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
Great conversation, folks! I’m going to call it a night, but I’ll catch up tomorrow. We’re expecting as much as a foot of snow tomorrow up here in the northeast — winter’s last gasp. I hope you all stay warm.
And remember: we’re unlikely to convince each other, but more people read than comment. As long as we stay civil and make sense, we have a chance of persuading them.
[ And on that note, everyone should be aware that Gary has a poster of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez up on his dorm room wall. He’s a total AOC fan-boy. Just something to factor in to your calculations. ]
Is it a poster of dancing AOC in the tight top from her Boston University days? That wouldn’t be a bad poster. Crazy-eyed AOC of 2019 would be kind of creepy, if you woke up and saw those peepers staring at you in the middle of the night….
The only politician’s picture I have ever had on my wall was The Greatest President of the Twentieth Century. I even had a tee shirt with his iconic picture on it, which is my current icon!
I haven’t seen much Russia stuff on Bulwark, I do love how they are willing to get in the mud with the Trump media grifters. I just read a nasty little article on there about all the Race War agitators, like Trump minion Kurt Schlicter, who evidently wrote some really nasty books on the subject. yet somehow gets tons of media time. VDH has also played in this nasty pool. These people deserve to be savaged. but too many conservatives aren’t willing.
They also savaged another clown, who trashed their VDH book review. Turns out the guy used to be a Trump hater. Its just great to see a media source willing to call out their own side.
Nonsense? So, fake national emergencies isn’t your idea of “lawlessness”. Or firing FBI directors? Did you think we meant he’d start robbing banks?
Breaking the laws would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for that label.
Sure. But I’m not sure that’s much of a recommendation. A Republican who can win re-election in deep blue Maryland? I doubt he’s a Reagan Republican, which you claim to be.
So I went and looked at three of the articles you highlighted (quoted above).
The Civil War article follows a pattern that turns up in all three. It’s like the crazy left wing Progressives don’t exist. There is no attempt to actually understand what is going on in THE LEFT as well as the Right. It’s like it is all happening in a vacuum. Moreover, it follows the usual Left tactic of smearing those on the right as racists based on random and distorted excerpts from their writings, often deliberately misunderstood by the author (a former anonymous internet troll who tried unsuccessfully to get Salena Zito fired because she’s a reporter who tried to make an effort to understand Trump voters). It repeats the standard, and false, NY Times et al line on Trump’s statement on Charlottesville. It’s garbage.
Glad to see you disagree with the article on partisan judges but it is another great example of how everything is now the GOPs fault, because Trump.
The Podcast is a bad joke. They actually say:
This is a podcast for low information Trump haters who want to be reassured that Trump colluded with the Russians without having to think any deeper about it. I’ve read the indictments myself as well as just about every other original document I can find. For anyone with any analytical integrity it is simple to conclude, as Peter Storzek of the FBI did before accepting his position with the Mueller investigation, that “there is no big there there“. A great example of how something seemingly “objective” leaves the reader dumber about the topic than before they read the article.
I’m actually more concerned about The Bulwark after reading this nonsense. They seem all in on doing the bidding of their left-wing paymaster. The Bulwark folks are clearly very different than people like Jonah Goldberg who is anti-Trump but has done it without losing his integrity.
Which laws did the President break when he fired the director of the F.B.I., whose sacking had been called for (at some point) by nearly every human on the planet?
What laws were broken when the President had a different opinion about national emergencies than someone named rgbact on the internet?
Those calling for Trump to be primaried, in this thread, (and you know the ilk I’m talking about) seem to believe that only a small faction of rabid Trump-worshipers will be put off by a successful primary challenge. But that’s not how party politics works. Besides the hard-core fans that have been with him since the escalator, there will be millions of people who have appreciated either his genuinely conservative accomplishments/policies in office, or the way he has hit back against legacy media, and other cultural foes; or both. Again, I’m not talking about people that have been wearing a MAGA hat since 2015, but millions of voters that see Trump as a net positive, and are willing to vote for him (perhaps for the first time) in 2020.
Also contributing to this is Trump’s highly visible, highly controversial nature. Whether one likes it or not, Trump has managed to become The Alternative to what was perceived as a Quisling GOPe elite, that cared more about not upsetting Washington’s governing class, and about caring for foreign migrants, than they cared about the citizens they were elected to serve. Add to that, the Left has made Trump the symbol of everything from tax reform, to gun rights, to the Christmas wars, to calling out media bias, to – well, to a lot of other things Republicans hold dear. Dumping Trump is going to feel to an awful lot of voters like a rebuke or abandonment of these things, and will only reinforce the idea that the party is controlled by a Quisling GOPe elite. The take-away is going to be that Republicans should be afraid to argue with the establishment press, or to do anything that’s going to make much of a difference.
Yes!
And this is already true. They are just continuing to parade this fact in front of everyone. A primary will serve to have this element of the GOP out themselves and self-segregate.
It is hilariously ironic/paradoxical. These are the people who claim Trump supporters are violating conservative principles because of Trump’s demeanor and lack of personal morals ( according to their new algorithms) as they renege on basic conservative policies.
Clearly, policy is secondary to this type, winning is secondary as well. What’s important are creases in trousers, going along with Democrats and the media, incrementalism ( if that ) and foreign adventures spending other people’s money and the lives and limbs of children of deplorables. Clearly, they don’t see socialism as any kind of threat.
They are voluntarily going into a building which will be taken out by a metaphorical drone strike.
They will never recover. Good riddance.
So Trump is mentioned in six out of seven articles and that’s not Trump obsessed? Does it require over 90%? I don’t think O magazine has that high a percentage of articles with Oprah’s name in then.
You lost me four words into the story. Even at that, its not a stretch to strongly suspect you will regret it…and not “just a little.”
Gary as a resident of the deep blue state of MD, I can assure you that Hogan only won because both times the Dem fielded two crazier than bat guano candidates that even the blue tribe could not imbibe. His positions on abortion, the second amendment, taxation are non existence or mushy at best. He would not inspire at the national level. This is from a family that funded and voted for the man.
It seems that the Dems have learned nothing and are willing to take that ploy national.
Which is why I think Henry is talking sense about sticking with the crazy horse we rode in on.
There is nothing illegal about declaring a national emergency, nor about firing an FBI director.
For better of worse, we are where we are, and the notion we could change course now and abandon Trump and prop up an alternative candidate is as an even weaker proposition than running Trump again.
Once the Biden as one part meat head idiot, other part skeavy dirty old man meme gets played over and over in the (D) Primary fight, the (D)’s will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and nominate a far too Left for the Country wack job and Trump (ie: 3%GDP, 4%Unemployment, #1 Oil Exporter, growing 401(k), Pension, IRA accounts, etc.) should squeak out another term.
Add to that, Trump is seriously motivated to win because he needs another 4 years to postpone indictment by NY state and city prosecutors who are performing the equivalent of a financial proctological exam in search of unknown “crimes” …. or other things they hope to find that are crime like …. let’s keep our fingers crossed … these are fine prosecutors following the law without a political bone in their body.
Why the [redacted] did you start another [redacted] thread about the [redacted] Bulwark?
Weren’t we just asked by the management to not link off-site? And yet, you just did that multiple times in one post, driving traffic away from here and over to there.
Larry Hogan is also Pro-Life, however he is so out-numbered, he really can’t do anything, as his veto would would be instantly overridden, But when the Maryland legislature passes a Pro-Choice bill, he declined to sign it, allowing it to become law without his signature. A small rebellion against the Pro-Choice orthodoxy.
Again with the Charlottesville lie.
Here, read this.
Now you are informed. Any further attempts to smear the President with the Charlottesville lie will indicate that you are lying deliberately.
I sometimes wonder if they are just nostalgic for the old corruption and want it back.
The Greatest President of the Twentieth Century Ronald Reagan was never thought of as a Quisling. Reagan had a quote on his desk that said that there is no limit to what a man can achieve if he does not mind who gets the credit. Reagan never declared bankruptcy, nor did he cheat vendors and creditors.
If Reagan were running against Trump, the subtext of his race would be “Conservatism with a gentle smile, not a smirk.”
I don’t have to be a fan of Mr. Trump to prefer the actions taken by his administration to the proposals by the leading Democrats running to replace him. For me it’s about actions more than rhetoric. I think we’ve seen a bit of a turn toward Liberty and economic freedom since 2016 and I really don’t relish seeing that undone. So, while I still cringe at the way he presents things (mostly) I’m not ready to return to the leftward march of yesterday. And I do think a serious primary challenge would go a long way to guarantee a Democrat takeover.
Trump is President, so a website dedicated to politics would mention whoever the President is. But only one of the eight items really focuses on Trump, while one item does not mention him, and three of the items mention him only in passing. A website where only one-eighth of the items focuses on Trump is certainly not Trump Obsessed. (Have you seen American Greatness, Breitbart, or American Spectator? They are Trump Obsessed.)
So you actually read the source material and came to this conclusion yourself? Or are you just saying, “Yea, what he said”?
Gary, you can’t prevent someone on Ricochet from saying, “Yeah, what he said.” Nor can you compel others to read sources. You can offer source material (hint, it’s easiest if these offers aren’t buried in a wall of text) for those who are interested. But you can’t expect others who’ve expressed their lack of interest to take you up on the offer.
The Atlantic got itself into hot water with the right recently by reneging on hiring a prominent conservative writer (based on something he said on a Ricochet podcast — we’re famous! er, infamous at least). I still read articles from The Atlantic, since I think it’s one of the more interesting sources outside the right-wing bubble but not entirely hostile to it. Still, if some wish to express their disapprobation with The Atlantic by never reading an article from it again, I can’t stop them.
For some, it wouldn’t matter if The Bulwark ran good articles. The reason for The Bulwark’s existence is enough to turn them off. It’s not too different from why some conservatives won’t read The Atlantic anymore.
Ahoy!
…despite your best efforts.
I agree. They can’t maintain an air of genuine concern when their very mission statement demonstrates to all they’re a bunch of pathetic anti-Trumpers . . .
I’ll bet the real reason for the change is some lawyer pointed out you cannot be a 501 (c) (3) organization with such an obvious political mission statement.
(Sorry… Lent. Thinking about chocolate…)