This is the week we learned that there is a reason we’ll miss Jen Psaki at the White House (plus a shout out to the forgotten Dee Dee Myers, who looks pretty good in retrospect); that the Anthony Scaramucci duration-in-office scale remains useful for marking the tenure in office of Nina Jankowitz (who nonetheless lasted longer than CNN+); that the Defense Production Act can apparently solve our baby formula shortage by ordering Northrup Grumman to make it; that the Roman Catholic hierarchy still has some spine left when it comes to pro-abortion politicians like Nancy Pelosi; that the left and the media (but we repeat ourselves) have no shame when it comes to exploiting a mass shooting; and that as far as monkeypox goes, we’ll wait for something really scary.

And as for the under-the-radar boomlet for Hillary to run again in 2024 after Biden gets pushed aside, well not so fast. The Durham investigation just might finally rid us of her.

Subscribe to Power Line 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.

There are 8 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Dr.Guido Member
    Dr.Guido
    @DrGuido

    Tony Snow and to a slightly lesser degree, Dana Perino were light years ahead of any who came after them…

    • #1
  2. Dr.Guido Member
    Dr.Guido
    @DrGuido

    Per The Mookster, the Clinton campaign created the Trump-Alfa Bank allegation, fed it all to a credulous press that failed to confirm the allegations but ran with them anyway, then promoted the story as if it was legitimate news. Then the MSM self-referenced each other and sold THAT as corroboration. The campaign also delivered those claims to the FBI, giving journalists another excuse to portray the accusations as serious and perhaps true.

    HRC and the entire campaign did an incalculable damage to the institutions of the US. That is THE raison d’etre for the Left, here and abroad.

    • #2
  3. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    Like Lucretia, I have for years flagellated myself over having once (twice, actually) paid real money to subscribe to National Review.  (In my defense, when I started my subscription, Mark Steyn was still writing the Happy Warrior column on the back page, and that was always my first read of every issue.)

    With respect to Michael Brendan Dougherty – in his undeserved defense, MBD is just this week’s appropriate target.  Let’s not forget that David French was an editor at National Review not that long ago.  Anyway, I compounded my National Review folly after I canceled my own damned subscription to the magazine, by for many months subscribing to NR‘s podcast titled The Editors, which was once hosted here on Ricochet.  I hung on there longer than I should have, but I gave Rich Lowry some credit for refusing to go full NeverTrump, as Charles CW Cooke and others did.  But the final straw for that podcast was the episode when they discussed the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Rich Lowry’s exit question for the assembled stooges editors was whether/when Barrett would be confirmed.  After Charles CW Cooke and the others all predicted that she would never be confirmed, Lowry confessed that when he asked the question, his answer was that she’d be confirmed, but – right there on the podcast – he capitulated to the bozos and changed his prediction to agree with the other losers.

    Sheesh – to think I once paid real money for National Review.

    • #3
  4. Boethius1261972 Coolidge
    Boethius1261972
    @Boethius1261972

    @Lucretia – Archbishop Cordileone is a well-known conservative (and a personal friend of my wife’s family who also said our wedding Mass).  He’s originally from San Diego but spent a lot of time in Rome serving in the Rota.  He’s very solid and has had his trials in San Francisco where Benedict assigned him.  He has also been promoting beautiful liturgical renewal and founded The Benedict XVI Institute for Sacred Music and Divine Worship (https://benedictinstitute.org/about-benedict-xvi-institute/).

    • #4
  5. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Boethius1261972 (View Comment):

    @ Lucretia – Archbishop Cordileone is a well-known conservative (and a personal friend of my wife’s family who also said our wedding Mass). He’s originally from San Diego but spent a lot of time in Rome serving in the Rota. He’s very solid and has had his trials in San Francisco where Benedict assigned him. He has also been promoting beautiful liturgical renewal and founded The Benedict XVI Institute for Sacred Music and Divine Worship (https://benedictinstitute.org/about-benedict-xvi-institute/).

    If he is a Benedict holdover, then the next question is, what will Pope Francis do to undermine or contradict him.

    • #5
  6. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    Like Lucretia, I have for years flagellated myself over having once (twice, actually) paid real money to subscribe to National Review. (In my defense, when I started my subscription, Mark Steyn was still writing the Happy Warrior column on the back page, and that was always my first read of every issue.)

    With respect to Michael Brendan Dougherty – in his undeserved defense, MBD is just this week’s appropriate target. Let’s not forget that David French was an editor at National Review not that long ago. Anyway, I compounded my National Review folly after I canceled my own damned subscription to the magazine, by for many months subscribing to NR‘s podcast titled The Editors, which was once hosted here on Ricochet. I hung on there longer than I should have, but I gave Rich Lowry some credit for refusing to go full NeverTrump, as Charles CW Cooke and others did. But the final straw for that podcast was the episode when they discussed the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Rich Lowry’s exit question for the assembled stooges editors was whether/when Barrett would be confirmed. After Charles CW Cooke and the others all predicted that she would never be confirmed, Lowry confessed that when he asked the question, his answer was that she’d be confirmed, but – right there on the podcast – he capitulated to the bozos and changed his prediction to agree with the other losers.

    Sheesh – to think I once paid real money for National Review.

    I canceled my own National Review subscription a couple of years ago, though I occasionally buy it on the newsstand at Barnes & Noble, if an issue has something particularly interesting in it.  (They are still sideswiping Donald Trump in those short, anonymous items in the front, which are supposed to be hot takes on the news but are, of course, several weeks out of date.)

    But I would be interested to learn, how did they get the Barrett nomination wrong?  What was their mistaken assumption?

     

    • #6
  7. Boethius1261972 Coolidge
    Boethius1261972
    @Boethius1261972

    Taras (View Comment):

    Boethius1261972 (View Comment):

    @ Lucretia – Archbishop Cordileone is a well-known conservative (and a personal friend of my wife’s family who also said our wedding Mass). He’s originally from San Diego but spent a lot of time in Rome serving in the Rota. He’s very solid and has had his trials in San Francisco where Benedict assigned him. He has also been promoting beautiful liturgical renewal and founded The Benedict XVI Institute for Sacred Music and Divine Worship (https://benedictinstitute.org/about-benedict-xvi-institute/).

    If he is a Benedict holdover, then the next question is, what will Pope Francis do to undermine or contradict him.

    If you read his letter you will see the archbishop cleverly begins by referencing Francis himself.  https://sfarchdiocese.org/letter-to-the-faithful-on-the-notification-sent-to-speaker-nancy-pelosi/?mc_cid=66ffe13610&mc_eid=14865dea37

    It seems also that Francis has his hands full with other matters these days, including failing health, so he may choose to do nothing at all.

    • #7
  8. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    Taras (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    Like Lucretia, I have for years flagellated myself over having once (twice, actually) paid real money to subscribe to National Review. (In my defense, when I started my subscription, Mark Steyn was still writing the Happy Warrior column on the back page, and that was always my first read of every issue.)

    With respect to Michael Brendan Dougherty – in his undeserved defense, MBD is just this week’s appropriate target. Let’s not forget that David French was an editor at National Review not that long ago. Anyway, I compounded my National Review folly after I canceled my own damned subscription to the magazine, by for many months subscribing to NR‘s podcast titled The Editors, which was once hosted here on Ricochet. I hung on there longer than I should have, but I gave Rich Lowry some credit for refusing to go full NeverTrump, as Charles CW Cooke and others did. But the final straw for that podcast was the episode when they discussed the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Rich Lowry’s exit question for the assembled stooges editors was whether/when Barrett would be confirmed. After Charles CW Cooke and the others all predicted that she would never be confirmed, Lowry confessed that when he asked the question, his answer was that she’d be confirmed, but – right there on the podcast – he capitulated to the bozos and changed his prediction to agree with the other losers.

    Sheesh – to think I once paid real money for National Review.

    I canceled my own National Review subscription a couple of years ago, though I occasionally buy it on the newsstand at Barnes & Noble, if an issue has something particularly interesting in it. (They are still sideswiping Donald Trump in those short, anonymous items in the front, which are supposed to be hot takes on the news but are, of course, several weeks out of date.)

    But I would be interested to learn, how did they get the Barrett nomination wrong? What was their mistaken assumption?

    As I recall, their only reason for predicting that Barrett would not be confirmed by the Republican majority Senate was “because Trump.”

    There’s simply no rational explanation anymore for National Review.   They, just as much as the Bul(l’s hit)wark and the Dispatch, have been driven insane by Donald Trump.

    • #8
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.