Friday, January 22, 2016

Too Good Not To Share

Found in the comments section at Weasel Zippers by poster ConcernedOne.


  1. Really? All those good people?

    I greatly respect 99.9% of those names. They have a valid point; agree or not, they're entitled to their opinion and - unlike the left - I don't want to stifle those opinions. We have subscribed to the NR for many years. Gee, I guess that makes me a cuck, what ever the hell that is.

    Take a look at the sewer that is the comments section of The Hill, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Politico, etc. It's my guess that the Republicans, as usual, are prepared to snatch defeat out of the hands of victory.'s the rub...if you aren't a full-throated Trump supporter, you're an establishment hack...

  2. Forgive me florrie, I meant no offense to you (or any other R). I'm just fed up with these guys. They have led us into defeat with McCain, and then with Romney. I listened to them, and I voted for McCain and Romney, even though I disliked them, because I DID believe in unity. I listened to the Tea Party, and voted for their candidates (most of whom are HUGE disappointments).

    Trump is shaking things up. That's a good thing, IMHO. What we've been doing...isn't working. We can't afford to botch another election.

    I don't think a person is "an establishment hack" if they don't support Trump. But what if he ends up being the R nominee? Will everyone (including the NRO staff) get behind him? Or will the party fracture because the GOPe aren't getting their way?

    I love ya florrie. My posts are never personal. I'm just venting frustration at the broken status quo.

  3. The latest buzz is that the Establishment is more comfortable with Trump than with Cruz.

    One could certainly make a case that Cruz is more authentically "small government, liberty minded" than Trump - which is why the Establishment will never back Cruz.

    NR sees itself, rightly or wrongly, as the keeper of the true lineage of Reaganism. I cannot imagine William F. Buckley backing Trump, so it's no surprise that the magazine that is is legacy is coming out against Trump.

    Conservatism per se doesn't interest me; neither does doctrinaire Libertarian ideology.

    I find myself in this camp because, quite frankly, the political and cultural classes have gone full pinko statist fucktard. That, all that, and precisely that.

    So it must be among the conservatives and the small government types that I find my candidates.

    My issue with Trump, fwiw, isn't "conservatism" or really any policy, it's that I find his temperament ill suited to the Presidency. If not for the current president, it would be hard to find someone in his league on the narcissism scale.

  4. If not for the current president, it would be hard to find someone in his league on the narcissism scale.

    My view from Canada (for what it's worth). Trump openly embraces his narcissism. Obama uses his to sneer at the masses (or in Obamaspeak, folks).

    1. Well, thats a very fair point. I get what you're saying, and I can see how it makes Trump a more attractive personality. I'd much rather hang out with Trump than Obama.

      That said - narcissism is narcissism. I think Trump is naive about statecraft. It's possible to be an outsider and a reformer without being naive - Reagan showed that.

    2. Are you saying that Trump is naive?

    3. Okay, forget my question I just re-
      read your comment.

    4. "narcissism is narcissism. I think Trump is naive about statecraft. It's possible to be an outsider and a reformer without being naive - Reagan showed that."

      So, who do we have to vote for? (Rhetorical for me, obviously I can't vote in a US election).

    5. Trump may be a narcissist, but he possesses a trait that Obama doesn't; empathy. That's a biggie in my book. He listens, he usually shows respect to people around him regardless of social status, and he's savvy enough to surround himself with other smart cookies. (I'm not cheerleading him, I'm just giving credit where credit is due.)

      Of course, compared to Obama, a ham sandwich has more leadership qualities.

    6. Also fair points lr. I'd spot him the capacity to hire smart advisors.

      I wish I could get comfortable with the idea that he would *listen* to them when it mattered. And that he could keep his mouth shut when that mattered, too.

  5. I don't know, this Gavin McInnesarticle set off a lot of oh yay buttons in my happy space.

  6. A rule of nature: The likelihood of a comment disappearing is in direct proportion to the length of that comment. Arghhhhh! Let’s see if I can reconstruct my tome that disappeared into the ether.

    So Trump is a narcissist. Lyndon Johnson used to have his seats higher than anyone else’s so that he would be looking down on anyone he met with. I doubt that there are few who make it to that level without being a narcissist. Why is Trump being called out on it? Might it have something to do with his refusal to kiss up to those who feel they should be kissed up to?

    A little look a history. Richard Nixon was highly condemned for his recording of meetings in the Oval Office. Democrats and the press pretty much spoke of such activities were the epitome of evil. I was at a function in 1979 and heard Frank Markowitz say that no Democrat would ever do such a thing. So why did Nixon do it? LBJ told him (and showed him how) he and Kennedy had done it. Over the years, information has come out – rarely and little by little – about the Kennedy recordings. But Nixon was crucified for it, by the same people who either did it themselves or covered for those who did do it.

    The Republican Elite says we need to reach out to the middle. How many times has this happened since the ‘90’s: the strong conservative movement controls the off-year elections and cleans house on the Democrats. Then, come the Presidential election, the “big boys” take over. They give us Dole; they give us McCain; they give us Romney, and we get out clocks cleaned. Why should the “middle” vote for Democrat Lite when they can have the real thing?

    I made this comment on Weasel Zippers (about this same National Review article):

    “A few months ago I heard Michael Medved for the first time in a long time. This was when the house was threatening to defund Planned Parenthood. He was saying that it would be wrong for the Republicans to fight for that because it would lead to a shut-down of the government. Medved claimed that this would give Obama what he wanted, because he could blame the shut-down on the Republicans. His solution was to pass the budget that Obama wanted, including funding for Planned Parenthood. So, according to Medved, the way to NOT give Obama what he wanted was for the Republicans to NOT stand on principle and to give Obama what he wanted.”

    I am sorry, but this does not make sense to me. Yes, Trump is an outsider. So what? All the insiders have done is run away with their tails between their legs. Reagan was a different person in a different time. The Republican establishment at that time was in shambles in the wake of the Nixon situation topped off by the Ford pardon. Reagan was also running against a certified incompetent incumbent. This year we are going to elect the replacement for a President with a permanent “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Just to criticize the man is considered heresy. And the Democrats’ Anointed One this year is a woman. IF Hillary does not get the nomination or win the election it is because of the Democrats, not because of anything the Republican establishment has done.

    During World War II, Winston Churchill famously said, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Look at Trump that way if you will. I lean towards Cruze, myself. But just remember, the Republican establishment is not your friend.

    1. Well said Matt, and I agree completely. I'm happy that the Republican establishment is very unhappy with this primary season.

      I could get over Trump's personality. I've gotten over worse in my five decades ;)

      My worry is that Trump will do business with the Mitch McConnells and Rence Priebii of the world in ways that Ted Cruz will never. And so as long as Cruz has a shot, I think he's worth supporting.

      * plural of Priebus

    2. I like Cruz. It is interesting how many issues are being brought up against him: is he a "natural born citizen, he left off a loan from his campaign finance reports, etc. When you see such scrutiny applied to someone by the political and media elite, the recipient of that scrutiny may just be someone worth strongly considering.

      I like "Priebii." We should adopt it's as Table shorthand, if we can remember how to spell it.