Donald Trump: destroyer of worlds
by digby
This has to be the trainwreck of all trainwrecks:
National Review disinvited from GOP debate after anti-Trump issue
The Republican National Committee has disinvited National Review from participating in the Feb. 25 GOP debate because of its outspoken opposition to Donald Trump.
The decision was announced just hours after the conservative magazine published a special anti-Trump issue that included a scathing editorial about the Republican frontrunner and critical contributions from 22 conservative pundits and thought leaders.
"Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited," Jack Fowler, the publisher of National Review, wrote in a statement. "The reason: Our 'Against Trump' editorial and symposium."
"We expected this was coming," Fowler continued. "Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald."
The RNC's decision, which was confirmed by a committee spokesperson, was made after the committee concluded that National Review was no longer an impartial participant.
In its editorial, National Review states that Trump "is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist" and "a menace to American conservatism." Such sentiments, echoed in contributions from the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol and Erick Erickson, reflect a widespread frustration among establishment conservatives over the GOP's unwillingness to take a bold stand against the former reality television star.
Not to be outdone, Trump responded to National Review in a series of tweets late Thursday night -- and even claimed that the magazine's founder, William F. Buckley, would have been ashamed.
"National Review is a failing publication that has lost it's way. It's circulation is way down w its influence being at an all time low. Sad!" he wrote. "Very few people read the National Review because it only knows how to criticize, but not how to lead."
The flagship magazine of the conservative movement has been banned by the Republican Party because they refuse to back a certain candidate in a primary. You understand how unusual this is right? Magazines often refuse to back certain candidates and give their reasons for doing it. They often do the opposite and endorse them. They don't usually get barred from participating in party forums because of it.
After all, there are still more than 874 candidates running for president. Why should this one candidate be immune from criticism?
Well, I'm going to guess it's two things. The first of course is that Trump scares the hell out of them because they think he's going to run third party if he doesn't get his way. The pother is that their antipathy toward that big meanie Ted Cruz is so strong they'll give Trump anything he wants. Either way, it's a pathetic tableau.
The good news is that Trump really seems to be consolidating that white supremacist vote. Look who he's quoting now:
If you have a chance to look at Trump's twitter stream do it. You will not be believe this is a man who is running to be president of the most powerful nation on earth. He's got the emotional maturity of an 8 year old and I'm not exaggerating.
.
