Have the so-called anti-Trump "Republicans" who served under President George Bush, and who have come together to form a PAC called 43 Alumni for Biden, just recently turned into class-obsessed, inside-the-beltway establishment quislings with no principles, or were they always practitioners of political douchebaggery?
Against all flags.
18 comments:
As an outsider to the election, I have to keep pinching myself: 'Biden? They support Bi-den? Have I missed something?' But they also supported Hillary, right?
So it's the old story of the Patricians vs Julius Caesar.
They were always that way. I had decided long before Trump came on to the scene that Will, Goldberg, Shapiro, Erikson, Allahpundit etc. are all quisling losers. They just want to be accepted by the "cool kids" and live in the Beltway bubble. I remember Jonah back in the Corner days writing about walking around DC listening to NPR and thinking to myself "poor kid, he doesn't have two braincells that bump into each other".
just recently turned into class-obsessed, inside-the-beltway establishment quislings with no principles, or were they always practitioners of political douchebaggery?
Recall the last year of W Bush when his peeps went out to call us racist for wanting to enforce our laws, immigration laws to be precise.
They were always like that.
HW Bush was a member in good standing, his people are the ones who called Reagan's plan, "Voodoo economics".
If you didn't go to Ivy league, you are the wrong sort.
Trump is the epitome of the wrong sort. America First is so gauche.
Bruce: So it's the old story of the Patricians vs Julius Caesar. Great analogy!
ck: I got into it yesterday with a Goldberg supporter in the comments section at Instapundit. I very rarely comment there, but I find Ed Driscoll's habit of throwing links to Tweets or other writings by Goldberg and Kevin Williamson - not just every now and then, but every few days, without fail - to be annoying. In this case, Ed had yet again linked a Tweet by Jonah: something to do with rioters undermining their own 1st Amendment rights, if I recollect right. In any event, it was a completely obvious point that could have been made, and has been made, by people who are genuinely conservative and who haven't sold out to "Big NeverTrump". My point was, why keep throwing a lifeline to someone who, even if truly conservative (a dubious proposition), is a person of pedestrian intellect and low credibility who helped enable the propagation of the Russian collusion hoax against Trump (and who has never owned up to his role in doing so)? My argument with Jonah's towel boy isn't really very interesting (he was practically the only person who tried to defend Goldberg; the vast majority of comments were digs at Goldberg and exasperation with Ed for linking him - so it's not just me). What is interesting, to me, is Ed Driscoll's patronage of Goldberg and Williamson; I find this inscrutable. And he's kind of cagey about it; I don't think he ever links anything by these guys that is explicitly anti-Trump: it's almost always something that fits some traditional conservative narrative. But it's never anything that hasn't been said, and better, by people who haven't sold out to NeverTrump. Why give them oxygen? I have always liked Ed, and I enjoyed his posts when he was regularly blogging at his own site, and I enjoy his posts at Instapundit, too (except for his over-reliance on certain tedious tropes). But this business I do not understand.
V: Recall the last year of W Bush when his peeps went out to call us racist for wanting to enforce our laws, immigration laws to be precise.
I do remember. Especially the absurd Lindsey Graham ("First thing is, we're going to tell the bigots to shut up").
Every time I see Graham, he puts me in mind of Droopy.
I always think of Little Lord Fauntleroy for Graham, I even have a very sad attempt at paint-shopping it.
https://doubleplusundead.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/little-lord-graham.jpg
I have always liked Ed, and I enjoyed his posts when he was regularly blogging at his own site, and I enjoy his posts at Instapundit, too (except for his over-reliance on certain tedious tropes). But this business I do not understand.
He's Elite!, so of course he's going to link the National Review folks.
Most of the co-bloggers link to Elite! types saying something someone else said long before. Unfortunately, those other people are not of the Elite! so were not read by the right people.
They act all surprised at each new revelation about the Flynn/Trump coup attempt that righty bloggers were discussing 4 years ago.
Sure, we didn't necessarily know all the names, but we watched as it happened, and were called 'unhelpful' and worse.
Just remember, journalism is about covering stories. With a pillow. Until they stop moving!
*smack*
Sorry.
I agree about Ed, I too used to read and enjoy him at his site. These days he seems to be linking to the most boring and tedious people he can find. They all seem to be people I quit reading a long time ago. It all fits in with Glenn's lifelong search for "the good liberal" Totten, McArtle, Kaus, Althouse the list goes on and on.
He's Elite!, so of course he's going to link the National Review folks.
Most of the co-bloggers link to Elite! types saying something someone else said long before. Unfortunately, those other people are not of the Elite! so were not read by the right people.
Yeah, I need to stop forgetting that.
It all fits in with Glenn's lifelong search for "the good liberal" Totten, McArtle, Kaus, Althouse the list goes on and on.
Geez, I remember all those links to Althouse. Every freakin' day. I used to wonder why; if she was that obviously interesting, people would simply bookmark her blog and check in every day. But she wasn't that interesting. She wasn't a rabid liberal, but she did vote for Obama (Once? Twice?). And so many of her posts conveyed a sort of clueless bafflement as to why Democrats were acting the way they did.
Megan McCardle was the one who annoyed me most.
She wrote utterly stupid things all the time.
The last time I read her was around 04 or 05 when she explained global worming was real because one of her ultra-smart friends said so.
That was back when the North Pole was gonna be ice-free "next year."
I'd comment but I left my tinfoil hat somewhere.
Trump can and has done a lot of amazing things, but he did not change these people. This is who they really are.
stevew: I think that's true, and frequently overlooked. Trump didn't make them, it's just that the current environment is really bringing out their true colors.
Just remember, journalism is about covering stories. With a pillow. Until they stop moving!
+1 for the Iowahawk quote.
^Spiny, that was a joke. Driscoll throws that out at least once a day. Paco's mentioned that before.
It's a great quote, but Ed overuses it more than Sarah Hoyt overuses her 'shocked face' bit.
Yeah, V was riffing on my previous complaint about the posting of the Iowahawk quote (and another one from Jim Treacher) ad nauseum. And, yes, we can certainly add the "shocked face" bit. I think they're just getting lazy over there.
I haven't read Driscoll (or Instapundit itself, for that matter) in 3 or 4 of years, so I was unaware that it had become one of his annoying habits.
I'm behind the times, sorry about that.
Of
Because of its randomness.
Post a Comment