We’ve gone from hard left, under Obama, to hard right, under Trump. Judge the ideologies by results.

[Frank Cannon]

Another $1,000,000,000 more infrastructure expenditures is another biggie. 

What bill that passed is that in?

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Clever way of stating it, to weasel out of addressing his protection of progressivism, such as punting on his promise to repeal DACA "on Day One".

Another $1,000,000,000 more infrastructure expenditures is another biggie.  He's a modern-day Bilbo (Theodore, not Baggins).

Then look at his attacks on free trade.

Jumpin' Jehosaphat!

Attacks on Free Trade?????????

WHAT damn FREE TRADE are you Talking about?

There's nothing Free that even qualifies as Trade in the royal hosings we're getting from both China and Japan.

Nothing.

We are being regulated out of Japan by protectionist Japanese Govt Decrees.

Post for me, for anyone, pictures of all those Ford, GM, and Chrysler cars and trucks in the streets of any Japanese City.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

U.S. Trade Representative Slams China, WTO, In Rare Public Appearance

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/18/u-s-trade-representative-slams-china-wto-in-rare-public-appearance-lighthizer-nafta/

2016 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-China-Report-to-Congress.pdf

Japan - U.S. Trade Representative

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2013%20NTE%20Japan%20Final.pdf


Not even Dinner and a Movie.

[Smokin Joe]

Trump is not hard right.

Trump is a progressive in the same vein as Teddy Roosevelt.

I agree.

If the government had gone hard right, there'd be a couple hundred miles of wall already and more under construction, "fast rail" would be deadheading from Mexico after capacity loads going back, the ACA would be gone, and a host of other things would have been accomplished. Of course, with the McConnell/McCain/Collins/Graham/Murkowski crew in Congress standing in the middle of the road blocking traffic, and others stuffing the bedsheets in the drains in the swamp, it gets harder.

[Smokin Joe]

Can you post without insulting other posters?  Haven't seen it yet.

Despite the edits, he has a point. The "Progressives" of TR's day are nothing like the Liberal/totalitarian factions in today's Left who have hijacked the term "Progressive".

Frankly, I see the Trump Administration as running to the Right of center on the great political road, but far from being in the right lane or being extremely Conservative.

That is how distorted our view of the political landscape has become.

If you don't admit that distortion, consider how the idea of suing someone for not baking a cake for a same-sex "marriage" would have fared as a legal concept in 1980, 1970, 1960? Or that a woman had a "Right" to government subsidized health insurance coverage to abort her baby? Or that students would be forbidden from praying at high school graduation ceremonies? Or that any US president would have ever demanded the covering or removal of crucifixes at a Catholic University (Georgetown, Obama).

That distortion, over time, has altered the perception of the political landscape significantly in just a few decades.

[Smokin Joe]

That doesn’t necessarily make the progressivism of TR acceptable, however.

No, it doesn't, which means that if TR looks 'conservative', the 'middle of the road' is now in the left ditch somewhere, or maybe in the field beyond.

[goatprairie]

Great article, @Elderberry   Thank you for the post.

Surprising that such an article was at National Review.

Then it's obvious you don't read much of NRO. A number of the main writers there are strongly pro-Trump, including VDH, Deroy Murdock, Conrad Black, and a number of other people.

[Emjay]

Despite the edits, he has a point. The "Progressives" of TR's day are nothing like the Liberal/totalitarian factions in today's Left who have hijacked the term "Progressive".

Frankly, I see the Trump Administration as running to the Right of center on the great political road, but far from being in the right lane or being extremely Conservative.

That is how distorted our view of the political landscape has become.

If you don't admit that distortion, consider how the idea of suing someone for not baking a cake for a same-sex "marriage" would have fared as a legal concept in 1980, 1970, 1960? Or that a woman had a "Right" to government subsidized health insurance coverage to abort her baby? Or that students would be forbidden from praying at high school graduation ceremonies? Or that any US president would have ever demanded the covering or removal of crucifixes at a Catholic University (Georgetown, Obama).

That distortion, over time, has altered the perception of the political landscape significantly in just a few decades.

Absolutely.  I understand that.  In fact, most of the change has occurred during the past 8 years when guess who was president.  He gave the liberals free rein to indulge in things they'd always liked.

Only a few years ago when I was on Free Republic, I would watch the Oscars with my computer in my lap and have a ball on the Oscar Thread on Free Republic.  We had fun laughing at the whole thing.

Now, I am so bitter about Hollywood and the stars of TV and movies, I will not watch any award show ... not as a protest exactly ... I'm just not interested anymore.

[Emjay]

Despite the edits, he has a point. The "Progressives" of TR's day are nothing like the Liberal/totalitarian factions in today's Left who have hijacked the term "Progressive".

Frankly, I see the Trump Administration as running to the Right of center on the great political road, but far from being in the right lane or being extremely Conservative.

That is how distorted our view of the political landscape has become.

If you don't admit that distortion, consider how the idea of suing someone for not baking a cake for a same-sex "marriage" would have fared as a legal concept in 1980, 1970, 1960? Or that a woman had a "Right" to government subsidized health insurance coverage to abort her baby? Or that students would be forbidden from praying at high school graduation ceremonies? Or that any US president would have ever demanded the covering or removal of crucifixes at a Catholic University (Georgetown, Obama).

That distortion, over time, has altered the perception of the political landscape significantly in just a few decades.

I don't remember this personally but I know that Al Smith being a Catholic was a big no no.

I also remember that people were aghast because Adlai Stevenson was divorced.

But I still think the worst degradation of society came about in the last 8 years.

[dfwgator]

Hard Right?!?!?!?!


 

[Emjay]

 

Hard Right?!?!?!?!


 

[GrouchoTex]

There was an article posted on Facebook today talking about how National Review has finally decided to accept Trump and approve of much of his doing so far.

I am a subscriber.
Yes, they had that issue of the magazine that was against Trump, but, by and large, they have been pretty fair.
Some of the writers more than others, but I would suspect that.
They tend to take a rational approach, speak out when they think he is right, and also, when they think he is wrong.

The interesting thing about NR is, even through it was a Buckley magazine, they will often take different sides of an argument, and write about how the opposite positions can still be conservative.
They were doing this even when Buckley ran the magazine.

They are definitely not a "one-size-fits-all" magazine.
For my money, still one of the best ones around.