Featured Post

Towards a Pro-America, Pro-West Foreign Policy

For years, I have written in this humble blog that Obama and his team have created an unprecedented foreign policy disaster. The disaster be...

Friday, August 12, 2016

Never Trump: Conservative Republican Jihadi Suicide Bombers

Bit of a rant. Written after spending a few hours at the Orange Country Fair in the heat looking at livestock--my wife has a friend who trains oxen . . . long story. Forgive any irrationality. But, I must say, I was impressed by the oxen. Massive, powerful, but very gentle beasts. Quite beautiful, actually.

As with most other nerds with no life, I spend most of my time unable to stay away from the news. An apparently constant feature of that "news" consists of tales of "Republicans" and "Conservatives" who refuse to vote for Trump and, in some cases, will even vote for Clinton. The New York Times recently published a letter signed by fifty so-called "G.O.P. National Security Officials" questioning Trump's "temperament" to be president. The letter is extraordinary for a number of reasons, but not the ones the liberal/progressive media promote. Most, not all, of the signatories are not Republicans. They form part of the rotating crew of first- and second-tier "experts" who float around Washington and land jobs with various administrations, Republican and Democrat. This group tended to get better jobs under Republican administrations, but they are very much part of the well-established cadre of "experts" who make a nice living hanging around Washington and waiting for invites into the inner sanctum of power. These are not some sort of conservative core or corps finding the polices recommended by Trump to be dangerous. They are talking about "temperament" and almost everything they criticize Trump for allegedly suffering, one could ascribe to Obama in triple. Read the letter, you'll see what I mean when you substitute "Obama" for "Trump." I find remarkable that they cannot bring themselves to criticize the Obama-Clinton foreign policy that produced a remarkable series of disasters for America and the West. I suspect that some of them might resent that they were not called upon to form part of the Trump campaign, and see Trump blowing up their perceived entitlement to return to power with a GOP victory. Many, I further suspect, had counted on a Jeb Bush administration.

That said, however, there are plenty of self-proclaimed "conservatives" and "Republicans" (see my post on this) seeking what Bethell long ago labelled that "strange new respect," an award given to,
once-reliable conservatives who won liberal praise by adopting liberal policies. Of a sudden, an erstwhile Neanderthal would be treated in the Washington Post as someone who was no longer “simplistic” and “shrill” but rather a figure who had “grown” and showed himself to be “nuanced.”
We've seen prominent establishment "conservatives" such as George Will, Mitt Romney, and others (many of whom I respect) make clear their distaste for Trump. Look, one of the great things we still have in America is that you can vote for or against anybody you want, and, in fact, you do not even have to vote. Each person has the right to decide how or whether to employ his or her vote. No argument with that.

To argue, however, that it is better for Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt major party candidate in our history, to win because Donald Trump is not a "true" conservative or doesn't have the "temperament" is an outrageous argument, in my humble view. The damage that a Clinton administration could and would do to the USA over the next four to eight years is almost incalculable. The Supreme Court would be transformed completely, for example, into a tool of the Progressive movement and alter forever the face and character of this country. The first and second amendments, to name just two, would be gutted, and government would have nearly carte blanche to intrude into our lives in ways not yet imagined. Massive deficits, exorbitant taxes, unlimited immigration, climbing crime rates, growing poverty, weak foreign policy, and a deep, deep demoralization of the nation would result.

I heard many of the same arguments on Trump used when Reagan ran. Reagan, of course, was not a "true" conservative, but he proved a damn sight better for the country than would have another four years of Jimmy Carter. We heard all the same memes about foreigners horrified by the possibility of a Reagan presidency; that war would follow his election to office; that the economy would drown in an ocean created by the false promises of trickle-down economics, etc. It was all nonsense, of course, but that doesn't stop the Progs from recycling their talking points--many of those points, in fact, were originally drafted in the 1930's in Moscow.

If these "conservative" mandarins want to blow themselves up, that is their right. I just don't want my country to be the collateral damage.

I will vote for Trump.

38 comments:

  1. Actually I would be more inclined to compare them to the eunuchs of the Manchu Dynasty than mandarins. This simply proves what this rebellion is all about. There hasn't been a true two party system in forty years Reagan was an outlier and really never one of them. There is in truth only cloud people and dirt people, as some sites phrase it, and one Party in service to the former only.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The prbolem is that Trump is no Reagan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point is everyone said the same kinds of things about Reagan in 1980 that they are saying about Trump now and it turned out pretty damned well. If you can see into the future and know for a fact what Trump will do as President, please also gaze into your all-seeing crystal ball and share with us some tips on what stocks to invest in over the next 4 years.

      Delete
    2. Reagan had decades of coherence advocating for conservatism and in the main delivering on those principles.

      Trump has a clear record of scams, lying, being liberal and being a conspiracy kook. Trump is a Democrat trying to lose.

      Delete
    3. How ironic that someone using the name "Howard Roark" is against a real-life Howard Roark, because he's swallowed the MSM kool-aid and likes the taste.

      Do you prefer the CNN-flavor or the NYT-flavor? (They all taste like the same crap to me, but tastes differ.)

      Delete
    4. Your real life HR bought political favors from NY local govt for a 40-yr tax abatement on his properties (crony capitalism)...no wonder you want to talk about HR rather than my earlier comments.

      Your real life HR is famous for saying anything, lying, and BS'ing ...unlike the fictional HR.

      Delete
    5. Reagan had decades of coherence advocating for conservatism

      Reagan changed his registration to Republican in 1962 and ran for Governor of California in 1966.

      Unlike Trump, Reagan had had an interest in public affairs for 3 decades 'ere challenging Gerald Ford. However, Reagan was, prior to 1952, a standard issue (non-Southern, non-Machine) Democrat and union official. He changed his mind gradually over the next decade as a consequence of the speaking tours he'd gone on while working in the PR apparat of General Electric and also under the influence of his father-in-law, Loyal Davis. At the time of his first run for the White House, he'd been a public advocate for starboard causes for about 12 years.

      Delete
    6. Your real life HR bought political favors from NY local govt for a 40-yr tax abatement on his properties (crony capitalism)..

      Real estate development is heavily regulated by local government. Navigating the obstacles placed in your way by civil servants and politicians is part and parcel of being able to prosper, especially in high-density zones like Manhattan (which also has aggressive tenants' associations).

      Delete
    7. Trump hired thugs to evict apartment tenants who complained his bldgs did not have working AC/ heat...because Trump cares about the working guy or something.

      What again is conservative about a special 40-yr tax abatement? Hiring illegal aliens?

      Trump is a con. Trump is the problem- not a solution.

      Delete
    8. William, what they said about Reagan is beside the point. (BTW, it was different. Nobody said he wasn't a true conservative, for example.) Trump's problems are largely of his own making. The only argument for him is that Hillary is worse.

      Roark--this one--is right. He does not mention, however, that Hillary is worse.

      Eskyman, your argument is entirely ad hominem. Sharpen it.

      Art Deco, "Navigating the obstacles" is whitewash for corrupt practices, admittedly universal in New York real estate development but not on that account legal or moral.

      Delete
  3. Or perhaps, it was the other way around?!
    ...Silly assertions aside anon. . .
    how fortunate we sons and daughters of the
    American Republic are Today--to have a candidate
    vying for the Bulley Pulpit who has the hutzpuh
    to spit in both faces of the DEMiGOPe political
    FOPs who masquerade as American Leadership!

    I too will cast my vote for Trump, heck,
    I'll even order a signed hardcover copy
    of an out of print edition of his best
    seller "The Art of the Deal"! I'll leave
    it as a legacy lesson in politics and
    entrepreneurship for my progeny.
    On Watch~~~
    "Let's Roll"



    ReplyDelete
  4. To vote for the woman with a bunch of mortal sins because her opponent has some venial sins is, in itself, a mortal sin.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh I love an agricultural show: the Royal Highland Show and the East of England Show in Britain; the RAS and the "Ekka" in Australia.

    But the point of them, dear Mr Mad, is to distract you from life's woes. There will still be beautiful beasts when that harridan is in her grave.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Although not American, therefore not able to vote or donate, the AMerican people have been electing "true" and vocally so Caonservatives/Republicans to the Senate and House of Reps for over 8 years, to give them a majority in both houses. And what have they done? NOTHING.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty much true, I am afraid.

      Delete
    2. But they gave eloquent speeches about repealing Obamacare!! (while they failed to even stop the unilateral executive enactment of the Iran deal)

      How bad has the GOP been at handling their majority in congress?
      Horrific.
      Indistinguishable from democrats except that they wanted to get reelected badly enough not to push *more* stupid Obama socialism.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    3. As was pointed out somewhere this week, the GOP Congress is even voting to increase the most radical agency of Obama, the Office of Civil Rights in the D o J. This is insanity unless you see them all as members of Codevilla's Ruling Class.

      Delete
    4. Angelo makes some good points.

      Delete
    5. They've blocked the President from signing a bunch of bills - that's why the President's resorted to Executive Orders.

      Delete
    6. Congress does not "block the President from signing bills", a President can only sign bills congress has passed. So yes, they haven't passed stupid bills that even *more* socialist. They've gotten *no* cave whatsoever from Obama. As Obama told Boehner "I get that for free."
      While I personally think Cruz was grandstanding in his attempt to bring down Obamacare (mainly because I just can't help but think he's lying to me every time he speaks), nobody in the GOP attempted to make a concerted attempt to get rid of it.
      Heck, I'll bet if scotus had actually had a spine and invalidated the 'mandate', the GOP congress would've passed the 'fix' for it.
      Spineless do-nothings, 'moderates', 'good guys', nobody carrying a torch for conservativism there, it's just dead.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    7. Ye gods! Michael K. is right

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438922/republicans-fund-political-correctness-czars-office-civil-rights


      An aspect of this was turning over the budget and appropriations committees to a pair of krill who have been suspended in the foetid waters of Capitol Hill since 1972 and 1980, respectively. Still, what's the rank-and-file's excuse for putting them where they are?

      Delete
    8. I beg your pardon. Conservatives--I don't mean "no true Scotsman" true conservatives, whatever that means, but regular old self-declared conservatives--have at no point been a majority of the Republicans of either house of Congress.

      Where were our newfound "conservative" voters when conservative Republicans tried to primary other Republicans over the last 20 years? And when there was a shot, who got nominated? "I am not a witch," forsooth!

      What unconservative Congressional Republicans have done, mostly, is frustrate the designs of the Democrats. No doubt with majorities they should have done much more. Without majorities they will do still less. Nice job, Trumpsters!

      Delete
  7. I dislike Trump.

    But I will have no part in electing a criminal under federal investigation, who believes in no restrictions on abortion, who will be an unimpeachable President (since the Dems already showed that they will NOT impeach a Clinton), who will name four or five young liberal justices who will rule the country for 40 years, who has actively endangered national security and used her post as Secretary of State as a slush fund.

    So I'll vote for Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hillary being unimpeachable if elected seems likely. But to expand upon the words of the great Patrick Henry: "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third" his Washington, and Hillary Clinton--

      Delete
    2. Shrillary Shrooooo has her The Donald--her plant, who found he had a chance against her and took it.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, a vote for Trump is a vote for Clinton. He's not taking votes away from her, he's fracturing the conservative movement, and serious candidates are being asked to answer for his unseriousness.

      As "the Hamilton Rule" states, "If we must have an enemy at the head of government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible."

      I support that rule. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

      Delete
  8. He isn't tied in Indiana because of "Never Trump"

    It's because he's a con man who isn't even trying.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ..."serious candidates are being asked to answer for his unseriousness." - Rumors Guild

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
    Sorry Guilda, But That's about the silliest remark I've heard since the GOP primaries, and the 15 stooges kicked off their comedy act! And, if any "movement" was "fractured", it happened when Marko Rubio and Ted Cruz, were dropping duplicitous turds in your imaginary CONSERVATIVE outhouse! And as for you Anony Nony, you couldn't recognize a "con man" even if it was printed on his Bidness card! Sheeesh, where are all these CCF sock-puppets manufactured anyways, CHINA?!
    On Watch~~~
    "Let's Roll"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, what answer can there be to airtight logic like that?

      Delete
  10. To my mind, more important than electing Trump is the complete and absolute necessity of ensuring that Congress remains under Republican control.

    Only then can a brake be put on the worst impulses of a president. And for those so inclined, don't get all irate and preachy about how we've had a do-nothing GOP Congress. In fact, it has prevented Obama from consolidating his legacy -- to the point that he's had to resort to executive orders and political legerdemain of doubtful constitutionality, as court after court have affirmed by their slapdowns -- to accomplish what successes he has managed.

    Realistically, Trump is already a lost cause in November. If the Republican Congress survives, albeit with Hillary in office, it won't be a perfect situation, but we'll still have a pretty good chance of keeping a lid on armageddon until the 2020 election.

    But if Hillary wins and Trump takes the down-ticket Republicans with him to defeat, dark days are ahead. That's why all my campaign support this year is going to the GOP's House and Senate candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like they stopped Obama ... ???

      Delete
  11. Ummm...aren't these people the very same people who helped create the problems we're having now to begin with?
    and their words mean shit to anyone? how? or why?
    laughable if not so pathetic!

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's interesting to see the appearance of the Never Trump commenters all over the internet. Many are "Anonymous." Others have empty facebook pages or facebook pages that look fake.
    Hmmmmm....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Affirm MK! Minions of socialist useful idiots shaking pitchforks! And, their current anti-Trump fusilade exactly mimics the broadside propagandist assaults employed against the "Tea Party" by the Rats & Rinos and other borderline socialist maniacs!

      The solution for the genteel tea partiers was not to change their message, methods, or political objectives!

      The mainstream T-party critics meanwhile were moaning that there must be a defined/annointed Leader of the Tea Party! The better to kill it no doubt! Their strength though was in the committed nature of the collective herd, not in some titular head or hat!

      So too with Trump's Trumpeters, no matter what the progressive crowd and their media mavens throw at the Tycoon, none of it sticks to him or his dedicated herd of Long-HORNS! My bet, they'all show up on Election Day and pull the proverbial lever for the Donald J. Trump, if for no other reason than, he just had the stones to tell it like it is! Head'em up Move'em out! Rowdy!

      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

      Delete
    2. The most insufferable crew are business Republicans. Someone wading into the labor force at the time Richard Nixon was returned to office in 1972 is now at retirement age. During one man's entire work life, there have been 10 presidential elections. Two concluded with incumbents returned to office. In one case, they nominated Ronald Reagan, a man the Capitol Hill nexus was willing to work with while he was in office but had regarded with disdain previously. The other seven times, they nominated the donors' choice (NB, John McCain's cash haul during the 2008 primaries was 3x Mitt Romney's). The record thus far: 5 losses, 1 win while losing the popular vote, and 1 win while doing something out-of-character and hanging the Democratic nominee's vanity around his neck like a rubber chicken.

      This year, business Republicans donated masses of cash to Jeb Bush so he could make a bonfire with it. After a record like the foregoing, you'd think maybe business Republicans would ponder what's gone wrong and not be treating everyone else to doses of their ready superciliousness. Well, you'd think wrong. These people are like auto industry executives ca. 1975.

      Delete
    3. @Art Deco: Yes. This. The Jeb Bush backers did as much to create Donald Trump as anyone else did.

      Delete
    4. Art, I hate to be the one to tell you these two dirty little unsecrets, but (1) "Money is the mother's milk of politics," (Jesse M. Unruh) and (2) the general run of business donors on both sides of the aisle aren't in it to vindicate the Republic as they understand it, but for business advantage. Cash, lucre, pelf. Adults are expected to know that already. We work around it as best we can.

      Delete
  13. They are talking about "temperament" and almost everything they criticize Trump for allegedly suffering, one could ascribe to Obama in triple. Read the letter, you'll see what I mean when you substitute "Obama" for "Trump." I find remarkable that they cannot bring themselves to criticize the Obama-Clinton

    See Charles Fried's remarks on Sarah Palin in 2008 and then contemplate who was the Democratic presidential nominee. Our elites reveal themselves to be fundamentally superficial, time and again.

    ReplyDelete