constitutional government by violating the constitution now with the idea you’ll come back later and fix it. That is the same kind of thought process that takes money out of petty cash to play the horses, then takes more out to win enough to replace it all, till you owe more than you can ever repay.
You don’t advance it by never trying, because you think all those other people out there are just not smart enough to grasp it.
And as an excuse for abandoning the Constitution and voting for yet another imperial presence who has stated a willingness to bypass Congress and rule by presidential edict because he “speaks to you” it fails. Fails miserably.
And I saw that coming. I’d call it the B4V version of running away from a debate. Can’t support your position, can’t back up your contentions, so you insult the person who asks you to.
The tongue-lashing long-knife wielding caricature vs Roberto Duran. Too funny.
“WHAT have the National Review Type Conservatives ‘conserved’?”
Really? You are going to argue that the definition of political conservative is related to conserving something?
Political conservatism is not the same as preserving, nor is it about not wearing stripes with plaid. It is simply a conviction that the best blueprint for governing this nation is one of a federal government that is severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most of the authority of government left to the states or local government, or the people.
By this definition, someone who wants to expand the size, scope and power of the federal government is not a conservative.
As for being “socially conservative” that definition is closer to the classic dictionary definition of the term, which is more about not adopting radical new ideas, being more traditional, etc. This falls into that issues thing I keep talking about.
“Conservatives, including the people on this blog have never answered me when I asked what the GOP has ‘conserved’ for the middle class- socially conservative-person with young kids living in flyover country.”
Here, again, you are conflating preserving with the political definition of conservative, and you are conflating “social conservatives” with political conservatives. The fact is, it is possible to be an absolute stiff-backed uncompromising political conservative and still adopt some issues that are also part of the Liberal agenda. You can believe that the size, scope and power of the federal government is strictly restrained by the Constitution, and still support gay marriage, you just support it at the state level where the question belongs. This has been a big problem in American politics. Social and religious issues have come to replace actual political philosophy, creating the divisions we see in this country today. This is what has happened to the old “Big Tent” of the GOP. Now we hear people say “I don’t want homosexuals/abortion supporters/environmentalists et al in MY party” which they then define very narrowly, but on social issues much more than on political ones.
This has allowed an establishment to evolve and take over this country. It feeds the people the illusion that they have choices, by having two putative political parties, which are divided not by political philosophy, or an objective analysis of the best way to run the country, but by issues that are then assigned to one party or the other. So, as in 2000, the Republicans ran a candidate who ran as a Republican, as a conservative, but whose political philosophy was not based on restraining the size, scope and power of the federal government. He was replaced by a Democrat who did not call himself a conservative, but who had very similar ideas of how to run the government.
So now we are at the first real battle, at least since I started paying attention to politics, where there is someone I can think of as a true fighter for the political principle of true constitutional government. As you can see in this thread, this concept is at war with a representative of the same GOP you are complaining about—someone flying the conservative flag while being in favor not of Obamacare and its insurance programs but of simply expanding the federal government to just pay, out of government funds, for healthcare. And so on.
For the first time in my memory, the labels are so blurred that old distinctions are not even valid any more. The Democrats are finally admitting to being socialist and the Republicans are considering nominating a man who has only recently started to wear a Republican ribbon in his lapel but who is for nationalization of banks and industry “if necessary”, for massive tax hikes, for nationalizing health care to the extent of simply replacing insurance companies with the government, for exactly the same things socialists want.
Just look at the fervor for Trump and what his supporters say: We want it done, we think Trump can do it, and we really don’t care if he follows the Constitution to do it, if he acts unilaterally without legislation to do it, we want him BECAUSE HE CAN GET THINGS DONE and if we have to settle for only following the Constitution part of the time that is fine with us. Unpaved roads and 70% and possibly we might get back to the Constitution later, we believe he has done a 180 on every major issue because he says so and we really really really want to believe him.
So when you ask what has the GOP done, I have to say not much except fool a lot of people a lot of the time.
Now the GOP is playing right out of the B’rer Rabbit playbook. Instead of pleading “Please don’t throw me in that briar patch” they are howling “Please don’t nominate Donald Trump”.
You are a well educated man, a teacher, and someone who seems to care about politics. Yet you seem to think that the GOP, conservatives and the National Review are one and the same.
Conservative means ” a conviction that the best blueprint for governing this nation is one of a federal government that is severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most of the authority of government left to the states or local government, or the people.”
Who then was the last elected conservative president?
Not Bush, Reagan or Nixon who bloated the government with programs
Eisenhower is the president who implemented Operation Wetback that probably wasn’t constitutional. Funding of the interstate highway system largely started under Eisenhower is unconstitutional of course. It allows the federal government to coerce states into passing laws against the states constituents e.g. raising the drinking age to 21. So Eisenhower doesn’t quite work.
Hoover increased the top tax rate from 25% to 63% and increased public works projects, noted for promoting business with government ‘partnerships’. Hoover probably doesn’t work either.
So I’m guessing Calvin Coolidge back in 1929 is the last conservative president.
NOW, imagine telling a youngish potential voter that your ideal for president is Calvin Coolidge.
That just seems insane to me.
I am not familiar with “operation wetback”—is that the official name?
The interstate system was implemented as part of a national defense policy. This has been gone over and over and over. Are you sure the elements that “…allows the federal government to coerce states into passing laws against the states constituents e.g. raising the drinking age to 21.” were part of the original concept and bill?
I’ve never been a Hoover fan and am not sure which federal programs were expanded—bloated—under Reagan.
The funny thing is, before I read what I consider a litany of rather foolish “arguments” I was still going to say Calvin Coolidge.
I take strong issue with your conclusion that using Coolidge as a symbol of the kind of president we need is the same as telling a “young voter” that “..the ideal for president is Calvin Coolidge.” Coolidge was a man of his time, not of this time, but I take note of your employment of that trite debate tactic.
Of course looking back at the last truly Constitutional president and the changes in this country since we drifted/lurched away from that would be just too–. Well, too something that an “intellectual” could make fun of. And of course if a president was true to basic conservative values but was unable to do what you guys keep insisting is impossible anyway (Reagan) then he has to be judged on his failures and not his successes.
But the real reason to try to conflate past presidents with future goals is just to posture as being part of the discourse while really just standing on the sidelines waiting for a chance to run out and trip up those who are actually running. (And by “running” I mean actually talking about problems and solutions, not jogging or sprinting or trying to get elected.)
What I don’t get is the attitude that because we haven’t operated according to our Constitution we might as well give up and not even try. What I don’t get is the attitude that although we have more than ample proof that governing counter to Constitutional law has not only not worked but has led the nation into increasing economic misery and erosion of basic moral values, we might as well not even try to change direction.
I think some of this attitude can be attributed to ennui, depression, hopelessness. Some of it is just fatalism—it is what it is, what do you want to do, get a stoner to vote for Calvin Coolidge? Some of it—-more and more all the time–is the expansion of a demographic that objects to tyranny unless they get to choose the tyrant.
Two quick thing.
1. Operation Wetback was, indeed, the official public name of Eisenhower’s orders to export Mexicans. Truth is stranger than fiction.
2. You both raise an interesting point. I’d like both your opinions, please.
You both agree the last Conservative president was Coolidge. But there have been presidents with very successful presidencies (improved the Nation) since Coolidge. Reagan seems the gold standard. So, is having a true Conservative president more important than a successful presidency (of course you can have both, but let’s keep my question simple)?
Thanks, Bob, for the info. From what you know about Operation Wetback, do you think it was unconstitutional?
While the idealist side of me would love to able to pull a switch and have us suddenly fully Constitutional, the rest of me knows two things: That getting even close to it will be a long and difficult venture requiring dedication and determination, and there are so many unconstitutional things that have been around so long are become so tightly woven into the fabric our society they are probably permanent and we just have to get used to it.
I’m not an either/or person, not a zero sum person, so I can acknowledge that a president has accomplished something good even if I don’t approve of him personally, or of his policies overall. For this reason I can’t accept an argument that a president is either constitutional or effective, even as a theoretical. I know you are not giving that as your choice, but I want to get that out there.
I’m going to do a little lateral move here for a minute, and give an analogy. Let’s talk about being a good Christian. We know it is impossible to be TRULY good, absolutely without sin. So then, to refer to your question, which person would we prefer—the man who believes in Christianity and who strives for perfection, even knowing he can never attain it, but keeps it in his focus as a barometer of his thoughts and actions, or the man who shrugs his shoulders and says “I can’t ever be as good as Christ wants me to be so why bother trying?” and does not make any effort to measure his actions against that standard?
OK, back to politics. All other things being equal, I want the person who is focused on following the Constitution, who uses it as the standard against which all laws and official actions are measured. I would not condemn him for trying and failing, but I would be critical of not caring, of not trying.
Then you get into what is “successful”? In areas like national security and international relations I don’t see a conflict between adherence to the Constitution and being effective. It seems to me that the areas where the choice is Constitutional or not Constitutional is on the domestic front. And I see absolutely no impediment to success as a result of being careful to follow the Constitution, unless you define “successful” as leading the nation into socialism. In that case you know where I stand.
Your either/or also depends on having both the ideologue and the non-ideologue candidates equally capable of being successful, if you’re not arguing that ideology would impair effectiveness. If we were talking about Trump vs Cruz, with Cruz as the ideologue, I couldn’t go very far in your question because I simply do not think Trump could accomplish much of what he promises, and I think Cruz has a much better handle not only on a clear vision of the best way to do things but on how to get things done.
There is a tendency to think it you are good at this then of course you will be good at that, and it is not necessarily true. I understand your effort to simplify the question but it can be pared down only so far.
Amazona
I don’t know enough about Operation Wetback to know its Constitutionality. I just love the concept of a name came from a different time, where you could name a government policy such without blowback of any kind. It is like when you see pickaninny (sp?) dolls at an antique show and marvel, “this was OK once upon a time.”
In re: the either/or, I didn’t realize I’d stated it that way until I read your response. I guess what I’m getting at is that, like you, I value a candidate that adheres to the Constitution. But the agreement of you and Bardolf on Coolidge as the most recent ideal (ok, maybe “ideal” isn’t the word, but you know what I mean), guys like Reagan, successful on many levels, would not have been my choice (btw, I voted for Reagan twice). In 1980 there were other, more Constitutional-oriented candidates than Reagan, yet history shows he was clearly the best choice.
My question to both of you is how to reconcile that?
I can’t. Reconcile that, I mean. Truth be told, though I was no longer a silly hippie, I was still politically neutral, still more of what I call an “unexamined LIberal” than anything else. I didn’t follow politics, and everything I know about that era is from what I have been told. I have read a lot about Reagan and heard a lot since my Road to Damascus moment,. but I haven’t looked into his opposition.
Reagan may have been a political Perfect Storm, appealing enough to win and still solid enough in his core values to end up being a spokesman for conservatives.
However, if we give you the notion that Reagan was not the most purely conservative of potential candidates at the time, he still had a history that was consistent with conservative beliefs. When he changed parties, his comment (“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left me”) had the ring of truth to it, not opportunism, and appealed to people who were distressed at the leftward lurch of the party. For all I know, voters just guessed right and got lucky.
My concern is electing someone who has switched official party affiliations five times, has a documented history of support not just for Leftist politicians but Leftist principles, has come out in favor of nationalizing private industry and having the government “pay for everything” in his single payer health care preference, has admitted to essentially bribing politicians for favorable legislation, has said he thinks his radically Leftist abortion-promoting sister would be great on the Supreme Court, and so on. He is not a Reagan, a guy who can reach across the aisle to get people to work with him.
I just don’t understand how you (not “you” you, Bob, but a generic you) can say you like Trump because he will fight political corruption, when he brags about being part of political corruption and defends it as just what you have to do to get what you want. I just don’t understand how you can consider a man a conservative, by my standards anyway, if he has tried to use the power of the government, including absolutely awful bullying and intimidation tactics, to force a woman off her property. (Check it out—this woman had to put up with almost everything but a horse’s head in her bed, including a lawsuit by the immensely rich and powerful Trump.)
We are not talking about the difference between Cruz and any other candidate, who may or may not pass a litmus test of constitutional purity. We are talking about a man who discovered the constitution when he decided to run as a conservative, in the same prep notes that told him he really likes Two Corinthians.
I understand the concern on B4V with Trump’s to identity politics. On the other hand, as a supporter of Ron Paul I saw how on this blog some members threw out the label of racist and anti-semite against Dr. Paul.
Those false labels were meant to derail any discussion of concerns of flyover country Americans. That is the negative impact of trade agreements like NAFTA and the concern for military overuse in the MidEast.
Somehow the yokels in Nebraska that vote overwhelmingly for the GOP were just supposed to take it when e.g. the beef packing plant jobs were dispersed into far flung places staffed by undocumented aliens. The soldier from Kentucky was told to ignore the lessons of Lebanon, Iran etc. about breaking up secular dictatorships or maybe be happy that Hillary and Obama made the same mistakes in Libya and Syria.
Now those yokels are voting for themselves and their kids’ future even if Trump isn’t a constitutional scholar like Barry. They’ll take the chance of being called racist if that means that corporate America doesn’t get to ship their family members a thousand miles just to compete with a million H1B visa holders.
Dolf, I am truly confused by your post. It seems to be a venting of resentments rather than a continuation of the thread, and quite honestly I often don’t even know what you are talking about.
I have no idea if anyone, much less anyone on this blog, called Ron Paul a racist or an anti-Semite. I thought he had some good ideas and was a decent human being but like so many others who impress me much the same way I also thought him a bad choice for the presidency so I didn’t pay a lot of attention to him. Sorry if that ticks you off. I felt, and feel, the same way about Dr. Carson and many others.
I have no idea what you are talking about regarding the meat packing plants. It seems that you are angry that the government allowed the business owners to make their own decisions about how to run their businesses. ? Were these decisions a slap in the face to people who voted Republican? I don’t understand your point.
I assume your “soldier from Kentucky” is Dr, Paul, but the comment is in the same paragraph as the complaint about the yokels in Nebraska being expected to “just take it” so I am just guessing here. I don’t know if anyone told Dr. Paul to ignore anything, and if they did that was a silly thing to do. I also never heard of anyone instructing him to be happy about anything. But as I really don’t know what you are so angry about, again I am just guessing.
Your last paragraph seems to be saying that Trump supporters might be called racist but they shouldn’t care because the symbol of corporate America won’t act in favor of corporate America which would want to “…ship their family members a thousand miles just to compete with a million H1B visa holders.”
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. You can’t be talking about this “corporate America” sending jobs overseas, because H1N visa holders have visas to work here in the United States, and no one “ships family members a thousand miles” though many people choose to move to different locations to get good jobs.
(As an aside, I was in a business which had one position which was very difficult to fill with an American worker. When I found appropriate workers in another country, I had to spend thousands of dollars to get their visas, I had to guarantee that I would pay them the same amount I would pay any American for the same job, I had to advertise that position in newspapers and job search sites all over the country, and the visas were linked specifically to my job with my company. In other words, if the worker no longer worked for me, he no longer had the visa. Part of my obligation was that I would have my foreign workers help train Americans for the same job. I think the hysteria about the impression that there are “millions of H1-B visas” just granted willy-nilly so “millions” of foreigners can come to the U.S. and look for jobs, working for less than an American would make, is absolute nonsense. It’s really worse than that but I think I have used up my profanity quota for the blog at the beginning of this thread.)
Sorry—I have tried very hard to make sense of your post and as you can see I have not done a very good job. But I hope you feel better getting it off your chest.
You say that in your opinion “Operation Wetback” was probably not constitutional. Then later you appear to be defending Trump. This leads me to ask:
Do you approve of Trump’s claim that he will deport all illegals?
Do you think this would be constitutional?
My only problem with Ron Paul was that he fell for the nonsense that Israel is at fault for the conflict between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world. And how a person views Israel is rather defining in how they will view Jews, as such. I suppose it is possible to be opposed to Israel and not fall into anti-Semitic modes of thought, but I’ve yet to see anyone successfully do it.