Coulter v. Coulter

AnnCoulterThumbby C. Edmund Wright4/5/16
You might say I was for Ann Coulter before I was against her. Or maybe that Coulter was for conservatism before she was against it, or before she was for Northeastern moderates Chris Christie, or Mitt Romney — and certainly before she was for northeastern liberal Donald Trump. That was before she started her rants against one of the most conservative senators in the land in decades, the last being the straw that broke this camel’s back.

Ann has changed. Ann has abandoned long-held principles to invest emotional hope in a man who has spent several decades funding opposition to everything she stands for.

Lets’ start our Coulter v. Coulter — which could be called Coulter v. Trump — contest with the economy. I begin with this issue because A: limited government conservative economics and free markets are a major foundation of conservatism and B: Barack Obama has won two elections with almost precisely the same percentage of voters who still blame Bush (and all Republicans by extension) for the economy.[pullquote]Coulter . . . insists on supporting a man who decries Reaganomics, and has yet to utter the words “limited government” and “liberty” in a single debate or speech.[/pullquote]

Or to be exact, Obama got the votes of those who agree with him, as Trump does, about Bush, the economy, and the proper blame for the 2008 collapse. Now, Ann didn’t used to think this way. From a couple of her own syndicated columns comes this:

“You know what really irritates me about liberals? They always think liberalism fixes the problem — even when it was liberalism that caused the problem in the first place! Case in point, the Financial Meltdown of 2008 (and counting). To hear liberals tell it, it all goes back to Ronald Reagan — who with his seductive “B-actor” charm fooled America into thinking that by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending we could unleash free enterprise and create a new wave of prosperity… Unfortunately, the facts — as always when you’re talking about liberal theories — tell a different story. A story in which all the major villains, it turns out, have one thing in common: government.”

Unfortunately for Ann today, Trump parrots those very liberal talking points. And I mean recently. In July, he explained to Morning Joe (another conservative sellout) “when the economy crashed so horribly under George Bush, because of mistakes they (Republicans) made… with banking and a lot of other things… I don’t think the Democrats would have done that.”

Yes, he blamed Bush and not Reagan here, but that’s because he had already blamed Reagan in the 90s calling Reaganomics “an absolute catastrophe for the country“. More on that in a minute. First, keep in mind his last sentence — about not thinking the “Democrats would have done that.” Donald, dude, it was precisely Democrats who did it. This is not theory. It’s history. Ann used to know this. From the same column above, she writes:

“From the “Community Reinvestment Act” (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) that pressured banks into affirmative-action lending, to those “government-sponsored enterprises” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who bought up all the resulting subprime loans and repackaged them as “investment grade” securities — the greasy thumb-prints of government were all over this fiasco from beginning to end. But those, as I say, are facts. And facts have no place in the fantasy world of Democratic policymakers. Nor does history — true history.”

Ann, neither does truth have a place in the Trump campaign. On this major transformative issue, Trump throws in with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and the liberal media. On an election defining issue, Trump parrots Barack Obama. And Ann dispenses with her long-held principles to throw in with Trump.

And less you think these were nonconsequential comments from Trump, you need to hear Ann from 2010 quoting a Leno bit to explain the fanciful PR around the disastrous Dodd Frank Act.

” ‘The head of Goldman Sachs was going through security and was asked to empty his pockets — and five Republican senators fell out.’ How out of touch with reality would you have to be to laugh at that joke? It’s not just untrue, it’s a perfect inversion of the truth.  Why didn’t Barack Obama or Chuck Schumer fall out? Why not Rahm Emanuel? The fact that anyone laughed at that joke proves that Republicans have a serious PR problem. It’s almost as if we have a liberal media.”

Yeah Ann, and it’s almost as if we have a liberal candidate that you support who is adding to our “serious PR problem.”

Ann was also at one time an opponent of government bailouts, saying in late 2011 “when the bets go bad and they go running to their Democrat friends in the White House from Bill Clinton to President Obama and get bailed out by the American taxpayer, that is not a free market. I think all Americans should be angry about that crony capitalism.”

For some reason now, however, Ann thinks our solution is to hire the quintessential crony capitalist who not only applauded and supported TARP and the Stimulus, but all bailouts.

Speaking of the Stimulus, Coulter wrote in 2009 “Obama’s stimulus bill is the mother of all pork bills for friends of Congressional Democrats of O and friends of O.”

Uh Ann, that would also be friends of DT — your boy — who was a big Stimulus supporter as well.

In that same column, Ann deftly swerved into Reaganomics and liberal lies about Reagan saying “the perfect bar bet with a liberal would be to wager that massive government deficits in the ’80s were not caused by Reagan’s tax cuts.WTF Casually mention that you thought Reagan’s tax cuts brought the government more revenue – they did – and you could get odds in Hollywood and Manhattan.”

And as we know from Trump’s “expert witness” testimony to Congress, he would have taken Ann’s bet in 2009. He even went so far into nonsense as to say “the incentive was taken away (for real estate investment) when the tax rates came down for high income people.” Huh? He doubled down, saying those tax cuts caused us to be “no different right now than the Soviet Union.” Huh huh?

I don’t care if that was 1990. It was nonsense then and it’s nonsense now, and when you see that in 2016 he still exonerates all Democrats for the 2008 meltdown, his thinking has not become any more coherent, or conservative. He called Reagan a catastrophe, and today many Trump sycophants compare him to Reagan as in, “he is today’s Reagan.”

And yet Coulter, who has written widely and positively on Reagan and Reaganomics, insists on supporting a man who decries Reaganomics, and has yet to utter the words “limited government” and “liberty” in a single debate or speech. He is a man who routinely and recently launched into liberal talking points while donating to Democrats like Chuck Schumer running against Republicans and Republicans like Mitch McConnell when they were running against Tea Party challengers.

This all matters greatly, too. Coulter said above, and she was right, that we have a major PR problem when it comes to what government policies and which political party has ruined the economy. She is right. Remember the stat about Obama voters being the universe of voters who believe Bush (all Republicans) are still to blame for the economy? And yet, she supports a PR wizard who advances the ball greatly in the wrong direction. Ann, what gives?


CEdmundWrightC. Edmund Wright is contributor to StubbornThings, American Thinker, Breitbart, Newsmax TV, Talk Radio Network and author of WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again. • (1608 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Coulter v. Coulter

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I noticed that same thing the Mr. Wright did regarding Trump (although that’s not a self-flattering comparison…I’ll acknowledge that C. Edmund is a cut above): Have you ever heard Trump use the words “liberty” or “limited government”?

    The deep (and it is deep) irony of this is that those who have long decried the Big Government “compassionate conservatives” — basically the political class of Republicans who say they are reformists but do little but continue the same mode of intrusive, big-spending government — are very likely supporting the same kind of man in Trump. And yet at the same time, I suppose in order to accommodate their willful blindness, it’s Ted Cruz who is viewed as the insider, a liar, etc.

    This is a moral inversion that does not pass the reality test.

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      All that is true, Brad, and yet we come back to the same two stubborn facts: Cruz ran a badly-flawed campaign in the critical early days of the race, while the rest of Trump’s opponents were either political outliers with no chance at the nomination or Establishment-men dedicated to open borders and working the will of the Chamber of Commerce. People flocked to Trump when it looked like he was the only game in town if you wanted immigration kept in check (the most important single issue of the day) or even (gasp!) the wisdom of multiculturalism questioned.

      Yes, Cruz is the better choice, and was arguably the better choice a year ago. But let’s remember the face he was presenting then: a fairly general statement on the benefits of free-market economics and some talk about securing the border. Well, every Republican candidate says that he or she believes in “securing the border” even when it’s obviously not so (e.g. ¡Jeb!, Rubio). Cruz also had proposed five amendments to Rubio’s Amnesty bill (details in 2016 Republican Candidate Review), which if taken at face value were devastating: increasing H1-B visas and doubling the level of legal immigration.

      Now it was later claimed that Cruz intended his amendments as a “poison pill” to Rubio’s amnesty. Perhaps so – but if that were the case, his campaign screwed up big time because there was nothing about that on his website (I looked when researching the above-linked article), and anyone could see the video of Cruz on YouTube proposing more H1-B visas and legal immigration.

      Then there’s Heidi Cruz, working for Goldman-Sachs, the very emblem of “crony capitalism” with its direct pipeline to Washington and the political class generally. Now it’s all very well to say that the candidate’s spouse is not important, but the very last thing a Republican candidate needs in 2016 is a close connection to much that is wrong with our country (the collusion between large businesses and politicians of the Republican Establishment and the Democratic Party).

      So it was not like we had 10 solid Conservative immigration hawks, 3 E-men, 3 RINOs, and Trump, and a lot of people abandoned all reason and chose Trump. What we had were 2 RINOs (Pataki and Graham), 6 E-men (¡Jeb!, Christie, Kasich, Fiorina, Perry, Rubio (posing as a Conservative but not fooling too many)), 3 outliers who were hard to classify but could never establish a solid base of support (Carson, Santorum, and Huckabee), 2 special cases (Walker and Jindal – suffice it to say here that neither man caught fire early), 1 wacky Libertarian (Rand Paul), 1 actual Conservative who looked weak on immigration (Cruz) – and Donald Trump. If you were looking for someone who was taking a bold, tough stance on immigration, it was basically Trump or nothing.

      That is the context in which Trump’s rise must be understood. Some of us, of course, favored Cruz with reservations, but Trump garnered early, enthusiastic support for which there is no substitute. And all the articles that proclaimed “Trump is no Conservative!” were basically a waste of space given the weakness of the rest of the field.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The problem I have isn’t with those who support Trump as the least of evils or whatever. There weren’t many good options, so his flaws were minimized when compared to the others. The problem is that as his gross character flaws became ever more obvious, they were still eager to support him, and indeed more militant than ever. The Trump movement has become a mob, acting just like the liberals that many still detest. (To be sure, so far there’s little actual mob violence from the Trumpies, unlike the leftist mobs that occasionally attack them, as happened last night in California. But the terroristic threats are there.)

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          The Trump movement has become a mob, acting just like the liberals that many still detest.

          Now that the “Right” has also adopted the mob mentality, can Madame Defarge be far behind?

          Trump sounds like a demagogue who will not adhere to and obey the Constitution. He also appears to be a very petty man with a thin skin who would use the power of government to go after those who offend him.

          Can you imagine having to listen to him or Hillary for the next four years? I shudder at the thought.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Cruz ran a badly-flawed campaign

        Nik, I always marvel at the optics wherein Cruz has to run a perfect campaign to be legitimate or beyond criticism, but others don’t. Maybe that, more than anything, shows just how far to the Left that Trump is. He doesn’t have to be error-free because the CAUSE he believes in forgives him any sins.

        But Cruz, mere mortal, must be as perfect as Jesus Christ. If his campaign tweets news about Ben Carson, it’s “dirty politics” of the “lyin’ Ted Cruz.” But nearly every word out of Trump’s mouth is either shallow bombast or pure nonsense. And if he equates a competitor with being a child molester, no one is saying he is running a badly-flawed campaign.

        Trump is winning because the infection of the low-information progressive culture that values narcissistic “feelings” over standards has progressed to the right. There is no other explanation. Trump is our Obama. He is our “hope and change” candidate. What he has ever said or done is written off as unimportant. He is the right’s political messiah because he offers our tender little egos what we crave even more than setting America right: validation

        But it’s not a healthy validation. My view is that Americans have become so habitually corrupt that they can no long look good in the eye. Therefore they must raise up the vulgar and call it good. I’m not saying that Ted Cruz is Jesus Christ reborn. But compared to Trump, he is an angel. And on any scale, Cruz is a generally good and decent man while Trump is of ill repute.

        So why has the mob chosen Barabbas instead of Jesus? Again, I think the answer is simple: We have become the vulgar, low-information mob that we used to criticize the Left for being.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Trump isn’t the right’s messiah. His voter appeal is mostly to moderate and moderately conservative voters. Note that Cruz won in Wisconsin by getting “somewhat conservative” as well as “very conservative” voters. (Note also that his performance among evangelicals seems to be better in the Midwest. This may reflect many people in the South calling themselves evangelicals who really aren’t.)

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Trump is winning. As much as I want Cruz to win — and acknowledge that this race isn’t quite officially over — it’s not Cruz who is winning. I’m glad that Cruz is winning some “somewhat conservative” or “very conservative” voters. But being reduced to picking up small bites of victory while someone runs off with the main coarse isn’t very satisfying.

            Trump voters are inherently dishonest. They will not tell us what their true motivation is for voting for him. One has to divine it. They’re “angry,” for sure. But is the sating of one’s passions what America or conservatism is about? Surely the movement hasn’t been reduced to the equivalent of the baby throwing his spoonful of strained peas against the wall. But it seems it has.

            I don’t think Cruz is the perfect candidate. I think he will lose but will run again in the future and quite possibly win. One of the blessings of losing would be not to have the stench of collapse on one’s cape as Trump or Hillary could. As Steyn says, things can’t can’t last forever don’t. And there are various aspects of our culture, financial or otherwise, that are unsustainable and there will be costs that will finally have to be paid. The next president has a more than fair chance of being Herbert Hoover.

            Right now we’re still in denial. Donald Trump is actually a vote for sticking your head in the sand and believing things will get better just because some fly-by-night entertainer says so. Did we learn nothing from Obama? I’m certainly never going to forward Ted Cruz as a quick fix. But it is monstrously dishonest for Trumpbots to try to paint him as a globalist, an insider, or “lyin’ Ted Cruz.” That John Boehner hates Cruz is all the idiotic Trumpbots should need to know. But I’m sure they probably like John Boehner a little better now that he has smeared Cruz.

            Never ask me to play nice with Trump supporters, as I’m sure you won’t. I don’t paint Cruz as the political Messiah. Our problems are much deeper than any one president can solve. And it’s quite arguable that such problems are out of the purview of the president — or of politics itself — to solve. With Trump we have the thorough ratification that the life of America is now politics, not business, church, friends, family, whatever. A man who is, at best, a cruddy and egotistical opportunist is now being considered seriously for the most powerful office in the world.

            Trump is a ratification of the dumbing-down of America, morally, intellectually, politically, socially, and in a dozen other ways.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              That point about Boehner is a very important one. The Trumpbots (as distinct from Trump supporters who see him as the least of evils) rate people on the basis of their support for Trump. “Establishment” now means “anti-Trump” for them — so they consider Cruz Establishment and Boehner anti-Establishment.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Now it was later claimed that Cruz intended his amendments as a “poison pill” to Rubio’s amnesty. Perhaps so – but if that were the case, his campaign screwed up big time because there was nothing about that on his website (I looked when researching the above-linked article), and anyone could see the video of Cruz on YouTube proposing more H1-B visas and legal immigration.

        Here is a piece from Red State which backs up Cruz’s claim that his amendment was a “poison pill.”

        http://www.redstate.com/diary/quill67/2016/01/29/time-line-transcript-shows-ted-cruzs-amendment-designed-kill-gang-eight-immigration-reform/

        I could give links to other websites such as that of “The Texas Tribune” a left-wing rag here in Texas, which also claims Cruz’s amendments were an intentional poison pill.

        When he submitted them, I knew they were a poison pill.

        For those who question the amendment which increased the no. of H1B visas, I say this. Cruz was playing politics and using the Dems claims against them. The Dems claimed they wanted reform and an increase in green cards/visas, so Cruz gave them the chance to prove that was really their main goal.

        In fact, the legalization of over 10 million illegals was the Dems goal and Cruz knew it. Thus he made a big show of Dems claims and his amendments, which would have gone a long way to fulfill want the Dems claimed they wanted. Of course, as with everything coming out of a Dem’s mouth for public consumption, their claims were a lie and Cruz proved it.

        As to Cruz not playing this up, well unlike others who appear to have great faith in the American electorate, I do not think most of this electorate have the perspicacity or interest to follow such subtle arguments. And frankly, if the electorate was so f*&king smart, our country would not find itself in the present mess.

        To paraphrase Churchill, “you can always depend upon Americans to do the right thing, once they have tried everything else.”

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Megyn Kelly admitted to Cruz in her discussion of one of the debates that the evidence supported his claim that it was a poison pill all along — and she was the one who asked him about it in the debate.

        • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

          I don’t actually doubt, KFZ, that Cruz did intend his amendments as a poison pill to Rubio’s amnesty. But in politics, the impression you give is everything, and even the relatively inexperienced Cruz should have known this. I am not expecting an unreasonable level of perfection from Cruz or his campaign because they should have known how dangerous it was to leave perfectly intelligent people with the impression that Cruz was weak on immigration – and allow me to reiterate that that is indeed the impression Cruz left, on me and a lot of other people.

          His website barely discussed immigration and did not explain his amendments to Rubio’s Amnesty bill. There was, in short, nothing that suggested Cruz was taking the ordinary citizen’s plight more seriously than the gaggle of E-men in the race who were working for the Chamber of Commerce. Yes, if you analyzed all of Cruz’s known public positions, he was obviously a consistent Conservative on every issue except immigration. But that is not a substitute for Cruz standing up in public and assailing immigration for taking away American jobs and driving down American wages (and as far as I know he never gave any speeches saying anything of the kind) – and it was indeed a very serious error for his campaign to think that it was.

          The truth is that Cruz was not bold enough when the moment called for boldness. It may have been temperament or a lack of political experience, but whatever it was, it left an opening for Trump (along with how awful the other candidates were) – Trump the showman, Trump the con man if you will, but Trump understood that he had hit a nerve and grasped at the opportunity. And from that moment on, Cruz was playing catch-up.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            The truth is that Cruz was not bold enough when the moment called for boldness. It may have been temperament or a lack of political experience, but whatever it was, it left an opening for Trump (along with how awful the other candidates were)

            Oh, I certainly agree with that, Nik. But that’s what often goes with being a contemplative Senator. Outside of Harry Reid and many of the other flakes in the Democrat party, Senators tend to be reserved, thoughtful (or fake it), etc. Cruz is not much different. If you look back at my comments of the first debate, I thought he missed several opportunities to “zing” a good answer.

            But it’s hard when it’s not in your character to be an ass, a con man, or just a bombastic flake. When Cruz does try to turn it up he often just doesn’t sound natural. My advice to him would just to be himself, within reason, and just let the chips fall were they may. I’m not naive enough to say “America will scope out a phony” because so far they have not regarding Trump.

            Trump is purely a demagogue telling frustrated (if not infantile) voters what they want to hear…of course, until he says the wrong thing and then back-pedals. Many voters have attached themselves to Trump like a remora.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              The remora image (which I believe I’ve seen in cartoons) is rather appropriate — particularly if you see Trump as a shark. Great white, no doubt — and those really are man-eaters.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            But in politics, the impression you give is everything, and even the relatively inexperienced Cruz should have known this.

            Nik,

            I do not disagree with you. As you may have seen from other comments I have made, I believe Cruz has not done particularly well with the “optics” of campaigning.

            I find this a bit odd considering how intelligent Cruz is. But personality sometimes overrides intellect.

            For example, I believe Cruz is making a big mistake by not answering questions asked him by reporters or voters. Too often, he simply ignores the question and starts talking about another subject. Or what is worse, he uses a debating tactic and turns the question on its head and goes off in another direction. This may be ok in debates, but the public finds it a somewhat slippery and at heart a dishonest way of addressing things. Even I find it so and I am, to put it mildly, somewhat cynical as regards politicians and don’t expect much honesty from them.

            He may be a great guy in a small personal setting, but his public persona is a little oily. People do not like oily in a president. Since all politicians are oily, I think the successful ones figure out how to not look it.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Several years ago, Coulter became a single-issue voter on immigration. She remains a conservative, but is willing to sacrifice everything else for the sake of controlling it — or at least loudly talking about it, as Trump assuredly does. She also may be looking for a false idol. This has led someone who used to support Cruz, and later said she only turned against him because she became convinced that he really did fail to qualify as a Constitutional “natural-born citizen”, is now willing to ape the latest Trump sliming of Cruz.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Several years ago, Coulter became a single-issue voter on immigration. She remains a conservative, but is willing to sacrifice everything else for the sake of controlling it

      This is very interesting, Timothy. Yesterday I was talking to a political operative who told me about a local pol who for a long time has been a very narrow and strident one-issue person. His issue is abortion. But now he’s on the Trump bandwagon. How does this make any sense?

      Well, it does if you look at if from a certain point of view which some may call cynical, but perhaps Mr. Kung might call realistic: A lot of these “pro-life” people are simple issue-thumpers as a claim to a special social or moral space. Take the good Dr. Carson, for example. We assumed he was a very decent man. But I have to wonder if his ambition doesn’t dwarf his goodness when he can so easily align with a man who publicly likened him to a child molester.

      It’s not just those on the Left who have boutique causes whose purpose is self-flattery…ideas held for the pleasing self-image if gives them, as well as the street-cred.

      In the case of Coulter, she’s a media creature. And if you live long enough in that unreality, how can you expect to have a core philosophy that isn’t jettisoned at the drop of a hat? I just don’t take these media conservatives seriously anymore. The only media conservatives I have great respect for are Mark Levin and Dennis Prager. There may be a few lesser names, but that’s about it. Andy McCarthy seems like a good chap too.

      Rush has sold out by waffling on Trump. I wonder if, like Trump, he could shoot someone in the street and not lose his audience. Well, he’s losing me. He’s not the thoughtful man he was ten years ago.

      What Trump wonderfully brings to light is just how barren, confused, and low-information both the left and right ends of the spectrum are. But really, what else could you expect from a culture brought up on vacuous pop culture? Because it’s so ubiquitous, you might not notice it, how in commercials alone we are bombarded by idiocy and don’t even question it or the claims. We take this unreality as normal for sheer repetition. Don’t think this, and other factors (such as the dumbing-down of the education system and the Judeo-Christian moral system) haven’t had an effect.

      Sorry, but I wouldn’t cross the street to get Ann Coulter’s autograph. Oh, she’s a master with rhetoric. But so was, in his own way, Obama. So are so many who make their living in pop culture or media culture (and I’m not sure how the two are different). I founded this site with a stern warning against the dangers of unattached intellectualism. It is very very easy to manufacture rhetorical castles in the cloud. And you people here are very intelligent and articulate. I’m sure you know the dangers. I know that I do from having made every mistake in the book.

      I consider Ann Coulter part of unreality. No wonder she’s drawn to Trump. Trump carries with him (to a vulgarized culture) a pleasing unreality.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I would be careful about condemning anyone for merely failing to condemn Trump. Many (including Rush) personally know him, and this inevitably colors their political reaction to him. In particular, it makes them much likelier to think he means what he says, at least on the key issues that he emphasizes. Limbaugh has been very good at defending Cruz’s maneuvering for delegates, refuting all the Trump smears (repeatedly).

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          The problem I have with Rush is that while he defends Cruz’s maneuvering for delegates, he doesn’t call Trump’s smears what they are, i.e. lies. I do not listen to Rush all the time, but the times I have heard him speak on the subject, he skirts around this point.

          And I don’t think he does a particularly good job defending Cruz with his explanations about arcana having to do with delegate choice in Republican state politics. He simply does not call out some of the foolish people who call in bitching about the process. These “conservatives” are exhibiting anything but conservative principals. What they are showing is that they are quite happy to bitch about and ignore rules. Again, they are like the Left who bitch about and ignore the Constitution when it gets in the way of their desires. These “conservatives” are no less capricious than those Leftists. They would appear to be lazier as well.

          What one must not forget about Rush is that he is an entertainer (he often says this) and not a politician. He will not risk loosing his audience, because when one is making US$40 million or so every year by being an entertainer, one doesn’t want to offend a large percentage of one’s audience.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Coulter makes her money by supposedly being a very wise person with the snark to also make her entertaining. If your bread is being buttered by how supposedly smart you are, you’re going to be held to a reasonably high standard. And Coulter’s man-love for Trump must be seen in the context of her previous man-love for Chris Christie. We see a trend, not just a short-term error in judgment driven by political infatuation.

          Hey, if you’re a conservative you shouldn’t be getting in bed with Progressive liberals. In fact, Ann of all people should be undressing this con man, Trump.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Well, it does if you look at if from a certain point of view which some may call cynical, but perhaps Mr. Kung might call realistic: A lot of these “pro-life” people are simple issue-thumpers as a claim to a special social or moral space

        One has to hope it is reality which has dawned upon the pol you mentioned. But one has to wonder about a previously single issue pro-life voter who has become and ardent Trump supporter. If that person is genuinely pro-life, his support for Trump shows a true leap of faith.

        Still, I would be very happy if such pro-life conservatives would use some of the energy and time on other issues which are just as important. The pro-life movement has been pretty successful over the last couple of decades reining in “abortion as birth control”. This is an area where things have not only been held in check, but have been turned back. For example, a couple of years ago Texas passed a law a forbidding abortions past 20 weeks of gestation. Through this legislation a number of abortion bucket shops were closed in the last year or so.

        Perhaps more importantly, the public’s attitude about abortion seems to have turned against the “abortion-on-demand” ideal which NOW and the femi-nazis push.

  3. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    Is Hillary an acceptable choice?
    !!!
    I have never been in such total disagreement within our coterie here at ST. Coulter is not obliged to be 100% consistent in her prescriptions. She is not a candidate, but rather one of the absolutely most perspicacious observers of our trials and woes. If you have the fortitude to actually read her latest on the unrestrained foreign invasion, and it does take some grit to read the whole compendium of bad news, then you may quit criticizing her so freely. I know, I know, shooting the messenger is verboten, but it still occurs. Have ya’ll read her book? The facts contained therein are shocking. Again, facts. Let us all avoid slime. I’m a bit cranky tonite…sorry.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Yes, I’ve read all her books, including her latest on the foreign invasion. But note that Cruz has as good an actual record on immigration as Trump does, and maybe even better.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Hillary isn’t a particularly great choice. Her problem is:

      1) She’s a hardcore, America-hating Alinskyite Leftist
      2) Her only area of competence is in “girl power” and portraying herself as the eternal victim.

      A vote for either Trump, Sanders, or Hillary is not a vote for reform but a vote for either a Progressive, low-information, untrustworthy egomaniac, a Communist, or a warmed-over Communist — none of whom are in deep sympathy with this country, as founded.

      But given the choice between Trump and Hillary, you might as well flip a coin.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Tom Trinko has saved me a lot of work by writing: Elect Donald Trump, and You Elect the Problem

    And showing how dumb the American electorate is, here’s the most popular comment under Tom’s article at American Thinker:

    The biggest problem we face is unlimited illegal immigration. The conservatives, including Cruz, are globalists who want to drown this country with immigrants.

    Only a nitwit would characterize the guy who the Political Establishment hates as a “globalist.” What is a “globalist” anyway? And I would argue the biggest problem we face isn’t illegal immigration but legal political ignorance such as that displayed by this poster. There is exactly zero reason to believe that Trump (or Cruz, for that matter) would do anything significant about illegal immigration. Trump has already said that most of the people he would kick out would be let back in.

    If you’re not smart enough to know you’re being played, then best to listen to the counsel of others. If you’re frustrated in your life, don’t reach for a sledgehammer. Reach for a solution. Trump is not that solution. He is just another symptom of the problem.

    At this point I share zero sympathy with Trump voters. They simply verify what I’ve believed for over ten years now: Many “conservatives” are hardly that. Instead, they are yet another vulgar product of this entertainment culture that can no longer distinguish between P.T. Barnum and Henry Clay. And demonizing Cruz in order to hide one’s low-information status fools only those who are already fools.

    Cruz is by no means perfect. But at this point, I’d vote for Jeb Bush over Trump. Trump is an unstable egomaniac who cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons let alone with the issue of illegal immigration. And if you buy his rhetoric than you need to look in the mirror. Being angry and frustrated does not give you a license to be stupid. And that includes Ann Coulter, by the way.

  5. Steve Lancaster says:

    Remember the WFB rule of elections, “vote for the most conservative candidate who can WIN” No rational person believes that Trump is more conservative than Cruz, but elections have results and Cruz, has not proven that he can win. I would prefer him to Trump but Cruz will not be nominated in Cleveland and Trump will. Either we live with that fact and do what we can to win, or we settle for corruption on a scale that will stink the very nostrils of heaven.

    Four years ago I held my nose to vote Romney and millions of conservatives stayed home giving a communist the presidency an additional four years; how has that furthered the conservative agenda? Is it necessary to turn the country into a European hell-hole before cultural conservatives stop looking for ideological purity?

    The only thing that will keep me from voting republican in November is the absence of either Trump or Cruz on the ticket.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      At this point we must concede that Buckley’s movement did not change the culture. What it did was sell a lot of magazines and make us feel better about the Left’s ascendency in the culture.

      And we’ve all become very good at pretending to be conservatives while not actually doing anything to forward our vision. Part of this has to do with, I will admit, that conservatives are busy working and providing for their families. When one is engaged in conservative, productive endeavors, there is very little time for nonsense such as burning one’s bra.

      Jeffrey Lord, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter’s easy embrace of Trump lends more credence to my idea that the conservative media is little more than a book club or a way to get face time on TV to further one’s career. It rides above the culture like one of those bobble heads does on the dashboard of a car. It may sit on top and get attention, but it doesn’t drive the car.

      It’s time to scrap Buckley’s rule and vote for the conservative, period. Anything less has us becoming accustomed to playing mind games with ourselves and others and dumbing-down the very meaning of conservative. Proof is in the pudding. Donald Trump. In no rational universe would this man ever be seen as anything than he is: a progressive, big-government liberal and yet another lying politician saying what he will to gain power.

      Regarding Romney, he would have been less toxic than Obama. But we can’t actually know that. This is the guy who helped spearhead socialism in Massachusetts. Either we forget about limited government and the Constitution or we play this pretend game where the “severely” conservative Republican is better than what is being offered by the Democrats.

      The only reason Trump has any traction is because people are fed up with the GOP and really really really want to believe that Trump is something different. But he’s not. He’s simply part of the problem.

      Cruz as president wouldn’t change everything. It might change very little. The problem is a cultural one. There are few noble Americans remaining. Too many have been dumbed-down by our vacant entertainment-based culture…for which Trump is eminently suited.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        There are few noble Americans remaining. Too many have been dumbed-down by our vacant entertainment-based culture…for which Trump is eminently suited.

        I saw an example of this dumbed-down, everything is political culture yesterday night on the news. There was a story about a huge find of Roman Empire era coins, had been recently found in Spain. There were something like 1,300lbs of bronze and silver coins in ten or so amphorae. At the end of the story the news-reader (female) mentioned that many of the coins were stamped with the likenesses of emperors Maximian and Constantine.

        Just as the shot was about to change to another news-reader, a snotty look came on her face and she said something like “no females pictures on those coins.”

        Now this was a completely political statement. It was PC as well. There was absolutely no reason to make such a snarky and ignorant remark, as if things which happened 1,500 years ago in the Roman Empire should be measured by the same yardstick we use today.

        This woman showed her absolute ignorance and bias with a few words. Would she have been happier if Kim Kardashian’s ass were portrayed on the coins

        Such ignorance and bias is heaped upon our heads everyday of our lives. I am sick of it and when I hear or read such things from people, I am not afraid to let them know what I think of their ignorant comments. Ignorance must be continually fought against.

  6. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    These discussions sure are lively when Trump is on the menu!

    I believe that people support Trump not because they hate the GOP, or for any other arcane reason. They intuitively know that we’ve been had by the combination and collusion of left and right in DC. The media and its boss the government are pulling out all the stops to prevent Trump from ruining their profitable game. Trump may simply be the Destroyer. Maybe that’s what the USA needs right now, less marginal gains through a medium such as Cruz and more destruction of the status quo.

    And, applying the usual logic and metrics when evaluating the current campaign is not going to work. These times are unique. My guess is that Trump will prevail by way of his truly grass-roots support, and that we will find that he’s not the idiotic ideological ogre he’s being portrayed as currently. I trust our citizenry enough to let this play out.

    And we always have the opportunity to actually help Trump mature and become the best leader he can be. It’s possible since while he certainly has an active ego, its scope isn’t defined as psychopathic like Obama’s is.

    It is very nearly time to get real and support Hillary’s opponent 100%. It is also time to trust the media about 5%.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      We have been had, Tom. No question about it. But to a large extent, we’ve “had” ourselves, and willingly so. America is not quite Brussels (but getting there). We still have the ability to change our politicians, although the bureaucracy they’ve constructed underneath is a much tougher nut to crack.

      Trump isn’t talking about cracking any of it. Cruz has actually tried to by defunding Obamacare for which he was rounded derided. The question begs, do we really want to roll back Big Government or is “Big Government” only bad when it’s the other guy doing it?

      We need to get America’s house in order. Electing the equivalent of a glib talk-show host (or an affirmative-action first lady) is not the way to do it.

      Trump shows little to no knowledge of America other than what he’s gleaned from the talk-show culture. He’s a walking, talking stereotype of the kind of ignorant person-on-the-street that Jay Leno used to make fun of.

      Can we no longer discriminate between serious people and non-serious people? And I would say this is precisely how we got the John Boehners and Paul Ryans in the first place. We “believed” when we should have been more serious-minded about this stuff. We allowed ourselves to be fooled. And we’re doing it again. Trump wouldn’t be the first “outsider” to portray himself as such and then smoothly join business-as-usual. Having lived his life as a business-as-usual kind of guy, it takes some kind of magical thinking to suppose Trump will be another Ronald Reagan.

      Consider that Trump, with the foolish help of his blind minions, has successfully painted the most active reformer in government — Cruz — as a bad guy. And this goes way beyond the normal battles of politics. We see once again how the Establishment (whether GOP or the cultural establishment that Trump belongs to) finds it very easy to beat up on conservatives. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice — or ever three or four times — then same on me, for sure.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, between Trump and Hillary I’ll take Trump. We don’t know what we’ll get with him, whereas we do know what we’ll get with her. As for Trump maturing, if it hasn’t happened yet, it’s never going to happen. And if Trump is the ultimate foe of the Establishment, why did John Boehner implicitly endorse him?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Trump may simply be the Destroyer. Maybe that’s what the USA needs right now,

      Be careful what you wish for!

      I am not a supporter of the “status quo” as I believe you understand it. But anyone who has read history understands that the rapid destruction of a polity is generally not followed by a period of peace and calm. Turbulence is usually the order of the day. And unlike many Trump supporters who seem to be somewhat nihilistic, I do not wish to have the temple brought down upon my head.

      I do not like to direction this country is headed in, both politically and culturally. But before destroying things, we have to have something to take their place. I am sorry, but Trump’s “Let’s Make a Deal” philosophy doesn’t appear to have much depth and is tethered to nothing more than making a deal for the deal’s sake.

      In his public persona, Trump is not much different from an old carnival barker in a garish red and white striped sports coat, a straw hat and bamboo cane, saying, “hurry, hurry, hurry, step right in and see the bearded lady.”

      https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=carnival+barker&view=detailv2&&id=EC214637A9990793A8693C3AE422E6CC94B3B435&selectedIndex=0&ccid=oFnYNmzm&simid=608029338432503994&thid=OIP.Ma059d8366ce680594fb3a71b589d513do0&ajaxhist=0

      As I have said all along, the only thing which recommends Trump is that, whereas we know Hillary and the Left will screw us, there is a small chance that Trump may do one of two of the the things he promises. This is a thin thread indeed. But what other lifeline do we have?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Since Trump has been running in Republican primaries, one must assume that some degree of dissatisfaction with the GOP is behind Trump’s success to-date. The fact that every “establishment” and “RINO” candidate was a complete bust only serves to confirm this. So, yes, there is a hate for the GOP and I believe this is the spark behind Trumps very unexpected success.

      The media and its boss the government are pulling out all the stops to prevent Trump from ruining their profitable game.

      I do not see the media pulling out all stops to prevent Trump from ruining their game. In fact, the media has given Trump about US$2 billion in free advertising, according to some estimates. Trump has more exposure than any other candidate I have ever seen in a primary. Nobody else comes close.

      In fact, I suspect the media has been hopeful that Trump would win the Republican nomination in order to keep the dog-and-pony show going. Great for ratings in 2016. That is not to say they want him to win. But even if he did, the media knows it is unlikely that the present level of interest in politics would or could be maintained. So, in my opinion, the media has long wanted him to win the nomination and lose the general election. A win-win for them.

      I believe that people support Trump not because they hate the GOP, or for any other arcane reason. They intuitively know that we’ve been had by the combination and collusion of left and right in DC.

      I think this interpretation is slightly off. I believe it is more than intuition. Americans haven’t had a real increase in wages for almost two decades, and the real standard of living has not increased for longer than that. People are afraid to speak less they offend someone and are taken to court or are accused of being a racist, bigot, homophobic misogynistic, misanthropic, meat-eating Christian. No,it is more than intuition.

      Where I think you are correct about the people’s intuition, but are wrong about the root cause is when you say, “we’ve been had by the combination and collusion of the left and right in D.C.” I think the people intuit this, but their intuition is wrong.

      I think it would be much more proper to say that the people have been had by the big-government and crony-capitalist progressives (most who pretend to be conservative) in D.C. The “Right” has has very little to do with this. And it is the people’s fault for not being able to discern the difference between the two types.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Americans haven’t had a real increase in wages for almost two decades, and the real standard of living has not increased for longer than that

        KFZ, that makes me think of something I heard Sean Hannity say a couple days ago. I happened to tune in and he was rat-a-tat-tat ticking off the usual points about Hillary. And then he said how the economy was growing slowly and on the verge of a recession.

        And then he said, and I paraphrase, “Americans judge their lives by how they are doing economically.” And, of course, this is why Hannity said that Obama has been such a failure.

        I was a fan of Sean from way back. His show used to follow Rush’s for years on KVI AM in Seattle. But now it makes me just a little sad to listen to him. Sean was a man’s man type of guy. But now he’s a media whore to some extent who’s lost a bit of his soul.

        No conservative should mindlessly say something like “Americans judge their lives by how they are doing economically.” Now, the fact is that this is probably the case in way too many instances. But I would feel like a hollow man indeed if I got on the radio and said what Sean said. I would point out that money isn’t everything, that preserving our laws, our Constitution, and our integrity as a nation are things beyond mere price tags, and that the biggest harm Obama has done to this nation has little to do with how many iPhones you can buy for your kids.

        I mean, I really see no reason to waste any time watching Fox News. And I suppose we should hope and pray that Sean Hannity isn’t eventually consumed by the shallows business of journalism, if you can call it that.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I must admit that I tired of Hannity pretty soon after first hearing him on the radio. I saw him first on Fox TV, but in that format, he could not be as redundant and repetitive as he is on the radio. I have also never thought his analysis particularly deep. In this regard, Rush has it all over him.

          As to his being consuming by shallow business journalism…

          You know my opinion that the crony-capitalists and many others who call themselves Conservatives and Libertarians, have simply adopted the Marxist/materialist view of existence. Tradition, culture and freedom of religious belief mean little to them. Everything revolves around the Marxist view that “man is an economic animal.” Hannity works for such a person in the form of Rupert Murdoch.

      • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

        “I think it would be much more proper to say that the people have been had by the big-government and crony-capitalist progressives (most who pretend to be conservative) in D.C. The “Right” has has very little to do with this. And it is the people’s fault for not being able to discern the difference between the two types.”

        That is a vital point – the Right has had nothing to do with it because the Right (us) has had no real power. The Establishment is all too real, and has more than once pretended to be Conservative while selling out the true Conservatives in the Republican Party.

  7. Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

    Brad & KFZ, your comments are perfectly understandable, and appreciated. Trump is possibly the most imperfect GOP candidate ever, but he’s the top card off the deck. Thanks so much for taking the time to analyze my post and respond so carefully. For my part, I stand by my intuition about how this will play out, and hope that the Big Guy is watching over us as we scramble for our lives.

    KFZ, I realize that the denouement of Destroying is not pretty, but look where we are. Brad Avakian, the Oregon commissar of something like the bureau of industry, has the power to ruin a young couple’s life for not adhering to the government accepted ideology about queer marriage, fining them a ruinous $135,000 to pay the two women they abused by not making a cake. Sorry. We are already at the precipice.

    I’ve been extraordinarily busy lately, and relatively quiet, but I follow this site religiously. Thanks for your efforts, Brad.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Bismarck is said to have observed that God looks after fools, madmen (or maybe it was drunkards; I’ve seen both), and the United States of America. I doubt he meant it as a compliment, of course. But if it’s true, then I hope he continues to do so instead of giving up on a country so debauched. Whether it’s Trump or Hillary, we’ll definitely need it (though I doubt anything God would do would help save us from the effects of Big Sister Hilly).

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Another Bismarck quote that is appropriate for the present.

        “Es wird niemals so viel gelogen als vor der Wahl, waehrend des Krieges und nach der Jagd.”

        Translation,

        “There are never so many lies told as before the vote, during war and after the hunt.”

        • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

          Sure! Even Bismark knows how big that fish was that I caught last summer. And the sniper fire Hillary endured had to be frightening. Lastly, would you like fries with that?

        • Timothy Lane says:

          This shows the same sort of cynicism as his observation that no one should ever see sausage or laws being made.

  8. David Ray says:

    I’ll easily wager that Ann will turn on Trump the second he waffles on illegal immigration – which he will again.
    (One would think she would’ve caught that.)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Back or forward, it would just be nice to hear from her why she thinks Trump can be believed regarding his stance (whatever that is) on immigration.

  9. Timothy Lane says:

    Well, Ann got her wish. Trump won a majority of the votes in Indiana, and probably swept the delegates. Kasich said he would stay in until Trump actually had 1237 delegates, which probably won’t happen before June 7, but Cruz in his concession speech suspended his campaign. So I hope Ann is proud of a candidate who was willing to suggest that his enemy’s father plotted with Oswald, and whose supporters were willing to believe that Cruz was a serial killer before he was even born. Does anyone know anything about the Constitution Party candidates?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      So I hope Ann is proud of a candidate who was willing to suggest that his enemy’s father plotted with Oswald, and whose supporters were willing to believe that Cruz was a serial killer before he was even born.

      Well said, Timothy. And none of this is about Cruz, per se. It’s about America losing its heart, soul, honor, and sense of decency. We’ve become little more than a talk-show country, pulled this way and that by the superficial glitz of celebrity where “the common man” no longer exists for he feels pressure to “matter” in the most energetic, if second-hand, way.

      A special thanks to Deana for her principled and Christian views throughout this. I don’t want to embarrass her. But I just want you all to know that there is always a rock — spiritual and/or ideological — that you can embrace during difficult times.

      Now…let’s go build that wall. And maybe up the budget for Planned Parenthood. After all, they do great work.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        It’s about America losing its heart, soul, honor, and sense of decency. We’ve become little more than a talk-show country, pulled this way and that by the superficial glitz of celebrity where “the common man” no longer exists for he feels pressure to “matter” in the most energetic, if second-hand, way.

        Trumpkins never cease to amaze me. A local radio show host was just praising Trump’s latest speech, noting how he praised Ted Cruz, but complaining Cruz had not wished Trump well in his withdrawal speech. This idiot believed it showed that Trump had humility and Cruz didn’t.

        This is the state of thinking in the USA of today. This fool saw no contradiction between Trump’s low attacks on Cruz’s wife, his meme, “Lyin’ Ted” and his today’s scurrilous insinuations about Cruz’s father and Oswald; and then a few hours later saying what a great competitor Cruz was and what a great future he had in front of him.

        We all know insincerity is a part of politics, but Trump has taken this to an unbelievable level.

        How anyone can believe anything that comes out of this man’s mouth is beyond me. He will say anything, anything which he thinks will be to his advantage at any given point in time. He speaks in superlatives about almost everything, both good and bad. I take this to be his inherent dishonesty, but it could be that he does not have the ability to judge in a discerning manner.

        I think he is simply laughing at everyone.

        I hope Trump is not the scoundrel he appears to be. But I doubt it. The race is now between the capo of the Clinton Crime Family and a dishonest carnival barker. I truly fear for my country.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I haven’t had a lot emotionally connected to this race, Mr. Kung. But I have a connection to what we used to think of as common sense, coherency, rationality, equanimity, and just plain homespun-ness. Without revealing myself as a fragile girly-man with a case of the vapors, for some time now I’ve felt like the race called the “Organians” in Star Trek for whom merely being in the presence of the vulgar humans and Klingons was painful to them.

          I don’t watch Fox News. I don’t read People magazine. I don’t watch prime time TV. I don’t make a habit of exposing myself to a serial repetition of inane 30 second TV commercials. I haven’t added any tattoos lately (which means my collection is still at zero). Sinatra, not vulgar rap, is what I typically listen to…that and classic music and some jazz.

          I do not wish to make myself out as a Renaissance man. I’m just a man who doesn’t want to be a product of this culture.

          I have been deeply disturbed by what has emerged regarding “conservatism.” It pretty much doesn’t exist anymore. And there is not one hint of sour grapes when I say that I am seriously considering extending my cultural wall (yes, dammit, that’s one wall that will get built) and eliminating politics from StubbornThings…or at least demoting it to a mere side-blog. I just have so little in common with homo politicos of either side that it is indeed painful to speak their dialect.

          Your thoughts?

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            I am seriously considering extending my cultural wall (yes, dammit, that’s one wall that will get built) and eliminating politics from StubbornThings…or at least demoting it to a mere side-blog

            I sometimes think I am writing to myself when I read your comments.

            To cap things off, I had the exact same thought regarding politics and ST.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I sometimes think I am writing to myself when I read your comments.

              Mr. Kung, if I ever take a bullet from the grassy knoll due to Ted Cruz’ father, as Vice President of ST.inc, you would take over. Indeed, your thoughts are often mine as well. We’re like an old married couple but, in our particular case, without the sodomy.

              And trust me. This isn’t sour grapes or a spur-of-the-moment thing. For quite some time I’ve noticed the lack of depth of political discourse. And I don’t mean here. But what we do here is necessarily a reaction to, and analysis of, the insanity happening out there. What more can one really say?

              For now — and I hope this offends no one — all political articles will be published to the StubbornBlog section. And at my own discretion, I will still post any article that I feel rises above the same-old, same-old in the main section. These will almost certainly be articles that have something relevant to say about the culture. And because our culture (because of Cultural Marxism) is highly politicized now in every area, any thoughtful essay on the state of culture — including music, movies, literature, etc. — will often require commenting on the insane political aspects that the Cultural Nazis have inserted.

              So by no means let this declaration mean that one has to zip one’s lip and pretend the political Left (and the increasingly low-information right) doesn’t exist. But if you give me an article that is strictly arguing a political argument, it’s to the blog for you now.

              And I’ll try to do something more formal than just saying this in the comments section. But I think any regular readers will get the message. And if they don’t then they’re not regular readers and I couldn’t really give a rip.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Needless to say, I’m heavily concerned about politics, and write a great deal about it, though sometimes it will be an ancillary aspect of an article. My reviews have no especial tendency to be political.

            My musical tastes tend to focus most heavily on the pop music of the mid-60s to the mid-70s (very roughly in both cases). This naturally explains why I listen to a lot of the Beatles, Simon & Garfunkel, Petula Clark, and the Carpenters — their best work (in some cases all of it) came in that period. But there’s a wide range as well, from Tchaikovsky to Belinda Carlisle and Cyndi Lauper.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Politics, of course, is extremely important. But culture is upstream from politics. And I think it would do a lot of people good to back off a little. It’s not untypical for me to meet people in real life who I think are wound just a little too tightly over politics.

              I consider myself a hand-made conservative. And I’ll certainly engage someone in spirited debate if I feel like it. But these days I feel less and less like it because it’s like trying to talk to your cat.

              I like to think of myself as a principled and intelligent conservative, but one whose butt cheeks are not puckered too tightly. I am not the “fire and brimstone” conservative, although I pull no punches in my rhetoric. But I do not sit behind the computer keyboard with my fists clenched tight. And that is what passes for much of “conservatism” these days.

              Ironically, the main motivator of the Left — dissatisfaction — is becoming prominent on the right. And I just won’t go there. Oh, I’ll visit there once in a while to have a good bitch. But I won’t live there. Life is too short to make politics out of one’s dissatisfaction.

              So this new policy — not that’s its earth-shattering…it’s not as if National Review has sweared off RINOism — is an opportunity for people to branch out and maybe lighten up. And when there are serious things to talk about, sounding like Sean Hannity is not the only way to go about it.

              Our culture is going crazy but we need not go there. And we need to understand what is making people crazy:

              1) Slavish adherence to political fads
              2) A lack of wise standards
              3) A lack of feeding the mind and soul with something more nutritious than the cultural equivalent of packing peanuts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *