"Inside, a blistering editorial questions Trump's commitment to conservatism, warning voters that backing him is tantamount to allowing the conservative movement to have 'fallen in behind a huckster.'"
"Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones,” the editorial reads.Trump tweets:
And that’s just the start.
The National Review issue features anti-Trump essays from more than 20 conservative thinkers, leaders and commentators spanning the GOP’s ideological spectrum from David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian-infused Cato Institute, to William Kristol, the hawkish editor of the Weekly Standard, to David McIntosh, president of the Club for Growth. All call for Republicans to nominate someone other than Trump.
“This is the time to mobilize,” said National Review editor Rich Lowry, who is also a weekly opinion columnist at POLITICO. “The establishment is AWOL, or even worse, so it’s up to people who really believe in these ideas and principles, for whom they’re not just talking points or positions of convenience, to set out the marker.”
The failing @NRO National Review Magazine has just been informed by the Republican National Committee that they cannot participate in debate— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2016Well, obviously.
Meanwhile, at least according to the NYT, "the cadre of Republican lobbyists, operatives and elected officials based in Washington is much more unnerved by Mr. Cruz, a go-it-alone, hard-right crusader who campaigns against the political establishment and could curtail their influence and access, building his own Republican machine to essentially replace them."
[M]any members of the Republican influence apparatus, especially lobbyists and political strategists, say they could work with Mr. Trump as the party’s standard-bearer, believing that he would be open to listening to them and cutting deals, and would not try to take over the party...But what if Trump wins? Somebody is going to have to win. The idea that each one "can't win" makes no sense. The establishment, we're told, is thinking that Trump would be a pragmatist and he wouldn't break their hold on the GOP. To flip that: If you want more disruption, Cruz is the one.
Of course, this willingness to accommodate Mr. Trump is driven in part by the fact that few among the Republican professional class believe he would win a general election. In their minds, it would be better to effectively rent the party to Mr. Trump for four months this fall, through the general election, than risk turning it over to Mr. Cruz for at least four years, as either the president or the next-in-line leader for the 2020 nomination.
Posts
219 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 219 of 219Another problem. Apparently Ted Cruz's parents were registered to vote in Canada. Only Canadian citizens can be registered to vote, ergo his parents had become Canadian citizens, though may have done so after Ted's birth.
Then there is the issue as to whether Ted's parents were actually married at the time of his birth. If not, then according to the law at the time, he's never been an American citizen.
Finally, Ted Cruz didn't renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014, which makes him a total dick.
Speaking of Trump and National Review, before Buckley died he had an article where he talked about Trump and Demagogues.
He had Trump pegged then. And Trump hasn't even changed his shtick. its the exact same thing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430187/william-f-buckley-donald-trump-demagoguery-cigar-aficionado
hat about the aspirant who has a private vision to offer to the public and has the means, personal or contrived, to finance a campaign? In some cases, the vision isn’t merely a program to be adopted. It is a program that includes the visionary’s serving as President. 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. So what else can Trump offer us? Well to begin with, a self-financed campaign. Does it follow that all who finance their own campaigns are narcissists? At this writing Steve Forbes has spent $63 million in pursuit of the Republican nomination. Forbes is an evangelist, not an exhibitionist. In his long and sober private career, Steve Forbes never bought a casino, and if he had done so, he would not have called it Forbes’s Funhouse. His motivations are discernibly selfless. . . .
Every week, on Forbes on Fox, Steve sticks to principle and keeps laying out the same ideas and why they work He, unlike Trump is not a narcissist.
History repeats itself. 12 years ago, and Trump was the exact same narcissist, and the real republican from national review was calling him out on it.
Joe wrote:
How about Trump, because Cruz is a dick who will be ignored by congress.
Which side of congress? The democrats or republicans? If democrats do you want the republicans to act as the opposition? Like if he introduces universal health care or amnesty?
Or should they act like John Mccain style republicans and go along with him because he is imposing amnesty and they want to make a deal even though its for something like amnesty. Or subsidies, or any of the dozens of other non republican things he said he's stood for.
Right now his position on amnesty is amnesty, but only after we first deport all the illegals, then we'll get an expedited system to verify the good ones. And then they'll come back and be legal. And of course jump the line beacause actual legal immigrants don't have that expedited process.
When its pointed out that his type of deportation would be impossible will his position then just be amnesty? Or self deportation?
And how should republicans act then? Should they be all gang of 8,like Rubio, or should they stand against amnesty? against the republican pushing it.
Would Trumpets hold senators from the house to blame if they didn't fight against that amnesty and instead acted like Marco Rubio supposedly did?
Im simply basing my view on what Trumps immigration plan is based on what he says it is. I'm assuming he is articulating his proposal. That is an amnesty proposal.
I want to hear from Trumpettes whether they would be for amnesty if it was proposed by Trump, as oppose to Obaam? And if Marco Rubio goes along with it, will then be a hero?
Because voting for Trump creates this odd dissonance where if you want to be a good republican who isn't viewed as an establishment RINO you'd have to vote AGAINST Trump. Do Trumpettes want Trump to be the gauge on which to measure other republicans allegiance to Republican values?
Isn't that kind of odd, that you wouldn't hold Trump to those values?
Blogger Joe said...
Another problem. Apparently Ted Cruz's parents were registered to vote in Canada. Only Canadian citizens can be registered to vote, ergo his parents had become Canadian citizens, though may have done so after Ted's birth.
Then there is the issue as to whether Ted's parents were actually married at the time of his birth. If not, then according to the law at the time, he's never been an American citizen.
Finally, Ted Cruz didn't renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014, which makes him a total dick.
These aren't issues of whether or not he is "natural born" these are issues of whether or not he is a citizen at all.
Which is usually where the conversation has lead me when I've told people Ted Cruz is natural born. Pretty soon they give up that argument and just insist he isn't even a US Citizen.
Well, yeah. If he isn't a US Citizen, he isn't natural born.
If allowing people who have been deported to apply to immigrate is amnesty, then the word has lost all meaning.
Which of course is the point and why people like Rubio always say his plan doesn't include amnesty.
Fool me once....
Given a choice between the two, Cruz. Not that I think Trump would be an utter disaster, but because Trump comes across as someone who will do and say what makes him popular. That kind of thing can be helpful or harmful depending on the context, and I'm not confident Trump won't take on bad policy for the sake of popularity.
Eligibility should be a non-issue. Presuming Congress has the authority to enforce Article II via legislation, the law concerning who is a citizen at birth in force at the time of Cruz's birth should settle the matter in his favor.
Well done, and very timely.
This is what Chris Hughes never understood about The New Republic. The idea isn't to suck up to one political party or pretend its weaknesses don't exist. The idea is to to take your own position, and argue with people who don't agree.
William F. Buckley would never be so craven as to pretend Donald Trump was a conservative just because he's doing well in the polls.
Trump succeeds Obama. One narcissist succeeds another. What could go wrong?
I don't think much of NRO, but this issue took some huevos. I'm not sure why the editors thought Trumpadopes would read, let alone understand, the material.
I am pretty sure Joe is arguing that U.S. law should discriminate against bastards because the 1790 law was patrilineal. And that is dispositive despite the 14th Amendment.
Further, Joe would suggest Native Americans cannot be American if born on reservations. Or perhaps Joe does not think Indian Nations are outside the U.S. Hard to tell but the Constitution does signify Native Americans Nations as distinct from the U.S.
Come back and explain these intricacies, Joe.
"Shut up, suck it up and listen to your betters again" they explained.
And they think this is going to help? The NR attacks on Trump are exactly the type of behavior that the Trump supporters are pissed about.
Cruz and Rubio can be disqualified by logic without even defining nbC.
1) Natural born Citizens have always been citizens upon their birth.
2) Ted Cruz, if born in the same situation, to a US (supposedly) citizen mother, and a foreign father, in Canada, would not have been considered a US citizen upon his birth prior to 1934 (when US citizen mothers could pass citizenship to offspring of foreign fathers born abroad-- they could not have separate citizenship from a spouse until 1922-- Cable Act).
3) Ted Cruz can only considered a US citizen "at birth" now because of US naturalization law. (8 US Code 1401 (g))
4) Cruz is NATURALIZED.
5) Cruz is not a natural born Citizen.
Same with Rubio:
1) Natural born Citizens have always been citizens upon their birth.
2) Marco Rubio, if born in the US to resident alien parents in 1802 would not not have been considered a US citizen until his parents naturalized (See NA 1802 S. 4-- children of parents naturalized would be naturalized at the time their parents naturalized "if dwelling in the US" (I.E born abroad and now living in the US prior to 21st birthday, or born in the US and still "dwelling". Even if they were given "birthright citizenship by the laws of a state, they would not be US Citizens until the naturalization of the parents--IT SAYS SO RIGHT IN THE STATUTE).
3) If born in 1802 Marco Rubio would have been naturalized at the age of 3 or 4 by the naturalization of his parents.
4) Marco Rubio is only considered a citizen "at birth" (at birth means "after birth") today by the operation of naturalization law (8 US code 1401 (a))
5) Marco Rubio is naturalized and not a nbC.
INS 1952(23)--- Definition of "NATURALIZATION"--- the conferring of nationality after birth by any means whatsoever.
Afroyim v. Rusk cleared it up 15 years later. It said that Wong Kim Ark was "conferred citizenship" (NATURALIZED) by the 14th Amendment (as was Afroyim), and that that citizenship could not be taken away except for an overt act to do so. That simple birth within the US, means US citizenship is an 118 year old lie, or else Justice Gray would not have had to refer to the legal habitation of the parents to determine that Wong was "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" within the meaning of the 14A (See pg. 693). He would have said "Wong was born in the US, so he is a citizen". But of course that is NOT WHAT HE SAID.
The 14th Amendment is a vehicle of naturalization to cure doubts on citizenship. A2S1C5 was also a vehicle of naturalization in the organic constitution. In natural born citizens there is no doubt as to their citizenship-- they are born in the US to US citizen parents-- what else would they be (That's why Virginia Minor "did not need the 14th Amendment to determine her citizenship"--- she was a natural born Citizen of A2S1C5)? Natural born citizens and those that were citizens at the time the Constitution was ratified (who were naturalized by A2S1C5, by the constitution itself) were the only citizens at the founding of the nation. Anyone else considered a US citizen has been naturalized, either by the Constitution itself, or statute ("ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER"), via Congressional power to enact uniform immigration and naturalization law.
The 14th Amendment did not make the newly freed slaves natural born citizens, it made them "citizens", but their children, if born in the US could be nbC.
There has been a movement attempting to change the meaning of the words "citizen at birth" to mean "natural born Citizen" (isn't that what constitutional relativists do, change the meaning of words?). "At BIRTH" means "AFTER BIRTH". One is not made a citizen until AFTER they are born, not in the birth canal or the womb. Birth is the EMERGENCE of the baby from the body of the mother-- so "at birth" means after you emerge-- "after birth".
That should clear it up for anyone with a brain.
By the way, the Naturalization Act 1790 referred to those born abroad of US citizen parents as "CONSIDERED AS natural born citizens". That is not the same as "ARE natural born citizens". It meant that they would be "CONSIDERED as nbC FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES"- ie eligibility for the POTUS. It was a benefit for the early diplomats, but was voided in 1795.
Now you all have gone and done it...
You've brought out Mick and his famous "Natural Born Citizens" rant.
Phil 3:14 said...
"Now you all have gone and done it...
You've brought out Mick and his famous "Natural Born Citizens" rant".
If you disagree then prove it.
Glad to see Mick is OK. I was beginning to worry.
Phil 3:14 said...
"Now you all have gone and done it... You've brought out Mick and his famous 'Natural Born Citizens' rant."
If we all ignore him, then he will be ignored.
hombre: I don't think much of NRO, but this issue took some huevos.
Nothing says "cojones" like braving mockery on Twitter and virtue-signaling to liberal fellow Acelarians.
So now we have a third entrant in the "bastards children of the women of the United States are not natural born citizens."
Couple that with the famous legal doctrine of "mama's baby, daddy's maybe" and there are no natural born citizens without DNA tests.
Great argument.
Post a Comment