Democracy Has Prevailed.

January 22, 2016

And Now...More On Donald Trump (The National Review HATES Candidate Trump)

Take a guess where this came from:
Not since George Wallace has there been a presidential candidate who made racial and religious scapegoating so central to his campaign. Trump launched his campaign talking about Mexican rapists and has gone on to rant about mass deportation, bans on Muslim immigration, shutting down mosques, and building a wall around America. America is an exceptional nation in large part because we’ve aspired to rise above such prejudices and guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone.

Equally troubling is his idea of the presidency—his promise that he’s the guy, the man on a white horse, who can ride into Washington, fire the stupid people, hire the best people, and fix everything. He doesn’t talk about policy or working with Congress. He’s effectively vowing to be an American Mussolini, concentrating power in the Trump White House and governing by fiat.
Gotta be some lefty, right?

WRONG - it was David Boaz, executive vice president of the Libertarian Cato Institute and it's from one of TWENTY-TWO anti-Trump short pieces published at the National Review Online.

Yes, the NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE.  Running a set of pieces criticizing the candidate who has double the republican support of his party's second place candidate (as of this writing on Jan 22, this Huffington Post poll tracker has Trump at 37.2% against Cruz at 17.9%).

What are they thinking?

They really don't like Trump over there at William F. Buckley's magazine:
Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.
Some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him. Count us out. Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.
Did Sarah Palin get a pat on the head? Just asking.

And look what happened as a result:
The Republican National Committee has disinvited National Review from a presidential debate partnership following the release of an edition devoted to taking down Donald Trump, the conservative magazine reported late Thursday.

I know what you're asking.  I do.  It's this: Since when does Dayvoe read the National Review Online?

The answer is: Every now and then - it's good to get out of the echo chamber and hear what the other side (or some part of it, at least) is saying - even if you disagree with it.  So sue me.


Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...

"The answer is: Every now and then - it's good to get out of the echo chamber and hear what the other side (or some part of it, at least) is saying - even if you disagree with it. So sue me. "
Or it was posted on the progressive site Raw Story

Zeus0209 said...

Religious egomaniacs disputed helping everyone's reputations, recording inconsequential nuggets generated.

Ol' Froth said...

The patience twists near another noble leisure.