October 16, 2017

"Getting named to Salon’s list of The 25 Conservatives Actually Worth Following On Twitter is either a grievous insult or..."

"... a certification that you suck. Salon is saying that you’re not a carrier of a hardcore conservative contagion, and that the liberal establishment doesn’t need to worry. At best, Salon thinks you’re no threat. At worst, it considers you a fellow traveler. And some of these selectees really are straight-up Fredocons... The simple fact is that Salon’s list, the mainstream media panels, and the editorial pages don’t want straight-up conservatives... Basically, it’s all part of a campaign to construct a safe space for triggered libs, but their ostrich strategy won’t help them.... About half of America likes what Trump is doing, and if you only read Salon or the NYT or WaPo, or watch only MSNBC or CNN, you have absolutely no clue why. That’s okay with us. We’re always pointing out how, 'That’s why you got Trump,' but they never listen.... So when Trump is re-elected in 2020, their shock and dismay will be that much sweeter."

Writes Kurt Schlichter are Townhall.

62 comments:

Gordon said...

Schlichter gets it. I don't always agree with him, but he understands why half the country likes what Trump is doing, and half are frothing at the mouth.

mccullough said...

Seems like the conservatives who support Trump most appreciate his counter-offensive against progressive culture. Nationalism is a sub theme of this counter offensive. I think they've come to realize that conservatism in the US was never going to be implemented and that the war on that was lost in the 1910s, 1930s, and 1960s. Some conservative wins on guns weren't enough to offset the overall defeat. So if the federal government is going to be big and continue to grow and pile up more debt, what should a big federal government do.

Chuck said...

Well Kurt Schlichter isn't much of a representative of conservatism. Unless you are a Breitbart nutball who thinks that pretty much all of conservatism for the last 40 years needs to be jettisoned in favor of something that nobody has ever adequately defined.

Art Schlichter has a Wikipedia page. Kurt Schlichter doesn't.


Drago said...

Mccullough nails it.

So does Sclichter.

It's not that hard to understand.

mccullough said...

Big Government Nationalists have finished off Cocktail Conservatives. Their fight is against Progressives but the Big Government Nationalists hate the Cocktail Conservatives much more. They still spend some resources makeung the rubble bounce on them.

Patrick Henry was right! said...

Alligators decrying the draining of the swamp.

Such insufferable snobs.

Hate them all, get more Trump. Win win!!!

Drago said...

LLR Chuck's timing as a representative of those who don't get it and are, intentionally or not, operationally aligned with the left and Democrat power consolidation, is impeccable.
Impeccable.

YoungHegelian said...

Yeah, I saw that list, & it seemed that the primary reason a conservative tweeter got on it is because they loath Trump. Well, there's something to be said for the Never-Trump wing of the Conservative movement, but you miss a lot if that's what you think conservatism is or should be.

Who wants to learn about a movement by following tweets, for Lordie's sake? What!? Pearls of wisdom in 140 character chunks? Nuh-uh. No, the way to learn about a political movement is by books, journalism (e.g. on-line magazine) & blogs.

You know, blogs. LIKE OUR HOSTESS....

Chuck said...

Please, Trumpkins; don't lecture anybody about smaller government.

Donald Trump has been in favor of a nationalized single-payer healthcare system. He ran on explicit promises to "cover everybody" with health care that the federal government would pay for. He has recently stated a preference that the government review broadcast licenses based on the content of news broadcasting. He wants large federal spending outlays for more military and infrastructure.

I'd be perfectly happy to converse with principled Republicans who want smaller government, based on conservative principles. I'd have severe reservations about conversing with a former Democrat like Donald Trump, about what is best for the future of conservatism.

Mike said...

Hey Chuck if you see a principled conservative send him over to exchange ideas with us. We can always use more intelligent discourse here.

Gahrie said...

I'd be perfectly happy to converse with principled Republicans who want smaller government, based on conservative principles

The problem is, that's all you and your Establishment buddies do..talk about it. When the Republicans finally control all three branches of government, nothing gets done. Trump has done more to shrink the government than the Republican Congress at this point, and I agree with you..he is not a Conservative and a Republican in name only.

rehajm said...

Drago gets it. Mccullough nails it. So does Sclichter.

Gahrie said...

It has been nearly a calendar year since the republican Party knew it would control all three branches of government. They still haven't passed a budget, they haven't repealed Obamacare, and they haven't acted on immigration.

Everything good that has happened so far has originated with Trump, with the Republican establishment dragging their feet and complaining.

Mike said...

How many "principled conservatives" are now lining up against cutting taxes because they don't want to eliminate the blue state deductions? How many of those "principled conservatives" crumbled in the face of a meaningful Obamacare vote? WTF are LLR's friends in the GOP doing to help us now?

Chuck said...

Gahrie said...
It has been nearly a calendar year since the republican Party knew it would control all three branches of government. They still haven't passed a budget, they haven't repealed Obamacare, and they haven't acted on immigration.

Everything good that has happened so far has originated with Trump, with the Republican establishment dragging their feet and complaining.

Such uninformed bullshit. Republicans can't act alone to "repeal Obamacare." First, if they simply repealed Obamacare with nothing else, they'd be violating a handful of explicit campaign promises by none other than Donald J. Trump:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/322043-president-trumps-false-promises-on-healthcare

Second, Republicans have a narrow majority in the Senate. Not the super-majority that passed Obamacare. If you want to "repeal Obamacare" it takes 60+ Senate votes. A simple majority can't do anything but reconciliation. Now, maybe a really great and skilled negotiator could do some deals to win over enough Democrat votes. Too bad we've got the shit-brained Trump, and not a skilled Capitol Hill negotiator.

"Everything good originated with Trump..." Lulz. The ONE GOOD THING -- Associate Justice Gorsuch -- quite literally "originated" with Mitch McConnell holding off the Garland nomination with his Senate majority of gloriously Establishment Republicans. Then, Leonard Leo and the GOP Establishment Federalist Society came up with Gorsuch's name as a nominee. Then, after Trump did his best to fuck up the process on his Twitter account, McConnell, Grassley, Hatch, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Sasse, Flake, Crapo, and Kelly Ayotte (high priests of the Senate GOP Establishment) got Justice Gorsuch confirmed.

Gorsuch got through because even Trump couldn't fuck it up.

mccullough said...

Gorsuch can play small ball on the Court. Probably better than Roberts, who has spent is adult life in DC. These are small victories. Roberts didn't have the guts to strike down Obamacare. Big loss for conservatives. Biggest loss since the 1960s. Gorsuch's votes, like Scalia's, cancels out Roberts on the big cases.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

KilgoreTrout: decent takes, bit heavy on the NeverTrump links, occasionally funny.

AtticusGoldfinch: he's conservative how, again? Center to center-left, maybe. What would "reform conservatism" conserve, other than Progressive gains? Pass.

Tim Carlson: Who? Sorry, don't know him.

Tim Miller: About as diehard NeverTrump as they come, Jeb! guy who acts like if it weren't for Trump the Jeb! train would have rolled right to victory. Decently sarcastic but repetitive--not much interesting stuff.

Ana Navarro: pro-amnesty voice of the "right" on CNN. Labels anyone slightly to her right as Alt-Right, quick to toss out accusations of racism. Solid vote for centrist Dems crying about immigrant kids.

Richard Painter: Who? Don't know him, sorry.

Jennifer Rubin: Seriously? Fuck off. No, honestly: fuck off. So batshit nuts during the campaign that she attacked GOP Establishment bastion National Review as being insufficiently anti-Trupm and anti-Alt-Right (accusing them of writing am editorial that "would make David Duke happy"--too much even for NeverTrump NPR commentator Jonah Goldberg). Rubin's less of a conservative than David Brooks and argues less well, too. I mean it: fuck off.

Ben Howe: Eh. He's ok. If you want someone at RedState you should go with Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) and Howe insults Repub voters more than he needs to, but he's ok.

Brandt: I'm only vaguely familiar, so possibly I'm off, but in what sense is that guy a conservative? He's anti-Trump, for sure. That does not by itself = conservative, though.

Ken White (PopeHat): Again, is Ken conservative? I think he'd say he's libertarian. He's a good read, although the really solid stuff is from a guy who used to write for his site: @ClarkHat (Welcome to the Oort) although he's not conservative either (probably more like NeoReactionary). Ken's feed's ok--he's as solid on the 1st Amend as you'll find, certainly. Probably not a good voice for Repub. politics.

Haley Byrd: Yeah, solid pick, good reporting, interesting feed. No quibbles.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Josh Jordan: Haven't read him on Twitter, used to be ok on RCP. Probably not bad now, I dunno.

Bill Kristol: Fuuuuuuuuuck you. Is this a joke? Fuck you. Who on the right listens to Evan McMuffin-endorsing Bill fucking Kristol anymore? The guy straight up said he "prefers the Deep State to the Trump State!" I judge the degree to which I should discount the opinions of conservatives I used to respect (like Jonah Goldberg) by how far they've distanced themselves from Kristol. The guy's got to be first in line for a lamppost if things kick off. Ridiculous pick.

Jonh Weaver: McCain guy, CNN talking head, pro-ACA? Yeah, that's a solid conservative pick right there. Laughable.

Tom Nichols: Eh. Maybe 1 in 20 tweets is anything interesting or good. Pretty repetitive, squabbles with right wing twitter voices a lot. Not much there.

Allahpundit: He's ok. Funny inside joke stuff sometimes, not as monomaniacal as other NT people, lots of links. Ok.


Kat Timpf: 1.) Not a conservative 2.) Not someone taken seriously by...most of the right.

Stuart Stevens: Meh. What's his big issue, his expertise area, etc? I see stuff from him with a "have you no decency!?" angle, but maybe I'm missing all the other persuasive interesting stuff.

Noah Rothman: He's ok.

Jay Caruso: Jay's good.

Rick Wilson: Jesus. Does anyone on the right follow Rick Wilson, either? Sad.

S.E. Cupp: I thought she was more of a libertarian, too. Not much substance lately as far as I have seen. Not a terrible pick.

John Podhoretz: This one's tough. He was one of my first Twitter follows, in fact. More and more it's difficult to read anything of his without HEARING the sneer in his voice, though--pretty down on Republican voters and/or anyone not sufficiently sophisticated nor anti-Trump enough. I'm not sure whom he sees as a constituency for his ideas or opinions, really. I still read him, but it's a lot less fun.

David Frum: Back to dogshit. Lord. No one on the right gives a damn what Frum has to say.

Stephen Hayes: Hayes is a good writer but so tainted by association with Kristol...just easy to tune out. Probably a good pick.

Gahrie said...

Such uninformed bullshit. Republicans can't act alone to "repeal Obamacare." First, if they simply repealed Obamacare with nothing else, they'd be violating a handful of explicit campaign promises by none other than Donald J. Trump:

So? Since when does the republican establishment give a shit about Trump?


Second, Republicans have a narrow majority in the Senate. Not the super-majority that passed Obamacare. If you want to "repeal Obamacare" it takes 60+ Senate votes.

First of all, the Republicans passed several repeal bills when Obama was in office, safe in the knowledge that he would veto them. Now when we have Trump who will sign them, we can't pass a repeal bill anymore. The Republicans should be forcing the Democrats to filibuster a repeal bill at the very least.

Now, maybe a really great and skilled negotiator could do some deals to win over enough Democrat votes. Too bad we've got the shit-brained Trump, and not a skilled Capitol Hill negotiator.

So far Trump is the only person who has managed to get the Democrats to cooperate on anything...and you attacked him for that.

So why is it Trump's fault that we haven't passed any budget bills? Why is it Trump's fault that we haven't passed any immigration bills?

What more do the Republican Establishment need?

Vote Republican in 2018! Trust us..this time we'll actually do something! Honest, for real! (Unless of course the Democrats or the MSM is mean to us)

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Gorsuch got through because even Trump couldn't fuck it up.

Trump won the election, dipshit. McConnell's maneuvering wouldn't have meant anything without a Republican in the White House.
Trump wasn't my first choice but he won. That win was a necessary condition for Gorsuch's appointment. It wasn't sufficient, but it was necessary.
Why do people have to keep pointing this out?

wwww said...

Seems like the conservatives who support Trump most appreciate his counter-offensive against progressive culture.


I have a hypothesis that this was what Trump voters wanted. They are having a lot of fun with the NFL and Weinstein stuff. I'm pretty sure it's more fun and more important to them then tax cuts or health care or any other legislation.

My take: culture and society isn't changed by the rhetoric of politicians. A politician can inject rhetoric into cable news, but he's not going to change basic attitudes of the Millennials or Gen X about marriage, jobs, sex, food, family, religion, school, music, sports, books, or video games.

Chuck said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
Gorsuch got through because even Trump couldn't fuck it up.

Trump won the election, dipshit. McConnell's maneuvering wouldn't have meant anything without a Republican in the White House.
Trump wasn't my first choice but he won. That win was a necessary condition for Gorsuch's appointment. It wasn't sufficient, but it was necessary.
Why do people have to keep pointing this out?

It is needed because you presume that "Donald Trump as nominee" was a necessary condition to defeating Hillary Clinton.

This blog has devoted itself to showing what a defective candidate Hillary Clinton was. I rather agree with that appraisal. And it doesn't affect my view of Trump, other than that I voted for him as the least-worst alternative. Any other Republican would have gotten 10,000% more enthusiasm from me.

Michael K said...

Well Kurt Schlichter isn't much of a representative of conservatism.

Yes, we know that LLRs are the real conservatives. The think tanks and money losing magazines like TWS and NRO need donors to keep them alive and writing paychecks to professional "conservatives."

The donors are interchangeable with Democrats' donors.

This is what Angelo Codevilla was writing about.

I donated more to the Romney campaign than I had ever done before. Now, I want results, not bullshit from LLRs.

Michael K said...

Any other Republican would have gotten 10,000% more enthusiasm from me.

Yeah, Evan McMuffin would have been your guy and we would be watching Hillary's USSC gut the Constitution.

mccullough said...

National Review and The Weekly Standard. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

buwaya said...

"The donors are interchangeable with Democrats' donors.
This is what Angelo Codevilla was writing about."

Yes, exactly so.

Tim Wright said...

Read the list and pleased to see that I only read one of them. Reassures me of my good judgement. It's basically a collection of useless establishment never Trump types. Will have to reasses that one, though. Approval by salon is not good. Tim

buwaya said...

"...showing what a defective candidate Hillary Clinton was. I rather agree with that appraisal. "

This is a necessary but insufficient appraisal of your problems. Your political-administrative-economic system is in serious trouble. One person more or less, no matter their position, is not the sum of your troubles, or even a significant part of them. Nor is one person the sum of your ongoing civil war.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Lifelong Republican Cuck goes to bat for Salon, surprise surprise.

We are going to primary all of your "Lifelong Republican" heroes out of office in 2018. Except John McCain. The problem of that sellout is going to take care of itself.

Sam L. said...

Kurt's last line: It couldn't happen to nicer people.

chuck said...

> Well Kurt Schlichter isn't much of a representative of conservatism.

Schlichter is a funny man and a great cheerleader, I enjoy his writing. I don't know who the "true" conservatives are these days, maybe because they deserted the cause and gave up the fight.

Sam L. said...

I haven't heard of most of these people on Salon's list. I must be doing something right.

Chuck said...

Gahrie said...
...
...Since when does the republican establishment give a shit about Trump?

I don't think they do. I don't. If were in the Senate, and if the House passed some solidly-backed provable articles of impeachment, I'd be delighted to vote for impeachment. I certainly don't want Trump impeached on anything that weak or dubious. I want him impeached on something that even Sean Hannity has to shake his head and agree with.

... the Republicans passed several repeal bills when Obama was in office, safe in the knowledge that he would veto them. Now when we have Trump who will sign them, we can't pass a repeal bill anymore. The Republicans should be forcing the Democrats to filibuster a repeal bill at the very least.

No, that's just not true. The House passed (on simple majority votes) a lot of anti-Obamacare verbiage. There were a lot of votes. Not any laws. The Senate passed just one thing that got to Obama's desk for a veto. And it was a budgetary vote, in the general manner of reconciliation. It wasn't a "repeal Obmacare" law and you are lying to the other commenters on this blog when you make that claim.

So far Trump is the only person who has managed to get the Democrats to cooperate on anything...and you attacked him for that.

What? What did Trump get Democrats to cooperate on? That's a real mystery to me. I don't know what you are talking about. The Democrats loathe Trump. Like many Republicans.

So why is it Trump's fault that we haven't passed any budget bills? Why is it Trump's fault that we haven't passed any immigration bills?

As for the budget, the House just passed the most conservative budget in 20 or 30 years, and the Senate is working on one to go to conference. As for immigration, I suppose that one big problem is the President's dumbass insistence on a "wall." But I expect that short of a Democrat filibuster in the Senate (you were the guy to claim that Trump alone was able to deal with them), Republicans can do a lot on immigration.

What more do the Republican Establishment need?

Not much, although the death of Steve Bannon would be nice.


Drago said...

"WTF are LLR's friends in the GOP doing to help us now?"

Working hard to get Stabenow reelected as a step toward returning Dems to power.

As expected.

Drago said...

Chuck takes time out from calling Obama "magnificent, praising John Harwood, calling Rachel Maddow "brilliant, excusing republicans for not voting as they had multiple times before re: obamacare, to lecture us about conservatism.

Fantastic.

Drago said...

#CNNStrongDefender: "Not much, although the death of Steve Bannon would be nice."

Looks like McCsin is first up, which will be a real blow to Democrats.

Stephen Grasberger said...

Ken White would be very surprised to hear himself described as conservative

Gahrie said...

The Senate passed just one thing that got to Obama's desk for a veto. And it was a budgetary vote, in the general manner of reconciliation. It wasn't a "repeal Obmacare" law and you are lying to the other commenters on this blog when you make that claim.

Well apparently they were lying to me.....because I was told by the Republican Party that the Republican Congress did pass Obamacare repeal bills that were vetoed, and thus we needed to elect a Republican president and a larger Senate majority so that the repeal could pass. We did...and they didn't. As usual.

As for the budget, the House just passed the most conservative budget in 20 or 30 years, and the Senate is working on one to go to conference.

Why did it take a year? Why wasn't it done in January? Does it balance the budget?What is the excuse going to be when it doesn't pass and they just pass reconciliation bills with Democratic spending priorities again?

Not much, although the death of Steve Bannon would be nice.

Vote Republican in 2018! We hate the Democrats almost as much as we hate our own voters!

Chuck said...

Drago said...
Chuck takes time out from calling Obama "magnificent, praising John Harwood, calling Rachel Maddow "brilliant, excusing republicans for not voting as they had multiple times before re: obamacare, to lecture us about conservatism.

Fantastic.

You are such an asswipe. You have been berating me for my Rachel Maddow comment for months. What an ignorant prick you are.

For the uninitiated, I went out of my way to narrowly praise Rachel Maddow (whom I don't like and who I have almost never praised otherwise) for just one interview. It was with Kellyanne Conway, and what I said at the time was that the questions were great, and also that Kellyanne Conway handled herself exceedingly well. The only loser in the interview was Trump, for whom Kellyanne just could not come up with good explanations under hard questioning.

Well, turns out that I was right. The Emmy for Outstanding Live Interview went to that interview:

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/anderson-cooper-honored-for-trump-university-story-rachel-maddow-for-kellyanne-conway-interview/344099




HoodlumDoodlum said...

This blog has devoted itself to showing what a defective candidate Hillary Clinton was. I rather agree with that appraisal. And it doesn't affect my view of Trump, other than that I voted for him as the least-worst alternative. Any other Republican would have gotten 10,000% more enthusiasm from me.

None of which at all addresses the fact that Trump's election was a necessary condition for Gorsuch's appointment. Do you think that it does? It very plainly doesn't.

Your vote at 0% enthusiasm counts as much as your vote at +10,000% enthusiasm, and based on the actual results there appear to have been enough voters with the opposite reaction (who were enthused for Trump but had not been enthused for other Repub. nominees) to give Trump the win (primary & general). Why do you NeverTrump people insist on pretending those voters don't exist? They're beneath you, of course, but they're also the only reason we don't have President Hillary Clinton today.

If you want to go back to the Republican primary and say that someone else SHOULD have been nominated or that anyone else COULD have defeated Hillary then say so explicitly. The only two that might have done so were Rubio or Cruz, and both of those would have had a tough time attacking Hillary like Trump did. If you want to roll the fucking clock back, though, you may as well say that Mitt Romney should have beaten Obama and Gorsuch could have been appointed then. That makes about as much sense as deciding now, ex-post, that anyone could have beaten Hillary so it didn't matter who the Repub. nominee was. (Since we apparently have to spell things out to have a chance of them being understood: that means none, man--it makes no sense to do that.)

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Well, turns out that I was right. The Emmy for Outstanding Live Interview went to that interview:

The true mark of a LifeLongRepublican is proudly shouting "The Media agrees with me! The Media and I agree that Rachel Maddow deserves an award for media excellence!"

Have some self respect, man.

Gahrie said...

Well, turns out that I was right. The Emmy for Outstanding Live Interview went to that interview:

Apparently the Republican Establishment and the Media Establishment have similar preferences....this is my shocked face.....

The MSM is still going to pull that football away Chuckles.....

Gahrie said...

That makes about as much sense as deciding now, ex-post, that anyone could have beaten Hillary so it didn't matter who the Repub. nominee was.

That's exactly what the Republican Establishment has been telling themselves for the last 11 months. They actually believe it too.

pacwest said...

Chuck,
When you say you are a conservative do you mean fiscal, social or other type? It would help me understand your positions better. I'm assuming from your comments that fiscal would be at the top of your list. I would consider myself an extreme fiscal conservative who, as mentioned above, has given up any hope of our government becoming fiscally responsible. Agree that Trump is about as far from a fiscal conservative as you can get. My main reason to support him falls into the 'blow the whole damn thing up' category, although I think he has done fairly well on foreign policy (I am not a globalist) and remain impressed by most of his cabinet picks. I personally am not bothered a bit by his bombast.

Re your 10,000% comment, who among the Republican candidates would you consider fiscally responsible other than Cruz (who would be getting no better cooperation than Trump)? I saw a lot of platitudes, but no real indication that any of them had the will to deal with the unfunded liabilities on the balance sheet.

I think your opinions are somewhat colored by TDS, but always enjoy them.

robother said...

Joe Scarborough must've been devastated by not making this list, after all he's done to win the heart of the fair Mika. "What am I, a potted plant?"

Yancey Ward said...

I just assume Chuck is on Salon's list, right?

Gahrie said...

Joe Scarborough must've been devastated by not making this list, after all he's done to win the heart of the fair Mika. "What am I, a potted plant?"

Has Weinstein masturbated onto him?

Drago said...

LLR Chuck takes additional time out his busy schedule defending Stolen Valor Dems and describing only those who read The New Yorker and the NYT as "informed" to continue lecturing us about "conservatism".

Fantastic.

Next up: trafficing in rumors about 11 yr olds.

Such "principled" "courage".

Oh we can learn alot from Chucky.

Not anything useful or productive or predictive of course.

But still, "alot". Like the stuff you can read off the DNC website and whatever Stelter is spewing on CNN.

That kind of stuff....but even more "lifelong republican-y".


Birkel said...

I'm confused by what policy actions Trump has taken that the entire LLR community rejects.

I know Chuck only gets passionate because of his own concerns about homosexuality, latent or otherwise, and gay marriage. He's a social conservative and fiscal liberal who thinks Trump is of a lower class (or is it caste?).

I've yet to read a single criticism of Trump on policy from a conservative point of view. It's all theatrics. It's all stage management, inside baseball, navel gazing bull shit. But while PURPLE ELEPHANTS attract all the attention, Trump has been just fine from a policy perspective.

And the lower courts are filling up nicely.

Chuck said...

Yancey Ward said...
I just assume Chuck is on Salon's list, right

I'm not on Twitter. I wonder how many of the best conservative pundits are, or how much of themselves they actually devote to Twitter.

Remember, that Salon article was all about "the best Twitter accounts" among conservatives. I don't have a Twitter account, and I don't follow any Twitter accounts. David Frum's account is pretty fabulous, from the times that I have reviewed it online. I adore Steve Hayes, and yet I never paid any attention to his Twitter account. I read him regularly in the Weekly Standard and watch him on Fox.

Most of the rest I have never heard of. Again, it's fucking Twitter.

Gahrie said...

David Frum's account is pretty fabulous, from the times that I have reviewed it online.

Now you're just fucking with us.....

Gahrie said...

who thinks Trump is of a lower class (or is it caste?).

India has Untouchables and we have Deplorables.

Gahrie said...

I mean seriously..Frum? Not even McCain thinks Frum is a Conservative...not even David Brooks thinks Frum is a conservative.

He voted for Hillary for Christ's sake!

Establishment does not equal conservative.

Tank said...

LOL, it's the Cuck List itself, and Chuck comes roaring in to demand that he be placed on the list and it be renamed "The Chuck List."

buwaya said...

The cause of the split between the Trumpian populists and the Republican establishment is a number of policy items of vast importance. This is a battle between fundamental, even existential interests that cannot be negotiated or compromised at this point -

- Immigration, H1B, H2B, foreign labor, etc.

Chuck said...

You jackass. I didn't make any claims about how conservative Davd Frum might be. And it is Salon's list, not mine. I carry no brief for Salon.

All that I said was that I loved David Frum's Twitter account. And I do. Something I hear around here a lot; "He's pissing off all the right people."

buwaya said...

Immigration is the largest.

The others include -

- trade policy, including tariffs, MFN, NAFTA, etc.
- A slew of regulatory items including copyright, patents (which prop up market valuations of Silicon Valley), banking regs that promote and preserve consolidation, etc.

Everything else is a distraction, a rhetorical weapon, a tactical position far from decisive ground.

jaed said...

Friend buwaya, I myself would say these policy matters are all applications of two more general questions:

1. Should the federal government be in the grille of the proles every time they turn around? Proles would say "get out of my face"; establishment types would say, anxiously, that it's necessary for the government to control proles, because if left to their own devices, society will simply fall apart.

2. Should the government of the United States, when it does act, do so to forward the interests of Americans? Proles would say of course it should. Establishment types would temporize at best. (You could generalize this further: is the United States worthy of existence and of the level of power it has? Or must it earn its existence and power?)

Gahrie said...

You jackass. I didn't make any claims about how conservative Davd Frum might be. And it is Salon's list, not mine. I carry no brief for Salon.

You spend an awful ot of time around here defending and supporting people you later deny defending and supporting.

openidname said...

Even the Salon commenters are calling BS.

Drago said...

"All that I said was that I loved David Frum's Twitter account."

So you're the one.

Niku said...

Here's the CORRECTED list.


SALON’S TOP 25

1.Kilgore Trout [pseudonym], @KT_So_It_Goe
2..Atticus Goldfinch @AtticusGF
3.Tim Carlson, @thecivilcomment
4.Tim Miller, @Timodc
5.Ana Navarro, @ananavarro‏
6. Richard W. Painter, @RWPUSA
7. Jennifer Rubin, @JRubinBlogger ‏
8.Ben Howe, @BenHowe
9. Brandt [pseudonym], @UrbanAchievr
10. Ken White, @Popehat
11.Haley Byrd, @byrdinator
12. Josh Jordan, @NumbersMuncher
13.Bill Kristol, @BillKristol
14. John Weaver, @JWGOP
15.Brandt [pseudonym], @UrbanAchievr
16.Allahpundit [pseudonym], @allahpundit
17. Kat Timpf, @KatTimpf
18. Stuart Stevens, @stuartpstevens‏
19. Noah Rothman, @NoahCRothman
20. Jay Caruso, @JayCaruso
21. Rick Wilson, @TheRickWilson ‏
22. S.E. Cupp, @secupp
23. John Podhoretz, @jpodhoretz
24. David Frum, @davidfrum
25. Stephen Hayes‏
Verified account @stephenfhayes