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
I looked at the Defending Democracy website and saw that it has had zero press releases or media events since last November. Something is going on. Perhaps having served as a stalking horse for their left wing funders it has served its purpose.
I also notice the focus on Putin. That’s easily explainable – Kristol is still upset Obama didn’t go to war with Russia over the Crimea and that he didn’t get a GOP president who would give him the war he thinks will Make America Great Again.
Probably has nothing to do with their application for tax-exempt status.
“Thank you for watching ‘Cruisin’ with Kristol Television’ the official on-board TV channel of Bulwark Recreational Conservatism! You’re probably get home and think ‘Why did I spend all that money just to spot Jonah Goldberg on the Lido Deck?’ And you’re probably gonna want to get some of that money back! Now you can by ‘Monetizing References to The Bulwark!’ We’ve teamed up with ‘wordcounter.psi’….”
Your check is in the mail!
I am Petty and considered Trump obsessed, but I don’t think this change in emphasis changes the group’s mission. I’ve never given much credence to the Russia meddling narrative – I don’t know why an established statesman like Putin would dirty himself aligning with a sleazeball like Trump.
I think Gary and I are destined to be the Cassandra’s of Ricochet. We repeatedly tell you the omens and prophecies of what is coming in 2020 if we remain Trumpkins and are ignored – not so much disbelieved, but discounted because what we say hurts the head. When Biden gets elected by 9 points, blows us out of the Senate and even more losses in the House and in the States, then drops dead and Stacey Abrams takes over you will remember what we tried to tell you. Well, maybe you won’t, that will be put down the memory hole too.
I agree with Henry that The Bulwark is showing positive growth by focusing on conservatism, and not Trump per se. I think that this was the effect of growing pains and learning from experience.
I disagree with Henry that this doesn’t show an actual change in the focus of the organization. What I then did to review the seven articles and one podcast in The Bulwark.
“Loose talk about breaking up the United States has become increasingly common. While quixotic secession campaigns for California or Texas are more amusing than threatening, there seems to be something different about the right-wing movement for a ‘peaceful separation’ or ‘national divorce.’ If you look closely, there’s an undercurrent carrying the threat of political violence. Or even full-scale civil war.”
An interesting article about how some of the more extreme people on the right are calling for a national separation. There is a bit of talk about Trump, but that does not predominate.
https://thebulwark.com/its-time-to-stop-talking-about-a-national-divorce/
The opening paragraph states:
“When Steve Bannon explains the “populist revolt” he helped launch in the United States (in this debate with David Frum, for instance, or in this address to the Oxford Union), he points to what he regards as the most egregious elite failures in the 21st century. From a ‘financial crisis brought about by a financial elite that’s never been held accountable’ to ‘wars that we didn’t win’ in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bannon thinks the political establishment in the United States has a lot to answer for, and Donald Trump is its reckoning.”
This article talks more about Trump than the first one, but the thesis is that the left is now going after the “establishment.” The closing paragraph is:
“With well-known populist candidates like Sanders and Warren in the 2020 race, the broad outline of the Democratic primary is already clear: There will be another battle between the progressive and establishment wings of the party. This will hobble the victor going into the general election and may end up handing Trump a second term. Then we’ll all get another excruciating four-year reminder that there are worse things in the world than the establishment we’ve all learned to despise.”
https://thebulwark.com/lets-maybe-not-trash-the-establishment-ok/
The first paragraph states:
“Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s cynical quest to solidify a conservative grip on the federal courts took a new turn recently, as the GOP announced plans to change Senate rules to enable a faster and more partisan process for confirming federal judges.”
Trump is mentioned only in glancing; the focus is on how the selection of judges is increasingly partisan. I disagree with the article, but it was good to see another point of view.
https://thebulwark.com/congresss-politicization-of-the-federal-courts-is-scary-for-democracy/
This article fully focuses on Trump. I fully endorse the article, while I have my differences with McCain, I am appalled at Trump attacking a dead man.
Senator Isakson is quoted as saying:
“America deserves better, the people deserve better, and nobody—regardless of their position—is above common decency and respect for people that risk their life for your life. When the president is saying that that he doesn’t respect John McCain and he’s never going to respect John McCain and all these kids are out there listening to the president of the United States talk that way about the most decorated senator in history who is dead it just sets the worst tone possible.”
I fully agree.
https://thebulwark.com/exclusive-sen-johnny-isakson-stands-up-for-mccain-unloads-on-trump/
The first paragraph states:
“The denizens of the internet don’t agree on much, except maybe this: The world wide web is a blasted hellscape with few redeeming qualities to recommend it. Online every controversy seems life-and-death and most disagreements quickly devolve into slugfests where every interlocutor is convinced he’s the only sane (or sincere) party involved. Spend too much time wired in and you might start to think the whole world works that way. Which is why it was a breath of fresh air to read Yevgeny Simkin’s recent piece arguing that ‘you’re not the [Expletive] Twitter makes you out to be.’”
Trump is not mentioned by name, and I didn’t see an insinuation about him by implication. I am not on Twitter, so the article is a bit foreign to me. It talks about how people are much rougher on Twitter than they are in person. A good article.
https://thebulwark.com/what-if-twitter-you-is-the-real-you/
The first two paragraphs state:
“For many Americans, the incremental progress of the Mueller investigation has made it a challenge to keep the probe’s big-picture narratives straight. The charges and revelations have emerged in a slow trickle, to be met by a media frenzy in which each revelation is imbibed and weaponized.
“This week, the brains at Lawfare have released an antidote: a 20-odd minute podcast that serves as a digest of the concrete claims the special counsel investigation has made so far about Russia’s subversive acts during the 2016 presidential election and the Trump campaign’s Kremlin connections at the time. This effort is unique for one remarkable reason: The thing is told entirely through quotations from Mueller’s indictments. No editorializing here. The various chapters are read by John Legend, Rachel Maddow, The Bulwark‘s own Charlie Sykes, Lawfare editor Benjamin Wittes, and others.”
A copy of the podcast is attached. I didn’t have time to listen to it. Given that the Mueller Investigation is about Trump, this would be an above average focus on Trump, per se.
https://thebulwark.com/lawfare-publishes-an-oral-history-of-the-mueller-investigation-so-far/
The first two paragraphs are:
“Beto O’Rourke has already won the 2020 graphic design championship.
“When he jumped into the race last week, Beto debuted a campaign logo that’s an instant classic and a lesson to aspiring candidates everywhere: Your logo is your brand. It should be durable and robust enough to be ported from one campaign to another. If you have to redesign it every election, then you’re not doing it right.”
The article compares Beto’s graphic design with Jay Inslee. Trump is mentioned, but in a positive way for the obvious strength of his Trump’s graphic design which JVL praises as effective!
JVL has done other pieces on the graphic design of several of the other candidates.
https://thebulwark.com/beto-just-won-the-logo-wars/
https://podcast.thebulwark.com/weld-tests-the-waters
Summary
By my count, Trump was the total focus on Item 4, some focus in Items 2, 6 & 8, a glancing focus in Items 1, 3 & 7, and not a focus in Item 5. Of note, Trump’s strong design is praised in Item 7. My point is that The Bulwark is not Trump-Obsessed but is a valuable and interesting collection of thoughtful articles, with an output rivaling National Review. I recommend that my fellow Ricochetti check it out as another conservative point of view.
https://thebulwark.com/
I hope that this review is helpful.
He’s a greasy KGB thug. The Russians should have given him a 9mm “retirement gift” in the basement of the Lubyanka.
You can always remind us.
What twaddle. Do you imagine that you are unique in recognizing the danger of someone as divisive as Trump? This was precisely why I opposed him throughout the primaries, and why I encourage a dialing back of anti-Trump rhetoric within the party now.
It doesn’t take a Cassandra to anticipate that a President savaged by both the press and prominent members of his own party represents a danger in the next election.
What you say doesn’t “hurt my head.” I simply think that calls for the replacement of Trump with another Republican candidate are foolishly misguided, because they ignore the magnitude of the betrayal such an act would represent to tens of millions of Trump supporters, and would, I believe, guarantee a Democratic victory in 2020.
I don’t think strident Trump critics offer any particular insight. If they would prefer a Democratic win in 2020, they’re going about it the right way. If they imagine a non-Trump Republican win achieved by pushing Trump out, I think they’re engaging in catastrophic self-indulgence.
And “Trumpkins” is a stupid phrase.
Kristol blue persuasion?
We’re going to disagree about that, pretty much comprehensively.
By the way, if you go to their parent organization, the Defending Democracy Together Institute, you’ll find that their five organizational projects are, respectively:
So that’s 20% Mueller, 20% explicit anti-Trump trade policy, 20% an implied correction of Trump’s immigration rhetoric, and 40% Russia.
The Bulwark is similar. An anti-Trump subtext, sometimes subtle, sometimes not, runs through much, probably most, of what they post. I would rather see most of that energy directed against Democrats and progressives.
LOLing out loud!
If Trump had been colluding with Putin, why does anyone at the Bulwark, in the Democratic Party or anywhere else think he would have had the self control not to tweet it out the day after the election or sometime between then and inauguration day as a way to spike the football and do an unsportsmanlike conduct taunting victory dance in the end zone against Hillary?
This is the guy who can’t contain his urges to trash talk a dead man in John McCain over McCain’s collusion in supplying prosecutors with the Steele dossier, and has gotten into periodic online fights with others, while showing no hesitation to let the world know when something he’s done has succeeded. But you apparently have to believe the same loudmouthed braggart suddenly turned into Silent Sam after the biggest upset in U.S. presidential election history, and who apparently has covered his trail so meticulously the
mosthyper-partisanfinest lawyers in Washington have been unable to pry out the information, and have only been able to find problems with Trump’s campaign hires on actions dating to before they were in his employ.It’s the same “Evil Idiot” dual track the Democrats pushed against Reagan on things like SDI and Iran-Contra, and against Bush 43 on Iraq WMDs (and in the looniest cases, the 9/11 conspiracy). The president had to be the embodiment of pure evil, and a drooling moron at the same time. Pick one or the other, and if you go for the idiot one with Trump, what does that make the people who’ve been investigating him for two years and can’t find a single provable connection to Putin, even though this guy’s shouted to the world everything he’s done over the past 40 years?
This is the type of take you should hope goes down the memory hole.
I will try to quit using the Trumpkin moniker even though I think it is a concise homage to what I still believe – someday Trump’s spell on his followers will break – maybe it will require a Democrat house to fall on him – and his spell on those followers will dissolve into a chorus of “ding dong the witch is dead.”
The idea that we have to give the uber-Trump faithful a veto over the common-sense replacement of an unfit leader just mystifies me. Even if you reject my characterization and believe he is marginally qualified, I think the only hope we have is that the Democrats implode as badly as the Republicans did last time, and put up with a political system that will severely damage American’s view of ourselves and foreigner’s views of our example.
It is not the fault of the diabolical press or NeverTrumpers that the man said what he did about John McCain at a rally that should have been a productive campaign event. This goes beyond divisive – it’s just plain unbalanced. I think George Conway is right – it’s what I’ve believed for two years. We owe it to the country not to subject it to another term of this man.
And if, as I think is very likely, your only alternative is the Democratic candidate, then would you owe it to the country to subject it to that?
If you answer yes, fine. We’ll simply disagree.
If you answer no, then whether or not it makes sense to continue attacking Trump depends on the plausibility of winning without him.
Any candidate at the moment making noises about primaring Trump is doing it mainly because of the perceived opening his temperament creates. But when you press them on policy issues totally unrelated to that, any differences on things like border security or health care come with them breaking with Trump’s actions to the left, not to the right of Trump (free trade and budget deficits are two places a candidate could break to the right of Trump, but at the moment I don’t see John Kasich or Larry Hogan going in that direction).
If you’re going to challenge Trump within the GOP primaries by being, at the very least Howard Schultz lite, if not a full-blown Democrat, how do you expect to win over anyone who might not like Trump’s demeanor, but don’t want the party to move left and certainly don’t want the Democrats’ 2020 nominee to win? (and if your primary candidate isn’t running to win, but is simply running to try and damage Trump, you probably need to look into your heart and ask why is that a good thing, especially if the Dems are running someone in the Bernie-Liz-Kamala mode as their nominee).
I’m encouraged that you appear to be willing to listen to Hogan. I haven’t heard any specifics from him yet,but there appears to be a lot of room for him to move in. Although the polls show Trump solidly supported when questions are asked in a tribal fashion, other polling shows a large number of Republicans would be receptive to an alternative candidate. A few months back 46% of New Hampshire Republicans were open to another choice.
I think the relevant question is what percentage of Trump voters are not open to another choice. I think that will be north of 20%. Republicans cannot win without Trump, in my opinion.
Whoa! Trump was elected for a four year term, not an eight year term, or a four year term with some sort of right to compel a renewal. Back in 2017, I was quite positively inclined towards Trump’s removal, but I came around to appreciating that he shouldn’t be removed absent clear and convincing evidence. But that was predicated on the promise that there would be a fair and open election in 2020. I catagorically reject the notion that Trump is entitled to a pass in the 2020 primaries. NO ONE should feel that replacing Trump through the electoral process would represent any form of a “betrayal,” and I urge to not use such irresponsible language. It is my absolute right as a Republican, and as an American to seek the selection of a different candidate as part of the 2020 elections.
This is very serious. The United States is a Democratic Republic. No one has a “right” to expect re-election. It is hard to imagine a more coercive notion than to argue that Trump’s supporters are entitled to expect a renewal of him as our nominee. I strongly urge you to never speak of this again, and you hear such an Unamerican notion to abruptive correct the speaker.
The best way to save the Republican Party is to replace such a wanting candidate as Trump whose lack of character is plain to see to those who are not willfully blind. I am trying to save the Senate, increase our Governors, retake the House and not lose another 400 legislators.
This is a petit collection of pejoratives and irrelevancies. And, believe me, I say that in the nicest possible manner with all good intentions. “Uber-Trump faithful” is insulting in its Teutonic connotations and Trump’s comment regarding McCain is over and over for a good long while. It’s even too old for old news.
It is, however, instructive as to the primary focus of the TDS set–old stuff (see Charlottesville and its misinterpretations). If necessary, I’ll point you to posts of mine during the primaries that are highly critical of Trump before he was my President. That was then. While I still have some concerns, I cease to be worried about what he said about a dead person a few years ago. But some don’t. That’s what it’s all about.
Sorry, but the guy who gave this speech would get eaten alive by the Democrats in a national election and lose millions of Trump supporters.
People might feel or say a lot of things about their emotions now that would change during the course of a real campaign. I don’t think fanatics should be given a veto over common sense.
It depends on who the Democrats nominate, and how viable Howard Schultz is. While Biden is a Democrat, and he creatively ended government shutdowns and impasses when Obama allowed him to negotiate with McConnell. On the other hand, if the Democrats nominate a socialist who supports reparations, the Green New Deal, and the AOC fantasies, that would be a different matter.
But first, we need to have a fair shot for Republicans to consider replacing Trump with Bill Weld or Larry Hogan.
I was trying to avoid Trumpkin – how about hard-core Trump fans? I am willing to meet you guys half-way.
Henry is talking common sense. Like it or not there are voters Trump brought into the fold, and there are voters who will not support another mushy moderate GOP candidate. Elections are about addition and subtraction and electoral votes.
Larry Hogan was the first Republican Governor in Maryland to win re-election in the last 50 years, and only the second Republican to win re-election since the Civil War. Both the Washington Post and Baltimore Sun endorsed Larry Hogan, a remarkable accomplishment.
Fanatics? Or did you mean deplorables?
Look, the numbers just aren’t there. The press is going to demonize any Republican. Few who voted for Hillary will fail to vote for the Democrat. On the order of 90% of Republicans support Trump, some double digit percentage of them fiercely supporting him.
I don’t like Trump, but even I would feel betrayed if the GOP pushed him out.
Again, if you would prefer a Democrat to Trump, say so. If not, I think you should reconsider your electoral logic.
I sometimes wonder if strident anti-Trump conservatives somehow think that their indignation is a viable alternative to electoral reality.
The EverTrump acolytes cannot be allowed to exercise a veto over the rest of the party.
Uh, did you actually think about the implications of what you just wrote? You’ve just explained why Hogan would be a loser in a national election.