More Trump

Last week on Fox News Special Report, Donald Trump was shown dissing three of Fox News' star commentators - George Will, Charles Krauthammer and Steve Hayes. Trump said that he absolutely hates Krauthammer, that he doesn't even know who Hayes is and that Will is boring.

As the sardonic Stewart character in The Big Bang Theory might say, "Ouch".

Jonah Goldberg likened Trump's questioning of Ben Carson's character to Carrot Top criticizing the comedy talent of Jerry Seinfeld. The same could be said about Trump's claim that Will is "boring". Ponder that. Donald Trump thinks that George Will is boring. Will has read more books in the last day and a half than Trump has in his entire life. Will speaks and writes of complex issues with elegance and understanding. Trump talks nonsense and can't write.

Consider this short passage of Will's. The triple negative would make Trump's head spin.

-- Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy - judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes - because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences.

Of course, Trump isn't above spinning heads himself, except that he does it with incoherence instead of erudition --

But we have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ballgame. Frankly, I would have said get out of Syria; get out—if we didn’t have the power of weaponry today. The power is so massive that we can’t just leave areas that 50 years ago or 75 years ago we wouldn’t care. It was hand-to-hand combat.

Hillary Clinton is a target-rich environment. A short list of her vulnerabilities include mishandling government secrets, the Russian "reset", Assad the reformer, jihadist chaos in Libya, a State Department tenure devoid of even a single positive achievement, notorious close associates like Sidney Blumenthal, Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin, her slush fund "Foundation", securities fraud, enabling a rapist, her pantsuits being perpetually on fire, and on and on and on.
(For elaboration of some of these, as well as other items, see - http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/).

Question - So at what does Donald Trump direct his fire? Answer - Speculating on how she was spending her time in the ladies room during the recent Democratic debate. I suppose this is what Trump considers being not boring.

Trump worshippers nod approvingly at his mindless gibberish and laugh at his sophomoric taunts. Marinated in a culture that admires the likes of Bill Maher, ("Sarah Palin is a c**t"), and David Letterman, ("Palin's daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez"), they confuse crudity with wit; bluster with virtue; incivility with honesty; superficiality with clarity; impulsiveness with wisdom; celebrity with substance. There is no there, there, but Trump will always be on Baba Wawa's list of "most fascinating" people in the universe.


Kevin Williamson's observations regarding the recent dust-up between two like-minded, depraved scoundrels --

The specific lie here is Herself’s claim that Donald Trump’s boobish pronouncements are used in ISIS recruiting videos. This isn’t true. Even Trump, a habitual liar who wouldn’t know the truth if it were printed in gigantic gilt letters across a second-rate hotel tower in Las Vegas, knows that this isn’t true. So: Habitual liar lies habitually about habitual liar, who demands apology. Not the most edifying spectacle in American public life, but what the hell do you expect from an encounter between these two great hemorrhoids on the body politic?

Here’s the thing, though: You can’t tell lies. Even about a lying cretin like Donald Trump. Never mind the question of personal character: Judging a Clinton–Trump conflict on character grounds is like judging the Iran–Iraq war on human-rights grounds — one wants both sides to lose.

Never mind what this says about Herself’s fitness for the presidency: We all know that she is morally, ethically, and intellectually unfit for the job. She’s unfit to manage a Walmart in Muleshoe, Texas. She’s unfit to have a route delivering the Buck County Courier Times. From cattle futures to bimbo eruptions to Internet auteurs inspiring terror attacks in Benghazi, anybody who is paying any attention understands that Herself’s relationship with the truth is a lot like her relationship with the Big Creep: all politics, a marriage of convenience.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428918/hillary-clinton-lies-undermine-democracy


Bret Stephens has figured out what the uncompromising Right really wants and is certain to get in 2017 - a president it can go on hating.

Dear fellow conservatives:

Let us now pledge to elect Hillary Clinton as the 45th president of the United States.

Let’s skip the petty dramas of primaries and caucuses, the debate histrionics, the sour spectacle of the convention in Cleveland. Let’s fast-forward past that sinking October feeling when we belatedly realize we’re going to lose—and lose badly.

Let’s move straight to that first Tuesday in November, when we grimly pull the lever for the candidate who has passed all the Conservative Purity Tests (CPTs), meaning we’ve upheld the honor of our politically hopeless cause. Let’s stop pretending we want to be governed by someone we agree with much of the time, when we can have the easy and total satisfaction of a president we can loathe and revile all the time.

Let’s do this because it’s what we want. Maybe secretly, maybe unconsciously, but desperately. We want four—and probably eight—more years of cable-news neuralgia. We want to drive ourselves to work as Mark Levin or Laura Ingraham scratch our ideological itches until they bleed a little. We want the refiner’s fire that is our righteous indignation at a country we claim no longer to recognize—ruled by impostors and overrun by foreigners.

Though generally correct in his assessment, Stephens neglects to mention the paramount purity test that the Levin-Ingraham-Coulter-Hannity (and disappointingly) Steyn conservative wing insists upon - that of opposition to immigration reform. After all, Donald Trump is hardly a paragon of conservative purity. But his fairy tale proposal to deport all eleven million or so illegals electrifies the nativists. And that renders his other positions irrelevant. Immigration is the be-all and end-all issue for these people. As Ann Coulter tweeted -- I don't care if @realDonaldTrump wants to perform abortions in White House after this immigration policy paper.

Stephens does make a brief reference to the matter of immigration --

Abraham Lincoln once said “If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.” What. Ever. Now the party of Lincoln has as its front-runner an insult machine whose political business is to tell Mexicans, Muslims, physically impaired journalists, astute Jewish negotiators and others who cross his sullen gaze that he has no use for them or their political correctness.

And while we’re building a wall around our party, let’s also take the opportunity to throw out a few impostors in our midst. Like that hack, George Will. Or John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush and every other Republican In Name Only. Or Marco Rubio, who didn’t chicken out on immigration reform quite as quickly or convincingly as Ted Cruz did. Or the Republican “Establishment” and “elite”—like the editorial board of this newspaper—who want to flood the country with cheap foreign labor so they can enrich their Wall Street pals.

The irony is that after Trump loses the general election, Madame Presidenta will open up the floodgates and Mexico will become a de facto 51st state.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-elect-hillary-now-1450742854

Added 12/24 -- Speaking of George Will and Donald Trump...The former psychoanalyzes the latter and is spot on with his diagnosis - a severe case of low self esteem.

If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness — is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? — you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy’s insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal.

Will then takes a historical look at the three national elections in which the Republican Party's conservative identity was at stake - 1912, 1964, and 2016. (Strange how this happens every 52 years). The GOP's current challenge is to muster enough resilience and common sense to reject Trump and with him, the threat to its existence.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428906/donald-trump-threat-republican-party