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.
Bulwark Report: When All You Have Is an Anti-Trump Hammer…
I think Jonathan V. Last is a very funny fellow, in a dark and sardonic way. I enjoy him on the Sub-Beacon podcast and wherever else I hear him. He’s an amusing, irreverent, nebbish fellow, and I don’t like saying bad things about him.
But his latest piece at The Bulwark, entitled Donald and Jussie, Birds of a Feather, is trying too hard to fulfill The Bulwark’s mission, which is to spare no expense, grace, or integrity in its effort to besmirch the all-too-readily besmirchable President Trump.
JVL writes:
First, here’s President Donald Trump claiming “complete and total exoneration” of all charges in the Mueller investigation.
[ video clipped ]
And now here’s actor Jussie Smollett claiming that he’d been “truthful and consistent” in the face of charges that he’d committed a hate-crime hoax.
[ video clipped ]
The symmetry here is perfect. Absolutely perfect. The only thing we really know from Bob Mueller’s lips is that on the subject of obstruction: “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” That’s eerily similar to the words said by the prosecutor who dismissed the charges against Smollett, saying that he “does not believe [Smollett] is innocent.”
Now you can believe that both of these men have been judged as innocent because the legal system has declined to prosecute them. Or you can believe that both of them can be viewed with suspicion because the official verdict of the legal system is not the last word in actual culpability.
But you cannot claim that one of them must now be treated as totally and completely innocent but that the other is clearly guilty. Which is what most of America seems to be doing.
Do you see what he did there? It’s true that President Trump overstated the case with his “complete and total exoneration” comment. But is it true, as JVL claims, that the “symmetry here is perfect?”
On the one hand, we have a man who has just been definitively cleared of a charge that has hounded him for two years, who knew he was innocent the day the investigation started, who has professed his innocence all along, who could have stopped the investigation at any point but chose not to, and who almost certainly has not obstructed justice and, if he hasn’t, is fully aware that he hasn’t and that the justice department will now agree with him.
On the other hand, we have a man who has just been mysteriously absolved of responsibility for a crime he certainly committed, who has lied since the first moments of his case, and who continues to lie about his innocence now.
What Trump is saying, in essence, is “I didn’t collude with the Russians, and I didn’t obstruct justice in the investigation of a crime I know I didn’t commit. I allowed the investigation to run to its conclusion. I am exonerated.” His mistake was in his failure to add “… or I will be in a few days when the justice department acknowledges that I didn’t obstruct justice,” as it undoubtedly will.
What Smollett is saying is “I am innocent,” when in fact the little fraud is guilty as sin and everyone knows it.
That’s only “symmetric” if you’re tilted as far to one side as the good folks at The Bulwark appear to be.
Published in Politics
True, but I still think it’s a valid question.
It’s like overwrought civics or something. I don’t have the words.
Moderator Note:
Gossipy and rude.[Redacted.] Maybe something right up there with how he’s a Reagan Republican so naturally he donated to and voted for Democrats.
Apologies to Henry for the devolution of his thread, which I think has achieved someone’s goal.
Poking around the Bulwark’s site was interesting. Turns out it’s foundational component is Defending Democracy Together Institute.
From InfluenceWatch.org’s take:
The Defending Democracy Together Institute (DDTI) is a right-leaning advocacy group and website publisher founded in Washington, D.C., in August 2018. The Institute publishes the Bulwark, a news and editorial website whose editor-in-chief, former talk radio host Charlie Sykes, serves as president of the organization.[1] DonorsTrust, a center-right donor-advised fund provider which handled a contribution from the center-left Hewlett Foundation directed to the organization, called it a “nonprofit dedicated to incubating and assembling pro-democracy voices. . . created by conservatives uncomfortable with the flamboyant rhetoric that can come from President Trump.”[2]
Its 501(c)(4) counterpart, Defending Democracy Together, has taken positions in opposition to a number of initiatives by President Donald Trump, often through its project, Republicans for the Rule of Law. Most prominently, it has supported continuing birthright citizenship and strongly supported the Justice Department investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.[3] [4] [5]
Defending Democracy Together carries a host of what I would describe as non-conservative websites as part of its reading list.
So now I’m really confused. The Bulwark advocates for the positions of HuffPo?
The salary structure is going to explain a lot of things whenever it gets revealed.
This gets at what has been bugging me for months: what do these guys have for political and economic beliefs? Someone recently made this observation, and I’ve made before, I think they are closet Rockefeller Republicans. Well good luck with that.
I guess they’re trying to broaden the appeal a bit. Nothing screams “cool” like telling people you’re cool.
Although “Very Legal” sounds like the title of a porn flick. So kudos, Bulwark! Standing athwart idioms, shouting “Cool!”
I just want to say something about this so I’m clear. We really do need to explicitly socialize a few things more so we can back off with government everywhere else. We are just way too far down the road of so many bad decisions to be overly idealistic about it.
The thing is, I think they want more government power run “conservatively” by “experts”. This is just a proven bad idea.
The other thing is they want people to “behave better”. That’s basically Ben Sasse’s whole pitch instead of actually governing. Well how about the government behave better? Also this is a complete joke when it comes to elections and the media.
Well, it’s not like behaving better could be construed in a negative sense. We’d also like people to do pushups and eat their Wheaties. Who can argue with that?
Personal responsibility is not something that lies with the government, which is what “behaving better” amounts to. That’s the individual. The larger the government gets, the less the individual has to “behave better”, since there’s a handy parachute provided by the same government the Bulwark assumes could work much better if governed by conservative principles.
Which is why I think they’re chasing their own tails here, with the purported purpose of the site, the articles they’re actually publishing, and the goals they espouse. They’re contradictory.
I guess us rubes in the hinterlands haven’t read all the books they’ve read, though, so we must just not get it.
Chris is getting at exactly what I believe. The government and the Fed rob people of their agency and their judgment. It redistributes to the connected and the already wealthy, so now we have to have redistribution the other way. Then what happens next is people bitch about how everyone’s behaving or they try to fix it with more government, because it doesn’t really work. It’s completely nuts. Then throw in all of the intersectionality crap, the pro-statist media, and the leftist mind control education system.
If you don’t like Trump, that’s how he happened.
I just don’t understand why “natural born” citizenship is such a difficult concept to grasp (other than political expediency). It is not a geography-of-birth designation, people!! If one or more of your parents is a loyal citizen of these United States when you are born? You’re a citizen, no matter where on the map you’re born!
By this standard, Barack Obama was not a “natural” born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii (which, I believe he was). His father was not American and his mother wasn’t loyal to America (therefore, her preference for marrying commies and non-Americans)! By the Bull——-s’ standards, all those Chinese birth-tourism babies being raised as good little commies in China are citizens??! I guess that’s why they named it The Bull—-.
Trump touted Birtherism just to annoy Obama, I think. I understand his character better now, than I did when I was an anti-Trumper in 2016.
Given that Obama‘s mother was an American citizen, born and raised in America, and never gave up her citizenship, Obama could have been born in Timbuktu or on Mars, instead of the Territory of Hawaii, and he would still be a natural born American citizen.
Going back to the time-frame of their adolescence, they think they’re The Fonz. They’re not even Richie Cunningham. They’re Warren ‘Potsie’ Weber.
I agree. I understand there’s no practical test for loyalty and shouldn’t be one, because giving such power to people in government assures its corruption at some point.
But, if we had an honest press and a society not cowed by PC, there could have been a political test (as in voters voting) if the people had been informed of Obama’s anti-American upbringing and Alinsky/Frankfurt School secondary education. The media is still running cover for him, and covering themselves in shame. Naive liberals thought they were voting for a “moderate,” well-educated, intelligent, articulate black man. They didn’t know his most pertinent attributes were anti-American leftism.
Trump should have pointed out that when it was an advantage to be born in Kenya, Obama allowed his agent to say he had been born in Kenya. When it was arguably a necessity to have been born in the US, Obama claimed to have been born in Hawaii. All that is certain is that he is a liar.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/promotional-booklet/
The other claim seemed over-the-top, but would be easily verified if true. I don’t know Obama’s Social Security number, but the claim is that the first three numbers indicate Connecticut, not Hawaii.
https://www.ssa.gov/employer/stateweb.htm
You mean McCain? Or Romney? Seriously, the establishment (R)s are pathetic. They can’t even strike out, because they fail to make the line-up. They’re not only not playing the same game as leftist Democrats (but, I repeat), they’re not even at the ballpark.
It took me a long time to accept this type of analysis, but it’s true. If you don’t act accordingly, they will keep commandeering all of this ridiculous centralized power.
Obviously, in 2008 the liberal media were doing everything they could to elect Obama, so they were hardly likely to publish damaging information.
Trouble was, it took far too long for John McCain to realize that his friends in the media had turned on him, that while they supported him when he disrupted the Republican Party, they were hardly going to support him against an outright liberal, and an African-American liberal at that.
It was the McCain campaign’s job to let the American people know the truth about Barack Obama. In 2004, if the Republicans had waited for the liberal media to tell the truth about John Kerry’s checkered military history, John Kerry would have been elected President.
Admittedly, McCain‘s campaign managers were so inept, especially in their handling of Sarah Palin, as to raise questions about what side they were really on!
FIFY. Leftists hold the most illiberal ideas of anyone. We shouldn’t give them any label pertaining to freedom.
Steve Schmidt. When I see the videos of him off of MSNBC, it looks like all he cares about is making money off the political process, not political values, but I’m not an expert.
I think Nicole Wallace was a big shot in that campaign, as well. What the hell does she believe in? $$$$ Then there’s Scarborough.
In the polite society of Washington, one of the main attractions to the left of Obama was the ability to silence his and their critics via use of the race card to essentially write targets out of the political conversation, and McCain’s handlers were very much of the connected class inside the Beltway. It was impossible to imagine them going all-out against Obama’s past political history because of the danger it could pose to their own future political careers.
It’s the same reason why it took the leaderless Tea Party in 2009-10 to finally challenge Obama — because there was no one person to target and demonize, since it was a grass-roots movement. It took the Democrats about 2-3 years to finally demonize the name Tea Party unto itself, aided by grifters on the right who tried to claim leadership and get themselves power and money. And no Beltway political consultants would work with Trump until Kellyanne Conway after the convention for the same reason — join team Trump in 2015, and the conventional wisdom was your career was ruined. That’s why he ended up with Manifort and some of the other dubious characters.
Not sure I understand your comment. If you mean that neither McCain nor Romney had the guts for real political fight, I agree.
@jon1979 Perfect. Every single word.
Introduction
I thought that this thread had run its course after Henry Racette’s excellent new post “The Logic of a Primary Challenge.” I was mistaken. The issue has been raised as to if I agree with Trump’s policies, and therefore why shouldn’t I support him? Now that I have read this challenge, I will address it with an edited version of how I commented to “The Logic of a Primary Challenge.”
The question before me is not who I should vote for in the general election. This issue will not be before me for 19 months. The issue is do I should support Trump’s renomination? I do not.
This Comment will have three parts. Part I is a history of incumbent American presidents being challenged for the nomination of their parties. Part II is why I do not support Trump. Part III is why Maryland Governor Larry Hogan would be an excellent nominee.
Part I: History of Intraparty Renomination Fights.
There is a long history of incumbent presidents being challenged for the nomination of their parties. An incumbent American President has been rejected by his own party 7 times.
1968 President Lyndon Johnson was challenged by Eugene McCarthy. Johnson to quit the race.
1952 President Harry Truman was challenged by Estes Kefauver who beat Truman in New Hampshire which convinced Truman to quit the race.
1884 President Chester Arthur was rejected by the Republican party and James Blaine was nominated.
1868 President Andrew Johnson was rejected by the Democratic Party and Horatio Seymour was nominated.
1856 President Franklin Pierce was rejected by the Democratic Party and James Buchanan was nominated.
1852 President Millard Filmore was rejected by the Whig Party and Winfield Scott was nominated.
1844 President John Tyler was rejected by the Whig Party and Henry Clay was nominated. (Tyler was so rejected by his party, he had five Supreme Court Nominees rejected nine different times, one of them without even getting hearings.)
In addition to the above seven examples, in 1912 Republican President William Howard Taft was challenged by former President Theodore Roosevelt. Taft beat Roosevelt at the Republican convention, but Roosevelt received more popular votes and many more electoral college votes than Taft (who won only two states).
Part II: Trump is disqualified not for reasons of policy or personality, but for reasons of character, integrity and capacity.
Trump is not disqualified for reasons of policy. I support some of his policies (judges, taxes, regulations) and oppose others (national defense, NATO, the national emergency funding of the Wall, Dreamers, Charlottesville).
Trump is not disqualified for reasons of personality. I detest Trump’s rude and intemperate behavior. But that is not sufficient, by itself, to oppose Trump.
Trump is disqualified by reasons of character, integrity and literally capacity.
Let me suggest the following five examples show that Trump lacks the character, integrity and/or capacity to be president.
First, Birtherism. This was Trump’s original sin. Once Obama’s birth certificate was produced there was no reason that any thoughtful person could continue with this screed other than to punk the opposition, which I would submit is unworthy of any candidate. Either Trump was stupid or lying or didn’t care. However, he promoted himself at the great damage he did to race relations. Recently, according to Maggie Haberman and Jonathon Martin of the New York Times, Trump has promoted birtherism to a Republican Senator. Anyone who promotes birtherism is disqualified to be president.
Second, did Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael Cruz, help Lee Harvey Oswald murder JFK? Trump suggests he did. This meme was presented to “Fox and Friends” who disgraced themselves by not challenging Trump. I believe that Trump said this given Ted Cruz’s reaction when Trump attacked Ted Cruz’s wife Heidi. No one I know of can support this nonsense. Anyone who promotes the screed that Ted Cruz’s father helped kill JFK is disqualified to be president.
Third, did Trump win the popular vote? Trump lost by 2.9 million votes. There is simply no credible evidence put forward that Trump actually lost the popular vote due to a net of 2.9 million votes being cast fraudulently.
Fourth, Trump has insisted that he had a larger inauguration crowd than Obama. Who are you going to believe, Trump or your lying eyes? Not has Trump made this argument over and over again, but he has insisted that his Press Secretary promote this trope.
Fifth, did Trump actually make the statement from Access Hollywood about grabbing women by the “[redacted word for female genitalia]”? During the campaign Trump admitted making “locker room talk” statements. But recently, Trump has questioned if the voice on the recording is not really his. (This is despite a part of the recording shows Trump speaking.) Who are you going to believe, Trump, or your lying ears?
These five examples speak to Trump’s complete lack of character and integrity.
In the alternative, these five examples raise the issue of his Trump’s “capacity.” In other words, is Trump mentally retarded? Or does he suffer from a personality disorder? Or is he mentally ill and unable to discern between truth and fiction? I am not a medical doctor, but medical doctors and psychologists have questioned Trump’s capacity. See “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.” https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+dangerous+case+of+donald+trump+27+psychiatrists+and+mental&crid=1IC3NXTVOVZR8&sprefix=trump%27s+mental+%2Caps%2C174&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_15
Part III: Larry Hogan and Bill Weld are viable alternatives.
With the passing of Senator John McCain, there are no remaining members of the Senate or House who have shown the courage and integrity to counter Trump’s nonsense. With the possible exception of Mitt Romney, all of the remaining Senators and Representatives have been neutered. As a practical matter, that leaves current or former governors to run against Trump.
I immediately contributed to former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld when he announced that he was forming an exploratory committee. I have tried to contribute to current Maryland Governor Larry Hogan who cannot accept any campaign contributions during the 90-day Maryland legislative session.
Larry Hogan is Pro-Life; however, Democrats control the Maryland State Senate 32-15, and the Maryland State House of Delegates 99-42. Worse yet, the Maryland’s governor’s vetoes only require a 3/5’s vote to override.
A pro-choice bill was passed by the Maryland Legislature. A veto would have been completely ineffective. However, Hogan refused to sign the bill, allowing it to become law without his signature.
Larry Hogan is the second most popular Governor in America. Only one other Republican Maryland Governor has been re-elected, and that was fifty years ago. Larry Hogan was re-elected 55-43%, and he was endorsed by the Washington Post and Baltimore Sun. He looks like our strongest candidate.
Conclusion
I have a quick question to people who want to respond to this comment. Please tell me is you believe in any of following five assertions: (a) that Obama was born in Kenya, (b) that Ted Cruz’s father helped assassinate JFK, (c) that Trump “really” won the popular vote, (d) that Trump had a larger inauguration crowd than Obama, or (e) that it really wasn’t Trump’s voice on the Access Hollywood recording?
I will look forward to hearing from you.
a) It’s water under the bridge. I have no certain knowledge and at this point don’t care.
b) No. Absurd idea.
c) Don’t know what you — or others — mean by “really”, but accept that he lost the popular vote.
d) and e) Wouldn’t know how to care less.
The out party tends to win House seats in mid-term elections. But flipping control is not automatic at all. See 1966, 1970, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, etc.
The byline switches every few days, and is topical. (I forget the prompt for this byline.)
The name is “The Bulwark.”
The classy thing to do is to call Pro-Choice people “Pro-Choice” and not “Baby Killers,” and to call Pro-Life people “Pro-Life” and not “Anti-Choice.”
I like “pro-abortion.”
I just looked at the Wikipedia page for the DNC WikiLeaks leak. The Democrat party completely messes up the chain of command to the FBI for the server, for literally no good reason and the FBI accepts that. And now given everything we are supposed to believe all of this high confidence BS that the Russians did it when it was a simple phishing scam. All of those guys acted in bad faith and they proved nothing.
It’s pretty interesting to see that The Dossier literally says that The Trump Campaign was acting together with Russia to hack the DNC.
This is such a wonderful country.