| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| The Misguided Establishmentarian Right |
| 2016-10-18 |
| As I recently said about the Pegster: the slowest kid in the class finally gets it... The case of Peggy Noonan. Amongst Republicans there are two kinds of Trump-haters: the never-Trumpers who boast that they’ll never support him, and the non-never-Trumpers who say they’ll do so, but only by holding their noses. By their timidity, the latter reveal the tragic flaw that has prevented Republicans from winning elections. They’ll advance their arguments in favor of the Trump issues, and then go on to express their contempt for the man who had the courage to articulate them. Winners don’t do this sort of equivocating. It’s like the codas one finds in medieval courtly literature, such as De Amore (The Art of Courtly Love), by Andreas Capellanus, believed to be a Capuchin monk. In this delightful discourse on love, Capellanus teaches how ladies and gentlemen should properly prosecute a love affair. The lover is ardent; his love object is doubtful. It’s all very beautiful. At the end, however, a retraction of the entire concept is required, lest the work be deemed improper by the Church. So there’s a coda, where the worldly priest exonerates himself by describing how disgusting women are and warning men to resist their natural inclinations lest they burn in everlasting hell. In a variation on this method, Peggy Noonan, Conservatism’s sweetheart, describes four of Hillary’s transgressions, while exonerating herself by damning Donald Trump as well. Just because I condemn her, doesn’t mean I like him, she protests, and thereby betrays her weakness. First, there’s Hillary’s Russian connection, including the Uranium One scandal. This is where the Clintons, while Hillary was Secretary of State, pushed forward a number of deals backed by the State Department, which resulted in Russia owning large uranium stakes in Kazakhstan and the U.S. In this way, Russia acquired means to make nuclear fuel and, in return, the Clinton Foundation received $31 million and a pledge of an additional $100 million from one of the principles, and Bill Clinton received $500,000 for giving a speech. In another deal, Secretary Clinton pushed for a joint U.S.-Russian technology initiative which gave Russia access to U.S. classified and sensitive information, as well to emerging technologies. In return, shares in the consortium were handed out to investors who were also Clinton Foundation donors. Some in the State Department were alarmed, but the Clintons were hugely enriched. Read the whole thing |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #11 The Republican party has always been an uneasy alliance between fratricidal twins. On the one hand you have the Rockefeller / Establishment / RINO types. On the other you have conservatives, constitutionalists and the religious right. In the past, when the establishment types won a primary the conservative types would fall in line to support the candidate. What's happened in the last decade is that the conservative types have realized that the establishment types were taking their support for granted. They used to throw us the occasional bone. No longer. The obvious, and probably belated, result is that conservatives types have stopped automatically supporting establishment type candidates, and without our support they generally can't win. Now, the establishment types have never felt obligated to support conservative candidates, but there has been change here as well. Now the establishment types are actively working with Democrats and the Left to defeat conservative candidates. Obviously, this can't continue if the Republican party is to remain viable. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2016-10-18 14:40 |
| #10 Republicans are content to play the part of the Washington Generals: Forever destined to lose while putting on a good show for the crowd. |
| Posted by: The peanut gallery 2016-10-18 13:59 |
| #9 Perhaps the pubs no longer desire the presidency. A close examination of pub nominees over the past ten years or so, might indicate as much. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-10-18 09:09 |
| #8 DB- you're absolutely correct. And that goes a long way in explaining why the Republicans haven't won a presidential election since 2004 and-- given the way things are going and barring some unforeseen turn of events-- probably won't win another one in this lifetime; because the Democrats have no scruples and the deck has been stacked against Republicans. |
| Posted by: Eltoroverde 2016-10-18 09:01 |
| #7 won't support a candidate they don't like "I don't wanna!" sort of thing? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-10-18 08:37 |
| #6 The biggest difference between most Republicans and most Democrats is Republicans have scruples and won't support a candidate they don't like. Democrats will support their candidate o matter what she's done. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2016-10-18 08:10 |
| #5 Actually I trust Hillary. I trust her to drive the last nail into the coffin of civic liberties and human dignity in USA - and hence the rest of the world (because everybody "western" imitates the USA). I trust her, to support "Palestinians" most egregious demands. I trust her to heat up the "New Cold War", which her husband created by attacking Serbia. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-10-18 05:02 |
| #4 No one should trust any politician. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-10-18 04:57 |
| #3 Well i am not Establishment Peggy but i don't trust Trump. No one should |
| Posted by: badanov 2016-10-18 02:25 |
| #2 Well i am not Establishment Peggy but i don't trust Trump. |
| Posted by: Crolunter Wittlesbach4284 2016-10-18 02:07 |
| #1 Is this where we're supposed to be surprised? |
| Posted by: Crusader 2016-10-18 00:20 |