Face, Meet Palm

 

The Bulwark outdid itself this weekend. The Bulwark outdoes itself every weekend, but this particular piece deserves a spot in the official Bad Bulwark Takes Hall of Fame. Read it if you dare.

I won’t quote it. Too much work. But I will offer a brief summary: The Kyle Rittenhouse trial failed to reach the outcome desired by the cultural left, so Bruce Schroeder, the judge, should be voted out and replaced. He makes jokes about Asian food! Yeah, yeah, everyone seems to admire him, and they call him “objective” or “no-nonsense” or something. But just look at the outcome! Racism! Racial injustice! White supremacists roaming the streets!

See, it’s pieces like this — penned by a staff writer at the self-styled rockiest-ribbed, conservativiest outlet around — that lead people like me to conclude that no one at The Bulwark cares about conserving anything. Complain about Trump? Okay, fine. I get it. Promote unconstitutional legislation? Call for the abolition of the filibuster? Tell me to “check” my “privilege”? Ask Kenoshans to replace Schroeder with a Chesa Boudin in robes? No, thanks. You belong in the loony bin, just like the rest of the media.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    It should be obvious to anyone by now that the Bulwark is nothing more than a grifting operation; taking money from left-wing patrons to parrot Democrat Party talking points under the guise of “conserving conservatism.” 

    • #1
  2. DonG (CAGW is a hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a hoax)
    @DonG

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    It should be obvious to anyone by now that the Bulwark is nothing more than a grifting operation; taking money from left-wing patrons to parrot Democrat Party talking points under the guise of “conserving conservatism.”

    I will add, if not for posts on Ricochet, I would never know of the happenings at the Bullwork.  

    • #2
  3. MDHahn Coolidge
    MDHahn
    @MDHahn

    I fail to see how that condescending piece does anything to conserve conservatism. The basic argument is that we’re too dumb to elect judges. I’ve long had a problem with how judicial campaigns are run, but there is nothing wrong with electing judges. Nor is there anything wrong with Judge Schroeder’s conduct. Trump clearly broke the Bulwark crew, and it’s really sad.

    • #3
  4. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    DonG (CAGW is a hoax) (View Comment):

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    It should be obvious to anyone by now that the Bulwark is nothing more than a grifting operation; taking money from left-wing patrons to parrot Democrat Party talking points under the guise of “conserving conservatism.”

    I will add, if not for posts on Ricochet, I would never know of the happenings at the Bullwork.

    Quite a morning, with this post followed immediately by VTK‘s post about the Dispatch‘s grifters Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes  quitting as Fox News “contributors.”

    Since their near-simultaneous founding, I have referred to their collective product as a steaming pile of BulSpatch.

    • #4
  5. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    MDHahn (View Comment):

    I fail to see how that condescending piece does anything to conserve conservatism. . . .  Trump clearly broke the Bulwark crew, and it’s really sad.

    Why is it sad?  The Bulwark was founded for the purpose of spreading malodorous conservative-bashing untruths.  They deserve to be mocked, exposed as the frauds they are, broken, publicly shamed, and humiliated.

    • #5
  6. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    DonG (CAGW is a hoax) (View Comment):

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    It should be obvious to anyone by now that the Bulwark is nothing more than a grifting operation; taking money from left-wing patrons to parrot Democrat Party talking points under the guise of “conserving conservatism.”

    I will add, if not for posts on Ricochet, I would never know of the happenings at the Bullwork.

    Right, if you don’t read crap then you won’t have to wash your brain as often.

    • #6
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    What is really sad is the lack of condemnation from others of the old guard.

    Where is National Review calling them out for being faux conservatives?  I thought getting rid of the Birchers was THE accomplishment of WFB. Shouldn’t the magazine that launched Never Trump at least distance itself from the Bulwark as strongly as they have repudiated others?

     

    • #7
  8. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    What is really sad is the lack of condemnation from others of the old guard.

    Where is National Review calling them out for being faux conservatives? I thought getting rid of the Birchers was THE accomplishment of WFB. Shouldn’t the magazine that launched Never Trump at least distance itself from the Bulwark as strongly as they have repudiated others?

    We don’t have time to get into everything that is wrong with National Review, the publication that was happy to see Victor Davis Hanson leave, but on the Never Trump issue, NR should have done what those of us who applauded Never Trump during the Republican primaries (in favor of Ted Cruz) did: admit they were wrong about Trump.

    There was plenty of legitimate justification for opposing Trump during primary season:

    • Trump was a lifelong New York Democrat;
    • Trump never voted in a Republican primary until June of 2016; and 
    • Trump wasn’t fluent in the Constitution, strictly construed.

    But once he moved the embassy to Jerusalem and bombed the Russian-backed Syrians that were firing on Israeli positions, it was time to notice that besides his kept promise of nominating exclusively strict constructionist judges, Trump was governing more conservatively than any Republican since Reagan – and on reducing government administrative burdens Trump was far more energetically conservative than Reagan ever was.

    • #8
  9. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    What is really sad is the lack of condemnation from others of the old guard.

    Where is National Review calling them out for being faux conservatives? I thought getting rid of the Birchers was THE accomplishment of WFB. Shouldn’t the magazine that launched Never Trump at least distance itself from the Bulwark as strongly as they have repudiated others?

    We don’t have time to get into everything that is wrong with National Review, the publication that was happy to see Victor Davis Hanson leave, but on the Never Trump issue, NR should have done what those of us who applauded Never Trump during the Republican primaries (in favor of Ted Cruz) did: admit they were wrong about Trump.

    There was plenty of legitimate justification for opposing Trump during primary season:

    • Trump was a lifelong New York Democrat;
    • Trump never voted in a Republican primary until June of 2016; and
    • Trump wasn’t fluent in the Constitution, strictly construed.

    But once he moved the embassy to Jerusalem and bombed the Russian-backed Syrians that were firing on Israeli positions, it was time to notice that besides his kept promise of nominating exclusively strict constructionist judges, Trump was governing more conservatively than any Republican since Reagan – and on reducing government administrative burdens Trump was far more energetically conservative than Reagan ever was.

    Too many ‘conservatives’ confuse conserving what is good with maintaining the latest status quo; making the gravy trains run on time. 

    • #9
  10. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    TBA (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    What is really sad is the lack of condemnation from others of the old guard.

    Where is National Review calling them out for being faux conservatives? I thought getting rid of the Birchers was THE accomplishment of WFB. Shouldn’t the magazine that launched Never Trump at least distance itself from the Bulwark as strongly as they have repudiated others?

    We don’t have time to get into everything that is wrong with National Review, the publication that was happy to see Victor Davis Hanson leave, but on the Never Trump issue, NR should have done what those of us who applauded Never Trump during the Republican primaries (in favor of Ted Cruz) did: admit they were wrong about Trump.

    There was plenty of legitimate justification for opposing Trump during primary season:

    • Trump was a lifelong New York Democrat;
    • Trump never voted in a Republican primary until June of 2016; and
    • Trump wasn’t fluent in the Constitution, strictly construed.

    But once he moved the embassy to Jerusalem and bombed the Russian-backed Syrians that were firing on Israeli positions, it was time to notice that besides his kept promise of nominating exclusively strict constructionist judges, Trump was governing more conservatively than any Republican since Reagan – and on reducing government administrative burdens Trump was far more energetically conservative than Reagan ever was.

    Too many ‘conservatives’ confuse conserving what is good with maintaining the latest status quo; making the gravy trains run on time.

    Yep to both of yall

    • #10