• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

RNC disinvites National Review as debate partner

MrT said:
RNC disinvites National Review as debate partner - POLITICO



This is a really bold move by The National Review - devoting an entire issue to taking down Trump. I would be really curious to hear from individuals that consider themselves to be conservative and Trump supporters. How do you reconcile the fact that so many individuals that are really big in the conservative realm - like Erick Erickson, Glenn Beck, and Brent Bozell - are outright actively campaigning against the individual that currently garners the most support amongst self-identified conservatives. Source Is it that you now consider these individuals to be part of the "establishment" and thus, are not "true" conservatives?

The amount of splintering that Trump is benefiting from, and simultaneously causing, within the Republican party is really quite interesting and amusing to watch.
Click to expand...

Wow... Trump has effectively bent over the GOP and is having his way with them. He's the one having a grand ol' party.
 
poweRob said:
Wow... Trump has effectively bent over the GOP and is having his way with them. He's the one having a grand ol' party.
Click to expand...

love it !! lol
 
cpwill said:
I don't know. I see a lot of defeatism and the assumption that this is now a two-man race. They prefer Trump to Cruz because - at the end of the day - he is one of them, and Cruz isn't (Cruz is an ideologue. They are partisans).
Click to expand...

Given that the establishment isn't much of a monolith, there are multiple simultaneous reactions going on at the moment, including defeatism, but also including a two-pronged attack against Cruz and Trump (the former during the primary season and the latter toward the end if it comes to it).

Before the voting has started, it's all very hypothetical yet. There's still plenty out there that think that the logic of the primary season is still relatively sound, despite the polls.

We are still, by and large, in agreement about the potential downfall of the traditional model, but I'm not quite over the bridge yet.


We may be headed there anyway. Perhaps effort should be spent creating chaos on the Democrat side, and let it all burn down. Split the electoral votes as much as possible and see if we can get the election sent to the House.
Click to expand...

That would be interesting, but part of me thinks each party is far too distracted with their own internal politics to do much and that still ends up favoring the Democrats thanks to their relatively unified voice.

You know me. If the Republicans can't unify around an establishment candidate and/or end up splitting their vote via some deluded third party run, I will use my vote to try to punish the party for its foolishness. If Republicans can't get their act together, they won't get my vote. I may be a fan of Teddy Roosevelt, but I'm not a Bull Mooser.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I'm not sure I fully agree with the above.

I think that during the 2012 caucuses and GOP primaries the goal was to have as many Republican voices as possible taunting the anti-Obama rhetoric in concert with the House/Senate Republican leadership/hardliners/party faithfuls. The crop of 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls seem to be working from that same old 2012 playbook, but those in Congress - the leadership/hardliners/party faithfuls don't seem to be a vocal this time around as they were back then.

The number of candidates doesn't necessarily speak to a healthy RNC, IMO. To me, it seems like a game of King of the Hill with a healthy dose of Obama-bashing thrown in for good measure.

I don't think the Republican voting base is pushing the narrative either. I mean, I think it's already firmly established what the GOP stands for along ideological lines: no abortions, gun rights, limited government, freedom of speech, a strong national defense, personal independence, nationalism (i.e., American assimilation is a must!), state's rights and free enterprise/capitalism just to name a few. If anything, the base is feed up with "establishment Republicans" compromising with the enemy of their idealism behind their backs - something Sen. Cruz most recently brought to light in his criticism of Senate Republicans. Using the old anti-Obama rants may help to perk Republican voters ears and stir the fury in their hearts, but in the end the people want solutions and up until now the GOP hasn't had many new ideas or new approaches to governance. All they've managed to do is dust off the old playbook and repackage it in different ways. But their base has caught on. Hence, the reason so many are starting to flock to Trump and slowly abandon everyone else including Cruz.
Click to expand...

Some of your points are sound, while others, IMO, not so much.

First, the President is a legitimate, and deserving target. You may call it bashing, but his record, and attitude, are most certainly fair game. I can't see how that is just an old playbook strategy. Connecting Hilary Clinton to President Obama in terms of vision and ideas, serves to illustrate how establishment she truly is, and how one should expect more of the same from her. With only two (three sort of) candidates to chose from on the left, I think there is a hold your nose moment when the handle is pulled on the Democrat side. Independents are going to be less likely to go that direction, and it will be independent voters who decide the election.

As to the ideological lines of Republicans, the dissatisfaction with the establishment should be an indicator that your "firmly established" belief is not so solid. Yes, there are people who have problems with abortion on demand, but that is true of many on the left as well. The PP controversy has more to do with the crass way the people in the videos acted than it does abortion.

Comparing issues in play, there are many, many millions more people who have concerns regarding abortion than those who would benefit from same sex marriage, yet those with concerns are rejected and silenced, while the nation has been forced to bend over backwards over a right that perhaps a fraction of a fraction would ever be interested in. I think this fact causes voices with concerns over abortion to be louder, and not necessarily proof of a majority opinion among Republicans at large.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom