What Fresh Hell Is This?

June 4, 2016

Holy Crap! THIS Was Published In The National Review Online??

Yes, I read NRO every now and then.

Not that I agree with much of what I read (rest assured, I don't) but the writing's very good and it's a relief to actually read some (relatively) thoughtful conservative commentary in this age when the GOP's presidential nominee seems to get some of his talking points from Alex Jones.

Take a look at what Matthew Continetti (did you know he's William The Bloody's Son-in-law?) had to say about the upcoming presidential election.  I found this at William F. Buckley's magazine, though it was originally published in the Washington Free Beacon.

First his extended caveat about how he thought Romney could win in 2008:
Around this time in 2012, I believed Mitt Romney had a good chance of beating President Obama. I was not alone. The thinking went like this: Obama was unpopular. The economy was sluggish. The Democrats had been drubbed in the previous midterm. Independents did not support the president.

I scoured every new poll and piece of economic data for nuggets that confirmed my biases. Job growth was unsatisfactory, men were dropping out of the workforce, polls sampled more Democrats than Republicans — these notions reinforced my thesis. In late October, when Hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey and the president performed well in a crisis, I began to think Romney would lose. On the morning of Election Day, as I walked to my polling place in Alexandria and saw nothing but Obama-Biden signs, I knew he would lose. And by the time the election was called that night, I understood that I should have been more skeptical of his chances all along.
And then he discovers why he was wrong. It's all about the economy and the presidential approval ratings.

And then he buries The Donald with the facts:
  • Obama's approval rating is higher now than it was in 2008
  • The economy is doing better
  • On a generic ballot, Democrats fare better than Republicans
  • While Clinton IS unpopular, Trump is even more unpopular-er.
On the economy, I want to quote Continetti in full.  Remember, my friends, this is found at the National Review Online:
Part of the reason President Obama’s numbers have improved, in my opinion, is that he has been out of the news. But most of the reason has got to be the economy. It’s getting better. The average fuel price in the early summer of 2008 was $4.00 a gallon. When Obama was reelected four years later, the average was $3.61. Today the average price is $2.32.

The unemployment rate in April of 2012 was 8.1 percent. By April of 2016, the rate had fallen to 5.0 percent. Most extraordinarily, April was the seventy-fourth consecutive month of job growth under this administration. As the country has approached full employment, the tightening labor market has led to expected increases in personal income and consumer spending.

No one is saying the economy is perfect. No one is saying President Obama is wholly responsible for the improvement. What’s undeniable is that the picture has brightened since the Democrats won the elections of 2008 and 2012. Voters tend to reward that track record by sticking with the incumbent party. [All links in original.]
Something to remember when one of your Fox News watching friends tells you that Obama's ruined the country.

And then after touching on the whole Clinton/Sanders thing (and whether Sanders voters will split the Democrat's advantage) he ends with this:
It’s an unlikely scenario. But keep it in mind. Otherwise the Democrats will come home, the candidates’ negatives will cancel out, and the popular incumbent and improving economy will make Hillary Clinton the next president. Barring a stunning outside event, the question won’t be whether she’ll win. It will be by how much.
And this is The National Review Online.


Omega Cuck Supreme said...

David Brock Media Matters founder said the Washington Free Beacon is untrustworthy.

Proven by The Washington Free Beacon published a Right wing smear using illegally obtained wiretapping/eavesdropping audio dishonestly recorded by Radical Far right Anti gun safety extremists against Katie Couric and the excellent factual Gun Documentary Under the Gun over an unintentional minor editing mistake that just skipped lame answers that were so obviously wrong "solipsistic arguments".

The 8 second insignificant edit of the two-hour acclaimed above reproach Gun
Documentary Under the Gun film, that the NRA is unfairly fixated on, "did not represent editing someone’s sentences, there was no factual error, this is not a mistake that is a substantive mistake. It could have been avoided. This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”

Dayvoe said...

look. over. there (or whatever).

Ol' Froth said...

OMG that might be the singular most absurd thing Heir has ever typed!

paul scott said...

So everybody here can read and write. a good start.