Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Didn’t Ronald Reagan have that Eleventh Commandment thing?
Or not. Those people promote Bushism, which is not conservatism. For them, every country in the Middle East must be bombed, illegal immigration is good for business, and China has our best needs at heart. They also brought us the bank bailouts, the most unpopular legislation to ever become law, and No Child Left Behind, which harmed an entire generation of kids. I don’t know what their conserving, but it ain’t conservatism.
Well done, and with more grace than I could muster. An excellent and timely post. Thank you.
What bugs me about the MJF remarks at CPAC was how they reacted to the blowback. Sykes seemed to wave away any criticism as proof they occupied the MoHiGro, or Moral High Ground. Since CPAC was a grifter show, anyone who took umbrage with a leftist whacking away at the issues discussed at CPAC was a grifter-enabler. Like this:
Bulwark: “We are the real conservatives. So we are sending Bill Maher to cover the 2020 GOP Convention.”
Maher, at the convention: “This speech by Mike Pence sounded good unless you were one of the delegates he made wear a pink star on his lapel. You know, like Hitler did. In the camps.”
NR writer, on Twitter: “Maher’s remarks deliberately mischaracterized the VP’s speech, which called for respect across all our differences.”
Tom Nichols, Expert, retweeted by Sykes on Twitter: “The tendency of many on the Right to forget the party’s history of homophobia would be laughable if it weren’t so depressing.”
Are these “Bullwark” types the same folks who think it OK for George Snuffleupagus to moderate a republican debate?
I keep waiting for Karl Rove to be invited to moderate a democrat debate. Funny, the invitation must have been misplaced.
Charlie Sykes basically has become Ahab, and no conservative will stand in the way of him finally spearing his great orange whale.
I never pay any attention to the Bulsh*t from these alleged conservatives. At least they label their publication correctly. American Standard to Bulsh*t. Appropriate.
I definitely agree, and add that the MJFs indiscriminate fire was noxious, but the approbrium of Bulwark staff was worse. If JVL or similar had offered even a modest disclaimer I would probably feel less strongly. Instead we got “yeah she was obnoxious and that’s what we wanted.” You’re right, having someone claim MoHiGo (thanks for the laugh) while advocating burning everything to the ground is annoying. I’ve always tried to impress on subordinates that there is no partial credit for being right in the wrong way. Being correct is half the answer; acting correctly is the other half. You’re useless without both, but ironically you’re probably better off if you display good, solid leadership and happen to be wrong about an issue than vice-versa.
As a note: JVL has responded to the controversy.
Last’s response is less-than-remorseful:
If I send someone to a major event on my news outlet’s media pass and they take a dump in the punch bowl, I’m responsible for the lack of judgement in sending that person there in the first place, even if I personally never fouled that particular bowl. Jong-Fast was at CPAC with an access pass for the Bulwark, and even noted that in her Twitter feed at the start of Day 2. You cannot send her there to stir up shirt on your media pass and then when she does that, state that you never personally stirred up shirt like that, so you personally aren’t responsible. That’s simply a craven way to create trouble and then deny any responsibility for the backlash.
Maybe, . . . and here’s a crazy thought . . . maybe those people at The Bulwark are not actually conservatives.
It’s funny how we elevate people. We know better than to think that, for example, Barbra Streisand has any particular insights into the global climate: it would make as much sense to ask her gardener what he thinks about carbon sequestration as to listen to Mrs. Streisand’s opinion. She’s a fine singer; her expertise on any other topic is probably middling at best.
There is a pundit class, people we look to for wisdom and direction. But being a pundit is a job, and five minutes of channel surfing should convince us that people who succeed in that job vary greatly in their ability to rub two thoughts together. A lot of them are pretty obviously beneficiaries of circumstance, whose status and prominence has little to do with how well they think, and everything to do with the mysteries of show business and publishing. And some, however bright they may be, are clearly unstable.
We like our conservative pundits, but they’re as human as the rest of us, as prone to making emotional decisions that compromise their judgment. I think we’re seeing that with the good folks at The Bulwark. A tell, a tip-off that they’ve moved beyond coherent thinking and been swept up in something else, is a focus on people rather than ideas. When your defining principle is opposition to an elected President, you’re no longer in the realm of ideas. You’re more an anti-cult.
Meh, most of her snark was pretty funny and she had some screwups that I suspect they talked to her about. Probably should have her stick to writing snark pieces about Tomi Lahren
Theres plenty of Trumpers in conservative media that hate on other conservatives. I think its time to start fighting back. Kristol says that part of what he feels like the Standard failed at was thinking they were too good to get in the mud with these people. Not anymore.
You have to admire Molly Jong-Fast for her chutzpah. Here’s a woman who not only eschews her husband’s last name but makes sure everyone knows she’s a two-time winner in the sperm and egg lottery by hyphenating both of her parents’ names. I’m surprised Bill Himmelfarb-Kristol didn’t think of that himself.
I’ve never had sympathy for the argument that, because some of the opposition descends to idiocy, we should embrace the same tactic.
And I have no more enthusiasm for a Kristol or a Sykes than I do for the worst 100%-Trump-can-do-no-wrong sort. They’re all cut from the same cloth, just on different fringes.
Perhaps, but if someone is going to write the definitive litmus test for conservatism, it won’t be me. Winning the battle for minds in up-and-coming generations, limiting government, rolling back overreach, national security, fixing entitlements, protecting life, and protecting the Constitution are big projects with room for many voices. That said, you’re right: Bulwark’s scorched Earth mentality is inimical to large swaths of conservatism
I still haven’t encountered many of the latter, though I keep hearing stories of their existence.
Yes, I’d like examples of who these people are. Sean Hannity? I wouldn’t know. I don’t watch him.
And, I’ll just add, if your publication goes after Mollie Hemingway or Victor Davis Hanson? You’re dead to me. Go to hell.
I’ve had to tamp down my anger as well! I have appreciated the insights of folks like JVL, Sykes, and Tom Nichols in the past, but their opposition-by-reflex is extremely unbecoming.
I’m guessing it’s a reference to folks like Hannity, or anonymous poll responses that show drops in conservatives caring about elected officials’ lying or adultery. There are certainly some people who will support whoever is in charge of the political faction. That’s not new, however, nor is it a particular moral failing of conservatives in the age of President Trump. It doesn’t excuse the Bulwark’s ‘any tool to hand’ attitude.
Pierre Omidyar is the greasy, gold-toothed organ grinder now. Kristol, and the rest of the monkeys on The Bulwark, will cavort to whatever tune he cranks.
I can imagine how those poll questions are asked — specifically how those polls might be designed to advance the narrative that Evangelicals and Christians, generally, have sacrificed their principles on the altar of Trump. It’s dishonest and ridiculous.
I imagine most Christian Trump supporters see it the way I do. Infidelity is a sin — a grave one. Believing in the words of Christ in Matthew 19, one might even say the President is an adulterer several times over and still to this day.
But, it’s leftism that is a religion without mercy. Christians pray for everyone to overcome sin through faith in Jesus Christ. Including one Donald J. Trump.
And even from a secular standpoint, what the President did with Stormy Daniels ten years ago is something he did to his wife, his family, himself, and Stormy Daniels. Although it is a particular offense against God, from a political standpoint it carries no weight. He didn’t do it to us.
It bears repeating — I’d rather have a (former) playboy who will protect my nation’s and my personal sovereignty governing me than a Boy Scout busybody who thinks he knows what’s best for me and my family.
Christian Just Voting For Whichever Political Party Less Likely To Make His Faith Illegal One Day
It’s satire, but is it?
Are there still pinch-lipped “Republicans” who don’t know why evangelicals voted for Donald Trump?
I totally agree with your skepticism of the narrative regarding support for the President!
Not to brazenly beg for attention (I am a lawyer though, so maybe I can’t help it) but if you like what I wrote, please consider liking the post so it can get considered for promotion to the main feed.
Did any of you read Molly Jong-Fast’s posts about CPAC? I did, and saw nothing that raised my hackles.
Apparently she tweeted inappropriate stuff. But that wasn’t part of the commentary in The Bulwark. If we are going to disqualify people based on their tweets, well that would disqualify Trump, wouldn’t it?
The piling on of The Bulwark is untoward. I suggest that people of good faith actually read their articles and listen to their podcasts.
Also, I recommend that you read JVL’s piece about this tempest in a teapot. The hyperlink is in Comment 8.
Nope, neither her reports to the Bull-what? nor her tweets. All I had to read was what Sykes said to The Spectator about VDH. There is simply no excuse you can offer that will take me to the Bull-what? to read these vile, dishonorable haters.
I did and do read Bulwark material. I have also listened to JVL on podcasts. I also followed the debated around MJF on Twitter. Of particular note was Bill Kristol’s decision to give the Bulwark stamp of approval on MJFs attacks on even the most orthodox conservative personalities and positions. Of further note was Tom Nichols’ firm position that anyone who engages the audience at CPAC is prima facia worthy of excommunication from the conservative cause. Both men were/are wrong.
So you have closed off your mind, and am relying on the Spectator? I stopped reading the article there when it referred to the Bulwark ilk. Since I financially support The Bulwark (and Ricochet) I am not interested in being thrown in as part of an “ilk.”
Speaking of being disrespectful, what did you think of the standing ovation at CPAC at the death of John McCain. Regardless of what you thought of McCain, I would hope that you would condemn that audience.
“Come out from among them and be ye separate!”
Thanks for doing your homework. In light of that, I will extend my like so that you can be promoted to the Main Feed.