Uh Oh....

Weekly Standard ^ | September 28, 2015 | Bill Kristol

[COUNTrecount]

How big a problem is it that the two leading Republican candidates for president aren’t actually qualified to be president?

“Oh, come on,” you’re inclined to respond. “It’s not that much of a problem. After all, Donald Trump and Ben Carson aren’t really the leading GOP presidential candidates, are they?”

Yes, they are. Donald Trump is averaging about 30 percent in national polls and has been rising steadily since announcing his candidacy. Ben Carson started to move into double digits a month ago and is now at 20 percent. No one else is above single digits. In fact, if you take a look at the Real Clear Politics averages, you’ll find none of the others is above 7.8 percent. The ones who have briefly visited the land of double digits have since fallen back. No one has shown sustained momentum.

“Well,” you’re tempted to retort, “why should we believe that neither Trump nor Carson is qualified to be president?”

Did you watch the debate? Neither Trump nor Carson has much of a grasp of the issues. Neither has a demonstrated ability to govern. Trump is certainly the less qualified of the two, a self-regarding blowhard who’s not much of a conservative to boot, who is not now and will never be qualified to be president.

[Mr. K]

Neither of them was a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, after all...

And that’s the best kind of organizer!

[headstamp 2]

And we all know Obama was a paragon of experience and master of statesmanship.

[Kirkwood]

So sad that Bill Kristol doesn’t even meet the minimum qualifications for being a journalist.

[CaptainKip]

Oh... come on.... we don’t care about that any more...

[Captain Peter Blood]

Absolutely True, and a pretty pathetic Community Organizer at that.

I would much rather have someone who has been successful and has a great work ethic to give it a try.

Lest we forget that George W. Bush was a complete failure in the Oil business and everything else until they let him play partner with the Rangers baseball team, which is where he should have stayed.

[OwenKellogg]

[Mr. K]

And just look at what those with “the ability to govern” have done to our country?

[Kipp]

A CEO of a big company governs, in a sense. What a CEO, president, governor needs to be able to do is inspire, lead, delegate, and choose first-rate, competent help.

Have you noticed how CEOs frequently move from one company to another in different industries? That used to puzzle me. Why would a Board of Directors hire someone from the outside with little knowledge of the new company’s products? Well, it’s because the last thing a CEO needs to know is how the product is made. In fact, some experts think that CEOs brought in from a different industry make better leaders.

Trump’s company is largely involved in building. But if you asked him about current NYC building regulations or I-beam loads, he probably doesn’t have a clue. That’s because as CEO, he directs competent people under him to get the job done. It’s his job to manage and direct.

[Califreak]

That’s interesting!

I smell gope scheming.

[Vic S]

Did this clown say this about Obama when he was running for President in 2007? A community organizer is running for President and this guy said nothing?

Let’s face it, no President these days has a grasp on what is going on in the world (Clinton, Bush, Obama), but they rely on hundreds of people from the CFR and Trilateral Commission to fill their administration. That’s the real power that will be missing in a Trump Presidency.

[Vic S]

Did this clown say this about Obama when he was running for President in 2007? A community organizer is running for President and this guy said nothing?

Let’s face it, no President these days has a grasp on what is going on in the world (Clinton, Bush, Obama), but they rely on hundreds of people from the CFR and Trilateral Commission to fill their administration. That’s the real power that will be missing in a Trump Presidency.

[5th MEB]

According to my kids, I don’t qualify as a Neocon.
They say I am more of a gun toting, knuckle dragging, primitive, PALEOCON.

[COUNTrecount]

But he’s very good at D.C. cocktail parties.

[DesertRhino]

Neocon Kristol again. They are deluded if they think Trump doesn’t grasp the issues or the world. Reducing debates to a quiz show game is meaningless.

In fact, if someone DOES know every obscure world leader by name, I see it as a disqualification. It means that the candidate is a member in good standing of the world government club.
I don’t want someone qualified to hold the wheel for the NWO and its bankers.

[Charles Henrickson]

Neither Trump nor Carson has much of a grasp of the issues. Neither has a demonstrated ability to govern. Trump is certainly the less qualified of the two, a self-regarding blowhard who’s not much of a conservative to boot, who is not now and will never be qualified to be president.

Completely agree.

[hal ogen]

The repubs are traitors to their electorate and traitors to their oaths. Screw’em. Never again.

[Yosemitest]

" Neocon are idiots."

Worse than that !
Bill Kristol is NO DIFFERENT than George Will.

George Will is a DemocRAT who got SO OFFENDED by the DemocRATS, that he couldn't tolerate being associated with all those "CRAZIES" .
Now for a deeper understanding of just WHO George Will IS:

The word "neocons" is ONLY used by LIBERALS, trying to insult Conservatives.
The is no such thing as a "NEW" Conservative.
Conservatives ARE Conservative, plain and simple.

But read this"
Liberals, Conservatives, and Neocons — Learn the Difference!
March 12, 2014

Almost everybody is confused about the word "neoconservative" and its shortened form, "neocon."
I find that liberals/Democrats seem to use it as a sort of disrespectful form of "conservative,"
and probably have no idea the the words have distinct meanings.
On the other hand, I know of some conservatives who define it as "new conservatives,"
meaning people who were formerly something else, but have converted to conservatism.
Both are wrong.
As near as I can tell, "neo-" doesn't apply to any other word that way —
formerly not X, but having become X.
No, "neo-" almost always refers to an ideology that is different from the root word in a significant way.
Neoconfederates are not people who want to secede and become a separate country.
They want the ideals of the Confederacy to be applied to modern politics, more or less, but not all of them.
Neoliberal is a more vague term,
but it specifically applies to people who may have SOME of the attributes of liberals,
but who contradict liberalism in their advocacy of free trade and privatization
and other ideas usually thought of as conservative.
And, finally, neoconservatives are mostly those moderate cold war LIBERALS who defected to the Republican party when the Democrats got totally flaky with McGovern and his ilk.
Their ultimate origin, however, is not the Democratic party but the Trotskyite movement.



Jack Kerwick elaborates.

Read this:
Most "Conservatives" Are Secretly Neoconservatives
12 March, 2014, by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

A colleague of mine has drawn my attention to a Washington Post blog post — “Why Most Conservatives Are Secretly Liberals” — by a Professor John Sides, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

Sides agrees with fellow political scientists Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, co-authors of Ideology in America.
Ellis and Stimson CONTEND that
America is, at bottom, a “center-left nation,”
for while “30 percent” of self-described “liberals” are consistent in endorsing “liberal” policy prescriptions,
the same sort of consistency can be ascribed to only “15 percent” of “conservatives.”
And another “30 percent” of “conservatives” actually advance “liberal” positions.

In short, Americans may TALK the talk of “conservatism,” but they WALK the walk of “liberalism.”
That is, they favor Big Government.

Sides, Ellis, and Stimson, it seems clear to me, are “liberals.”
It doesn’t require much reading between the lines to discern this.
That they associate “liberals,” and “liberals” ALONE, with such virtues as “consistency” and such lofty ideals as “a cleaner environment” and “a stronger safety net” is enough to bear this out.
Yet in peddling the ridiculous, patently absurd notion that
“conservatives” see the media as PROMOTING “conservatism,”
the verdict regarding their “liberalism” is seen for the NO-BRAINER that it is.

There is, though, another CLUE that unveils Sides’, Ellis’, and Stimson’s ideological PREJUDICES:
They equate the term “liberalism” with a robust affirmation of Big Government.
They treat “liberalism” synonymously with its modern, “Welfare-Statist” incarnation.
There is no mention here of the fact that, originally, “liberalism” referred to
a vision that attached supreme value to individual liberty,
a vision in which government played, and had to play, a minimal role in the lives of its citizens.
And there is no mention of the fact that, if “liberalism” is now “an ugly word,”
it is because the very same socialists who made “socialism” an ugly word hijacked “liberalism” when it enjoyed a favorable reception
and visited upon it the same fate that they secured for “socialism.”

In other words, if Sides himself wanted to be bluntly honest, he’d have to admit that “liberals” are secretly socialists.

Still, though their premises are bogus, Sides and his colleagues draw the correct conclusion that
most “conservatives” are NOTHING OF THE KIND.
The truth of the matter is that
the vast majority of contemporary “conservatives” are neoconservatives.

Now, “neoconservatism” is a term that hasn’t the best reputation.
It has ALWAYS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL,
and most of its proponents have DISAVOWED IT to the point of, preposterously, condemning it as an “anti-Semitic” SLUR.
But George W. Bush and his party inflicted potentially irrevocable damage upon the label.
“Conservatism” is a more marketable label.

Nevertheless, the reality is that neoconservatism is indeed a distinct school of political thought.
Beyond this, it is fundamentally different in kind from classical conservatism.
Irving Kristol, the so-called “Godfather” of neoconservatism, an appellation that he readily endorsed, ADMITS this in noting both
that neoconservatism exists
and that “conservative” “can be misleading” when used to describe it.

Neoconservatism, you see, is THE INVENTION OF LEFTISTS like Kristol himself.
When the Democratic Party began veering too far to the Left in the 1960s, Kristol and more moderate leftists began turning toward the Republican Party.
So as TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM traditional conservatives, they coined the term “neoconservatism.”

Neoconservatives, Kristol asserts, are “not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state” —
even if they reject the “vast and energetic bureaucracies” created by the Great Society.
Neoconservatives ENDORSE “social security, unemployment insurance,” and “some kind of family assistance plan,” among other measures.
But what’s most interesting, particularly at a time when ObamaCare has DIVIDED the country, is that Kristol reminds us that
neoconservatives SUPPORT “some form of national health insurance.”

In all truthfulness, however, neither a degree in political science nor an IQ above four is required to know that
neoconservatism has always championed Big Government
for it is its foreign policy vision more than anything else that distinguishes it from its competitors.
For neoconservatives, America is “exceptional” in being, as Kristol puts it, “a creedal nation,”
the only nation in all of human history to have been founded upon an “ideology” of equality, of “natural rights.”
The U.S.A., then, has a responsibility to promote this ideology throughout the world.

And it is by way of a potentially boundless military — i.e. Big Government — that this “ideological patriotism” is to be executed.

Had the foregoing political scientists been looking in the right places, they would BE FORCED TO CONCLUDE that most “conservatives” are secretly neoconservatives.

So, you see that those WHO THEY CALL "neoconservatives", are really nothing more than the old moderate side of the DemocRATS.
It's just THAT SIMPLE .

[aquila48]

There are only two qualifications that I look at in presidential candidates...
1. Their values and how passionate they are about them
2. Their leadership skills - how good they are at convincing people to follow them.

That’s it. When it comes to issues, they’ll have plenty of experts at their disposal to fill them in. It’s his/her values that ultimately lead to his decision on the issue.

[1Old Pro]

I must have missed it when the media asked Hillary to respond to Carly’s DARE and respnd to the charges that Hillary is in favor of harvesting baby parts.....or are the media too busy feigning outrage at some Obama is a muslim comment by somewone who dared think he had free speech rights?

[woofie]

Donald Trump is is neocon