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 (Once Again) Endorses a Democrat
The “Reagan conservatives” at The Bulwark really hate Ohio Republican senate nominee JD Vance. (“Trump’s Hillbilly” — they literally called him that.) So this morning, Bill Kristol and fellow Bulwark Operative Tim Miller endorsed his Democratic opponent. “If you voted for Matt Dolan, a totally inoffensive Republican in this primary and don’t want literal authoritarianism advanced by a charlatan who is at the mercy of Donald Trump’s whims go ahead a sign up to support inoffensive Democrat@TimRyan.”
Some say the end-state of Never Trump is becoming a full-on Democrat. I would argue these guys were closet Democrats all along.
Like Glenn Youngkin, Vance is too “Trumpian” for the bull-workers, too aligned to those grubby working-class folk who are upset about irrelevant issues like children being exposed to pornography in public schools, the unchecked import and distribution of deadly narcotics across our wide-open southern border, the mass export of American manufacturing jobs to China, and the replacement of American workers with cheap foreign labor.
In fairness, JD Vance was once a harsh critic of Donald Trump. But, like most reasonable people, his opinion on Trump evolved more favorably as President Trump showed himself to be a consistent advocate and advancer of conservative policies.
Speaking of advancing conservative policies, the New York Times token “conservative” Bret Stephen — who previously pitched the not-at-all radical left idea of repealing the second amendment — now says that a true conservative would not overturn Roe v. Wade. Stephens’s argument is — I am not making this up — that even though Roe was a terrible decision, it’s now precedent and overturning it would be “disruptive” to the political status quo. It would also upset leftists and reduce the esteem of the High Court in public perception.
As conservatives, you are philosophically bound to give considerable weight to judicial precedents, particularly when they have been ratified and refined — as Roe was by the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision — over a long period.
So, Stephens must likewise think the court erred in overturning Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States for the same reason.
Here, again, you may be tempted to think that overturning Roe is an act of judicial modesty that puts abortion disputes in the hands of legislatures. Maybe — after 30 years of division and mayhem.
Yes, Stephens is literally arguing that conservatives should not want the issue of abortion decided by elected representatives in state legislatures. Maybe Stephens views himself as merely being “prudent,” because the effects of a Roe repeal would be so wide-ranging and unpredictable. But this “principled conservative” notion that the role of conservatism is to preserve the gains of liberalism is precisely why the old Bush-Republican model is dying. And why Bret Stephens and Bill Kristol are reduced to sputtering about “populism” while collecting checks from their left-wing paymasters.
Published in Politics
What for? I must have missed it.
Among the 2022 Lincoln Fellows for the Claremont Institute.
Your silence is incriminating.
i never thought I would ever say this, but I am greatly disappointed. This is the worst news I have heard in some time. Jon has become a “pod person” from “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Damn.
Gosh, it is not your right to cross-examine other members of Ricochet.
Yes. This is the bottom line. While more establishment-minded Republicans are looking at the faltering US structures, and the polls of disgruntled Americans, and predicting a Red blowout, (and the candidacy of Buttigig), it’s those who count the votes that matter.
I’ve seen weak Republican responses to election fraud, and the Deep State and its Left Party, have had a lot of time to plan out further ways of cheating. Republicans are like generals: always fighting the last war. And their election security strategy (if they have one at all) will be as functional as the Maginot Line.
There is a link in my comment regarding the NRSC. It links to a story with the following headline:
HUGE: Engelbrecht and Phillips on Charlie Kirk Show on 2020 Fraud and “2000 Mules” — NRSC Was Given Evidence of Fraud but Did Nothing (VIDEO)
Fine work today.
Are you any good at explaining why I should dislike the Claremont Institute?
The most recent interviews of Engelbrecht, Dinesh Desousa, and two of David Bossie on Breitbart SoundCloud are very informative. So both the ordinary fraud everybody’s talking about and Zuckerberg. Everything is covered. I’ve heard these guys interviewed on other venues, but these are the best.
What is wrong with this?
The Claremont Institute is about the only institution that won’t disassociate itself from disgraced lawyer John Eastman who literally tried to steal the election on January 6, 2021.
In the 1960’s William F. Buckley, Jr. drove the John Birchers from the Conservative Movement. We are facing a time for choosing between the Trump Big Lie and the majority of Americans.
Thank you.
Congratulations Jon! I’m happy for you. I also didn’t know you were on submarines in the Navy. Kudos.
I should have been more clear. I’m talking about public policy.
It’s more likely we will drive out the NeverTrumpers out of the party.
I would not have commented on this post if it had remained in the Member Feed. But once it was elevated, that made it fair game to comment.
There are a whole bunch of posts in the Member Feed that I never comment on. But once it is elevated to the Main Feed, that means that the general public can see it. And outlandish posts must be responded to, otherwise the public might believe that all members are Ricochet are comfortable with a post.
The Gary Robbins Disinformation Board, eh?
How long have you opposed free speech?
Hypocrite.
Just has delusions of relevance.
bIDen haS BEen a dISaPpoINTmEnT
Is this really true? If it’s true, does it move anything?
Remember when the country was worried a Catholic President would have his first loyalty to the Pope? The Democrats agree with Frank the Hippie Pope on economic matters but he at least holds firm on the Catholic’s position on abortion.
I’ll try to remember to post it, but about halfway through the second hour of Mark Levin he analyzed a speech by Larry Hogan at the Reagan library. He laid out a bunch of interesting things.
Principles First account.
They think if they just keep being idealistic it will all get better.
He was likely the most conservative of the 20+ Democrats who ran in 2020.
Reprehensible. One of the hallmarks of the 2020 elections were the people who went to the homes of election workers. It is disappointing that Biden did not condemn this.
The way you word that demonstrates the problem. I’m not an expert on this guy, but I’ve heard others say he’s nothing in this sense. I mean he does nothing to empower anything like “non-progressive” power.
Tulsi Gabbard is trying, but she has a really socialist voting record because she’s from Hawaii.
I can tell you it’s really bad in Minnesota.