Posted on 01/20/2018 1:38:37 PM PST by Kaslin
Some learned and accomplished folks, who deservedly command a great deal of respect and admiration, view the Trump presidency in an entirely different light from what millions of Americans see.
To these sage and wizened critics, the president's persona outweighs his achievements; his flaws overwhelm his strengths and, by extension, hamstring his ability to move an agenda forward.
I believe that those harboring an anti-Trump mindset would do well to consider that the election of Trump was never about the man – it was not the "cult of personality" that the major media and the establishment Republicans portrayed it to be, but rather more like an Arthurian drawing of sword from stone.
Trump wisely shouldered the long ignored mantle of champion for those of us who have grown intensely sick of the miasma of molestation surrounding our present citizen-government relationship.
In truth, it could've been anyone. Conservatives have been pleading with the Republican Party for decades to put forth a candidate willing to assume this role, and for decades, the Republicans have refused.
If not for the insurgent candidacy of Ronald Reagan (who upended his presidential race in much the same way as Trump) we would have seen an unbroken line of feckless leadership for nearly a century.
Only the most willfully ignorant among us would deny that the trendline of our nation has bent inexorably to the left for that entire time. While occasional blips occurred, none truly reversed the course. Not even Reagan could reverse the flow of the left's statist current.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The “learned and accomplished folks” referenced herein have never accomplished anything in the real world.
David French, Brett Stephens, Rick Wilson, other National ReSpew columnitts.
Bill Kristol is a cryptoDemocrat, so we won't count him. :-)
McClellan ran against Lincoln in 1864. Flake will attempt to run against Trump.
Fluck the Never Trumpers like Flake.
Republican neverTrumpers are deep state NWO Socialists.
That’s all there is to it.
They also appear to be extremely tied to amnesty as well
Excellent!
Flake will probably make big money as a lobbyist, but he’ll campaign for a challenger if Trump has one.
You have to understand - with a few exceptions like Victor Davis Hanson, the National Review crowd feels much better being in the minority with no real power. That way, they can stand as the loud, although utterly ineffectual voice of conservative opposition and obtain major contributions from conservatives upset about the direction of the country. They are also quite literate, so it is easier for them to wrangle an nvitation to a Manhattan/DC/Beverly Hills fancypants dinner as the token conservative whom they can say they like and are balanced in their invites since they don’t accomplish anything, policy-wise. It also helps them to get on the tube as the token “conservatives” - if you look at the mainstream “news” coverage of Election Night 2016, none of the “conservatives” were Trump supporters, if anything, those identified as “conservatives” were much more vitriolic in their comments on Trump; hence, David Frum at CBC, the Republican “consultants” like Mark Murphy, Nicole Wallace, Rick Wilson, Stuart Stevens from the Romney campaign, Irving Kristol’s son, George Will, etc.
Trump won because he was brash and unafraid and didn’t let the MSM and Democrats define him. Now some people are upset that he is brash and unafraid.
The “prominent NeverTrumper” Joe Herring refers to is Jonah Goldberg.
National Review being edited by Jonah Goldberg mirrors The United States being governed by Barack Obama.
In both cases a farce and a mockery of what they have been put in charge of.
Exactly. That's why I call them "loservatives"...
Of course McClellan was a Democrat, so he wasn’t challenging his own party’s incumbent.
The aptly-named Flake will become another trivia question like John Anderson challenging Ronald Reagan.
Donald Trump is not, by any measure of “classical” definitions, either a conservative or even a libertarian. He is a fervent NATIONALIST with an almost holy reverence for the rights, responsibilities, duties and ideals that make up that great standard for all humanity, the United States of America. The “shining city on the hill”, a metaphor for the beacon from which the light of personal freedom and liberty to express oneself openly, and pursue the personal path to happiness (code words for right to enjoy property ownership) shines forth, is the embodiment of that standard.
So he talks a little rough, and is blunt to the point of being nearly rude at times. Hell, people, he is from QUEENS, and even other New Yorkers understand what that means. But rude, crude and sometimes lewd - I. DO. NOT. CARE. Trump is my President, and I admire what he has done, warts and all.
Baby Jonah is a fockery?
That fits.
There was a time when National Review featured writers who really were accomplished and literate. Writing for NR was just a sideline for them. None of them were “celebrity conservatives” except for WFB himself.
But for me that ended about the time that Reagan left office. The great writers whom I once enjoyed were either dying off or moving on from NR. It became a mouthpiece for Bush Republicans and other worthless establishment shills. Chronicles was where I found something worth reading.
Excellent!
There is no better face of the Republican Establishment than that sour-faced, chinless popinjay, George Will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.