The coalition against: NRO spells NO

Now that we have NRO and the misfit coalition “against Trump,” it tells us a lot more about their views than it does about Donald’s.

They lined up far and wide to add their names to a hit list to denounce Trump as the Republican/conservative candidate. Fine, if that is your thing. Seems to me that we have been lectured for about a decade now that it is not enough to be against something. What is important is to be “for” something, they say. So this piece just tells you about who they are against, not who they are supporting.

NROAgainst Trump” | January 21, 2016

But he is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones. – Read more>

But therein is the rub. To include who they support would shatter their coalition into pieces. And there likely is not a big consensus on who they do support. Some of those names in there would be Jeb supporters. There are RINOs in the mix who probably would support Christie. But at least they can all agree on who they don’t support.

I like many of the pundits and conservatives in the No coalition. However, how much have they done for us in their influential capacity over the years? Not much and that is the reason we are in the spot we’re in. They can’t show you a recent record of success. That is one of the charges they levy against Trump.

Which all brings us to the next point. When you dissect this so-called conservative circle, you find that there are establishment conservatives. Surprise, what a timely reminder. Here we are with everyone against the establishment (staus quo) even on both sides. Along come these gurus of politics to out one person for not being a pure enough conservative. Skillet meet the kettle. But what do they mean by not pure enough? That’s the question.

Many of them live and breathe the beltway politics. They are interconnected to the RNC and establishment. Some are staunch supporters of amnesty. Some attack conservatives on a regular basis. Many think Cruz is too far right or extreme for them. But for the time, they all get on board to oppose the Donald. Some back big-government spending.

Then there is the net effect. Who gets hurt in the mix, members of the coalition of “No” or the Trumpster? My money is on Trump weathering the storm. If bringing people together to oppose something was their goal, then mission accomplished. Can they core an apple?

Here is one disgruntled viewer of the Kelly File which debuted the sultans of No. In her own words she has a message for them.

    Published on Jan 21, 2016
    I am livid, I am angry, I have a voice and I am going to use it!

The list of 22 conservatives in the coalition Against Trump.

RightRing | Bullright

The Credibility Deficit

New polls say that this president has plummeting approvals on his foreign policy. Michael Barone describes the nuances here.

Booking a tee-time, seeking advice on brackets, or planning next va-k? What diff does it make?–(WhiteHouse.gov Flickr)

(6/17/14) The most recent Pew Research Center poll conducted for the Council on Foreign Relations shows that 52 percent of Americans — the highest percentage in the last 40 years — think the U.S. should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along as best they can on their own. Evidently they don’t want to see America being, in the old phrase, the policeman of the world.

Barack Obama seems to be following the polls, yet more and more voters express disapproval of his foreign policy — 50 percent in a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, with only 41 percent approving, a new low in that survey.

But history tells us something else about Americans’ attitudes. They have understood, no matter how little they want to be bothered or to see their fellow citizens suffer casualties, that Americans have a stake in what goes on beyond our borders and across the seas.

More National Review

Ask Churchill about frivolous voters. They decided not to punch his ticket in 1945, in pursuit of domestic programs. Churchill had been beloved seeing them through the war. Still admired as a hero, they replaced him with Attlee opting instead for a welfare state.

Obama has been the beneficiary of the whimsy of voters, when it suited his fancy. He’s been fortunate in that, based on nothing but his rhetoric and sound bites. He fashioned himself to fit even against other liberal contenders. Of course, Obama wants legend status without being a legend — only in his mind.

But Obama would represent the Chamberlain faction of appeasement. All that is ancillary, only to show that there is a public perception no matter what Obama seems to think. So far everything has been one way, his. The recess appointment decision verified that.

So he recognizes public opinion when it suits him, when it doesn’t he doesn’t need it. The quintessential tyrant. Now it seems any of his credibility is being challenged, from all sides. The empty suit has a design flaw, and it’s showing.

Now he once again calls scandals phony, a fabrication of Washington.

Obama’s latest rhetoric is designed to blame public disgust and cynicism he created in the White House on everything else in Washington. Since his Supreme smack down, he needs to blame anyone. These are his issues, policies, and his economy; yet he is projecting all the blame on others. Then adds he will take more action on his own.

USA Today

“They’re phony scandals that are generated,” Obama said. “It’s all geared towards the next election or ginning up a base — it’s not on the level. And that must feel frustrating, and it makes people cynical and it makes people turned off from the idea that anything can get done.”

Obama did not specify what he meant by “phony scandals.”

Obama was a little more specific when he spoke at a congressional campaign fundraiser Thursday night, saying lawmakers should focus on people like the working mother with whom he had lunch that afternoon.

“We talk about phony scandals,” he said, “and we talk about Benghazi, and we talk about polls, and we talk about the tea party, and we talk about the latest controversy that Washington has decided is important — and we don’t talk about her.”

That SCOTUS decision was not a “controversy” you created, it was abuse of power.

But don’t talk about all those victims you left in your wake, Obama, by your administration. All those IRS victims, all the VA victims, the Benghazi victims, or still countless others you blame for the condition of the country, when it is you that is directly responsible for the malaise. What about the whole country of victims you created?

Plus he has no credibility or trust to start with… and no ‘good faith’ credit.

RightRing | Bullright

Can We Talk ?

Some things need to be said but the right people are not always listening.

I was commenting on Necessary and Proper Gov’t and saw things that inspired this. The subject there was the shape conservatives are in, and where it’s going. And Jeff suggested a David Horowitz article. It’s fairly long but if you check it out, you won’t be disappointed. Horowitz always brings a good perspective few others do.

David says it is time for a different dialogue. I agree. Some on the right mean well in zealously arguing for conservative ideas. That’s fine, but is it enough? I don’t think so, not even close. Here’s a hint, I know many conservatives get in the trenches and actually read articles. But Progressives do things different. Talking points are spoon fed to the left, from the top,  so Libs don’t have to read or decide.

We are up against a talking point battle. The public often only hears soundbites. It’s not their fault that is the way politics are on the left. Like Horowitz said: we hear about the war on women, on the poor, racism etc. It doesn’t matter that it is not true, people hear those soundbites  and Democrats  repeat them like parrots. Sure we are tired of hearing them. If you hear it, then other people hear it too. You have to know your enemy.

Long arguments are nice but don’t win the war. They have no impact on the Left.  No one except maybe loyal conservatives reads them. And this battle is a political campaign not a dissertation. I’m convinced we must boil concepts down to simple terms. Also, as Horowitz says, our tactics must change.

Who is going to take the time to read arguments, the liberals we are trying to convince? That ain’t going to happen. Liberals try not to read conservatives. On Townhall, they bash away without even reading it, or maybe a few lines just to aim their talking points at. We give them too much credit thinking logic and reason will work on them. What does work are political campaign soundbites.  That someone will convince them is an overrated goal. They do hear soundbites because that’s what everyone hears.

The problem, as Horowitz states it, is conservatives talk in business language. My idea is to use some biz-lingo on our leaders. Tell Boehner and McConnell to ‘listen up’:

We decided your services are no longer needed. Nothing personal… no, actually it is personal. Your job has been eliminated. The decision is final. That is the job as you define it, doing your own thing doesn’t cut it. You fashion yourselves as deal-makers but guess what, fellas? In case you hadn’t noticed, there is no one out there to make deals with. Do you see anyone? Progressives don’t deal. If they want to they know where to find us.

If an opportunity did come up, there are others capable of making a deal. You have become obsolete. We’re going in a different direction and your particular services are not part of that paradigm. Now if you want to stay on in some reduced capacity, then you will have to get with the program. The old way of operating is  over, do you understand? Form follows function now. This movement is much bigger than you guys and your silos.

This  is inevitable in business. Do you want to be a team player or freelance? Your choice. But if it’s doing your own thing… there’s the door. If you think you can handle being on the team, then its going to be a lot different than you are used to. This is not a top down thing. You guys aren’t our boss, quite the opposite. Your positions, as you know them, have been eliminated. Got it? And we’re not going back to that “business as usual” model. This is only the beginning, we’ll keep you informed if you stay on. “

Here’s what else will change: Mitch, you said we are going to crush the Tea Party:

“I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” … “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”

What’s the “we” stuff?  See, it is just the opposite, there’s a new crew in town — just in case you and Boehner missed the last few elections. I know you were both busy doing your own things. And the guys that stepped up are those Tea Party people. They’re already here.  You don’t talk to the other side that way. We have to “crush” Liberals not the Tea Party, except I don’t hear that spirited passion toward progressives. No one is bigger than everyone else.

If power and self-survival were your motives, bury it now.  Your power is limited by the people, like the rest of the Federal Government.  We stand for unlimited individual opportunity. They are the Party of unlimited government. Our “enemy”, the enemy of the country,  is the other side. And that’s exactly how we’re going to treat them. Progs are the antithesis of freedom and individual opportunity. Are we all clear?

By the way, Mitchster, the reason we are taking such a personal  interest in you is because that is where most of the problems are.

Reference:

Why Republicans Need the Tea Party

The movement provides an answer to the Left.

Teaser:

“You might ask yourself this question: What would have happened if the Republican party and the Tea Party and the big PACs run by Rove and Koch had funded a $30 million campaign to put the blame on Obama and Reid, where it belonged? There was no such campaign. All the parties on our side failed to take the fight to the enemy camp. The finger-pointing that followed is just another example of the circular firing squad that we on the right are so good at and that continually sets us back.”

I endorse attacks and defining progressives for what they are. But Rove or Gingrich frown on “harsh tone” as a ticket to loss. What do they base that on? No one will pay attention to subtle, half-hearted, apologetic critiques just to avoid a harsh tone. The Left is begging to be branded, so give them what they want.

Newt told CPAC:

“If we spend the next three years being primarily anti-Hillary, we will virtually guarantee her election … “ Gingrich said. “To make sure that doesn’t happen, we must stop being the opposition movement, and we must become the alternative government movement that will help make the life of Americans better so that they understand what we would be doing that is right, not just what the left is doing that is wrong.”

We must define the Left. Horowitz knows that as an intellectual. All the right “ideas” don’t get the job done. Amazing, Newt lectured CPAC and the Tea Party on that.

RightRing | Bullright