Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Friday, January 22, 2016

National Review Hoists White Flag, Defiantly Rows To Outcast Island



George Will was all gloom and doom on the Hugh Hewitt radio show this week: "If the election is Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, this will be the first election since God knows when, there was no real conservative candidate."

Meanwhile, the National Review went all in against Trump in its latest edition, drawing praise from Washington insiders. The magazine lined up 22 writers who railed against Trump, repeating the same arguments they have made the last six months, arguments which have hurt The Donald about as much as Whoopi Goldberg's threat to leave the USA. Chris Christie will help you pack.

The cover delighted Jeb Bush.


But the real winner was The Donald. He got another news cycle out of the deal, and gets to shed conservative baggage at the same time. True, he lost 22 votes there, but Mona Charen and Ed Meese were never going to vote for him.

However, I am not saying the race is over. Ted Cruz is hanging in there, and Marco Rubio still has a shot at it. I am not calling this race for anyone. Let me make that clear.

But the editors at the National Review are.

This is a White Flag edition that shows the people at the National Review now believe the Republican presidential race has become a referendum on Donald Trump -- which is exactly what he wants it to be. In a field of 17 candidates, The Donald rose to the top. He is the only one anyone talks about. That has been the case since June 16, 2015, when he entered the race. The magazine cover is a tribute to his success, and a concession of defeat because those writers -- from Glenn Beck to Cal Thomas -- have been through too many presidential elections not to be able to see and read the handwriting on the wall.

All summer and fall and winter, everyone at The Weekly Standard and the National Review screamed to conservatives that Donald Trump is not a conservative.

Guess what? That's fine. This year many conservative voters don't care. Certainly moderates and liberals don't.

It is not that these conservatives are sellouts, or stupid, or mesmerized by a carnival barker, or racist, or whatever other label that conservative writers in Washington, D.C., wish to pin upon those who dare have the nerve to support someone who is not a conservative.

Let us look at this from a conservative voter's perspective. Not a conservative pundit, who gets paid win, lose or draw.

Having elected Bush 43 in 2000, what did conservative voters get? Another Cabinet office -- the Department of Homeland Security -- and a doubling of the national debt, after having spent the 1990s finally getting the budget balanced again. Oh  and they got that jackass John Roberts as the chief justice and chief defender of Obamacare.

I left out No Child Left Behind, which further expanded federal control of local schools. Also, Bush championed the right to home ownership in 2006, which resulted in mortgages for the unworthy in 2007, which led to the financial collapse of the Western world in 2008, which led to President Obama and the restoration of the House of Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Then, came 2010. Tea Party conservatives flipped the House with the best showing in 64 years for Republicans -- a net gain of 63 seats in the House and 7 in the Senate. And what did the Tea Party get? The blame for not taking the Senate -- an effort that would have required an 11-seat gain. That slur -- that slam -- came after the Republican Party abandoned Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, and John Raese.

Many conservative voters no longer care to play by the rules set down by George Will, who derided Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell for drawing the wrath and ridicule of the cast of "Saturday Night Live."

Oh dear. Oh my.

This time, many conservatives just want the wall built. Trump has not always been pro-life and pro-guns, but he is now and that is what counts. He also is unapologetically politically incorrect, to the point of being rude, but being polite has not gotten conservatives a damned thing. Trump is bringing Democrats, independents and unregistered people into the party. Losing just to meet some conservative purity test is a luxury Republicans no longer can afford.

Washington conservatives -- Cable News Conservatives -- overlook the fundamental principle of conservativism, and that is giving everyone the same opportunity. America is best when she is a capitalistic society that builds railroads and industry. The idea that only career politicians are qualified to hold public office is not conservative.

But this year's election is not about conservativism or liberalism. The survival of the nation is. It's not about entitlements or foreign policy or balancing the budget. It is about protecting the borders. We are reduced to that basic an issue because Washington has failed to protect the nation from two simultaneous invasions. Trump's response to Muslim terrorism in San Bernardino led to a chorus of clucked tongues on cable TV, but the people watching at home cheered.

American Lives Matter.

Trump is forming a third party. It is called the Republican Party. His plan is to have his coalition of conservatives, moderates and liberals take over the party. If he wins and Will and the National Review don't like it, too damned bad. They had their chance for 28 years after Reagan departed. They blew it. Maybe Karl Rove can milk a few million more from the trust fund saps and form a third party. Call it the Milk Party, and use a cash cow as a mascot.

Now about the pinup. George Will is not attractive. I'd rather look at an attractive girl. Sorry.

89 comments:

  1. Thank you, Mr.Surber--maybe they should have allowed space in NR for you to offer up this fine rebuttal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Will really doesn't understand politics OR conservatives. We haven't had a conservative in the Presidential race since Reagan, and Will is not a conservative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see how anyone can say that Cruz is not a conservative. He's far more consistently conservative than Trump is.

      Delete
    2. TPP, spending bill he railed against, legal status for illegals ring any bells?

      Delete
    3. You mean the spending bill he fought while those who are slandering him voted for? And the legal status for illegals is simply a lie.

      http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/07/18/ted-cruz-puts-dewhurst-on-defensive-in-final-debate-before-texas-primary-runoff/

      Delete
    4. He absolutely back in 2013 supported legal status for illegals. He made sure that RPI and LPR wouldn't lose legal status either:

      https://youtu.be/jDnuWLuAbCw

      Delete
    5. He absolutely back in 2013 supported legal status for illegals. He made sure that RPI and LPR wouldn't lose legal status either:

      https://youtu.be/jDnuWLuAbCw

      Delete
    6. Thank you for this. I've shared and forwarded more times than I can count.
      TRUMP/CRUZ 2016

      Delete
    7. Thank you for this. I've shared and forwarded more times than I can count.
      TRUMP/CRUZ 2016

      Delete
  3. Terrific analysis. The real problem began with Buckley and Kirk punching to the right to expel Birchers, Libertarians, and Objectivists in the fifties to create a conservatism without substance, unable to create a vision of the future, and centered largely on ill-defined tastes (I will not honor them by calling them values). I spent many years considering myself a Russell Kirk conservative, and read every one of his books except for the works of fiction. I spent forty years reading NR and idolizing Buckley. I still appreciate Goldberg for writing Liberal Fascism. But the fact remains that Marx was right about philosophy being worthless if it accomplishes nothing, especially a political philosophy. What sense does it make to keep on applying tests of ideological purity in regards to a political philosophy that calls itself the negation of ideology? I'm a Cruz supporter. All of my sons seem to support Trump. The one thing these guys seem to give us hope for are results and a direction and a vision. Bush 41 said he wasn't into the "vision thing". I think that can be said 9 all of these other wonks, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The real problem began with Buckley and Kirk punching to the right to expel Birchers, Libertarians, and Objectivists in the fifties to create a conservatism without substance,

      The Birchers were and are lunatics and the libertarians and objectivists have a popular base which clocks in there at about 0.7% of the vote. Try another historical fiction.

      Delete
    2. He didn't say they expelled an electoral juggernaut. He said the result was an enervated party of philosophy and manners that was and is insufficiently focused on practical results.
      Considering where the country is now compared to where it was then it's pretty hard to argue the right or the GOP has been effective at much of anything besides talking and perhaps slightly slowing down the race to perdition.

      Delete
  4. Right On, Bro. Very well put. Agree.

    ReplyDelete
  5. After more thought: if you look at the conservative movement with the eyes of Crane Bringing (Anatomy of Revolution), and think of it in revolutionary terms, as a response to the absolutism inherent in progressivism (it shares many traits with the old regime of 18th century France: centralization, administrative law, destruction of local governments, crony capitalism, monopoly formations), you can see Buckley standing athwart history shouting "Stop!" and see that this is the moderate position. A revolutionary doesn't say this. The revolutionary wants to see it, the source of the despotism weighing down his every movement utterly destroyed. The old-style conservatives who learned to be at peace with the welfare state are the Feuillants and Girondins of our age. Those of us who want to see the despotism dismantled are the New Jacobins. The Mountain. This is a warning shot across the bow to anyone who thinks he wants to lead the movement from here on out: You need to have a vision of how you are going to take down the progressive project piece by piece, or we will tear you apart. The guillotine is here. Make your next move.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pardon my feint north to my native Canada, but it seems true for both countries voters don't care much for discussions around ideology, not knowing what it actually means or caring. Trump is a populist, good, that's badly needed by all of us. Not a statist dressed up as a populist, as Canada now has as PM, but a person who truly speaks to and from what people want. The predominate ideology and political culture of both nations is liberal. No not the progressive nonsense we see everywhere, but the true idea of the individual possessing liberty which cannot be taken away, by virtue of their life or their property. Government gums up the economic works, but we need security and order, even so it must be limited. What is it called now - classical liberalism? Libertarianism? So what, speak with actions, don't let the mediocracy decide their meaning. That's the grass roots appeal of libertarianism and it meshes well with conservatism who believe the same but perhaps are more into securing borders, markets and international relations. If all policy comes from a libertarian or conservative POV, it does lose some of its executorial capital imho. Pragmatism, but with a bedrock belief in the primacy of individual liberty worked well in Canada but was stillborn by a mewing spate of false narratives, so thus saddling Canada with an inexperienced, immature and naïve leader, as many of you can attest personally. Don't do that yourselves again, please.

      Delete
    2. Considering the Jacobins were the intellectual ancestors of the Bolsheviks and today's communist demagogues, are they really the best thing to compare modern conservatives with?

      Delete
    3. The Jacobins based their ideas of universal rights on our national and state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights. They believed in the sanctity of private property. They wrote the first right to work law. Sure, they made a lot of bad mistakes. They were French! But they were no model for the Bolsheviks. Any well schooled Marxist would tell you that they were bourgeois.

      Delete
  6. Crane Brinton. Stupid autocorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wasn't aware someone died and made George Will the arbiter of who is a conservative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's an opinion journalist. Offering opinions is what he gets paid to do. His problem is that he's mistaken the matrix he's in. His complaint is non sequitur.

      Delete
    2. Just a Canadian with more than many Americans think, having a Dog in this fight. George Will and I are the same age. I am an unpaid political Junkie, he is paid. I am having the same difficulty as Wills due to age. Clouded thinking, reduced ability to communicate, and less relevance. I am now a Retired Businessman. George not so much.

      Delete
  8. And yet there remains the thorny issue of Trump's past positions, which have been (for the most part) unabashedly liberal. Certainly Trump would be better than Hillary! or Bernie!, but that is a rather low bar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What relevance are past positions? Are they to be predictors of future results? Do you mean to imply that others running for office are uniquely consistent and will not change or compromise once in office?

      Delete
    2. The core, abiding principle of conservatism is that experience better informs the future than hope. Trump was a pretty typical New York crony capitalist liberal until he concluded being a conservative sounding carny barker would appeal to and dupe the rubes in flyover land.

      Delete
    3. Iron, you ask: What relevance are past positions? Are they to be predictors of future results?

      Their relevance is that they demonstrate fidelity to ones principles, if they have principles that is.

      And they are pretty good predictors of what goals will be aimed for, results involve 435 other men and women and a judicial branch.

      Elect Trump and you'll get more statism.

      Delete
    4. I've changed my mind a lot of times about a lot of things, so what? Hillary was in Young Republicans, Trump was a Democrat. Good for them, they've grown and changed. The RNC is losing because they have this ultimate litmus test that they think needs to be followed but they are learning now that no one cares!

      Delete
    5. As relevant as the past positions of Cruz (amnesty support, etc.) that were called out as reasons not to vote for Cruz.

      Delete
  9. Bush41, Bush43, McRINO, and Mittens are conservatives? George Will has just passed into irrelevance. As a previous commenter noted, the Republicans have not run a conservative since Reagan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bush I and Bush II had many fine qualities as men. They were never terribly motivated by political principle. This is especially true of Bush I. McCain's voting record was adequate (calling the Republican presidential nominee a "RINO" is beyond stupid), except for his idiosyncratic hostility to immigration law. Romney had to navigate Massachusetts politics and cut deals with a Democratic legislature. No, his record isn't going to look like Coolidge's.

      Your real problem is that the Senate GOP is run by Capitol Hill gamesmen whose idea of accomplishment is to toss some candy at Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce.

      Delete
  10. "Trump is not a conservative."

    Jeb just brought a plastic picnic knife to a gun fight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Trump is not a conservative."

      That's true.

      Delete
    2. ...as far as we can tell. And after the last seven years of an unvetted ideologue as President, electing another guy we can't be confident we know (because of flipflops) is scary to a lot of folks.

      Delete
  11. First para, last sentence does not make sense to me: "And I don't both of us who have started our political careers, and I cast my vote for Barry Goldwater."

    Mighty fine post overall!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Trump is a big government crony capitalist Clinton sucking New York liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Trump is a big government crony capitalist Clinton sucking New York liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There are some people I respect on that list of 22 (Thomas Sowell, and, in a more qualified way, Wm. Kristol and Michael Medved). Most of them I'm inclined to be congenial towards. A few (Russell Moore, R.R. Reno, and Cal Thomas) are men without chests when push comes to shove. If any of them want to know the real author of this train-wreck, they need only look at the Senate Republican caucus, and it's worthless 'leaders'. Bit late to be worrying about 'real' conservatives when the only people who get jack out of the Republican caucus would be the Chamber-of-Commerce lobbyist and sundry donors.

    ReplyDelete
  15. From commenter Bob at Scott Adams' blog:

    The elites say: "He's not a true conservative!"
    The masses hear: "He's not one of us elites!"

    Analysis: True.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nice shot?

    I dare say.

    Out of the park, grand slam. (Is there a term for winning the World Series on one swing?)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I find your apparent trust in Trump to be disturbing.

    There are many problems with Trump that none of the other Republican candidates have (or at least not as bad), beginning with the fact that he's done so many U turns on stated political beliefs in the last 8 years that I wouldn't trust him if he told me water was wet.

    The good thing that Trump has done is moved the window of acceptable conversations and opinions sharply away from the socialist end it was stuck in. But he's in no way a small government kind of person, he's not a constitutionalist or it would seem much of an economist. In fact he seems to have the same attitude to laws as Obama and Clinton (Laws are for the little people) and a similar view of national economics.

    Worse, IMO, is his astoundingly thin skin and bullying response to anyone who objects to him. See e.g. his scrapes with Fiorina. Also he seems to be incapable of admitting that something he said was wrong.

    I'll be honest I'm not really sold on any of the other candidates and I would recommend (just) Trump over either Clinton or Sanders, but at his best he'd be GW Bush (i.e. statist) and more likely he'd try to be more like Peron or Mussolini

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All true. Mr Mercurial is setting up an awful lot of people for disappointment when they find that he won't/can't do any of the (conservative) things he is promising and instead reverts to his NY democrat/cronyist roots.

      Delete
  18. Trump for prez is like arnie for cali governor. The result would be the same. That's the thing, trump is like Obama, in the sense that people project onto him whatever they want. So if you want an arnie/Obama president, vote for trump. The rest of us will vote for cruz. Jeb should just disappear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that's the best-case scenario. After all, Arnie did actually have some conservative principles (gleaned from Milton Friedman).

      Delete
    2. Whatever disappointments conservatives suffered under Bush will be nothing compared to the poop sandwiches President Trump will serve them.

      Trump is about "deals". Cruz is about principles. To make a deal is to bargain principle. We've had enough of that and Surber lists a lot of them here. He just reaches the wrong conclusion about them when it comes to Trump.

      Delete
    3. I don't agree. Remember, Arnie didn't have a Republican legislature to work with. When 2/3 of your legislature is Democrat, your hands are tied.

      Delete
  19. This country is bleeding. Trump is the tourniquet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is unwise to apply a tourniquet to one's neck.

      Delete
    2. It's OK - politically, we're a many-headed Hydra.

      Delete
  20. well, Trump's big challenge will be to maintain momentum by continuing to say things that folks want to hear. without saying something so over-the-top that it sours things.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The party of choice makes no difference, Trump's popularity is because he is not a politician, he may be a blowhard, he certainly has a large ego, he may even change his mind but he doesn't ask for money, and he is not infected with political correctness, he is every social justice warriors (crybullies) worst nightmare and that makes him unbelievably popular with everyone who is sick to death of lifelong political hangers on.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not a cow, but a RINO, or the hyprid known as Elifino.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Let's put it this way: the way that governments have been run since the early 20th century make Bernie Madoff look like a piker.

    "Give me your money and I promise you that your life will be wonderful!"

    Remember The Great Society? It was nothing but a shell game and the people of the United States, especially blacks, are suffering mightily as a result.

    It is dawning on some people that they have been had. That is why they are so angry and furious but they have very little ability to do anything about it.

    People like Obama, Clinton, Sanders, Bush, Christie, Cruz, Rubio, etc., etc. who have been paid using other people's money and who run their campaigns using other people's money are laughing all the way to the bank. They may have convinced themselves that they are sincere but they are con artists and swindlers nonetheless.

    Some people are recognizing the con - for example, those in the Tea Party - and are saying enough.

    This is where Donald Trump comes in. He says he wants to make America great again. He substantiates his message by not demanding that you give him money to make his message a reality. He doesn't need or want anyone's money to gain office. He is doing so entirely on merit. Thus his message does not have an ulterior motive, rendering his message viable.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Will the democrats pick Bloomberg to try to trump Trump?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Excellent analysis. Great pinup too. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. BRAVO!

    Here's my taker as a gun owner and RKBA activist. We are 100% agreement:

    http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2016/01/yes-shot-has-done-passed.html

    Michael B

    ReplyDelete
  27. "...This time, many conservatives just want the wall built. Trump has not always been pro-life and pro-guns, but he is now and that is what counts..."

    Conservative believe ...or should believe ... that experience is a better guide to the future than hope. Applying that rule to Trump should have true conservatives fleeing from him. To the extent it exists at all, Trump's conservatism is blatant in its self serving opportunism.

    If you're voting for Trump because he's middle finger you can can give the "Establishment" I've got news for you.

    Trump is going to to give you the finger right back once he's elected and in ways that will make the disappointments delivered by Bush trivial in comparison. President Trump will not appoint a Justice Alito to balance to a Justice Roberts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This whole "experience is a better guide to the future than hope" critique of The Donald is hilarious. I have dutifully voted Republican for more than 2 decades now and have virtually nothing to show for it in terms of conservative policies, despite many the GOP's electoral successes. I'm not a Trump supporter, but his supporters exist precisely because of their experience with an execrable GOP.

      Delete
  28. The blindness is amazing...

    George Will: "If the election is Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, this will be the first election since God knows when, there was no real conservative candidate."

    H.W. Bush was a conservative? He raised taxes and rolled back Reagan's successes against regulatory bureaucrats.

    Dole was a conservative? Did he ever, like, espouse an actual position on anything?

    W. Bush was a conservative? The man who gave us several huge new bureaucracies to feed, signed Kennedy's education bill, proclaimed Islam a "religion of peace", and increased medical entitlements enough to get the bankruptcy ball rolling? And had to have his butt backed into a corner before he made any attempt to nominate conservatives to the high court, and he still failed? (I'm looking at you, John Roberts.)

    McCain was a conservative? Ol' "Gang of Eight" McCain?

    Romney was a conservative? The author of Romneycare?

    By their fruits you shall know them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With the possible exception of McCain they were all more conservative than Trump.

      Delete
    2. In terms of policy matters, that remains to be seen.

      In terms of sentiments, well, sentiments are "Feelings, nothing more than feelings..."

      I don't care how conservative a Republican *is* unless he's willing to pursue a conservative agenda.

      I don't consider treachery to serve the conservative agenda.

      Delete
  29. Great article. For me this election is about cultural totalitarianism vs individual freedom. I hope my side wins, even if we have to elect a dead horse to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You know what's silly? Conservatives who read your post and shout in my ear, "You KNOW he's no conservative, right?"

    *headdesk*

    It's axiomatic that we fight the next war with the last war's tactics. So it is in politics. The Establishment GOP does not realize that more and more mouth-breathers in the flyover zone find alternative news outlets online and share this news with friends and family.

    And by "alternative," I mean actual news sources (NY Post, Washington Examinator, Post, even the Times) and knowledgeable online commenters such as Powerline, PJ Media (well, somewhat savvy), even overseas outlets.

    We're not fed a single media's party line anymore. Heck we don't even care what NBC / ABC / CBS say. They're irrelevant.

    We know more and that makes us dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  31. When NR runs a similar issue on McConnell and Ryan, then I'll know it's conservatism and not the establishment that holds their concern.

    ReplyDelete
  32. In my experience, whenever somebody (such as our host) starts talking about a grand coalition of "liberals, moderates and conservatives", it always turns out that the conservatives have been played. Only eight years ago Obama himself stole dozens of conservative talking points to get elected and promptly forgot about them. To me, Trump is the ne plus ultra of that game.

    We are talking about a guy who, in a lengthy public career has never once publically supported a conservative candidate or cause (other than himself). Of course, people can change their minds. But when somebody tries to sell me on their conversion to the true path, they normally have the decency to come up with a plausible "road to Damascus" story to back it up.

    The guy used to be in favor of gun confiscation, now, just in time to run for the Republican nomination, he changes his mind. Like me, the guy used to be in favor of abortion. When I changed my mind about that issue, I spent many hours reading and thinking about it. Trump saw the results of a focus group.

    You don't like Dole, McCain, the Bushes, Romney, etc. because they were secret RINOs but you are supporting Trump? Worse, you are supporting Trump BECAUSE you didn't like all the other insincere conservatives? You support Trump because of his sincerity?

    Look around the table, friend. You are the sucker.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Exactly. Is Trump a conservative? In almost no way, shape or form. Was W? Was his father? Was Romney or McCain? Ryan.... jeebus on a cracker.... Ryan is Kennedy with rock-hard abs! On American Thinker a dude put it well. Trump MAY betray us. All the others already have. So fark it. Forward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nonsense. W was a conservative. He strayed off the reservation on a couple things. HW was a moderate/conservative mix. McCain was socially conservative and economically illiterate. Romney was a moderate/conservative. Ryan is a mainstream conservative. All of them with the possible exception of McCain are more conservative than Trump. Trump is a NY liberal populist demagogue.

      Delete
    2. Results matter. His administration did not achieve conservative results not to mention sticking us with a stupid war.

      Delete
  34. "Also, Bush championed the right to home ownership in 2006, which resulted in mortgages for the unworthy in 2007, which led to the financial collapse of the Western world in 2008."

    I beg to differ, sir. In 1977, to prevent redlining and make home loans available, President Carter signed the Communality Reinvestment Act. This began the lowering of the requirements for purchasing a home. The Clinton Administration pushed for 30% of the loans to be so called sub prime loans with no down and reduced credit requirements. These loans and those properly vetted/backed were bundled into derivatives and sold similar to bonds to financial institutions. There were attempts to modify the program in congress during Bush's Administration but the attempts failed; who wanted to take a "right" of housing from those who could ill afford it. Someone/someplace must have asked what was in the derivatives and when it was known that they contained limited backed sub prime mortgages, the confidence in the derivatives collapsed as did the financial institutions that were heavily invested in them. Politically connected Goldman Sach was bailed out but Lehman Brothers, not so connected, was not. My retirement was heavily into Lehman Brothers bonds which became worthless when they went bankrupt. One half of my life savings/retirement was lost in this downturn.

    The good intensions of 1977 became the destruction of my retirement in 2008. And now I have been laid off from my oil field job in Canada. The money I saved there, because the Canadian dollar was falling, to later replenish my retirement funds has lost 30% of its value since the Canadian dollar follows the price of oil. At 71 it is a bit hard to recover from such a loss. But I know people who have lost every bit of their life savings.
    If Bush is to share in the blame, Clinton and the Democratically controlled Congress under him and Bush has a major portion of the blame.

    ReplyDelete
  35. So it looks like we're going to get Bernie (assuming Hillary is indicted) Trump and possibly Bloomberg. Great. A nasty little Stalinist, a rodeo clown and nanny-fascist. These guys are making Romney look like George Washington.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "If the election is Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, this will be the first election since God knows when, there was no real conservative candidate."

    Will must be joking. There hasn't been a conservative nominee from either major party since 1984.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well, if that is the way you feel.

    National Review is now, that which it has always been, a forum for conservative ideas. Trump is in no wise a conservative. That NR should oppose him, is therefor a logical consequence.

    I agree with National Review, and really don't care what you or any other Trumpista says.

    If that is not what the cool kids think or say, so much the worse for them.

    I am a conservative, and if the Republican Party nominates Trump, I will not support him, and I will not vote for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just out of curiosity, as a conservative, how does it make you feel when the Republican you helped elect starts doing liberal things once he's in office?

      Delete
  38. Agree with everything except your comment about the mortgage meltdown. The beginnings of this debacle were in Clinton's second term when Andrew Cuomo put the policies in place that ramped up mortgage lending.

    http://donsurber.blogspot.ca/2016/01/national-review-hoists-white-flag.html

    ReplyDelete
  39. ^^^ link

    http://www.villagevoice.com/news/andrew-cuomo-and-fannie-and-freddie-6395833

    ReplyDelete
  40. Few too many unresearched or conclusory mis-statements there Mr. Surber, for me to take you seriously.

    Two glaring ones:
    W. Bush had nothing to do with the housing bubble, all the relevant changes in policy were conducted by Democrats Frank and Dodd. Bush attempted to rein in their expansions and promises of loan underwriting and lower loan requirements. He was shot down by a Congress afraid of appearing hard on minorities.

    &

    "It is not that these conservatives are sellouts, or stupid, or mesmerized by a carnival barker, or racist, or whatever other label that conservative writers in Washington, D.C., wish to pin upon those who dare have the nerve to support someone who is not a conservative."

    I don't think many are sellouts, but those who are not despairing are stupid and some are both. With Cruz able to to more good than can Trump, and more inclined to do it, there is no reason to prefer the Donald over Ted, and no excuse to either.

    TomDPerkins

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Don googles. First item)
      "In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans."
      USA Today 1/20/04 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm

      Delete
  41. As I have told you on Instapundit on numerous occasions, a bible thumper cannot win Ohio. And if he can't win Ohio, he's not going to win Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, in Pennsylvania. If he can't win two of those states he's not going to be President.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Simple question: If the Donald becomes president, and makes a complete disaster of it following in the foot steps of Obama, will you admit NR was correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only if it's a bigger disaster than the Bush presidency.

      Delete
  43. I agree, and would add the fact, that most of those pundits and politicians calling themselves conservatives, are the furthest thing from it. They can lie to themselves and everyone else, but "Actions Speak Louder than Words" and their actions are those of Big Government and Amnesty loving scum.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I agree, and would add the fact, that most of those pundits and politicians calling themselves conservatives, are the furthest thing from it. They can lie to themselves and everyone else, but "Actions Speak Louder than Words" and their actions are those of Big Government and Amnesty loving scum.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Brilliant and a good assessment of the situation. George Will, et al, are mystified that the peasants are no longer paying attention. But what really worries them is losing their cushy sinecures and becoming irrelevant. The latter has already happened. The former can't come too soon.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Do you need a Loan?
    Are you looking for Finance?
    Are you looking for a Loan to enlarge your business?
    I think you have come to the right place.
    We offer Loans at low interest rate.
    Interested people should please contact us on
    For immediate response to your application, Kindly
    reply to this emails below only Email
    osmanloanserves@gmail.com



    LOAN APPLICATION INFORMATION FORM
    First name:
    Middle name:
    Date of birth (yyyy-mm-dd):
    Gender:
    Marital status:
    Total Amount Needed:
    Time Duration:
    Address:
    City:
    State/province:
    Zip/postal code:
    Country:
    Phone:
    Email ID.....
    Mobile/cellular:
    Monthly Income:
    Occupation:
    Which sites did you know about us.....
    osmanloanserves@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hello Everybody,
    My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) Thank you.

    BORROWERS APPLICATION DETAILS


    1. Name Of Applicant in Full:……..
    2. Telephone Numbers:……….
    3. Address and Location:…….
    4. Amount in request………..
    5. Repayment Period:………..
    6. Purpose Of Loan………….
    7. country…………………
    8. phone…………………..
    9. occupation………………
    10.age/sex…………………
    11.Monthly Income…………..
    12.Email……………..

    Regards.
    Managements
    Email Kindly Contact: urgentloan22@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete