Patterico in Quillette: The RedState Firings and Viewpoint Diversity on the Right
The firings are old news — but they are part of a pattern, I argue in a new piece in Quillette:
Donald Trump has fractured the conservative movement, and with the entrenchment of the fault line between Trump supporters and Trump critics, the Right now suffers from its own political correctness. But the protected class that is officially Free From Criticism is not gays, or women, or blacks. It is Donald Trump.
It might sound crazy to say that Donald Trump is beyond the reach of criticism. After all, isn’t he regularly pilloried on all the major networks, most of the cable news channels, and on the front pages of most national newspapers? Quite so: and this fact, if anything, causes his supporters to huddle closer, and reject or attack anyone who dares utter a critical word. This, in turn, creates an environment in which pundits and politicians on the Right are terrified to say what they really think.
The Trump presidency is reminiscent of the Twilight Zone episode “It’s a Good Life,” in which terrified adults tiptoe around a mercurial child with superpowers, responding to his every cruel and crazed act by nervously saying: “It’s good that you did that, Anthony!” . . .
Trump routinely exaggerates and lies, and the people who surround him applaud and say: “It’s good that you did that, Donald!”
The piece was commissioned a month ago, just after the firings, but I’ve been writing it and updating during that time, so there’s plenty of recent material as well as historical examples to infuriate Trump fans.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
Why don’t you write about the worst republicans on earth? The booshes and their criminal counterparts are what sent us Obama.
mg (9e54f8) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:44 amThe boosh cartel never destroyed a single poppy field or heroin making factory. They had plenty of orchards blown up but no poppy fields. Hang these sob’s.
mg (9e54f8) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:46 amno, that was Obama, recall Krauthammer, will, brooks all trying to make a purse out a sows ear, same with dreher, and frum, Robert McCain noted this, early on with their denunciations of the tea party,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:47 amIs this sixth thread on RedState or more? Losing track. Seems super inside blogger baseball. It’s not like you don’t have your own site and I don’t even know that aggregator.
Anonymous (d41cee) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:48 amWolfowitz And the lost billions has never been scrutinized. Why?
mg (9e54f8) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:50 am“But the protected class that is officially Free From Criticism is not gays, or women, or blacks. It is Donald Trump.”
If the US Treasury could collect a dollar for every Critical Word written about Trump it could substantially pay down the National Debt.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:52 amCompulsion.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:54 ami think he’s over the target, more often than not:
https://twitter.com/DionNissenbaum/status/1002543102962397184
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:57 amBut Reagan brought Bush and he needed continuous own-goaling by Jimmuh to get there.
urbanleftbehind (cbbe6f) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:57 amJust a few years ago, there was a real plot to place someone above criticism… https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/26/the-13-words-you-cant-write-about-hillary-clinton-anymore/?utm_term=.8e2b98ad5d30
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:58 amBeto wishes he that valedictorian’s name instead: http://abc7chicago.com/society/santa-fe-graduation-balances-grief-with-celebration-after-shooting/3552728/?sf190915171=1
urbanleftbehind (cbbe6f) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:00 amin other ranch news,
http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/31/justice-department-imran-awan-tried-to-hide-his-money/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:00 amSome people argue with his selection, of bush sr. but I don’t think jack kemp’s ten years in congress for instance would have been enough,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:03 amIt’s not an aggregator, but an online magazine. I’m guessing you didn’t read the piece because it’s not really “about RedState.” That was the hook for the commission I received a month ago, but the piece goes far beyond that.
I’ve noticed that you like counting the number of posts “about RedState” and if that shtick is important to you, by all means carry on. But for the benefit of anyone else who has not clicked the link, I want to make it clear that the discussion there is far more wide-ranging than that.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:04 amsame note, different instrument, calling trump cancer, that was the same Obama bff, david brooks, had re the huntress and the tea party generally,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:09 amWhich of his supporters said that? You have it in quotes, but when I follow the link you have in that sentence to apnews.com, the quote isn’t there. So, who said it? Or is that just you paraphrasing what you imagine a Trump supporter might say?
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:12 amPosted the night of November 8, 2016… “Oh well. I can’t “congratulate” such an awful cretin. F*ck this guy. He’s a ridiculous ignorant clown. His election is a giant disgrace.”
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:16 amThat guy must not have received teh memo…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:17 amhe can seek sanctuary among the resistance:
https://babalublog.com/2018/06/02/venezuelan-diplomat-expelled-by-trump-refuses-to-leave-u-s-wants-a-green-card/
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:18 amWrong. Oh, so wrong. The movement was fractured before Trump came along. But, your side was on top, able to ignore those with whom you disagreed. Trump comes along, and now those people have a voice. And, as it turns out, those previously without a voice are more numerous than those in the chattering class.
You only see the fracture because those with whom you disagreed now have the whip hand. You think we didn’t exist before?
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:19 amComment posted there that rang true for me…
harland0
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:27 amJune 2, 2018
“Redstate.com is not “the right”. It’s one website. I’ve heard about this slapfight from the outside, and it reminds me of the old weblog days when bloggers would leave nasty comments on each other’s sites. It’s a tempest in a teapot.
Trump is a loudmouth, but he has all the right enemies. Who else would be taking China to task for their horrible stance on trade? The globalists in the US government were perfectly OK with them ruining our working class on the moronically mistaken assumption that a wealthy China would somehow magically transform into a democracy despite having no history of it in their culture.”
Tyranny by/of the Right is, in the end, tyranny.
I enjoyed your tempering of the ferocity of your truths in this column. I wanted to kiss you for nailing Hugh Hewitt, a favorite target of mine in here for years. Great, great, stuff.
We have some spirited disagreement around the Special Counsel’s conduct and the overall investigation of DJT’s campaign. This being true, I am heartened that we are, and always will be, brothers in the fight against the insidious and relentless forces who would subjugate the world and destroy our republic without a shot fired.
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:30 amI enjoyed this comment from Dustin at the linked piece:
Thanks also to Ed from SFV for his comment above. If I have written something that pleased him, I know I must be doing something right!
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:32 amyou mean like the way the weekly standard took lee smith off it’s letterhead, the way national review drove mark steyn and john Derbyshire right off,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:35 amIt’s nice to see a forthright admission that the top priority is “purging the Republican Party on behalf of Donald Trump and Trumpism.”
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:42 amThose who oppose Trump can find plenty of sites criticizing him. Hell, one of the most notable sites on the right, NRO, remains a go to site for #NeverTrumpers to get their #NeverTrump on.
That is an incredibly boneheaded thing to say. Those who want to criticize Trump have numerous outlets from which to do so. And they frequently take advantage of those opportunities, as the very article in which that quote was published demonstrates. As does this site. LOL.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:43 amI lost a lot of respect for bannon, because of that turn, specially since his focus on economic nationalism is now being addressed, he now seems to be advising whatever you call the heterodox coalition running Italy,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:48 amAn admission by who? An opinion writer? And, about who, Bannon? Isn’t that a bit like WaPo quoting Patterico claiming that Trump is bad in all the ways, and then claiming they have discovered an “admission”?
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:49 amLarry O’Connor is the host of a drive-time radio program in Washington D.C., making him one of the most influential radio personalities in the country. He’s no dummy either. I knew him (and appeared on his show) when he was just a guy with a BlogTalkRadio show.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:52 amHe is also a regular talking head on Fox News.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:52 amIt’s sad that my side is reduced to saying goofy things in defense of goofy notions like 2,000-mile long walls that don’t foresee problems with the Rio Grande, tariffs on allies and trade partners, migration bans on entire countries, dropping out of trade negotiations so China can gain leverage, attacking the attorney general for not being a partisan hack, attacking the intelligence community for investigating election violations, potential conspiracy, and obstruction, and supporting nonsense like Dinesh Dsouza’s pardon….and this doesn’t even touch upon the ratcheting down of norms of behavior by a sitting President…with regards to Twitter nonsense and playing loose with the truth.
I understand that many here will say that Trump is a consequence of a too-eager-to-get-along GOP…but hell…why not Cruz for that…or Rubio….or Walker? These people are wrong. This is about a cult of personality….you can almost see the red outline around their mouths. This is about getting off on someone saying things that are not just rude…but obnoxious…because it drives the liberal media nuts. They see no long term consequence of a President being a know-nothing drama queen. I thought my side was better than this….
AJ_Liberty (165d19) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:52 amwe see here how the narrative that ended up absolving abu khattalah, worked in practice,
https://mobile.twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1002607542281916422
and this is Mueller’s teachers pet, till devlin barrett came along,
the same journal printed innuendo from halper about a Russian woman, alleging she was a Russian agent, mind you they never asked her before the story was printed,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:59 amI’m not trying to denigrate or even minimize who Larry O’Connor is, though I personally don’t listen to talk radio, nor do I recall reading him in the past.
But, I could pretty much say the same of Sean Hannity. I don’t follow him either, though in his case, I am very much aware of who he is.
Still, if you published the same quote, attributed to Sean Hannity, my reaction would be the same. One guy puts his opinion out there about Bannon, and you label it an “admission”. So what, an opinionator publishes an opinion. Not what I would call an admission.
If a GOP elected official, or even a party official says the same thing, ok, that’s an admission. More than some guy with an opinion.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:01 amthis is what this snipehunt has been about, for the better part of two years,
https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSLokhova/status/1002418987085582336
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:02 amThe age-old question about Republican pols has been “Whose side are they on?” While the party rank and file votes the ticket and supports the platform, many of us were left wondering about the inability of our Republican representatives to get the job done.
And then Senator Ted Cruz came along and ripped the cover off the charade, which made him the most hated Republican among his peers. And he did it on the Senate floor, no less. Bravo, Senator Cruz!
And let’s not forget the indispensable Bill Kristol: “Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.”.
It is nice that Kristol clarifies just what the “Resistance” is all about – putting the unelected, authoritarian deep state ahead of the will of American voters. Kristol and his Fellow Travelers are precisely the bunch Michael Barone is talking about in his insightful article about the authoritarian center.
And now these Fellow Travelers are squawking about being subjected to criticism? Of course, we are suspicious of the motives of President Trump’s Republican critics – especially with President Trump’s astonishing successes in moving the conservative ball down the field. Does this somehow not matter to his “Republican” critics? How could it not?
I’ve got to ask, on the “hat-to-cattle” continuum, why the exclusive focus on the hat? After many generations of all-hat Republicans, I’ll take all-cattle any day. What true conservative wouldn’t?
By the bye, they virtually all routinely exaggerate and lie. It’s sort of a dog bites man argument. You need more than that to justify your unwillingness to be a team player.
ThOR (d25d69) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:15 amOMG! Politicians afraid to offend their base else they not be re-elected? How much further will this representative republic sink? It’s an outrage I tells ya! An outrage!
the Bas (ab264c) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:22 amLook back to the Bush 43 years. Look at the conservative media then. They were mostly supportive of Bush, though there certainly were criticisms published. But, how often did NRO publish the kind of thing you see from Patterico? Imagined quotes of a Bush supporter saying that they think it’s wonderful that Bush is a great big liar. Or, within pieces that did criticize Bush, offhanded slurs, like Bush is the Dunce in Chief.
Sure, you could find that stuff at The Daily Kos or wherever, but publications of the right did not use that kind of vitriol when they did criticize the President. There’s a very good reason for that. There’s no market for it on the right. Those who want to see that kind of stuff can always read leftist publications. They expect something more from those who are supposedly on their side.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:22 ampaul singer, for personal reasons, couldn’t abide ted, we couldn’t stomach trump either, only one globally ambitious magnate at a time, but he prevented cruz from consolidating his force, even among like minded figure, at the sea island conference, he also underwrote some of fusions initial research,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:25 am“the inability of our Republican representatives to get the job done”
You’re not going to get much done for conservatives if you have a narrowly divided Senate and a Democrat in the White House….and during Bush’s years he was handicapped by having to wage two wars and build up homeland security….and the political difficulty that both posed. Obama and Bush are no excuse for Trump. We seem to be infected with a desperation that is disconnected from reality.
“President Trump’s astonishing successes in moving the conservative ball down the field”
Which GOP nominees would not sign a tax-cutting bill or a bill repealing parts of Dodd-Frank or cut business regulation…or get tough with Iran/North Korea…or snipe at sanctuary cities? OK, maybe not Kasich….but probably all of the rest. Trump is no Reagan…I just say we treat him with some skepticism and not let him re-brand conservatism with his Twitter handle. Infusing our politics with reality TV is a bad direction…
AJ_Liberty (165d19) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:37 amAnd that is a forthright admission from Anon Y. Mous: he simply does not want to see any criticism of Trump on a right-leaning Web site. I think he speaks for a lot of people. I couldn’t disagree more, but I appreciate the fact that he just comes right out and says it, rather than pretending like he is willing to hear such criticism but [insert rationalization here: there is too much of it, this criticism is bad for x reason, sure this criticism is correct but [the other side does it too][there are more important things to talk about]].
He simply doesn’t want to read it here.
Why he comes here, when he knows what he will find and claims there is no market for it, I have no idea.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:38 amPresident Trump has been more scrupulous about following through on his campaign promises than any Republican president I can remember. Day in, day out, I read stories about yet another promise he is following through on. It’s what sets him apart. Yet, somehow, the knock on the President is that he lies. Go figure?
ThOR (d25d69) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:39 amYes, Anon Y Mous, the Know Nothing market is large and it is unforgiving.
The great paradox for the GOPe is that the culture is now primed for a vigorous reconfiguring around free speech. A 60s rebirth, if you will. Andrew’s vision is coming to pass. But, being the Quislings they are, the party leadership shrinks just as it should be shouting. It’s a colossal and tragic miss.
Will Cruz have the guts and the instinct to grab the flag and lead a charge following his re-election?
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:39 amwell where’s the rest of his posse, sasse is darning his socks half the time, corker is gone but he’ll be pushing for bredesen, royal succession seems to be the strategy in Arizona, you can’t be an army of one,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:44 amWHAT? Is this a joke? His major promises were to end obamacare, balance the budget massively increase the labor participation rate, and curtail illegal immigration. He offered specific timelines when all this would happen, most more than a year overdue.
We have never had a president that lies so much, and about practically everything. It’s not clear if he’s just very, very delusional an insulated, and has a mental illness, or if he really thinks he can lie all day and no one will call him out, but the only people who do not acknowledge that Trump is a ridiculous liar are his most die hard loyal fans… the people Trump bragged wouldn’t care if Trump murdered someone in the street. That kind of loyalty to your politician is a terrible trait.
Dustin (e95d32) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:44 amah yes, you forget about McCain ‘detonating the genesis device’ like khan, Obama even thanked for that, Murkowski one of McConnell’s top minions,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:54 amCongratulations, Patterico!
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:01 pmI agree. More people should say this.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:10 pmThanks, Beldar!
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:10 pmMaking reference to “It’s a Good Life” is directly at odds with your “On Being at Peace with All Men…” post, because the anology is BS. Do you really think those of us who back him do so out of fear?
It is the Left that is Anthony, and the NeverTrumpers are all the timid adults. Trump is the guy who walks in and slaps the brat senseless, and the NeverTrumpers call the cops.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:16 pmTwo thumbs up, having now read the rest of the piece beyond that which you exerpted here.
Last night, as it happened, I turned (right from Fondren) into a Jack-in-the-Box™.
I do remember, and loved, that episode of Twilight Zone! It’s a droll and wonderfully apt comparison! For those who don’t immediately recall it, after reading Patterico’s spot-on description: “Anthony” was played by Billy Mumy, later a child-star on the TV series “Lost in Space.” The scene described in Patterico’s piece starts at about 4:01 in these “Favorite Scenes from ‘It’s a Good Life,’”
It’s good that you’re making it snow, Anthony! And tomorrow, we’re going to Make America Great Again!”
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:17 pmand it was parodied by the simpsons back when they were humorous, in the early 90s,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:21 pmNo, I think the politicians and Cabinet members back him out of fear of his voting supporters — or, more accurately, out of fear of the power Trump has, that his voting supporters give him. Anthony represents the collective of Trump and his most enthusiastic voters, and only with the backing of the latter group can Anthony-as-Trump-and-his-voters send a Cabinet member to the cornfield, or turn a Senator into a Jack-in-the-Box.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:21 pmI guess the closer parallel is tyler durden in fight club, who is really ed Norton’s alter ego, but he doesn’t realize this,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:22 pm@ random viking, who asked our host (#49):
Patterico’s comparison was between Trump and his very demanding followers (in the role of Anthony) and those from the political right whom they now threaten, including the people whom he listed and described having received such “correction.” I think perhaps you’ve missed the point of the piece, random viking, if you read it to say that Trump supporters do so out of fear. What language in his (full) article are you talking about? I see language like this, which it entirely inconsistent with what you claim Patterico is saying:
Based on this comment and indeed your entire commenting history here, random viking, you would be an example, I submit, of Trump’s maniacally devoted fan base. Your not-very-careful reading of Patterico’s article, and attack on him here based on something the article doesn’t say, would be a tiny, but fitting, addition to the examples given in the article.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:26 pmOur host’s #52 was posted as I wrote my #54, and I think they’re consistent.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:26 pmYou’re casting the Constitution as the timid adults, because that’s where Trump gets his authority.
There are those of us who truly live in fear of being wished into the cornfield for our political views. The common denominator is support of Trump.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:27 pmI think we wasted a year with McMaster, if we were going to sell out the kurds, might as well keep Flynn, I think tillerson was too protective of the iran deal’s enablers,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:27 pmD@mmit, narciso, I was still planning to get around to watching that movie! Grrrr.
^^^ jk … That’s actually an interesting comparison which I want to ponder.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:28 pmBeldar, as someone who has wished me into the cornfield more than once, you might want to refrain from trying to engage. I will enforce your blocking script even when you don’t want to.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:29 pmI’m old enough to remember when the fracture on the right was between Goldwater Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans and I think we still have that fracture, Trump is a new fracture. The thing is, Trump was elected in no small part for his anti-GOPe rhetoric which I said from Day 1 was ridiculous – the Establishment is dedicated to one single principle and that’s doing or saying whatever it takes to win no matter how many of their stated principles they have to betray. The day Trump won was effectively the day he became the Establishment. If you’re whining that Trump doesn’t represent any traditional conservative principles, well, guess what? The GOP hasn’t represented those principles in years, they just paid lip service to the ideas. Trumpism isn’t a betrayal of GOP principles, Trumpism is merely revealing them. And it’s a shame that you didn’t figure that out when they nominated Maverick McCain and Moderate Mitt, two guys indistinguishable from Democrats, as their standard-bearers. Trump’s a con man and game recognizes game, he knew he’d be right at home in the GOPe.
Jerryskids (cfad51) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:32 pmAs you wish, sir, I take no offense at being ignored or blocked by you.
Since we’re having this conversation already, though: Did you read the whole article? Before I posted it here, had you read the language I blockquoted in the article? And can you quote any language which supports your claim of what the article said (i.e., that Trump’s supporters do so out of fear)?
You’re under no obligation to answer. Indeed, your silence on these questions would speak volumes, so I commend that to you.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:32 pmThere are those of us who truly live in fear of being wished into the cornfield for our political views. The common denominator is support of Trump.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:27 pm
This is a very good point, which would never occur to the NeverTrumpinistas
Colonel Haiku (e208fd) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:33 pmNo. You misread me. Criticizing Trump’s trade policy is to be expected. There are many who agree with you, and many others, who even if they don’t agree with you, would find interesting to read your arguments about why you think he is wrong.
But, for many of them, when you throw in invectives, like Trump is the Dunce in Chief, they lose interest in what you are saying. The argument no longer sounds like a discussion of what the best trade policy is. It becomes merely a rant about how Trump is awful. For many, those kinds of pieces just are not all that engaging.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:37 pmand you think there would be these grandmal panics if goldwater had been elected, dream on, certainly on foreign policy and social policy as well,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:38 pmI’d like to take this opportunity to specifically mention that no, I don’t believe Trump’s supporters support him out of fear. I think many people (including but not limited to the Schlichterites) did in fact vote for him out of fear of Hillary (in the primary or otherwise). But the only reasons I can fathom for supporting Trump now with such ferver as we see from the Schlichterites is for raw political expediency. Movement conservatism, as defined by a desire to go back to the founding principles of our constitution, is dead. Donald Trump killed whatever was left of it.
American culture is now little more than a series of political cliques fighting for whatever crumbs they can get from whoever is in power.
Gryph (08c844) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:39 pmWill Cruz have the guts and the instinct to grab the flag and lead a charge following his re-election?
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:39 am
I hope and pray he does, same goes for Sen. Mike Lee and Jim Jordan in the House.
Colonel Haiku (e208fd) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:41 pm@ Jerryskids (#60): Great comment! And I’m with you in full up to and through “was the day he became the Establishment.” I quibble beyond that, but maybe it’s a quibble you’ll accept:
The GOP as such doesn’t represent any traditional conservative principles, but writ large that’s been true at least going back to Nixon’s day. As the beginning of your comment points out, the GOP’s institutional interest is in getting its nominees elected, not in reducing the size of government or promoting federalism or even defending our shores. It’s a vessel, and what it’s filled with at any given moment varies with how the aggregated people who consider themselves Republicans and tend to vote Republican and tend to donate Republican felt when getting out of bed.
Trump cares nothing for principles — has none, but: TRUMP!, aka the Trump Organization, aka the Trump Brand, and now aka POTUS-45.
But after him, there will be another POTUS who’s been the nominee of the GOP, and who will have a different number (hopefully 46) after his/her name. And that person might, or might not, actually care to some degree or another about conservative principles.
I therefore continue to believe it is worthwhile to involve myself in Republican politics from county to federal levels — chiefly, in my case, by talking or, more often, writing about (here & elsewhere), the continuing multi-dimensional intersection of principles, party politics, and specific politicians.
Your mileage may vary, but regardless, thanks for the stimulating comment!
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:42 pmBannon enjoys poking with a sharp stick.
mg (9e54f8) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:42 pmConservative whine; bitter dregs.
Watch this Donald Trump interview at the 1988 Republican convention (it’s not long):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usb0iE5WiZI
NYer Trump essentially admits he’s what we once called a ‘Rockefeller Republican.’ So welcome to 1964, kids; what goes around, comes around:
‘The Republican National Convention of 1964 was a tension-filled contest. Goldwater’s conservatives were openly clashing with Rockefeller’s moderates. Goldwater was regarded as the “conservatives’ leading spokesman.” As a result, Goldwater was not as popular with the moderates and liberals of the Republican Party. When Rockefeller attempted to deliver a speech, he was booed by the convention’s conservative delegates, who regarded him as a member of the “eastern liberal establishment.” Despite the infighting, Goldwater was easily nominated. He chose William E. Miller, a Congressman from New York, as his running mate. In his acceptance speech, he declared communism as a “principal disturber of the peace in the world today” and said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Some people, including those within his own campaign staff, believed this weakened Goldwater’s chances, as he effectively severed ties with the moderates and liberals of the Republican Party.
Former vice president and GOP presidential nominee (and future President) Richard Nixon introduced the Arizonan as “Mr. Conservative” and “Mr. Republican” and he continued that “he is the man who, after the greatest campaign in history, will be Mr. President — Barry Goldwater”. According to Emmy award-winning television journalist, Belva Davis, she and another black reporter were chased out of the convention by attendees yelling racial slurs.’- source, wikipedia summary.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:44 pm69. Trump? A Rockefeller Republican? Color me shocked! Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me that gambling goes on in casinos!
Gryph (08c844) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:48 pmyes, they were dealing in rumor then, the innuendo that provoked the goldwater rule in psychiatry, the invitation by his associate bill Quinn, to berchestgarden,
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:50 pmrandom viking wrote (#56):
That stopped being the case on Election Day 2016, when Trump won, and thereby assured that by the following January, he’d acquire the real-life version of the fictional child Anthony’s power.
Before that, Obama was Anthony. Hillary wanted to become Anthony, but failed. Are you beginning to figure the comparison out?
You genuinely love your Anthony, you’ve supported him in the past, and you aren’t speaking out against him, but rather you’re defending him. Your orange-haired Anthony would have no reason to send you to the cornfield or turn you into a jack-in-the-box. But Hugh Hewitt or Ted Cruz are not similarly situated to you.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:51 pm@60. LOL Alas, me too.
My mother was what they called a ‘Goldwater Girl’ in ’64; worked on the campaign– and the rest of the family has never lets her forget it. 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:52 pmObama-as-Anthony didn’t send the Tea Party organizations into a corn-field or turn them into jack-in-the-boxes, but he had them audited and their tax statuses challenged. Get it?
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:52 pm@70. Color me shocked!
Maybe just red in the face– or face of it, eh.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:53 pmFWIW, I see much of DJT’s support from those on the Right is about resentment that the Left has been allowed to get away with not being who they claim to be for so long. It is quite satisfying for many to use Alinsky-esque tactics to get their goat. I have to admit to significant satisfaction as the Statists bray about leadership which does not answer to reason, logic, and the plain meaning of words.
When the reachable on each side of things wake up, there will be a great opportunity to forge a new majority based on a love of liberty. The recent reveal of the Obama-era picture of the chilllllllldren being separated from parents and penned in was a major shock to the BHO believers. The media has lost a massive amount of goodwill and regard as well.
Is there a Divine and unseen hand at work?
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:53 pm“And that is a forthright admission from Anon Y. Mous: he simply does not want to see any criticism of Trump on a right-leaning Web site. I think he speaks for a lot of people. I couldn’t disagree more, but I appreciate the fact that he just comes right out and says it…”
A lot of people believe that Trump and his cabinet are working with those in Congress that will work with them and accomplishing things that many of these “rock-ribbed conservative” politicians talked about and then ran away from when they had a chance to actually do something. A lot of people think they need support given the sheer number of clowns and forces arrayed against them and that potshots should primarily be saved for the true opposition… the Left.
Of course there are also those who prefer to ride their broken down horses and tilt at windmills while claiming that they can’t support any viable political party, as everybody other than their like-minded brethren are the problem. And I call BullSchiff on that.
Colonel Haiku (e208fd) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:54 pm40. quoted commenter Anon Y. Mous: “…but publications of the right did not use that kind of vitriol when they did criticize the President.”
…which is restated as “…does not want to see any criticism of Trump on a right-leaning Web site,” which exaggeration then is used in turn as a basis for a vast generalization (“I think he speaks for a lot of people.”)
Huh? Anyone else see any problem with that discussion technique? Or am I simply being delusional (which is always a possibility….)
ColoComment (d5a97a) — 6/2/2018 @ 12:59 pmA question for Anon Y. Mous, or anyone else who has an answer:
According to source descriptions from multiple media, conservative and liberal, about the “list” of topics that Mueller is supposed to want to ask Trump questions about in an interview, that list was complied by Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow, a very capable and competent lawyer from all I know of him, based on what he’d been told by Mueller’s team. It was a privileged work-product document of the highest sensitivity, and if shared with Trump, a real-life example of the kind of attorney-client privileged document that might conceivably have been found in Michael Cohen’s files, deserving of as much jealous protection. When it was first leaked, however, within hours Trump was on Twitter claiming that Mueller’s team had leaked it.
To get that document, Mueller would have had to execute a search warrant on Sekulow of the sort that the USAO-SDNY executed on Cohen, and that did not happen. Rather, someone with authorized access to this incredibly sensitive, incredibly privilege document had to be the leaker. That means Sekulow; someone on the Trump defense team with whom he shared it; or Donald J. Trump.
So Trump’s tweet was a bald-faced lie Trump told to the American public.
How am I supposed to discuss that issue in ways that meet your suggested standards of propriety and respect for Trump without calling Trump a liar?
How am I supposed to discuss how consequential that lie is without pointing out that it’s part of a pattern of lies, half-truths, innuendo, and insults that Trump constantly spews at his investigators? Am I supposed to refrain from using the word “liar” because it’s going to hurt the feelings of Trump supporters? They’re among the people I’m trying to persuade to my point of view.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:07 pm79. Truth is an absolute legal defense against charges of defamation. It ought to be an absolute defense against accusations of slander in a comments section as well, if you ask me.
Gryph (08c844) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:12 pmThe firings happened during my “vacay” do I was unable to comment on it at the time.
But one point on an economic standpoint that was never raised was from the “Publisher’s” perspective of Redstate.
Dealing with advertisers is the job of the publisher, not the editor.
While it may very well be true that among the contributors who had their contracts cancelled were ones whose with some of the highest page views.
But that’s not necessarily the end of the inquiry when it comes to ad revenue.
Page clicks are only as valuable as advertisers are willing to pay for.
RedState, as part of Salem Media, is part of a media enterprise that does not hold itself out to be a “neutral” news or opinion site.
And its advertising base is reflective of that fact. I have never spent a lot of time on RedState, but the few times I have been there I see ads from many of the same companies that advertise on the Salem Network radio shows. This is a relatively thin slice of advertisers — there aren’t a lot of national companies that advertise across Salem, Townhall, and RedState.
But you do see the NRA, AMAC, and a few others, who have a distinct political message themselves which is consistent with long-time conservative and GOP positions.
I’m not up to speed on all the mechanics of internet advertising, but I know from talking to a few lawyers who advertise heavily on the internet, that the ad buyer can select the pages he wants his ad to appear on.
So, its entirely possible — and I think probable — that some of the regular advertisers for the Salem companies expressed some displeasure with the POV being expressed by the anti-Trump RedState contributors. They may curtailed, or threatened to curtail their advertising across the entire network.
Or they may have simply said “We don’t want our ads to appear on Susan Wright’s pages because her POV is something that’s likely to anger our target demographic, and we don’t want to be associated with that view.
Or they might have said, “Our ad research shows that a significant portion of Susan Wright’s page views are from people who agree with her POV, and we believe those people are unlikely to view our products favorably, so advertising in her space is a waste of our ad budget.” So, if half of Susan Wright’s page views are from people who not only hate Trump, but also hate the NRA, why would the NRA want to run ads on a “per click” basis on Susan Wright’s articles when half the people who click her articles have no interest in ever joining the NRA??
All of those would be scenarios where RedState’s bottom line in terms of advertising revenue would be negatively impacted notwithstanding the fact that she had a very high number of page views.
Basically, not all page views are of the same value from the perspective of the folks paying for ads to appear with the Anti-Trumper columns.
So, until you know what was happening on the publisher’s side of the Salem Media Group, it’s impossible to simply conclude this was nothing more than an editorial decision to silence the Never-Trumpers.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:12 pmThat is a great article. I don’t see how you find the time but I am glad you do. You speak for me.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:14 pm@ Ed from SFV, re your #76: Jonah Goldberg makes the very same observation in his just-released book, “The Suicide of the West,” which I’ve almost finished:
To like effect:
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:19 pmBeldar (#79)
I do not accept this speculation as fact.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:19 pmWho else could have the work product of Trump’s attorney than Trump or someone in his legal inner circke?
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:23 pmFair enough. Are you saying the right wants only issue-based criticism and no criticism of Trump as a person? Or that criticism of Trump as a person becomes offensive to the right only if it is “vitriolic”? (I would call it impassioned, but to each his own.) These are genuine questions and not rhetorical ones.
Patterico (361788) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:29 pmThank you, DRJ.
Patterico (361788) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:29 pmswc,
If you read through the emails from Salem executives to their radio hosts as quoted in the CNN article, they express nothing about advertisers and everything about a need to support Trump. You could speculate that this is due to the executives not spelling out the business motives behind their request, but that would be pure speculation. That said, if your speculation is accurate, it still would result in a narrowing of viewpoint diversity on the right, just for different reasons. I have a little doubt that the market for pro-Trump commentary is wider than the market for anti-Trump commentary on the right, as businessmen like Ace have made that judgment, and he does pay close attention to the numbers.
Patterico (361788) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:35 pmWhen the Trump administration plants an informant in an opposition campaign, or has a frenzy of unmaskings, or issues FISA warrants supported by a discredited dossier concocted by crackpot foreign agents, I’ll view it as having adopted the thug tactics of the Left — and will gladly call it out.
Until then, anyone who focuses on bad behavior instead of Putinesque tactics happening under our noses deserves unmitigated mocking.
random viking (6a54c2) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:45 pmI agree. Trump has the majority of the party’s support.
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:45 pmrepublican party leadership is free trade as are those who lurk here. libertarian conservatives. vast majority of republicans are populists not free trade libertarian conservatives. they could buy nomination for boosh mccain and romney as populist could not get donations from donor class. then came trump who had money. populists and social conservatives are the vast majority. libertarian conservatives, neo-cons, donor class and their running dog intellectual think tanks have much money but few votes. don’t let the door hit you on the way out to the libertarian party!
sanderson44 (03a6d3) — 6/2/2018 @ 1:50 pmAre you saying the right wants only issue-based criticism and no criticism of Trump as a person? Or that criticism of Trump as a person becomes offensive to the right only if it is “vitriolic”? (I would call it impassioned, but to each his own.)
Meh. It’s sort of a waste of electrons.
63 million Americans voted for The Donald w/all his personal flaws and record; 66 million Americans voted for Hillary w/all her personal flaws and record as well. Thing is, Americans are always pitching how ‘great’ their ‘system’ is compared to others so ‘explaining’ to the rest of the simple-minded world the head-scratching ‘flaw’ that lets the loser actually win might be better for the global sales pitch. If anything, w/respect to recent history, the Nixon era and Trump times may likely demonstrate how resilient the system actually is.
Meanwhile, Putin smiles…
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:01 pmRe Trump and Rockefeller: I commend to your reading Richard Norton Smith’s On His Own Terms: A Life of Nelson Rockefeller (2014). In his utter lack of personal conviction, utterly flexible principles, passion for combining government and selected winners-and-losers in massive government spending (including and especially in real estate, where the best opportunities for grant exist), and — most of all — spectacular egotism (which was spectacularly unfounded), Rockefeller truly did herald Donald Trump in many respects. Before reading the book, I knew the broad outlines of Rockefeller’s career, but this book has tons of details, including Rocky’s histories with FDR, JFK & LBJ that I didn’t fully appreciate. Mind you, the author, Smith, views these aspects of Rockefeller as a feature, not a bug. But throughout, as I read, it, I kept harkening back to Trump’s explanation about his own “New York values” (which Trump disingenuously then accused Cruz and others of making up as a slur against him and against NY). Rockefeller was the Republican of consequence in New York City and New York State throughout Trump’s youth and young adulthood. And I was left in no doubt, after reading this Rockefeller biography, that Trump indeed adopted and emulated the aspects of “Rockerfellerism” that I most despise, for it has nothing whatsoever to do with conservative principles, the Rule of Law, or protecting and defending the Constitution.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:01 pm93 conservative libertarians were out voted by populists. bye bye!
sanderson44 (03a6d3) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:07 pmThat said, if your speculation is accurate, it still would result in a narrowing of viewpoint diversity on the right, just for different reasons.
Just at Salem. Lots of other soapboxes.
Feel your pain. But it was an executive decision. CBS fig-leafed firing Tom and Dick Smothers, too. Been in the media biz 35 years. The suits run the show, not the talent.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:09 pmI think it’s cute how you guys believe Trump is the problem with America. Oh, and those that support him of course.
Jer. 5:21 (King James version): “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.”
the Bas (ab264c) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:12 pmDeripasha lost four billion, profit in got his prized Wagner Corp trashed, as did another oligarch not really seeing an upside for thwm.
narciso (f5152e) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:13 pmBoner said it best establishment conservatives and their donor class have gone away into hiding from the populist republican pitch forks!
sanderson44 (03a6d3) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:13 pm@ Anon Y. Mous: The right- and left-leaning media weren’t speculating, but they were reporting what they were able to report, based on their agreement with their common source (whether that’s Mueller’s team or Trump’s team), about how the list had been compiled. And they all agreed that it had been compiled by Sekulow, based on what Sekulow had been told by Mueller’s team.
I suppose we could hypothesize that Mueller’s team wrote the list; that someone on that team contacted all the media who reported it simultaneously, reading to them from the list; and that in a false-flag operation, Mueller’s team said that Sekulow had compiled the list.
But Sekulow has been silent. He’s never publicly denied being the person who compiled the list. If this were a false flag operation, wouldn’t he say: “That’s not anything I wrote, and not only is Mueller’s team leaking, they’re lying about where their leaked information came from!”
Or we can hypothesize that Sekulow really did compile the list, but that somehow Mueller’s team got it, and then leaked it. What is your theory about how Mueller’s team got from Sekulow (or someone with access to his work-product privileged documents), without a peep of protest, this confidential document that Sekulow created? Do you think it was done pursuant to a secret search warrant, the execution of which hasn’t ever been made public? Do you think it was done through a stealth break-in, perhaps by the FBI, into Sekulow’s files?
But fine. Whatever. If you don’t accept this as an example of Trump telling a whopper, pick any other whopper that Trump’s told — unless you claim he’s never, ever told one — and answer my inquiry: How are those of us who wish to criticize Trump’s veracity and reliability allowed to do that, without violating your standards of decorum, whatever they may be?
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:17 pm35, 36, 37… well said, the Bas, ThOR and anon. Y mous!!!!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:17 pm“Oh well. I can’t “congratulate” such an awful cretin. F*ck this guy. He’s a ridiculous ignorant clown. His election is a giant disgrace.”
Now THAT’S what I call “impassioned”!!!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:24 pmAm I alone in being exhausted with this type of thinking? “He didn’t deny it!”
He didn’t embrace it either. I have always sided with Patterico on the FISA “facts.” They seem to built on the same sort of conformation bias speculation as the “he didn’t deny it” speculation.
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:24 pmGreat piece! So well said.
I have the distinct impression that those R’s who defend Trump the loudest from any criticism coming from the right, do so with vigor because they take it as a personal insult to their intelligence, I think this is a dangerous thing to do as it prevents a person from remaining objective, impartial and without personal investment. These are politicians. They should be held to a higher standard and if you’re the president of United States, an even higher standard. We shouldn’t have so much riding on one person that to read or hear criticism of him stings us, or compels us to lash out. We should be able to criticize with equal zeal any president on the left or right who lies, cheats, does not fulfill his promises, or is corrupt. If anyone is louder and more vocal in their criticism against who we support, that should not impact us to the degree that we cannot have open discussion about the issue i’m trying to understand why they are so committed to that person while we are not. . For me, this is not personal. It’s politics.
Dana (023079) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:25 pmExactly, Beldar 93, and I assume you meant “where the best opportunities for
DRJ (46c88f) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:26 pmgrantgraft exist …”Errata #93: That ought to have read, “where the best opportunities for graft [not “grant”] exist.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:26 pmLOL. Thanks DRJ.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:27 pmDana, it is so good to see you here.
DRJ (46c88f) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:27 pmNo, I wouldn’t put it that way. But, if the criticism of Trump as a person sounds a whole lot like the latest meme from the fever-swamp left, chances are that it won’t get much purchase on the right.
Take the emoluments clause thing. That criticism was mostly about how Trump was horrible because of what he might do. Speculation about how he was going to line his pockets from foreign dignitaries staying in hotel that has his name on it. And that he should be impeached because of it!
Insanity. The phrase “preaching to the choir” comes to mind. #NeverTrumpers (and the left) eat it up. Meanwhile, to everyone else, it sounds like more sour grapes. Not a real issue.
For those of us on the right who are not anti-Trump, both those of us who are enthusiastic supporters, as well as the reluctant supporters, if you want to convince others that Trump is bad as a person, more bad than what people already believe about him, you won’t have much success with convoluted stuff that looks like what a lawyer came up with while studying the footnotes of SCOTUS decisions from 1932 (or whatever – completely made up date).
As to Trump being a “bad” guy. Unless you have something new, I think most people have made up their minds. Some of us see Trump willing to engage in smash-mouth politics as a good thing. We love him refusing to take a question from Acosta after dismissing him as #fakenews. Others really don’t like Trump’s brash ways, but voted for him reluctantly. And continue to support him now, reluctantly, because what is the strategy otherwise? Is McCain’s going back on his previous position on Obamacare, just to deny Trump a victory what reluctant Trumpers should be happy about? Was it Trump who let them down, or was it McCain (and the other GOPers who reversed themselves) who are the problem. Who is standing in the way of getting positive things done?
So, I think most on the right are not interested in takedowns of Trump the man, unless you have the beef. If you got a real thing to go after him for, that would be different. But, calling him a liar based on that NYT tweet is just small potatoes. If people believe he was just tweeting off the cuff, and was really just about criticizing the NYT for their so-called paraphrase, then the liar accusation isn’t going to move them. It is those who deconstruct his tweet down to the symbolism of logic, and then say liar, that are off. Unless you can convince people that Trump was actually trying to deceive us, it makes you look bad, not Trump.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:29 pmBuDuh, the sourcing doesn’t depend on Sekulow’s denial. Address the sourcing, if you want to show that the leak came from Mueller’s team. What’s your alternate theory? Did Mueller’s team write the list, and give it to several media with the false explanation that it had been compiled by the Trump’s lawyers based on conversations with Mueller’s team, and persuade both conservative and liberal media to report that this list compiled by Trump’s lawyers had been given to them (the media) by a “person not on Trump’s legal team,” which is how they all uniformly described their source?
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:30 pmI have the distinct impression that those R’s who defend Trump the loudest from any criticism coming from the right, do so with vigor because they take it as a personal insult to their intelligence…
Meh. Those of us past a certain age have seen this show before– only then it was in black and white; revisit and review the back and forth between the Rockefeller camp and the Goldwater camp.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:31 pmBuDuh,
Blog posts and comments are often about facts but they are also about circumstantial evidence that enables us to make logical inferences about the facts. We do this because politicians aren’t always forthright about their decisions and actions. We do this with history, too, don’t we? We know some (maybe many) facts about what caused wars to start but we don’t know everything. So we look at what we do know, discuss it, and make decisions about the facts we think are revealed.
I think it’s good when Patterico and others caution us not to rush to judgment about things like the FISA warrants or the Trump campaign informants, because we don’t know all the facts. But we can speculate about the facts we know and what they suggest. The important part is to remember to label which ones are facts and which ones are speculation.
DRJ (46c88f) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:34 pmWhat’s your alternate theory?
I am simply saying that your “he didn’t deny it” argument is a silly one. I am not arguing for or against anything other that explaining that that type of “fact” is similar to others’ FISA “facts.”
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:35 pmTrump’s tweet actually doesn’t point the finger specifically at Mueller. That’s the obvious implication, and that’s indeed how it was read by most media commenters (and how I characterized it above, from memory). But the actual tweet is:
Now there are some studied ambiguities! Passive voice, “were leaked,” with no actor identified. “[Y]ou have a made up, phony crime,” again with no specification of who “you” is, but an obvious implication that it’s Mueller & Co.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:35 pmSo you’re not denying it either, then, BuDuh? 😉
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:36 pmIt seems like a real issue to me.
DRJ (46c88f) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:36 pm79, et al.
Is there not at least one more possible source of leakage of the list to Mueller?
“document that might conceivably have been found in Michael Cohen’s files”
Were not those files, paper and digital, removed from Cohen’s office? Do we know how many hands have touched those files? Do we know what security has surrounded those files?
ColoComment (d5a97a) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:37 pm@ Anon Y. Mous: Why do you think Trump lies to the American people, if not to deceive us?
To amuse us?
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:38 pm@ ColoComment: Cohen’s not part of Trump’s legal team dealing with Mueller. For one thing, Cohen couldn’t possibly get the security clearance needed to be on that team. But if your hypothesis is correct, why wouldn’t Cohen’s lawyers and Trump’s lawyers be screaming bloody murder about this leak in their lawsuit before Judge Kimba Wood?
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:40 pmNo, that’s what our job and you do it well.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:42 pmI hear you. I also read what you said about Patterico “cautioning” others WRT to assertions regarding the FISA predictions. But you and I both know Pat doesn’t caution anyone. He slams that to prove that they have seen the FISA information. As I just said, I don’t have a problem with that. But if someone makes a circumstantial case about the FISA content, shouldn’t they get the same latitude provided to Beldar?
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:42 pmBeldar at 114. That gave me a chuckle. 🙂
Going to sign off for a while.
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:45 pm@101. =Haiku!= Gesundheit!
Issuing a BUI, Colonel? It might have been the booze talking. Cut P some slack. If memory serves, believe he mentioned he was enjoying an adult beverage that evening– some Macallan Gold.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:50 pm118. HellifIknow. Maybe they have and there’s a quiet investigation going on to figure out who the culprit could be. It is interesting that everyone seems to have gone mum.
Heck, it’s all speculation, isn’t it? But doesn’t simply raising another possibility, however remote, somewhat undermine cries of “He lied! He lied!”
I’m not trying to be adversarial, just trying to advocate for some devils. 😉
ColoComment (d5a97a) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:54 pm122… Hot damn, that was “impassioned”… there were others worse than that and it has been a steady decline ever since.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 2:57 pm@Beldar,
The NYT tweet was not a lie. Demonstrating it was false does not make it a lie. You also have to demonstrate an intent to deceive, as opposed to just being sloppy language. And anyone who argues that it couldn’t just be sloppy language is either ignorant or dishonest. Ignorant would only be possible for someone who ignores all the rest of Trump’s tweets and then for some reason, looked at just that one. If someone like that exists, you could make the case that since the never saw the rest of Trump’s tweets, maybe they honestly thought that Trump couldn’t have worded the tweet that way unless intentionally.
But, anyone who follows Trump knows he doesn’t speak like a lawyer. His tweets are not vetted by staff to make sure they can only be construed exactly as desire. He tweets off-the-cuff, informally, and anyone who pays attention knows this. So, trying to spin that tweet as a deliberate attempt to deceive the American people is a deception itself. You know damn well he wasn’t trying to convince people that Pottinger wasn’t a real guy. He was saying that no WH person used the impossible language.
And you know it.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:02 pmWe have never had a president that lies so much, and about practically everything. It’s not clear if he’s just very, very delusional an insulated, and has a mental illness, or if he really thinks he can lie all day and no one will call him out
Dustin,
List the lies
Please with links and proof
EPWJ (75b606) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:02 pmBuDah – Sekulow got his start as a mouthpiece for Pat Robertson. He was militant in defending him, and more broadly, religious freedoms under the U.S. Constitution. He has always been a feisty commentator and very quick to call out folks who misrepresented anything deleterious said about a cause, client, or himself. He has typically been a plain talker.
His silence now calls to mind The Hound of the Baskervilles. Again – his career MO has been to shout, not stifle.
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:04 pmAnd proof Dustin is documents, not opinion pieces from democrats or never trumpers
EPWJ (75b606) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:05 pmIt could be someone like Dillon in the white house counsels who is sympathetic to comey, you know who leaked Cohen’s finsec info
narciso (f5152e) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:05 pmAnd GDP estimates are climbing to five percent growth
Many of the false claims that trump lied was his saying growth will be accelerating
Dustin,
Waiting on your proof
We all are actually
EPWJ (75b606) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:07 pm@ Anon Y Mous (#125): I haven’t mentioned Pottinger today or that tweet — although as we’ve discussed and discussed and the poor horse is surely mostly dead now, I also think that tweet was also a deliberate attempt to mislead the American public.
I’m focused right now on Trump’s tweet that I quoted above regarding the leak of the topics that Mueller’s team supposedly gave to Trump’s legal team as indications of what they were interested in pursuing in an interview of Trump.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:10 pmNarcisco,
With all due respect, no ones going to risk prison and ruin for James Comey
Except James Comey
Who is under criminal investigation himself most likely
EPWJ (75b606) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:10 pm@126
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database
Here you go.
Davethulhu (7e7722) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:12 pmBeldar,
That’s unproven, we don’t know what happened and both sides have been accused.
I will say this, they were a juvenile set of questions, none would have been admissible in court, well with non political judges
EPWJ (75b606) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:13 pmI have to take issue with this particular hit-piece in your article:
This reflects an EGREGIOUS lack of research, and is another example of “too good to check.”
This is from a segment that came the morning after a Trump speech on June 7, 2016, the night he secured enough delegates in the primary elections to wrap up the nominate.
First lets consider what Hewitt said in full, because after he made the statement you quote, he said the following IN THE SAME BROADCAST:
In fact, he criticizes Lindsay Graham for saying he could never bring himself to vote for Donald Trump.
He went on to say that If Trump somehow “pulls a makeover” and undergoes a major “personality transplant” in the next month or so, then he would be OK with the GOP keeping him as the nominee.
Hewitt was making a judgment on Trump as a candidate for the GOP, and the implications of that on the party, fearing an electoral disaster at all levels if he was atop the ticket.
His comments were NOT a judgment on Trump as a person, or comments about Trump’s character.
From the context, if Trump represented “Stage 4 cancer”, the patient was the GOP.
It was not — as your piece implies — that the patient was the country in the event that Trump won the election.
Hewitt was of the very firm conviction that Trump had NO CHANCE to win the election — that’s why he was a “terminal illness” for the party.
And, your lack of fact-checking his statement led you to not mention that he said in the SAME BROADCAST that he would be open to supporting Trump against Clinton if he managed to become a better candidate, i.e., develop a message that Hewitt through would reach more potential voters. Hewitt’s view was pretty much in the mainstream of political commentators on both sides of the aisle in June 2016, and the all — Hewitt included — turned out to be horrendously wrong. He was never a NeverTrumper.
Here’s a link to the segment in question. You should listen to it, as it’s apparent you never took the time to look it up.
https://soundcloud.com/streiffatredstate/hugh-hewitt-gop-should-change-convention-rules-t
Now let’s address the Salem issue.
If you have source other than the CNNMoney story for your claim that Hewitt caved in to editorial pressure in changing his views, then I’d like you to reference it. Lets look at the CNN story to see why its so horrendously misleading.
First, the CNN story is based on internal emails obtained by the two radio hosts that were fired from the Salem morning show for their “anti-Trump” on-air commentary. I’m going to skip over the questions involving the reason for their firing, and go to the comments about Hewitt.
You claim, referring to the CNN report, that Hewitt changed his position on Trump — which you mischaracterize as note above — after, and because of, the pressure put on him by Salem executives. Supposedly there was an email sent by the Salem CEO, Edward Atsinger, to Hewitt which is described as making a case ON THE MERITS for supporting Trump over Clinton.
Curiously, the article doesn’t give the precise date in June 2016 for that email, even though it says that CNNMoney obtained copies of the email. Nor does the email which CNN obtained include a date for the allege communication from Atsinger to Hewitt and Medved.
If you are going to draw a conclusion that Hewitt caved — which you did, i.e., “after being schooled by Salem management” — after his comments on June 8, don’t you think it would be important to know when that communication took place? What if Atsinger’s communication to Hewitt and Medved was on June 2, yet Hewitt still made his fearful comments about Trump on June 8?
Further, the content of Atsinger’s communication to Hewitt and Medved is completely unknown. Maybe it was a completely “on the merits” evaluation of the issue as a binary choice?
Without knowing the content of what Atsinger said, how can we know that he was urging an editorial shift by Hewitt and Medved due to feeling job pressure, and that they meekly gave in on that basis?
You also quote the following double/triple hearsay statement in referring to Hewitt’s June 15, 2016 column:
That’s a reference to a comment in an email written by Phil Boyce, Sen. VP at Salem, quoting what he said Atsinger said to him, about Hewitt responding to Atsinger’s communication to Hewitt, about which you and I have no idea as to its contents.
Got that?
Now, lets go finally to Hewitt’s June 15 column that is referenced by you as evidence that he responded to being “schooled.”
This column was published one week after his on-air comments of June 8. That was a Wed., which followed Primary Tuesday on June 7 in many states, including California.
The Orlando nightclub shooting happened on June 12.
Trump gave a speech on June 14, making significant comments about the shooting, the radical Islamist who carried it out, and comparing his views for how to respond (Muslim “ban” according to CNN), and the policies of Obama that got us to that point, and the likelihood that similar policies would be pursued by Clinton.
In writing ABOUT THE SPEECH in his column the next day, Hewitt said:
In the column he ACKNOWLEDGED he entertained thoughts about how to upend Trump at the convention.
Hewitt had always said he would support the GOP nominee. Now he recognized that Trump was going to be the GOP nominee because the party elders were unwilling to move against him, even fearing an electoral disaster. With no prospects for a coup to take Trump out as nominee, Hewitt would support Trump.
So Hewitt points to the Orlando shooting, and Trump’s speech in the aftermath, which allowed him to draw contrasts with Clinton between their two candidacies and potential administrations.
Unless you think the Orlando shoot was just a fortunate coincidence that he was able to work into the themes urged upon him by Atsinger’s communication, then your analysis on this subject is just a shoddy hit piece that you didn’t take more than a few minutes to make sure you had the quotes right, while ignoring the context.
\
Finally, from you:
No, at least not for me.
All I ask is that your “critical words” be a bit more thoroughly researched so that long corrections like this comment aren’t required.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:18 pmBut more generally:
I agree with you that Trump often tweets casually and carelessly.
I don’t agree that is grounds to hold him less accountable for falsehoods. He is in a position of public trust and responsibility, indeed the top such position as part of our nation’s criminal justice system. When you or I comment on Patterico’s Pontifications, we have no access to Trump’s staff. Trump has access to his staff. Before he tells the American public that it’s shameful that something has leaked, and before he implies that it was leaked by Mueller’s team, he has an affirmative duty to find out the facts so as not to mislead the American public. You and I can make wild-@ss guesses and draw inferences galore, and nobody thinks that you or I have access to the inside dealings of the WH, so no one can fairly presume that we’ve checked and vetted our statements before we make them. Not so with Trump.
As I wrote at the time, and as everything Giuliani has said and done since tends to confirm, my belief is that the list of questions was intentionally leaked — by someone who is close to Trump and has his and his lawyers’ confidence, but not someone who at that moment was part of the Trump legal team (which might have been Giuliani himself, depending on when he claims he became an official member of the team, or which might have been someone else). And it was done for the purpose of trying to gin up public outrage in hope that in turn such outrage might either (i) influence Mueller’s team, basically committing them in advance to not stray beyond this list (into things like Trump’s taxes, for example), and/or (ii) pre-dispose Trump’s supporters to stick with him when and if Giuliani announced, “Nope, we haven’t gotten enough assurances that Mueller’s acting in good faith and therefore the POTUS isn’t going to sit for an interview and, in fact, is pleading the Fifth.” (If you’re going to do the latter, you danged sure need to condition your base to rally behind you for it.)
Again, though, whether it’s Pottinger or the list: When those critical of Trump think he’s lied to the American people, how are we supposed to point that out without calling him a liar?
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:19 pmDefine for me the distinction between an “informant” and a “spy”?
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:21 pmAs I have already said, the accusation that Trump lied in the depo questions tweet is just speculation. I am not interested in humoring your speculation. Since you now tell me the premise of the above question requires me to accept that speculation as fact, we have nothing to talk about.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:23 pmBeldar
I’m going to hold you to the Dustin standards
First all tweets are careless imo
Second,
Document the lies, proof being documented facts not opinion pieces from democrats and their hand maidens the never trumpers.
EPWJ (75b606) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:25 pmShipwreckedcrew
It’s between the definition of is, is
EPWJ (75b606) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:26 pmfalsehood =/= lie
They are different words with different meanings. A falsehood can be the result of a misunderstanding, careless use of language, etc. A lie requires a deliberate intent to deceive.
I’ve never been top law school, but this sort of thing must come up there, no?
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:27 pm@124. You voted for him; I voted for him, albeit coming from different directions w/differing rationales. Why dance on the graves of the disappointed. He won. He’s POTUS. And a jolly good show it has been so far!
He’s doing a clever job of prepping the public battlefield for things to come as well; to survive if not actually win out over anything Mueller uncovers. Regardless of how you feel about the DOJ and Mueller’s tight ship, he best start finishing up his report or he’ll find himself behind the curve, not ahead of it, in this media age and the forum of public opinion when it come to any movement regarding impeachment enquiries.
_______
‘@44. We have never had a president that lies so much, and about practically everything. It’s not clear if he’s just very, very delusional an insulated, and has a mental illness, or if he really thinks he can lie all day and no one will call him out, but the only people who do not acknowledge that Trump is a ridiculous liar are his most die hard loyal fans… the people Trump bragged wouldn’t care if Trump murdered someone in the street. That kind of loyalty to your politician is a terrible trait.’
Really? ‘We have never had a president who lies so much’??? You might want to make some popcorn, plug in some headphones and do some binge listening, if you can stomach it, to the Nixon tapes for a few days. And when The Big Dick was resigned to his fate and finally quit, he still had a popularity rating of about 25%, albeit a long fall from his landslide re-election numbers in 1972.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:27 pm” 117. Why do you think Trump lies to the American people, if not to deceive us?”
Well, see, this is due to your hatred of Trump blinding in you.
First off, the American People know that *every* politician lies to us. We know they’ll even look us in the face and say “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” And “No new taxes.”
Your shock at hearing lies from Trump is as silly as Claude Rains being shocked to hear that gambling was going on. Worse—if you really and truly are shocked, then you are too naive to be listened to.
Second off, since all us adults know that all politicians lie to us, we have to distinquish between lies about unimportant things and lies about important things. Important by OUR standards, not by your standards. And we also have to distinquish between “lies” and “differences of opinion”.
And you focus like a laserbeam on trivialities. Whether or not he said “shithold countries”. Or this latest thing about who did or did not say that a June 12 summit was impossible.
That is just childish. These are so trivial that it does not matter. NOBODY cares if Trump said shithole countries. Nobody. The people who say they care are lying, it’s just a handy stick to pick up and whack with. People see you going ballistic about things that do not matter and dismiss you as being either a shill or someone who is unable to distinquish between important things and unimportant things.
Someone upthread mentioned an important point. If your words & objections come across the same way as a leftist Democrat, then Trump supporters will dismiss what you say about Trump just like they’ll dismiss the latest MSM/DNC screed.
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:38 pmAnd that’s the thing about a bunch of you guys here. Your complaints about Trump would fit right in on Huffpost and Vox. That’s why you cannot convince the Trumpsters with your arguments.
Still no evidence of collusion between trump and russia.
sanderson44 (40d33f) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:38 pm143. Of all the malfeasance and misfeasance I have accused Trump of over the years, collusion with Russia was never among the things I accused him of. It’s the Dems that are trying to make hay out of that.
Gryph (5efbad) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:42 pmI think Trump can be characterize as “lying” because he’s often indifferent to the truth on many subjects.
I think he “lies” more often in a casual and hapless manner, than he does in a deceptive and dishonest manner.
I think its a consequence of a personality trait that relieves him of the “internal obligation” to be certain of his facts before engaging his mouth to make a statement.
To me, most of his “lies” are the consequence of not having enough information, not for the purpose of intentionally deceiving the listener/reader.
For example, it would be my GUESS that when Trump tweeted the message about the briefing last week that cause so much consternation here, I don’t think he was even aware that a briefing had taken place, who the briefer was, or what the substance of the briefing was.
I don’t see any particularly compelling reason why a “mundane” press gaggle like that would be on the POTUS radar — no reason why the Chief of Staff would let him know about it.
Once he saw the NYT story and the claim someone at the WH said it was “impossible”, he MIGHT have checked to see if anyone knew anything about the briefing and what was said.
But his impetuousness with his Twitter account likely led him to Tweet prior to getting a comprehensive answer to his inquiry — if he made one at all.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:51 pm146. Whatever helps you sleep at night, Schlichterite.
Gryph (5efbad) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:52 pmBeldar 136
THAT is a problem, regardless of the “cause” of the dishonest statements that he makes.
It is like playing Russian Roulette (no pun intended), because one of his dishonest statements — even if not made out of a motive to deceive — is going to have serious blowback.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 3:56 pm135… you mean the mischaracterization of Hewitt was just more schiffy reporting by CNN?!?! You’d think we would know by now not to trust them.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:02 pmGenuine criticism of things Trump deserves criticism for will always be echoed on the left. Then Trump supporters can always say the criticism sounds like the left. This is a recipe for discounting any criticism, whether legitimate or not — unless you think that the left will go mute at the times when Trump actually deserves criticism.
You might object that it is a matter of tone. That is an argument that Trump deserves a respectful tone from people on the right who want to criticize him. Well, he doesn’t use a respectful tone with others and I don’t think he deserves one.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:08 pmTo opine that Trump deserves a respectful tone simply because he is the president, is setting a politician above the people in ways that our founding fathers did not intend, and ways that make me extremely uncomfortable.
Gryph (5efbad) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:12 pmI know you won’t accept this, because I’ve made this point with a half dozen commenters (nice folks who think like you) over the years and none of them were receptive. However …
Some law school professors teach law to students using what is called the Socratic Method:
It feels like being attacked but you soon learn that the attack isn’t aimed at you but at your ideas. Successful students learn to think critically about what they believe, and discard what doesn’t work and defend what does.
I still vividly remember how it felt to be on the receiving end of pointed questioning in law school, and it has been 40 years since I was there. I can still remember word-for-word question and answer experiences I had with some professors. It isn’t personal but I understand why it feels that way.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:13 pmI think that he found ways to rationalize his change in attitude, which shocked everyone at the time because of its suddenness. I remember it well and was surprised by it long before ever reading the CNN article. Given your attack dog tone, that is the final thing I have to say to you on the topic.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:14 pmPatterico, Beldar and I went to the same law school that used this method.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:14 pmBut unsubstantiated or illegitimate conjecture and/or criticism of Trump from the left should never be echoed on the right. And yet it often is.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:15 pmBut, is that the direction of the echo? Your beloved NYT is frequently your source for the criticisms you make. Isn’t that you echoing them rather than the other way around?
Someone in the corrupt intelligence community “leaks” something to the NYT, usually false or at best a half-truth deceptively twisted into something serves their narrative. They use that as a basis for all kinds of negative reporting, which you then faithfully repeat.
Echo, echo, echo.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:18 pm155. Would you kindly remind me just what criticism of Trump Patterico has levelled that you believe is unfair and/or illegitimate?
Gryph (5efbad) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:20 pmHow do you know that?
BuDuh (fc15db) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:21 pm@81. swc- understand P’s POV. His concern is diminishing voices- aka ‘content’. But media execs look at it differently; ‘talk/punditry, etc.,’- is just another ‘product’ on platform schedules; programming to sell advertising time/space around just like sitcoms or dramas. That’s likely more in line w/Salem execs POV and decision-making. Standard media practice; it’s why ABC tried the Roseanne reboot- to reach a growing target audience and sell advertisers spots at a premium. (They found it, too, so expect other tries to tap that well.) Media firms invest a great deal of resources into audience research– it’s quite expensive and closely guarded data that tempers ad rates and planning. Salem has no shortage of Trump-critical ‘programming’ on their platforms– the suits likely concluded, after looking at their data, they were a tad top heavy for the shifting demographics in the marketplace. So they made adjustments. Been in the media biz over three decades. It’s just how it works– but it’s just lousy to be one of the people dinged by the changes– you always want it to be ‘the other guy’ especially if you believe the quality and content of your work product is superior to those who remain– but it’s the suits, not the talent, who run the show.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:32 pmIndeed. Don Ohlmeyer had Norm MacDonald taken off Weekend Update on SNL because he was pals with OJ and could not abide the hilarious jokes Norm told at OJ’s expense.
Patterico (361788) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:39 pmOften the mere fact that criticism is stated on the left, or that it is based on facts reported by Big Media (as most facts about presidents are) is offered as the single reason to disbelieve a story. You have done this many times, citing as your only basis for criticism the source of the story I cite in a post.. But dismissing a story outright simply because it is reported by the NYT, no matter how bulletproof it is, is an illogical reason to dismiss a story.
Of course unsubstantiated conjecture should not be taken at face value. I certainly agree with that.
Patterico (361788) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:47 pm160. Ah yes, Don Ohlmeyer. David Letterman once said of him, “[He]…fancies himself creative…[but]…here’s a man who couldn’t create gas after a bean dinner.”
Gryph (5efbad) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:48 pm153 — they you never listen to Hewitt. He was not a NeverTrumper. He criticized Graham for being a NeverTrumper.
He ALWAYS said GOP voters should support the party’s nominee.
It’s hard to imagine how you could take a more blatant and direct shot at his integrity than you have done here.
You set it up by writing that his views on Trump were similar to yours, and that after being accosted by his media bosses, he changed his tune as a result.
And you didn’t once deal with what he actually said and he actually wrote, beyond your misleading use of his line that Trump was like “Stage 4 cancer.”
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:48 pmGenuine criticism of things Trump deserves criticism for will always be echoed on the left. Then Trump supporters can always say the criticism sounds like the left.
What is truely genuine?
The left, left their genuineness of the floor of the Hilary campaigns victory party in nov 2016.
To think that anything coming from the left is good for the country, using numerous emotional posts, one after another, where a solid intellectual tries to bring down a movement, frustrated maybe as a tide is sweeping the country, and is helpless to stop it. Our most powerful president since Lincoln, the power gained through the continuing turnaround of our great country, not a internal crisis of a civil war, marches on fox and on and on.
EPWJ (75b606) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:52 pmPat,
I thought norm McDonald’ was taken off because he just wasn’t funny
EPWJ (75b606) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:54 pm165. Don Ohlmeyer accused him of not being funny, and also accused McDonald of being the reason that ratings had been going down steadily throughout that season. All indications were that Ohlmeyer was simply lying. His reputation among his peers in the television was already less than stellar by that time. Ohlmeyer was more concerned about what the people would be saying about him at cocktail parties (like the one he threw for the jurors that acquitted OJ).
Gryph (5efbad) — 6/2/2018 @ 4:57 pmPat,
I wouldn’t post the stories from the left, overwhelming they are wrong, all the time at every level.
Even the ones I believe a week, a month a year later they are proven wrong.
The very first day they posted pictures of the inauguration crowd, stating it was during the oath, baiting trump to contradict them.
And they left out that the dnc had appliance giveaways, blues bands, rappers, tens of thousands of pounds of free food, during Obama’s inauguration to boost numbers and the crowds melted away loooooooong before he took the oath.
But hey the dems media has always been honest right?
EPWJ (75b606) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:01 pmHugh Hewitt: Donald Trump doesn’t have the temperament to be President.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:04 pmA lot of people here have strong ideas about how blogs should be run, especially this one.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:05 pmTrue. I despise the NYT, but that isn’t a good enough reason to discount everything they say. But, I don’t trust them. If they are reporting something, I would like to be able to check it elsewhere. But, that isn’t possible with anonymously sourced stories. For those, you have to trust the NYT. That they have used diligence in checking the story out and aren’t just repeating what Trump’s enemies are telling them.
But, the NYT is in league with Trump’s enemies. When Comey wants to get a special prosecutor appointed, his slippery method is to give his memos to his accomplice and have that guy give it to the NYT. Did the NYT report any of this when it was being used in that manner? Hell no.
Any story that relies on the NYT’s integrity is unreliable in my book.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:11 pm159 — you have to look at the history of Salem Media Group. It has always been a “niche” driven company. It started out as a Christian broadcasting company, and retains many of those aspects even now.
It has a targeted demographic group for its audience — it is not, and never has, tried to broaden its appeal to other demographic groups in order to achieve greater ratings for ad revenue purposes.
Its the Fox News/MSNBC of radio — they know their target audience, and program accordingly.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:12 pm170. It’s just another variant of Gell-Mann amnesia, then. If you can’t evaluate media based on its actual credibility, you’re no better than what you accuse NeverTrumpers of in the first place.
Gryph (5efbad) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:13 pm168 — August 9, 2015.
A few things happened after that.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:14 pmDrj
No blog ever, should knowingly post false things. Trusting stories from the left, time and time again, and time and time again being disproven….
EPWJ (52a731) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:18 pmSo the summit is a go, the grishenko snipe hunt becomes increasingly threadbare, it appears there was total collaboration re the bee girl
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:19 pmHugh is where I first heard lileks and Steyn, but he increasingly carried establishment water including roves overconfidence in 06
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:22 pm@163. the[n] you never listen to Hewitt. He was not a NeverTrumper.
Except he was:
Radio Host Hugh Hewitt ‘Inclined’ To Vote For Donald Trump After Urging Him To Drop Out (11/2/16)
‘Hewitt initially opposed Trump in the GOP primary, associating himself with the #NeverTrump movement. But he later endorsed Trump after he clinched the Republican presidential nomination over the summer, citing the prospect of Hillary Clinton-appointed Supreme Court justices.’ – source, HuffingtonPost.com
_____
@160. LOL yes, comedy is not pretty; and NBC yanked Star Trek, too. Oh, them funky, number-crunching Brooks Brothers suits!
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:22 pm@165. Meh. It’s subjective; didn’t find him particularly funny; Hope, Lewis and Lucy neither– Kovacs, Benny, WC Fields, Tina Fey… hilarious.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:30 pm@93, Beldar – Thanks for the tip on that book, I shall check it out. While I’m old enough to be aware of the Goldwater/Rockefeller split, I wasn’t old at the time and just had a general impression of Rockefeller as being the “compassionate conservative” type, the condescending noblesse oblige that you see with the soft bigotry of low expectations of the Left these days. And of course that wing of the GOP is no more hostile to the idea of Big Daddy government than the Democrats, the old saw about giving a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish doesn’t apply whether you’ve got a nice cushy job at the Department of Handing Out Fishes or the Department of Teaching People To Fish. Either way, there’s going to be an expensive government program involved.
Jerryskids (cfad51) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:31 pm161…. I have neither the time, much less desire to hunt down the number of posts referencing CNN, NYT, or WaPo that turned out to be Half-truths at best.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:36 pmHewitt took NO position in the primaries on any of the GOP candidates. He gave air time to all of them, including Trump. But his interviews with Trump were particularly contentious, and they exchanged some harsh words.
Hewitt was always disposed towards Rubio — going back to 2008 when he first began to emerge — but he, as he said many times, tried to make his show “Switzerland” during the Primaries. Part of that was he wanted to be involved in moderating the GOP debates, and thought his chances would be hurt if he publicly associated himself for or against a particular candidate in an overt fashion.
Trump went after Hewitt repeatedly as a voice of the GOP establishment — which he surely is. And Trump was running against the GOP establishment, so Hewitt was a natural target.
Much like many of us here who now support him as POTUS, Hewitt would have likely preferred just about every other GOP candidate in the primaries — but Trump beat them all.
And Hewitt’s view — which he’s expressed many times on air — is that Trump won with GOP voters in the primaries, and that’s why you have primaries. That’s why he said GOP voters should support the party’s nominee when the primaries were done, and that’s why he endorsed Trump and voted for him.
The 11/2 about Hewitt’s saying he’s inclined to vote for him is in reference to Hewitt’s reaction to the Access Hollywood tape being released, which led him on October 8, 2016, to urge Trump to withdraw from the race. As before, the reason for the urging was that Hewitt feared Trump could not win in the aftermath of the tape’s release.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:41 pmI agree conservative media should be more open to NeverTrumper voices, just as the Trump campaign should’ve been more open to the services of NeverTrumper Stefan Halper. We should have a big tent on these things.
random viking (caef81) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:45 pmHugh Hewitt called on Donald Trump to drop out of the race after the Billy Bush tape surfaced.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 5:50 pm@181. Stop digging:
Major conservative radio host calls for Republican Party to dump Donald Trump at the convention (June 8, 2016)
‘Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday said the GOP should look to change the rules at this summer’s Cleveland convention so it can ditch Donald Trump as its nominee. The host came to that conclusion after what he called the worst 72 hours for the party in more than 15 years.
“The worst 72 hours for the Republican Party since 2000 when the George W. Bush DUI was dropped,” he said on his program, adding, “We’re going to get killed. We’re going to get killed.” Hewitt said that what the “self-savaging” party leaders inflicted on Trump after he continued to pursue a racial line of attack against a federal judge was like nothing he had ever seen.
The latest Trump firestorm centered around his persistent attacks on US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel over his Mexican heritage. The Manhattan billionaire said Curiel cannot fairly preside over a civil case involving his now-defunct for-profit real estate school, Trump University, because he is of Mexican descent and Trump is “building a wall” along the US/Mexico border if elected in the fall. Curiel is from Indiana.
Republicans from all sides of the party have publicly condemned the remarks and demanded that Trump change his tone. In a Tuesday late-afternoon statement, Trump took a step back from the attacks but did not apologize. He made no mention of his attacks against the judge in his prepared post-primary speech later that night. “Paul Ryan had to come out and say those are racist comments,” Hewitt said. “Sen. Mark Kirk unendorsed him. Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona said, ‘Well, he might not be our nominee.’ Mitch McConnell hammered him. It was a day of self-savaging of the Republican nominee, I’ve never seen anything like it. And by the end of the day, it was clear: Trump’s campaign was in free-fall and on fire.”
He said that Tuesday was the day when it occurred to him that Trump had no chance of winning in November. Acknowledging that Republicans have “never” defeated Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hewitt said: “We’re not going to beat her now with Donald Trump. “Right now the Republican Party is facing — the plane is headed towards the mountain after the last 72 hours,” he said.
Hewitt said Republican Party “ought to get together and let the convention decide.” He called for a rules change that would inhibit Trump from becoming the party’s nominee in Cleveland.
“And if Donald Trump pulls over a makeover in the next four to five weeks, great, they can keep him,” he said. “It would be better if he had done so five weeks ago.” Hewitt is not the first to suggest Republicans change the convention rules to stop Trump.
On Tuesday, the former New Jersey chairman for Ted Cruz’s 2016 White House bid said delegates have a “moral obligation” to launch an “insurrection” and “unbind” themselves to halt the billionaire’s rise. Moreover, a Wall Street Journal editorial on Wednesday suggested that if Trump “doesn’t start to act like a political leader” he could “hear rumblings that delegates are looking for someone else to nominate.”‘ -source, businessinsider.com
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:07 pmHewitt, while at times critical of Trump, was never a NeverTrumper. That is, he never stated that he would not vote for Trump under any circumstances on election day. And that is the definition of a NeverTrumper. They not only stated during the primaries that they could never vote for Trump, even if it was either him or Hillary, but they stuck to that sentiment. Even when it was no longer a hypothetical scenario, when it was in fact either Trump or Hillary, the determined NeverTrumper still refused to vote for Trump.
That’s not Hewitt.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:22 pm183 — yes he did because he thought the tape sounded the death knell for the campaign. Hillary was ahead by 8-10 points in early October. Don’t you remember all the polls?
And when Trump refused to drop out of the race, and rode out the storm over the tape, Hewitt reluctantly stated that he was still inclined to vote for him because it was a binary choice, the open Supreme Court and the judiciary were voting issues for him, and Trump was so much better than Clinton on national security and the war on terror in terms of who he was likely to bring into his cabinet and administration.
He was never a NeverTrumper.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:29 pm24. Derbyshire drove himself off after his writings made it too obvious that he’s a racist.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:35 pmHe saw past the sirens, which conveniently one song the same note , Hillary is the kindest smartest person I ever knew.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:37 pm185.Hewitt, while at times critical of Trump, was never a NeverTrumper.
Except he was. See #177.
That’s not Hewitt.
Except it is: see #184: the talker advocated changing the convention rules to dump Trump at the convention.
1+1= 2, not 11.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:38 pmDCSCA — do you not read??? Did you completely miss my post at 135 concerning what this is about?
Patterico’s article at Quillette said Hewitt was a NeverTrumper who changed his spots after Salem Media put pressure on him to do so.
And that’s false.
What your are quoting, and what I dealt with in my first post at 135 involved Hewitt’s view after Primary Tuesday in June 2016 that Trump could not win the general, and with him at the top of the ticket the GOP would suffer a wipeout at every level.
Patterico’s article says that was Hewitt expressing his NeverTrumpism, and that he changed his spots a week later.
It was NOT a “NeverTrumper” announcement. ON THAT SAME DAY he criticized Lindsay Graham for saying he could never vote for Trump.
Hewitt: “[Lindsay Graham] speaks for a lot of people when he says he cannot vote for Donald Trump. I’m disappointed to hear that. I’ll talk to Lindsay Graham about that.”
Hewitt was referring to what he saw as the GOP being doomed if Trump was the nominee. It was not a “I will never vote for Trump” statement.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:40 pm189 — you are conflating people who preferred other nominees to Trump, with people who avowed that they could never bring themselves to vote for Trump no matter what the circumstances might be.
Patterico was, and is, in the second group. Myself and Hewitt were in the first group.
Hewitt was never in the first group.
Rather than rely on the words of others written about him, listen to this 90 seconds of his show on 6/8/16.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/628816/conservative-radio-host-hugh-hewitt-likens-donald-trump-stagefour-cancer
How can he have been a NeverTrumper if he expresses disappointment in Lindsay Graham for saying he was a NeverTrumper?
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:46 pm“Hewitt was never in the SECOND group” — with Patterico.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:47 pmRed state:
“Trump is just a temporary blip on the radar. We can’t afford to have the Democrats in charge for four or eight years or for a generation and expect for conservatism to be anything other than a trivial pursuit question. And unless we’re willing to stand together, regardless of our feelings about Trump, and fight the left, we are going to lose. I’m done with being lectured by people on how to lose. I intend to fight to win because, in the end, we do keep score for a reason.“
EPWJ (5a5168) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:52 pm193. If you’re that afraid of who might occupy the presidency, maybe the problem is with the office rather than the person.
Gryph (5efbad) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:53 pm@186. He was never a NeverTrumper.
Except he was; see #177/#184.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:54 pmAs always, your mileage may vary, but I think it is far more plausible that someone calling for Trump to step down from running after the primary (which Hewitt absolutely indisputably did) could be characterized as a NeverTrumper.
I understand the Schlichterites’ desire to defend Hewitt, but let’s not pretend it’s for any reason other than Hewitt’s come-to-Jesus moment.
Gryph (5efbad) — 6/2/2018 @ 6:58 pm@191. It’s you who are doing the ‘conflating.’ Hewitt opposed Trump’s run right up to the convention and was a chatty on-off passenger into the station, expecting a loss. Then Trump won. Can’t fault the guy for knowing which side butters his media bread but don’t pretend this talking head is some paragon of principles. He ain’t; you’d be fooling yourself. You’ll get a better sense of which way the winds watching a weathervane.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 7:02 pm^ which way the winds blow watching a weathervane.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 7:04 pmIf they had actually hired someone who knew anything about Iran or cuba
https://mobile.twitter.com/omriceren/status/1002977690700435456
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 7:04 pm@190. You’re throwing chaff; tilting at windmills. Hewitt’s trail is what it is- he was a nevertrumper- and not alone in that- opposed the man into the bowels of the convention and flipped back and forth depending on the media cycle into election day. Like Trump, he didn’t expect the win. Accept it. He’s just a talking head; you don’t need a Hewitt to react to or do your thinking and chart a course for you. He’s irrelevant.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 7:10 pm@ swc, who wrote (#):
Were you not the fellow who said this here a few days ago:
Puffery is intended to make the sale and persuade the public to believe the untruths, aren’t they? And aren’t “purposeful untruths” lies?
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 7:19 pmThe quote from swc in #201 is from his #146.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/2/2018 @ 7:20 pmPatterico’s article at Quillette said Hewitt was a NeverTrumper who changed his spots after Salem Media put pressure on him to do so.
Tend to support Patterico on this. Stop viewing Hewitt through a ‘political’ lens and look at him w/his ‘media footprint’ in mind. Who really gives a damn what he says– he wants that footprint to grow and expand. They’d all kill for the kind of media deals a Hannity or a Limbaugh secured. And that’s all it’s about. If you believe otherwise, you’re kidding yourself. From Hewitt’s POV and with the specs he wears, guarantee you that’s where his eyes are fixed– along his bottom line– and he’ll go w/t flow at Salem– at MSNBC– or where ever he can to keep that media footprint growing.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 7:24 pm197 — willfully dishonest and disingenuous.
Or absolutely unable to understand someone who has a “horse race” perspective on politics, and someone like Patterico for whom its a question of moral judgments.
Hewitt’s view on Trump was always about whether he could win the general. It was never expressed as the view of a “NeverTrumper.”
And you – again — fail to address how it is that Hewitt could have been a NeverTrumper on the same day he expressed disappointment that Graham would call himself an NeverTrumper.
Or is the analysis here just too much for you?
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 7:26 pmModern gope legislative strategies are like sending a puppy to the groomer and coming back from the taxidermist, hence you get mooch minion, robertscare fully funded, and a promise to consider a base priority in 2021, UN
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 7:32 pmLess there is a full moon that Thursday in October.
Out of his top 25 campaign promises, he’s made good on 3½. He passed one major piece of legislation and the rest have been a series of executive actions. He’s done a few good things, but being scrupulous about promises is not one of his character traits.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/2/2018 @ 7:54 pm@204. You just don’t get it; look at him w/a media hat on.
It doesn’t matter what Hewitt said about Graham– it only matters you recall Hewitt saying it. That’s all it’s about. That’s the only ‘analysis’ that matters to Hewitt– or any other talking head trying to expand his footprint. The man was a NeverTrumper from the get go; used every opportunity to gin up appearance after appearance in our media-extreme-left-right-universe he could be booked for, pushed every angle to oppose Trump into the bowels of the convention to his advantage, flipped when necessary in conversation, flopped when a media cycle needed it and got gig on top of gig. He’s marching to advantage his own media presence- which includes Salem– and MSNBC– to expand a footprint beyond book peddling and radio. Look what it has gotten him so far. That’s all it’s about. It is what it is, but don’t sucker yourself into feeling that what Hugh Hewitt ‘says’ has any more value or validity than your own POV. It just doesn’t.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 7:57 pmThe fracture I’m seeing is between Buchananites and traditional conservatives. There may be some Rockefeller Republicans lingering around, but I see them as a small minority. Ideologically, Patrick Buchanan has inhabited Trump’s body, what with his stances on immigration, trade, populism, etc. That’s how much the GOP has changed in the last quarter-century. Back in the 1990s, Buchanan was dismissed and placed on the fringes. Today, his ideology controls.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/2/2018 @ 8:21 pm@208. Trump tells you who/what he is- more-or-less a ‘Rockefeller Republican’ in this 4 minute interview at the 1988 Republican convention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usb0iE5WiZI
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 8:28 pmBuchanan has been virulently Anti-Zionist and Israel for decades. It is his worst trait, imo. DJT has done more to advance Zionism and the State of Israel than any president in my lifetime.
DJT does share PB’s pugnacity and populist bent, though.
Ed from SFV (76ec9e) — 6/2/2018 @ 8:29 pmThat one of the rare times you got something halfway right, Paul 20 years of happy talk re deindustrialization have yielded very little success.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 8:29 pmOn economic policy, on foreign policy its something else again. 30 years ago, Mccain was a conservative republican times change.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 8:31 pm207.
You speak like someone who doesn’t understand what the term #NeverTrump means. It s not just a collection of those who opposed Trump during the primaries. There are always those who backed someone other than the winner, in every primary ever. There’s nothing exceptional in any way about that.
No, #NeverTrump was used to describe those that literally said they would never vote for Trump. The point for many of them was to issue a warning/threat to the part of the GOP that was supporting Trump. They were saying that if Trump were the nominee, they would withhold their support. That Trump would have to face Hillary with a fractured party behind him. That, bottom line, if the Trump supporters insisted on Trump, Hillary would become President and that they, the #NeverTrumpers, would let it happen.
For a good portion of those #NeverTrumpers, it was a bluff. Though they issued the threat, when it came right down to it, they could not sit idlely by as Hillary took the Presidency. I would call those reformed #NeverTrumpers. In the end, they voted Trump.
But, the actual #NeverTrumpers, those are the ones who refused to vote Trump on election day. Some actually voted for Hillary.
Hugh Hewitt never said he would refuse to vote for Trump on election day. He did what he always does, he supported the GOP nominee once the party had decided who that nominee would be.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 8:42 pm201 Beldar:
Didn’t I write that “most” of his “lies” are the consequence of not having enough information??
Oh yeah, its right there in your quote.
That holds out the idea that, at the same time, Trump is not above telling “purposeful untruths” in pursuit of his agenda — i.e., a huckster and a salesman.
See, its possible to have two thoughts in your head at the same time.
Trump “lies” out of ignorance about the true state of facts, and not feeling the need to confirm those facts before he speaks.
And Trump lies in a deceitful fashion in pursuit of his goals – oftentimes without thinking through the consequences.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:06 pm203 — DCSCA:
If I believe otherwise maybe its because I know Hewitt and you don’t.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:07 pmThe easy example is Trump’s lie to Trudeau about the US having a trade deficit with Canada. I mean, he admitted that he lied to the Canadian PM, pulling that canard straight from Trump’s a$$ and into Trudeau’s ear, and there are countless other incidences.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:10 pm206… here’s another view of Trump’s promises kept… sure differs from the politifact lefty take: https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/commentary/trump-has-mostly-kept-his-campaign-promises/article_daac6268-5541-11e8-8a8f-6b43fc4c9f93.html
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:12 pmHugh Hewitt never said he would refuse to vote for Trump on election day. He did what he always does, he supported the GOP nominee once the party had decided who that nominee would be.
And in the months before, right into the bowels of the convention he was actively trying to torpedo that very nominee on every media platform that would book him. Then after the nomination he flips to a flop and swoons with support for him, then flips a flop w/every Trump media up and down until election day. Are you that blind to this game?
You just don’t get, it. It doesn’t matter what Hewitt said. Only that he got you to remember he said anything at all. Who the hell cares how he votes? Hewitt’s objective is to expand his media footprint and he has managed to do that quite well. Not that’s there’s anything wrong with that. The contracts can be lucrative. And that’s all it’s about. But see it for what it is. Don’t be fooled into believing his POV has anymore validity or value than yours.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:13 pm207 — Then I guess when I gave money to Ted Cruz, I was a NeverTrumper? When I expressed a preference for Cruz, Rubio, Bush, and Kasich (ouch) through the course of the primaries, I was a NeverTrumper?
Hewitt never believed Trump was a Republican, and he was right.
Hewitt looked at Trump’s history of supporting Democrat candidates and Democrat causes, and he was right.
Hewitt never trusted that Trump would follow conservative orthodoxy on naming strict constuctionist judges — and Trump convinced him with his list of 22 names who would replace Scalia.
Hewitt is a free trader, who critized – and continues to criticize right along with Patterico — Trump’s trade policies and protectionism.
Hewitt was a GOP stalwart long before he had a national media platform.
And Patterico’s comments in the article on Quillete are a shot at his integrity based on a false premise.
Your defense of that false premise in the fact of Hewitt’s own words on the very same day is simply idiotic.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:14 pmSo can can go with Rich Lowrey, or you can choose politifact, media matters, Politico, New York Magazine, or probably a dozen other lefty rags.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:15 pmIs this another one of those ASPCA takes that flies in the face of reality? It happens so often, I can’t even remember what the last one was… oh, wait it was something to do with GDP.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:17 pm215 — which I have Beldar to thank for, as a matter of fact.
And that is something I will always be greatful to Beldar for having arranged.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:18 pmWhy is hugh so obsessed with Ohio, didnt he go to school elsewhere.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:26 pmI don’t doubt that he said that in ’88, DC, but Trump has been known to flip-flop and change his positions (and political parties), at times quite suddenly, and the positions he took in the 2016 run come straight from Pat Buchanan. Having seen Buchanan and his schtick in ’92 and ’96 and 2000, it’s incredible the amount of overlap between Buchanan and Trump, which should tell anyone how much the GOP has morphed.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:29 pm@215. So you’re down to pitching acquaintance w/a talking head? You don’t believe that might taint your zealousness; but who cares; does it matter? You don’t need to know him- or any other talking head in our media today- to comprehend what he is doing- and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it, but recognize it for what it is.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:36 pmThis statement is false:
Patterico’s article at Quillette did not use the term “NeverTrumper.” Here’s what the article said:
A long debate about whether Hewitt is a “NeverTrumper” and what that term means doesn’t relate to my piece much. You can have that debate if you like, but you shouldn’t pretend you’re debunking what I actually said.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:40 pmI get this much. I said Hewitt was not a NeverTrumper. That was the extent of my commentary about Hugh Hewitt. You sought to “correct” me by quoting HuffPo claiming that Hewitt was associated with NeverTrump groups, whatever the hell they mean by that. When I demonstrated that you were wrong, you then attempt to move the goalposts to something else.
Hewitt was not a NeverTrumper. He did not join that club. That is all.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:41 pmHowever if you read trumps public statements around the publication of the art of the deal his views on trade haven’t changed a,farthing.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:41 pmAnd, having read the relevant passages again, they all look accurate to me.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:42 pmAs a reminder, FWIW, I have never used the term “NeverTrumper” to describe myself, and explicitly disclaimed membership in any such group — mainly because I don’t like joining groups, because it exposes me to opprobrium for what other people do and say.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:44 pm223 — he’s from a suburb of Cleveland, and grew up a lifelong Ohio St., Cleveland Browns, Cavs, and Indians fan. he went to Michigan Law School.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:47 pmBut, you said the words, right? That you would never vote for Trump?
I mean if you said the Earth was flat, but you never explicitly joined a group of like-minded individuals, I would still think it fair to call you a flat-earther.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:47 pm230 — I then withdraw that as a “label” attached to you. I trust your representation, and I understand perfectly your reason for such. I won’t use it again.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:49 pm232 — I think there are some who willfully call themselves “NeverTrumpers”, but I do not think its unreasonable for other Trump critics who have views in common with that group to not want to label themselves in that way.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:50 pmOk that explains it, one ahian I know is a little peeved at his overt identification, I grew up in Jersey and went to school in South florida
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:50 pmI stopped at Lowry’s first example of a Trump promise kept because Trump didn’t pledge to bail on the Iran deal, he pledged to renegotiate it, which obviously never happened. If you don’t believe Politifact on that, believe his own words.
I heard Trump say that very thing on live television, and there are other sources such as this one. Of course, he may well have flip-flopped on that, too.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:52 pm225 — No, it’s the basis upon which I knew as soon as I read it that Patterico’s claim was false. He’s a bit more than an acquaintance after 9 years of friendship and many many hours of talking politics, including about Trump.
It’s your POV that is superficial and formed based on what you see as a media template.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:54 pmThat’s an amazing Lowry essay.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:56 pmYes there was no deal that would be acceptable to the Western Europeans, which seem to be on a lemming like March into obliviob
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:56 pm@226. The message is clear: line up behind Trump or else. Some pundits get the message, like Hugh Hewitt, and perform the political equivalent of acrobatics to get their public to forget the nasty things they said about Trump in the past. Others don’t get the message—or refuse to heed it—and, sometimes, we get fired for it.
There’s a fig-leaf aspect to it, P, but IMO, my talent side says they drew up a list of who they could afford to keep and lose and you and your colleagues were ‘Tom and Dick Smothered.’ The suit side says the fig-leaf rules and we’re standing by our position. From both sides it’s lousy.
______
@227. You sought to “correct” me by quoting HuffPo claiming that Hewitt was associated with NeverTrump groups, whatever the hell they mean by that.
No. HuffPo reporting. Corrected again. That is all.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:57 pmWe do, in fact, have a trade deficit with Canada.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html
And, I have no problem with Trump bs’ing Justin Trudeau. I’d be happy if Trump pushed a pie into that guy’s face.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:57 pm229 — yes, they are all accurate if you simply ignore the context and you ignore all Hewitt’s comments and writings that contradict your point.
You did not get anything incorrect in terms of the fact that he called the prospect of Trump’s candidacy being “Stage 4 cancer” for the GOP sans context, and you accurately quoted the words of the CNN article about emails that you have never seen and have no idea of the content.
You then drew factual conclusions from both.
Your comments regarding Hewitt are epitome of “Accurate but false.”
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:57 pm9 years of friendship with Hewitt or Patterico, swc? If you are talking about Patterico that way, that’s a strange friendship.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:58 pmSWC quoted a “NeverTrumper,” who doesn’t exist…
BuDuh (969d33) — 6/2/2018 @ 9:59 pmFriends don’t have to agree but shouldn’t they try to understand each other’s points, especially where they don’t agree?
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:00 pm“huffpo reporting.”
LOL. There’s an oxymoron.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:00 pmI’ll make it easy for you. Provide the link of Hewitt saying those words. A guy like Hewitt, publishing and/or broadcasting practically every day. If he said he was never going to vote for Trump, it must be there. Prove it. Quote him. Put up the link.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:01 pm244 – I met Hewitt in Oct. 2008, and watched the first Obama v. McCain debate with him in studio.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:02 pmDid it appear to you, that mccain was not giving his all in that encounter?
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:07 pmSo are you saying that, knowing Hewitt as you do, he never did an about face on Trump? He was always a supporter?
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:08 pm241. That’s a half-story, because that includes goods only, Anon. When you include the larger umbrella of goods and services, the US has a trade surplus. Granted, it’s not much of a surplus, but still a surplus, which means that Trump was doing his best Ace Ventura.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:08 pm250 — is it impossible to accept that one can prefer any number of candidates over another candidate in the primary, but once the primaries are over make the choice to support the nominee of the party???
The RedState authors who were dumped last month were relentless Trump critics right up to the time of their contracts were cancelled. They and their supporters contend the decision was based on their expressed POV re Trump. Patterico doesn’t want to be labeled a NeverTrumper but its clear that there were many such victims in the Redstate terminations.
To demonstrate in his piece that Salem media execs had made similar decisions in the past, he pointed to the CNN report — which is a mess in terms of sourcing — that Salem execs pressured Hewitt and Medved to alter their anti-Trump content. He then completely distorts Hewitt’s on-air comment on 6/8, and again distorts his column on 6/15, and claims there was a huge shift in Hewitt’s position reflected in the two which must be attributed to the pressure from the Salem media execs.
The idea that Hewitt would alter his on-air and in print commentary in writing in response to his media boss “schooling” him — and that’s the real POS statement in the piece — is a direct shot at Hewitt’s integrity.
If it was accurate, fine. But there are distortions on both ends, and complete speculation in the middle about the nature of the communication between Hewitt and the Salem CEO.
The absence of a defense from the author of the piece’s rationale is right out of the Adventure of Silver Blaze.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:22 pmNot according to Canada.
From your link.
Anon Y. Mous (6cc438) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:26 pmThat is a very interesting Lowry article. The one point that really hits home to me is his recognition that, maybe more than any President in the past 100 years, Trump is willing to spend the political capital, endure the criticism and opprobrium of the opposition and media, and plow forward to do what he promised he would do. GOP Presidents in the past have shrunk from difficult decisions because they didn’t want to endure the heat from the NYT and WaPo.
Trump doesn’t seem to care, or to the extent that he does care, he’s not dissuaded by their condemnation. He just pushes forward.
That my friends is why he is popular with those that voted for him.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:33 pmIt’s not impossible, just as it’s not impossible to believe Hewitt did an about face after input from a Salem executive. To do an about face doesn’t require a showing that Hewitt was NeverTrump and then wasn’t. It doesn’t exclude that Hewitt liked other nominees. It’s enough that Hewitt thought Trump did not have the temperament to be President and then he thought he did.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:34 pm@226. One high-profile Salem talker did a dramatic about-face on Trump in June 2016 after being schooled by Salem management. Hugh Hewitt said on his radio show on June 8, 2016 that the GOP had to dump Trump at the convention, arguing: “It’s like ignoring stage-four cancer. You can’t do it, you gotta go attack it.” But within a week, on June 15, Hewitt had penned a pro-Trump op-ed in the Washington Post, saying: “For the good of the country, Republicans have to be clear about the binary choice in front of us [and] close ranks around Trump.” What on Earth just happened? people wondered. Hewitt says he changed his mind independently, but emails from a Salem executive boasted that the CEO had written Hewitt and Michael Medved with “a very well stated case for supporting the GOP nominee because we have to beat Hillary.” After Hewitt’s op-ed appeared, the executive quoted Salem’s CEO as saying: “Wow he took a lot from my email to him and turned it into an article.”
Yes.
And this supports the media position; Hewitt made a career decision in his own best interests; not much future following the Mona Charen path to C-list obscurity; fewer Sunday show panels, less speaking engagements and so on. Hewitt’s objective- to expand his media footprint beyond books and radio — is something he has managed to do quite well and he’s not about to scuttle it. Not that’s there’s anything wrong with it. The contracts can be lucrative. The talking head set would kill for the kind of media deals a Hannity or a Limbaugh secured. And that’s all it’s about. Just see it for what it is.
Hewitt’s POV has no more validity or value than P’s or anybody else posting on his blog. If you sense otherwise, you’re belittling yourself. With those specs he wears, Hewitt has his eyes fixed along his bottom line– and he’ll go w/t flow at Salem– at MSNBC– or where ever he can to keep his media footprint growing– and if that takes some ‘acrobatics,’ just watch him perform.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:39 pm1984 is a how to manual not a warming:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Daddy_Warpig/status/1003122104399613953
narciso (d1f714) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:46 pm253. Which doesn’t negate the fact that Trump, in his own words, lied to Trudeau’s face. But according to Canada, Trump was indeed making s**t up. The real truth of the matter, Anon, is that Canada is our 2nd largest trading partner after China, and our trade with them is close to parity. There was no point in lying to Trudeau’s face except for trolling purposes. We have an exceptional commerce and trading relationship with Canada, and there’s no reason to piss all over it with bulls**t.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/2/2018 @ 10:51 pm255 — your video of Hewitt making that comment was from Aug. 2015, and it followed the very first GOP debate.
Patterico is writing about events of June 2016.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:08 pm254… yes, I agree… remarkably honest and spot on. You get him, warts and all. That endears him to his base, and enrages to the point of disabling those who oppose him. In my opinion, the pluses of what is being accomplished far outweigh his buffoonish, wild card nature.
The potshot artists, with their tediously petty behavior will continue to marginalize themselves and the Democrat media operatives and other D-baggers through their hissyfits and meltdowns will continue to inspire new converts to Trump’s way of doing things.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:12 pm258. Replying to myself, if Trump really wanted to make a valid case against Trudeau, he could’ve cited the millions of biological weapons the Canucks have been exporting to the US for years, that scourge known as Canadian geese.
Paul Montagu (e6130e) — 6/2/2018 @ 11:16 pmAhhh, the sweet smell of ‘integrity’…
‘Hewitt [oversaw] the construction of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum as the library’s executive director from groundbreaking through dedication and opening. In 1990, Hewitt sparked controversy by proposing screening of researchers wishing to use the library resources. Hewitt suggested refusing admission to researchers deemed “unfriendly” – specifically Bob Woodward, whom he characterized as “not a responsible journalist.” John Taylor, a spokesman for Nixon [no less], overturned Hewitt’s decision after two days. It became the subject of editorial rebuke in The New York Times.
In April 2018, Hewitt defended Scott Pruitt amid controversy over Pruitt’s expenditures as EPA administrators and a conflict of interest over renting a condo at discounted prices from a lobbyist representing clients regulated by the EPA. Politico described Hewitt as “one of Pruitt’s staunchest defenders.” Hewitt described the numerous ethics scandals facing Pruitt as “nonsense scandals” and argued that Pruitt’s critics were “just trying to stop the deregulation effort.” Hewitt argued that the top EPA ethics official had approved Pruitt’s rental arrangement, and that it therefore did not constitute a gift.Richard Painter, ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, argued against Hewitt, saying it was a “violation of the gift rules, and no ethics lawyer could cover that up”.
Hewitt has argued that media coverage of Pruitt has been “hyperpartisan”.In an interview with Pruitt, Hewitt said “I know you are not a climate denier”; Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.
Hugh Hewitt’s son, James, is a political appointee working under Pruitt. In May 2018, it was reported that Pruitt had personally prioritized a polluted Orange County site for immediate and intense clean-up via long-term federal clean-up funding after Hewitt had brokered a December 2017 meeting between Pruitt and a legal firm representing the polluted district. The EPA did not disclose the meeting; it was revealed after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.Hewitt lives in Orange County and is employed by the law firm. After the meeting, Hewitt would frequently defend Pruitt amid a number of ethics scandals. Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor at the Washington Post, where Hewitt is a contributing columnist, said that he was “disturbed” by the reports of Hewitt’s undisclosed ties, and that Hewitt would not write on issues related to the EPA again. MSNBC gave Hewitt a verbal warning after he failed to disclose the EPA meeting to viewers of his MSNBC show.
In June 2016, after Trump’s controversial remarks concerning Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Hewitt publicly called on the RNC to disendorse Trump as nominee. A week later, Hewitt reversed his position in a Washington Post op-ed. Internal emails showed that a Salem Media executive pressured Hewitt to support Trump, and that the Salem Media executive attributed Hewitt’s support for Trump in the aforementioned Washington Post op-ed shortly after to the pressure. Hewitt denied being pressured to change his position on Trump.
On August 3, he publicly floated the idea of replacing Donald with Ivanka Trump on the ticket. On October 8, he called on Trump to drop out of the race because of a controversial recording of Trump that was published the previous day. Hewitt has said he ultimately voted for Trump.’ -source, wikipediabio
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/3/2018 @ 2:05 amStriking oolitico doesnt bring any of this up:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/04/media-bias-proof-scott-pruitt-energy-department-obama-administration-communications
narciso (d1f714) — 6/3/2018 @ 5:22 amFacts are stubborn things:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/20/pruitt-soundproofphone-booth
narciso (d1f714) — 6/3/2018 @ 5:26 amNothing is more funny than a Never-trumping complaining about being fired or de-platformed. Usually, they do so, in-between their cheers for some poor slob who’s been fired or silenced for “wrong-think” by the Entertainment Industry, MSM, or whoever.
Maybe Patterico, Kevin Williamson or Erickson can give us their blog posts and/or tweets supporting Derb, Steyn, Or Coulter when they got canned by National Review. Or maybe Erickson can tell us why after De-platforming Trump at his Red State Get-together, and cheering for Rosanne being fired, we should care about his lack of a MSM outlet.
rcocean (1a839e) — 6/3/2018 @ 7:22 amSo one can see the conflict of interest that prevents the times the post or the journal from reporting honestly on politico
narciso (d1f714) — 6/3/2018 @ 7:28 amHugh Hewitt is a chameleon and first and foremost a Big Business Republican. His default position is to call anyone who wants border security a racist, and to attack anyone who challenges the status-quo from the Right. However, he’s smart enough to realize that Hillary was against 75% of what he supposedly stands for, while Trump was against 25%. Supporting Trump after the primary was a no-brainer.
What’s astounding about the Never Trumpers is they were explicit or Defacto Hillary supporters. Why should Right-winger trust them or listen to them after that? Kristol, at least, has made it quite clear he’s no longer a Neo-Con, it was just a pose, and he’s now a “Classical Liberal”> Maybe some others like the boys at National Review need to revise their Brand. What about “National Review, its not just for Conservatives anymore?” Or “National Review, home of Classical Liberalism, Globalization, and Gay Marriage”
rcocean (1a839e) — 6/3/2018 @ 7:30 amPruitt, yes focusing on minute that few people understand isn’t terribly helpful.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/3/2018 @ 7:33 amAs for Trump *supposedly* lying to Trudeau. A Diplomat is defined as “Someone who lies for his country”. I’m sure Trump was lying for the good ol’ USA, so its hard to care.
Assuming it even happened. Which I doubt. The MSM has ZERO crediblity when attacking Trump. Every attack must be checked and double-checked and fact-checked, since they have lied in the past.
rcocean (1a839e) — 6/3/2018 @ 7:34 am261…Amen and Preach! The pigeon of the suburban office park or what’s left of it.
urbanleftbehind (cbbe6f) — 6/3/2018 @ 7:35 amNeverTrumpinistas take Trump literally, but not seriously.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/3/2018 @ 7:37 amTrump’s supporters take him seriously, but not literally.
Amen coronello it’s the gell Mann hypothesis that the late Michael Crichton observed
narciso (d1f714) — 6/3/2018 @ 7:39 amIts,like the last 15 years of media malpractice hadn’t happened, groundhog day.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/3/2018 @ 7:44 amThe media’s lack of interest in learning why November 8, 2016 happened says a lot about them, narciso.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/3/2018 @ 7:52 amIt would be like dinosaurs pondering the , what’s are excuse?
narciso (f1965a) — 6/3/2018 @ 7:59 amThe basis of my words is set forth in the piece. It is accurate. I don’t need to engage in a long back and forth with you about it, especially with the tone you have adopted. Everything I need to say has been said.
How did Hewitt know who you were for this meeting to happen?
Patterico (361788) — 6/3/2018 @ 8:18 amFunny… Corey Lewandowski just confused Rosanne Barr with Rosie O’Donnell on FNS.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/3/2018 @ 8:27 amI’d like to hear what those factual conclusions are that I drew, but only if presented to me in the form of a direct quote that I actually said. Something like: “here is a factual conclusion you drew, Patterico: ‘[direct quote from Patterico’s Quillette article.]'” I am uninterested in debating your characterizations of my words, however.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/3/2018 @ 8:33 am278 — You’re fine mischaracterizing the words of others, but you keystrokes are off-limits??
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/3/2018 @ 9:53 amHe comes in Peace.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/3/2018 @ 10:12 am278:
Enough said. Anything that follows is made suspect as a result.
You don’t know what was in the communication between Atsinger and Hewitt.
You don’t know whether Boyce’s email is an accurate reflection of what Atsinger supposedly said about Hewitt.
You ignore the context of Hewitt’s June 8 comment on-air.
You ignore the context of Hewitt’s June 15 column, settling for a mere characterization of the situation with the question “What on earth just happened,” and never mention the explanation IN THE COLUMN for the POV expressed.
If you are going to accuse someone of selling out under pressure, where they have provided an explanation for a change in tone, it’s simply unfair to address that explanation with “Hewitt says he changed his mind independently” without offering any portion of the proffered reasons.
Then when you follow that line up with “but emails from a Salem executive” say another executive caused the shift, then you just called Hewitt’s explanation a lie.
You claim there was a shift in his views, and without any FACTUAL foundation you attribute that shift to written words you’ve never seen, and about which you don’t have the first clue with regard to the content.
But the real issue is that Hewitt’s views of Trump were always about the prospects for success of his candidacy, and not Trump himself. Prospects for success shift over-time based on events.
To the extent Hewitt was “against” Trump it was because he was “against” what he feared was certain defeat in a contest with Clinton — not just the defeat of Trump, but the defeat of the GOP across all levels.
Several things happened AFTER June 2016 which changed the dynamic of the race, even without having to take into consideration how wrong the pollsters and prognosticators were predicting the race.
The most significant change was Comey’s “exoneration” of Clinton in the email matter, while at the same time lambasting her for her conduct and the dissembling by her supporters to cover up what she had done.
Your piece does not make this distinction — you simply lump all the anti-Trump voices at Salem Media together as if they were consistency in their views, and any change over time should be attributed to efforts by the Salem overlords to stamp out the voices of dissent in conservative circles.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/3/2018 @ 10:28 amI’ve only been here a couple weeks but getting bored. How do y’all stand it for years?
P.s. The Sally Field movie was cool though. Hadn’t seen it before. And the start with the presses running…very cool. I remember delivering a 100 paper route of the “heaviest Sunday paper in the country” back in the early 80s.
Anonymous (ea5569) — 6/3/2018 @ 10:59 amIts sad how sally has gone tourettes in the jezebel style check aug 30 2008, for what I’m referring to, I think they called it salvaging in the original hand maids tale,
Newman says he did ‘malice’ because a trick headline in ft apache the Bronx, a film thAT will remain in obscurity, but his character was accused of arranging the death of union organizer, based on no evidence, sound familiar?
narciso (d1f714) — 6/3/2018 @ 11:30 amThis is the only quote of mine you provide and thus the only part I will respond to. I believe it to be true because the executive quoted the CEO as saying: “Wow he took a lot from my email to him and turned it into an article.” That establishes that the schooling took place before the op-ed.
Everything else is your characterization. I am not debating that with you, as the attack dog tone makes it non-constructive. Since I have shown that the one quote of mine you cited as a false conclusion is based on a solid foundation, I’ll consider the discussion closed on my end unless you offer another quote of mine that is (as you claimed) a false factual conclusion.
Patterico (361788) — 6/3/2018 @ 11:36 amHave a nice Sunday. It’s a beautiful day here.
Patterico (361788) — 6/3/2018 @ 11:37 amI try hard not to mischaracterize others’ words. It’s wrong to say I’m fine with it. But I do insist that such claims about me be based on things Inactually said, or I will not address those claims.
Patterico (361788) — 6/3/2018 @ 11:41 amThis really does remind me of Trump asking for real people instead of fake sources.
Not there is anything wrong with that.
BuDuh (eab7a4) — 6/3/2018 @ 11:43 am286:
You’re not fine mischaracterizing, but you are fine characterizing. And this comes with a risk, of accuracy and of bias.
I also think you try to much to overcontrol the scope of the debate (you have to respond to X; I choose not to respond to Y; you were mean to me, therefore I’m not talking to you; etc.)
But the whole thing is such a slap-fight.
Anonymous (d41cee) — 6/3/2018 @ 11:47 amEvery discussion comes with a risk of bias or lack of accuracy.
I cannot control what others do. I can control how I respond. I choose to respond to those who quote me, and to ignore characterizations or my words or behavior.
Patterico (361788) — 6/3/2018 @ 11:53 am288. It need not be. Many of the things we argue over here, particularly viz-a-vis Trump, are binary propositions. Either Trump is honest or dishonest. Either he is fit for the office he holds or he is unfit. Either/or. If/then. In making either of those binary assertions, one is either correct or incorrect. We might as well be arguing over whether 2 + 2 = 4 or 5.
Gryph (08c844) — 6/3/2018 @ 11:56 am268 – -willfully taking words out of context is mischaracterizing them.
Having no information about what others are said to have written, or the impact of that writing on the person you are maligning, is an exercise in deceit.
The only purpose is to advance your narrative., i.e., executives at Salem have stamped out dissent on the conservative side.
I’m criticizing your words in the context within which you have written them.
You not only fail to defend your context, you fail to establish the accurate portrayal of the context of the words of others that you have quoted.
The reason for that is that you can’t. That’s why you are unwilling to engage in the exchange.
shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/3/2018 @ 11:59 amSam Harris had an interesting comment recently on one of his podcasts. He pointed out that whenever he defends himself, no matter how he does it, it ends up being a bad look to a sizable portion of his audience. Even if the attack on him is totally without merit, and his defense is made in a mature and non-combative fashion, the mere fact that he is defending himself causes many of his listeners to react badly. This complaint rang true to me. Harris’s conclusion is that he will probably stop defending himself as much as he has in the past. To some degree, I have reached the same conclusion. It’s always a balance between letting falsehoods stand and descending into a “slap fight” and for some people literally any defense is characterized as a slap fight. It’s probably best to respond once, and otherwise err on the side of letting falsehoods stand, when the alternative is personal annoyance that causes bystanders to conclude, not that the falsehood has been addressed, but that the host is engaged in a silly fight. To the extent that I inhabit the comments less in the future, however, it is not so much the reaction of bystanders that will motivate me as my own personal desire to spend my time constructively and in a manner that preserves my equanimity.
Patterico (361788) — 6/3/2018 @ 12:12 pmI know its supposed to be a scandal:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/trump-administration-may-support-coal-and-nuclear-power.php
narciso (d1f714) — 6/3/2018 @ 12:12 pmI also trust the people here who I respect to pay attention to what I have already said and to heed my admonitions to pay attention to what I have actually said rather than the characterizations of others. Those people will be able to form their own conclusion as to whether I choose to debate only my quotes because (as claimed here) I can’t defend myself, or whether (as I claim) I choose not to engage in an endless back and forth I which I explain how my words have been distorted, and thus insist that any discussion begin with my words and not a characterization of them. I trust in the ability of those I truly respect to make that judgment well.
Patterico (361788) — 6/3/2018 @ 12:18 pmBusted and run out of town
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/3/2018 @ 12:18 pmHad his keyboard burned when he was clownin’
Hasn’t slept in a bed for a week
And his views read like they’re Fait Accompli
Let him come down
where he won’t be a bother to no one
Let him unwind
please give him a hole to recline in
292:
“Slap fight” is incendiary and I was expecting more condemnation for saying it. (But ich kann nichts anders.) Thanks for understanding where I’m coming from, versus how I express it. It’s not just a debate tactic. I seriously think maybe I’ve gotten what I want from a couple weeks of interaction and may buzz off.
Anonymous (d41cee) — 6/3/2018 @ 12:23 pmIs were relying on emails selectively leaked to a network that has doxee anonymous youtubers while covering a pillow moat incidents where narratives collide often with the truth.
narciso (d1f714) — 6/3/2018 @ 12:26 pmPatterico, put your energy where YOU want to. I think some folks, again, just want to fight…
Thanks for the Sam Harris recommendations. Very interesting, and different from how I remember him.
Simon Jester (491cd3) — 6/3/2018 @ 12:31 pmWell Simon we have the same carp as clear channel look the Dixie chicks off the air, meanwhile we are coming up on one year since the Alexandria shootings and we are supposed to believe that is like the whether.
narciso (e15513) — 6/3/2018 @ 12:40 pmWeather, Duckworth and durbin was one of the last persons in contact with the shooter no curiosity whatsoever, stockman practically had to resign re McVeigh and there was no I’ll intent there
narciso (e15513) — 6/3/2018 @ 12:42 pmWhat’s Quillette?
I don’t think you mentioned this before.
Congratulations on yopur new platform.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 6/3/2018 @ 12:44 pmSan Harris didn’t realize we are back in Tudor times where blasphemy law is state policym
narciso (e15513) — 6/3/2018 @ 1:01 pmNarrative is why Ben Rhodes instead of hiding under a rock, is at MSNBC, (rimshot)
narciso (d1f714) — 6/3/2018 @ 1:21 pmBTW, isn’t it amazing that ANYONE cares about Hugh Hewitt – after he’s been wrong on so many things, so many times.
Yeah, we should have dropped Trump in June 2016, he was a going to LOSE!!! We should have supported McCain and Romney in 2008 and 2012 – they were headed for certain VICTORY!!!
And hey, we don’t need border security, and illegal immigration is A-OK, cause all those illegals are “natural Conservatives” – they’ll turn California “Red state” forever !!! Oh, and Harriet Meyers, Bush missed the chance of a lifetime when her nomination fell through – damn those sexists who gave us Alioto.
rcocean (1a839e) — 6/3/2018 @ 1:24 pmthe people what like to poop all over President Trump tend to be people of means and social standing and circumstances to where they won’t be affected if he fails and icky sticky cameltoe gets elected in 2018
but i know lots of people what have prospered under President Trump to where they’re making up some of the ground they lost under food stamp!
I wish President Trump well cause of I wish these people well
i could be super-snotty and say uggy-poop Trump isn’t good for my brand but i don’t do that cause he’s doing important things, impactful things
and plus he’s exposed more corruption in his brief time in office than the sum total of corruption exposed by presidents since the end of WW2 all put together!
therefore i like President Trump and I support President Trump and I love President Trump for how he’s made people’s lives genuinely better in tangible, measurable ways I can’t remember any president doing my whole life
it’s an amazing turnaround story in the making, for millions of individuals and for the nation as a whole, and I love that and I am very grateful for President Trump
happyfeet (28a91b) — 6/3/2018 @ 2:56 pmAnother good read in Quillette… “The US media, stocked with coastal elites who all seem to be on the same page politically (including on the issue of blacklisting those with dissenting opinion), has more or less devoted itself to daily preaching against Donald Trump for the past two years. Criticising or morally condemning Trump is hardly edgy or even a courageous act of sticking one’s head above the parapet; it is expected. Yet these people still call him a totalitarian. How can we account for this lack of self-awareness on their part?”
https://quillette.com/2018/06/04/prison-house-political-language/
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 6/4/2018 @ 4:13 pm