Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Thursday, May 05, 2016

Trump ≠ Hillary

This election will be about which of two directions this nation will take. As with the Republican race, these ideas are more important than the personalities. This is why Trump could bungle and bumble his way through the process and win as a rookie politician. He was saying one thing, 16 others were saying the opposite. He won.

Now we hear Trump is just like Hillary.

No.

Let's run down the list.

1. The border. He builds a wall. She grants amnesty.

2. Foreign policy. He puts America First. She kumbayas.

3. Free trade. He renegotiates. She counts her money from foreign dictators.

4. Budget. He balances it. She counts her money from Wall Street.

5. Coal. He's for it. She's opposed.

I get that he does not have a 40-page policy statement or power point presentation on everything from the environment to women's issues (whatever the heck they are). But he gets the big thing right.

16 Republicans went small. He went big.

We can continue down this path to Bill Ayers America, or work our way back to Eisenhower's.

34 comments:

  1. I took a look at instapundit today. I'd quit it some time ago, but go back every week or so to see if it is tolerable. Was a time I felt like my day wasn't complete without it. Good grief it is miserable now. Because of the neocon takeover they can't even cover the most important or exiting stuff going on now, and are wallowing in hatred and self pity. I think some of it may be because the guys that have congregated there after their other stuff hasn't worked out are afraid that their newfound irrelevance will cause their big pocketed backers to shut them off. You have to worry that some of these nevertumpers will actually do themselves in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glenn was good, but since he gave up the reins to Ed Driscoll that site has gotten bad weird. Ah well. At least with Big D we know we have consistency!

      Delete
    2. The Instapundit site is the victim of its own success. It now attracts many more low-brow commenters than it used to. They show lots of passion, I'll give them that, but as the saying goes, these days it's more heat than light over there.

      Delete
    3. Apropos of Don's post here, I forgot to add that one of the more contentious comment threads over there at Instapundit started with a link to an opinion piece by someone named Stephen Kruiser, who claims he's abandoning the GOP because he can't "see" any difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Maybe he should have stopped by here first to cure his political "blindness" before posting his article.

      Delete
    4. @zregime -- yup. It's lost a lot of it's fun, but I still visit (but skip comment threads that exceed a hundred or so).
      The addition of bloggers there seem to have weakened the broth, similar to what happened to Hot Air after Malkin left.

      Delete
    5. Not it's, its. (I swore I typed its.)

      Delete
    6. I like Sarah Hoyt's posts.

      Delete
    7. Yeah, Sarah's OK, but she's the nightfly in that space right now. I can understand Glenn giving up some control with his teaching stuff, but the site is fast turning into NR. Meaning, irrelevant.

      Delete
  2. I never was a Trumper, and I preferred Cruz, but I support Trump now. Why not? I actually relaxed into a hope that Trump succeeds, and hugely!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The schadenfreude is so thick you can cut it with a knife. I'll have a double helping, please! The Donald put the rest of the Republican candidates in their place, and they don't like it. Now Hillary is hearing the proverbial footsteps coming up behind her. And she thought Bernie Sanders was a pain in the neck. I think I'll make some popcorn for the show! - Elric

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump will be a pain a bit lower, just what she deserves.

      Delete
    2. Normally I'm pretty good on getting double entendres and stuff, but I have no idea what that comment means. As we used to say in Montana, say it, don't spray it.

      Delete
    3. Lower than the neck, zr; about half-way down.

      Delete
    4. You got it! Gas pains in the upper and lower tracts. Primarily the lower.

      Delete
  4. Trump doesn't march on the future, he charges it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Seems to me that the court eunuchs of the White House Press Corps must be scared witless at the prospect of The Donald making them irrelevant. I mean, when a President talks directly to the public, where is the need for what passes these days as "analysis"? They're going to be one with the electric typewriter and the telegraph. They're going to need to go back to school to learn about what constitutes quality journalism.

    I wonder if the blog's Mein Host would consider coming out of retirement to play Commandant Lassard to those screwballs?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting reference to Eisenhower.

    National Review hated him back in the day. Now he's regarded as one of the better Presidents by chroniclers in general and by National Review in particular.

    Kevin Williamson's article to this effect can be found in a 2014 edition.

    Might NR now be similarly misjudging the current Republican standard-bearer? The possibility doesn't seem to have occurred to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I recall hearing those assessments, that Eisenhower did not have it to be president. I always wondered what the critics were thinking: "Let's see; he dealt with Marshall, King, Roosevelt, and Churchill and did not shoot DeGaulle nor throttle Patton and Montgomery. He can't handle the presidency?"

      - Mikey NTH

      Delete
    2. Yes, but I mean even after Eisenhower was elected, NR didn't like the way he governed.

      They regarded him as soft on the Soviet threat and accommodating of the New Deal. That first contention might raise a few eyebrows. The second contention was true as far as it went, but the people were in no mood to have the New Deal rolled back.

      Some conservatives are despairing on social media today saying, "When can we return to constitutional government?"

      I agree that this would be a very desirable outcome. But when will returning to constitutional government be possible in the political sense?

      At the very least, it would require a return to an 18th century electorate. Eisenhower could only manage the situation that he had.

      Delete
  7. I supported Jindal, and switched to Cruz once he was out. This will be the first election in which I've voted for a democrat for president, but as the other party is struggling to choose between a Maoist and a Trotskyte, a Jacksonian democrat is the best I choice I can make. It appears that the we are not the center-right nation I had thought we were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you supported Jindal, voting for Hillary is out of the question.

      Just another Hillary troll.

      Delete
    2. Right. This is the new and improved version of the concern troll. How does "conservatroll" sound?

      Delete
    3. Straight to the name-calling. You guys can't even take "yes" for an answer. I am planning on voting for Trump, but I know what he is. He is a Jacksonian democrat. What else do you want? Do you want to hunt me down beat me for not supporting him earlier in the primary? If you want people to support your preferred candidate and ally with you this is certainly an odd way to go about it. "Vote for my preferred candidate you stupid, useless, idiot!" isn't the most convincing argument. Way to talk to someone who has been trying convince himself to vote for Trump. So this is yet another election just like 2012 and 2008 where I am required to support the "crap sandwich" candidate in the name of party unity. I'll do it, but you aren't helping me to be happy about it.

      Delete
    4. Peace, peace!

      I think that what we have here is a failure to communicate. I think that your inquisitors thought you were saying that HILLARY was the "Jacksonian Democrat" that you were supporting.

      That's how I interpreted your initial post. Calling Hillary a Jacksonian Democrat WOULD have been trollish if that's what you had been doing.

      Delete
    5. Sorry about misunderstanding your post. I know he's a Jacksonian too and I don't care. I had a Muslim citizen from a North African country tell me he voted for Trump yesterday. He said that in his country they have "democracy", but the generals decide who will run and who will win. He said that it is the same here, only we call them different things. He said this time the generals aren't picking our president for us. We are.

      Delete
    6. Gah! If you thought I was calling Hillary the Jacksonian democrat, who did you think I was calling the Maoist? And who was I calling the Trostskyte? For the record, Trump is a Jacksonian democrat, Hillary is a Maoist, and Sanders is a Troskyite. IMHO. I do wish there was someone running who is to the right of FDR, but alas that was not to be.

      Delete
    7. Hal, now that Tubman is replacing Jackson on the 20, it's all good, brother! Take a chill pill and I'll consult with you in the morgen. Look, I was giving high fives to Trump supporters at CPAC in early March, telling them We Got This. And remember, this was the supposedly conservative crowd. And they were gonna walk out en masse on his speech, which is why he cancelled. So suck it up dude. I'm taking a victory lap and yeah it feels awesome...

      Delete
    8. Yes, I see now; the Maoist, the Trotyskite, and the Jacksonian Democrat could only be Trump. It seems obvious now, but confusion set in when you said that you were "voting for a democrat".

      Constitutional government, as I said in another thread, died in the New Deal and was buried in the Great Society and by an expanding electorate demanding like birds in a nest to be fed at someone else's expense.

      However desirable it would be to return to a world in which the Tenth Amendment could be read with a straight face, the real trolls are the Johnson/Paul flat-earthers who suppose that it is even remotely possible in the political sense.

      All that can be hoped for in the immediate future is that good governance might achieve what Ted Cruz hoped to do three years ago and get a grip on the nation's finances.

      Delete
  8. One more thought on this. I'm almost to the point that I hope the nevertumpers actually run a third party candidate. It would divorce them from the party that they claim to be so concerned about and utterly destroy the institutionalized conservative movement that is now dominated by neocons and immigration whores and sell-outs.You worthless bastards want a real fight? Bring it on. And show everyone how small you really are.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Have they talked Glenn Beck down off the ledge yet?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Have they talked Glenn Beck down off the ledge yet?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ask yourself, what would Hillary Clinton do if she were shipwrecked, with the remains of the crew, on a desert island?

    Lay down and die, right? By noon.

    Now, what about Trump?

    They'd all have something to eat by midday, a spring bed to sleep on by sunset, and a radio station sending their S.O.S. to ships below the horizon by the next morning.

    Maybe he's a freakin' lunatic. Who's arguing with ya? But maybe, just maybe, with a lunatic like that, perhaps the Free World just might have a chance of emerging from the clear and present danger of the Clash of Civilizations alive.

    But hey, what does a redneck about survival?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're saying if he'd been on the Minnow, Gilligan's Island woulda been one (1) episode.

      Delete