An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump

A few days ago I took the time to read your expressed concerns about the support you see for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion.  Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.

goldberg headshotWhile we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.

The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.

I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.

On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am.  The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies.  It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber.  I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.

Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation.   Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.

Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred.  Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.

Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years.  The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed.  Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1.  It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.

From your own writing:

[…]  If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent.  (link)

With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto?  Simply, NO.

Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.

If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people.  Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option.  While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.

Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue.  We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people.   This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so.  Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind.  Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage.  A profound difference.

Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable.  Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent.   Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable empirical realities.  I digress.

Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski?  A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?

Did Reince Preibus, or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?

Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?

Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads?  Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel.  The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.

Perhaps you forget.  We do not.

Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.

You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test?  Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.

Principle?  You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration.  Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?

Remember Virginia 2012, 2013?  When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”.  Remember that?  We do.

What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign.   To teach us a lesson?  Well it worked, we learned that lesson.

Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.

You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?

That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say.  The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

obama_delivers budget_The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.

The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.

This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners)  with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs.  Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.

Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?

As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes?   All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”.  Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers?  This is a conservative position now?  A need to “tax the poor”?  Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a winning strategy?  This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.

Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

McConnell and Boehner

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?

Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:

“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”

Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy?  Essentially:  Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?


Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year.  Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?


This entry was posted in Big Stupid Government, Donald Trump, Election 2016, John Boehner, Legislation, Mitch McConnell, Notorious Liars. Bookmark the permalink.

756 Responses to An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump

  1. Benson II says:

    Great article but of course betrayal by the Republicans is not a reason in itself to support Trump.
    I’m a conservative, Trump is not a conservative. We have one true conservative in Cruz, however Cruz is a squish compared to Trump on illegal and other immigration. I support Trump because I believe he will do what he say he will do and those basics are what can turn our country around from the disasters inflicted by the left. These are, any deal military or financial will be favorable to the US, rebuild our military, take care of our vets, simplify the tax code, lower corporate tax, deport illegals, build a wall and enforce laws on immigration. Even if this is all he accomplishes it will put us on the road to a real recovery from decades of devolution. He has attacked the evil of PC successfully and handled the press, another plus. Trump supporters unlike others have refused to let the day to day pronouncements deter them from keeping their eyes on the bigger picture. Trump/Cruz 2016

    Liked by 3 people

    • woodNfish says:

      “…betrayal by the Republicans is not a reason in itself to support Trump.”

      One time maybe, but the RNC’s constant betrayal is more than enough reason. Trump isn’t conservative? Well, neither is the RNC.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Clint Hayes says:

        “One time maybe, but the RNC’s constant betrayal is more than enough reason. Trump isn’t conservative? Well, neither is the RNC.”

        I’m not following the logic here. You don’t like the RNC because it betrays conservative values, so you support a Republican candidate for president who has more liberal positions than conservative?

        Liked by 1 person

        • I think you are missing the point entirely of Trump’s support: We. Don’t. Care.
          Let it burn.
          Salt the earth.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Clint Hayes says:

            Fair enough. That’s one approach. Just don’t call it, or yourself, conservative at the same time. It’s not conservative in policy, philosophy, or temperament.

            Liked by 1 person

            • captnjoe says:

              Who made you the judge of conservative policy, philosophy, or temperament? Your purity test is ridiculous.

              Some of us are playing the long game here, and step one is destroy the GOPe. Get a clue.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Clint Hayes says:

                That’s not my purity test. That’s the nature of conservatism. If you don’t think so, please tell me when in history “Let it burn. Salt the earth.” has been considered a conservative sentiment.

                More to the point, though, it’s the purity test of grassroots, anti-establishment conservatives for at least the last twenty years.

                It’s been grassroots, anti-establishment conservatives who’ve said tax increases aren’t conservative.

                It’s been grassroots, anti-establishment conservatives who’ve said high tariffs and protectionism aren’t conservative.

                It’s been grassroots, anti-establishment conservatives who’ve said single-payer healthcare, Obamacare, and simply reforming Obamacare along single-payer lines aren’t conservative.

                It’s been grassroots, anti-establishment conservatives who’ve said using eminent domain to advance purely corporate interests isn’t conservative.

                It’s been grassroots, anti-establishment conservatives who’ve said that believing a judge who supports partial-birth abortion as a constitutional right would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court judge isn’t conservative.

                Those are all Trump. So I’m only measuring grassroots conservatives who support Trump by the purity test they’ve applied to every Republican candidate, including others running against Trump right now, before about three months ago. That large numbers of the grassroots are now supporting a candidate who by their own recently-jettisoned purity test is a definitive establishment RINO is an inconsistency on their part, not on those of us who still consider those anti-conservative positions. I keep hearing Trump has changed, but when any other establishment RINOs have changed positions so recently and dramatically—even when it hasn’t been as recent or dramatic—they’ve been dismissed as simply being disingenuous flip-floppers. And yet Trump is immune to that charge as well.

                It obviously comes down to personality. Because Trump has bravado, he is forgiven any anti-conservative sentiments and flip-flops he’s had, no matter the number, that even for other Republicans in this election cycle don’t apply. Why is it that Marco Rubio, with a 98% lifetime record with the American Conservative Union, is dismissed as an establishment squish for supporting comprehensive immigration reform that he says now was a mistaken approach, but Donald Trump is an enlightened conservative despite having supported Democrats and Republican moderates exclusively for at least twenty years before doing a sudden 180 in 2011 and still maintains a number of blatantly nonconservative positions?

                You say it’s part of “playing the long game.” I say nominating a barely conservative Republican who due to his wealth and personality needs no reliance on any constituency—uses that as a selling point, in fact—is a terrible move in that game. We have the most conservative federal legislature in modern history, with a logjam at the top. I say make sure McConnell and Boehner find new jobs—something grassroots conservatives apparently haven’t felt important enough to put their money where their mouths are in supporting their challengers—and get an actual conservative in the White House to work with that conservative legislature, not a recent quasi-convert with a die-hard liberal past and history of opportunism. Also, are Supreme Court nominees not part of the long game, in fact probably the most important part of the long game, considering how much the Court is determining the nature of our nation? You honestly trust Donald Trump with choosing conservative SC nominees, moreso than, say, Rubio?

                I think your “long game” is a dangerous one that will let the worst aspects of what Obama has done become permanent or continue. Trump’s already said he doesn’t want to repeal and replace the ACA, only reform it along the Scottish or Canadian model, based on his comments about Kelo and his sister there’s no way he’ll nominate true conservatives to the Supreme Court, and the economy will continue to limp along because the economic policies he says he favors—Paul Krugman endorsed them last week—conservatives in Congress will never give him. Beyond that, will he support truly conservative legislation coming out of Congress? It all depends on just how real his conservative conversion is. I’d rather not guess on any of it. I’ll take Rubio’s record over Trump’s any day of the week. Yes, his record on immigration has been frustrating, but he’s said he’s put that approach behind him. Based on the rest of his record, I believe him. More important, though, I think he’ll be as pragmatic about advancing immigration legislation as abortion legislation: It doesn’t have to fit his definition of perfect if it results in fewer abortions. That tells me that if Congress sends him immigration bills that help but don’t fit his definition of perfect, he’ll still sign them. I don’t trust Trump to do that, not with his liberal record and still-liberal positions. That’s a craps game I don’t want to play, however long or short.

                And just to be clear, I’m not saying you shouldn’t pursue that approach if you think it’s the right thing to do. I’m just saying don’t describe it as conservative, because by any standard you choose—whether historical, philosophical, or grassroots conservatives’ from about 1994 until Trump hit the campaign trail—it’s not.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Paulie T says:

                  Clint, you are so full of it-what Benson says above is right on. This country needs these reforms and if Trump can accomplish even most as stated above the country will benefit greatly. I, like Benson, believe he will do what he says despite Rino efforts to oppose him at every turn-including Rubio ! With your boy Rubio I bet one more foot of fence will never be built and by the way why should we now believe he will build the fence ?


                • filmklassik says:

                  In your post you say you don’t like RINOs — Republicans In Name Only — and yet you throw your support behind the one Republican who has endorsed more Progressive ideas than all the Congressional RINOS put together.


            • SharonKinDC says:

              These days, ‘conservative’ is open borders globalism w/ a nod toward pro-life and other social conservative positions. I note with interest they’ve had no success. Not fighting too hard.

              As for Cruz, he’s a conservative, except when it comes to the Corker deal, TPA to usher in TPP, and using a ‘living document’ concept of the Constitution in order to be eligible for POTUS.

              I believe just like D’s were fooled w/ ‘liberal’ which pols are often fascist, ‘conservative’ has been similarly abused.

              How about Pro-USA and Pro-US Citizen v/ Globalists? It’s much easier to separate the wheat from the chaff and NO CANDIDATE is more Pro-US than Trump.

              Liked by 1 person

            • tinatrent says:

              You miss the point — heck, you miss the entire argument.

              Let me summarize it for you: beltway conservatives diddle at litmus-testing and name-calling while Trump hones in on the one issue that matters the most to sustain an actually conservative and patriotic voice in the body politic — immigration, illegal and legal.


            • Bert Darrell says:

              Conservative is just a word, whose meaning seems to vary depending on who pronounces it as well as his or her motives. I prefer the term patriotic because whoever truly espouses it will do his utmost best to make America great again.


        • steve fraser says:

          Without the Wall and deportations of Illegales, our conservative values will be criminalized by the Progressives….DT, like the arrogant, self-centered know it-all Winston Churchill at the beginning of WWII, Trump is the one person at this specific time that has a chance to save our Republic….no one else has the unique characteristics to have a chance to do so. And expect massive demonstrations and violence from the Left every step of the way.


          • Nickel says:

            GOPe , Get used to it!
            The working class has voted conservative for 40 years! What do we have to show for it?
            Sorry! The GOPe is done!
            We ain’t goin there!!!


    • Paul T says:

      Great comments and Goldberg Letter! Let’s not forget Trump’s comments on healthcare.Our young working adults, especially if independent contractors, having to buy health insurance for their young and growing families are getting killed with huge monthly premiums and as Trump says “you need to be hit by a Mack Truck” to reach the ten and twelve thousand $ deductibiilies !

      Liked by 1 person

    • I to believe what Trump says he will do.No Cruz.


    • 1IreneFlick3 says:

      Get the **** of here you paid Cruz troll we don’t believe him any more. He’s dirty.

      (Comment edited by Admin…)


    • …disasters inflicted by the left…
      With all due respect B, the right/ “conservatives” are every bit as much to blame, as clearly outlined by Sundance, in their inaction to stop the left, as one example!


  2. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results | Grumpy Opinions

  3. davidfarrar says:

    Touché . I await Goldberg’s reply, if he has the cojones to reply.


    • Clint Hayes says:

      It takes no cojones on Goldberg’s part to reply to this article because the entire article misses Goldberg’s point, as I pointed out when this article came out.

      Sundance is entirely correct in his dissection of the problems with the GOP leadership. But being against the GOP leadership doesn’t automatically make you for Donald Trump. I’m as much against the GOP leadership as I’ve ever been, but that doesn’t make me believe Donald Trump is a conservative. I don’t believe Donald Trump is a conservative because he says he’s not a conservative. He says so with his tax and economic policies (which have now been endorsed by Paul Krugman); he says so in his support of Kelo and his use of eminent domain for the same purpose himself; he says so in his position on gun rights (he’s still for an “assault weapons” ban and lengthening the waiting period); and he says so in his position on immigration, where he supports a merit-based system of giving a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants.

      So when Jonah Goldberg and I and the rest of us who take Trump at his word that he’s not a conservative say he’s not a conservative, we’re just being consistent: We’re as much against his lack of conservatism as we are McConnell and Boehner. Just because Trump says some things that seem to go against what the “establishment” GOP is for—open immigration, for instance—he is in numerous other ways as moderate as the establishment, and in fact more moderate. You don’t see Paul Krugman endorsing Jeb Bush’s economic plan, do you?

      Trump has no coherent conservative or liberal philosophy. His positions are an incoherent grab-bag of both sides. When he gets called out on something he actually perceives as bad for him, he plays the “It was just for entertainment” or “The media is twisting my words” cards. I’m not clear on how that instills confidence in conservatives who have railed for so long against inconsistent conservatives. There are much better truly conservative candidates than Trump. If it’s just about Trump being able to win, you have to ask yourself: What price winning? Do you want someone to win who’s not much if any more conservative than McConnell and Boehner? I thought we did that with George W. Bush, and nobody seems to be arguing for that.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sentient says:

        Let Trump build the Wall so that we don’t suffer 70+ years of the democrat party the way Mexico suffered 70+ years of the PRI. After Trump’s first term, reassess. There are 700 million people south of the border. If we continue to allow the uneducated & unskilled ones to sneak in and eventually vote for the democrat party, all of your other issues will be forever lost.


        • Clint Hayes says:

          No argument with your final point, which is why immigration is one of my top concerns, if not my top, but your premise is flawed. It presumes there are no other truly conservative candidates who don’t also want to secure the border. If we go with Cruz, for example, we get both a truly conservative candidate—far more conservative than Trump ever has been or ever will be—and someone we know has the backbone to stand up for those conservative principles. Rubio is considered a heretic for his Gang of 8 support, but he’s on the record multiple times now saying he learned his mistake trusting Obama and Senate Democrats and that he won’t do that again. Even if you doubt his conservative bona fides, though—and you shouldn’t; he has a 98% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union—he’s still far more conservative than Trump ever will be.

          Which brings me back to your last point: If you vote in somebody with a value and positions as unpredictable and incoherent as Trump’s, with a record to match, you have no idea what he’ll actually do in office. Based on his record, there’s as good a chance he’ll veer to the left as to the right. Do you really want to spin the wheel that way with issues so pressing? Because, as you say, if we don’t get them right now, we may lose our chance to do anything about them forever.

          Liked by 1 person

          • paulinmontana says:

            There’s no reason — zip, zero, nada — to trust Rubio on immigration — he’s a snake (except why impugn snakes by the comparison?). As Speaker of the Florida House, he was the prime mover in killing excellent state-level bills against illegal immigration. When he ran for the U.S. Senate, Rubio came out foursquare against amnesty (but those of us in the know — even us non-Floridians in the know — didn’t trust him). Then as U.S. senator he reverted to his true colors on illegal immigration as poster boy for the Gang of Eight. And in apologizing for that — even if you believe him — he doesn’t say much to indicate understanding that LEGAL immigration is the underlying problem:

            Trump, in contrast, has been in significant conversation with Jeff Sessions, the gold standard on immigration, and Trump’s written policy proposals reflect this collaboration;

            I’m a great admirer of Cruz, and he’s fine on illegal immigration, but he is uncomprehending of the basic point that LEGAL immigration is the essential problem, and he’s been wildly snookered to think that we need a huge (factor of five!!) expansion of STEM-worker immigrants via the H-1B visa program:

            [I apologize if this comment appears twice. It’s not clear to me what the sign-on procedure is here … ]

            Liked by 2 people

            • Clint Hayes says:

              Marco Rubio isn’t a “snake.” He’s one of the most decent guys in the race, and he talks about fundamental freedoms better than anyone in the race. His speech at the 2012 convention was outstanding.

              That said, he’s trying to thread a needle I’m not sure he can thread, I agree with that, and that’s the main reason I’m still wary of him as a candidate. I need substantial reassurance from him on that, but that’s not the only issue I’m pulling the proverbial lever on.

              Trump’s consulting with Sessions is indeed a great idea, and I’ve looked at his policy statement on immigration on his website. (At the moment the only policy statement on his website.) I noticed one thing about it, though: It says nothing about reversing Obama’s executive actions on amnesty. It also says nothing about Trump’s saying at least twice in recent months that he believes in giving illegals already here a path—whether to legal status or citizenship he doesn’t say—with some sort of merit-based system—which happens to be the same plan Rubio and Jeb Bush have for them.

              But as I’ve said repeatedly in this forum, you have to take Trump at his word on any of this, and he’s given ample reason over the years not to, and he’s still by far the least conservative candidate running. Quick: Who do you trust more to pick the next couple of Supreme Court justices, Donald Trump or Ted Cruz? Donald Trump or Ben Carson? Donald Trump or Marco Rubio? Donald Trump or Scott Walker?

              Who do you trust more to go toe-to-toe with unions over the NLRB and right-to-work? Over keeping the Ex-Im bank on ice? The lifelong crony capitalist trump, or Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, et al?

              Who do you trust more to repeal—not reform—Obamacare? Trump—the man who says it’s better to reform what we have in line with the Scottish or Canadian systems—or any of other candidates running?

              The man may be conservative on immigration—I don’t trust that he actually is—but even if he is, it’s just about the only thing. There are other candidates we can trust to be solid on immigration without selling out on the rest.


          • Smitty says:

            Funny how people defend Rubio’s tactical flip on what he SAYS about immigration only after he has suffered a beatdown by true Conservatives across the board. You say that Rubio has now learned his lesson. Really? So was Rubio an idiot simpleton when he hit the Senate floor with zero political experience? Hardly. He knew precisely what he was doing. He gambled along with the gang of 8 that, with a heard of Rinos, the media, obama, and a majority of dems, they could succeed in passing “immigration reform” (amnesty) against the will of the people after seeing how obama passed obamacare. Rubio insulted Conservatives time and again during that fiasco and they failed. Rubio hasn’t “learned” a thing. He’s simply changing his song as he races for the Whitehouse and he’ll change right back if he gets there.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Bert Darrell says:

            Sorry but I don’t buy that Cruz is conservative or anything else other that sick man. I do not believe anything he has said because I’ve seen him changing his tune several times every day while talking to different people in separate places. He is a certifiable pathological liar. Calling him conservative is just as meaningless as the word itself. Hoping that Cruz will do anything but follow orders from the globalist cabal (Goldman Sachs, proponents of the North American Union, to cite just two examples) is a hopeless illusion … but I acknowledge your right to dream.


          • TheLastConservative says:

            You lost it at the Rubio thing. That guy isn’t defensible at all.

            And even assuming you’re right about Trump, what then? Cruz was horrid. (I supported Cruz myself until he went off the deep end.) But Cruz is out now anyway. The only other decent fellow was Carson and he supports Trump now. Voting for Hillary/Bernie is akin to a vote to blow up what’s left of the US.

            So what’s the point really? There are no options except Trump. He may let everybody down but a vote for -maybe- (Trump) is a heck of a lot better than a vote for -assured destruction- (Hillary/Bern).


        • Paul T says:

          I totally agree with Sentiment.


      • FlameCCT says:

        While I prefer a Conservative, I will vote for a Libertarian or Liberal over any Progressive Republican Establishment candidate or Progressive Democrat. Jonah has said more than you allude in your comments, he has also disparaged many of the base which makes some of us wonder if he is a Conservative or another supporter of the Progressive Republican Establishment.

        Liked by 1 person

      • woodNfish says:

        I’ve heard the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Voting for any RNC establishment turd will be insanity. They have screwed us over and over again as Sundance wrote. When we gave them the majority in both houses in the last election, the first thing they did was turn their backs on their pledge to overturn obamacare. I’m done playing that game. At least if we get Trump and he seals the border and starts mass deportations we will get more jobs for our own citizens and not foreigners. The RNC made their bed, now they can lay in it.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Clint Hayes says:

          If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, why would you want to vote for a RINO like Trump? The man is as moderate as the RNC establishment you vilify so much. He may or may not be solid on immigration, but he definitely isn’t on property rights, Obamacare, taxes, Supreme Court nominations, gun rights (he wants an “assault weapons” ban), and a host of other conservative touchstones. (Or at least they used to be.)

          My question is what basis you have for believing Trump in the first place when he says he’s a conservative.


          • ugattabkideen says:

            Easy. Trump isn’t a conservative. We know that. We also know that the GOP could nominate and support a conservative candidate – but they don’t/ won’t. They’re working as hard as they can to STAMP OUT conservatives in their party.

            Fine. My only weapon is my Vote. I refuse to give my vote to the GOPe and the RINOs they nominate. I will NEVER vote for Bush. I will NEVER vote for a soft-on-illegals-because-boo-hoo-they’re-trying-to-improve-their-lives candidate. You see, I’m a legal, natural-born citizen; and I would like a chance to improve MY life, thank-you-very-much. But “my” party , the one which pretends to support conservative principles and Rule-of-Law, treats conservative candidates like they were The Enemy. They laugh at my concerns about the future of this country. They are abetting our cultural and economic decline.

            Therefore I will vote for someone who serves the CITIZENS of this country and refuses to pretend that any Juan or Achmed strolling across the border has a stronger claim on my money (via all the “aid and outreach” programs our tax dollars are confiscated for) than I do.

            So — Trump isn’t a conservative. Too bad, I wish he were. However, (1) he understands that one of government’s legitimate functions is to secure and protect its borders, and (2) he wants to accept only immigrants who are likely to be a net BENEFIT to the country. That’s a start. Especially since the current anti-Americans in the GOP refuse to permit any such non-Progressive heresy to pass their lips.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Paul T says:

            Clint acts like he knows more about Trump than Trump knows about himself ! You are probably spending too much time listening to Glen Beck and those two clowns he runs his mouth with daily-sit back and listen, it is so incoherent and he is all over the place with that circus he calls informative !
            You said illegal immigration is so important to you, so credit Trump for bringing emphasis to the issue. You haven’t seen illegal immigration until your anointed Rubio gets his way.
            The biggest problems this country faces are financial and hands down Trump is our best bet to return the country to prosperity. As I have said before the country is BROKE-trillions in borrowed money with close to 40 percent interest on the debt and do you think Trump doesn’t understand this ? Do you think he pays exorbitant interest rates when he finances any of his high rise buildings or any of his projects ? His plan to significantly cut corporate taxes will result in trillions of offshore $$ coming back into the country, which will create hundreds of thousands of jobs and have a huge positive ripple effect on our economy.
            Don’t forget his emphasis on increased competition in Healthcare. Some of Jebbie’s largest contributors are Health Insurance Companies because they don’t want open competition or elimination of State Borders-who cares if we have thirty or forty companies, or Walmart wants to be a Healthcare Provider !
            Trump appeals to young voters who are independent contractors or realtors or anybody
            that carries their own insurance when he talks about the huge increase in monthly premiums along with his statement that “you have to be hit by a Mack Truck” to reach the deductibles. I know this to be true because two of my sons have their own business and monthly premiums have more than doubled for them- with small families (350 to $750) per month with 10 and 12 thousand dollar deductibles. Young people like this are becoming engaged, they don’t understand what’s going on up in Wash. and when hit in the pocket like Obama Care has, believe me they are finding out quickly.

            Remember Clint- we are making the same mistakes as Greece ! I’ll bet your boy Rubio has trouble balancing his check book. Before you tell me “Well Trump has been bankrupt before” remember he was using existing laws which were perfectly legal and he has used the law on three or four occasions so he knows when a company is broke and needs to be restructured. This Country Ain’t Far Behind!

            Liked by 1 person

          • SharonKinDC says:

            The way you and the NRO define ‘conservative’ isn’t the way I and millions of others do. The sad fact is too many were duped by the c-word label, and hence, decades later, we know we’ve been hoodwinked.

            The c word belongs on the rubbish heap…along w/ all candidates, besides Trump.


      • herbork says:

        Now who’s missing the point? WDC is a two-party Statist con game. There is no way forward now that both parties have begun to openly go post-Constitutional. Trump is the choice because he smashes the narrative that only the political class is fit to govern. That’s not the “Any kid can grow up to be President” America we used to cherish. So Trump, whatever else he might or might not do, kicks over the card table and shoots out the lights in the Best Little Whorehouse on the Potomac.
        TRUMP 2016

        Liked by 2 people

        • Neelie says:

          Agree. First of all, no one knows any more who is a Conservative or not in the lineup. How about someone who has common sense and a record of following through on his word. Maybe someone who does the buying yet can’t be bought would be a good start.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Paul T says:

          Herbork, you are right on-after the card table is kicked over and the lights are shot out somebody needs to Pee on the cards so they aren’t playable again!

          Trump is the Man !

          Liked by 2 people

      • SharonKinDC says:

        Actually, he is most similar to what has been called a Classical Liberal, before the ‘liberal’ word was contorted. It’s Pro-US.




      • You are wrong on his 2nd amendment position. He will not do that.


  4. For many supporters the connection with Trump is visceral and its all about his TONE. We’re simply are not interested in how erudite a candidates’ policy is, or how carefully nuanced their brand of conservatism is (that’s what I can’t stand about Fiorina – and Trump was exactly right. She doesn’t look presidential at all!).

    My only complaint about Donald Trump is that he insists on calling Obama incompetent, and or stupid, when he should be denouncing the Usurper as a calculate despot and traitor. What I wouldn’t give to hear Trump say that his first orders of business as President of the United States is to try Barrack Obama for treason against the United States of America. That would seal deal for most of us.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Joe L says:

    This Jonah fellow has it all wrong, I disagree with the premise he is conservative at all. I’ll tell you what IS conservative and that is protecting our borders. What is NOT conservative is big business with global ambitions run amuck.
    The National Review has hijacked conservatism and turned the Republican party into a god-awful lobby for big business. They are all for conservatism until the banks need to be bailed out and then they morph into free spending Keynesians.
    This NRO and its ideology has become, morally speaking, a sad joke played on the citizens of our country and so is Jonah Goldberg. Yuck. But what is so odd, and what seems lost on Jonah, is that people have priorities on each issue. Kind of like a bride who is driving to her wedding no longer gives a sh about her cake if her car flips over and she’s suddenly drowning in a river. So blather on about these pseudo-intellectual wedge issues like flat tax vs. wealth tax. The screaming you are hearing is about our borders and the lack of protection our citizens perceive from our government. Our way of life, our culture, the solvency of our country is in the balance.
    Everyone can agree that we have all survived progressive tax schemes. I may not like them but I have done fine under them (not like the Repubs ever change them anyway). What we cannot agree on is what is going to happen to us when 50% of the people here were born somewhere else and 70% of them are on welfare. Because I know basic math, these are uncharted waters for our country and this scares the crap out of me. I drive home and every bus stop looks like a Syrian refugee center. Five years ago, I never saw these people with their Burkas and what not. Now they are everywhere. So I am glad Sundance wrote this. Jonah purports to be a smart guy. Jonah should spend his energy an figuring this SH out and quit crying that the one guy (Trump) who understands the electorate is going to steal the election. I think he’s going to win it and deep down I think the NRO does too.

    The border is our #1 priority. Period.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Clint Hayes says:

      This is entirely unfair to Goldberg, to the degree that I have to wonder if you actually read his original piece, much less anything he’s ever written. The idea that he or NR has “hijacked conservatism and turned the GOP into a god-awful lobby for big business” reveals a total and complete ignorance of either. NR, either editorially or through its contributors or both, has railed against crony capitalism in all its forms (including, now, Trump, proud enough of his crony capitalism he actually brags about it), Dodd-Frank, too-big-too-fail, our criminally high corporate tax rate, corporate subsidies, Bush’s steel tariffs, etc., as long as I’ve been reading it, which has been about twenty-five years now. If you think otherwise, you simply haven’t read the magazine or its online counterpart.

      If there’s inconsistency on anyone’s parts, it’s Trump’s supposedly conservative supporters, for six months ago, it would have been a death knell to any conservative candidate’s run to even whisper that, hey, “we have all survived progressive tax schemes,” we’ll get by. Or, flat tax—that’s just a pseudo-intellectual wedge issue. Assault weapons ban and lengthening the waiting period? That’s just common sense. (It’s also Donald Trump’s position.) Using eminent domain to kick people out of their homes to build a parking lot for a casino, or to build some apartments that’ll bring in more revenue to the city? That’s just good business. (Not just Trump’s position, but his actual business practice.) And a candidate’s economic plan being endorsed by Paul Krugman? Shrug. Hey, he’s serious about the border, isn’t he?

      Everyone around here knows this. They know how strict the litmus test has been for conservative candidates. They know they’re the ones who applied those litmus tests to every candidate who came down the pike, and if they didn’t hie to that line, they were RINOs. Didn’t matter if they had a 98% rating, 100% rating from the American Conservative Union, or the Club for Growth. If they missed one checkbox, they were RINOs, neocon shills for business, Kool-Aid drinkers who just don’t get it. And now suddenly the same applies to any of us conservatives who actually have stayed consistent, who still apply the same litmus test to all the candidates, including Trump.

      But for Trump’s supporters, none of those litmus tests matter anymore. They’re gone with his wind. He can have as moderate a record as Arlen Specter—just far more inconsistent—he can have economic policies that make progressive pundits swoon—but they just don’t matter. Suddenly they’re just “pseudo-intellectual wedge issues.” All that matters is that he says he’ll secure the border. Gee, if only Ted Cruz had said he’d do that before Trump did. If only Marco Rubio had said that he’d do that before Trump did. If only Carly Fiorina had said she’d do that before Trump did. If only Rick Perry had said he’d do that before Trump did.

      Oh, wait. They all did.

      Oh, but Trump said it with Gusto! Oh, well, if that’s all it takes.

      You’re pinning all your hopes about a single issue—immigration—on Trump. That’s a hell of a lot of faith to place in a guy who for over twenty years donated millions of dollars exclusively to Democrats and the occasional squishy Republican like McCain and Specter before suddenly, apparently, seeing the light and switching completely to Republicans in 2011. Who still holds views any grassroots conservative before Trump’s entry into the race would never have accepted in any other conservative candidate, including ones currently running.

      And the greatest irony: Who has said more than once now, about illegal immigrants in this country, that we should “give them a path,” using a merit-based system. Yes, your Trump said that. Told Bret Baier that back in April. Said it on Morning Joe back in July.

      You know who else said that? Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.

      How much do you trust Trump on immigration now? Or does even that matter?


      • FlameCCT says:

        While I prefer a Conservative candidate like Cruz, I would vote for a Libertarian or Liberal before any of the Progressive Republican Establishment candidates or Progressive Democrats. Jonah and NRO appear to support the Progressive Republican Establishment and their preferred candidates and their continuing capitulation to the Obama Administration and Progressive ideology. They talk the talk but fail to walk the walk.

        Yes, one of the main reasons that people like and support Trump is because they finally have someone who is standing up to Progressives. His campaign has side tracked the attacks that would have been made against those who oppose the Progressive Republican Establishment. IOW Trump’s bright light has exposed the Progressives including Establishment and media. The Republican primary candidates and media like NRO would be better off attacking the Progressive Republican Establishment candidates and promoting their own policy plans while using the space provided by Trump’s campaign.


      • Optimus Maximus says:

        If you are truly a conservative, quit being an idiot and set your priorities. Priority #1 is getting elected.. Priority #2 is sealing the border. Priority #3 is cutting off the anchor baby magnet. We conservatives can survive anything if we do those two things. We can survive nothing if we do not get those two things. Trump is the only one that can do #1, and promises to do #2 & #3 in short order. Everything else is arguing with the fire department about which door they should break in while your house is burning down. You may not like the GOPe strategy, but it isn’t a conspiracy theory. They barely try to hide it anymore.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Richard Haydn says:

        Clint, I understand your argument. I really do. My initial reaction to Trump was: “What a bombastic, self-loving, non-presidential, goof”. But now that he has broken through in the early contest, there is another key aspect to consider. Of all the candidates, who is the most likely to fire up the base and get out the vote? Who is the most likely to have a real shot at winning?

        Romney may be a swell guy and conservative as all get out. I am sure Bob Dole is also a true patriot and fine conservative. But they didn’t win and neither will Cruz, Rubio, Bush or any of the rest. Obama electrified the Democratic base because he would be the first black man to hold the office. The Dems hope that Hillary will invigorate the base as the first woman. We need our own celebrity. It is that simple. We live in the age of celebrity and shallowness. Unfortunate but true.

        Trump has the celebrity pull to get all the ball cap wearing, big time wrestling fans to the polls. And the immigration issue is all they care about.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Cal says:

      About parties (factions).
      John Adams: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

      George Washington on factions in his farewell presidential speech: ‘The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
      Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
      It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

      John Adams: “Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”

      Glad you are also concerned about the borders.

      The problem is that no one who serves within our governments – Democrat or Republican can lawfully do anything about the border unless they use a Militia, which is NOT a governmental body. It is “We the people” trained and armed so that we could NEVER be under a “police state” or have unlawful *”martial law”, “emergency powers” called as there is NO authority DELEGATED to any who serve within our governments – state or general (federal), just as “assassination powers” here in America are really First Degree Murder on the part of ALL involved in any way. Our nation is under the US Constitution which is the contract that all who serve within our governments are under.

      Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution”

      America is a constitutional republic under the US Constitution which defines our way of government, assigned the duties and authority given to each BRANCH and a few positions within a branch.

      James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434: “The right of the people to keep and bear… arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”

      Each state’s Militia is made up of *“We the People” protecting our own interests, homes, states, nation, and enforcing our governments. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:

      — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
      — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
      — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
      — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

      (Insurrection is basically an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against an established government, we are lawfully a constitutional republic with our government put into writing.)

      You might also consider that the enforced actions of many of the edicts, laws, regulations being used against the people is **Terrorism, and Treason.

      Both parties are corrupt, and to vote party is to vote for more of the same – the destruction of America. Until we get ***Election Fraud out of our “voice” in government, prosecute all involved at ANY level to the fullest extent of our laws, we will continue to be silenced. Follow through and REPLACE every person who is currently serving within our governments at every level because EVERY one of them were REQUIRED to take and KEEP the Oath to “SUPPORT and DEFEND” the US Constitution and have NOT done so. (Think of all the job openings)

      *Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425 (1934): “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.”

      *The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866 9YES IT STILL APPLIES): “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”

      **28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

      *** The 2008 Democratic Nominating Committee (DNC) document did not include the normal language included on that document stating that Obama was qualified to be a candidate. The 2008 Republican Nominating Committee (RNC) document did, as is normal. This shows that the DNC knew that Obama was not qualified, or why change the form?

      ***South Bend, Indiana JURY of the people found that Election Fraud put BOTH Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election.

      But never fear, as the Republican party has been just as fraudulent in their actions. Did you realize that shutting off the peoples voice in government is Treason?

      US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8,

      Some things to think about:

      Dr. Vieira sums it up nicely here. “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

      The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
      The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

      … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

      And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
      What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability. ” (End Dr. Vieira quote)

      Ronald Reagan: “I had a copy of the Soviet Constitution and I read it with great interest. And I saw all kinds of terms in there that sound just exactly like our own: ‘Freedom of assembly’ and ‘freedom of speech’ and so forth. Of course, they don’t allow them to have those things, but they’re in there in the constitution.
      But I began to wonder about the other constitutions – everyone has one – and our own, and why so much emphasis on ours. And then I found out, and the answer was very simple – that’s why you don’t notice it at first. But it is so great that it tells the entire difference.
      All those other constitutions are documents that say, ‘We, the government, allow the people the following rights,’ and our Constitution says ‘We the People, allow the government the following privileges and rights.’ We give our permission to government to do the things that it does. And that’s the whole story of the difference – why we’re unique in the world and why no matter what our troubles may be, we’re going to overcome”.

      Thomas Jefferson: “For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.

      South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate: ““When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive. Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.”

      People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825): “The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign, …It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound.”

      Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

      Liked by 3 people

    • Paul T says:

      Joe L your comments are so right on. I knocked on hundreds of doors for Dave Brat and over 80 percent of respondents were concerned about Eric Cantor’s (Boehners Boy) position and flip flop on border security!

      Liked by 1 person

  6. thenpp1 says:

    For me, the answer doesn’t require such a long, long, LONG answer or reply: We have been doing the suggested “in the right way” for a couple of decades now. Look at the lack of advancement. Doesn’t take a genius to realize that if the way you are going is taking you away from where you want to be, then you go a different direction entirely.
    And I think the others on the road are agreeing with me.
    (There is NO REASON except leadership as to why the GOP doesn’t own the black votes. The DNC owns them, but they have been “owning” blacks for centuries. Time to set them free.)

    Liked by 2 people

  7. aztegger says:

    Very good analysis as to why conservatives are upset with the GOP. But, Trump is not the cure to ills in the party. My support has always been with Ted Cruz. He has a proven record of standing up for the Constitution and for Americans. It’s disappointing to see that we have Conservatives stealing Kool Aid from the progressives.


  8. Pingback: Jonah Goldberg Replies to The Conservative Treehouse on Trump -

  9. Carl LaFong says:

    “One more thing . ,” as Columbo used to say.

    Who gave us campaign finance reform? The GOP. Arizona senate John InAne was hornswaggled (by Pew Research) into believing it was the next prairie fire sweeping the country. And then George Dubya Doofus goes and SIGNS IT


  10. ugattabkideen says:

    To put the political labels into perspective (I read this analogy somewhere online, but have no idea anymore who to credit):

    “The Democrat Party and the Republican Party try to pretend they are fundamentally different — but if you look closely, you’ll see they’re just the Left and Right cheeks of the same butt.”

    That one made me chuckle out loud!


  11. Old Polish Proverb says:

    “The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.”


  12. Andy Boy says:

    We’re at war. Big time. You know, the 100 year war which is entering a final phase. Or maybe it’s the 1000 year war. We need a War President. It all comes down to one thing – you’re in a bar, things are getting ugly and looking real bad, who do you FEEL is going to have your back? Jump in, or cause a scene, or misdirect, or buy drinks for the bar – something for God’s sake. For all that he’s not, and that’s plenty, we need someone feisty, and T has always been that. Always.

    And that’s enough. And that’s everything. “He fights!” Jonah shows just why it’s time he left the room and go wander. Like it’s a bug, instead of the only feature that counts NOW.

    Related question: who was Superman’s biggest nemesis? Our intellectual conservative betters would say Lex Luthor, of course, we all know that. But they’d be wrong. Lumpen proletariats get that it’s Bizarro Superman. The Donald is our Bizarro Superman. You don’t get it, Jonah? We know, buddy, we know.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. girlkansas says:

    Good read.


  14. Tim Nivkel says:

    40 years of voting GOP.
    Where has it got us? No where!
    DEM Or REP? Who cares they are one of the same. Time for real change and an outsider who can wreak havoc on the status quo!
    Trump or bust!

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Paul T says:

    Tim, you are right on!

    The best way to ensure things continue on the same messed up path with growth of Govt. continuing out of control and with the same old destructive policies would be to vote for the RHINO of all RHINO’S- Jebbie Bush!

    Let’s give Trump a chance to throw a monkey wrench in all the RHINO’S plans. The way I see it, is what have we got to loose?


  16. Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » Council Nominations: Sept 9, 2015

  17. Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken: Sept 11, 2015

  18. Pingback: Trump a conservative? | The zombie apocalypse survival homestead

  19. Wiggy says:

    Chris Hayes…you lean too hard on the word “conservative”. It strike me that you are still using it as it was maybe 50 years ago. Today most people are combinations of conservative, liberal, or whatever else they may believe. So does Trump these days.

    Considering your penchant for “conservative”, please take the items below and describe which are conservative, which are liberal, or other. You can answer by numbers that I put for your convenience.

    1 Build a strong wall.
    2 Enforcing immigration laws starting with the deportation of gang members and their entire families.
    3 Renegotiate trade deals with Japan, Mexico and China that are robbing US of manufacturing jobs.
    4 The legal situation of anchor babies of illegal parents not under our jurisdiction has never been tested in court.
    5 Do away with policies that stifle job creation
    6 Build the Keystone pipeline.
    7 Health insurance across borders.
    8 Lower taxes for the middle class.
    9 Business tax15%.
    10 No AMT tax.
    11 Repatriation of capital tax 10%.
    12 No death tax.
    13 Campaign finance reform,
    14 Kill ISIS and protect the Security of the USA

    Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Do away with green crap the world not burning


  21. Simple. Frigid. Anger.


  22. Jane Vale says:

    If people in this country make it so that Killary becomes Pres, we will become a SAUL ALINKSY Socialist/Communist Country. Saul Alinsky was her Mentor as he was also Obama’s Mentor. That’s why our Country has become so much MORE Progressive in the past 8 years. THESE TOP DEMOS are Progressives, as is Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, so many West Coasters. If you don’t know anything about Saul Alinsky, I suggest you read as much as you can so you understand what this Progressive movement is all about, and we’re heading in that direction. We stand a MUCH better chance pulling ourselves out of this Progressive MUCK with Trump than anyone else right now. He CERTAINLY understands what’s WRONG WITH OUR COUNTRY RIGHT NOW AND HE WANTS TO FIX IT.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s