Over at Electoral-Vote.org, they have the following, which I will comment on and face palm myself many times over…
Some of these are unbelievable if true. It is self-explanatory. I take on faith that the summaries are correct. E-V is not set up for comments.
The flagship publication of the conservative movement, National Review, which was founded by the late William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955 (in New York, of all places), came out yesterday with essays by 22 conservative authorspummeling Donald Trump. Here is an executive summary, organized by the main thesis of each essay:
Trump is No Conservative
Glenn Beck, broadcaster and author: “Over the years, there have been endless fractures in the facade of individual freedom, but three policies provided the fuel that lit the tea-party fire: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, and the bank bailouts. Barack Obama supported all three. So did Donald Trump.”
[I see that Beck as usual forgets George W Bush’s $700 billion bank bailouts, as usual. You remember? The one in September, 2008? Four months before Obama took office?
This one I fully expected. Beck hasn’t moved away from 2009 with the rest of the world. And he didn’t WANT millions of his followers to have jobs.]
L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center: “Enter Donald Trump, not just with policy prescriptions that challenge the cynical GOP leadership but with an attitude of disdain for that leadership — precisely in line with the sentiment of the base. Many conservatives are relishing this, but ah, the rub. Trump might be the greatest charlatan of them all.”
[This is supposed to be critical of Trump?]
Erick Erickson, broadcaster: “He supported the prosecution of hate crimes. He favored wealth-confiscation policies. He supported abortion rights.”
[WTF??!! I don’t know Erickson, but he is himself SUPPORTING of hate crimes? How’s that for Law-and-Order conservatism for ya?
Along the lines of George W Bush’s signing statements that said, “I fully choose to ignore the laws I don’t like.”
I guess that fits well with dragging people you don’t like behind pickup trucks – those you don’t like obviously aren’t extended the same rights. — FPT]
Dana Loesch, broadcaster and author: “His ‘conversion’ raises serious questions. Trump wrote in his book The America We Deserve that he supported a ban on ‘assault weapons.’ Not until last year did he apparently reverse his position. As recently as a couple of years ago, Trump favored the liberal use of eminent-domain laws. He said that the ability of the government to wrest private property from citizens served ‘the greater good.’ Is that suddenly a conservative principle?”
[FPT-squared . . . Loesch is COMPLAINING about Trump being IN FAVOR of eminent domain land grabs?! I refer all to Kelo vs City of New London, where land developers used government to steal land. One of the most egregious rulings by the Rehnquist Court and in the top three of all-time, probably. Trump is in favor and Loesch isn’t?]
David McIntosh, president of The Club for Growth: “Trump beguiles us, defies the politically correct media, and bullies anyone who points out that the emperor has no clothes. None of that makes him a conservative who cherishes liberty.”
[This makes me wonder just what conservatives actually DO stand for? If the emperor – whom one would THINK represents government! – is called out on some bullshit, McIntosh is in favor of what? Letting the government get away with the bullshit?
Ahh, okay. Maybe this makes sense within The Authoritarians meme.]
[EXTRA INTERJECTION HERE: LONG ago, I used to think that even though I didn’t agree with them, they at least were sane and logical. Grown adults can at least agree to disagree.
First of all, then, it 100% seems that for Conservatives, grown adults are NOT ALLOWED to agree to disagree.
They want to give everyone Liberty, but when it comes down to it, they only want you to have Liberty if you do things the way THEY do.]
Katie Pavlich, author and editor of TownHall: “Given the high stakes both at home and abroad, America cannot afford to elect a man who is not rooted in conservatism. And Donald Trump, a political con man who sympathizes with hit man Vladimir Putin and ‘Republicans’ such as Charlie Crist, manifestly is not.”
[Crist, former Dem Governor of FL, okay.
Putin should be a man after their own hearts, and an Authoritarian of the old school.]
Trump is Totally Unqualified to Be President
Mark Helprin, author: “[H]e is astoundingly ignorant of everything that to govern a powerful, complex, influential, and exceptional nation such as ours he would have to know.”
[Whatever happened to the idea that businessmen are the true action-figures of America and know how to manage?
Trump is no different from that darling of Conservatism, businessman Ross Perot – except Trump addresses things in a bolder way.]
Andrew C. McCarthy, columnist and former federal prosecutor: “The presidency’s most crucial duty is the protection of American national security. Yet, interviewed by Hugh Hewitt months into his campaign, Donald Trump did not know the key leaders of the global jihad…
[Hahahahaha – As if George W Bush did… ROFLMAO]
A president may not have to be good with names to oppose it effectively, but he has to grasp the animating ideology, the power relations, and the goals of the players — and how weakening one by strengthening another can degrade rather than promote our security. Donald Trump does not have a clue about any of this.”
[ISN’T THAT WHAT DICK CHENEY IS FOR?
…Of course Ben Carson and Marco Rubio know all of this, as did Sarah Palin and the aforementioned Bush.]
Trump is a Power-Hungry Dictator-in-Waiting
Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist: “To the degree we take him at his word—understanding that Trump is a negotiator whose positions are often purposefully deceptive—what he advocates is a rejection of our Madisonian inheritance and an embrace of Barack Obama’s authoritarianism.”
William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard: “Isn’t Trumpism a two-bit Caesarism of a kind that American conservatives have always disdained?”
[Sayeth a Caesar wannabe himself.
Wasn’t sideline cheerleader Kristol all in favor of the Unitary Presidency of Dick Cheney?]
R. R. Reno, editor of First Things magazine: “He presents himself as a Strong Man who promises to knock heads and make things right again. In this, he has a lot more in common with South American populist demagogues than with our tradition of political leaders.”
[Would this “tradition of political leaders” include, say, John Kennedy and Barack Obama?
Or maybe the October Surprise private citizen Ronald Reagan, who, IN CONTRAVENTION OF FEDERAL LAW, sabotaged the political leadership of the time – Jimmy Carter – in an illegal deal with the Iranians to NOT negotiate in good faith but hold off until Reagan was in office?]
[EXTRA INTERJECTION #2: So, basically, they say that IF THEY LIKE YOU, you can do any fucking thing you want and they will approve, but if they don’t, then deciding it’s time for a bathroom break is outside the Executive Powers of the Presidency…]
Thomas Sowell, economist and author: “The actual track record of crowd pleasers, whether Juan Perón in Argentina, Obama in America, or Hitler in Germany, is very sobering, if not painfully depressing.”
[He conveniently leaves out the racist pig Limbaugh, who – if he had ever decided to go into politics, would have eagerly and enthusiastically followed in Hitler’s footsteps.]
[Note: Sowell, a black Conservative, was the very first back-stabber of his race that I’d ever encountered, perhaps three decades ago, maybe a bit more. I recall him waxing fondly over the merits of life in Black Harlem, when because of lack of air conditioning or money to buy it and operate it, sleeping outside on the fire escape was, somehow, romantic. He’d have loved life as a slave on a plantation, it seems – and evidently still does. But then, he was and is such a lackey that he’d have been the house slave.]
Trump is a Racist Who Will Wreck the Republican Brand
[Note: As if Bush and Cheney and Palin and Carson and Cruz and Santorum haven’t already. Nixon and Reagan and Ford and Dole and Bush Daddy and Dewey and Eisenhower would all be turning over in their graves – long before Trump came along.
The 1996 decision to put puppet George W Bush in the WH was the decision that changed it all.
No, in fact, the 1994 decision by Newt Gingrich to invite the Fundamentalists into the GOP changed it all. Putting Forrest Gump into the WH was just the one that gave the stupids the idea for the Tea Party eventually. They got the idea that to be stupid was equal to being a good citizen or a productive member of society – and thus, one of them should always be in the WH, and the Senate and House should be FILLED with such trailer trash.
The Tea Party birth in 2010 was merely the coup de grace of sanity in the GOP.]
David Boaz, libertarian activist: “Not since George Wallace has there been a presidential candidate who made racial and religious scapegoating so central to his campaign.”
[He means IF ANYBODY IS LISTENING OR LOOKING.]
Michael Medved, broadcaster: “If Trump becomes the nominee, the GOP is sure to lose the 2016 election.
[There isn’t ONE Republican candidate in 2016 about whom this isn’t true. Part of the problem for them is that they have no legitimate candidate and haven’t since 1996 – with the sole exception of John McCain. Everyone else has been a dunce or certifiable. Even Mitt Romney – He appears to have never even had anyone tell him about the Electoral College and electoral votes, which he at no time had a majority of. How STUPID can a candidate BE?
The current lot is just Rick Santorum and Rick Perry clones – dumb as a rock and with visions of grandeur. Maybe even the 2016 Rick Santorum himself!]
But the problem is much larger: Will the Republican party and the conservative movement survive? If Asians and Latinos come to reject Republican candidates as automatically and overwhelmingly as African Americans do, the party will lose all chance of capturing the presidency, and, inevitably, it will face the disappearance of its congressional and gubernatorial majorities as well.”
[I was predicting this at least as early as 2008, when I kept asking, “WHY do these trailer trash people vote time and time again AGAINST THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST? If they ever wake up to being USED by the business Republicans, all HELL is going to break loose.”
Add to all of the above this:
The trailer trash people will learn to LOVE having the ACA. SOME of them will see who created the ACA – AND WHO FOUGHT IT TOOTH AND NAIL AND KEEP TRYING TO REPEAL IT. That number of awakened trailer trash people should eventually certainly grown into the tens of millions. And some of them actually vote. They must, because Newt got them involved in politics.
A day he is probably regretting a LOT, right about now.]
Trump is an Egotistical Maniac With No Substance
Mona Charen, columnist and author: “Trump has made a career out of egotism, while conservatism implies a certain modesty about government. The two cannot mix.”
[Surely she is joking. Is THAT what they tell themselves as they get into their limousines and fly on their private jets? How utterly HUMBLE they are?
I can imagine how, after writing that, she laughed herself silly.]
Edwin Meese III, academic and Attorney General under Ronald Reagan: “Questionable assertions that an opponent is not eligible to run, or that another cannot be elected, or that still another lacks enthusiasm or energy, are a poor substitute for addressing the real issues that should be the basis for a positive campaign: restoring economic growth, strengthening national security, eliminating cronyism and corruption, and improving the lives of all Americans.”
[He is obviously addressing the attention being paid to the legal question of Ted Cruz’s “natural born citizen” status.
THIS IS A FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE USA, wanting to not even ADDRESS this question.
This utterly displays the complete disdain for the laws by this entire faction within our political system, when even one who has been at the apex of the Executive Branch’s legal arm BLOWS OFF even an inquiry into one’s qualifications to be President.]
[NOTE: Did that actually say “academic”? REALLY? Yep. I looked into it.
Meese spent FOUR MONTHS as a Professor of Law at the U of San Diego, implementing a plan he had submitted to them – and only stayed around four months. One has to wonder if he ever taught one student.
Note that besides that, he had to resign as Attorney General in the WedTech scandal, during which he was involved at some level with bribing Israelis, for which he was given a pass by the Special Prosecutor. One more example of a criminal at the highest levels of Republican governing.]
Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General under George W. Bush: “We remain the world’s strongest power and can recover; but to inspire the respect that creates fear and trust when and where each is necessary, we will need a president who summons our strength with a reality-based strategic vision, not one who summons applause with tantrums and homicidal fantasies.”
[In other words, it is fine and dandy to have hegemony over the entire world, and to terrorize (“creating fear” is HIS phrase not mine), but not to DISPLAY such homicidal fantasies in public.
Perhaps he parses words. Perhaps he draws fine distinctions between homicidal fantasies and homicidal realities such as black ops, black sites, Guantánamo, Abu Ghuraib, etc…
In other words, it’s okay to BE homicidal, but just don’t let the world KNOW that you are.]
John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine: “Trump is an unbalanced force. He is the politicized American id. Should his election results match his polls, he would be, unquestionably, the worst thing to happen to the American common culture in my lifetime.”
[This is a joke, if taken objectively. We had the 8 years of George W Bush – torture, NAS spying, invasion of a sovereign nation AGAINST THE VOTE OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL, plus a Wall Street run amok because of deregulation, and he points to someone ELSE as the worst thing that could happen to America.
What do you expect from a speech writer?
And since when are speech writers considered high persona in a party?]
Cal Thomas, columnist and broadcaster: “Anger is not policy. Trump channels a lot of the righteous (and some of the unrighteous) anger of voters and sees the solution as himself. Isn’t a narcissist what we currently have in the White House?”
[No, policy is sending umpteen billion in cash to be spent on warlords and to money-motivated snitches who turn in negihbors in Baghdad for cash.
Policy is not providing personnel armor for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Policy is playing both ends against the middle in the Middle East – being bed partners with the Israelis while sucking cock with the Saudi princes.
Policy is declaring Wall Street bankers to be “too big to fail” while letting 20 million responsible American homeowners lose their houses.
Policy is aiding American manufacturures to move their plants to mexico and then China, creating ghost towns all over America.
Policy is. . . I could go on and on.
As to a narcissist in the White House, none of the 18 candidates is NOT a narcissist, nor have any of our Presidents not been. And that doesn’t even count the narcissist VICE President who ran the government for 8 years.]
Trump is Immoral and Unchristian
Russell Moore, Baptist minister and author: “One also cannot help but look at the personal life of the billionaire. It is not just that he has abandoned one wife after another for a younger woman, or that he has boasted about having sex with some of the ‘top women of the world.’ It’s that he says, after all that, that he has no need to seek forgiveness. At the same time, Trump has made millions off a casino industry that, as social conservatives have rightly argued, not only exploits personal vice but destroys families.”
[And the real question is:
WHO CARES WHAT A BAPTIST MINISTER THINKS ABOUT MORALITY? They don’t even let their congregation DANCE.
End of THAT story.]
The President is not the Manager-in-Chief
[NO. NOT EVEN.
Actually The U.S. Constitution SPECIFICALLY DEMANDS that the President be the Manager-In-Chief. THAT IS HIS JOB, BY LAW. He is THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE. Look it up. AND that MEANS Manager-In-Chief.
It ADDITIONALLY SPECIFICALLY NAMES HIM THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the military.
In fact, that is where we get the term “____-In-Chief” from.
Once again, they show utter disdain for the LAWS OF THE USA. They make ups shit and declare THE SHIT to be the law of the land instead of the Constitution.
What is to be DONE with such idiots?!]
Steven F. Hayward, author and academic: “[H]is inclination to understand our problems as being managerial rather than political suggests he might well set back the conservative cause if he is elected, if not make the problems of runaway executive power even worse.”
[I hope you’ve been paying attention all these years that the Republicans have repeated over and over in our ears that businessmen are better than politicians – BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO MANAGE.
It was the clear attraction of Ross Perot’s candidacy in 1992, and everyone loved it. THEN.
(But, really they don’t. All of you out there have worked in companies in which the managers are idiots, and especially upper management. Companies are run for SHIT in the USA, for the most part. That is why we lost our manufacturing ascendancy to the rest of the world.)
And if Donald Trump were today running around and talking like a quiet, energetic, staid businessman, they would all be swarming around him like flies around shit.
What they really don’t like about him is two things:
1. His style rubs their noses in their every concept of themselves as Conservatives. Forget the businessman bit. That is just brought up to distinguish him from the politicians who probably can’t manage their way out of a paper bag.
2. He says what they are not supposed to say in public OUT LOUD.]
Yuval Levin, intellectual and author: “American conservatism is an inherently skeptical political outlook. It assumes that no one can be fully trusted with public power and that self-government in a free society demands that we reject the siren song of politics-as-management.”
[Finally, someone who actually states something that Bill Buckley might have said.
Except for the last part.
The GOP has SPECIFICALLY sold business acumen as superiror to political acumen – since befroe the late Mr Buckley was even born. And now that they have one of the top businessmen in the USA actually running AS A BUSINESSMAN, they don’t know what to do with him.]
What is really freaking the Republican out is not that Trump is running, nor that he is leading, nor that he is a businessman.
What is REALLY freaking them out it that they want to put their money behind someone else – AND CAN’T. Ted Cruz they hate with a passion, and no one else is close enough to focus money on.
They’ve got all the money in the world and Trump’s money trumps all of it. But it’s not just because of him. It’s because of the rest of the candidates.
Their blank checks are all dressed up with nowhere to go.]
Continuing the Electoral-Vote-org piece, if I may include the article in toto… and with all due respect for the website. . .
The National Review, both in this issue and in general, is written by conservatives for conservatives. As such, the issues raised in the essay collection give a pretty good sense of the lines of attack that will be used against Trump in the upcoming weeks and months by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX, whose opinions of New York Republicans must surely be improving) and any other Republican who might want to try to dethrone The Donald. It is worth noting that the list of criticisms above reads like a mirror image of the main points in Cruz’s marketing pitch (e.g. he’s a true conservative, with Washington experience, who believes in limited government, etc.).
It is clear that the Review’s editors saw the writing on the wall—that none of the “establishment” candidates would seriously challenge Trump—rather earlier than most other observers. Editor Rich Lowry, in an interview published just as the new issue was hitting newsstands, explained that planning began in earnest over a month ago. At that point, recall that Trump was still being seriously threatened by Ben Carson, while Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was widely seen as the favorite to take the nomination once sanity returned to the proceedings.
Also clear is that some deeply-held convictions, ones that outweigh business and other more base considerations, are on display. Several of the contributors—Kristol and Reno, for example—are the Review’s competition, but put that aside in service of the cause. And National Review is going to suffer some blowback for taking this stand. The comments on the article linked above, and on their Facebook page and Twitter feed, make clear that a fair number of Trump-supporting subscribers will be jumping ship. Further, the magazine was removed as host of the February 26th GOP debate. This was both expected, according to Lowry, and was also entirely apropos. There is simply no way that anyone could have confidence that Trump was being treated fairly if Lowry or some other Review staffer was on stage.
Trump’s response was predictable and, to a fair extent, proof of concept for the magazine. In a series of tweets (naturally), Trump declared:
National Review is a failing publication that has lost it’s way. It’s circulation is way down w its influence being at an all time low … Sad! Very few people read the National Review because it only knows how to criticize, but not how to lead … The late, great, William F. Buckley would be ashamed of what had happened to his prize, the dying National Review!
On that last point, Trump is unquestionably wrong. Foreseeing this line of attack, the Review presciently included in the issue an essay on Trump written by Buckley in 2000, a few years before his death:
Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents —midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War—had little to do with a bottom line.
It is really quite remarkable that nearly 16 years ago, Buckley not only suspected that this day might come, but that he anticipated three or four of the main arguments made by the anti-Trump forces in their essays.
The bottom line is that the GOP has now turned upon itself, thus initiating an intra-party civil war (to use a term being deployed very liberally today). How long will it last? Nobody knows, of course, but at this point Reince Priebus and the leadership should consider themselves lucky if the rift is reasonably well patched up by the time the Republican convention adjourns on July 21. More likely, it lingers until Election Day in November, with many partisans of the defeated candidate(s) staying home, voting independent, crossing party lines, or even doing a write-in. And perhaps, as several of National Review’s essayists suggest, we may be looking at a schism that lingers for years, or decades. And old Chinese proverb says, “may you live in interesting times.” In 2016, at least for political junkies, that wish has been granted in spades. (Z)