After brooding over the recent cheerleading of a Romney redux, Hot Air concludes with a perplexing assertion:
[T]here’s a big difference between the Establishment and the rest of the party. The GOP is allegedly the party of freedom and liberty. Romney 3.0 would really just be more of the same ol’ same ol’. It’s time to look elsewhere and find someone who actually stands for the values the GOP claims to stand for.
What, exactly, is that? — this amalgamation of values. Surely the "that" transcends, or should transcend, the tub-thumping ambiguities of "freedom and liberty." Hot Air implies that it knows what the GOP stands for, but it doesn't let on. And I can only assume that it doesn't let on because the conservative site no more knows what the GOP stands for than does the GOP.
Everyone knows what the Republican Party stands against; we've had a bellyful of that in the past seven years. But beyond the party's negativism, in the "pro" department, what? What is its immigration plan, besides a really big, scalable wall and perhaps unworkable deportations? What's its healthcare plan to replace Obamacare? What's its tax-reform plan, or its economic plan (indeed, are economic plans even desirable in the splendor of free markets?), or, you name it, its unified plan for … anything — other than orchestrated outrage?
That, and to "Make America Great Again." It would seem that the Donald is as programmatically clear as Jeb, Scott, Marco, or any of the other walking ambiguities. Is that what the GOP stands for? Mush?
As far as I can tell, the GOP rank and file is content with the Donald's rage, for the party itself has nothing of any substance to offer. Thus the angriest man defines the GOP, and the angriest man wins its nomination, and the angriest man is the last to turn out the lights — on an intellectual empty room.