Jeb Bush: The RNC shouldn’t have kicked National Review out of that debate for attacking Trump

posted at 1:21 pm on January 22, 2016 by Allahpundit

They’re just telling the truth, he says, in pointing out Trump’s many, many flaws. Well … yes, but the point of last night’s special issue wasn’t that Trump is flawed, an argument that’s been made by various NR authors over the past seven months without jeopardizing their debate role. The point of the issue was that the magazine’s now convinced that Trump is so deeply flawed that nominating him would destroy movement conservatism. It’s as overt an anti-endorsement as an ideological publication can give. How do you moderate a debate fairly when you’ve just screamed from the rooftop that one of the guys onstage undermines everything you stand for? It’d be like asking me to moderate a debate on “The Walking Dead” where one of the participants thinks it’s the greatest show ever. Punches will be thrown. A forum like that is compromised. And NR, to its credit, didn’t put up a fuss about it. They knew going in that declaring their partiality against Trump would cost them.

I don’t begrudge Jeb the chance here to polish his new brand as the most loudly anti-Trump candidate in the field. I don’t fault him either for a knee-jerk defense of NR. In a fight between Buckleyites and Trumpers, a Bush is practically duty-bound to side with the former, especially when they happen to be right on the merits. What grates is what Bush tweeted last night after the issue dropped:

I made this point yesterday but let me make it again. From his ill-advised decision to run in a populist climate to his arrogant attempt to scare the rest of the field out of running with gaudy donor-class fundraising support to his pitiful haplessness in defending himself against Trump to his catastrophic attempt to blow up the only center-righty who can conceivably win the nomination at this point, Jeb Bush has done more to enable Trumpmania than any Republican politician in America. As Phil Kerpen pointed out, his supporters in Congress spent the hours before NR’s issue was published yesterday loudly signaling in the media that if they’re forced to choose between Trump and the conservative Ted Cruz, it’s Trump in a heartbeat. Even now, with Jeb running all-out as America’s number-one Trump-hater — while his Super PAC focuses entirely on Marco Rubio — Team Jeb is hoping that Trump is wildly successful in the first few states. They’ll happily accept him winning Iowa and New Hampshire so long as Jeb finishes second in the latter. That’s the only way Bush’s horrible campaign stands even a small chance of winning the nomination at this point, as the de facto “Anybody But Trump” choice in a two-man race amid panic on the right at Trump as a potential nominee. Any other candidate, with the possible exception of Cruz, would run Jeb off the field head-to-head. And given how well-organized Cruz is, how bad Bush is on the stump, and how much disgust there is among the electorate at establishmentarians, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cruz ended up running him off the field too.

Incidentally, if Jeb makes it out of New Hampshire, you may start seeing Dubya pop up on the trail for him in South Carolina. How’d you like that as your final choice, tea partiers — Trump or the Bush dynasty?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

This is the same Jeb Bush who said he didn’t need conservatives to win.

xblade on January 22, 2016 at 2:27 PM

This is the same Jeb Bush who said he didn’t need conservatives to win.

xblade on January 22, 2016 at 2:27 PM

He won’t.

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2016 at 2:28 PM

Zogby National GOP Poll:

Donald Trump 45%
..
..
Ted Cruz 13%
Marco Rubio 8%
Jeb Bush 6%

Trump at 45%?! A month ago this would have caused a stir.
Now it’s just blasé.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2016/01/21/new-zogby-poll-trump-leads-cruz-by-32-points-nationwide/

anotherJoe on January 22, 2016 at 2:29 PM

I don’t think the base of Trump’s support are Conservatives or Republicans. Just populist who want to use torches and pitchforks So badly that they have found the best guy who helps them to do so. I think 1/4 of Trump supporters are great people who genuinely like him warts and all. This “Burn it down” stuff was actually quite entertaining. Now it’s frightening.

portlandon on January 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM

Worse than that is apparently we have the establishment set with torches and gasoline ready to burn it all down in the other direction. Jeb can’t believe he isn’t being coronated, so he’s going to destroy all of those petulant upstarts that didn’t wait in line. Bob Dole, Trent Lott, and all of the establishment dinosaurs are going to cheer on the fire rather than yield any bit of control to the conservative wing.

I can understand the appeal of “burn it down,” specifically because of the repeated failure of those establishment hacks. Only problem is some of us still have to live here. Hope they understand that rebuilding from just ashes is at best a very slow process, and not one guaranteed to go in an enjoyable way…

Gingotts on January 22, 2016 at 2:32 PM

What a loser! Why doesn’t Jeb just go home and shut up! Trump wouldn’t be in this race if not for guys like him.

tnarch on January 22, 2016 at 2:32 PM

Zogby National GOP Poll:

Donald Trump 45%

You wonder if Trump running ads and campaigning vigorously against Cruz & Bush et al could be considered tantamount to “running up the score.”

anotherJoe on January 22, 2016 at 2:33 PM

Gingotts on January 22, 2016 at 2:32 PM

“We have met the enemy and he is us.” -Pogo

Neitherleftorright on January 22, 2016 at 2:36 PM

Zogby National GOP Poll:

Donald Trump 45%
..
..
Ted Cruz 13%
Marco Rubio 8%
Jeb Bush 6%

Trump at 45%?! A month ago this would have caused a stir.
Now it’s just blasé.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2016/01/21/new-zogby-poll-trump-leads-cruz-by-32-points-nationwide/

anotherJoe on January 22, 2016 at 2:29 PM

It isn’t causing a stir because the media and anti-Trumpers have collectively retreated in their final pre-primary “safe space” of “the polls are wrong and Rubio will crush Trump at the ballot box!”

Doomberg on January 22, 2016 at 2:36 PM

“ace” is correct that the NRO as a whole is supportive of Rubio.

onlineanalyst on January 22, 2016 at 2:26 PM

Then NRO should have endorsed Rubio. It wouldn’t convince the Trump voters dead set against Rubio. They would still mock, complain about Gang of 8 and all that, but at least they would be standing for something instead of against. It would have prevented tweets like Jeb’s which I know elicited nothing but groans and facepalming from the anti-Trump crowd on Twitter. It would also have been a check against any of them destroying all of their credibility by claiming Hillary Clinton is a lesser evil compared to anything.

Gingotts on January 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM

Poor losers

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM

It isn’t causing a stir because the media and anti-Trumpers have collectively retreated in their final pre-primary “safe space” of “the polls are wrong and Rubio will crush Trump at the ballot box!”

Doomberg on January 22, 2016 at 2:36 PM

Like the other delusional camp

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2016 at 2:39 PM

You know it’s bad when a Bush says you aren’t conservative enough. ‘Hello, Pot? This is Kettle.”

ConservOvrGOP on January 22, 2016 at 2:40 PM

This is the same Jeb Bush who said he didn’t need conservatives to win.

xblade on January 22, 2016 at 2:27 PM

What he meant to say is that he doesn’t need conservatives to lose. He’s awesome at losing.

Immolate on January 22, 2016 at 2:40 PM

Reality check

Levin’s family member works for Cruz.

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2016 at 2:41 PM

Now it’s frightening.

portlandon on January 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM

Your pearl clutching is amusing.

Boo!

Dick Richard on January 22, 2016 at 2:41 PM

Zogby National GOP Poll:

Donald Trump 45%
..
..
Ted Cruz 13%
Marco Rubio 8%
Jeb Bush 6%

thanks, NRO nerddoofusscribblers

Senator Philip Bluster on January 22, 2016 at 2:42 PM

They can’t call themselves the “conservative vanguard” because they couldn’t even organize who or what it is they do support.

Gingotts on January 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM

That’s a fine point, and I agree somewhat… but I also disagree a little.

I find it to be a somewhat unConservative impulse to seek to put all hopes and emphasis on One Man. Such is the venue of populists (which is funny in a way… the speak in “We” rhetoric, but historically tend to bow down to one StrongMan or another).

As such, I think it is not necessary to have chosen any one candidate over another if one (or if a group) wishes to stop another candidate.

Furthermore, as I said earlier, I don’t think NR thinks they are going to stop Trump with this series of essays. Instead, they are laying the groundwork and giving themselves the perceived ethos to be a voice of opposition if (when) a President Trump goes off the rails on some Progressive/Big Government scheme or other.

RightWay79 on January 22, 2016 at 2:44 PM

If Trump accomplishes nothing more than eliminating this guy from the race, he is to be praised.

dirtseller on January 22, 2016 at 2:46 PM

on some Progressive/Big Government scheme or other.

RightWay79 on January 22, 2016 at 2:44 PM

NR loves big gov, wallstreet, cheap labor, ect.

They are in no way conservative.

Dick Richard on January 22, 2016 at 2:48 PM

the NR magazine ‘AGAINST TRUMP’ issue brings forth images of a room full of crying babies…but look closer…the babies are a bunch allegedly grown ‘men’…PICTURE IT….it and they are truly pathetic.

TRUMP 2016

Pragmatic on January 22, 2016 at 2:49 PM

NR loves big gov, wallstreet, cheap labor, ect.

They are in no way conservative.

Dick Richard on January 22, 2016 at 2:48 PM

That’s your perception…but it doesn’t mesh well with reality.
At best it’s an over-generalization of the myriad opinions of the writers there.

RightWay79 on January 22, 2016 at 2:50 PM

That’s your perception…but it doesn’t mesh well with reality.
At best it’s an over-generalization of the myriad opinions of the writers there.

RightWay79 on January 22, 2016 at 2:50 PM

Some of the writers, maybe, but I’m speaking to the actual beliefs and actions of the institution (NR) itself.

That outfit strives for nothing more than a seat at the table and some of the crumbs from the oligarch’s plate.

Dick Richard on January 22, 2016 at 2:57 PM

What he meant to say is that he doesn’t need conservatives to lose. He’s awesome at losing.

Immolate

Probably got it wrong because he was speaking English.

xblade on January 22, 2016 at 2:58 PM

NR loves big gov, wallstreet, cheap labor, ect.

They are in no way conservative.

Dick Richard on January 22, 2016 at 2:48 PM

That’s your perception…but it doesn’t mesh well with reality.
At best it’s an over-generalization of the myriad opinions of the writers there.

RightWay79 on January 22, 2016 at 2:50 PM

so what’s the reality? Why doesn’t/hasn’t the NR come out strongly against illegal immigration? The one guy who is coming out strongly against illegal immigration gets lambasted….what does that tell you? Illegal immigration, excessive H1B visa immigration and islamic terrorism vis-a-vis immigration are the top issues that threaten the fabric of this country now and into the future…..give me reasons why that is NOT true…please kind sir or madam?

TRUMP 2016

Pragmatic on January 22, 2016 at 3:02 PM

The president-elect arrived at the Chevy Chase, Md., home of syndicated columnist George Will shortly after 6:30 p.m., according to a press pool report. Greeting him at the residence were other luminaries of the conservative commentariat, including the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol, New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post.

Thank you Lord, for you are gracious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obamas-dinner-with-conser_n_157701.html

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2016 at 3:06 PM

Add this to the $80 million Jeb has wasted in his campaign.

ezspirit on January 22, 2016 at 3:09 PM

In a series of head-to head match-ups with individual challengers for the nomination, Trump led Cruz 59% to 29%, Rubio 64% to 27%, Bush 68% to 22%, Kasich 73% to 15% and Christie 69% to 19%.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2016/01/21/new-zogby-poll-trump-leads-cruz-by-32-points-nationwide/

anotherJoe on January 22, 2016 at 3:13 PM

The safe bet is if Jeb is complaining about something then someone is doing something right.

patches on January 22, 2016 at 3:13 PM

I really believe that 2016 will finally be the year that the American two-party system will devolve into a multi-party system similar to the political systems of Europe.

The fault lines on the right that have been patched over for the past 20 years have been opened like a great bleeding wound. The movement conservatives will not be happy with anyone but Cruz and the populists will not be happy with anyone but Trump and the establishment will not be happy with either one.

The Republican Party will fracture irrevocably which will give the left unfettered power for a generation or so before they fracture as well.

Lamont Cranston on January 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM

…where one of the participants thinks it’s the greatest show ever.

That would be you, AP. You love the Walking Dead. You fool no one. I’m sure you have the complete TWD action figures.

Blake on January 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM

I cant believe for the first time in 20 years I agree with a Bush. Keep them talking that is how you find out what crooks these National Review people are. If they are so Conservative, why didn’t they get involved earlier against the phony Conservatives that are pro amnesty, Obamacare and for Rapeugees coming here. I mean they could have done something in the house as they had control of the money, instead put Paul Ryan (Reid and Obama’s best friend)in as speaker and did nothing . Just a bunch of liars and they were never going to do anything to help and knew it. That is because these so called conservatives are no more conservative then Trump but they don’t think they can control him.
Look they helped Thad Cochran run a race card on a real conservative, they also went after a real conservative to push McConnell into the Senate. I mean just like Carl Rove is trying to get rid of some real conservatives in the Senate and House. They are all liars and thugs and do not have this country best interest in their heart or head.

pwb on January 22, 2016 at 3:15 PM

so what’s the reality? Why doesn’t/hasn’t the NR come out strongly against illegal immigration?

Pragmatic

Because their guy is Mr. open borders himself, Marco Rubio. Open borders that result in democrats running everything is what real conservatives believe in.

xblade on January 22, 2016 at 3:19 PM

so what’s the reality? Why doesn’t/hasn’t the NR come out strongly against illegal immigration?

Pragmatic on January 22, 2016 at 3:02 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/donald-trumps-comments-on-mexican-immigrants-kernel-of-truth?target=author&tid=900170

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428506/donald-trump-good-guy

Just a couple of examples… Google “National Review Illegal Immigration” for more.

Heck… that even turned up an article by Jennifer ‘RINO’ Rubin criticizing NR’s “Against Trump” efforts because the magazine has been too hardline on immigration!

RightWay79 on January 22, 2016 at 3:21 PM

Welcome to the fight, all. Trump is not a conservative.

But you, Jeb, the man who said you would win the GOP nomination without the party’s base (conservatives) are?

bw222 on January 22, 2016 at 3:22 PM

You can’t make this stuff up.

Lowry told host Megyn Kelly, who has had her own dust-ups with Trump, that their intent was to rally conservatives against Trump because they saw him as susceptible to special interests.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/21/megyn-kelly-convenes-conservatives-against-trump/

Has Lowery and the NR EVER been concerned about a republican being susceptible to special interests? The same NR that supports amnesty and open borders, which is THE handout of all handouts to special interests?

xblade on January 22, 2016 at 3:31 PM

The boys of NRO

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2016 at 3:35 PM

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2016 at 3:36 PM

Link

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2016 at 3:37 PM

Lamont Cranston on January 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM

That’s a fair prediction/assessment.

The only issue I have with it is that a lot of the Populist-fueled support that Trump has right now consists of blue-collar white folks who have since FDR been traditionally Democratic voters.

Reagan Democrats were mainly disaffected whites from the South…so there isn’t an exact parallel there.

Rather, I would almost expect the populists to be absorbed back into the Democratic Party (with the rise of a more (Bill)’Clinton-esque’ figure…though I don’t see who that would be, if they have come on the scene already).

Then we go back to the basically 50/50 balance between D and R that we have now.

As crazy as it sounds…I almost see a future where the Republican Party eventually gets back to it’s more inclusive roots and starts to appeal more to minority voters while promoting a Freedom-type agenda…and the Democratic Party slips back into it’s racist, nativist, populist traditions.

Who knows? The future is quite uncertain.

RightWay79 on January 22, 2016 at 3:40 PM

Charles Krauthammer: “Obama would be a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin”, who would “bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.”

How did that work out for you, Chuck?

F’ing pathetic!

Dick Richard on January 22, 2016 at 3:41 PM

Yeb! stating that Trump is no conservative is pretty darned funny.

I guess that means that socialist is the new conservative … at least according to “act of love” Yeb, The “We hates Trump and his supporters” National Review and of course the “If Trump wins we’ll have a brokered convention” GOPe.

I have held my nose and voted for the “not my first choice” candidate so many times that I can’t even count them.

Every time another “True Conservative” threatens to vote/run third party or “sit this one out” because their first choice turned out to be the second or third choice, I get pretty outraged because the loyalty I have shown over the years in election after election isn’t reciprocated by these establishment supporters.

PoliTech on January 22, 2016 at 3:43 PM

I won’t be happy until I see Lowery throw himself off the tallest building in DC…bonus if he grabs Rove as he’s going over.

Mr. Arrogant on January 22, 2016 at 3:48 PM

I’m aligned with Cruz (and can’t stand the RNC), but they made the right call on NR moderating a debate (wish they did the same with all biased moderators). Bush just keeps coming off more out of touch.

As far as this:

How’d you like that as your final choice, tea partiers — Trump or the Bush dynasty?

I liked Trump for showing the way on standing ground and fighting back against media bullies. I always have had misgivings on his new-found conservatism and propensity to say he’ll do things that undermine the constitution. Let’s face it, Bush will do the same and I’m done with dynasties and the uniparty. Trump could still help bust through the good ‘ol boys network (or quickly become part of it), so if push comes to shove, I would begrudgingly vote for Trump and pray he does crush uniparty politics.

batter on January 22, 2016 at 3:49 PM

BTW, did I miss the ‘Special Edition’ of National Review that castigated the GOPe Congressional Leadership for their surrender on the Dec 2014 Cromnibus spending bill?

Or the one that highlighted the Editorial Board and 20+ Conservatives raging about the GOPe Congressional Leadership’s craven surrender for 2015’s Omnibus spending bill?

How about the one about 10 leading members of the GOPe voting to confirm Loretta Lynch as Attorney General – and the continued GOPe support for every Obama judicial nominee advanced in 2015? Or the GOPe decision to punt the opposition on Obama’s Executive Amnesty to the States and Courts? The Boehner / Cantor / Ryan effort to slam a ‘comprehensive immigration bill’ aka amnesty through the House that was only derailed by Cantor’s primary defeat by Brat?

Athos on January 22, 2016 at 3:50 PM

How did that work out for you, Chuck?

F’ing pathetic!

Dick Richard on January 22, 2016 at 3:41 PM

Yet, the majority of people here still feed at the Faux News trough. It’s bizarre.

Mr. Arrogant on January 22, 2016 at 3:50 PM

Has Lowery and the NR EVER been concerned about a republican being susceptible to special interests? The same NR that supports amnesty and open borders, which is THE handout of all handouts to special interests?

xblade on January 22, 2016 at 3:31 PM

The NR doesn’t support amnesty and open borders. Read Mark Krikorian. He is their immigration specialist.

Gelsomina on January 22, 2016 at 3:52 PM

Apparently Newt Gingrich wasn’t a real conservative either as far as NR was concerned.

Newt Gingrich, 2012 GOP presidential hopeful, blasted by the National Review

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/newt-gingrich-2012-gop-presidential-hopeful-blasted-national-review-washington-examiner-article-1.992057

xblade on January 22, 2016 at 3:53 PM

The NR doesn’t support amnesty and open borders. Read Mark Krikorian. He is their immigration specialist.

Gelsomina

I didn’t say Mark Krikorian supported amnesty, I said National Review does. But for the record, Mark Krikorian isn’t opposed to amnesty either. He has made clear on several occasions that he is willing to accept a border first-amnesty second solution. So, even their immigration specialist supports it. Thanks for the assist, lol.

xblade on January 22, 2016 at 3:57 PM

BTW, did I miss the ‘Special Edition’ of National Review that castigated the GOPe Congressional Leadership for their surrender on the Dec 2014 Cromnibus spending bill?

Or the one that highlighted the Editorial Board and 20+ Conservatives raging about the GOPe Congressional Leadership’s craven surrender for 2015’s Omnibus spending bill?

How about the one about 10 leading members of the GOPe voting to confirm Loretta Lynch as Attorney General – and the continued GOPe support for every Obama judicial nominee advanced in 2015? Or the GOPe decision to punt the opposition on Obama’s Executive Amnesty to the States and Courts? The Boehner / Cantor / Ryan effort to slam a ‘comprehensive immigration bill’ aka amnesty through the House that was only derailed by Cantor’s primary defeat by Brat?

Athos on January 22, 2016 at 3:50 PM

Because it’s a presidential election. But there have been articles by the editors and many contributors about all these topics.

Gelsomina on January 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM

Yeb! is unhinged

SpongePuppy on January 22, 2016 at 4:10 PM

The NR doesn’t support amnesty and open borders. Read Mark Krikorian. He is their immigration specialist.

Gelsomina

Mark Krikorian
[email protected]

@Too_Much_Reason Heck, even *I* back a citizenship amnesty AFTER we end illegal immigration & shrink the problem. That’s the key.

https://twitter.com/MarkSKrikorian/status/666307644399947776

xblade on January 22, 2016 at 4:18 PM

Jeb, think of it this way: it was an Act of Love to kick the National Review out.

anotherJoe on January 22, 2016 at 1:26 PM

Ouch, thats gonna leave a mark!

oryguncon on January 22, 2016 at 4:24 PM

The NR doesn’t support amnesty and open borders. Read Mark Krikorian. He is their immigration specialist.

Gelsomina

Mark Krikorian
[email protected]

@Too_Much_Reason Heck, even *I* back a citizenship amnesty AFTER we end illegal immigration & shrink the problem. That’s the key.

https://twitter.com/MarkSKrikorian/status/666307644399947776

xblade on January 22, 2016 at 4:18 PM

I think all this does is prove the extreme nature of Trump’s newly found (circa June 2015) immigration rhetoric.

Krikorian is an immigration hardliner.

The Conservative position has always been to secure the border and stop illegal immigration as a first step…and then to deal with those already here in a fair, but reasonable way.

RightWay79 on January 22, 2016 at 4:28 PM

Because it’s a presidential election. But there have been articles by the editors and many contributors about all these topics.

Gelsomina on January 22, 2016 at 4:05 PM

Sorry, saying that ‘it’s a presidential election’ is weaksauce.

They’re taking a firm stand here and devoted an entire special edition to that ‘principled’ stand. Where have they taken a similar measure on those other topics that fail to uphold conservative principles? Where else have they become so motivated by fear / anger / contempt that they feel compelled to do something similar?

The GOPe is more and more like the progressives – from embracing ‘the ends justifies the means’ to ‘if not for their double standards, they’d have no standards’. And that is a far bigger problem than Donald J. (Who is only a symptom of the problem)

Athos on January 22, 2016 at 4:30 PM

So lets see.. All of a sudden the #RinoTimes is concerned with purity tests when Trump is the clear frontrunner, and they weren’t concerned with purity tests in 2012 they demanded that we support the father of Obamacare, Mittens

Brock Robamney on January 22, 2016 at 4:31 PM

So lets see.. All of a sudden the #RinoTimes is concerned with purity tests when Trump is the clear frontrunner, and they weren’t concerned with purity tests in 2012 they demanded that we support the father of Obamacare, Mittens

Brock Robamney on January 22, 2016 at 4:31 PM

I am fairly certain they didn’t endorse anyone in the 2012 GOP Primary.
After Romney won the nomination, they simply made the point that it was far better (for the Country and for Conservatism) to vote for Romney instead of sitting it out.

RightWay79 on January 22, 2016 at 4:36 PM

Okay Jeb.

Show that you put the party and principles over your own interests:

Get out of the race!

Sackett on January 22, 2016 at 4:58 PM

Good laugh

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2016 at 5:16 PM

“We have met the enemy and he is us.” -Pogo
Neitherleftorright on January 22, 2016 at 2:36 PM

Classic, and sadly appropriate.

Marcola on January 22, 2016 at 6:01 PM

Rush nailed the GOPe and all the phony conservatives on his show today. Spent the entire three hours on it. One of the best shows he has ever done. The GOPe trying to pretend that Trump is not a conservative when they have supported the following liberals in the past:

Romney–Father of Obamacare

McCain–Amnesty supporter extraordinaire

Bush–Amnesty and Big Gubmint Supporter

Dole–GOPe forever who never did a conservative thing in his 40 yrs. in the Senate

Bush 1–Liberal who raised taxes and was a doosh

Yeah, what hypocrites.

I don’t care what Trump says or does.There’s nothing, I mean nothing he can now say or do that will keep me from voting for him.

they lie on January 22, 2016 at 6:03 PM

The Puritists at the #RinoTimes called Reagan a populist, and claimed he wasn’t conservative enough. If they had their way, the Reagan Revolution would never had existed.

Brock Robamney on January 22, 2016 at 6:19 PM

Rush nailed the GOPe and all the phony conservatives on his show today. Spent the entire three hours on it. One of the best shows he has ever done. The GOPe trying to pretend that Trump is not a conservative when they have supported the following liberals in the past:

Romney–Father of Obamacare

McCain–Amnesty supporter extraordinaire

Bush–Amnesty and Big Gubmint Supporter

Dole–GOPe forever who never did a conservative thing in his 40 yrs. in the Senate

Bush 1–Liberal who raised taxes and was a doosh

Yeah, what hypocrites.

I don’t care what Trump says or does.There’s nothing, I mean nothing he can now say or do that will keep me from voting for him.

they lie on January 22, 2016 at 6:03 PM

+1. They lost all credibility when they had enlisted the opinions of the Anti-Trump & Anti-Cruz crowd to slam Trump

Brock Robamney on January 22, 2016 at 6:23 PM

Jeb! luvs him some National Rinos Online.

whatcat on January 22, 2016 at 7:08 PM

Oh, go away, Jeb.

mojo on January 22, 2016 at 7:35 PM

The last person I need to tell me who is and who is not an acceptable president elect……is Rush, Sean, Levin, or Drudge. The assorted self declared know it alls just leave me wondering what happened to critical thinking skills in America.

Lee Jan on January 22, 2016 at 7:42 PM

The last person I need to tell me who is and who is not an acceptable president elect……is Rush, Sean, Levin, or Drudge. The assorted self declared know it alls just leave me wondering what happened to critical thinking skills in America.

Lee Jan on January 22, 2016 at 7:42 PM

Actually you have. Everytime they tell you not to vote third party, or ask a candidate to take a loyalty oath, or say that you have to hold your nose and vote for the RINO du jour, you are allowing them to control your vote

Brock Robamney on January 22, 2016 at 8:33 PM

How can anyone with the last name of Bush actually think they could win a presidential election? (I said the same about Hussein however).That being said, I met W and he took a minute to stop and talk to me. That’s saying something! But yeah, they are all just one big happy crony family. Go hang out at the ranch Jeb! and fogettaboutit.

tbear44 on January 22, 2016 at 9:48 PM

He won’t be happy when he sees the cover story on the next issue, “And Bush is a douchebag!”

bluesman on January 22, 2016 at 9:53 PM

RightWay79 on January 22, 2016 at 2:44 PM

I certainly understand where you come from here. We’ve always been a movement based on principle, not on men or class or race. In fact that more than anything is what makes me uncertain of Trump (and always was of Palin, maybe not even her fault at least at first. The media love their stars). I never trust a cult of personality, or any sort of ID politics. Leave that crap to the left.

Where I disagree with NRO’s approach is that they cannot abandon the practical goal of influencing the next few months – which means winning the election or at least trying as hard as possible. That means having a candidate. The fight for the Republic is now and President Trump isn’t even the greatest evil. Let Hillary benefit from this and there will be no opposition of any sort.

I’d also argue that endorsing a candidate helps for the long game too. Exactly what brand of conservatism will define this new opposition if all goes poorly this year? Rubio’s inclusive reform? Cruz’s steady constitutionalism? Even a Paul-type alliance with libertarian theory? While the individual himself doesn’t need to be the focus after this year, choosing from among the varied platforms now will be beneficial in shaping the right answers down the road. Otherwise the undefined role of opposition allows for those with the obvious wrong answers (Jeb!) latching on and claiming they were there first, even when they themselves were always a part of the problem.

Gingotts on January 23, 2016 at 5:34 AM

Heck no! Anybody that attacks Trump has to be good people! According to Jeb.

Old Country Boy on January 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM

Every time Jeb Bush says anything negative about Trump, another thousand people decide to support him. Because shut up already, Jeb.
Your team already lost the game, and you’re howling about line fouls.
Fold the tent. Fire the staff. GTFO. Really. It’s time.

orangemtl on January 23, 2016 at 9:06 PM

I don’t think the base of Trump’s support are Conservatives or Republicans. Just populist who want to use torches and pitchforks So badly that they have found the best guy who helps them to do so. I think 1/4 of Trump supporters are great people who genuinely like him warts and all. This “Burn it down” stuff was actually quite entertaining. Now it’s frightening.

portlandon on January 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM

Not sure what’s frightening to conservatives about the nationalist tendencies of Trump and Palin. Don’t we have a lawless dictator now? Would it be better with a Marxist or a criminal? Can Jeb, rubio or Cruz prevent that?

Astute commenters ought to be immune to the “like Hitler”, ” like stalin” memes because they are so insubstantial. Hitler was a militarist populist xenophobe who executed his political rivals. Trump is populist, but all good politicians are, so that’s the end of the similarity. These context-unaware historical comparisons go nowhere.

virgo on January 23, 2016 at 9:28 PM

OK. So, Trump is a liberal in sheep’s clothing.
Cruz is hated by everyone.
Rubio is pro-amnesty.
Bush is a dead battery.

But in just about every debate, Christie makes some comment to bring the debating society back on topic. Give the man props for focus, something this election’s candidates sorely need. And if he had to make nice with Obama to get his state the Hurricane Sandy relief money, I’m cool with that. You know if he didn’t, Oscrewya would have had the money denied, right?

ReggieA on January 23, 2016 at 10:02 PM

Absolutely, Reggie, Christie is a great tactical, off-the-cuff performer and everyone loved him for taking apart the entitled union leaders. But he doesn’t seem to have a compass and not much grasp of national issues. Not sure anyone could say what his campaign was about or why he was different to others in the race.

virgo on January 24, 2016 at 7:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2