Welcome to the discussion!
I wondered if you were going to pipe in on this thread, boomer, or if you were going to keep your head down until it got pushed 'below the fold'. After all, we have two of the leaders of the conservative movement, both of whom express, essentially, that there in no gray area remaining; Trump's campaign has clearly and definitively attempted to collude with the Russians, and the Administration's entire framework of defense and denial has collapsed. You continue to assert the same narrative which Trump was pushing BEFORE the recent revelations (that Trump's son, and two top advisors getting caught red handed -- with documentary proof, no less -- doing exactly what they have been swearing up and down and sideways for months that they never did), to wit; claiming that this is all a made up story, pushed by Democrats who can't accept an election defeat.
There's several miles of space between your position and the positions of Krauthammer and French. What gives?
These two commentators (Krauthammer and French) both define themselves as "principled conservatives", meaning they put principals and values ahead of simple short term political expediency. They don't WANT to trash Trump, but both refuse to lie and violate their personal principals to provide him cover -- cover which he obsiously doesn't deserve. I believe that's turf which you like to claim for yourself; principled conservatism. I distinctly remember you claiming that you weren't like the other Trump supporters, because principals. I heard you define yourself in largely the same terms which the two commentators describe themselves. Yet there's a continent's distance between your positions? How do you reconcile this disparity?
These guys aren't exactly lightweights (I have spoken respectfully of Krauthammer in the past, describing him as someone whose mind I respect, in spite of the fact that I usually disagree with him. And French will be on my radar from here out for the same reason -- there's a core integrity, and an obvious intellect which I respect). I don't think it will work, in this case, to describe these two as RINOs.
That's the problem with posturing, of course; if you have to abandon your posture at the first sign that there's a cost to be born to maintain it, you end up looking worse than if you have never pretended to be something you weren't to begin with.
Or maybe there's something I fail to see here. Please feel free to point it out to me if you think that's the case.
Return to Odd
Reply to message