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.
No deal for NoKo and the Dems and The Bulwark are stuck in 2016, fighting the last battle. Is conservativism conserved by mocking pro-lifers at CPAC? The intro/outro and Jon’s song of the week is “Cotton Skies” by Westkust and Stephen’s song of the week is “Maybe You’re the Reason” by The Japanese House. To listen to all the music featured on The Conservatarians, subscribe to our all-new 2019 Spotify playlist!
Subscribe to King of Stuff in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
I can only think that they named it thebulwark.com because someone had already registered thedumpsterfireofthevanities.com.
“The Sean Hannitys to me are not that offensive because Sean Hannity is dumb as a box of rocks — he doesn’t know any better.” — Charlie Sykes, February 22, 2019, theatlantic.com
(Through a spokesperson, Hannity responded, “If Charlie and the rest of the sore-loser, establishment Never Trumpers had their way, Hillary would be president … I wish them well supporting the next radical socialist that runs for president.”)
Wow!
Calling a fellow important conservative with a huge audience and decades of experience “dumb as a box of rocks” sort of proves that you might be as “dumb as a box of rocks”…
Whatever happened to the Golden Rule, Reagan’s 11th Commandment, etc.
Calling balls and strikes on the Trump administration? Sounds more like head-hunting beanball to me.
Yikes.
The Goldberg/Hayes project interests me. The Bulwark never did. Maybe if Bill Kristol launched a bigfoot erotica section….
nah. I’ll stick with Jonah.
Jonah’s “Bulwark-lite” still doesn’t interest me. This piece at The Week explains it better than I can.
That they’re out looking for wealthy patrons — like The Bulwark‘s lefty billionaires who pay them to attack the President and other conservative voices — instead of depending on readers to actually fund, them tells me they’ll just be dancing to the tune of those who write the checks.
Outside the Beltway and Twitter, few people care what these guys have to say.
I am looking forward to Jonah’s new project. I am not a Trump fan, but find The Bulwark and Kristol obnoxious. Trump is the president. I don’t like him personally, but largely what he has done has been in agreement with what I wanted see. I am concerned that his personality and the anti-Trump right could damage his chances at a second term unless the idiot left gets their wish and nominates one of those leftist ideologues. Either way, conservatives should be supporting whoever is nominated by the party because, ultimately, it is binary. The country is horribly divided and, as such, we need to pick our side and hold to it.
In case Steve Miller reads these comments:
I caught your reverence to CCR when you said “I ain’t no fortunate son” during the Trump/Kim summit discussion. My question:
Do they teach “Drop some cultural references now and again” in J school or is that just something you picked up on your own?
And how many of your Gen X listeners caught the reference?
PS Not trying to be snarky, truly interested.
I like moaning about the Founding Fathers, if you mean respecting them. I thought all conservatives did.
…
Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg?
The trick is to find two people who don’t have the exact same views. They even look similar except that one has more gray hair in his goatee and one has more gray hair on his head…
Conrad Black is a pro-Trump media guy with nothing to do.
All mainstream media programs should have a Leftist and a real conservative to balance things out to critique the other’s stories, but they refuse to do anything like this.
The Bulwark is a disaster. “Conservatism Conserved” is a childish tagline and hints they are doing the opposite. I think the name “Bulwark” might also be a pun for “Bull-werk” as in a factory for bull-sh*t.
If Jonah can make something like WaPo, but from that right, that would be interesting. There is a market for that, but it would take a lot of money.
https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1101938304881172487
Kristol brags that he’s “triggered snowflakes” by sending a pro-abortion writer to CPAC to mock pro-lifers and conservatives in general.
So . . . that’s the Bulwark. Mocking pro-lifers to own Trump.
Don’t want any of those types voting for Bill’s preferred candidate.
Oh, for heaven’s sake! Painting Rick Wilson as a victim? Give me a friggin’ break.
Thank you.
People claiming that their moral principles require them to reject President Trump while at the same time embracing the very foul Rick Wilson are the epitome of hypocrites.
I would provide examples of some of Rick Wilson’s foul Tweets, except they would probably crash the Redacto-Bot.
Maybe it was a bad decision for them to send Molly Jong-Fast to CPAC. That’s all it was; a bad decision. Her piece(s) are not Bulwark editorial positions. And most of the criticism of her is about the things she tweeted, which are not the same as her piece on the website. So the Bulwark itself is a few degrees removed from her tweets, and doesn’t deserve as much blame as it’s getting. They’re probably guilty of some tactical or editorial errors, but not every piece they run is going to be golden. Not every assignment is going to go over well. It seems like everyone is overreacting. This wouldn’t make sense to someone not on the internet.
If you read Bill Kristol’s tweet calling anti-infanticide/anti-abortion people “snowflakes”, I think your might rethink your position on where he and the Bulwark stand relative to real conservatives.
The author of the piece is probably not what we would call a conservative — he jocularly refers to the Washington Post as a “center-right publication“ — but his critique of this tiny band of, as we used to say during the Cold War, “u——l i——s“, is mostly on the money.
Not that I think it’s really about money: ego is a much more powerful motivator, in political life. (Also, don’t expect to see many articles like this in the print version of The Week, which gives Never Trumpers more space than they deserve.)
As for the Founding Fathers, one could argue that, in a dominant culture which is swiftly converting them all into villains, of varying degrees of villainy, it is a futile exercise to discuss what they really thought about this or that policy. If you could get an honest answer from a progressive, he would say “we don’t care what they thought“.
Bill Kristol congratulating himself via tweeting seems a lot like the actions of the guy he purports to hate.
Does Bill pay a dude to untie him from all his self-inflicted pretzeling of himself? He’s folded in on himself so many times he must be nearing…The Singularity. The Singularity of Foppish Condescension.
This is what comes from being picked last in every possible sporting event in childhood.
Those are Bulwark tweets if she’s paid to go there, for the Bulwark, and tweet. Which she is. So if there’s no editorial control of that content, it’s still a Bulwark tweet. If they approved it, same thing.
But they own it like they would a published story on their website.
The Kim & Trump & Warmbier controversy reminds me of the News of the World phone hacking scandal.
I pointed out at the time that, to Rupert Murdoch, the publication was hardly more than a line item. “The revenues are down. Do something about it.” “Yessir.“
Eventually it would trickle down to the editor: “Jones, you haven’t brought in a scoop in 18 months. Do something about it.“ “Yessir.“
In the same vein, I think it’s likely Kim was briefed about the existence of an American prisoner named Otto Warmbier. It’s conceivable he took an interest in the case; but, as we well know from experience , in a Communist society you always tell your superiors what they want to hear, not what is actually going on.
Thus, the idea Kim was responsible for Warmbier’s mistreatment is not preposterous, but it is unlikely. And as a CEO himself, Trump understands this.
Incidentally, Kim was born into an evil system; he didn’t create it. We don’t blame Washington and Jefferson for creating the slave system.
Finally, I’m amazed more conservatives don’t point out that, if Russia stole the 2016 election, then Barack Obama is a strong contender for Worst President in American History.
Don’t judge Bill Krystol until you’ve walked a mile in his Gucci brogues.
I love that Stephen Miller, who has never served in the military despite being a military-aged male throughout almost the entirety of the War on Terror, makes a jab at Trump for not serving in Vietnam. An evergreen bonespurs joke–good job, buddy. Also enjoyed his assessment regarding war on the Korean Peninsula. While I only have 175 Twitter followers, which evidently makes me an individual worthy of Miller’s contempt, I also have a security clearance and receive updates/briefs on the particulars of such a war. I also know that early in the Trump Administration, McMaster, et al were planning for a “bloody-nose” strike on Kim because the defense establishment’s assessment of North Korean capability and intent was so dire that many of them believed getting the jump on the Norks in a war might be the best solution; I also happen to know how horrifically bloody any conflict on the Peninsula will be, how quickly we run out of missiles, how long our citizens will be waiting at ports of entry for air and sea lift to evacuate the Peninsula, etc, etc. I know all these things and I disagree with Stephen Miller, but I only have 175 Twitter followers and he has 117K, so we know who the real expert is here.
[A recurring moral-of-the-story in these times: Conservative, Inc. jackassery is how you get Trump.]
You basically described how I think Trump thinks of Kim and his attempts to make a deal. Sorry, I still don’t really know which one of you is which.
I usually stay out of the soap that is the tiresome, supercilious remnants of NT, but my impression of those representing Bulwark on a panel or two at CPAC was they were meek and disdainful of the proletariat class of conservatives they found themselves amongst. When they spoke in their soft NPR tones it was a steady stream of superlative based sanctimony toward most of the audience.
One female who represented the upstart, (I don’t care to name but easy to look up) spoke in such a soft volume you barely realized she was insulting you until her library-level decibels were drowned out by the strong female on their panel ready to take the fight to the left and any contemptuous “conservatives” who refuse to accept the free market spoke: They are neither relevant nor wanted.
If these are the people Bill and Co. want to be the face of Conservativism, we would stand no chance of reversing the Marxist march through the institutions.
Amen to this! There are very few things that will make me unfollow a person or stop listening to their podcast, but revering Rick Wilson is one of them.