National Review Fires Scorching Zingers At Trump In Anti-Endorsement
Leading Republican Writers Insult Trump With Hilarious Zingers in The National Review.
The National Review, that most august rag of the right, has anti-endorsed Donald Trump in a special issue. The publication has serious credentials within the conservative movement, since it was founded by William F. Buckley, one of the few men who made “conservative intellectual” something other than an oxymoron. As Trump is neck-and-neck with Ted Cruz in Iowa, it could be read as an implicit endorsement of Ted Cruz. But the best thing about it is that the article, simply titled “Against Trump,” hurls insults and zingers at the Republican front-runner while viciously, yet thoughtfully tearing apart his qualifications, positions and persona.
For starters, The National Review doesn’t trust Donald Trump’s positions in general:
Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot.
Then the Review editors slam Trump’s flip-flopped immigration positions:
His signature issue is concern over immigration … But even on immigration, Trump often makes no sense and can’t be relied upon. A few short years ago, he was criticizing Mitt Romney for having the temerity to propose “self-deportation,” … Now, Trump is a hawk’s hawk.
He pledges to build a wall along the southern border and to make Mexico pay for it. … the promise to make Mexico pay for it is silly bluster. … These are not the meanderings of someone with well-informed, deeply held views on the topic.
…Trump pledges to deport the 11 million illegals here in the United States, a herculean administrative and logistical task beyond the capacity of the federal government. … This plan wouldn’t survive its first contact with reality.
Then the National Review editors fired some zingers about Trump’s embarrassing naivete on foreign policy:
Trump is a nationalist at sea. Sometimes he wants to let Russia fight ISIS, and at others he wants to “bomb the sh**” out of it. He is fixated on stealing Iraq’s oil and casually suggested a few weeks ago a war crime — killing terrorists’ families — as a tactic in the war on terror. For someone who wants to project strength, he has an astonishing weakness for flattery, falling for Vladimir Putin after a few coquettish bats of the eyelashes from the Russian thug. All in all, Trump knows approximately as much about national security as he does about the nuclear triad — which is to say, almost nothing.
Then they got down to it, declaring Trump unqualified for the presidency, with this insightful insult:
Indeed, Trump’s politics are those of an averagely well-informed businessman: Washington is full of problems; I am a problem-solver; let me at them. But if you have no familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, get rolled. Especially if you are, at least by all outward indications, the most poll-obsessed politician in all of American history.
The magazine concluded with a series of zingers describing Trump as a man who is all empty promises and no substance:
Any candidate can promise the moon. … But he is like a man with no credit history applying for a mortgage — or, in this case, applying to manage a $3.8 trillion budget and the most fearsome military on earth.
Trump’s record as a businessman is hardly a recommendation for the highest office in the land. … Few of us will ever have the experience, as Trump did, of having Daddy-O bail out our struggling enterprise with an illegal loan in the form of casino chips. Trump’s primary work long ago became less about building anything than about branding himself and tending to his celebrity through a variety of entertainment ventures, from WWE to his reality-TV show, The Apprentice.
…His promise to make America great again recalls the populism of Andrew Jackson. But Jackson was an actual warrior; and President Jackson made many mistakes. Without Jackson’s scars, what is Trump’s rhetoric but show and strut?
If Trump were to become the president, the Republican nominee, or even a failed candidate with strong conservative support, what would that say about conservatives? … The movement concerned with such “permanent things” as constitutional government, marriage, and the right to life would have become a claque for a Twitter feed.
It’s extremely entertaining to watch this conservative infighting, and to see a buffoon like Donald Trump drowning a stable of establishment candidates like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and John Kasich. But it is also a reminder that even serious Republicans consider Trump dangerous. And if Trump wins in Iowa in less than two weeks, it may start to be too late for them to stop him. It is a reminder that all Americans will have an obligation to vote and keep him out of the White House in November.
For Trump, the experience must be reminiscent of this:
Featured image via Michael Vadon, Flickr.
- Giuliani’s BS: Trump-Russia Probe Deadline ‘Made Up’ — White House Panicking
- Looming Constitutional Crisis: ‘Dr. Evil’ Trump is Attacking The Pillars of Democracy
- IBM Started Laying off Older Workers Without Disclosure, so a Federal Watchdog Took a Closer Look
- The Schlossberg Case Proves the Resistance is Winning the War Against Deplorable MAGA-ots
- Look Around: Nobody Plays the Race and Gender Cards Like a Conservative Does
- The BBC Just Needed One Epic Royal Wedding Photo to Brilliantly Troll Trump into Oblivion
Marc Belisle is the Reverb Press World Affairs Editor. He is a writer, activist and teacher. He has a Master’s degree in International Conflict Analysis from the Brussels School of International Studies. READ MORE BY MARC.