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
My goodness, to consider this so-called argument as anything other than snobbish, ad hominen bigotry is beyond me.
Also telling is the writer’s use of “firebrand” to describe AOC while at the same time waving away the idea that she has had any real impact impact on this issue. He doesn’t use “infantile” or “ignorant” to describe her, but “firebrand” (Oxford dictionaries): a person who is passionate about a particular cause, typically inciting change and taking radical action.
The contrast is telling.
For those that are interested, they are talking about this stuff here. I’m halfway through.
That excuse won’t work outside of the Trump bubble. Luckily for Trumpers, the Dems are going socialist, so they and the MSM probably won’t say a word about it…cuz they know they’ll be even worse on deficits.
What do you recommend?
Feel free to shoot holes in my analysis. I’m interested. No Republicans anywhere care about fixing this, with a couple of exceptions in the house.
I don’t have a recommendation for what the Trump team would say if deficits become a 2020 issue. Like I said, the way the Dems are going, the best response is “sure we suck, but the Democrats will still be way worse”.
There’s plenty of Republicans that care about deficits/entitlement reform. You’re just deflecting here.
What you are saying is, political will can fix this. It can’t. It’s just too hard to get past the next election for them to ever actually do anything. It was much more doable 20 or 30 years ago.
The other thing is, the economy is hooked on government deficit spending and easy money from the Fed.
They have to overhaul the Fed first. Rep. Steve Scalise and a couple of others are trying to do this.
Hi Leslie,
Holy cow! I do not recall ever saying such inflammatory words. Please point to where I said such a thing.
Thanks,
Gary
Unfortunately very few in office at the federal level. The Democrats don’t care. Most of the Republican leadership, which pretended to care, breathed a sigh of relief when Trump showed he doesn’t care, and they felt free to spend like they wanted.
I think Ms. Watkins contracted the thread consolidating someone else’s comments with Gary’s; the man is a gentleman and would not use those words even where warranted.
Speaking of ad hominums, I’m saddened by the “barf bag” comment above – what in Mr. Hogan’s speech was revolting to you? That he wishes we could go back to a more civil discourse instead of the current pie-in-the-face mode of political theater?
That “civil discourse” comment was one thing I barfed on, yes. It was rather uncivil of him to talk that way.
Hi, Gary. Oh, no. In no way was I referring to you. Apparently I merged thoughts from two of the articles you linked to and not just to one (the point about AOC’s impact was not in the one you linked to in #200 but from the one talking about socialism.) Genuinely sorry about the confusion.
That said, regarding the text you posted (in # 200), I just don’t agree that the Bulwark deserved an apology for it. The prose in italics was not the least bit thoughtful or insightful, and its toughness reminds me of a dog grrring at you to stay away from her treat. It’s not even clear what the writer thinks is clear, that is, the point she’s gnawing at. So Stalin and Hitler and Mao got smart people to follow
himthem, I guess because they were smart monsters? (How else do you get the highly educated to follow you? I don’t get the inference otherwise. I, mean, surely the highly educated could not have been monsters too?) The president, though, being such an “ignorant” and “infantile” loser (see the text you posted), apparently had no trouble getting what the writer clearly views as academic mediocrities to bang their prose for him.It happens. No worries.
But despite your best efforts, no one thinks Reagan a Quisling.
Reagan could have been an even greater president if it hadn’t been for the Establishment Republicans(*) who were always trying to undermine him and work against him.
(*) Same folks who are now trying to hold up Reagan as an anti-Trump.
And those same people tried to sell themselves as “Reagan Republicans” in the years that followed. They wanted to cash in on his popularity without actually adopting his policies.
Look for the same to happen after President Trump’s second term.
This is exactly right. Watch the David Stockman interview on real vision. You can get a 14 day free pass.
I wish you wouldn’t follow @Max ‘s advice.