Article

2017-01-06 Home Front: Politix

[American Thinker] In the wake of Donald Trump's election as our next President, much has been made of the GOP's need to unite. I agree with this sentiment. However, I humbly suggest to those Republicans, including Trump who led the successful campaign to retake our country, that while we must unite and even forgive our wayward rank-and-file GOP brethren who chose not to support our efforts, we must never forget those who engaged in outright acts of treachery that jeopardized our cause and our nation's future.

First, I must make clear I am not referring to every Republican who made a personal decision not to support Trump. I am sure that there are registered voters in every election cycle who quietly choose, for personal reasons, not to support their party's nominee. As American voters, we must all act according to the dictates of our consciences.

Rather, I am referring to those Republicans who had such a vested interest (emotional, financial, or otherwise) in maintaining the status quo, maintaining the same stale policies that had long served their personal and business interests at the expense of the Republican electorate and their country, that they poured significant time and energy into derailing the GOP nominee and thwarting the will of the Republican voters who supported him.

We must not forget Jamie Weinstein, a "conservative" editor at Dailycaller.com who advocated a "negotiated Republican surrender" to Hillary Clinton. Weinstein went so far as to publicly urge his fellow Republicans to vote Democrat.

We must not forget Jonah Goldberg, Kevin D. Williamson, and the majority of contributors and editors at the National Review, which posted multiple anti-Trump articles on a daily basis, even dedicating one entire issue to attacking Trump. Williamson became so unhinged at one point that he characterized white-working class communities that supported Trump as "morally indefensible" and wrong to blame their troubles on our nation's illegal immigration problem and policies that have proven harmful to the working class. In Williams's judgment, these white working-class communities had "failed themselves" and "deserve to die."

Following Trump's victory, and a catastrophic loss of subscribers, the National Review has since tempered its message. The staff continue to attack Trump, but now they take the occasional break to give our president-elect "sound conservative advice." Namely, they have advised Trump to abandon the positions that got him elected, to appoint the same stale establishment GOP figures who have repeatedly failed to stand up to Obama for eight years, and to adopt the same stale establishment policies that cost us the White House in 2008.

But National Review has nothing on Bill Kristol and his Weekly Standard. Kristol didn't just criticize Trump or write scathing articles attacking the campaign; Kristol orchestrated a massive search for a third-party candidate to run in the general election. He met with prospective candidates and even tried to line up financial backing for a third-party run. Kristol acknowledged that this third-party candidate had no realistic chance to win but expressed the hope that the candidate would take enough votes away from Trump to keep him from getting elected.
More awaits.

Posted by Besoeker 2017-01-06 08:49|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top

#1 I don't have a problem with people disagreeing within the same party about politics, nor acting on their convictions based on the information available at the time. To the contrary, I think it is dangerous to shut down and shout down voices of dissent -- that's what the Social Justice Warriors on the left do until a Donald Trump steps forward and defeats their pre-crowned candidate, with coattails that sweep most of the country of Democratic representation.

I have a problem with people staging marches and riots when the vote didn't go their way. And I have a problem with people watching subsequent events unfold, but not modifying their opinions in the face of actual evidence. On the other hand, while we are now seeing the kind of influence Mr. Trump is willing and able to wield as president-in-waiting, since he has not yet been sworn in we do not know if he will be able to live up to that promise as president. But even a majority of Democrats, in a recent poll, hope he will be successful, so there's that in opposition to the posturing in the news and on social media.

Those pundits and politicians who roared the loudest against Mr. Trump now have to deal with rescuing themselves from irrelevance. It remains to be seen whether they will succeed by offering analyses useful to potential readers, or if they will realize they have already unintentially retired. I accepted the National Review's offer of a free one-year subscription, which pops up every time one clicks on one of their articles; I shall be watching this experiment with interest.

Posted by trailing wife 2017-01-06 12:00|| 2017-01-06 12:00|| Front Page Top

#2 Those pundits and politicians who roared the loudest against Mr. Trump now have to deal with rescuing themselves from irrelevance.

As clearly evidenced by the latest Clinton scheme to run for mayor of NYC.

Posted by Besoeker 2017-01-06 13:09|| 2017-01-06 13:09|| Front Page Top

10:11 Deacon+Blues
10:00 Deacon+Blues
09:54 Huputle+Cherelet4131
09:53 Elmerert Hupens2660
09:50 Elmerert Hupens2660
09:48 Huputle+Cherelet4131
09:41 Besoeker
09:35 Besoeker
09:33 Besoeker
09:32 Skidmark
09:29 Skidmark
09:26 Besoeker
08:53 Mercutio
08:50 M. Murcek
08:38 Skidmark
08:36 Skidmark
08:32 Skidmark
08:29 Skidmark
08:27 Skidmark
08:26 Skidmark
08:23 Mercutio
08:21 ed in texas
08:10 Bobby
08:02 Procopius2k