Donald Trump

National Review Comes Out 'Against Trump'

Conservative flagship publishes group hit piece featuring Glenn Beck, Ed Meese, Thomas Sowell, Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, David Boaz, the Editors, and more

|

What was that HST line about John Lennon's "Power to the People" again? ||| National Review
National Review

"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," reads the house editorial in National Review's latest issue, which went live tonight. With that mostly accurate observation (is it really a consensus?), post-war conservatism's flagship magazine decisively preferences its withering anti-Donaldism during this campaign season over its persistent sympathy with his anti-immigrant rants, while also continuing its long tradition of carrying out ideological purges in the service of attempting to define what conservatism means.

So what are the arguments against? Glenn Beck points out that Trump, unlike many of the Tea Partiers who support him, was a strong supporter of the post-financial crisis bailouts:

When conservatives desperately needed allies in the fight against big government, Donald Trump didn't stand on the sidelines. He consistently advocated that your money be spent, that your government grow, and that your Constitution be ignored.

The charge of insufficient and too-recently-minted conservatism is one of the package's main themes, echoed therein by Erick Erickson, First Things Editor R.R. Reno ("By comparison, Hillary Clinton is a principled public figure"), Dana Loesch, Katie Pavlich, Cal Thomas, and L. Brent Bozell III ("Trump might be the greatest charlatan of them all").

There are many such insults, sure to prove tonic for both fan and hater alike. Mona Charen wonders, "Who, except a pitifully insecure person, needs constantly to insult and belittle others including, or perhaps especially, women?" Novelist Mark Helprin says, "He doesn't know the Constitution, history, law, political philosophy, nuclear strategy, diplomacy, defense, economics beyond real estate, or even, despite his low-level-mafioso comportment, how ordinary people live." Club for Growth President David McIntosh decries "the ramblings of a liberal wannabe strongman who will use and abuse the power of the federal government to impose his ideas on the country." And William Kristol turns his nose up at "two-bit Caesarism" while musing, "Isn't Donald Trump the very epitome of vulgarity?"

Never learn not to hate. ||| Reason
Reason

Some libertarian arguments are presented as well. Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz argues that "Trump's greatest offenses against American tradition and our founding principles are his nativism and his promise of one-man rule." Federalist Publisher Ben Domenech states succinctly that "the case for constitutional limited government is the case against Donald Trump."

While there are some positive nods toward Trump's immigration policies, I was gratified to see this comment (given the venue) by radio host Michael Medved:

Building a yuuuuge wall along the southern border hardly qualifies as a "cautiously moderate" approach, nor would uprooting 11 million current residents (and, presumably, millions more of their American-citizen children and spouses) in the greatest forced migration in human history.

And former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey cuts to the quick on the real estate mogul's foreign policy bluster:

Trump says he would order the military to kill the families of terrorists. That would be a direct violation of the most basic laws of armed conflict, which require that deadly force be used only when required by military necessity, under circumstances that allow distinction between military and civilian targets, and when incidental damage to non-military targets is proportional to the military advantage gained. A military that adhered to the laws of armed conflict would necessarily disobey such an order; if it followed the order, both the person who gave it and those who followed it would be subject to prosecution for war crimes.

Amidst the barbs and eye-rolls also come the occasional whiff of despair. John Podhoretz pre-laments that, "Should his election results match his polls, he would be, unquestionably, the worst thing to happen to the American common culture in my lifetime." And Thomas Sowell plays the H-card: "The actual track record of crowd pleasers, whether Juan Perón in Argentina, Obama in America, or Hitler in Germany, is very sobering, if not painfully depressing."

Trump's Twitter feed as I write this is filling up with anti-NR vitriol:

National Review is a failing publication that has lost it's way. It's circulation is way down w its influence being at an all time low. Sad!

Very few people read the National Review because it only knows how to criticize, but not how to lead.

The late, great, William F. Buckley would be ashamed of what had happened to his prize, the dying National Review!

There's one thing this dispute symbolizes, aside from the ongoing (and long-running) battle for the soul of the modern Republican Party. And that is this: Many or even most of the people who make a living working in politics and political commentary—even those who think of themselves as outsiders, such as nonpartisan libertarians—inevitably begin to view their field as one dedicated primarily to ideas, ideology, philosophy, policy, and so forth, and NOT to the emotional, ideologically unmoored cultural passions of a given (and perhaps fleeting) moment. Donald Trump—and more importantly, his supporters, who go all but unmentioned here (Ben Domenech is an exception)—illustrate that that gap is, well, yuuge.

Yes, Trump is nobody's conservative, but it's not at all clear that many voters really care about such things. His rise is a rebuke to the stories that political commentators have long told themselves, and to the mores they have long shared even while otherwise disagreeing ideologically with one another. You can despise Donald Trump (and oh Lord I do), and appreciate National Review's efforts here, while simultaneously wondering whether his forcible removal of a certain journalistic mask might also have some benefit.    

Advertisement

NEXT: Georgia Cop Who Killed Unarmed, Naked Vet Indicted for Murder by Grand Jury

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. (aka) another endorsement for Trump.

    1. National Review. Make me laugh.

      Readership = 4.3 people.

      When Trump gets through with them the readership will be a minus 78 people.

      And that’s with them PAYING people to read the damn rag.

      1. I heard the national review endorsed paul ryan and is heavy in the bush camp. I don’t read the rag so I don’t know for sure.

        1. Sorry, but it’s obvious you don’t read it. No heavy endorsements for Bush or Paul Ryan. Perhaps you’re confusing NR with the Wall Street Journal?

  2. “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,”

    For starters, I find the Donald to be a blow-hard narcissistic ignoramus, and hope he never holds so much as dog-catcher office.
    But a “broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP” is pure fantasy. What “conservatism”? Telling gays they’re icky? Promoting defense spending when we already spend enough to defend what should laughingly be called “the free world”?

    1. There’s no shortage of people who claim to be conservative or claim to hate conservatives. But nobody seems to know what conservatism actually means.

      1. I’ve come to the conclusion it is just the Anti-Sodomy – and I can’t get behind that.

        1. *narrows gheys*

        2. Princess — Funny

        3. Ha ha ha ha … Going to use this as my own material.

        4. “Get behind me Satan” haha.

    2. Hey, guess what… conservatives don’t give a flying fuck about gays. The ‘anti-gay conservative’ is a fictional bogeyman created by progressives and fully bought into by libertarians for use as a political cudgel to sap libertarian votes from the GOP. And you people happily play the useful idiot.

      I’ll say it again; the vast majority of conservatives simply do not give a fuck about gays. That doesn’t mean they embrace them, that doesn’t mean they want to be active participants in their life events, that doesn’t even mean they want to associate with them. And you know what? That’s FINE. In fact, that is their constitutionally guaranteed right. Libertarians of all people should understand this simple reality.

      But that’s not enough for progressives. Simple tolerance is never enough when it comes to their social agenda. You have to be enthusiastically in favor of whatever it is they’re pushing, otherwise you’re a hateful bigot that needs to be crushed by the state and shamed out of your livelihood.

      And libertarians for some reason are dancing along to this tune. Wake the fuck up and try to understand that you’re being played.

      1. The ‘anti-gay conservative’ is a fictional bogeyman created by progressives

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        1. WTF. Of course there are anti-gay conservatives. They’re called evangelicals and they have destroyed the GOP with their inane Hate Movement called the Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs.

          Evangelicals will go down in history as single-handedly being responsible for the destruction GOP.

          Their offspring for generations to come will be living the lifestyle of the 1950 Russians and they don’t give a fuck because the ‘Cloud-in-the-Sky’ told them to do it.

          IT’S ALL OVER FOLKS! And the socialists won.

          Unless of course Trump wins in 2016.

          Then the country is saved!

          1. I’m an evangelical An-Cap. I recognize that something can be very wrong and yet not violate NAP (aka, shouldn’t have force of arms used against it).

            What you’ve recognized is why they don’t have more of a following, yes. But what you said is “These are the things that separate them from libertarians”. Yeah, so what? I know of a bunch of conservatives who aren’t evangelicals who are against them all (though the “war on women” is entirely bull).

            It sounds like you’re just being a tribalist. You’ve found a tribe you don’t like so you blame all your problems on them.

            1. ace — WTF are you talking about?

              To quote you, you said the following:

              “But what you said is “These are the things that separate them from libertarians”. ”

              Have you lost your mind? I never said one damn word of what you have in quotation. I never even mentioned the word ‘libertarian.’

              I don’t know if you’re not very familiar with the proper ways to construct the English language in writing but go back to school and get back to me when you’ve learned how to organize your thoughts.

              You also need to look into the War on Women. I know your pastors brainwash all of you into believing it’s bullshit but please explain this one fact for me:

              The GOP hasn’t won the female vote in a presidential election since 1988.

              I submit it is because the democrat/socialists have convinced women that yes indeed the republicans (evangelicals for the most part) are waging a War on Women.

              I would love to hear your explanation for this.

              Why don’t you just mind your own business and allow other people to go about theirs? Then we could destroy the socialists and get back to living in a Capitalist society. Wouldn’t that be nice?

              1. I never said one damn word of what you have in quotation.

                I was summarizing your point. It’s fairly typical in English.

                The GOP hasn’t won the female vote in a presidential election since 1988.

                Majority makes right? Answered in a direct quote, “I feel your pain.”

                I would love to hear your explanation for this.

                No, you’re right, the progs convinced the majority that it existed. Of course, if the majority believed that I killed Santa Claus, that doesn’t make it true.

                Why don’t you just mind your own business and allow other people to go about theirs?

                Well, I don’t use government against them, that’s for sure. But I’ll tell you that you are wrong if you are. But again, if I see you wandering blindly into a busy highway, I’m kind of morally obligated to tell you that what you’re doing is dangerous. What you do with that info is up to you.

                1. ace — No. You NEVER say someone said the following and then put it in quotation marks. NEVER!

                  And NO that is not “fairly typical in English.” (No wonder these pie-in-the-sky evangelical pastors so easily brainwash all of you sheep).

                  No, the majority doesn’t make right. They make LAW.

                  It DOES matter that “the progs convinced the majority that it [War on Women] existed.” It matters because the socialists have got the women on their side and they are turning the country socialist. Why do you care if other people have abortions? If you don’t like it, don’t have one. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

              2. A new Shriek handle? You must have had to erase CHRISTFAG a couple of dozen times.

                1. Marshall — Have you got an intelligent statement to make or do you want to refute something I said?

                  Or do you just want to spit out your indecipherable dribble.

                  Come on, debate me. I dare you.

                  It’ll be fun.

                  For me.

              3. They haven’t won a majority of the female vote because females are the biggest client group of the big welfare state.

                1. Silky — Let’s see your attribution.

          2. “WTF. Of course there are anti-gay conservatives. :

            What I’ve figured out is that the problem is not the sodomites, per se, it is the way they are used by the Marxist Left to drive a wedge between people who would otherwise be talking about almost anything else. Personally, I don’t hate anyone for themselves, but I do hate the guts intensely of anyone and everyone who has special and privilege against me. Why just because sodomites used to be treated like criminals do we now have to treat them special? Why do sodomites have more rights than normal people? And normal is a biologically quantifiable think when it comes to sex, sex being for pro-creation in the biological sense and sodomy being a non-procreative sexual activity. I agree that just because it is abnormal and freakish and disease spreading doesn’t mean we have to go out of our way to persecute them, but neither does it makes sense to celebrate them the way we do, like they do in San Fag Sicko where I live. I’m frankly tired of the naked asses walking down the street at the Folsom Street Faire. Normal people would be arrested if they ran around nude the way the sodomites do, so, it is not equal in any way.

            1. James — How do gays have special privileges? As I understand it, nudity is legal in certain parts of San Francisco for everyone, not only gays. How in the hell can the authorities tell the difference between gays and straights anyway?

              You say the following:

              “And normal is a biologically quantifiable think when it comes to sex, sex being for pro-creation in the biological sense and sodomy being a non-procreative sexual activity.”

              Let me be the first to inform you. Heterosexuals engage in more “non-procreative sexual activity” than gays do by at least a 10 to 1 margin.

              I take it you’re one of those anti-gay conservatives. Here’s an idea. If you don’t like the laws in your area either work to change the laws or move. That is the way our founding fathers intended it to be.

        2. In all fairness, in my experience the average, middle class northern suburban conservatives (at least the male ones) are basically only interested in lowering taxes and couldn’t give a shit about gay marriage, at least where I came from; ‘social issues’ were never really discussed, mainly considered distractions from the important matters of lowering taxes and cutting spending.

          It may be different elsewhere; admittedly I never travel south of the Mason-Dixon Line so I assume they still eat each other down there.

          1. Mark — I mostly agree with you.

            What I’m talking about is the large percentage of our country who makes up the evangelical/catholic/religious right who have single-handedly destroyed the republican party with their Wars on Women, Gays and Drugs.

            They have sent the women, gays and youth of American running into the arms of socialism. Once we lose capitalism it’ll take multiple generations to get it back if ever.

            These Dodo birds would rather listen to their imaginings coming from the cloud-in-the-sky voices they hear even though they know their offspring for generations to come will be living like the Russians of the 1950s.

            So sad and sooooooo STUPID.

            1. How large is this “large percentage”?

              1. Set Us — 47% are “highly religious whites”

                That doesn’t even count the highly religious blacks, hispanic and others.

                http://www.gallup.com/poll/142…..gious.aspx

            2. “Wars on Women,Gays, and Drugs”. Seriously!?
              Just another progressive liar.

              1. timamac — You’re one of those cowards who call people names and then runs away, aren’t you?

                I stated my case above. tell me where I’m wrong. Refute me.

                Debate me. I dare you.

                It’ll be fun.

                For me.

            3. You are not seriously suggesting that we are a capitalist country. We are number 3 among developed socialist countries. That battle is lost, relentless decline and corruption is all that is going on. Personally I want to see a Donnybrook every day with Donald Trump going like a synthetic through all the self important pigs on both sides who brought this about. Let’s go down swinging!

              1. Like a sythe, lol damn spellcheck

                1. Self important “pigs ” doesn’t this site have an edit feature?

                  1. prigs,

              2. Silky — I never said we were a pure capitalist country. And it’s getting worse everyday.

                I do believe Trump can bring us back from the abyss and get us on the right track. He will get the economy going again.

                If Trump doesn’t win, then it is over,

                I do like your style.

        3. It IS a fictional bogeyman created by progressives

          Hahaha hahaha lmfao!!

      2. Chip Chipperson|1.22.16 @ 8:05AM|#
        “I’ll say it again; the vast majority of conservatives simply do not give a fuck about gays.”

        Liar or ignoramus? You decide.

        1. No, truth. What are you? Liar or moron? Maybe both?

      3. Agree. Totally.

        1. The comments section here is weird. I’m so far away from the comment I was agreeing with.

          To make it clear, I agree with Chip 100%

          1. Dune — I agree with you. The comment section here is weird. That’s why I always insert the name of the person I’m responding to.

            Reason — Get your shit together for Christ’s sake.

  3. Trump is nothing if not predictable in his response to criticism. He always goes ad-hominem on the first pass.

    He had a tiff with Penn Jillette a while back and he immediately pivoted away from the topic (Penn didn’t support him for President) and to the personal attack:

    Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
    I hear @pennjillette show on Broadway is terrible. Not surprised, boring guy (Penn). Without The Apprentice, show would have died long ago.

    Donald J. Trump ? @realDonaldTrump
    The worst show in Las Vegas, in my opinion, is @pennjillette. Hokey garbage. New York show even worse!

    It sounds exactly like his response to the National Review.

    1. Sure, but that’s all he needs. Clinton does the same, just not so boisterously.

      “This guy said something bad about Trump? Hmm, but he’s a loser and no one really likes him? Then yeah, the fuck does he know!? The talentless asshole is just jealous of Trump and doesn’t want to make America great again!”

    2. Yes but is he correct? Isn’t Penn jillet one of Glen beck’s sycophants that use glen’s shows for publicity?

    3. Cyto — Do think Mr Trump’s style isn’t working for him?

      Who is running a more successful campaign?

  4. “When conservatives desperately needed allies in the fight against big government, Donald Trump didn’t stand on the sidelines. He consistently advocated that your money be spent, that your government grow, and that your Constitution be ignored

    While this is no doubt true, how was this any different from the Big Government Republicans of the Bush Administration, who brought us the Patriot Act, the creation of the DHS behemoth, Medicare Part D, NSA domestic surveillance?

    I wasn’t reading National Review at the time – was it some unheeded voice of constitutional-principle, reminding us that the Bill of Rights did not need to be sacrificed in the War on Terror?, Was it begging for restraint in the face of budget-expanding Republican largesse? Did it bemoan the slimy crook/political-scumbags like Tom DeLay that defined the Republican party at time? Refresh my memory.

    Or is this just their way of saying, “He’s not one of Our People”? i.e. its OK when We Do It

    1. “Or is this just their way of saying, “He’s not one of Our People”? i.e. its OK when We Do It”

      Yeah, they’re sort of lacking in differentiation, other than that they buy ink by the barrel. Beyond that, he represents the Chinese menu of ‘conservatism’; pick one from column A, one from column B, etc.

    2. Eh, the same applies to Reason.

      They love big government when it comes to paying for abortions, climate change, paying for refugees to come here, and other cocktail party causes.

      1. “They love big government when it comes to ______

        Oh, bullshit.

        i can (sort of) see your point w/ #3.

        But they’ve hardly ever been full-throated or univocal about supporting ‘government funded abortion’.

        Yes, ENB wrote about it here…but the extent of her support for the idea was to claim (in my view, stupidly) that it was somehow “cheaper” than the current status quo, which covers childbirth and natal care, etc.

        eg. – ” Even if you don’t endorse Medicaid ideologically, it currently exists, and so shouldn’t it exist with optimal cost-efficiency and efficacy?”

        so even there, its not ‘big government’ by a long shot.

        and climate change? i can’t think of a single policy they’ve ever actively supported, at best making passing comments that “carbon taxes” were maybe the least-stupid of the proposals, but that expanding govt is no way to address ‘climate’ issues (if one is even to accept that there are any)

        My specific beef w/ NR is that they seemed to sell-out on small-govt conservatism when they had republicans in power. Reason has never ever been in a comparable position. witness their bashing of Rand (in my view, smwt undeserved) for failing to adhere to orthodoxy on some issues.

        1. No, Reason’s recent article about cap-and-trade was nothing less than a full-throated endorsement of the scheme as a logical, market-based solution to a dire problem. It may as well have been published on Gawker or Huffpo.

          Reason’s staff has been itching to support Sanders pretty much from day one. They’re cocktail-party libertarians; happy to play the contrarian on certain issues — especially when they can be contrary to those icky Republicans — but more than willing to fall into line on the stuff that matters (i.e., matters to progressives).

          1. Chip Chipperson|1.22.16 @ 8:11AM|#
            “No, Reason’s recent article about cap-and-trade was nothing less than a full-throated endorsement of the scheme as a logical, market-based solution to a dire problem. It may as well have been published on Gawker or Huffpo.”

            Liar or ignoramus? You decide.

            1. Liar or ignoramus?

              Could be both… I’m gonna go with both, final answer.

          2. COOOOOZZZZZZMMMMMOOOOOZZZZZZZ!!!!11!!111!!!!!!!!

            Reason’s recent article about cap-and-trade was nothing less than a full-throated endorsement of the scheme as a logical, market-based solution to a dire problem.

            Link? What “recent article” are you babbling about? I haven’t seen any “recent articles” on climate change, although admittedly I don’t read every single article here. In the past I’ve seen Bailey support a carbon tax, which is asinine enough, but that’s not the same thing as “cap and trade.”

          3. “Reason’s recent article about cap-and-trade was nothing less than a full-throated endorsement of the scheme”

            The most recent story (i can find) mentioning cap-n-trade was in September, and was about China

            He specifically says such a program would be useless in the US (or west) alone.

            “Opponents to efforts aimed at cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions correctly point out that cuts here alone would have a minimal effect on what is a global problem while giving economic competitors a big advantage. That objection would be significantly blunted if China actually enacts such a program and makes it transparent so that outsiders can monitor its operations”

            this is the most generous comment you can find in the piece. and all he’s saying is that “critics would have a harder time opposing this kind of scheme” if China actually did something – not recommending anything

            Back in the summer Ron looked at the ‘calculating the cost’ of carbon-regulation schemes

            Nowhere there does he actually recommend a policy either. He observes that EPA’s current proposals plan would be needlessly expensive.

            Unless you have a link and quotes, i’m calling bullshit on your claim

          4. If it’s any consolation, I think I read that at that big climate conference or somewhere related Obama essentially admitted that Pigovian taxes were better than direct controls for reducing climate emissions. I’m surprised Reason didn’t publish six articles on it declaring that Obama had done a complete 180, turned libertarian, and that the great moment had come.

      2. They love big government when it comes to paying for abortions, climate change, paying for refugees to come here, and other cocktail party causes.

        [citations needed]

        I’ve never once seen reason publish anything advocating that government pay for abortions. They’re pro-choice, yes, but you do realize it’s possible to believe that women should be able to choose to have an abortion yet not want the government to pay for it, right?

        While Ron Bailey does believe in AGW, I’ve never gotten the sense that he supports the various global wealth redistribution “solutions” that the Left loves to push. The closest I’ve seen from him is mild support for a carbon tax, offset with tax cuts elsewhere, IIRC. It’s a pretty far cry from that to suggest that reason’s editorial choice in this area is to support the usual big government/ cronyist solutions.

        As for the refugees, I have to concede the point on that one, although who else would “pay for” refugees to come here except the government? I suppose private charities could, and sometimes do that, but the government is still heavily involved. And I’ll concede that reason’s editorial slant on the issue is baffling. For a libertarian magazine to somehow believe that the bloated, inefficient government could properly vet these refugees, while recognizing the vast incompetence of everything else the fed gov does is, like I said, baffling.

    3. That quote looks to be from Beck – I’m not a listener/viewer but my impression is that he’s drifted closer to the libertarian side of things in the last few years. Or am I high? If so, he may be in the minority at NR when it comes to those views.

      1. He is pretty libertarian on many issues, but he is also batshit crazy.

        1. Therefore he fits right in. Embrace all newcomers and reason(drink) with them on their non-libertarian issues.

        2. Yeah, Beck has “matured” since his early Tea Party days. He has actually gone public with wishing he had been less decisive and loud (me paraphrasing). His charity does a lot of good work and I do think he is principled.

          Not arguing if he is bat shit crazy, but at least he keeps to his limited government agenda pretty consistently. I think where confusion arises is that he is a devout Christian and his personal beliefs are public reocord. Good or bad at least you know where he stands and an decide if you respect that or not.

    4. I wasn’t reading National Review at the time – was it some unheeded voice of constitutional-principle, reminding us that the Bill of Rights did not need to be sacrificed in the War on Terror?, Was it begging for restraint in the face of budget-expanding Republican largesse? Did it bemoan the slimy crook/political-scumbags like Tom DeLay that defined the Republican party at time? Refresh my memory.

      From what little I read of them during that time, no. They were enthusiastic cheerleaders for Bush’s big government policies. Maybe they occasionally published a critical piece by a libertarian, but that was just to give the impression of fairness, and usually you got the feeling they were doing it as more of a “Get a load of these guys! Pfffft!” kind of way.

    5. Because increasing the size of gov’t with those things you mention is not increasing the size of gov’t but fighting against big gov’t. When republicans (dare I say conservatives) increase the size of gov’t it isn’t increasing the size of gov’t, and if you think it is you hate this country and our way of life. See? It makes total sense if you don’t actually think about what I just wrote.

    6. I wasn’t reading National Review at the time – was it some unheeded voice of constitutional-principle, reminding us that the Bill of Rights did not need to be sacrificed in the War on Terror?, Was it begging for restraint in the face of budget-expanding Republican largesse? Did it bemoan the slimy crook/political-scumbags like Tom DeLay that defined the Republican party at time? Refresh my memory.

      It was about half and half, like it always tends to be.

  5. Trump stuff. yay

  6. Trump is nothing if not predictable in his response to criticism. He always goes ad-hominem on the first pass.

    “Well, you know, I expected this. You’ve got these two-bit characters in the comments, no one knows who they are, they’re saying things, you know, real nasty, negative things. And the US Attorney’s office goes after them, as they should. And it’s, who is it, ‘Cyto’? That open-borders and bombs character from Canada? Saying all sorts of unprovable, terrible things, it’s awful. That Reason magazine, you know, it’s really gone down the tubes since the Postrel days.”

    1. Remember how I mentioned that people only tell you when they win?

      I’m telling you now: I lost today.

    2. Cytotoxic != Cyto

      1. That’s a real kick in the marbles.

        1. Seriously. Never even been to Canada. Closest I’ve been is to Lutsen Mountain in Minnesota. About an hour from the border. Nice place – great summer getaway with the wife.

          1. I think of this every time:

            “Samir: Hmm… well, why don’t you just go by Mike instead of Michael?
            Michael Bolton: No way! Why should I change? He’s the one who sucks.”

            1. Except in my case I would go with:

              “Yeah, I should probably just do that….. except… Nah…. That would require, like, making a new login or something. Nah… too much trouble. That would take over…. what, like 90 seconds? No way….”

              Plus it messes with continuity. I never know what is going on with all of the sock puppetry and semi-pro DNC trolling. I’m Cyto at all the libertarian leaning sites (where I am pretty hardcore libertarian), and Cytotoxic at all of the nerdy sites (that tend to go heavy team blue with a sprinkling of Libertarian, so I try to avoid politics), and I go by my real name at professional sites. Keeps it simple, yet avoids flame wars. You can tell people who used to be on usenet – flame wars get so tiresome!

              1. Oh, and that was an excellent parody, FUIJ.

                1. Indeed, bravo. I heard The Donald’s voice in my head as I read it.

              2. “….used to be on usenet…?”

                I’m still on that. It’s a shadow of its former self, true.

                Kevin R

          2. “getaway *from* the wife.
            FIFY

    3. *Applause*

      1. The only way you can clap is by smacking your lips, Nathaniel Branden’s Head.

  7. “Novelist Mark Helprin”

    Winter’s Tale was a good book.
    (and horrible movie from what i’ve heard. never saw it)

    I saw him speak at least once. (have vague memory of perhaps 2 instances). Smart guy re: Foreign Policy. I think he’s got like 6 degrees or something. I also think he flew jet planes for the Israelis or something. Or was a hitman. Something dramatic like that.

    1. Isn’t there also some TV wonk in DC named Mark Halprin or something? I’m always seeing the dude and going… no, you’re not him at all.

      get a load of this =

      “Helprin was born in Manhattan, New York in 1947. His father, Morris Helprin, worked in the film industry, eventually becoming president of London Films. His mother was actress Eleanor Lynn, who starred in several Broadway productions in the 1930s and 40s. In 1953 the family left New York City for the prosperous Hudson River valley suburb of Ossining, New York. He was raised on the Hudson River and was educated at the Scarborough School,[2] graduating in 1965.[3] He later lived in the British West Indies. Helprin holds degrees from Harvard University (B.A. 1969), and Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (M.A. 1972). Helprin’s postgraduate study was at Princeton University and Magdalen College, Oxford, University of Oxford, 1976?77. He is Jewish-American, and he became an Israeli citizen during the late 1970s. He served in the Israeli infantry and the Israeli Air Force. “

      Resumes like this…. He’s a pussy-hair from being the guy in the English Patient. “Briefly served as Acting Lord Regent of Madagascar. Expert knife thrower. Lectures on Ancient Persian Poetry at the Sorbonne when not consulting the World Bank” He also has that George Plimpton “new york aristocrat”-accent that no one has anymore. And they always went to schools starting with “The”

      1. My guess: he has hunted people.

        1. +1 “Most Dangerous Game”

      2. “”new york aristocrat”-accent that no one has anymore. And they always went to schools starting with “The”

        I encountered very few at The Ohio State University. Although I can understand how you might consider it exclusive (52,000 students).

        1. Boooooooo

          1. Buckeye State College is exclusive, compared to The City University of New York, Sept 2015 enrollment…

            It’s another record year of enrollment at City University of New York schools.

            CUNY says about 278,000 students are within the system this fall semester.

            That’s about a 5 percent increase from last year.

            New York 1, 5 Sept, 2015

            Re: accents.

            Yet rise and stand he did. He introduced himself. His name was Clay Felker. He had a booming voice, but it wasn’t so much the boom that struck me. It was his honk. The New York Honk, as it was called, was the most fashionable accent an American male could have at that time, namely, the spring of 1963. One achieved it by forcing all words out through the nostrils rather than the mouth. It was at once virile ? and utterly affected. Nelson Rockefeller had a New York Honk. Huntington Hartford had one. The editor of Newsweek, Osborn Elliot, had one. The financier Robert Dowling, publishers Roger Straus and Tom Guinzburg had the Honk, and so did Robert Morgenthau, who still does, as far as that goes.

            Tom Wolfe on the New York Honk – New York Magazine, 6 July 2008

            Such worthies did not attend “PS 101 or CUNY.

            Kevin R

  8. 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,

    Uh… yeah? That’s why his base likes him. Particularly if the guy is pulling in a bunch white working-class Democrats who feel betrayed by their party, I don’t think they give the first fuck about the broad conservative ideological consensus.

    I don’t think the conservatives understand that the GOP and DNC don’t actually stand for anything in and of themselves, they’re just tools for large coalitions of voters to work through, because our system practically ensures only two major parties can be competitive. If they want an ideologically pure party (certainly no evidence of that from their politicians’ actions), they can come hang out with the LP.

    1. Didn’t people vote in republicans in the mid term to take both houses of congress for a “broad conservative ideological consensus.” How did that work out?

    2. There’s also the fact that the base is composed of uncultured retards.

      1. Can’t disagree, but I feel compelled to note that being ‘cultured’ on among the average democrat amounts to listening to an alt-rock band no one has ever heard of, and among the real elites, staring a Jackson Pollock painting and pretending to mutter something about existentialism.

        Charlatans and philistines, Scylla and Charybdis.

    3. Bingo 2 nights in a row. We need to crowdsource an appearance on O’reilly and Maddow for you…

  9. Cato is, at best, damaged goods. Their chairman advocates shooting and/or throwing people in rape-cages for engaging in what is now and has always been perfectly legal conduct in the US of A.

    1. “Their chairman advocates shooting and/or throwing people in rape-cages for engaging in what is now and has always been perfectly legal conduct in the US of A”

      I assume you mean Boaz. What exactly are you referring to?

    2. John Allison supports that?

    3. “I’ll take ‘Non-sequiturs’ for $600, Alex.”

      1. nobody cares about the third derivatve! But spot on analysis of the comment.

    4. Their chairman advocates shooting and/or throwing people in rape-cages for engaging in what is now and has always been perfectly legal conduct in the US of A.

      WTF are you talking about? Not everyone follows the going-on at the Cato Institute, so how about instead of vague non-sequiturs you throw out a link or say exactly what you’re babbling about. Specifically who’s “their chairman”? I don’t even know. And specifically what “perfectly legal conduct” does he/ she advocate “throwing people in rape-cages for”?

      Without those specifics I’m forced to assume that you’re a butt hurt Trump fanboy who’s just upset that someone doesn’t like your man crush, and you’re making shit up.

      1. That’s exactly what he is. SIV is another yokel who should not even be here.

        1. who should not even be here.

          The voice of Liberty.

      2. IIRC, SIV’s “single issue” is cockfighting, and our natural right to engage in this “sport”. Not sure who the chairman is, but presumably he believes that forcing roosters to fight to the death should be a crime.

  10. The brainiacs at National Review are taking a HUGE tent full of all the independents and democrat crossovers they dreamed of having and are turning it into an altar of conservative Puritanism. So wise, they became fools.

    1. Valuing principles over popularity =/= foolish

      1. It is if you’re in a for-profit endeavor.

  11. Unless we see some type of major scandal or upheaval it looks likely that it will be Trump v Hilldog. There is still a slight possibility it may be Cruz or Rubio, but unless the unlikely indictment comes down or she finally takes a major health problem, it won’t be Bernie. Bernie versus Trump, despite how un libertarian it would be would at least provide plenty of amusement. At this point I would just be happy to see the Clintons disappear from politics for good. We are not getting libertarianism by national politics anyway.

    1. People love Donald Trump because he’s a plain-spoken common-sense sort of guy. Got problems with Mexicans? Round ’em up and send ’em back to Mexico. ISIS? Kick the shit out of ’em and take their oil. China? Get tough with ’em, make ’em quit taking our jobs and quit buying their cheap shit. Iran? Pffft – they got a nuke, we got thousands of nukes. Who cares?

      It’s the plain-spoken common-sense of some high-school dropout redneck coming home from his shift down at the mill and hoisting a few with his buddies at the ol’ Dew Drop Inn. It sounds great that you just go out there and kick a few asses and straighten stuff right the hell out, but the world doesn’t actually work that way.

      Donald Trump might think if we had sent him over to Vietnam he could have had that little mess wrapped up in about a week, but the Vietnam War is very instructive with regards to just how little effect “kicking ass and taking names” has on getting things done in the real world. For example, you can spend many years and many billions of dollars and many tons of ordinance and thousands of lives and still not even be able to beat some Bronze-age tribe living out in the middle of the gotdamn jungle.

      Barking at people works fine on TV, Donald – nobodies gonna put up with that shit in the real world. They’ll just laugh in your face, tape a “kick me” sign on your back, and then pull your underwear up over your head.

      1. Ordnance, but otherwise well said.

      2. seconded.

        but you know what? for some reason, this analysis ended up making me think… that the worst things about a trump presidency would be *things i could probably live with*.

        and which would probably be really fucking funny. as long as it didn’t involve him nuking anyone.

        A Hillary presidency would mean genuinely *evil* developments in American politics, and would solidify much of the worst trends in the expansion of Federal Power. A trump presidency would be like…. a Rodney Dangerfield movie. Full of gaffes, cringe-moments, perhaps even an unexpected unilateral declaration of war…..

        (*”mr president, you can’t do that by yourself… that’s actually something congress…..” “SINCE WHEN? I say we’re at war with Puerto Rico. They’re near enough to cuba it makes no difference. Plus they owe some people I know a lot of money. They’re creeps. Have you ever seen their parade in NY? A mess, they’re just asking for it.”)

        Plus, i feel like this “New-Right”, racist-yokel-cuckervative-jabbering-thing? needs to get worked out of the body-politic. Give them their man, and perhaps it will inoculate us once its over.

        1. “Give them their man, and perhaps it will inoculate us once its over.”

          That’s how it has worked with Obama. No more community organizing, absentee senator, narcissistic, half black progressives. Got it out of our system.

          Except….Benito! All the covetousness with twice the unicorns and rainbows.

          1. Obama didn’t campaign in 2008 as a big gvt , super-partisan prog. He was all about “uniting” and working across the aisle, etc. I don’t think the comparison works

        2. A trump presidency would be like…. a Rodney Dangerfield movie. Full of gaffes, cringe-moments, perhaps even an unexpected unilateral declaration of war…..

          (*”mr president, you can’t do that by yourself… that’s actually something congress…..” “SINCE WHEN?…

          “I tell ya, I get no respect from them, no respect at all!

          Hey! We’re all gonna get LAID!!!”

        3. What world do you live in? The one where Trump isn’t promising Smoot-Hawley 2.0 and a mass deportation? And muses of keeping Muzzies out of America? Hillary would clearly be less awful.

        4. *things i could probably live with*.
          Easy for you to say, you’re over the draft age. I could see that guy bringing back the draft in order to do all this hypothetical ass-kicking.

          I could also see him and his tariffs igniting a whole slew of trade wars with are leading trading partners, which could roll back our standard of living every bit as much as whatever Hillary plans to do. And a lot of what Hillary plans to do regarding government expansion, Trump may do himself as well.

          Regarding your last point: give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile applies to yokels as much as it does to progs. Plenty of Spaniards settled for Franco as not so bad as the communists and got stuck with him for 4 decades. Then they took a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction and became full-blown socialists.

      3. I have to wonder if his PR people get their inspiration from watching WWE.

        1. Trump and McMahon are old pals.

          Trump’s WWE profile

          Trump must have some sort of naked cunning to have successfully run his cons so long. Just because he’s an idiot about public policy doesn’t make him clueless about everything else.

          Kevin R

      4. For example, you can spend many years and many billions of dollars and many tons of ordinance and thousands of lives and still not even be able to beat some Bronze-age tribe living out in the middle of the gotdamn jungle.

        But….America did beat them once Nixon started bombing the North Vietnamese and getting rid of other combat restrictions.

      5. Then crawl back under your rock and surrender. It’s all over but the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    2. If it’s Clinton vs Trump then Clinton is going to be president, period. Trump’s negatives are toxic. He will never be prez and he will wreck the GOP brand forever.

      The remaining sane conservatives need to draft Mark Sanford for an independent run. Not to prevent President Clinton-that’s baked in-but to have an alternative.

      1. Indeed Trump has no chance in the general against Hillary.

        Now, if Bernie Sanders actuall manages to win an early primary, he just may be a possibility. I would’ve ruled out Trump a few months ago, but now Bernie leading in Iowa? Strange times. It may be time to start wondering about Bernie vs. Trump. Any other Republican would win I think, but maybe not him.

        Jesus, what a choice.

  12. Short of Trump coming out as a Satanist and advocating for a Pentagram to replace the 57 stars on our flag, I will vote for him against that dried up old crone if only to keep her tentacles off the Supreme Court.

    But until that day, I advocate for Rand.

    1. “Short of Trump coming out as a Satanist and advocating for a Pentagram to replace the 57 stars on our flag…”

      hold on a second…. you think this is a *bad thing*? That’s fucking METAL. It would improve him immensely in my view.

    2. That would be awesome! As long as he doesn’t worship Loki. I can’t abide that.

      Seriously though, I am leaning that way if Trump get the nom.

      Those of us who are libertarian or libertarian-leaning who still vote Team Red are fond of wanting to punish the GOP when they nominate someone like McCain or Dole. But never seem to want to punish the Dems for someone like Hillary. I love Rand, will enthusiastically support Cruz, will reluctantly support Rubio. And am still considering voting for Trump (if that is who is running against Hillary).

      1. As long as he doesn’t worship Loki.

        Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but yes, Trump does worship me. How else do you explain his poll numbers? MWAHAHA!!!11!!1!!!!!

      2. Good comment, may you have all the mead and maidens in Valhalla you want.

        1. Grand Luminary flags are an actual, historical thing.

          I could see Trump worshiping Loki. The l’il jotun was fond of gambling.

          Kevin R

  13. Why is everybody always picking on poor Trump?

    *sniffles*

  14. This smells like Act 1. Where Act 2 will be blowing trumpets for Cruz, just as deadly to their party, incapable of working with even his own party in Congress and another reason for Bill Buckley to puke in his grave. But they have a field of losers. Carson is documented a bigger liar than Trump with a flare for stupid comments. Fiorina is a close second on the liars card. Rubio’s out of his league this year. The only qualified GOP candidate in Kasich — light years ahead on balancing budgets (they got damn close), a leader in the only decent GOP congress, and knows how to work with Democrats, but he’s got one last breath.

    1. “flair”, Mike. As in Rick

      1. Flair, as in 37 badges on Mike’s Chotckie’s uniform

      2. The Nature Boy, Woooo!

    2. Hey, Mike! Did you report us to the Koch brothers for making fun of you? And I hope you did so with all those screen shots you saved; I’ll bet they were really impressed!
      Did they tell you that they were really sympathetic since you’re such a wonderful guy and you really shouldn’t have people laughing at you? Did they do that?
      -laughing-

      1. You need to quote some statistics to get his depends really full.

        1. bacon-magic
          You need to quote some statistics to get his depends really full.

          See! Verbal aggression is more important than facts!! They really are bullies, and don’t give a shit who sees it Then they get pissed if I note that he’s made a public ass of himself by proving me correct about them

          Newcomers, they go bat-shit crazy when I say the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. A statistic in response to bullshit (gasp) It’s Cato’s statistic, but they attack me for daring to use it. “Shoot the messenger” is a common form of aggression, by those who punish violations to their …. Political Correctness!

          1. At least you now label it “verbal” aggression instead of just aggression. Your understanding of the English language is improving!

          2. Haha, verbal aggression. You’ve been verbally assaulted by the suggestion that you shit your pants? You should call your local PD and tell them about this heinous crime.

      2. Hey, Mike! Did you report us to the Koch brothers for making fun of you?

        I wear it as a badge of honor. I’ve been gaming you for months. And in every case, multiple personal attacks, but little or nothing on the issue raised.

        Then I say “thugs travel in packs.”
        (snicker)

    3. Did someone say John Kasich?

      http://hotair.com/archives/201…..6-billion/

      1. THIS!!^^

        Kasich was a voice of restraint in Congress who has become a spendthrift in Columbus. F him in the ass with a broken bottle.

        1. You guys quit bullying Hihn! He knows who the One True Libertarian, is. 90% of Cato labels libertarians something something means vote for Kasich!

    4. I really don’t get the vitriol against Cruz. I understand that he isn’t technically a libertarian. But of the remaining viable candidates left, he is light-years closer than anyone else.
      And I don’t see how Bill Buckley is “puke in his grave”. He would be against Trump (just like all the folks in this issue of NR). But what positions would Buckley be against that Cruz supports?
      Work with the Dems? There aren’t any Dems left that are worth working with. Maybe on pot legalization (that Cruz may not support, but he essentially said he would leave it to the states). And even on criminal justice reform, the Left only cares about racial disparity, not on true reform of police. Gay marriage is pretty much a done deal.
      I am enthusiastically supporting Cruz the rest of the way. Paul is done, and Rubio is not quite ready, and not quite libertarian leaning enough.

      1. I understand that he isn’t technically a libertarian. But of the remaining viable candidates left, he is light-years closer than anyone else.

        I’ve pointed out that Cruz is the most libertarian guy in the race not named “Rand Paul”. John’s pointed out that, if he got the nomination, Cruz would probably be the most libertarian candidate since Goldwater. Hell, Ted Cruz has better libertarian bona fides than Bob Barr.

        I think the Cruz Derangement Syndrome comes down to style much more than substance. He’s just too Jesusy for some of the effetes around here.

        1. Well there’s that and his horrible Expatriate Act and horrible idea on tripling the border patrol.

        2. Didn’t he use to want to go back to the gold standard or something? If his shift toward market monetarism suggested by his recent questioning of Yellen is sincere, then fine.

          One thing I’d still worry about if foreign policy. What’s he like on that? Do I have to worry about WW3 coming up soon or getting drafted to go convert Bedouins to democracy or something?

    5. Exactly.

      1. Fuck off, joe.

  15. “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”

    Broken clocks tell perfect time twice a day. These jerk offs only get it right once a year or so–but they’re right about that.

    If Trump weren’t seen in comparison to Hillary, Sanders, and Obama, he’d look as bad as he is.

    Like I was saying before FdA became totally unhinged last night, if the lesser of two evils isn’t the solution to our problems, then the greater of two evils can’t be the solution either. And Sanders and Hillary are both greater evils than Trump.

    I’ll say this. Anybody that sees any logic in breaking for Trump over Hillary or Sanders should see even more logic in breaking for Cruz over Trump in the primaries. If you live in a closed primary state, registering Republican and voting for Cruz–just for the primaries–may be the most libertarian thing you can do.

    1. the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP

      Bob Dole’s still available. Right there’s your “broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP”. Whatever it takes to get elected. Them Democrats seem to be popular, maybe we should be more like them. Sounds like a plan to me, Bob.

      1. Maybe we should get us some of that social progress, Pappy.

      2. I have always thought Dole would be a great guy to have as your favorite uncle it grandpa. Great stories, brave man in wartime, probably spoils the grandkids. But fuck me he was not a libertarian in any way. He was the worst of ideologies: socon but works with the left on govt spending.
        If we could elect Cruz and keep R majorities in House and Senate, we could absolutely repeal Ocare, might get a Thomas or Scalia (not good on some issues I agree, but better than ANYONE Hillar or Bernie would put up), and while he might be willing to send troops, I believe he has at least learned from Iraq, Afghanistan and the various Obama fuckups.
        I could be wrong, but since neither Gay Jay nor Rand have any chance, he is our best choice. And I don’t mean as a lesser of two evils. Rather, an imperfect candidate who we can work with on several issues critical to liberty.

  16. Looking at posts of yore, was wondering:

    1. News about Almanian! ?

    2. What happened to Stormy Dragon?

    1. News? I didn’t know that he’d announced anything here.

      1. My limited understanding was that he had cancer and things were going very poorly (terminal/hospice). Many of us believe that he has the ability to kick death’s ass, should he choose to.

    2. Someone said Almanian’s condition is terminal.

    3. Someone said Almanian’s condition is terminal.

      1. “I’m sorry, but … You have squirrels. There’s not much we can do.”

    4. Last August, I made a personal resolution to just not talk about politics with anyone, ever. I’ve not been perfect with it since then, although I’m getting better at it as time goes on.

      Given the nature of this site, this resolution leaves me with very little to say, so while I still read, I’m no longer commenting much.

      1. Well, I’m glad you are still here. And aren’t half the comments just random crap anyway? We *need* you in those discussions!

    5. Stormy Dragon gone? Did the libertarian movement lose 1/3 of its female population?

  17. OT, but hey, those darn rethuglicans!

    “A regional director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency resigned Thursday in connection with the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan, and EPA chief Gina McCarthy issued an emergency order directing state and city officials to take actions to protect public health.”
    http://www.ksl.com/index.php?n…..d=queue-11

    I’m sure s/he’s a rethug, right? I mean no D would ever allow harm to come to poor people. A D would lie down in the street to allow the poor to walk on them rather than in the puddle, ’cause the Ds are just so loving and caring. Especially toward the unions that deliver the votes and don’t give one shit about what people have to drink so long as they can’t be fired.

    1. “EPA chief Gina McCarthy issued an emergency order directing state and city officials to take actions to protect public health”

      That’s genius. They never would have thought of that on their own.

      1. Apparently, given that guy’s resignation, the EPA should order *itself* to protect the public health.

        1. Apparently, given that guy’s resignation, the EPA should order disband *itself* to protect the public health.

  18. Since I don’t see any feasible way for any person I would give two squirts of piss in the wind for to even be nominated by either party for the election to POTUS I will have to consider what is available.

    Given that, I can only hope 1) that hildebeast gets indicted for her many crimes and 2) people begin to see through Trump for the charlitan he is and get serious about somebody else. I can only hope that “point 1)” will happen before long but I am worrying that “point 2)” won’t be happening soon enough.

    HRC has the intentions, connections, and experience to do some really bad things to this country. Trump won’t have a similar level of effectiveness in enacting the kinds of noise he bloviates about but just having that clown in the white house will be destructive to the image of the US internationally and not do one good thing domestically.

    1. I went to see “13 Hours” with a group of guys last night. Contrary to the consensus of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes, it is a good action movie. Maybe Michael Bay’s best.

      If you follow politics at all, there’s no way you didn’t leave the theater with her “what difference, at this point, does it make?” quote ringing in your ears. The villain in the movie – well, sort of – is the CIA chief. He’s kinda portrayed as an end-of-career self-important boob who won’t listen to the hardened military security guys. Sort of a spin on the buddy cop movie lieutenant or chief that yells at the protagonists and threatens to suspend them.

      They only briefly get preachy – one of the main characters has a short speech of the “I don’t know why we’re here” variety. He says flat out that the US has no business being in Libya.

      If it gets to be a popular video release next summer/fall, I don’t see how it can be good for Hillary. It makes the whole thing much bigger and more present than the national media coverage made it seem. And even though it never really mentions the administration or the Secretary of State, the fact that there were no Americans coming to help gets hammered home. If I was her I’d be worried about a scenario where 20 million guys are watching that movie during election season.

      1. I agree the movie was well done. I think the creepy thing is I get why it went down the way it did, but the powers to be lying about it to protect political capital in an election year is what heats me up.

        I’m also interested to see how this movie changes opinion without saying HRC once. Our electorate probably won’t put two and two together but I’ve been wrong before.

      2. I haven’t seen it. I have no respect for Michael Bay as an artist, but I am convinced that the reviewers are largely political zealots who can’t seperate their rabid progressivism from their roles as reviewers (or rather, don’t want to). I noticed a little while back that a huge fraction of the top rated movies on their were leftist documentaries, things like ‘Invisible War’, ‘Sicko’, and ‘The Hunting Ground’; basically a bunch of intellectual handjobs.

        I suspect a lot of movie reviewers today have a massive inferiority complex to the real news media and desperately want to be considered ‘real journalists’ they try to get there by using their platform as a pulpit for political exhortation.

  19. Well, it looks like the returns from that move are in:

    Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited. The reason: Our “Against Trump” editorial and symposium. We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ve-problem

    I hear NR’s board of directors is not pleased, and Lowry is being replaced by some fellow named Richard Spencer…

    1. Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited.

      LOL They really think people will believe this wasn’t coordinated.

      Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald.

      How do you do, fellow kids?

      Lowry is being replaced by some fellow named Richard Spencer

      Massive hair upgrade.

    1. That link speaks only to the question about whether Trump is or isn’t an idiot. I would say that he definitely is not an idiot.

      What it doesn’t say anything about is 1) what degree to which he is sincere in his pronouncements, 2) how much he would follow anything he has said if he did make it all the way to the white house, and 3) how effective he could possibly be in doing anything he actually does believe in once there.

      My take on him is 1) close to zero, 2) about the same, and 3) not much more.

      The sooner a lot more people in the US figure this all out the better.

      1. Well, at this point we’re mostly relying on people in the early Republican primaries to figure it out before we get to the point of no return with him sewing up the nomination.

  20. If these people don’t shut the fuck up they’re going to end up electing Trump.

    1. *bets on Trump*

    2. It’s like they’re on his payroll.

      Much of his campaign is “I am not the establishment republicans who have been selling you down the river”. And the establishment proves him right.

      1. I was surprised the country did not rally around George Will when Trump insulted him.

        1. There have been only a small handful of times when I thought “hey, Trump is cool”. Insulting George Will was by far #1.

      2. Exactly, but maybe national review are not self aware enough to know this.

  21. Interesting take on same story.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..ing-trump/

    1. To my great shame I’m friends with a few Professional Republicans. They all say the GOP hates Cruz because he’s an asshole. These are the type of guys who’ve met Cruz several times but haven’t spent enough time with him to form their own opinions. FWIW they’ve never mentioned the issue of him having “his own people”, probably because how the fuck would that even work?

    2. Good piece. Esp the points about Cruz being more-feared by insiders.

      Some of the comments there are…. Well, let’s just say the people claiming h&R is overrun w/ teh yokels? Should get out more often. I always wondered where the Trump supporters were hiding. It was like lifting a rock and finding a nest of Unlibertarians. It’s a mix of media antipathy, race-and-economic nativism, “let it all burn” desire for implosion of the current order.

      1. A case study =

        …” Rich Lowry… started off the segment defining conservatism as limited government, the Constitution, and liberty… that leaves me feeling mighty cold.”

  22. So why can’t NR get around a single candidate that isn’t Trump? Smacks of cowardice. And then they set themselves up as martyrs with the disinvited to the debate BS. A small price to pay blah blah.

    It’s not a coincidence that many of these people against Trump are the chickenhawks for Bush’s Iraq adventure.

    1. Well, National Review has been overrun with neocons for a couple of decades. So the chickenhawk thing is kinda de-rigueur.

      The republican party left the conservative thing behind sometime near the end of the Clinton administration. There wouldn’t be a Tea Party if the Republicans had any conservatives in leadership.

    2. Last summer Lowry was touring the inevitability of Jeb Bush due to him locking up the big donors and name recognition. They have been scrambling since Jeb laid an egg.

      1. NR has been pretty solidly behind Cruz for months, based on my daily visits to look at the headlines and occasionally read an article or two.

        1. Not sure I’d say “solidly” as there have been more than a few anti-Cruz articles. Still, it seems like support among the writers has been leaning to 1) Cruz, 2) Rubio, 3) Christie (distant 3rd).

          For all the Jeb! supporters, there’s still the Wall Street Journal.

  23. The GOP composted the soil for Trump’s roots. The big-government Bush years, where the only litmus test was ongoing, enthusiastic consent for war. Eight years of a gormless performance as an opposition party. Incoherent branding and messaging. Putting guys like Mitch McConnell in charge. Overy hostility to anyone with libertarian tendencies.

    Along comes a populist loudmouth. It doesn’t matter that he’s silly and ignorant, because he will, with cynical sincerity and the manic enthusiasm of a patent-remedy pushing quack, tell an audience exactly what they want to hear.

    The GOP is already dead. Right now it’s just a zombie.

    1. I wish I could celebrate its death, but all it really means is the Dems get the one party system they’ve always wanted.

  24. Boring, old white men say bombastic old white man is mean.

  25. It sucks seeing the Cato people keep writing for National Review. Feeds the idiotic notion that conservatives are somehow libertarian.

    1. Well conservatives are in no way libertarian. Now if only someone would convince half of this commentariat that the converse is also not true, I’d be a happy cosmo.

    2. Begs the question: Perhaps it is you who are wrong-headed?

  26. With enemies like that clan of neo-cons who needs the Democrats?

  27. Bill Kristol was included…why?

  28. What did these deep thinkers do when they last controlled both houses of congress and the presidency? They launched a multi-trillion dollar, immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, war of aggression based entirely on lies, against Iraq. Did they shrink government? Did they lower taxes? Did they eliminate ANY federal agency? This bunch should join the Whigs on the ash-heap of history.

    1. I believed they did lower taxes, three times if memory serves me. Of course, spending was increased with an enormous expansion of Medicare, the creation of an enormous (and still laughably dysfunctional) Homeland Security Department and the wars which we’ll have to pay for eventually so…yeah.

      1. They cut medicare and expanded medicaid. The people worked for Medicare and the welfare babies and druggie get medicaid. Just so you know

      2. Lowering taxes without cutting spending just moves the numbers around on the balance sheet, in this case into an 18 trillion debt.

    2. “They launched a multi-trillion dollar, immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, war of aggression based entirely on lies, against Iraq. ”

      It was completely constitutional, there is no proof of lying, and it was not ‘aggression’.

      1. I dunno about that. Is it really possible to have an aggression-free war? Seems a bit of an oxymoron.

      2. Really?

        Never heard of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi

        The major informant used to make the case for WMDs openly admitted to having lied. Pretty open and shut it seems

    3. Nailed it.

    4. And when the democrats controlled the senate, the HoR and the presidency, what did they do? Get real.

  29. Good article in The Week saying that it will be a bigger deal at this point if Trump ends up NOT winning the nomination just based on his polling position in the first few primary states; it will essentially take a meltdown of unprecedented proportions in modern politics. http://theweek.com/articles/60…..rn-history

    1. Just two weeks ago, Reason was telling you to forget polls, that they are rarely correct, and instead listen to those who place money on elections through wagering. Of course, that was because bettors at the time were favoring someone other than Trump.

      And now? Bettors by a large margin say it’s Trump who will win…by 13 points. Reason hasn’t brought that up again.

      https://www.electionbettingodds.com

      Oh, and Trump’s lead there grows daily.

  30. They just played right into his hands.

    1. Fuck off, joe..

  31. Everyone says Trump wins the debates yet I have never heard him say anything about how would accomplish his rethoric. It was Carly Fiori that summed it up best. It is politicians like Clinton who grow rich while catering to lobbyists and it is people like Trump who buy our politicians. Seems like opposite sides of the same coin to me. And the world might be a better place without either of them.

    1. the world might be a better place without either of them.

      Might be? Like there’s any doubt?

  32. Unprecedented. Loss of power apparently concentrates the mind.
    Here’s a site that nailed the Trump blowout in Iowa, before the polls turned. It digs in depth into the psychology of the Trump campaign. If you want to understand how it’s happening and why, this is a good place to go. Here’s the predictive post from the 6th, which called the blowout long before anyone else.
    http://trumpcampaignanalysis.b…..folds.html
    Latest post explains why Cruz’s Zombie campaign is a dead man walking: http://trumpcampaignanalysis.blogspot.com/

  33. With the exception of Glenn Beck, I doubt Trump’s fans have any idea who these people are.

    1. I know who they all are. Most are self important effetes who hope bush would get back in so they could go to white house dinners and pontificate oj talk shoes. I support trump beca use every other single candidate are disasters. Cruz, born in Canada, temermentally troubling, Rubio a sell out and all the conservative base knows it, Christy a northeastern liberal on the Republican ticket because the democrats wouldn’t have him, the worst run state in the country. Fiorino, silicon valley put a fork in her or she would be running some other company out there, Kasitch broke his arm patting his back and makes everyone glassy eyed with boredom. Yeah, think I’ll take a flyer on coarse old trump. Otherwise if hilary win, last one out, turn off the lights.

  34. Two ways they botched this issue. First off Glenn Beck is on the list. You might as well have Robert Welch on the list. Second, is that all the names they could gather for this issue? Half of them I never even heard of.

  35. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  36. It’s so ironic that so many people who support Trump couldn’t give a care about the fact that he supported Obama’s stimulus package (in addition to TARP and other things). Just tell them this, and they’ll do a quick double-think to avoid the cognitive dissonance. What many of them really care about is getting rid of or stopping all those minority immigrants. Anything else be damned.

  37. Anyone who thinks Trump would be better than Hillary is detached from reality and projecting hope instead of thinking. Hillary is a vain horrible human being. Trump is an outright fascist and basically GOP Hugo Chavez. If even half of his economic ideas were implemented there would be a depression. Get your heads out of your asses people.

    Not that it matters she crushes him in the polls. Trump’s negative numbers are massive.

    1. Trump is an idiot as is the hildebeest….you bleeting for cankles is duly noted….fuck off.

    2. He hasn’t begun the fight against hilary, you haven’t seen the match up yet. He will beat her like a drum.

  38. Preference as a verb?

    GOD DAMN IT, WELCH.

  39. Too little, too late. With the possible exception of Cruz, none of the Republican candidates has and PIZZAZ at all. Blue suits, red ties, and mostly RINO positions. And where has the Republican establishment (including reporters and pundits) gotten us? Gridlock is the best they can do unless they are selling out behind the “cover” of an Omnibus bill that they hope no one will read. Well, I may be a hick but I have a Doctorate, several million dollars I made from scratch, and I kin red. I have been beating Harvard and Princeton boys, like these pundits, all of my 4 decade career.

    1. Right there with you buddy.

    2. You have communist relatives?

      Kevin R

  40. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  41. After having been nibbled to death by ducks all my adult life, with Trump I’m ready o embrace my inner buzzard.

    “To hell with being patient. I’m gonna kill something.”

    1. Right there with you buddy

    2. Love it!

  42. “My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  43. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.richi8.com

  44. my classmate’s mother-in-law makes $78 hourly on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $17581 just working on the computer for a few hours. view website

    [] ???????======== http://www.Wage90.Com

  45. my classmate’s mother-in-law makes $78 hourly on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $17581 just working on the computer for a few hours. view website

    [] ???????======== http://www.Wage90.Com

  46. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Wage90.com

  47. “The actual track record of crowd pleasers, whether Juan Per?n in Argentina, Obama in America, or Hitler in Germany, is very sobering, if not painfully depressing.”

    Indeed.

    But Trump is hardly the only current candidate we could add to that list. Whether it’s Hillary or Bernie, it’s identity politics political spoils. In fact, for most republicans it will still be identity politics political spoils, it’s just that the republican president will leave all that to the Supremes and the apparatchiks, who will push progressivism on without his help. Progressives gain power quick, or a little slower.

    The only way to *decrease* the power of the Progressive Theocracy is with a president who will fight back *in kind*.

    One way cease fire is surrender. One way rule of law is submission.

    1. The actual track record of people disliked by the crowd isn’t any better. In fact, Germany’s downfall started long before Hitler, and was largely precipitated by German churches and conservative politicians.

  48. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  49. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  50. Yahoo CEO, Marissa Meyer has gone som far as to Support the practice “Work at home” that I have been doing since last year. In this year till now I have earned 66k dollars with my pc, despite the fact that I am a college student. Even newbies can make 39 an hour easily and the average goes up with time. Why not try this.

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  51. Yahoo CEO, Marissa Meyer has gone som far as to Support the practice “Work at home” that I have been doing since last year. In this year till now I have earned 66k dollars with my pc, despite the fact that I am a college student. Even newbies can make 39 an hour easily and the average goes up with time. Why not try this.

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  52. The establishment intelligencia. At this point who cares if the ever did what these pompous ineffectual effetes, say. They have done nothing but flap their hands as Obama has taken the country down. They sit in their cloistered cossetted, little salons congratulatING themselves on their ideological purity. Well, I am right of Atilla the hun, and I see a battle that has been lost by these peddlers of ideology, lost to the gullet of the underclass that have swept into our country and put the leftists in power. If we are going down, I prefer to go down with a Donald Trump swinging.

  53. As a commenter on another site put it, Trump’s popularity is not “a reflection of how much we love HIM – it’s a reflection of how much we hate YOU.”

    Trump rose to national visibility on one issue: Immigration. As Ann Coulter’s current book, “Adios, America!” points out, our current immigration policy is insane – it’s a boon to every country EXCEPT the United States.

    Why do Libertarians (large “L” and also small “l”) insist on supporting unlimited IMMIGRATION? How about supporting the right of Americans to EMIGRATE to other countries, buy property in (for example) Mexico, and build churches in Saudi Arabia? When Libertarians have accomplished all (or any!) of those things, then come and talk to us about open borders. Until then, I’m in Trump’s corner, just on the strength of this one issue. If he does nothing else, fixing our broken clusterf**k of an immigration system will be worth it.

    1. Why do Libertarians (large “L” and also small “l”) insist on supporting unlimited IMMIGRATION?

      The only consensus of libertarians on immigration is that immigration need not and should not be restricted in a libertarian country. However, given our massive welfare state and restrictions on private freedom of association, many libertarians accept some limits on immigration.

      Nevertheless, many of the limits on immigration that people talk about make no sense, like the complaints by Sanders and others that “immigrants take away American jobs”. Pointing that out isn’t the same as supporting “unlimited immigration”.

  54. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  55. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  56. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    Click This Link inYour Browser……._+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Paybucket40.com

  57. my classmate’s mother-in-law makes $78 hourly on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $17581 just working on the computer for a few hours. view website

    ???????========[] http://www.Jobstribune.com

  58. my classmate’s mother-in-law makes $78 hourly on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $17581 just working on the computer for a few hours. view website

    ???????========[] http://www.Jobstribune.com

  59. Any candidate who likes libertarians and is hated by Landover Baptist conservatives can’t be all bad. A Trump or Bernie victory would be the signal for the rest of the boodling looters to again tar and feather the antichoice fanatics as after FDR’s third victory. Once they realize bigots can’t threaten the individual rights of half the population and get that hand in the till, one of those incompatible things will have to be pitched overboard.

  60. Most days I Really don’t approve when the media piles on, but in this case I am in favor.
    I have my doubts that anything short of a 0.44 Magnum can pierce that ego.

  61. who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP

    There is no “broad conservative ideological consensus”. The GOP has been held hostage by a small group of big government social conservatives. Trump’s popularity is a symptom of the fact that these people are becoming increasingly marginalized and increasingly disconnected from reality.

    No, Trump is not a good candidate. But neither are the “conservatives” that these people speak about.

    In fact, these conservatives are such statists that they best be booted out of the GOP and join the Democrats, where they belong ideological. The sooner that happens, the better for the GOP and the country.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.