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
The Schlicter fanboys come to the rescue of their favorite race war peddler. Not seeing much dispute of the Bulwark piece, just the typical insults. Btw, Schlicter was hot garbage even before Bulwark decided to actually read and review his nasty book. But, he’s provocative, so regretfully somebody will employ him to write stuff.
You could have admitted I was right
Oddly enough, when the election came around, he lost to Clinton.
And you were not accurate in questioning if H.W. ever had such a high approval rating. He did. The assertion was “In 1991 George H.W. Bush was approved of by all Americans and not just Republicans.” (Some question my concern about Trump, given that his approval among Republicans was in the 80’s% area.) I had earlier cited an approval rating of 91% for H.W. In my research, I could only substantiate a national approval rating of 89% among all voters and not just Republicans.
With all due respect, I think that you are beating a dead horse.
Such an evil man.
Drew, you beat me to it, but it seems to have gone right over Gary’s head.
Gary: How’d that reelection thing work out for the first President Bush?
Better than it’s going to work out for Trump, who will probably lose 30 to 40 states.
You should have read the comment I wrote before responding. In that comment I quoted the sentences of yours that I was responding to. You don’t even have to go looking back through the comments. You can just follow the chain of comments that are quoted here. You will see that you made a false statement about what I was questioning.
I’m ready to accept your retraction whenever you’re ready.
With all due respect, I am not going to hunt down the entire thread to figure out what the heck you meant to impart to me. If I misunderstood your point, it is incumbent on you to correct the misunderstanding and not to play gotcha. If you have a point, please make it. Otherwise, I am moving on. (The Mueller Report was just referred to AG Barr. I am focusing on that.)
You don’t need to hunt it down. You quoted it above.
You don’t need to hunt anything down. It’s all right here. Each time you respond you’re quoting the words that prove you’re wrong. I kind of like that.
Sorry, I don’t play 20 questions. Moving on.
Then move already, dammit!
You also don’t read very well. There is no question here.
If this exchange indicates how you get your information, it’s no wonder you don’t like Donald Trump. You probably have no idea what he or anybody else has said.
I have a hypothesis that Mr. Robbins is progressive troll who works for some organization like MMFA. If I were MMFA I would hire someone to impersonate a conservative and distract people from discussing ideas and or criticizing the Left.
Like if you had a guy who called himself a Christian and had a fish decal on his car and a WWJD bracelet, but whenever you tried to have a theological discussion with the guy, he’d just tell you how much he admires and loves Jesus and stuff. That’s kind of the vibe I’m getting with Mr. Robbins here.
No, Gary’s a pretty great guy. He had very strong objections to the President, which I shared during the primaries. Unfortunately, I think that he’s dug in on the opposition, and it is clouding his perception. I reluctantly gave the President a chance, and he’s greatly exceeded my expectations. As a result, I’m now a solid supporter.
Looking back, I’d say that my initial, very strong objections to Candidate Trump were mostly incorrect, but reasonable at the time.
I fully understand his past moral transgressions, but I’m prepared to let bygones be bygones. As far as we know, he’s not having affairs in the White house like FDR, JFK, and Clinton.
Exactly.
Respectfully, I think that’s a poor compromise when honest and rational discussion, versus, say, entertainment, is the goal. My chief objection to audio and video sources is that they are difficult to cite and difficult to fact check. Omitting external links in a post makes the post similarly difficult to fact check, context hard to verify, etc.
I will generally continue to link sources when there’s a significant prospect of dispute or debate. I think that’s just a more responsible approach.
Thank you, Arizona. I think this is a fine comment, and I agree.
I don’t know what constitutes “great guy” for you, but beyond that, I really appreciate your position.
We all are at effect of our eyes and ears. We can only know our own personal experiences and beyond that, what we are told. What we hear about others before we know them or have an experience of them taints our perceptions. This goes for everyone.
This is why it’s wrong to gossip or bear false witness ( which also includes personal interpretations and projections) and we must be vigilant about what and who we allow into our consciousness.
You have certain principles, and deserve respect for having them, but you also have a grounding in reality and your principles carry you through to getting accomplishments for your principles. And because of that, you are able to look beyond, to actually forgive.
Where is that? Forgiveness is one of the most central aspects of Christianity. But somehow this guy said something 10 years ago, and that guy cheated on his wife while she was pregnant…
Give me a freakin’ break!
They are the ones who demean the Presidency by requiring Papal-like piety. ( And they got exactly that with President Obama) .
Because the President comes from the people. It’s not ordained from on-High.
A fair question.
One great advantage is that I actually use my own name, instead of a synonym. You can google my name, “Gary Robbins.” There are two other Gary Robbins’s, a famous economist, and a famous long distance runner. Neither are me. I am the Gary Robbins who is a family law attorney who lives and practices family law in Flagstaff, Arizona. My website is located at http://www.garyrobbinsaz.com, which lists my office address, and the picture there is my former icon picture before I choose the Greatest President of the Twentieth Century as my icon.
You can also contact the State Bar of Arizona to confirm that I am a lawyer.
You can then google “Gary Robbins Election,” and go to Ballotpedia which states in part, “Robbins ran unsuccessfully for the Coconino County Superior Court, Division 5. He made his way onto the general election ballot after successfully running as a write-in candidate in the Republican primary, but was defeated by Democrat Cathleen Nichols in the general election on November 6, 2012.”
Finally, you could PM Doug Watt of Tucson (who posts great pictures of wildlife that show up in his back yard) and ask him about our lunch and if it appeared that I was a Reagan Republican.
The practice of questioning each other’s conservative sincerity is a bore, and I wish we wouldn’t do it. Arguments can stand or fall on their own without the sniping.
For me, the whole Trump debate boils down to a few simple questions.
If you think the answer to both questions is “yes,” (and I do), then you shouldn’t be a harsh critic of Trump. Don’t vote for him if you can’t bring yourself to vote for him, but don’t relentlessly attack him because that’s contributing to the prospect of a Democratic victory.
If you think the answer to either question is “no,” then we should discuss it like civilized adults. I think you’re mistaken, but I’m willing to assume good intentions on your part. And whether or not you’re any particular kind of conservative is irrelevant to that discussion.
Not Gary so much, but I see a lot of people more or less just making stuff up about Trump. My favorite example is the new York Times article about the Trump family’s tax avoidance in the 70s. The Trump family is still eligible for civil penalties. Nothing is going to happen to them even though at the time all of the Trump haters made it sound like they were completely busted. The state of New York and the SDNY will do anything to get him with the help of New York journalists. I’ve seen two experts tear the whole thing apart. Nothing is going to happen to them. It’s just harassment. It’s disgusting, but so many supposed citizens just love it and think it’s completely appropriate.
I would submit that your endless rants about “Orange Man Bad”, with countless exhortations to first deny him his office despite having won it, then endless exhortations to remove him from said office, finally encouraging the election of a number of the Insane Clown Party is not helpful.
This is all contemporary analysis of what’s happening right now. Try to poke holes in it, because I’m interested.
re: #175
Listen to those interviews. I just don’t get why Trump is so horrible compared to the actual lack of conservative policies since Nixon or Reagan. I don’t buy the idea that Reagan bent everything on a more conservative glidepath. If he did, it clearly didn’t matter much.
I also think so much of this analysis and guess work of the electorate is a waste of time. The Republicans and Trump should’ve just helped him get as much done as possible.
He’s beating the crap out of the statist media and they clearly deserve it. He’s expose the deep state. The Democrat party is showing their anti-Semitism like never before. He’s exposed a lot of stupidity about immigration.
What do all of those Bill Kristol types actually believe in?
Trump just isn’t that bad.
Since Bethany snarked back at the Bulwark over this, and it was linked to by Twitchy on Friday, I’ll post this Bulwark head and her reply with the note that they’re obviously trying to troll conservatives here. But what’s the game-plan once you’ve posted things like this, to then come back, post-Trump, and claim you’re once again deserving of the right to be the intellectual avatars of the conservative movement because of your thoughtfulness and savvy acumen about the political world.
When you post a headline like this, it’s the equivalent of a cranky 6-year-old throwing a tantrum and trying to annoy his parents and siblings — you can try and point at the more restrained pieces the Bulwark might publish, but that’s not what their leadership is trying to make their name doing — this is:
Then it’s a good thing I never claimed as much.
I try to avoid patting myself on the back, but I really like the term “political suicide cult.” If I may say so, it’s a very apt description of the sort of “conservativism” that aided and abetted the Democrat take-over of the House, and hopes the conservative incumbent faces a primary challenge in the next presidential race.
This is pretty good on China and Trump.
By the way you can’t see the videos anymore, but this is the guy that exposed what a scam Medicare Part D is, politically.
Money and war. War and money. Money for war. War for money.