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
You shouldn’t link to that speech without handing out barf bags.
Yeah, he’s kind of like a “kinder and gentler” Jeb Bush.
Gary, do you see that you are personalizing it when you talk that way? Acolytes and vetoes?
You talk of “rest of the party,” but the vast majority of Republicans support Trump. You are in a small minority of Republicans.
I think you are letting your intense dislike for the man imperil your grasp of his popularity and electoral reality.
What a great speech! I strongly recommend it. There was a reason why the ordinarily liberal Washington Post and Baltimore Sun endorsed Larry Hogan over an extremely liberal Democrat.
I think that EverTrumpers or Trump Acolytes would both be acceptable, but, then again I am a Severe Trump Skeptic.
Yes and if he ever ran nationally they would turn on him in a minute and savage him. Just like the NY Times loved John McCain when he was its stalking horse against the other GOP candidates in 2008 and then turned on it. McCain never understood what happened. Hogan will be used by the Post and Sun and other media as a battering ram against Trump and once he has served that purpose they will have no other use for him.
Petty,
Did you actually favorably compare Putin to Trump? That argument (which is a stretch of the term) is utter lunacy. Half of the Never Trump movement is upset that Trump is trying diplomacy with Putin as opposed to immediate nuclear armageddon, and you think Putin is too statesmanlike to associate with Trump.
Putin is a former KGB agent who is a big fan of Polonium tea, Dioxin, & Novichok agent. He has personally killed people. He’s not the worst leader in the world, but statesman would never be my description of him.
But why in the world? Should fans of the New England Patriots feel betrayed when the Philadelphia Eagles beat them 13 months ago. Continuing being President is not Trump’s birthright. We don’t elect Presidents for Life; see the 22nd Amendment.
You would have prefered that Hogan had not have been endorsed by the Post and Sun?
I have a tendency to indulge my sarcasm a little too much – this was one of those instances. I think Putin’s evil is way too ignored by the MSM.
I read the speech. It was inspiring. Too bad you didn’t like it.
There was a definite contingent of 2008-2012 Ron Paul voters who gravitated to Trump instead of Rand in ’16 because they were never fans of his dad due to Libertarian politics — they liked him because he was the angriest guy in the room in 2008-12, and wanted the angriest guy in the room in 2016.
That is probably the hardest core of your hard-core Trump base. And while those kind of people can be the doppelgangers of the hard-core leftists in non-Ricochet internet comments sections, where replies are coarse, no questioning of Trump is brokered and any and all slights against him in the past go on your permanent record — those are the types of people who will not vote for anyone else but Donald Trump in 2020.
The looming battle going into 2024 will be between those types of people, who are going to again want to run the angriest guy or gal in the room, and others, who see Trump as a sui generis, who was only able to win because he had spent 38 years in the public playing the angriest guy in the room, and people were used to that (plus, if Trump wins in ’20, how do you run the angriest candidate in 2024 if Trump’s been president the past eight years?)
I think using adjective phrases rather than noun phrases is useful. I’d rather talk of staunchly pro-Trump voters, or committed anti-Trump voters, things like that.
When we say things like acolytes or NeverTrumpers or EverTrumpers, I think it has the effect of downplaying the reasons people take the positions they do, and even implying that they are simply fanatics of one or another stripe. You are strongly opposed to Trump for what you think are good reasons. I am much more favorably disposed toward Trump for what I think are good reasons. I would like to think that neither of us is a fanatic.
So would you prefer a Jeb Bush or Larry Hogan, or would you prefer a Democrat and losing the Senate, and 400 more legislators? Because that’s what going to happen if we stay with the incredibly toxic Trump.
No, you misunderstand me. I’m glad Hogan is governor. There are many Northeast GOPers who make fine governors and can trim their sails enough to get elected in Democratic states (I should know having lived in Massachusetts for 20 years) but who would get killed running on a national level. They will be too mushy for conservatives in most of the rest of the country and the media, which liked them as governors, will turn on them when they run nationally. The way they do it is to sadly explain to their readers that while they were good governors, they are now captives of the radical extremist neo-Nazi right wingers in the GOP (and they include all of us, including you Gary, in that characterization) and will be beholden to them if elected.
I would prefer a third choice, that those strongly opposed to Trump yet more opposed to a Democratic President focus their energy against Democrats and progressives, and accept the fact that Trump has done a pretty good job and that there’s no reason to think he won’t continue to do a pretty good job.
Here’s the problem. We might have a disaster in 2020 with Trump. I’ve felt that way since the last election. But we are as likely to have a disaster with one of the mushy GOP moderates who will also split the party. And, as much as I dislike Trump on a personal basis, on the issues I am much closer to him than I am to the mushy moderates.
In 1991 George H.W. Bush was approved of by all Americans and not just Republicans.
There is an interesting irony here. A majority of Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire support Trump when questioned by pollsters. However, 40-45% of Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire support a primary challenge to Trump, suggesting that while Trump’s support today is broad, it is not very deep.
What name would Strong Trump Supporters would prefer?
The Post and Sun endorsed Larry Hogan for the 2018 General Election, not just the 2018 Primary Election.
I mean those that see him playing 14 dimensional chess when he makes a bone headed decision,
I disagree that there is no way for the numbers to be there. I agree the press will demonize any Republican. I disagree about Hillary voters, I think a sizable number of them were middle of the roaders that were appalled by Trump. I think she was the most disliked Dem nominee in modern history – as disliked as Leona Helmsley – and would have lost the popular vote to any other Republican other than Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. If we add that cohort to people that have proven in the past they can see though MSM spin we could win even with some portion of “the deplorables” – your words not mine – sitting it out. The bloom is completely off the rose for Trump in Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest with this group already.
I don’t think you would be petulant enough to sit home if the new nominee won fair and square.
We just disagree about reality. I opposed Gary’s suggestion of strategic voting for Dems in 2018 – I am a conservative and will never do that, but I will never pull the lever for Trump, who I sincerely feel is unfit.
I don’t like Trump, but even I would feel betrayed if the GOP pushed him out.
Gary, yes, I understand term limits. Let’s not be patronizing for just a moment and talk about this like adults.
Why would I feel betrayed? Because I like the job he’s doing, and, beyond that, I’m convinced that pushing him out will guarantee a Democratic victory. Of course I’d feel betrayed. I want Trump to run again, and I want him to win. I don’t want another Republican who will almost certainly lose.
I would far (far, far far far) rather have Ted Cruz for President. But I do not believe it is remotely plausible that he, nor any Republican other than Trump*, can be elected President in 2020. So I would rather the minority of Republicans who don’t support Trump just dialed down their outrage and worked to support the rest of us.
( * Other than Trump, unless Trump either dies in office or steps down for reasons unrelated to Republican disapproval.)
Trump has done a better job, AND shown worse character and emotional stability than anticipated.
I have always defended those who said they simply could not make themselves vote for Trump. I didn’t agree with them, and I thought their willingness to contribute, through their inaction, to a Clinton victory was a poor choice. But I can understand the philosophical position of someone who holds to that view.
I can also understand the philosophical position of a pacifist who is unwilling to use force to defend those he loves, though I don’t agree with that position either.
I agree that he’s done a better job than anticipated. He’s shown poorer character than I’d hoped, though about what I feared: I never thought he’d become “presidential,” as much as I hoped he would.
But I think he’s shown the appropriate respect for the law — all the fretting about “lawlessness” and “wrecking the Constitution” being so much nonsense — and done a far better job on policy than I expected. I think he’s settled down quite a bit since the mid-terms.
I have never liked his combative, mean, and petty public persona, but I have come to believe that, by drawing out the press, he’s doing us all a service that will likely outlast his administration. It’s time people understood that the press is no kind of neutral force. I think that is becoming clear, and I’m not sure another Republican would have achieved that kind of clarity.
And I like the judges.
I don’t think I’ll have any problem with another four years of a Trump administration, if it continues like this.
I think Trump has focused on what he thinks is important and has allowed others do a better job in more areas than I thought he would. He has focused on summits that gratify his ego, tweeting and watching Fox and Friends, campaigning for guys like Roy Moore, getting himself into controversies like Charlottesville and comments about the late Senator McCain. After 2020 his focus will be on burnishing the profile of Jared and Ivanka, not promoting or allowing the promotion of conservative policies.
I did anticipate the level of character and emotional stability he has shown, and believe it will become more extreme.
I just don’t think this is true.
Bob Smith was a two term flawed Republican New Hampshire Senator in 2002, when he was challenged in the Republican Primary by John Sununu won the primary and went on to be elected in the 2002 general election.
In 2010, Jim Bunning was a two term flawed Republican Kentucky Senator who was forced to retire. Rand Paul ran and won.
My reference is to how he would be treated in a national election against a Democrat. The WaPo would love to have him run against Trump and will give him very positive coverage if he does so.
Subscribing to the WaPo does not make you an expert in Maryland politics any more than I’d pretend to know what makes Martha McSally tick. Left-wing newspapers look for opportunities to endorse Republicans once in a blue moon because it makes them appear “balanced.” Hogan’s opponent was essentially a regional joke, while Hogan, as a “moderate” Republican, was a good opportunity for an endorsement. Give us all a break back here in the East and stop pontificating on Larry Hogan, at least until you’ve spent a few years here. And put down the WaPo editorial page:)
I think that translates as “has done a good job.”
Yes, he has a huge ego.
If I remember correctly, he opposed Roy Moore (as did I) until Roy Moore got the nomination, after which he offered tepid support. (I continued to oppose him, running into some push-back here on Ricochet for it).
The worst of the Charolottesville “controversy” is, I believe, a deliberate press distortion — that “good people on both sides” thing.
And Senator McCain… disappointed me more often and more deeply than has President Trump.
I have more confidence in my crystal ball than in yours.
Agree with the first half, but see little reason to anticipate the second.
(Quite often, it seems, Trump criticism involves the anticipation of the awful things he might do: starting wars, overturning the Constitution, wrecking the economy, etc. So far, pretty good.)