Bulwark: Jon Gabriel Is the ‘Worst of the Worst’

 

In a big change for The Bulwark, Editor-at-Large Charlie Sykes is complaining about conservatives. This time, he’s upset at conservatives criticizing Rep. Liz Cheney for criticizing conservatives because Cheney is more conservative than the conservatives she’s criticizing. It’s all a bit recursive and my brain’s a bit logy from the second Pfizer dose. But if I read correctly, Never Trump wants Cheney to remain in leadership because her voting record is more pro-Trump than Elise Stefanik’s. I think.

After slamming Dan McLaughlin, Eliana Johnson, Byron York, Henry Olsen, Mark Hemingway, and Kurt Schlichter, he finally made the big announcement:

But, this, from Jon Gabriel, may be the worst of the worst. (And it is not a parody.)

“On substance,” he writes, “I agree with Cheney. The election was not stolen and Trump’s Jan. 6 incitement merited impeachment. But all that is history. The GOP’s job today is to stop Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer. In that fight — the only fight that matters six months after the election — Cheney is AWOL.”

He then critiques my admittedly brilliant analogy of why it’s better for the party to focus on future goals instead of past grievances.

Of course, we know the real reason Mr. Sykes is upset. It’s not my fault that I’m smarter, funnier, a better writer, more handsome — nay, sexier —  than him, not to mention humbler. But I assure him that such a cross is uneasy to bear.

My first job out of high school was splitting the atom. When I entered the Navy, the Cold War was raging; when I left, we had won it. I then graduated summa cum laude, and not just at any university, but Playboy‘s “#1 Party School” Arizona State (i.e., the Stanford of the West).

My life continues to proceed from victory to victory. I host the best podcast ever. I edit the finest website in existence. Even a tossed-off article on a Wyoming congresswoman goes viral. Men fear me and women want to be with me.

But of all my successes, perhaps my favorite is being named “Worst of the Worst” by Charlie Sykes and The Bulwark Dot Com. Risking immodesty, I have added the title to my Twitter bio. Since he follows me, I hope it brightens his day.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 260 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone Member
    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Percival (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    It isn’t free speech if you can shut up people that you don’t like.

    Is the right to speak freely also a right to force everyone to listen?

    I didn’t hear you!

    That’s your choice, and I support it.

    • #241
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    The issue is the issue.  Gary is just one example, albeit perhaps the most common example, of the issue.

    • #242
  3. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    Would the ignore function work only on the member you choose to ignore, or would it extend to members who comment on an ignored post?

    • #243
  4. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    Would the ignore function work only on the member you choose to ignore, or would it extend to members who comment on an ignored post?

    In every system I’ve ever been on, it filters the person you want to filter, but you see responses. I’ve often thought that “Ignore thread” might be useful in some cases, but I don’t recall seeing it implemented anywhere.

    • #244
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    Would the ignore function work only on the member you choose to ignore, or would it extend to members who comment on an ignored post?

    In every system I’ve ever been on, it filters the person you want to filter, but you see responses. I’ve often thought that “Ignore thread” might be useful in some cases, but I don’t recall seeing it implemented anywhere.

    “Threads” here are the posts.  You can already “unfollow” posts.

    • #245
  6. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    Would the ignore function work only on the member you choose to ignore, or would it extend to members who comment on an ignored post?

    In every system I’ve ever been on, it filters the person you want to filter, but you see responses. I’ve often thought that “Ignore thread” might be useful in some cases, but I don’t recall seeing it implemented anywhere.

    What happens if the response quotes the ignored post?

    • #246
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    Would the ignore function work only on the member you choose to ignore, or would it extend to members who comment on an ignored post?

    In every system I’ve ever been on, it filters the person you want to filter, but you see responses. I’ve often thought that “Ignore thread” might be useful in some cases, but I don’t recall seeing it implemented anywhere.

    What happens if the response quotes the ignored post?

    As others have mentioned, there’s a good chance the quote is not the whole thing, especially in those (sadly too frequent) cases where certain people ramble on for multiple paragraphs.  So to start with, it’ll be a lot shorter, and you’ll only see a part of the post that is being addressed (and hopefully well-refuted) by the non-ignored commentor.  No big damage there.  The technological aspect of ignoring quoted comments gets a bit arcane, especially when people don’t do a good job of quoting what they’re replying to.

    • #247
  8. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    Would the ignore function work only on the member you choose to ignore, or would it extend to members who comment on an ignored post?

    In every system I’ve ever been on, it filters the person you want to filter, but you see responses. I’ve often thought that “Ignore thread” might be useful in some cases, but I don’t recall seeing it implemented anywhere.

    What happens if the response quotes the ignored post?

    Then it shows up and you see it. 

    On other systems where I have an Ignore set up and I see a quoted fragment, it almost always tells me that I made a good choice when I set up the filter.

    • #248
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    Would the ignore function work only on the member you choose to ignore, or would it extend to members who comment on an ignored post?

    In every system I’ve ever been on, it filters the person you want to filter, but you see responses. I’ve often thought that “Ignore thread” might be useful in some cases, but I don’t recall seeing it implemented anywhere.

    What happens if the response quotes the ignored post?

    Then it shows up and you see it.

    On other systems where I have an Ignore set up and I see a quoted fragment, it almost always tells me that I made a good choice when I set up the filter.

    That too.

    • #249
  10. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    I’m not dismissing anything. I honestly don’t much care whether we have this feature or not. I’m simply making an observation about the staggering number of times that Gary has been named or obviously alluded to in those 400+ comments.

    • #250
  11. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    Would the ignore function work only on the member you choose to ignore, or would it extend to members who comment on an ignored post?

    In every system I’ve ever been on, it filters the person you want to filter, but you see responses. I’ve often thought that “Ignore thread” might be useful in some cases, but I don’t recall seeing it implemented anywhere.

    What happens if the response quotes the ignored post?

    Then it shows up and you see it.

    On other systems where I have an Ignore set up and I see a quoted fragment, it almost always tells me that I made a good choice when I set up the filter.

    But you still see the quoted fragment?

    • #251
  12. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    LETS MAKE THIS LONG!

    • #252
  13. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    LETS MAKE THIS LONG!

    Ignored.

    • #253
  14. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    LETS MAKE THIS LONG!

    Ignored.

    Not CoC ccompliant.

    • #254
  15. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    Would the ignore function work only on the member you choose to ignore, or would it extend to members who comment on an ignored post?

    In every system I’ve ever been on, it filters the person you want to filter, but you see responses. I’ve often thought that “Ignore thread” might be useful in some cases, but I don’t recall seeing it implemented anywhere.

    What happens if the response quotes the ignored post?

    Then it shows up and you see it.

    On other systems where I have an Ignore set up and I see a quoted fragment, it almost always tells me that I made a good choice when I set up the filter.

    But you still see the quoted fragment?

    Yes. It’s a pretty simple thing; it just automates what I do by hand anyway.

    • #255
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):
    I keep saying this but it’s not getting through: it’s not about Gary

    I dunno, Drew. I’ve read this entire thread and your ignore-button thread, and, well, it kinda seems like it’s (mostly) about Gary, for nearly everyone in favor of such a feature.

    It really bothers me that people are reducing the issue in such a manner. But I suppose it makes it easier for them to dismiss the idea.

    Would the ignore function work only on the member you choose to ignore, or would it extend to members who comment on an ignored post?

    In every system I’ve ever been on, it filters the person you want to filter, but you see responses. I’ve often thought that “Ignore thread” might be useful in some cases, but I don’t recall seeing it implemented anywhere.

    What happens if the response quotes the ignored post?

    Then it shows up and you see it.

    On other systems where I have an Ignore set up and I see a quoted fragment, it almost always tells me that I made a good choice when I set up the filter.

    But you still see the quoted fragment?

    Yes. It’s a pretty simple thing; it just automates what I do by hand anyway.

    Thus making it easier on US, the paying customers.

    • #256
  17. The Cynthonian Inactive
    The Cynthonian
    @TheCynthonian

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    ote Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    But, this, from Jon Gabriel, may be the worst of the worst. (And it is not a parody.)

    “On substance,” he writes, “I agree with Cheney. The election was not stolen and Trump’s Jan. 6 incitement merited impeachment. But all that is history. The GOP’s job today is to stop Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer. In that fight — the only fight that matters six months after the election — Cheney is AWOL.”

    Next time you write a book – this should be a used as an endorsement quote for dust jacket. People should buy your books not just because of who is friends with the author – but also who his enemies are.

    Also, just wondering – do you get a lot of grief about the diet book?

    @exJon wrote a diet book?  My curiosity is piqued!   Off to DDG it……

    Re Liz Cheney, am I the only one here who recalls that she used to be a regular panelist on Fox News Sunday, back when it was kinda watchable?   I liked that version of her; she could smack down Juan Williams and the other baying lefties quite nicely.   OF COURSE she could get another TV gig, if she wants one.

    • #257
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    The Cynthonian (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    ote Jon Gabriel, Ed.:

    But, this, from Jon Gabriel, may be the worst of the worst. (And it is not a parody.)

    “On substance,” he writes, “I agree with Cheney. The election was not stolen and Trump’s Jan. 6 incitement merited impeachment. But all that is history. The GOP’s job today is to stop Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer. In that fight — the only fight that matters six months after the election — Cheney is AWOL.”

    Next time you write a book – this should be a used as an endorsement quote for dust jacket. People should buy your books not just because of who is friends with the author – but also who his enemies are.

    Also, just wondering – do you get a lot of grief about the diet book?

    @ exJon wrote a diet book? My curiosity is piqued! Off to DDG it……

    Re Liz Cheney, am I the only one here who recalls that she used to be a regular panelist on Fox News Sunday, back when it was kinda watchable? I liked that version of her; she could smack down Juan Williams and the other baying lefties quite nicely. OF COURSE she could get another TV gig, if she wants one.

    One might say that, as the old Winston Churchill (I think) bit goes, we already know what kind of person she is, now she’s just trying to get the best price?

    • #258
  19. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Percival (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    DrewInEastHillAutonomousZone (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    It isn’t free speech if you can shut up people that you don’t like.

    Is the right to speak freely also a right to force everyone to listen?

    Who is forcing you to read the comments of knucklehead?

    Like me?

    Arguably, Ricochet is by shoving them in my face when I open a thread or the member feed. Or if I’m trying to read through an interesting discussion but have to keep scrolling by lengthy pieces of repeated nonsense that have derailed an otherwise good conversation. (See my post on an ignore feature for further discussion on this.)

    I don’t get why an ignore feature upsets people. If we had one, you wouldn’t be forced to use it. Let those who wish to use it, use it. How would it harm you? It would improve the Ricochet experience for so many.

     

    An ignore feature slows the site down for everyone.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……

    • #259
  20. The Cynthonian Inactive
    The Cynthonian
    @TheCynthonian

    Apparently Jon Gabriel is a more common name than I had assumed.  

    • #260
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.