Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Bulwark: Walking it Back, Just a Little?
Our mutual friend @garyrobbins has called my attention to a change at The Bulwark, one that I think is positive, so I thought I’d give a little bit of credit where a little bit of credit is due. The Bulwark has changed its mission statement. Previously, its “About Us” page described its mission as follows:
Our mission will be to say [that the president of the United States is a serial liar, a narcissist and a bully, a con man who mocks the disabled and women, a man with no fixed principles who has the vocabulary of an emotionally insecure nine-year-old] out loud and encourage others to do so as well.
They have revised their mission statement. The page now reads:
The Bulwark is a project of the Defending Democracy Together Institute. DDTI is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to preserving America’s democratic norms, values, and institutions, and educating the public on conservative principles like rule of law, free trade, and expanding legal immigration.
I think that’s an improvement, though I don’t believe it represents an actual change in focus of the organization. My suspicion is that the previous mission statement was, correctly, considered unduly petty and Trump-obsessed. My perusal of the website does nothing to dispel the notion that the publication remains petty and Trump-obsessed, but I do appreciate the more adult theme expressed on their “About Us” page.
The Defending Democracy Together Institute (DDTI) seems particularly entranced by the prospect of Russian collusion by the 2016 Trump campaign. I don’t expect Mueller to report evidence of such collusion; if that’s the case, it will be interesting to see how the organization and its pit bull of a publication deal with that.
Incidentally, anyone who figures out how to monetize references to The Bulwark should jump on it. My prior two posts on the topic netted 93 likes and a whopping 658 comments between them.
Published in Politics
You’re the only one that needs to have this explained, but the point is that you keep claiming Reagan as the patron saint of the anti-Trump, anti-sense political suicide cult. You’re not exactly making Reagan look good.
I just posted a half a dozen links of stuff I’ve posted all over the place. People aren’t interested.
The issue is, everything moves left all of the time and now it has finally come to a head. People act like Reagan interdicted this.
The government is doing every single thing wrong in the face of globalization and robots. No one has done anything about the media until Trump. The whole system is based on debt issuance, which would be fine except the debt to GDP keeps getting worse and we have a ton of social issues.
Then people wonder why some of us don’t “behave’ better.
Honestly, I want it to work. It just doesn’t. It’s unfair and it’s regressive. The government is running out of money by the minute. The only reason we can keep doing it is all of the other fiat currencies are worse.
Because I actually don’t disagree that the US is unstable and will eventually break apart. Doing it with violence is a horrible idea though. The Bullwark piece is about Trump minions that gin that up, rather than finding constructive ways to convince blue states to go their own way.
Henry, I’m not convinced that you should give the slightest credit to the Bulwark for changing its stance. Gary’s summary of recent articles provided me with very strong evidence in reaching this point. I do not see the slightest trace of a retreat or apology for their insulting, hysterical, and unfounded attacks not just on the President, and not just on his supporters, but on all who decline to reject him as completely as they do.
This does not look like a change of heart. This looks like camouflage.
This is perfectly understandable. They’re not likely to sell much to the Leftists, despite having adopted much of their rabid partisanship and twisted narrative. They’re not likely to sell much to conservatives, if their home page makes them sound like MSNBC, MoveOn, or even BLM.
Lipstick on a pig, I say.
It’s not just that I disagree with the worldview of these Bulwarkins, they have almost to a man been wrong for years about where this country is headed politically. They are woefully out of touch with Republican leaning voters, and have been champions of every pathetic failure Republican candidate ( whether unable to get elected or unable – or unwilling – to enact policy) for decades. The reason the Weekly Standard folded like an unsold card-table at a trailerpark yard-sale is because no one was willing to listen to them anymore.
Bill Kristol is a walking talking joke of a man who lives in a dream world.
“Lives in a dream world” assumes that he’s unaware that he gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
He’s fully aware.
They also relied on one single benefactor the whole time. Kristol once said that his only promise to those guys was to try to lose less money the next year. It finally caught up to him.
National Review did it the hard way. They relied on multiple donors and they made sure they had more variety in their opinions.
Yeah, probably. He’s used to manipulating people so maybe he thinks he can ride on the leftwing horse for a while like he rode on the rightwing horse for so long.
One thing I know is true as a conservative. Hand-outs and subsidies foster depravity. Kristol and his ilk haven’t had to work a day in their lives. Always relying on hand-outs from billionaires and other donors and never having to turn a profit.
Insta-slammed:
“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” Alexander Tyler
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.” Elmer T. Peterson apparently quoting Tyler.
This last is the form I’ve most frequently seen it in.
Since it’s apparently okay to make a single lengthy post that is nothing but links to and summaries of nine separate articles at The Bulwank, I will follow suit and link to exactly one post at RedState:
Bill Kristol’s Vanity Blog Attacks Kurt Schlichter In the Most Liberal Way Possible
This is also worth reading if you want a look at the dark, evil heart of The Bulwark.
@garyrobbins
Defend this. Defend your Sainted magazine against this.
I have usually found that when someone moves in your direction, the better course of action is to celebrate that, instead of damning them for their level of disagreement in the past.
Immediately after the Gulf War, H.W. had a national approval rate of 91%.
My thesis is that Reagan would not approve of Trump’s lack of character and his serial violations of the 11th Commandment.
My point is that Reagan is the ultimate Anti-Quisling. I don’t see how in the world you can claim that that “despite my best efforts” Reagan was thought of as a Quisling.
I will put you down as a “maybe.” (HT: Jeb Bush.)
Mueller report in .
No more indictments.
Bulwark on mass Suicide Watch.
***Russia***
From an SEO point of view, outlinking is bad. So in the SEO training I took, they recommended citing the source rather than linking to it. :-)
That really isn’t my job. This is not unlike the question of “when did you stop beating your wife.” My point was that the Bulwark had changed its mission statement to be more inclusive and non-attacking of Trump. Instead of celebrating this evolution, some people want to keep on bashing The Bulwark for the sins of some of its writers and mistakes made in the past, and then demand that I defend those alleged transgressions. Not my job. If we were at a dinner party, would you really demand that I defend what someone else has done?
I encourage you and others to go to The Bulwark from time to time to read their articles and listen to their Podcast, and to come to your own conclusion.
The two best websites in my opinion are Ricochet and The Bulwark. There must be some interplay at work here.
I would submit that your sarcasm about a fellow conservative website is not helpful.
Also, the “no more indictments” statement is attributed to a senior DOJ official. I will look forward to reading the report myself to come to my own conclusions.
You mean like folks did with footnotes before the hyperlink was invented?
No, he wasn’t. Preppy George never had my approval. I voted for him while holding my nose, twice, but that was the last time I voted for a Bush.
On March 3, 1991 George H.W. Bush had an 89% approval and 7% disapproval rating. That is of all Americans, not just Republicans.
Interesting date you chose. It was the conclusion of Desert Storm. So, no surprise. Kind of expected. Several months later he lost his re-election bid.
I just went to the source material. The Reticulator challenged my assertion that H.W. ever had such a high approval rate. I simply researched the issue and responded.
(Sigh.) That’s not even what he said.