J. D. Vance tries to thread the needle
Melanie Phillips is not pleased:
Bad as all this is, the really shocking thing has been the refusal by certain mainstream conservatives to denounce [growing anti-Semitism on the right] and shut it down, appearing instead to nod along to it.
It’s certainly true that some have not condemned it, but a great many have – at least it seems that way to me. For example, she cites Kevin Roberts’ initial failure, but not the fact that it caused an uproar and rebellion at Heritage, with many conservatives there leaving in anger.
The split is an old story rather than a new one, with Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley playing starring roles way back when.
In my opinion,Vance tries to be too clever by half. From Phillips:
One of those influential conservatives, however, is none other than U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who is another of Carlson’s friends. Vance closed the conference by decrying “purity tests” and said: “I didn’t bring a list of conservatives to denounce or to de-platform.”
The difference between “denounce” – that is, criticize – and “deplatform” – that is, silence – is huge, and Vance is smart enough to know it.
From Phillips:
In a subsequent interview on the website UnHerd, [Vance] made some even more troubling remarks. Although he said that antisemitism and all forms of ethnic hatred “have no place in the conservative movement,” he also said the idea that Carlson’s views “are somehow completely anathema to conservatism, that he has no place in the conservative movement” was “frankly absurd.”
That makes zero sense if one believes, as I do, that Carlson expresses anti-Semitism or at least heavily implies it, by highlighting and failing to challenge the views of people who lie about Israel in order to demonize that country. In Tucker’s case, it takes the form of promoting the idea (sometimes in his own direct statements, sometimes through fawning interviews with others) that Israel purposely murders Christians and discriminates against them, and that Israel is committing genocide.
A differing view from that of Phillips about the right and anti-Semitism can be found here – although, interestingly, the article steers clear of mentioning Vance:
Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes represent regress masquerading as rebellion. They do not speak for the right; they speak for themselves and for the algorithms that reward outrage and sounding outrageous.
Many, maybe most, prominent people on the right — from President Donald Trump to Pastor John Hagee to Thomas Sowell to Marco Rubio — stand with Israel because they stand with the West, with victims of jihad, and with a commitment to preserve the values of individual freedom, equal justice under the law and freedom of speech. …
To its credit, the American right has no shortage of adults in the room. Many intellectuals, Jewish advocates, and elected Republicans openly condemned the Carlson-Fuentes stunt. You could watch the split in real time: one faction explained that freedom of speech does not require private companies and organization to provide a platform for unreconstructed bigots; the other faction accused “the establishment” of “silencing us.” …
The fact is that Republican support for Israel remains high, even though younger cohorts are more skeptical. Pew Research in April 2025 found solid GOP confidence in Israel’s leadership and warmer views of Israelis than Democrats expressed. In October, Pew found the same partisan gap, even as overall U.S. favorables toward Israel declined. The point: when far-right influencers target Jews, they are out of step with rank-and-file Republican voters — and not speaking for them.
And Vance? I’m still not sure, but I’m fairly certain that before November of 2028 we’ll find out more.
Carlson is the Stage I skin cancer on J D ‘s nose. Nearly everyone sees it and says remove it, but J D is averse to mirrors it seems.
I like JD, but not calling out Tucker and others for their racism is very troubling for me.
One of the motors of Michelle Malkin’s departure from public life was the repeated insistence she was obligated to denounce this or that person or refuse to appear with them.
==
Perhaps Vance figures people are trying to reduce him to being a dog taught tricks at obedience school.
Tucker is a very clever fellow who knows how to go right up to the line, peer across it, ask if anyone would care to step over it, then retreats into a relatively noncontroversial topic or interview in order to retain some plausible deniability. Candace, on the other hand simply lights her (heavily processed) hair on fire and demands that we all look at it, all day, every day. Best advice: don’t.
At some point, Vance is going to have to say, “Tucker is my friend, but I emphatically do not agree with some things he says.” I think Vance’s principles are genuine, and I expect him to reach this painful (for him) point.
I think of Matthew Continetti, who still writes conservative opinion columns, and his father-in-law, Bill Kristol, who is totally off the edge.
Not sure how important these folks; Fuentes, Carlson, Owen, are on the right. I only hear they’ve said something else awful. Don’t follow them.
So I ask this question from the outside of the issue; is it possible that maybe nobody but the usual percentage of anti-semites cares what these nutcases say?
The technology of the internet allows for zillions of “follows” and endless clickbait without representing an equivalent number of interested people.
I have seen it reported that most of Fuentes’ “follows” are from overseas.
For me, the question, ‘Did you see the NEW thing he/she said NOW?” in’t interesting. So perhaps I am not seeing the impact on the general population of the right.
The idea of them howling at the mirror comes to mind. Does it really matter?
Two days after the Oct 7 massacre, huge masses of the Just and Righteous, denominations of the NCCNGTA (National Council of Churches Nobody Goes To Anymore) were “Standing With Palestine”. They weren’t on that posision due to the Loudmouth Three.
Would denuncing them add to their impact?
I’m not sure I’d be using John Hagee as a sane reference point… for anything.
Just saying.
i disagree with tucker’s latest path, which probably started around the time he gave too much attention to the cooper characters, then again he took many risks to investigate matters the toga crew of conservatives did not,
but melanie lives in londinistan with satrap khan, and herr stermer, who seems afflicted with oikophobia,https://notthebee.com/article/british-politician-celebrates-welcoming-in-islamic-terrorist-who-said-i-hate-white-people-wants-to-kill-colonialists-and-zionists-refers-to-brits-as-dogs-and-monkeys some might call it something else,
over in the Us, the slouching Cobra, and his gang, moves on Gotham, and they go from bad to worse, not only the two minute hate against netanyahu, and ramzy kassem, the devils advocate for terrorists,
I vaguely was aware of Ami Kozak, a conservative Jewish comic. This popped up in my Youtube feed. Kozak’s reaction as a VIP guest at the recently concluded AMFEST. In part 1, he spends much of the time talking about the Groypers, his interactions with them and his impression they are, in many cases, very young men who are struggling to find an identity and purpose.
I haven’t watched part 2 where he gets into the tension between the camps vying for influence over the MAGA movement going forward. I’m not sure you can even use the term “Conservative First”, since Nick Fuentes is trying to coopt the phrase with his podcast “America First with Nick Fuentes” on Rumble and his America First Foundation, a 501c4 organization.
Anyway, interesting perspective.
By the way, he didn’t overtly answer his question posed in the title of the podcast, though I suggest his answer will be ‘not yet’.
Backstage at TPUSA’s America Fest 2025: Did the Groypers Take Over? (Part-1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ZsV6mXYhY
I watched Vice President JD Vance’s closing speech at recent AMFEST, and if you’re waiting for Vance to disavow Carlson, you may have a long wait. One of the things I’ve notice about the left, is they allow their politicians to talk as centrists, while knowing they will vote as leftists.
We don’t have that same faith in our politicians. Maybe the skepticism is justified, as too many of the Republican Party’s leaders have mouthed conservative principles, but voted to undermine the very things they say they’re for.
I want my President to focus first and foremost on draining the cesspool of Washington politics.
I hope JD Vance is taking notes from Donald Trump on foreign policy– veering away from foreign entanglements while surgically using our military in our interests– which most often include the interests of much of the world.
Part of his speech (from the transcript):
Later in the speech he turns to the Christian faith. No doubt some will be concerned because he didn’t phrase it a Judeo-Christian faith. Make of it what you will, but I would suggest not jumping to conclusions about this at this point because his is focusing on how the Christian religion has been systematically removed from many institutions by the government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiT8OY1DXwk
JUST IN: JD Vance Speaks At Turning Point, USA’s AmericaFest Event
J D Vance is in many ways a great talent, obviously intelligent. He is young, and new to politics, and lacks seasoning. I doubt that he has had the time in his rapid rise to read widely and ponder the wisdom of a number of political thinkers who have had great influence on the Right. Undoubtedly he knows what he thinks right now, but does he know what he doesn’t know, and why he ought to explore and refine great ideas from others?
He started out anti-Trump, before converting and allying himself with the Trump family and the MAGA movement in general. Charlie Kirk was undoubtedly a great influence on him and had a lot to do with his rapid rise to the Senate and the 2024 ticket.
In recent years he became a Catholic, adhering to a particular interpretation of the faith that sometimes becomes a particularity rather than an ecumenical manifestation of Catholicism. Again, this recent adoption of that manner of faith implies that he has not yet had time to reflect and grow.
His rapid political rise may have him focusing on the mechanics of holding the Trump coalition together to eventually use it to further his ends and further rise to power. A politician, not a statesman at this stage of his development.
Some have noted that his social media outbursts, including some vulgar language, suggest he is captured more by the influencer crowd.
Edward Luttwak had this to say:
“Vice Presidents of the United States have one duty: to be ready to succeed the President. While waiting they are not supposed to indulge in foul language to reply to insults, nor are they called upon to offend allies in order to align himself with domestic extremists”
Luttwak has wisdom and perspective that Vance clearly lacks at this point.
Part 2 of Ami Kozak’s assessment of the AMFEST gathering.
He spends much of the time talking about Ben Shapiro’s speech and the reaction from the audience, which he estimates was 70-30 in support of Shaprio’s speech.
At about minute 30 he talks about the JD Vance speech.
Here’s part of his assessment of where Vance is in this controversy of Tucker.
Backstage at TPUSA’s AmFest: Ben Shapiro vs. Tucker Carlson (part-2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQknLRwV-sA
Addendum: I may have given the impression that Kozak thinks the Groypers are a big force in the TPUSA movement. From what he said, I don’t think they are a force– but suggests many may be reachable at this point.
I agree with Dan D, I wish Vance would not be so vulgar in his speeches. Many politicians are quite profane in private. I wish Vance would also keep that sort of language to his private conversations.
The problem is the implosion of right.
This is what anti-MAGA forces wish/intend to happen, given that in their estimation, Trump is a Zionist tool.
And this is what Vance—and others—wish to wish is NOT the case.
(That is, it’s what Vance, et al., wishes to ignore.)
That being said, by sitting on the fence in this way, Vance may in fact be trying to save MAGA…and keep the right relatively intact.
Relatively.
In fact he may believe that he has no other viable choice.
Is the question now, is J D clever at all?
Tucker Carlson is being paid by Islam to split the GOP.
JD Vance could care less.
Melanie Phillips is The Tucker Carlson of the UK. She went after Tommy Robinson recently who is the most courageous man in the UK. He actually does things in the UK besides scribble for the Guardian like Melanie.
Brian is along the lines I was thinking. Where is the Left’s condemnation of their thorny figures? I know Hasan Piker got an invite to the White House rescinded, but I don’t recall Joe or Kamala being constantly bothered about reading them out of the movement.
Maybe the answer is that JD is like the rest of us and getting tired of the rigged game. The Left never has to answer for their fringe (Harris can even raise bail money for them) but the Right always has to answer for every single nutter that is even vaguely in the same zip code as the movement (and sometimes not even then, too often we’re saddled with people as “our side” who absolutely aren’t).
I say if the media is going to rig the game, we should stop playing. If the media was grilling democrats over some of the podcasters that support them, then yeah I’d say maybe JD should say some things here and there. But until they do his actions make sense from a purely mercenary perspective.
And this is also a useful warning for Jews, Blacks, and any other group that becomes too locked to a single political party. They start taking you for granted and the other ones will stop competing for your votes.
Tucker Carlson is being paid by Islam to split the GOP.
JD Vance could care less. -John Galt III
That makes no sense. Vance will be running for president. Splitting the MAGA wing of the party would give Rubio an opening. Rubio has the GOPe wing. Vance is trying to keep the coalition that Trump put together, together.
I think at the end of the day, Vance will maintain the strategic alliance with Israel.
The nuance that Vance faces is maintaining the alliance while putting together MAGA 2.0.
The battle, it appears to me, is the America First wing contains a percentage of America Only voters. The idea of such an isolationism is wishful thinking. We have too many interests around the world. Abandoning those interests works against the America.
I’m thinking Mr. Winchester may be right. We certainly should be inner-directed and not respond to manufactured sh!tstorms. See Paul Ryan’s reaction to NBC’s scamming around in the fall of 2016. See Kevin McCarthy’s treatment of Steve King. That is what we should NOT be doing.
Time will tell whether J D decides that Tucker’s “friendship” is worth his political future.
With friends like Tucker who needs enemies, unless of course J D is following the classic “wisdom” of keeping your enemies close.
From Brave AI
JD is has a lot of positives — he is smart, articulate and has a great backstory that resonates with much of MAGA base. But unlike Trump, he seems to not have great political instincts and worries too much what people will think of what he says.
His Amfest speech was a huge missed opportunity, instead of being courageous and confronting the more odious factions of the America First crowd, he hedged and tried to have it both ways. Even if this was done for purely political motives, it was a mistake because he is pandering to a crowd that will not accept him because of his Indian wife and his ties to big tech.
I don’t know exactly what happened to Tucker that has turned him into the purveyor of the most noxious anti-Jewish conspiracies but he is now toxic and only getting worse. His attempt to suggest that Qatar would actually be a better ally in the Middle East than Israel was so nonsensical that it sounded like a parody. Vance will have to distance himself from Tucker at some point because Tucker is now beginning to openly side with America’s enemies.
Vance will have to decide if he is more interested in a continued friendship with Tucker or a political future, he can’t have both.
Denounce does NOT mean criticize, and it is disingenuous to pretend it does. Denounce has a connotation of condemnation to it that mere criticism does not. It involves judgement, not simply criticism.
As far as I am aware, Melanie Phillips has not been selected to be speech policewoman of the year. I don’t believe we have that position in this country. She has no business calling for ANYONE to denounce anyone else. She is welcome to use all the words she wants to convince others that a specific position is weak or invalid or dangerous; she doesn’t get to say who gets to speak which words, or demanding who has to say who is a bad person for saying them either.
Particularly people who have long supported Israel, and are now voicing –like many Israeli citizens–their disagreement with specific policy decisions.
Netanyahu apparently is in agreement with many Americans, that the time has come for Israel to break its financial dependency on the US so it can function as it desires without America holding veto power over its actions, as our country’s interests are not always Israel’s, and has appointed a minister and tasked him with that job.
Lee:
“Denounce” definitely means to criticize, although of course the two words are not identical in meaning. “Denounce” is a strong type of criticism, to be sure, but it is indeed criticism and not silencing, which is the distinction being made here.
Look up the word “denounce” in the dictionary and you will find things such as this: “to criticize something or someone strongly and publicly.” Or this: “to publicly state that someone or something is bad or wrong : to criticize (someone or something) harshly and publicly.” Or this: “To criticize or speak out against (someone or something); to point out as deserving of reprehension, etc.; to openly accuse or condemn in a threatening manner; to invoke censure upon; to stigmatize; to blame.” Note in that last definition, the first on the list is to criticize or speak out against someone or something.
And of course Melanie Phillips – or anyone – has the right to call for someone (anyone, actually) to denounce anyone else. You may think she’s wrong, and you have the right to say so. But to say she doesn’t have the right is wrong.
It is especially appropriate for anyone in public life (pundits, politicians) to call for someone else in public life (pundits, politicians) to denounce someone else in public life (pundits, politicians), particularly if the latter is lying in a vile manner. And if the person fails to denounce the vile liar, it is perfectly fine to draw conclusions about the person who has failed to do so.
And no one is silencing anyone else in the process.
Brian E:
Vance is using a strawman argument:
No one is asking Vance to run his supporters through “endless self-defeating purity tests.” They are asking him to criticize the dangerous hatemongering lies some supposedly conservative pundits tell. At some point one must draw a line, and where one draws a line can vary. But neither Owens, nor Tucker, nor Fuentes should – in my opinion – have a place in MAGA.
I believe, as I’ve written in a previous post, that Vance’s shying away from this is a pragmatic calculation on his part. It’s not a principled one. Will his gamble pay off? Does he gain more votes by straying neutral on Carlson, or does he lose more votes by not speaking out? Either way, he loses votes, and in this case he’s compromised principle into the bargain.
I also believe that Carlson wants to take control of the direction of the GOP, and in my opinion it’s in both a losing direction and an immoral direction. Lose/lose.
Netanyahu apparently is in agreement with many Americans, that the time has come for Israel to break its financial dependency on the US so it can function as it desires without America holding veto power over its actions, as our country’s interests are not always Israel’s, and has appointed a minister and tasked him with that job.
==
The financial dependency is not that important. It has in recent years usually amounted to 1.2% of gross national income or about 20% of Israel’s military budget. Something you can do without if necessary. I’ll wager that access to technology and intelligence is what is difficult to replace. (Not my wheelhouse, to be sure).
No one is asking Vance to run his supporters through “endless self-defeating purity tests.” They are asking him to criticize the dangerous hatemongering lies some supposedly conservative pundits tell.
==
They’re unsightly but not dangerous. IMO, Vance may be right that the purity tests will turn out to be endless.
Carlson is weasel-y, and may change paths in future, but lately he seems determined to make it difficult for anyone to not eventually take a public stance on him and his statements. Like Owens, he’s inserting himself in areas getting a lot of attention and making contentious claims. If this continues Vance will have to address some of Carlson’s nonsense directly.
But I think Vance is wise to avoid such conflict now because the opposition is the Democrat party. It would be wonderful if all our politicians had high morals and ethics and made clear, concise statements of their true beliefs and intentions, but that is not politics in America in 2025 (soon to be 2026). The Dems have an absurdly big tent with all types of crazies, loons, crooks, liars, antisemites, anti-Christians and anti-Americans serving at all levels of government. Was Harris ever asked to comment on any of them while V.P.? As stated above, she even offered bail for criminal protestors destroying government property and was never expected to explain herself.
I wish Americans demanded honesty and openness from all their politicians, but until that is expected of both sides, Vance is currently taking the right political approach if he wants the Republican party to defeat the Democrats.
As Napoleon stated, “The enemy is making a false move, why should we interrupt him?” The Democrats have used Republicans’ desire for purity to their advantage for decades. Until, or unless Democrat politicians are required to purify their own ranks Republicans should stop defeating themselves.
“Was Harris ever asked to comment on any of them while V.P.?”
Realizing that the question is rhetorical…since isn’t Harris herself a loon?
(One of the looniest, actually…)
Loonus Agonistes?
I don’t think Harris is a loon. I think she’s a political careerist who (see Harmeet Dhillon’s remark that she wasn’t a generator of confused word salads 30 years ago) has been suffering from intellectual decay. Why, I do not know, but I would suspect excessive drinking.
==
But, yes, there are all kinds of grotesques in the Democratic Party. Partisan Democrats (including those in the media) fancy these people are perfectly normal. The people sensible enough to find them repulsive fall into two categories: (1) those who vote Republican already and (2) a small corps of swing voters. The media do not want low information swing voters to start thinking about characters like Sam Brinton, so they don’t ask questions or report anything.
Feels weird to agree with Art Deco on so much. 😉 Though I agree, Harris is probably less insane and more a lush and intellectually lazy.
But they are because that’s how the game is played. Vance does whatever speech, Do you honestly think it will end there? Sure you might be satisfied, Neo but they will stir up a new target 5 minutes later or begin criticizing the response (or more likely both).
Just imagine Vance is Israel and you’ll see the same pattern the critics always play against that nation are being used against JD: “You must do X! You did X wrong! And now you need to do Y!” Repeat until Republicans are failure theater again.
I don’t have a proposed solution myself, besides maybe a sort of political “ghosting” of these elements. Maybe 2025 will be the last we’ll hear of Tucker. JD could play this up in the midterms by visiting a lot of podcasts with the views and people we do want to encourage.
I suppose you could be right.
There are several who are worse.
More than several.
Though I found her particularly “impressive” during that pre-election interview where following her declared determination (and ability) to—I’m paraphrasing—“find a NEW WAY forward”, upon being asked whether she’d have done anything differently than her (erstwhile) boss, she answered “NO, NOT A THING”.
Um, right.
Yes, particularly impressive, though one does realize that she believed wholeheartedly that a large part of her job description involved transforming word salad into an entirely new and unique art form… (indeed, a kind of Word Salad Czar…which she took far more seriously than the southern border and, to her credit, was quite a bit more successful at.)
Nate Winchester:
Yes , i think it will “end there” because the offenses of Owens, Carlson, Fuentes et al are especially egregious and vile. If he can’t be critical of them he is morally bankrupt., These are not small nitpicky issues, to be safely ignored, as other such calls to denounce someone else might be. Perhaps you haven’t listened to them; i have. They are poison, and it’s not “just” about Jews and Israel, either.
It is possible – and necessary – to pick and choose whom to denounce.
Very good comment by Rufus at 9:35 am: “…the opposition is the Democrat party.”
Alinsky’s Rule 4:
https://citizenshandbook.org/rules.html
J D has a problem that isn’t the democrat party or the left. Carlson, Fuentes, Owens aren’t of the left and they aren’t conservative or principally interested in what is best for America.
If he can’t see that he isn’t sentient enough to be credible. Being Vice President is one thing, President has higher requirements. He has the opportunity to correct his judgement regarding Carlson.
One of the problems with the new journalism is the video form where commenters/influencers make statements about the motive of others without presenting any evidence/facts to back up the assertion.
People are exaggerating a statement by someone, inflating their meaning.
In the old days of journalism there were the editorial pages and the opinion pages. use the term editorial pages, which were the pages filled with news/facts where statements were quotes and information was given backed up by the source. If a reporter gave a statement of fact, it’s because he has seen the fact and is personally attesting to it.
With the growth of on-air journalism, stories were compressed and often opinion pieces were interspersed with news stories and the two were not carefully identified. A outlet like Fox News was/is mostly opinion with a dose of news.
At some point opinions presented as facts without attribution is just a form of propaganda, especially when we don’t know the motive.
This isn’t directed to anyone here, but it is the unfortunate result of technology and the change in the nature of professional journalism.
I do agree Vance is “threading the needle”, and I think it’s OK. Right now Vance is the Vice President. He works for the President. I don’t think the Trump administration is spending much time at this point thinking about how Carlson has “gone off the rails”.
In two years when Vance announces a run for President, he will need to articulate where he stands on the use of America influence/power in foreign policy.
What Carlson and Owens thinks will likely be irrelevant.
As Neo has said, he might have made a calculation at this point that it isn’t relevant to the Trump administration’s foreign policy calculations.
By the way, everyone is using Carlson’s “I hate Christian Zionists more than anybody” as a wedge. Carlson has said it was a mistake. My take is he was talking about Ted Cruz and politicians that are making policy based on promises God made to Abraham.
I thought Carlson said he was Episcopalian, but he might have switched to Catholicism. Both consider Christian Zionist’s position on the Abrahamic covenant to be heresy.
Selfy’s reference to Alinsky may be spot on regarding Carlson. Carlson may be genuine in his pacifist position but he’s also using it as a bludgeon against Israel. Either Carlson is naive or giving Israel the Alinsky treatment.
By the way, Charlie Kirk sent a letter to Netanyahu critical of Israel’s lack of defense of their prosecution of the war in Gaza in the public sphere.
Here’s a synopsis of the letter:
It’s not the Vice President’s job to defend Israel from the attacks/criticisms of the way Israel was/is waging war. I agree with Kirk’s assessment of the lack of defense of the reason/methods Israel was using in waging the war, but there wasn’t a vigorous truth telling by the Israelis to counter the misrepresentations by critics.
Here is Josh Hammer’s take: “Tucker Carlson is the most dangerous antisemite in American History”
Tucker Carlson is the most dangerous antisemite in American history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbVtAh4_bCk&t=581s
Brian E.
I do some work in church discussion groups. Far as I can tell, Christian Zionists are a designated villain group. When you’re flat out of facts in an argument, you accuse your opponent of being a Christian Zionist. One school board member, arguing that parents shouldn’t be allowed to opt their kids out of heavy LGPTQ stuff in early el ed, accused the parents of being the Christian Zionist thing, and white supremacists. Parents in question were Muslim.
Seems Opus Dei, as a looming catastrophe, wore out.
What churh HQ claim is…heresy or whatever…these days is strictly political. Its reference to Scripture is accidental at best.
You may recall when practically all mainline Protestant denominations favored the communist dictatorship in Nicaragua. They opposed the elected government in El Salvador and favored the communist rebels trying to overthrow it. I traveled there in 87 and the excuses, lies, and double standards of the Americans we traveled with were enough to….. I don’t know.. Kept an eye on things afterwards, and until the end of the USSR, my predictions about where these clowns would end up on an issue involving the Soviets was somewhere north of 99% correct. Ditto the PRC.
The Vatican was only slightly better.
So my worries about “heresy” are limited.
That said, cold political calculations might look as if we’re encouraging the Israelis to kill and be killed so we won’t have to. But if Israel disappears for some reason, we won’t be allowed to shoot back, either.
It is said to be fair to infer intent from result. And the likely result of a proposed action is the intended result.. All cool there. With the proviso that, it doesn’t matter in the least what the actor says. The result is what he wanted or wants. Don’t have to speculate about motivation.
All of which leads to two points. Just because the Christian Zionists say something is a good idea doesn’t mean we should avoid it. And what are the likely results of such avoiding?
Richard Aubrey, since I’m a Christian Zionist, I’m not impressed with the Catholic attempt to defend the notion that God abandoned Israel at the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.
I do think motivation matters. Accident or pre-meditated will result in different penalties. In the case of Carlson, I wish he would be interviewed/debated by someone who would force Carlson to defend his ideas. The fact he will not is like taking the fifth. It’s not an admission of guilt, but…
Neo, I agree that this is non-negotiable. I have high hopes for Vance and this is disappointing me.
Is that STILL the view of mainstream Catholic thought?
I would have that this doctrine was relegated by Vatican II. (Opus Dei is, of course, another matter.)
The official Catholic position spiritualizes the promises to Abraham. Not fully replacement theology.
This synopsis is by Grok. I would have to look around to find other sources, but it would be possible.
One particular grating thing about the complaints about this for “gatekeeping” or “endless self-purity tests” is that Owens, Carlson, and co are demanding endless self-purity tests of their own, and of a far more odious and far reaching nature. And I agree ablut the point of Vance having to choose between a political future and a friendship with Carlson. And given how Carlson has acted with the Kirk legacy and so many others I am not sure how genuine a friend he is.
Tucker Carlson is the most dangerous antisemite in American history
==
Herman Kahn used to refer to himself as ‘one of the ten most famous obscure Americans’.
==
Proportionately, does he have more of a following than Charles Coughlin and Gerald L.K. Smith? How dangerous did they prove to be?
==
Something Martin Peretz said 40 years ago about Louis Farrakhan: “He’s an offense, not a peril”. Zohran Mamdani being elected Mayor of New York is what should cause you anxiety, not TC.
On a discussion of “shape note”, or “sacred harp” singing, a Jewish woman recounted getting involved. A couple of older folks said she was very good. Figured she was “an original Baptist”.
Thought that was funny but…..I get lost in scriptural commentary.
Saw the movie “The DaVinci Code”. Opus Dei was one of the villain groups. I’d forgotten about them. Tom Hanks looked like a kid in that flick.
Opus Dei failed to do anything nefarious in the real world and so they had to be replaced. Have to go to old movies to find any mention of them.
Brian E, thanks for that…
I guess that if Jesus can be hijacked by some of the more intensely earnest, there’s no reason why Abraham can’t be….
The question, I suppose, is WHO will have the last laugh….?
(I’d put my money on God, actually…)
Now there’s a good observation from @turtler. And thinking about what I’ve observed of the Left’s actions, may be the better solution – let them purity test themselves out of the coalition and/or burn themselves out in the process. I’ll have to ponder that more.
I believe you have misunderstood me, @neo. I’m not saying they are small things or nitpicky or anything of the sort. You say it will “end there” – how?
Not even rhetorical or leading, I really do mean, “how will it end there?” Because I remember the 2016 election. You could make a drinking game of how often Trump would get asked in interviews about white nationalists and like. Each and every time he expressed strong condemnation and denouncement. And then they would ask it again. Even in Trump’s Charlottesville speech he outright said “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally” and yet what was the meme created by the media? I remember that time because on other blogs I pointed out to Leftists that line, a line of condemnation in a speech by Trump before that day, and a line of condemnation in a speech that followed that one (establishing that in 3 speeches in a row he condemned white nationalists) and it still wasn’t enough for the other side (some of whom even outright denied it).
So yes, part of me just does not believe that it will “end there” because experience has shown me that it won’t. It may “end there” for you and a few other people, but unfortunately those are not the only votes that count in a nation-wide run or voice in public spaces. (This is what I was writing about a year and a half ago.) Heck everyone loves to bring up Buchanan and Buckley and that whole history with the right. Regardless of what people’s actual views were or what the right and proper play was, how has that shaken out over the decades? My impression looking back is that when the Right said, “Ok, we’re also not ok with racism and will kick out people who have those views” the Left very quickly figured out they could use “racism” to snipe out of the way any Right-leaning figure that was a bit too troublesome for them.
I’m not even saying you’re wrong or Carlson et al aren’t dangerous or anything like that. I’m trying to think what are the long term plays. JD kicks them out of the party and establishes for the Press that a specific charge can cut someone out of the coalition. Then they start badgering JD about the next person/group they want to get cut off. Then the next after that. And another after that. In this age of A.I. do you think the accuracy of the charge matters? As I and Feral Historian here like to point out, numerous people believe Sarah Palin said “you can see Russia from my house” and that was an information operation done just with Saturday Night Live. With modern day deepfakes…. So if JD (or anyone) exposes that flank of their line with this move, there needs to be a compelling sign that the cause will actually advance.
Unless we just want to resign ourselves to Evan McMullin, Mitt Romney, and David French as our republican candidates for the rest of the nation’s life. (Hey we probably won’t ever win a political contest again, but there will be lots of moral victories.)
Prioritize young men. Punished the people and the policies that deny men the ability to have jobs. Reduce competition with remigration.
And I assert that your problems with young men go away.
Nate:
The 2016 election. What is that wisdom about Generals always wanting to fight the last (previous) war? They loose the war they are in.
Nate @1:13am,
Your last 4 paragraphs are accurate, vis a vis the MSM. The MSM has been steadily losing influence in the national conversation and independent media, like this blog, has been growing, but giving the MSM any ammunition is still risky for Republican politicians.
Related?
‘The Pence Mirage: Why the Right Isn’t Leaving Trump;
‘The Heritage Foundation “mutiny” isn’t a conservative realignment so much as the latest anti-Trump mirage, with Mike Pence cast as a moral standard-bearer no one is following’—
https://instapundit.com/765220/
I guess the challenge is how to see through all the smoke (IOW cut through all the BS).
Barry Meislin:
I don’t see how Trump would be involved in any of this, nor why anyone would leave him because of it. Trump’s views on Israel are well known; he doesn’t have to declare much of anything at this point, nor is he running again. It’s about Vance and others whose views are far less known and who presumably want to run for president in 2028, and I suppose it might be about the midterms as well, in some cases anyway.
Ron DeSantis doesn’t have JD’s millstone to lug around. JD should realize that obvious truth. DeSantis has a proven record as an effective conservative. How soon some forget for the newer shiney thing.
I agree that deSantis is the man who has actually run something and is a more suitable successor to DJT if we ever have another Republican President. I’m partial to JD, but he does have some gaps in his background. Same deal with Ted Cruz.
==
Never liked or understood the hostility sectaries like Ace of Spades HQ have toward deSantis.
@Barry Meislin
Admittedly as one of those “Neocons” that Kimball attacks I find it half-true, even if touching on a key point. I used to like Pence. Used to. But his cowardice and dishonesty in 2020-1 regarding the fraud and suspicious maneuvers regarding voter legitimacy that he either KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about but was complicit in legitimizing is bad enough, but even worse was the highhandedness and indifference to the political prosecutions and suffering of the January 6 Prisoners. That is utterly disqualifying for me, and I note the abject chutzpah in his “Advancing American Freedom” naming for his little think tank. I agree on him with some things such as Roberts’s disgrace to Heritage, Carlson’s odiousness, and sending more tanks to Ukraine, but not enough to make me forgive his nonsense.
I imagine I am far from alone in believing that, and as far as that goes I agree with Kimball.
But I think this little mutiny is less the genuine threat and more a canary in the coal mine. AT PRESENT there is no great alternative to Heritage, because Pence’s shindig sure isn’t it. For now there have been little to no attempts to change this in spite of the numerous people disassociating themselves over Roberts and co, and indeed the stigma of Pence might be helping that given the impression that trying to create or establish an alternative might be seen as going over to the other side of Kristol style useful idiots and collaborators who speak about advancing American freedom but care little about advancing the freedom of those persecuted by the left. But that will change if this problem is allowed to fester.
In this I think Kimball is part of the problem. Conflating the attacks on Heritage as one on MAGA is a self-own and exactly what the left would want us to do because it allows them to downplay Trump’s extensive anti-racist record and embrace of Jews and Israel by pointing to Carlson, his Veep, and Heritage. His “No enemies to the right” as “practical” is stupid precisely because in this case it’s dealing with people who very blatantly do not reciprocate; Tucker has made it abundantly clear he views people like me as the enemy and personally hates Trump, and went as far as to memory hole the memory of Steven Sotloff, the contractor who worked for him and who he certainly knew that was kidnapped and murdered by ISIS. Fuentes is outright not on “The Right” and wants to destroy it.
You cannot co-exist with these kinds of people any more than you can work out a modus vivendi with gangrene on your body. Either you get rid of it or it will get rid of you. And every time I start to think this focus on Carlson and Vance is a bit excessive or undone, Carlson and co do something that reminds me of the stakes.
Mike Pence is fundamentally unfit to be the standard bearer for American conservativism. But the struggles with Heritage are about whether Heritage and Vance are worthy of that title going forward after Trump, and if not who should replace them.