Why Have NeverTrump “Conservatives” Become Indistinguishable from Democrats?

For the supposed last remaining defenders of “True Conservatism,” they are an awfully liberal bunch:
George Will says the only way to save True Conservatism is to. . . elect a bunch of radical Democrat socialists:
Max Boot opposed Brett Kavanaugh (a judge who was on Mitt Romney’s list of potential SCOTUS picks) and criticized the philosophy of judicial originalism. He also called the Second Amendment a “suicide pact” and praised Beta O’Rourke for “challenging the GOP’s fanaticism on guns.” I could go on and on with the examples but the point is clear: these “True Conservatives” in the NeverTrump faction are indistinguishable from Democrats. The whole idea that they’re the only real conservatives left is hilarious: they have become basically generic partisan Democrats. You can predict exactly what they’re going to say on virtually every issue: whatever the Democrats are saying, that’s what they’re saying. And so that inevitably leads to the question of why? Why have the NeverTrumpers become virtually indistinguishable from partisan Democrats? The answer is because that’s what they’re paid to do. Take Bill Kristol:

NeverTrump “conservatives” are aiding Schiff and the media in their campaign to paralyze if not remove Whitaker. Commercials attacking the acting attorney general were aired on several Sunday morning political shows. The ads were sponsored by “Republicans for the Rule of Law,” a group founded earlier this year by Bill Kristol, the editor-at-large of The Weekly Standard. The group’s primary role so far appears to be pimping for the Mueller probe, a political witch-hunt that Kristol and his fellow NeverTrumpers pray will lead to the impeachment and removal of the president. The Left and their NeverTrump footsoldiers fear Whitaker will thwart the special counsel’s investigation instead of rubber stamping Mueller’s ever-expanding investigation as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has done over the past 18 months.

What a positively Orwellian name” “Republicans for the Rule of Law” is an organization run and funded by partisan Democrats committed to protecting a lawless and out of control special counsel investigation, which itself is a punishment in search of a crime.

Buying primo air time on network television doesn’t come cheap. So who is funding “Republicans for the Rule of Law” and their attacks on the Republican president and his acting attorney general? Is it big Republican donors?

We haven’t found any, but we have learned learned that one of Kristol’s benefactors is progressive billionaire Pierre Omidyar, the co-founder of eBay.

In addition to funding dissident ex-conservatives, Omidyar, 51, and his wife—who have pledged to give their more than $10 billion fortune to charity—operate an extensive network of nonprofits and foundations around the world. Omidyar has directed millions of dollars to a variety of progressive causes and political candidates: he and wife “have have given more than $500,000 to federal candidates and groups—nearly all of them Democrats—since 1999,” including six-figure donations to the Democratic senate and congressional campaign committees.

And there it is.

One of Omidyar’s nonprofits is the Democracy Fund. In 2015, the Democracy Fund awardednearly $9 million in grants, “many of which went to left-wing organizations.” One Democracy Fund recipient is currently in court fighting the results of the Georgia gubernatorial race, which was won by Republican Brian Kemp.

An affiliate of that fund disclosed on its website that it has given as least $600,000 to Kristol’s umbrella group, Defending Democracy Together, since May. (Other NeverTrumpers involved in the group are author Mona Charen, strategist Linda Chavez, and former governor Christine Todd Whitman.) Republicans for the Rule of Law operates under the purview of Defending Democracy Together.

Republicans for the Rule of Law accepts hundreds of thousands of dollars from Democratic billionaires? That explains why Kristol and Co. have become indistinguishable from Democrats. And I’m sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. For instance, why has Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard, a magazine that was already failing pre-2016 and which now has virtually zero appeal or audience, suddenly become dedicated to Defending George Soros? Screen Shot 2018-11-14 at 2.33.25 PM.png Ace of Spades has been all over this for a while now.

Filmmaker Embedded in “Migrant” Caravan: This Caravan Costs Millions of Dollars. Who’s Paying for It? Why Isn’t Any Media Asking Who’s Paying For It?

He says the main group funding for this, Peublo Sin Fronteras, is being funded by groups which have been funded by [CENSORED] in the past.

Because you’re not allowed to say George Soros funds the left, according to the left and the left-adjacent “conservatives” which have suddenly grown so very protective of him now that, coincidentally, their previous streams of grifty funding have diminished.

Regarding Weekly Standard’s suddenly obsessive Defend Soros fact-checking:

I just wonder why they’re spending so much time tracking down each and every minor reference to Soros and defending him as if he were, I don’t know, paying handsomely for the reputation-rehabilitation service or something.

Which I’m sure is just preposterous. George Soros doesn’t fund political organizations that advance his leftist vision of the world, ever. It’s antisemitic to say otherwise.

The Weekly Standard lets a thousand false claims by the left pass by unmolested, but say one thing about George Soros, and bang! They’re on it like grifters on a well-heeled sap.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say Kristol was receiving a good bit of Soros money. But I’m not saying that, because that would be anti-Semitic. But come on: who reads the Weekly Standard anymore? It’s a magazine for and by “Republicans” who despise Donald Trump. By all measures, Trump is wildly popular with Republicans. So what is the market for the Weekly Standard? Who’s subscribing? As of 2012, Weekly Standard had a total circulation of about 104,000: Screen Shot 2018-11-14 at 3.12.59 PM.png Is there any chance the Weekly Standard’s circulation today in 2018 is higher than it was in 2012? Of course not. It’s probably significantly lower, if anything. If you doubt a magazine like Weekly Standard is solvent, much less profitable, all by itself–and anyone with a brain doubts this–then it’s almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Weekly Standard is being kept afloat financially by other means. It’s really all quite obvious when you think about it.

Leave a Reply