Pro-Trump vs. Never-Trump blogging
Ace has a fascinating piece about the decisions bloggers and other pundits on the right have had to make in the era of Trump.
Fascinating to me, anyway. He writes:
Some time ago I faced the choice of doing an anti-Trump-but-pro-conservative blog, or getting on board with Trump…
But when I was contemplating the idea of a blog that was allegedly pro-conservative while simultaneously being against the key player (flaws and all) of the actual on-the-ground real-world conservative movement, I realized: This makes no sense.
What’s the audience for that? How many readers would that attract? How narrow a window would I have to shoot for, simultaneously opposing the president and the putative leader of the conservative movement while also allegedly being a bright red TruCon gung-ho for conservative political victories?
Wouldn’t any conservative political victory redound to Trump’s benefit? And wouldn’t my opposition to Trump mean that I would not welcome such victories?…
Add into this the fact that most blog commentary involves very attitudinal snark and denigration of one’s political opponents. It doesn’t have to involve that, but the practical reality is: It almost always involves that.
I faced the same dilemma during the primaries and prior to the election in 2016. But I didn’t really see it as a question for me. That’s because my philosophy is if you’re not going to speak your mind on your own blog, why blog at all?
Of course, it helps that my traffic isn’t all that big. I mean, it’s not tiny, but it’s probably a small fraction of Ace’s, and although I make some money on this blog the amount is also probably a small fraction of what someone like Ace makes blogging. Naturally, I’d like both those numbers to increase, but (as he also points out) “very attitudinal snark and denigration of one’s political opponents” seems to be the way of most (not all) high-traffic blogs, and that’s not my forte (or my interest, or my inclination) either.
In fact, this paragraph of Ace’s might just be the problem with yours truly, although I hope I’m more interesting that that:
And now what’s the audience down to? You can either write in such a careful and emotionless way that you aren’t read as snarking at your intraparty rivals — but that would probably result in a dry and overly-milquetoast blog, with few readers.
When Trump was a candidate, I was honest about my opinion that his track record and style as a private citizen indicated there would be big trouble. If he were to be nominated, I thought he’d lose the election. And if he were to be elected, I thought he’d break his conservative promises and/or be power-mad and/or wreak havoc in foreign affairs. But I always said I’d be happy to be proven wrong, and I always said if he somehow were to become president I would evaluate him on his actions thereafter.
I think my position during the campaign was supported by the evidence at the time, and I’m happy to report that I’ve been pleasantly surprised by his actions since the election. But if that trajectory puts me in some sort of “careful and emotionless…overly-milquetoast” category—well then, that’s the way it is.
But the dilemma for bloggers and pundits has been (and remains) real. I lost a lot of readers during the campaign, about 1/3 of my previous traffic. My income from the blog declined, as well. Some have come back, but far from all. Of course, those developments might also reflect the fact that people are tired of politics and its bitterness, and turned off from Amazon (from which I derive a certain percentage of my blog income).
Who knows? But in the final analysis, I gotta be me. I yam what I am. Yadda yadda yadda.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s an article on the RedState firings of a lot of anti-Trump bloggers, the topic that sparked Ace’s post. I read RedState quite often, and I have to say that—for me, anyway—one of the big problems with the writing of some of the people RedState fired (I don’t read them all, but I’m familiar with some of them) is that they seemed reflexively anti-Trump, seeing nefarious things about him even in the most innocuous things.]
I used to like reading comments, but I can’t read them at most sites anymore. That is one thing I do regularly here because you have informed commenters who make me think.
Not only do the commenter’s make me think, but Neo also does, before I even get to the comments.
That’s why I’m an every day reader.
My main problem with the anti-Trumpers was that most of them seemed to be overemphasizing the importance of his political incorrectness and failed to understand the level of concern that many voters had with the direction in which our society was moving.
Many of us were concerned that this might be a pivotal point which would determine the future of our republic and felt that political correctness was completely immaterial in this context. This is why we were so often using the analogy of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I remember commenting that if one was drowning, would the manners or political correctness of the person throwing the life preserver really matter?
Considering the revealed criminality of the Democrats and the subversion of almost all of the institutions of government, I think it turned out to be a valid concern. Just imagine if that group had been put in power. Does anyone really believe that with that much power they would have ever allowed a fair election again?
I’m not understanding his dilemma. Robert Stacy McCain (to take one example) has been the last few years composing a starboard blog without cheerleading or reflexive criticism. There is no need to do either if you’re interested in issues and events.
The problem with NeverTrumpers is at least two-fold: they refuse to reflect on why people find the Capitol Hill nexus (and, in some cases, the starboard chatterati) so alienating. The other is that (by all appearances) they are under the influence of the cultural dynamic in their social circle, wherein the overall tone is set by people indifferent to or hostile to the concerns of Republican voters. Some of the antagonism to Trump is quite emotions-driven. Jennifer Rubin provides one example, George Will another.
“You can either write in such a careful and emotionless way that you aren’t read as snarking at your intraparty rivals – but that would probably result in a dry and overly-milquetoast blog, with few readers.”
Snark can be fun and maybe even useful at times. However, I liken it to empty calories. Gets your blood sugar up, but does nothing useful for your brain or body.
I never thought myself a thinker. Actually more of a doer. I’m surprised that my taste in blogs runs toward the so-called milquetoast variety. But I don’t see it that way. Milquetoast? Hardly. I think your blog is meaty with something to chew on. Keeps the brain working. And that’s a blessing. Snark is junk food. Thinking and formulating ideas is nourishing. Good for the soul too.
The problem with the NeverTrumpers is first they wanted to be able to say “I told you so” when he got the nomination and lost the election, then they wanted to say “I told you so” when his presidency was a mess.
Neither happened, and nearly 2 years in they’re still looking for excuses to say “I told you so”.
It all comes back to Neo’s many posts about the difficulty of changing your mind. It turns out that for some people NeverTrumping was akin to painting yourself into a corner and they can’t get out of it.
Disruptor Trump is just not “their guy,” not part of the Deep State, and for that reason not only the Left/Democrats, but the Republican establishment and most Congressional Republicans, almost the entirety of the very left leaning Federal Bureaucracy, the MSM, Hollywood, and many of the liberal judges around the country despise and hate him, and their “conspiracy of shared values” is doing everything in it’s power to thwart him and to destroy him, his family, and his presidency.
How dare an outsider–and an “uncouth” one at that–try to steer the Ship of State in a different direction, to bust up how things were so profitably arranged, to derail the comfortable gravy train?
Trump finds himself the (perhaps somewhat unwilling) champion and symbol of the ordinary, every day, “little people” who inhabit “flyover country,” the subject of scorn and derision from every quarter of the Left, and from supposedly “enlightened” and “fashionable” people.
Trump’s supporters, these “deplorable,” old fashioned–“too dumb to understand where their best interests lie”–people, the remaining judges who actually believe in and rule according to the Constitution, and our Military are the rearguard, what remains of what was the Old America, and a major stumbling block to the New America, and reading some minds on the Left, “something will have to be done about them.”
The comments so far are rehashing debates from the pre-election commentary, and, well, here we are again.
I only read Ace and RedState and others when they have a particular post linked by Neo or PLB — because I don’t want a steady diet of snark and contention.
(Wit and satirical skewering are more to be desired.)
That’s why I never watch TV or listen to radio “interviews” aka mud-throwing yelling matches.
What I like is reading what Neo thinks, playing it off the commenters thoughts, the trouncing of Manju from time to time (not everything M posts is wrong, but the things that are drive us to articulate what we think is more correct), learning history from Artfldgr (and skimming the rest), and finally reaching the conclusion (most of the time): We’ll see.
Because nothing in politics ever comes to a definitive end — see the ongoing feuds on Kennedy’s assassination for a conspiracy theory on steroids, but we also seem to continually get new revelations of data that the government, media, or even private persons never revealed back in the day, which change our understanding of an event or situation.
If Neo is milquetoast, pass me a bowl full, please.
ambisinistral:
I agree.
It is very difficult to say you were wrong about someone. It is also very hard to credit someone you dislike with doing things you like.
They become more and more desperate to resolve their cognitive dissonance.
Hmm. RedState seems to have taken a cue from The Atlantic.
Neo,
Somewhat on topic. I go to the gym most days of the week. One of the fancy ones with walls of monitors with various channels. I typically work out when it fits into my schedule from 4pm until 3am for 60 to 90 minutes.
The reason I point this out is because both FOX and CNN are on monitors right next to each other. Fox obviously covers politics and things involving Trump. But I usually see quite a few other things on their programming.
In the last month i have yet to see a single thing on CNN other than the latest on Trump. Some are serious, others ridiculous. But every single story is a negative about him and obsesses about perceived slights and exaggerated errors.
I am not usually for purging people from the media. You would think someone at some point would set a better course for the Trump haters. But it seems that not only must there be a conformity on belief on the left. But there must be conformity of the subject matter also. It seems that Trump hating is an all consuming lifestyle choice. And if those let go by Redstate were anything like their brethren at CNN. I do not see much of a choice. I for one would like to think that there are at least SOME other things they could be obsessed about.
Have to admit I haven’t read red state in a while. As a long time reader of the neo from the podcast days I usually check in daily along with visiting Powerlineblog, instapundit, PJMedia’s Hot Mic and Legal insurrection.
As for the Never Trumpers – feh, like our gracious host I thought he was a democrat in spirit and continue to take the country leftward. As for the twitter, I really wish he would be less combative and more presidential, but that isn’t the way he works. The best thing about his presidency is he fights the BS.
Is he a reluctant supporter of the working class? I don’t think so, he seems to have been involved in his buildings in a lot of ways and in construction if you really want to know how the job is going don’t talk to the project managers, talk to the plumber, the electrician, the concrete guys, i.e. the guys with the dirty hands, they’ll give you the real progress update (all fairness I must state that as an inspector on these sites I deal with them everyday).
Neo – milquetoast – never! Keep up the good words!
Mythx:
I don’t usually watch TV news. But I do know some people who can’t seem to get through 15 minutes of conversation on any topic without making some negative comment about Trump. Sometimes even more often than that.
Milquetoast? Definitely not.
I’ve maintained a neutral position since the primaries started.
The Trum supporters and potential supporters don’t like it. The Leftists and Hillary lovers don’t like it either.
Neither hot nor cold was criticized even in the New Testament. Hard core believers of either side don’t like neutrals. To a certain extent, neutrality rubs people wrong more than the fervent opposing believers rub each other wrong.
This is the benefit of Red vs Blue as a control method. So long as somebody is busy hating Republicans, hating whites, hating Leftists, they will forget to read between the lines and understand that even if their enemies die, their problems won’t go away. While it is true that if we removed the Leftist alliance from the face of the world, we can begin solving problems without being blocked, but that doesn’t mean the Left=problems. It just means the Left is stopping people from solving problems, and also making up more problems as they go along.
It is very hard to label certain neutral parties and individuals. For example, GB believed that Trum was the solution sooner or later in the Primary season, and defended that position by bringing up the fatal dangers of the Leftist alliance and thus Hillary. Trum was the “emergency damage control” switch. Now if a neutral party said “well, the Left isn’t that dangerous, so we don’t need to settle for Trum”. That could be criticized as lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. But when someone takes the neutral position and he believes the Leftist alliance is even more powerful and dangerous than what GB said they were, then we got a problem Houston.
Can’t label people if they don’t fit the stereotypes. Establishment people are offended by Trum and want their DC power. That is easy to label critics as establishment if their culture is similar enough, such as Goldman Sachs. When Trum hires several Goldman Sachs boys, then is Trum also an Establishment? People don’t want to talk about that.
It’s why Kan would normally be labeled a racist, except some labels don’t work as well given the identity of Kan. The target needs to at least be credible enough to be put under a label attack. Sarah Palin, for example, was lambasted with seeing Russia from Alaska, even though that was a parody spoof. The spoof was close enough to public perception for it to become reality. Meanwhile the Left tells me I can see the ISS using a phone app, satellites, the features of the moon, and the stars too, just with the naked eye through the atmosphere. But we can’t see Russia from Alaska… ok. It must be some giganic gravity lens right. There’s no atmos lensing above us, just across the ocean, right.
“very attitudinal snark and denigration of one’s political opponents” seems to be the way of most (not all) high-traffic blogs, and that’s not my forte (or my interest, or my inclination) either.
I learned that watching religious debates. My attitude towards the Leftist alliance is probably worse than the entire Republican, Trum included, combined.
The King James version says it best:
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
Integrity, honor, kindness, truth, prudence, loyalty – gone with the wind.
Lying, deal making, vindictiveness, dishonor, whoring around, impulsiveness, hubris – in like Flynn.
Conservatives have decided that there really isn’t much moral difference between them and the left. So be it, and a pox on both their houses.
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/couple-who-fled-ice-mourned-at-delano-service/article_f05fbb46-36ab-11e8-9fa0-fbb557dbe5bc.html
I lost a lot of readers during the campaign, about 1/3 of my previous traffic.
They got triggered by the population here, some of which were more conservative than me, telling them stuff they didn’t want to hear. The Alt Right had an easier to swallow position for those bitter and angry at the Left.
The Alt Right comment sections such as at Breitbart reinforced their bitterness, thus it was their safe space.
Being neutral on the primaries and Republican vs Democrat Red vs Blue antics, I wasn’t too worried about whether it was OM attacking GB for supporting Trum or whatever people found popular and entertaining to do here. They didn’t truly understand the power or nature of the Deep State.
On another topic, I traced back where the concept of love originated from the Old Testament, since it should have been the distillation and summation of the Law of Moses or Torah. But love isn’t found as a concept often in Torah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesed
It’s not love, as we understand it.
NAS: With the kind You show Yourself kind,
KJV: With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful,
Neo and the commenters here are one of the best on the net for me because agree or disagree all of you make an honest attempt to deal with a highly ambiguous situation. Because I tend to think longer term – more cultural time than political time – I think Trump will be seen as a transitional figure in the longer term. I remember my father describing the uncertainty in the 30s when he thought that the uS would become either fascist or communist. What happened was FDR’s version of Keynesian based regulated capitalism which was followed in a more social democratic version by western Europe after 1945. It buried gull gospel socialism and has become egregiously corrupt and blind. What Trump has done is out them – accelerated the process of people wising up to them. I’m no optimist because I don’t see Western Culture surviving with its Bourbon like plutocracy that thinks it can simply replace its native populations with any old immigrant because we are all the same world without end amen. I believe something has to fundamentally change and it may be way deeper than politics. For me Jordan Peterson puts his finger on it when he says we have lost touch with Logos and Mythos and are wandering around busily creating Hades believing it is a safe space.
@ Ymar Sakar
“But love isn’t found as a concept often in Torah.”
May I suggest you re-read it slowly and carefully in the original Hebrew (with a good dictionary if necessary: one that provides more than one definition for a questionable word) and check with a well-educated, middle-of-the-road rabbi for those portions that are difficult.
My personal analysis of the Trump phenomenon was that Trump supporters weren’t enough to get him nominated. He won the nomination due to the fact his opposition split his detractors, giving him the majority. What gave him the election was never Hillary voters. Being one that focuses on principal (libertarian) as opposed to personality, I’ve been mostly pleased with Trumps presidency.
I’ve been a daily Neo reader since the very beginning due to a recommendation from Q&O. I also enjoyed and miss the podcasts. I was first attracted by the writing style and considerable ability, then by the content. I find little to disagree with here.
Couple of guys on my FB page seem to have started hating a hideous combover and gone downhill from there. And then there are their commenters….
Ask for facts about anti-Trump assertions and they give you either nonsense or vile ad hom.
Then there is the phenomenon where you can just…say stuff…and nobody’s supposed to challenge it. Guy in a meeting said this anti-semitism is because Trump won’t come down on it, he started it. Pointed out that the issue on campus long predated the election and that Trump has Jewish grandchildren. Blank look. Contradicting such nonsense is simply not done. But perhaps finding out he wasn’t in the presence of 100% virtue-signalers was unsettling.
IMO, for a lot of Trump-haters, the hate came first and the policy objections followed necessarily. As I keep saying, it’ s going to be a damn’ shame if things work out. Full employment is going to be “slavery”.
So where’s the hate coming from? Lefties, of course, have their thing. But, afaict, a lot of it is virtue signaling which becomes actually real instead of a pose.
The same folks claim Hillary is innocent because she hasn’t been indicted. That was then. Now, it’s sneering that because the fix is in, she’s going to skate and that’s cool.
What is interesting is the reaching for…anything with which to condemn Trump. It’s so strange. Policy as it exists isn’t the real issue. It’s policy turned inside out or made up out of whole cloth and ascribed to Trump that gets them riled up. When they should, and probably do, know better.
While there are few things new under the sun, it occurs to me that the anti-Trump thing is, at least, improbable in any rational sense. Now, if I were to post this someplace else, I’d be met with assertions, outraged assertions, that Trump is racist, homophobic, etc. If I asked for evidence, the temperature would double and the pejoratives triple but no actual facts would show up.
Somebody made a snarky observation that, in light of the recent developments in Korea, the Ninth Circuit has decreed the Korean War must continue. That’s a bit over the top. The case hasn’t even been brought. Yet.
Snarky is fun and interesting, in an entertaining way, so long as it isn’t mean-spirited. I visit Ace every day, and his posts and comments, while often snarky, toe the proper side of the line between entertaining and mean-spirited. I don’t visit for the snark.
I visit Neo daily as well, but not for snark rather for down the middle, dispassionate exploration of the issues (and for the ballet!). Nearly all the commenters here follow her lead.
It seems to me that if I were to meet Ace and Neo I would find they are similar in person as they present themselves in their blog writing. What else is a blogging person to do?
Keep being yourself Neo, and writing in your style. I’ll keep visiting and am willing to bet that as the polarizing anti-Trump mood fades your traffic will increase. Snark, when overdone, can be exhausting.
Never Trumpers are a proud sort that cannot admit being wrong.
I was wrong.
I am of the opinion that given how Trump was elected, particularly by confusion in the enemy camp, the hand of God intervened.
I am disappointed that Ace would tailor his opinion to the market.
My only problem with Neoneocon.com is that with all the insightful comments and prolific posting, it’s tough to keep up.
My personal analysis of the Trump phenomenon was that Trump supporters weren’t enough to get him nominated. He won the nomination due to the fact his opposition split his detractors, giving him the majority.
I’m thinking arithmetic wasn’t your best subject. That aside, Trump won 45% of the popular votes in a four-candidate contest, a performance similar to that of John McCain in 2008. Ted Cruz received 25%. There is no grand reason to believe that had the Messrs. Kasich and Rubio departed the scene that 80% of their ballots would have redeployed to Ted Cruz. Mr. Cruz is at least as despised by the Capitol Hill nexus as is Mr. Trump, so I’m not sure why you figure that the Republican voters satisfied with the manure sandwiches Mitch McConnell feeds them would break overwhelmingly for the candidate who had the cojones to call AMM a liar on the Senate floor.
I think the NeverTrumpers that remain are one of three types.
1. The NR and Bill Kristols are dependent on donors that still disdain Trump and who were doing quite well with ZIRP and Obama.
2. The types like Patrick Frey, who I have known personally since the days of Cathy Seipp, are angry and will not see reality unless it bites them. I used to read and comment at Patrick’s blog, Patterico. I left after the election when he was really nasty and, among other things, called me a liar when I disagreed with him. He was one of the ones fired at Red State.
3. The remainder are mostly Trump haters on cultural grounds. There are still some at Ricochet, which I quit for two years after getting into a nasty debate about evolution several years ago (before Trump). There were some “Young Earth Creationists” and allies.
I am impressed with bloggers like Diplomad 2.0 who is a retired foreign service officer with lots of other FSOs as commenters and they are all pro-Trump.
I can’t stand to watch him talk but he does things that needed to be done. Only a billionaire who is a bit crazy would take on the Deep State. The lies about Admiral Jackson are an example of how low the left will go. I hope Trump campaigns against Tester this fall.
Patrick Frey is a prosecutor. My hypothesis about prosecutors as people is that a larger than normal subset thereof are simply incapable of admitting error and will deploy argumentative virtuosity to advance the most insupportable rubbish. I’ve had my own tangles with Frey and, yes, he has a neuralgic response when someone tells him he’s talking rot. My wager would be that just about anyone would eventually be motivated to unload him, no matter what substantive position he took on issues.
I doubt the NR / Weekly Standard crew are chafing under their donors. People who write for a living don’t necessarily have much rapport with or sympathy for their supposed audience. See George Will. Will doesn’t need donors. He could have retired 25 years ago had he a mind, and holed up like JD Salinger just writing for himself.
You don’t mention the crew of opinion-mongers on the patronage of the liberal media. Some of them have a distinct (and substantively contentious) perspective (e.g. Ross Douthat and Megan McArdle). Most are pets (Kathleen Parker, Jennifer Rubin, and Matt K. Lewis).
Trump’s election and Presidency has, as one of it’s benefits, brought to the surface and into plain view a lot of attitudes, agendas, and people that had formerly hid beneath the surface.
We might have suspected that many in the Intelligence Agencies, the DOJ and the FBI, the State Department, and various other government Departments and Agencies, that various supposedly Republican/Conservative members of Congress were not the honest, rational, neutral civil servants of the Constitution and us citizens, seeking the truth, applying the law equally to all without fear or favor; the paragons of Republican virtue they appeared or claimed to be.
But now, after these last two years of their antics–what they’ve said, and what they’ve done, and not done–we know for certain they aren’t.
What we’ve witnessed, what they are instead, is a frenzied, red-faced, sweating lynch mob, one that cares nothing for rationality, fairness, or truth, screaming that–no matter how, no matter what–they want Trump’s blood.
Those revelations are, in and of themselves, extremely valuable.
ambisinistral Says:
“Neither happened, and nearly 2 years in they’re still looking for excuses to say “I told you so”.”
good point. I didn’t vote for Trump but my opinion of him has softened up a lot considering he is doing ok in the real world.
We might have suspected that many in the Intelligence Agencies, the DOJ and the FBI, the State Department, and various other government Departments and Agencies, that various supposedly Republican/Conservative members of Congress were not the honest, rational, neutral civil servants of the Constitution
It should have been apparent when the CIA put out that “report” that Iran had ceased its nuclear program to thwart any attempt by Bush to increase sanctions.
Mike K–The problem is, where do you get another supposedly “independent” observer, on the ground, who has the same access as the CIA, and who has the capability to evaluate whether the CIA is blowing smoke, or telling it like it is?
Then, of course, there is the problem that the CIA may, indeed, be honest in reporting on what actually happened or the situation that exists, but then shading/twisting their interpretation/evaluation of those facts.
There is only so much money and competent expertise around these days, and fidelity to the Constitution and honesty are even rarer commodities.
Do you have a trusted very competent guy or two who you can send out to find the truth?
Do you set up an entirely different (and I assume really, really secret, unknown to anyone) group of experts, or even a small agency, to police the CIA and other Intelligence agencies?
To find out if, as you sit in Washington and get and read reports, those reports are a true picture of what is actually happening, have been somehow shaped and shaded, or are, in reality, a line of total crap, designed to make you think you know what’s happening when you don’t, and designed to manipulate your attitudes and actions.
It helps to have multiple sources. Our problem is that our institutions all seem dominated by people with a similar cultural outlook. When I was young, you had corporate management, you had academe, you had the trade unions, you had the military, you had the bar, you had the Church, you had the evangelical congregations. They differed. Stanley Rothman made susssing out those differences the work of his later career. As we speak, the only (partial) holdout is the military.
Then, of course, with the CIA and other Intelligence agencies, there is the issue of competence.
I know things are often very uncertain, you can’t always get an agent close enough to something to get a clear look at it and, in the end, it’s often a judgement call.
Nonetheless, my impression is that, over the last dozen years or so, the CIA has failed to be aware of, or called wrong several major national security/foreign affairs developments.
Art Deco-
I believe I once read that more than 95% of those working for the State Department had tested as the exact same Myers-Briggs type.
I never had a doubt in my mind that I would vote for Trump, not because of who he was (I figured he’d be an East Coast Republican) but because of who the Clintons are. I left the Democrat party in 1992 because it was clear as day to me that they were and are straight up criminals. I’d have gone to prison for Bill’s sexual exploits and for their undoubted criminal activity that eventually sent at least half a dozen of their business partners to prison for felonies. It became obvious to me that the Dems had gone full corruptocrat if not totalitarian since they stood by their man, regardless of how vile he was and is.
I now consider them the party of the lawless and irresponsible and the vangaurd of the totalitarian left, dangerous to both freedom and personal weath.
Regarding CNN (Compromised News Network?)…
Here’s a CNN story you might find “interesting” (though I’m not sure if you’ll actually find it on CNN):
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/385278-gop-report-clapper-told-cnn-host-about-trump-dossier-in-2017#.WuRVtJU3u4o.twitter
Merely another reason to trash Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/04/27/u-s-economy-grew-faster-than-expected-in-first-quarter-the-first-since-trumps-tax-cuts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8e3ec47d47a3
RedState’s NOT on my daily/weekly/monthly read list. Neither is Ace. Yours is.
Edward Snowden would be on my shortlist for purge specialist. He’s not as competent as needed, but at least he is not incompetent.
Course his problem is that he will die faster than JFK and Lincoln did, if he ever gets back to the USA.
Art Deco Says:
April 28th, 2018 at 12:36 pm
There are still mini and sub cultures that are independent.
For example, private education institutions like BYU are part of academy and yet the prevailing forces are hostile to them. The human churches also differ a lot, depending on being Amish, JWitness, etc.
What religion was the Bundy Clan when the State and Federal forces went to get rid of them and take their land?
What were the social and class levels of those slaughtered at Waco 1 and Waco 2 by police forces sympathetic to KKK and Demoncrat funding?
The easiest way to find who are the loyalists and enemies, is to see who is fighting and dying against the Deep State or just the Federal State.
May I suggest you re-read it slowly and carefully in the original Hebrew (with a good dictionary if necessary: one that provides more than one definition for a questionable word) and check with a well-educated, middle-of-the-road rabbi for those portions that are difficult.
If it is found often and you think I am wrong, it is easy to quote a few select verses.
Maybe you can’t do that because I am right, that it is not very often you will find it listed.
Some of us actually read it in Hebrew, and the original Hebrew preceding the 3rd century Masorete editors and scribes.
I’ve looked at Rabbis presenting their case online. Their knowledge of the Torah is about equal or below my own. Although everyone can probably say that is just human opinion.
Here’s a neat trick:
Get Trump on “Obstruction” charges.
That is, Trump was supposedly “obstructing” Mueller from finding out that there was never anything to find out in the first place!
https://www.weeklystandard.com/eric-felten/house-report-claims-dni-clapper-engineered-dossier-release
Yes, Trump is surely evil…
Mike K Says:
April 28th, 2018 at 9:58 am
I think the NeverTrumpers that remain are one of three types.
* *
I also have had to quit reading Patterico, which is a shame because he had many valuable insights on legal issues and politics. Kind of reminds me of what happened with the Little Green Footballs guy.
Art Deco Says:
April 28th, 2018 at 12:36 pm
It helps to have multiple sources. Our problem is that our institutions all seem dominated by people with a similar cultural outlook.
* * *
Not to mention the prominence of young, ignorant (in almost every sense of the word) commenters – who do not deserve to be called pundits, as that implies some level of acquired wisdom, or at least knowledge about their subjects.
Neo, you are open-minded- far too many of RedState’s writers aren’t when it comes to Trump. They deleted my ability to comment at some point in 2016, and so I removed them from my bookmarks, and my only sin was that I thought Trump was showing the Republican Party how to win the presidency again by reaching a bit over the center line to draw in voters that really should not be identifying as Democrats, and said so on more than a couple of occasions.
I gladly gladly voted Trump – with open eyes about his personal adulterous and vicious revenge characteristics – because I was a Never-Hillary.
I still think Trump / Sessions should find a prosecutor to indict Hillary and go thru a trial about her email crimes (it’s NOT too late!). She had her personal server to illegally avoid Freedom of Info Act requests (illegal); she illegally used her non-gov’t server for classified gov’t material.
Trump-hate comes from a long line that includes Romney hate (he’s Hitler! He hates dogs! — the most honest & competent person who’s a national politician), Sarah Palin hate, GW Bush-hate (chimp-Hitler), Reagan-hate, Nixon -hate (II), Goldwater-hate, and Nixon-hate (I) vs the adulterous JFK.
Cruz, Fiorina, Scott Walker (not my choice, but Neo’s) all would have faced more Rep-hate after 8 years of institutional rot and anti-normal elite contempt under Obama. None would take the media/ academy/ elite hate as well as Trump; tho the others wouldn’t also have the GOPe as strongly against them (Cruz certainly is no GOPe favorite).
The K-12 anti-Christian gov’t schools are perverting America, and the anti-Freedom universities, so complicit and comfy with socialism, are dominating the culture too much with negative pushing.
Neo has always been healthily critical, even better than when a commenter on Michael Totten’s blog 15 years ago. I always read her (tho only watch about half the ballet) (glad she loves it and has it), and sometimes the comments and even make some.
DiploMad before was pretty anti-Rep in foreign policy; now he says he’s anti-Political Correctness. I’ll check him out.
Where would the pro-life folk vote? Never-Hillary. Mostly. See Rod Dreher (talks too much, tho) for the best anti-Trump AND anti-PC civilization. Recently on Shania Twain:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/shania-twain-our-bs-woke-culture/
A commenter told him:
that people within the firm are afraid not to appear insufficiently progressive to others. “It’s like living in ‘Invasion of the Bodysnatchers,’” he wrote. You don’t know if what people said they believed yesterday is what they believe today – or if what they say they believe today is what they really believe, or if they’re just too scared to indicate otherwise.
Yes, the PC-nags are Bodysnatchers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkUoAQC0arw
Here’s some rabbis that are good to listen to.
https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2017/11/13/hebrews-recognizing-yeshua-and-suffering-setbacks-as-a-result/
Here’s a pretty good rundown of why Trump HAD to be stopped.
And of why Trump HAS to be stopped.
And the actors who tried to stop him:
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/here-are-three-scary-fbi-scandal-factors-you-must-know/
It makes one wonder whether this Comey book/book tour/interview circuit brouhaha is merely a distraction and a feint meant to take people’s eyes off the ball.
Why would someone in Comey’s position break FBI protocol (and probably the law) and tell such obvious howlers?
Could it be anything else but that he is falling on his sword to protect he who absolutely must be protected?
He who must be protected at all cost?
I’ve disagreed with Ms. Neo many times. However, I could never dismiss her. Like with AesopFan, she, Powerline, and Instapundit are my sine qua non daily reads. (I probably should add LegalInsurrection and Diplomad to my list, but not sure if I’ve time.)
My main problem with Neoneocon.com: her quasi-anonymity. I have a (very) few thinking left-leaning people I at times discuss things with, one with a national presence. Unless I could say “political commentator J.. who blogs as Neoneocon” (along with some bio stuff), I can’t use her as a source with them. Small price to pay, I know.
Neo: thank you for your blogging efforts. You are a bright star in the dark internet cacophony.
The Other Chuck Says:
April 27th, 2018 at 11:28 pm
The King James version says it best:
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
I think Winston Churchill had a more apropos comment:
“If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
The Other Chuck Says:
April 27th, 2018 at 11:28 pm
The King James version says it best:
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
Other is mis-applying the scriptures. Making a choice among imperfect-to-horrible candidates for a political position is much different than being ashamed of the Lord and His mission of saving people.
As near as I can tell from my reading of history, the most recent President under our current constitution who embodied all of the characteristics desired by Other was the one prior to George Washington. (And he probably had hidden faults.)
You aren’t snarky, and you are well informed without being didactic, or seeming unctuous.
Snark is for insecure attention whores; and is morally bad as well. There will probably be a level in Hades called Snark Hell where waspish souls are condemned to eternally sit in a circle screaming “Listen to me!” at each other as they compete to deliver the most mordant and cutting jibes … with no one listening, no one caring, and everyone talking at once.
https://thebulwark.com/no-honorable-middle-ground-for-barr/
The Bulwark is now recruiting contributors off of The Huffington Post