The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Ace of Spades Goes Full-On Populist?

Posted on | December 9, 2015 | 269 Comments

Because I’ve been up to my ears in radical feminism for the past year, I haven’t monitored the day-to-day developments of the GOP presidential primary campaign the way I did during the 2012 cycle. As a result, I am unaware (and really, do not care) which of my blogger friends are supporting which candidate. My attitude for the 2016 campaign can be summarized in three words: Anybody But Clinton. After my (ultimately futile) hyper-involvement in the 2012 campaign, I simply do not want to expend mental or emotional energy worrying about who the Republicans nominate. Others do not have that attitude, however, which brings us to Ace of Spades discussing the latest Donald Trump controversy:

Laura Ingraham: GOP will rip itself apart at convention to avoid nominating Trump.
Krauthammer: Trump’s proposal is “deeply bigoted,” “indefensible.”
Josh Earnest: Trump’s proposal consigns him for the new and improved “Wrong side of history,” which is now “the dustbin of history.” . . .
Ingraham points out that Trump’s proposal comes in a particular context: When the establishments of both parties already want to take him out, and are willing to seize on whatever cudgel is at hand to do so.
They’re not going to beat him this way.
The establishment’s yelling about everything has gone from tedious to exhausting to infuriating.

Read the whole thing. I had noticed, occasionally, Ace’s increasing frustration with the GOP establishment the past year or so, but I guess I underestimated the intensity of his frustration, or his seriousness about the immigration problem. Knowing Ace, he’s the last guy I would expect to dive off into Pat Buchanan/Peter Brimelow/John Derbyshire paleoconservative-style populism which I’m not saying he has, but I think he definitely now understands the teeth-grinding fury the Old Right felt toward the GOP’s constant compromising with liberalism. Insofar as any conservative is serious about defeating the Left, I think, he must eventually experience that kind of reaction. The alternative is to become an unprincipled centrist hack like Steve Schmidt or Nicolle Wallace.

Honestly, I’ve got a Zen-like serenity about the Trump phenomenon. The prospect of Trump going thermonuclear and running as an independent is the worst-case scenario, and so what? He will do it or he won’t. Republicans who want to stop Trump from winning the GOP nomination have to reckon with that possibility, and let them worry about it.

Not my problem.

If Ace is saying “burn it down,” there may be no alternative. It is not Trump’s fault that the GOP establishment is impotent. It’s not Ace’s fault. It’s not my fault. It’s not your fault. That arrogant fat-faced bastard Karl Rove? Yeah, I’m willing to blame it all on him, because why not? Populism needs a scapegoat and he’ll do. So if everything goes sideways between now and November 2016, and Hillary Clinton is elected because Trump went third-party and got 34% of the vote . . . ?

Burn it down, I say, and blame it all on Karl.




 

Comments

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    Of course it’s relevant.

    The Bill of Rights wasn’t put in the original document. People objected, they yelled at each other, they waved their fingers under each other’s noses.

    The Bill of Rights is arguably the foundation of liberty in the USA.

    It was added AFTER the convention because it was the only way to get the Constitution ratified.

    “We the People” indeed.

  • Quartermaster

    The bill of rights came because the states demanded it. Some anti-federalists also called for one. But they mainly opposed the new constitution.

  • Quartermaster

    You need to re-read the thread and then come back. I’m not going to deal with the type of stupidity that you’re trying to pull. You haven’t even been able to put what has been said together in your mind, and I won’t argue with a person who so obviously doesn’t understand what is being discussed.

  • Quartermaster

    If it doesn’t hit you so much, why whine about it? I don’t even acknowledge it when someone does it to as could not care less. Fact is, I don’t make it personal, you simply whine that it is.

    I’m not avoiding anything. I simply refuse to help you chase the squirrels you so desperately wish to chase.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    Yes, you are avoiding. You keep doing it. Whenever the discussion takes a turn you don’t like or may undercut your central premise, you make it personal.

    The difference with me is that I call you on it.

    I’ve pointed out that the situation will never be ideal and will always depend on the people involved.

    After you mentioned Christians, I said that Christians have a bias against people making their own choices, especially if it’s a “non-Christian” choice. Your own comments on this board have shown that over and over.

    So tell me, Mr. True Christianity™, exactly where have I gotten that wrong?

  • Quartermaster

    The difference between you and me is you whine about it.

    Exactly where have you gotten it wrong? I’ve said time and again – everything. You simply don’t pay attention to what’s being said.

    I’ve chuckled many times at your accusation of me being “obsessed.” You need to sit down in front of a mirror and really take a look at yourself. You’re no different than an SJW. You project, and you double down. I think you go all the way to three “lying.” You really think you’re right, no matter what is pointed out.

    Enjoy your obsessions. I’ve wasted enough time on you in this thread.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    And why do you think the states demanded it?

    Why did four other states demand it after the Massachusetts Compromise and no states demanded it before?

    I know a Moses solution appeals to you, but the Constitution didn’t come down from the mountain perfect in every way. There were arguments back and forth. It was changed. Then they argued over the changes.

    Just like we’re arguing now.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    And you avoid the question again.

  • Daniel Freeman

    If only! They can live quite a nice lifestyle on campaign funds, and work as lobbyists in-between. It isn’t as good as winning, but it’s better than not being able to afford to run.

    That’s why they ignore us once the election is over.

  • Squid Hunt

    Blah, blah, blah. Concentration camps, immigration is wrong because we’re being overrun with brown people. Liberals are dumb. Conservatism means keeping America the way it was in 1920 or you’re a stupid head. I think I caught your drift. Carry on.

  • Quartermaster

    You haven’t anything except, maybe, a cold. You have no idea what being a conservative means, and it has nothing to do with 1920. You’re acting like a closeted regressive. You’re out of your element. perhaps you’d feel more at home over at Daily Beast or even Politico.

  • Squid Hunt

    I’m sorry. You’ve done nothing except mumble insinuations. I can see how arguing for less governmental control would be a raging liberal argument. The fact of the matter is, Republicans really can’t get past their fear of being overrun by raging hordes of Others and that’s silly. It’s not people that should be the problem. Ideas are not a valid reason for exclusion. A truly just and equal government should make all of these non-issues, because the law would truly be applied equally and in defense of rights, not to enforce them. Like I said, the same government that said we have enough foreigners, let’s stop here is the one that’s saying we have too many white people, let’s dilute them and punish them with taxes while we do so. The issue is government, not immigrants. Until you acknowledge that, you’re the very definition of an elitist hack.

  • Quartermaster

    My young friend, you are in over your head. You are no where near as bright as you see yourself. Go back and actually read what was said.

    You still have no idea what the term “strawman” means.

    You wouldn’t know an elitist hack if one introduced himself and had that on his business card.

  • Squid Hunt

    It’s not that hard to figure out. They usually start “Government should pass a law to protect my…” and vome up with some special protection. Whether it’s blacks or muslims with their hate crimes, sodomites with their discrimination laws, corporations with their tax exemptions, Congress excluding themselves from Obamacare, or a bunch of Republicans that are fine with police brutality and harassment in black neighborhoods. You’ll notice cops won’t enforce broken windows policing in white suburbs. Wonder why that is. Good for me, not for thee. When you sell others rights down the river, you send your own with them. If “our guys can do it to them, their guys can do it to us. Hence, let’s keep the foreign people over there now becomes bring all the foreigners over here so they can make white people pay. Stop empowering government.

    And if you honestly want me to respond to your so called strawman, you need to pull whatever it is out of your mouth and ENUNCIATE.

  • Quartermaster

    I neither mumbled or obfuscated. You are an ideologue and you are so blinded by your ideology that you can’t see what was said. There is no “so called strawman.” It IS a strawman. That you are unable to see what you did is not my problem.

  • Squid Hunt

    Mumble, mumble, mumble.

  • Quartermaster

    What a maroon. You can’t deal with the problem you made for yourself, so you revert to grade school playground tactics. Have a nice life.

  • Squid Hunt

    Mumble, mumble.

  • Pingback: Palin: Battered Wife Syndrome? | Regular Right Guy()