That's the headline at The Washington Post on
a column by Michael Gerson. Now, Rush hasn't endorsed Trump, as Gerson must concede. In fact, he has to say:
Limbaugh takes pains to preserve neutrality between Trump and Ted Cruz, whom he describes as the obvious choice “if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote.”
That's in stark contrast to our local talk radio people who are overtly anti-Trump. So what's Gerson's problem?
But Limbaugh has also consistently defended Trump as a legitimate choice for those whose dominating factor is the humiliation of “the establishment.”... Trump’s deviations from conservative orthodoxy are noted but considered secondary. “I think with the case of Trump,” argues Limbaugh, “there’s a much bigger upside than downside.”
The upside, in this view, is not just taking the political fight to liberalism; it is also overturning a failed and corrupt Republican political order. Limbaugh dismisses defenders of this order as fundamentally self-interested. “[Trump] has put together a coalition that’s exactly what the Republican Party says that it needs to win, and yet, look what they’re doing. They’re trying to get Trump out of the race, because they’re not in charge of it.” Opposing Trump is the work of a “cliquish, elitist club,” preserving its influence and employment prospects. This criticism is sometimes expanded to include the conservative intelligentsia. “I’m talking about the establishment,” says Limbaugh, “conservative media, the brainiacs, the think tanks, the professors.”
Gerson argues that the GOP "establishment" — he always puts it in scare quotes — actually is conservative, conservative within "the constraints of our constitutional system" (as opposed to some "fantasy world") and within norms of "civility, inclusion and tolerance" (as opposed to "casual misogyny, racial stereotyping and religious bigotry"). And Trump is not a real conservative, Gerson says, because he "does not reason from first principles" and he appeals to "authoritarian populism" instead of —
as Russell Kirk puts it — "an enduring moral order, political prudence, and restraints on power and human passion."
Posts
99 comments:
That Trump isn't a conservative isn't exactly news. That the GOP establishment isn't really conservative isn't news either. But at this point people want revolution more than they want conservatism.
If history is any guide, revolutions always turn out great! Right?
My read of Limbaugh is that he wants to preserve a certain image to appeal to his listeners, who like the idea of being outsiders (no one wants to call themselves establishment). Rush himself is pretty "establishment" (if he were a true outsider, the former RNC head would not have had to apologize for saying Republicans need to listen less to Rush), as he's been close with the Bushes and stayed over in the Lincoln Bedroom during two administrations. But he knows which way his listeners' wind is blowing, and won't risk alienating them.
In his heart of hearts, he probably would like to see the GOP win the White House. But in his pocketbook he knows that if a noxious Democrat like Hillary wins, he'll get better ratings railing against her for four to eight years.
I keep hoping Ted Cruz can pull this out, but a part of me wants to see guys like this red faced and humiliated when Trump becomes President and actually does a good job.
Then we can say, maybe you aren't as smart as you've been telling us you are.
I wonder what casual misogyny is.
Would it be noticing sexual differences?
In that case, the conservative establishment has gone PC, and that's the problem that keeps problems from being solved.
If one sexual difference is in male and female interests, PC isn't doing woman any favors either.
I think a ways back some theologian guy wrote an opinion piece for the WSJ arguing in favor of same-sex marriage from the perspective that the institution of marriage, as traditionally understood, is already dead.
That comes to mind, for some reason or other.
It's like these people are secretly wanting Trump to win, and so keep saying stupid stuff our own lying eyes tell us is bullshit: you're all wrong, the GOPe is conservative! Within the norms of polite society that you, Trump voter, are not, you racist Islamaphonic bigot!
Keep it coming, fellas. We've got until November for you to keep inflaming the populace to jump on the Trump train, if for no other reason than sheer spite for the establishment talking heads.
"If history is any guide, revolutions always turn out great! Right?'
Some do (American), some don't (French, Russian).
Besides this "revolution" ain't gonna be a shooting war. It's more about removing a self serving elite at the ballot box. The wisdom of the commons vs. the wisdom of the anointed.
I'm for the former but obviously many here are not.
Conserve Medicare by adding prescription drug coverage? Defeat terrorism by spreading democracy around the world? Local control of education by adding more federal rules and oversight? Compared to Gerson's former boss, Trump is conservative
There hasn't been a first-principles conservative President since Calvin Coolidge. Reagan's conservatism, like Obama's progressivism, was almost entirely symbolic.
Trump isn't a conservative and to his supporters that is a good thing, because conservative now appears to mean unrestricted free-trade and open borders.
Its no surprise that the Wall Street Journal runs op-eds endorsing free-trade and the unrestricted movement of labor, the surprise is that they think doing so is going to influence Trump supporters.
The GOPe can't get their heads around the fact that the status quo is being rebelled against because it simply is not working in the interest of large numbers of people.
Even if Trump fails its not going to be the end of the rebellion.
Both Rush and Hannity got on the Trump train early, and now they are stuck.
Gerson and those like him are FOS. They can put all the lipstick they want on those pigs, but there are NO "Conservative" rulers in Congress. Yes, they have become Rulers, not Leaders -they need to be replaced by Leaders as was once the case, and was how this country was supposed to be ran from the beginning. Will probably take bloodshed to accomplish that task.
Trump has given a voice to the Republicans who want to resist massive illegal immigration.
The Republican Party can deal with its Trump problem by co-opting that issue from him, even belatedly. The Republican convention can adopt a strong platform of resisting massive illegal immigration and then nominate anybody who commits himself to that platform convincingly.
So far, however, the only other Republican candidate who has co-opted that Trump's immigration position is Cruz, whose position is similar to Trump's.
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/
That's why Trump and Cruz have dominated the Republican race.
So after the "establishment" ignored at best and at worst helped vilify the Tea Party movement, effectively shunning millions who would have been their natural allies if they really stood for "conservative principles;" after the "establishment" helped prop up pansy ass candidates like McCain and Romney and we held our noses and voted for the R. After them not doing anything to procedurally stop liberalism or counter the BLM or the Occupiers or even put forward an articulate spokesman who could COMMUNICATE conservatism.
After all that they say a man who is able to communicate opposition to PC culture and illegal immigration and "bad deals" is unacceptable? Screw 'em. They made room for Trump by their absence on the battlefield of ideas. They gave in to Washington's go along to get along culture and they are now reaping what they've sown. Screw 'em!
What Mike, above, just said!!!^^^
Brando said...
"In his heart of hearts, he probably would like to see the GOP win the White House. But in his pocketbook he knows that if a noxious Democrat like Hillary wins, he'll get better ratings railing against her for four to eight years."
Rush addressed this point. You nevertrumpers are pure bad faith at this point.
If you get Hillary elected you are going in the same boat as her followers. As noted above, if Trump loses this revolution will not be over.
AprilApple said...
"Both Rush and Hannity got on the Trump train early, and now they are stuck."
That or they actually look at Trump's positions instead of lapping up and gargling the media spooge about Trump like the nevertrumpers do.
Nevertrumpers are really obnoxious at this point. You people are so proud to be tools and so love to call people who disagree stupid.
Washington Post concerned about future of Conservatism. Got it.
Nonapod said...
"If history is any guide, revolutions always turn out great! Right?"
The American revolution was a pivotal event in history and is easily in the top 3 historical events as far as "turning out great."
Washington norms of "civility, inclusion and tolerance" means objecting to, but going along with Democrat initiatives.
This is an incredibly fascinating election season, to see conservatives now pretending they aren't "conservative", just like they used to like to claim they weren't Republicans, but were instead "libertarians".....lol.
For commenters like Steven m Galbraith, who derided my comment in another post yesterday by calling it: "...But Obama!". The reason why I bring up Obama's name is because of the keening over Trump not having the experience, temperament, or intelligence to be president. Yet we have already elected and re-elected the most intellectually uncurious, ignorant, anti-American demagogue in the nation's history- a president who chides his citizens when foreigners attack and murder them. And for those, like Brando, who wonders how a president Trump will respond when Russia invades the Baltics, I'll ask: Could his response be any worse or less effective than Obama's response to the Russian invasion of Georgia, or the Ukraine? How about Obama ceding Syria to Russian aggaression, and his response to Russian planes bombing our ostensible allies?
This is the crux of it for you #NeverTrumpers- We have currently a president who viscerally dislikes most Americans, who does not support of approve of the country he leads, who has shown himself to be vapid, feckless and despicable. So none of your hand-wringing and scolding about Trump means anything because there is no way he will be worse than Obama- Trump loves his country. The shame and disgrace of this nation is that it has elected and re-elected a president who wants to hurt the country and punish its citizens. That is the reason for "...but Obama".
"If you get Hillary elected you are going in the same boat as her followers. As noted above, if Trump loses this revolution will not be over."
We support candidates who are far more likely to beat Hillary, but we are the ones to blame when Trump gets beaten by her? Here's the news--even if Trump's conservative critics held their nose and backed him this fall, he'd still lose to Hillary. Simply being on the ballot will get the leftists (and especially minorities) to show up in numbers that never would happen just to support Hillary, and she'd win the moderates as well. Don't blame us because you assumed this guy would magically appeal to people.
The GOPe did it's best to smear the Tea Party. It has done nothing to investigate the IRS attacks on those organizations because the insiders applauded it. We were called wacko birds among other things. It is clear that the GOPe holds the republican base in contempt.
All you nevertrumpers are just supporting these people and doing their bidding. Trump is bringing in the voters that formed the Reagan coalition. Instead of being happy about this the establishment goes off the rails. They could have the Reagan coalition back again but they choose to fight it because they don't want teh same things we do. They want to keep their jobs as political consultants and think tankers. Supporting Trump means not getting invited to all of the nice cocktail parties.
Notice the hate is not directed mostly at Trump, but at his supporters. They don't actually want them to have a voice or vote. The open borders crowd just wants the republican base to go away.
How about a pox on all their houses?
No, Trump has not “put together a coalition that’s exactly what the Republican Party says that it needs to win."
And no Beltway types reason "from first principles," and none would know what it means.
And "Trump has given a voice to the Republicans who want to resist massive illegal immigration" is the essence of the con.
Kasich could beat Hillary. Trump has an outside chance. Cruz has no chance. That New York values schtick was amateur hour. Trump made him look stupid at the debate after talking about 9/11, which was an obvious tactic for Trump to use. Then Cruz whining about fights at Trump rallies showed Cruz is just a weak sister of a candidate. Hillary would mop the floor with the Cannuck crybaby
We must support the inarticulate clumsy ego driven flip-flopping used-to-be-a- democrat Trump because the establishment sucks?
R candidates suck thru the ages. I still cannot believe GWB won 2 elections.
D candidates suck thru the ages. Reagan-types are rare. Is this not obvious?
Of course Trump's not a conservative! He's barely a Republican. What does that matter now, at this point in the election.
The question for Gerson (and Brooks, etc) is: "what did you do when real conservatives showed up and pushed for change?" The Tea Party people were real conservatives. They cared about principles, had (for politics anyway) roughly consistent views, and were both forceful and civil. How did people like Brooks and other Republican elites treat them?
For the most part the Repub. establishment told the Tea Party people to fuck off. So off the fucked! And what comes now, predictably, is worse (in terms of fidelity-to-conservatism). Whose fault is that? Not Rush Limbaugh's!!
It's odd listening to the Trump supporters and people like Limbaugh say the Republicans in Washington - this "Establishment" - haven't done anything and need to be overthrown and yet then say that if Hillary is elected that we'll lose all of our rights and terrible things will happen.
So, who exactly has been protecting your 2nd Amendment rights? And 1st? Who has stopped this liberal onslaught?
Limbaugh has had an amazing run, but he's a bit lost in this election, in a similar way that National Review is lost.
Conservatism has many great ideas and policy prescriptions -- but that doesn't necessarily translate into political victories.
In 1965, when the great William F. Buckley ran for Mayor of New York, Yes, it was quirky and interesting, but he lost. Did his quixotic run jumpstart a Conservative movement? Maybe. His brother Jim Buckley won the NY Senate seat in 1970 as a "Conservative," but lost re=election in 1976.
Yes, I fully understand that the great Ronald Reagan was both the most Conservative candidate and most successful candidate of all time. But the demographics of the country have changed since Reagan won 2 terms. Conservatives can win House races, and Senate and Gov races in many red states, but, clearly, they have had recent difficulties in Presidential elections, given that California and NY are both blue, blue, blue.
The most successful candidate since Reagan was George W. Bush -- who ran as a "Compassionate Conservative." Limbaugh and NRO aren't recognizing this, and they are not recognizing the legions of Trump supporters who are legitimately upset, and not interested in Conservative political theories.
Reagan was a Democrat until he was 51 and raised Social Security taxes and ran deficits like FDR's first two terms. Reagan was an FDR/JFK Democrat. Calvin Cooldige was conservative. Reagan gave conservatism lip service but loved federal power and federal programs.
The "enduring moral order, political prudence, and restraints on power" too often equate to lying, raucous behavior in private, and no restraints on power abuse if we're talking about the career pols who pay back the donor class by using the middle class as an ATM. If WI wants more of the same, there are two candidates who will certainly give us that. If you want good care for Vets, closed borders, and fair trade that will bring back jobs that support families as well as Social Security and other programs, you'll vote Trump.
GOP Establishment to typical GOP voters: We think you're dumb, probably racist, and don't understand what's good for you. We're going to butter you up with lots of campaign talk and then let you down in egregiously bad ways (unnecessarily so, in fact) and blame you for any failures that are our fault.
Typical GOP voter: You know what, I've had enough of this; the Left and Media call me stupid and racist all the time, I don't need it from my own party, too. I'd like to support someone who doesn't obviously dislike me and who is willing to fight back and not immediately cave when he's unfairly attacked. Hey, who's this Donald Trump guy?
GOP Establishment: WHY, WHY DID YOU ABANDON US? We're so right and you're so stupid, why won't you support us and all the things we say we care about but don't take action to try and achieve? Who can possibly explain it?!
Brando said...
"We support candidates who are far more likely to beat Hillary, but we are the ones to blame when Trump gets beaten by her?"
Only a moron would believe the polls put out by the media. Do some basic level critical thinking on this subject for once man.
1. These polls had Reagan losing by a wider margin at the same time in the race. Reagan was up against the same forces and they are doing the same things to Trump now. Don't even get into the Trump isn't Reagan blather I am not saying he is. He is up against the same people Reagan was though.
2. Cruz does no better among all of those groups like women in those polls. It should also be clear at this point he does not have the political skills to deal with the media onslaught coming for him. When the media finishes Trump they will turn on Cruz and the closest parallel there is Bob Dole. Cruz will whither and this comes from a Cruz supporter. Yes I started this race supporting Cruz and would love to vote for him. But any reasonable observer would not Cruz's limitations.
3. Trump has already split the Democrat coalition. He does his best with working class voters. This is a staple dem constituency. This is how Reagan won with such margins. For gods sake think for once instead of taking what the media feeds you.
Rush still believes in a Nation called the United States. The one with a border. The one with a Military that wins wars. The one with an industrial base. The one with Free Speech. The one with a separation of Church and State. The one with a full Second Amendment. The one with elections, not coronations by a super rich aristocracy.
Limbaugh has finally gone part way over to that Reality and therefore to Trump's Movement. Rush understands that Trump has told more "kernels of Truth" in 6 months than the entire GOP and Dems have allowed to be told for 30 years.
The Establishment's hired gun lawyer from Taxa-Canada named Cruz wants to use a Perfect Conservative Ideology Myth to steal anoher election and block out the common sense Trump Voter's Revolt so Trump cannot do what we need to be done.
Two of the main causes that the Tea Party supported was entitlement reform and eliminating Obamacare.
Trump is against entitlement reform and wants to replace Obamacare with some type of national healthcare guarantee for everyone. In other words, Trumpcare.
So why in the hell would a Tea Partyer support this silly man?
In the Wall Street Journal today (3/29), a good column by Bret Stevens: "Trump Is Obama Squared: Two epic narcissists who see themselves as singularly suited to redeem America". Of course WSJ is part of the estalishment, right? So Trump supporters should just ignore it, even though it seems right on the mark to me.
AprilApple said...
"We must support the inarticulate clumsy ego driven flip-flopping used-to-be-a- democrat Trump because the establishment sucks?"
1. They are all ego driven. Anyone running for president is. Even Carson has a massive ego the likes of which would appall people in person.
2. A lot of people used to be democrats but weren't when they ran historically significant presidential campaigns against the WASPs.
3. Trump spent his entire career building businesses. He had to pay payroll taxes. He had to pay OSHA fines. He had to pay EPA fines. He had to pay IRS penalties. He had to declare bankruptcy. He had to file numerous environmental impact statements at the cost of millions. If anyone in this understands what is holding this country back it is him. When he says he is going to eliminate the EPA I believe it because he, unlike anyone else in the race, had to live under their thumb.
Steve M. Galbraith said...Two of the main causes that the Tea Party supported was entitlement reform and eliminating Obamacare.
Trump is against entitlement reform and wants to replace Obamacare with some type of national healthcare guarantee for everyone. In other words, Trumpcare.
So why in the hell would a Tea Partyer support this silly man?
Not the right question, Steve--why DO they? Not all of them, obviously, but may Tea Party-types do support Trump, at least weakly. That is to say, Trump vs. Jeb Bush - they'd support Trump. Trump vs. Rubio--I think they'd support Trump. Cruz & Kasich...I dunno.
You might just as easily say "why do any Republicans support Trump?" Lots of them apparently do! My theory is that they're fed up with their own party leadership/establishment figures and have been since 2008 or so, and that those feelings were intensified by what they saw as a weak effort that lost the 2012 campaign and failed to stop Dems since then. Many of those people most fed up were Tea Party types who witnessed establishment Republicans demonize and run against THEM (put $ into primary campaigns against TP candidates, etc). Now maybe that was the right move on the Repub. party's part, but it ticked off a lot of people, and those are to some degree the GOP is now trying to figure out how they lost.
What's your theory?
Steve M. Galbraith said...
"Two of the main causes that the Tea Party supported was entitlement reform and eliminating Obamacare.
Trump is against entitlement reform and wants to replace Obamacare with some type of national healthcare guarantee for everyone. In other words, Trumpcare.
So why in the hell would a Tea Partyer support this silly man?"
Because we looked at his actual positions on health care reform rather than making them up. Because though he is not perfect his actual positions, not the ones the nevertrumpers pull out of their ass, are better than any other candidate in the race.
Achilles - heard all of that before. It's kind of old at this point.
PeterJ said...
"In the Wall Street Journal today (3/29), a good column by Bret Stevens: "Trump Is Obama Squared: Two epic narcissists who see themselves as singularly suited to redeem America". Of course WSJ is part of the estalishment, right? So Trump supporters should just ignore it, even though it seems right on the mark to me."
We see more than you think. Calling anyone running for president a narcissist is unnecessary. We know that everyone who runs for that office has to be one. This is just a stupid nevertrumper canard that someone with 6th grade critical thinking skills could see past if they wanted too.
And yes the WSJ is written by and for the political class. That is obvious.
"Only a moron would believe the polls put out by the media. Do some basic level critical thinking on this subject for once man."
Well, I don't want to be a moron! But didn't Trump always point to the polls? I realize he only pointed to the outlier ones showing good news for him (like the handful out of over 50 that had him beating Hillary) but still. The issue isn't that polls are always right--often then get it wrong, but by and large they are the best measure of the state of the electorate at the time they are taken--provided their methodology isn't faulty. I remember everyone telling me not to believe the polls in 2012, that Romney was really ahead--but the polls turned out to be right. So if the polls are wrong, I'll want to hear how they got it wrong and see if that makes sense.
"1. These polls had Reagan losing by a wider margin at the same time in the race. Reagan was up against the same forces and they are doing the same things to Trump now. Don't even get into the Trump isn't Reagan blather I am not saying he is. He is up against the same people Reagan was though."
I know, we covered that in the other thread. But Trump is not exactly up against the same people as Reagan. Reagan's opponents were almost exclusively from the Left or Middle, and as I noted he courted the Middle which is how he won. Trump's critics are as much on the Right as on the Left (with some Middle thrown in) and what we're NOT hearing from these critics (not the ones on the Right, anyway) is that he's "too right wing". It's the nature of the complaints that make the anti-Reagan criticism distinct from the anti-Trump criticism.
"2. Cruz does no better among all of those groups like women in those polls. It should also be clear at this point he does not have the political skills to deal with the media onslaught coming for him. When the media finishes Trump they will turn on Cruz and the closest parallel there is Bob Dole. Cruz will whither and this comes from a Cruz supporter. Yes I started this race supporting Cruz and would love to vote for him. But any reasonable observer would not Cruz's limitations."
I don't think Cruz will get the nomination but I agree that if he did, he'd have major challenges in the general election. As I noted elsewhere, Cruz's problem is he needs to appeal to moderates (you can't win just with your party's base). But then, if Cruz were shrewd (and he certainly appears to be) he has the room to pivot because unlike Romney et al, he doesn't have to prove himself to the Right.
"3. Trump has already split the Democrat coalition. He does his best with working class voters. This is a staple dem constituency. This is how Reagan won with such margins. For gods sake think for once instead of taking what the media feeds you."
See, that "Trump wins with Democrats" line is exactly what the media has been feeding and which I'm rejecting. White working class voters have been steadily getting more Republican since the '60s and there's just not a lot more room for growth there for the GOP. Romney did very well with that group, but even if Trump does better than that he's got to overcome large margins that he loses among minorities (where he's doing worse right now than Romney did), women and suburban moderates.
Yes, all of this can change--the election is seven months from now. But it's going to require some big events or major changes by Trump to turn this around.
So, who exactly has been protecting your 2nd Amendment rights?
The NRA and GOA.
And 1st? Who has stopped this liberal onslaught?
No one, actually. Take the campus sexual assault nonsense. Have there been any Republicans fighting the Dept of Education's edicts on this?
In other words, let's give credit where it is due, and not give credit where it is not due.
Well on the issue of narcissism, I'll go with Bret Stephens description of Trump as Obama Squared. But one of the labors of Hercules was cleaning out the Augean Stables---and those Stables are a pretty apt description of Washington DC and our political establishment--in both parties. I don't know whether The Donald is up to the task--but he sounds like he is willing to try. You take your Hercules as you find them. In this case with a heavy dose of brash, blustering buffoon. I dunno--faced with a choice between the lesser of two weasels this November, I'm voting for not Hillary while holding my nose.
Achilles said...
The American revolution was a pivotal event in history and is easily in the top 3 historical events as far as "turning out great."
Oh, I agree completely. The American Revolution is one of the exceptionally few instances in history where a revolution yielded a positive result for humanity. And it's certainly possible that the Trump revolution will turn out great.
I'm a cynic when it comes to politics though. I tend to believe that the worst outcome is more likely than the best when it comes to these sorts of political revolutions. But don't worry, I'll vote for Trump over Hillary (or a just about anyone else the Dems put forth in the event that Hillary experiences some... legal difficulties before the election.) But I refuse to drink the Koolaid about the guy, and insulting me or people who may agree with my thinking isn't going to change my opinion about him.
AprilApple said...
"Achilles - heard all of that before. It's kind of old at this point."
I know. Go back to your bad faith postings. I wouldn't want to engage with it either because being a nevertrumper is humiliating.
You people will either be on board with Trump against Hillary when the time comes or you will be helping her into office. Cruz has no path to the nomination. Trump will have more delegates at the convention than Cruz.
There is no path to a republican presidency where you push Trump to the side and nominate someone else. This is reality. It is Hillary or Trump at this point. Choose.
Isn't most journalism concern trolling?
It's less than intelligent to assume every single poll is an outlier or run by media outlets. Trump lives by the polls and he'll die by them too.
In head to head match ups with Clinton or Sanders, Trump is losing by double digits in almost every single poll.
Compared to Trump Clinton looks like Pollyanna.
Steve M. Galbraith said... So, who exactly has been protecting your 2nd Amendment rights? And 1st?
Dick Heller (and the Cato Institute) and Citizens United.
Both brought cases that won at the S. Court--both by 5-4. To me that argues that one of the most important decisions in voting for President is what kind of Justices they'd appoint, and if people conclude that any R candidate will appoint better Justices than any D candidate then a vote for Trump is as good as a vote for Cruz, etc.
I don't go that far, myself, but it's an understandable position. The counter, obviously, is that if appointing S. Court members is what you care about most then nominating the person who is most likely to win the general is most important. The Repubs. have spent a lot of time goin' after each other and not much talking about what a disaster it would be (will probably be!) if H. Clinton gets to nominate some Justices...but anyway I didn't really need another excuse to have a drink or two.
To say "Trump has split the Democratic vote" is engaging in magical thinking. Think again.
"In head to head match ups with Clinton or Sanders, Trump is losing by double digits in almost every single poll."
I'm not into Trump, but even Reagan was down 20 to Carter around this point in 1980. Polls at this point are premature and frankly, dumb.
"Cruz has no path to the nomination. Trump will have more delegates at the convention than Cruz. "
Actually he does, but since he has a bad reputation as a non-dealmaker, it will be hard for him to sway delegates to his side to get to the magical number.
"So why in the hell would a Tea Partyer support this silly man?"
Illegal immigration, illegal immigration, illegal immigration.
It's not rocket science. It's a simple issue that has severe consequences and not a single Republican had the stones to speak up about it with the force that Trump did. But we're supposed to believe that Trump's opponents are real conservatives? I'm way past laughing my ass off.
It's not rocket science. It's a simple issue that has severe consequences and not a single Republican had the stones to speak up about it with the force that Trump did.
Incorrect. Cruz not only spoke up, but fought against it in the Senate.
"So why in the hell would a Tea Partyer support this silly man?"
Because the system is broken. Look at the choices.
Trump represents the outside. He's not a politician by trade. It's almost as simple as that.
ut we're supposed to believe that Trump's opponents are real conservatives?
We're also supposed to believe that Trump is going to do anything meaningful about it, that he's not just bullshitting everyone like he always is.
Obama made a lot of promises too, and broke them.
Fighting Amnesty is hardly the same as advocating deporting them. Trump went there, Cruz tiptoed by.
Brando said...
"See, that "Trump wins with Democrats" line is exactly what the media has been feeding and which I'm rejecting."
You stumble on the truth and don't understand it. Trump supporters are not Republicans or Democrats. We hate both just as much. The democrats for trying to dissolve our borders and our nation and republicans for betraying us in that fight.
If you don't support Cruz or Trump at this point you are not needed in this movement.
Amanda said...
"To say "Trump has split the Democratic vote" is engaging in magical thinking. Think again."
We know you don't get out much and are not particularly bright. Talk to some actual Sanders voters. They will change your mind.
Boy, it sure did take a long time for Rush to discover that the Bush family is self-interested.
He used to be a huge fan, as I remember, back when the Bushes used to invite him to the White House for sleepovers.
Being told to "think again" by someone who seemingly hasn't bothered to think once about the topic under discussion...that's somethin'.
"If you don't support Cruz or Trump at this point you are not needed in this movement."
If that's the Trumpist attitude then good luck building a winning coalition.
"Reagan was down 20 to Carter around this point in 1980" - It's a small point, but Carter was the sitting President of the US, major advantage and not unusual that someone in that position starts with a large lead.
I don't make predictions, because Trump has surprised everyone. But I do think he has a lot of negatives, and they are very different than the ones Reagan has. Plus, the internet is forever, and Trump has a vapor trail of Trump being Trump craziness/dishonesty/obnoxiousness 1,000 miles long that Reagan didn't have.
As Brando said above: "Don't blame us because you assumed this guy would magically appeal to people."
Achilles: "You people will either be on board with Trump against Hillary when the time comes or you will be helping her into office."
I'm impervious to Trump blackmail.
Eric: "I keep hoping Ted Cruz can pull this out, but a part of me wants to see guys like this red faced and humiliated when Trump becomes President and actually does a good job."
Trump may win, and if he does I will be hoping and praying that he will do a good job. But it's far from given. He doesn't have executive experience in Government (way different than being a CEO, although there are overlaps) and he has no experience working with legislatures other than bribing legislators (which may help him, although aren't we trying to get away from that kind of stuff?).
If he's elected, I expect Obama II. A further divided country, a growing set of unconstitutional Executive branch outrages, because why would Trump want to limit his power? - and a growing and further debt-ridden government, because Trump isn't about shrinking his empire. It will be all Donald, all the time, and that's going to suck.
I want a boring president, who does his/her constitutionally-mandated job with efficiency and humility. Is that too much to ask?
@The Cracker Emcee
Fighting Amnesty is hardly the same as advocating deporting them.
Advocating deporting them is hardly the same as actually deporting them. If Trump loses the General, he obviously won't deport them. If he wins the election, he may not deport them either, if he deems it in his political interest to not deport them.
A rule of thumb: Vote against The Washington Post's opinion.
...because he "does not reason from first principles" and he appeals to "authoritarian populism" instead of — as Russell Kirk puts it — "an enduring moral order, political prudence, and restraints on power and human passion."
Conservatism, Inc. appealing to Burkean/Kirkian conservatism is nauseating to the man who feels, but hilarious to the man who thinks.
The problem is not immigration per se, but rather abortion rites under the State-established pro-choice religion (i.e. "church") and mass exodus from second and third-world nations, and [subsidized] assimilation and integration failures. The anti-native factions are bigots with a plan and, apparently, without a care.
Russell Kirk as justification for the conservative establishment position is an interesting item.
Russell Kirk was an odd duck. He famously tried to find a basis for conservative principle, an ideology, and came up with, well, what he could come up with, which like the US constitution, is mainly a bunch of negatives. Conservatism as Kirk found it is a broad church. On the basis of his most famous book at least, its not a stick to beat up Trump. Trump is as conservative as anyone that has ever found a place in the conservative church.
And Kirk himself was a much more "paleo" sort of conservative than the Wall Street Journal types, so there isn't an easy fit at all with the modern conservative tendency. He liked Pat Buchanan, so there's that.
On the other hand, Kirk was quite an intellectual snob, my take on some of his other articles, and certainly not a man who would be happy with the modern demos, whatever side its on. So he would probably have found Trump distasteful at least.
Highly recommended -
"The Conservative Mind - From Burke to Eliot" - Russell Kirk
@buyawa
Russell Kirk was a great thinker, great writer. I admire him. But he suffers from the same problem as Milton Friedman, another great thinker, great writer: They are too theoretical.
The development of real world capitalism and Christianity was pretty messy, and continues to be messy. Many lines are crossed, many compromises are made.
Unlike my friends on the Left, who harp on these imperfections, though, I still maintain that capitalism and Christianity in the real world, flaws and all, are the best economic/social systems ever devised on Earth. They are definitely worth preserving. The Left thinks otherwise, though.
Kirk struggled with "messy", and acknowledged it as fundamental to "conservatism".
Part of his actual definition of the "conservative mind" was its variety.
This is helpful -
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/
Rush "explains" Trump and those who are blinded by their allegiance to their own candidate-of-choice or ideaology-of-choice, think thay anyone who isn't roundly criticizing Trump every minute are endorsing him. What Rush doesn't do is jump on the bandwagon everytime some hysterical narrative comes along.
As noted, Rush is very complimentary of Cruz, who he views as a true conservative. Rush is a conservative; it's easy to see who he supports.
I think the musing about Rush hoping Hillary is elected so he can make more money, is shallow. Rush will continue to do well regardless of what happens and the idea that all he is worried about is maxing out his own profit, regardless of the continued looting and destruction of the country, is repulsive.
buwaya: And Kirk himself was a much more "paleo" sort of conservative than the Wall Street Journal types, so there isn't an easy fit at all with the modern conservative tendency.
Yup, "paleo" and WSJ-type "neocon neoliberalism" are distinct world-views, alas for the "true conservatives".
Most people don't give a rat's about ideology, anyway, they vote their perceived interests. The ideologically-obsessed do, too, but they're likely to be more self-deluding about what they're up to.
"The problem is not immigration per se, but rather abortion rites under the State-established pro-choice religion (i.e. "church") and mass exodus from second and third-world nations, and [subsidized] assimilation and integration failures. The anti-native factions are bigots with a plan and, apparently, without a care."
And those who equate immigration with illegal immigration are fools, apparently without a clue.
"And those who equate immigration with illegal immigration are fools, apparently without a clue."
I suggest that this isn't, at bottom, a distinction based on legality as much as scale. Illegal immigration hurts worse - or it hurts the demand for labor - because they are so many more. But in the present situation any sort of immigration is a problem.
Under the current circumstances of massive reduction in demand for native labor (the decline in the labor force participation rate for men 25-55 is most telling) suggests that the Kirkian virtue of prudence applies to immigrants both illegal and legal.
As with Moltke's axiom that "no plan survives contact with the enemy," so too with ideology: No ideology survives contact with the real world. All are changed by the encounter. Some for good, some for ill. But all are changed.
All immigration should be halted. Illegal immigration should be punished.
You know what I find hilarious about people who attack Trump because he's not conservative? They're probably the same people who've spent all the previous presidential elections nodding when pundits talk about a candidate "shifting" one way during the primaries and then "shifting" back during the election.
Sort of like Lincoln vowing to free the slaves to appeal to his fellow Republicans, then nodding more toward "encouraging amnesty" or "letting the states decide" in the general election.
[Note: Yes, all that was BS. I'm exaggerating to make a point.]
After all, look at Barack "My position is evolving" Obama's view on gay marriage. Heck, look at all the Dems who voted for invading Iraq, who suddenly turned around and stabbed our troops in the back as soon as they got there.
So when you tell me that "Trump's not a conservative" as if that's a winning point in the debate, I got news for you: It doesn't even move the needle.
It doesn't matter to this conservative that Trump is not a doctrinaire conservative. I neither support nor oppose Trump. But I will say that Trump's candidacy is not about his conservatism or lack thereof. Hence his appeal or lack of appeal (as the case may be) to conservatives. Conservatives who support him are not supporting him for ideological reasons; or, rather, they are supporting for other ideological reasons.
The problem with Drumpf is not that he's not conservative. It's that nothing he says is believable or trustworthy. Nobody really knows what he'll do in office. He talks to himself and gets advice from his brain. Does that sound sane to anyone? He's already admitted he doesn't mean what he says. It was just to get the rubes to vote for him.
Achilles,
"Talk to some actual Sanders voters. They will change your mind."
I am a Sanders voter, you dumbass. I can tell you most Sanders voters will NOT vote for Trump, but believe whatever fairy tale you want.
Kasich has, literally, zero chance of beating Hillary. And not supporting Cruz makes one question ones bona fides.
Add convention rules to Drumpf's vast wealth of ignorance.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433368/donald-trump-gop-convention-rules
Gerson is correct about the civility and behavior of the GOP establishment, which is NOT reciprocated in the behavior and incivility of the left and their establishment.
The reason for Trump is that Gerson is correct - the GOP establishment continues to works within the confines demanded by the opposition, rather than based upon any observable principals, or heck, even campaign promises. That does not result in the success of conservative ideals in legislation, nor even establishment Republican ideals in legislation. So FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF******CK THAT! Vote Trump! Or Cruz!
The WaPo does not have conservative interests at heart. They don't have mine, either.
Conservatism?
Conservatism, you say?
In America conservatism = narcissism.
Amanda said...
Amanda: "It's less than intelligent to assume every single poll is an outlier or run by media outlets."
How much less? Feel free to show your work.
Amanda: "Compared to Trump Clinton looks like Pollyanna."
It is certainly true that the persona Hillary has attempted to foist on us is complete fiction.
I should offer an apology at this point to Chuck. I know how upset he becomes when any criticism of Hillary is offered up.
Lots of people have written about Limbaugh's attitude toward the Donald that comes from a belief that the New York Liberal will bring down the GOP "establishment." That new position which puts party concerns ahead of his long-held "conservative-first" reasoning. Ian Tuttle over at NR hits the nail on the head by simply quoting from Rush's second book. "The Way Things Ought To Be."
Rush was talking about Ross Perot's "outsider" campaign.
This, ultimately, is why the issue of character is so important. Liberals wig out when character becomes an issue, because many of their candidates are of dubious character. Yet, it matters greatly to voters. The Perot “candidacy” illustrates just how important character is in choosing leaders, and I find it almost laughably ironic that it was his principles (character) that the Perotistas cited most often as the reason they supported him. He made promise after promise, then broke them all. I shouted till I was without voice that his entire campaign was based on the profound deceit of manipulating people into thinking they had created his candidacy, when in fact it was he who had orchestrated the whole thing for months before anyone knew what was really happening.
Outsiders, and those who present themselves as such, will ultimately end up as carcasses strewn across the countryside, false prophets of a false premise.
I am absolutely amazed that Rush fails to see through the uncivil trash heap that is Donald Trump. On Monday's show he stayed away talking about the Trump-engineered lies about Ted and Heidi Cruz but he somehow thinks that passing on the advice that if you want to vote for a conservative, Ted Cruz is your guy - yeah and grass is green!
suggest that this isn't, at bottom, a distinction based on legality as much as scale. Illegal immigration hurts worse - or it hurts the demand for labor - because they are so many more. But in the present situation any sort of immigration is a problem.
Yes. Legal immigration has been abused, as Southern California Edison former IT workers will explain, as they work to elect Trump.
Maybe Carly would not talk about immigration because of her devotion to H1B visas.
"I am absolutely amazed that Rush fails to see through the uncivil trash heap that is Donald Trump. "
Yes, we know you are amazed.
Blogger Achilles said...
Amanda said...
"To say "Trump has split the Democratic vote" is engaging in magical thinking. Think again."
We know you don't get out much and are not particularly bright. Talk to some actual Sanders voters. They will change your mind.
I'm going to have to quit reading her. Every time she opens her semen crusted cock holster a healthy child gets aborted and brain cells die. She makes garage look like an intellectual.
Looks like your pTb is this generation’s Andrew Jackson, also a traitor to his class who won big because no one was representing the common man. That was his moniker. So he destroyed the establishment of both parties and what remained was the scaffolding the Lincoln was able to use and it was a decade before a two party system emerged. Wager your pTb forms a new "coalition" party with only one name "The American Party" - a coalition so he can replicate the New Zealand Miracle which halved the size of government without abrogating a single union contract, just "making deals (some out of the “godfather”" until the job was done. And New Zealand boomed, just like the Roaring twenties after Harding halved the government burden on the GDP. Nobody died, or even starved.
Granted, some of those who thought they could live at the government trough forever had to go out and get a real job, increasing the GDP even more. The difference between a below the line cost (a burden) vice an above the line return, carrying your own weight and even better increasing the tax base. Oh my. A triple win-win. A three pointer. Vice the current situation in the U.S. at least as viewed out my Martian front window, the opposite of a three pointer. Not clear your pTb can pull it off, maybe Sanders can get it started, but to do this someone needs three out of four of the electorate to agree this must be done Similar to what happened in New Zealand when they ran out of other people's money, and others stopped loaning them more. Aka as what will happen to the U.S. when China and Japan smoke a peace pipe and create a Creditor's cartel given we'll owe them 10T$ plus shortly, likely more once we get a good set of books. Ask Soros who's already make a bank of England like wager. As is Goldman Sachs. Since they have all the data, and both Treasury and Commerce have forgotten how to add and subtract. Oh my. Where’s my popcorn? But here we eat pork chitterlings. Even better for shutting down the cancer causing insulin system because we evolved to eat only saturated fat not convert grains to it with our pancreas, but your FDA wants less burden on the planet, so they’ll kill as many of you as they can with well intentioned, but fraudulent results, who needs the scientific method where as much money would need to spent on invalidation as in so-called discovery. Suckers.
"Trump is as conservative as anyone that has ever found a place in the conservative church."
Citation needed. Seriously.
I honestly can't think of a single conservative thing about him. Every single thing he has said that could possibly be construed as conservative, he has spent at least twice as much time taking the opposite position in front of a different audience.
"Establishment" is appropriately in scare quotes because it's a trope. Cruz is Princeton-Harvard trained, with a Goldman Sachs wife. Trump is in the top 1% of the top 1%.
The sad thing is, unlike pretty much every other election in my lifetime, conservatives actually have a good choice this time around. Cruz is fantastic for conservatives. The only others I would put in the same category as truly capable of communicating conservatism properly are Reagan, Fred Thompson and possibly Scott Walker.
Everyone else we've been handed since Papa Bush has been nauseatingly GOPe owned. The Establishment *finally* pisses enough people off that a conservative really can make it to the nomination, and we go with *this* loser instead?
Well, it isn't over. Here's hoping the remaining states wake up before it's too late.
Bird,
I don't hate the GOPe because of where they went to school or who their wife works for. I hate the GOPe because they claim to be conservatives and then sell the principles down the river the instant it's convenient. Cruz hasn't done that, and in fact has stuck to his principles when it would have been to his overwhelming advantage to do otherwise (e.g. opposing ethanol subsidies in Iowa - and no, the fact that he won anyway doesn't change that.)
"I honestly can't think of a single conservative thing about him. Every single thing he has said that could possibly be construed as conservative, he has spent at least twice as much time taking the opposite position in front of a different audience."
The only thing I can think of is that Trump is "hated" by the left, so therefore he might be right. Of course, the ebola virus is also hated by the left, as is infant mortality and stomach pains. Which is why I won't let the opinions of the "left" determine who I do and don't support.
"I am absolutely amazed that Rush fails to see through the uncivil trash heap that is Donald Trump."
Limbaugh is just a different form of "establishment"--the punditry class. He knows if he trashes Trump he could lose a significant part of his listenership, and rather than taking a risk on principle and trying to influence his listenership, he'd rather play it safe.
Post a Comment