Search Results

THE BULWARK, BILL KRISTOL’S SUCCESSOR TO THE WEEKLY STANDARD, CALLED OUT FOR SENDING PRO-CHOICE LIB TO ‘OWN THE CONS’ AT CPAC. As Twitchy notes, “If you are part of a conservative website that trashes and condescends to conservatives who have a problem with you mocking their movement, YOU’RE the problem. Seriously. We’d expect to see this nonsense on Buzzfeed, or even Mediaite, but on The Bulwark, where they’re supposedly conserving conservatism? Wow:”

Contrast the above with the Bulwark’s slogan:

As Stephen Miller responds to Jong-Fast, “I don’t have a problem with your opinion. Pretty sure you’re aware of that. I just want to know what’s being conserved by the conservatism conserved official dispatch going after pro-life panels. Sure is a lot of dancing around this question and not much answering of it.”

Related: The Bulwark’s token lib deleted a tweet mocking a CPAC panelist who is battling cancer.

More: Why is the Bulwark bullying Victor Davis Hanson?

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): “Conservatism conserved?” They haven’t even conserved women’s sports without penises. And, more tellingly, they haven’t even tried.

SALENA ZITO: THE MIDDLE OF SOMEWHERE.

Earlier this year, Bill Kristol, editor at large at the Weekly Standard, tweeted ahead of the Super Bowl that it was too bad two Acela Corridor teams, the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles, had to play their matchup “in the middle of nowhere.”

It was a reference to the host city of Minneapolis’ location in the Midwest, far from the “civilized worlds” of Boston and Philadelphia – the assumption being that unless you are on the East Coast, your town’s sophistication and glamour could not live up to the modern amenities of a cosmopolitan city.

In my estimation, there is no patch of geography in this country that is the “middle of nowhere.” This is America; everywhere is the middle of somewhere.

Read the whole thing.

IT’S COME TO THIS: Back in February Bill Kristol, founder of the Weekly Standard tweeted, “Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.” The once-stalwart conservative spent the rest of the year harrumphing Trump’s policies, and predicting in August, “Tax reform won’t even get a vote in Congress this year. I’d be surprised if it made it through committee in either house.” During a late October tweetstorm spotted by Bryon York of the Washington Examiner, Kristol labeled “those who fail to denounce Trump ‘collaborators’ and ‘fellow travelers.’”

Which brings us to the latest issue of Kristol’s magazine, which gushes with praise over Katharine Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post from August of 1963, when she inherited the paper after her husband committed suicide, until her son Donald took over in 1979. During this tumultuous period in America’s history, Graham’s paper published (along with the New York Times) the anti-Vietnam War “Pentagon Papers,” and then led the reporting on Watergate. The latter was condensed into the (much fictionalized but brilliant) motion picture All the President’s Men. The former is the subject of Steven Spielberg’s latest movie The Post. As Armond White of NRO notes in his critical review, “Spielberg directs it as an addendum to All the President’s Men (1976), the most narcissistic of all newspaper films.”

Curiously though, the Standard’s article on the movie is headlined, “In ‘The Post’ Katharine Graham Finally Gets Her Due,” and is written by “Amy Henderson…Historian Emerita of the National Portrait Gallery, [who] writes frequently on media and culture.” Henderson gushes that:

[Liz Hylton, Graham’s long-time executive assistant (played in the movie by Jennifer Dundas)] also introduced me to Ben Bradlee. Then in his late ’80s, he still radiated abundant charm. In the movie The Post, Tom Hanks plays Bradlee and is terrific, but I couldn’t shake the memory of Ben Bradlee’s glow-in-the-dark dazzle.

Meryl Streep nails her character—snagging wonderfully how Katharine Graham looked, sounded, moved, and gestured. The one dissonant chord I felt was how her character is portrayed in 1971 when the Post first became entangled with the Pentagon Papers crisis. Graham by then had been publisher for eight years, and I think she had grown beyond the hesitant and deferential person depicted early in the movie. She hired Bradlee in 1965, and the paper had steadily moved toward being a national paper competitive with the New York Times. By 1971, Graham was certainly not the woman she had described in her memoir as “not capable of governing, leading, or managing anything but our homes and children.”

The movie telescopes Katharine Graham’s transformation quickly during the Pentagon Papers crisis, depicting her telling Bradlee at a critical point, “Yes, let’s go, let’s publish.” This scene shows that she has gathered the strength and leadership that will be crucial during the coming Watergate crisis, where it would be her decision to allow Woodward and Bernstein to proceed with the investigation that brought down a president.

In her centennial year, The Post is finally giving Katharine Graham the recognition she deserves. Three cheers!

Fascinating to read a once-conservative Website describe the media’s destruction of a Republican president as an apparently unalloyed good thing. (“Three cheers!”) For a much-less hagiographic portrait of Graham (whom we now know, in addition to the JFK-worshipping Bradlee, also employed his Ouija board toting wife Sally Quinn), Mark Steyn’s 2001 obit has you covered:

One writer stood head and shoulders above the crowd, which admittedly isn’t terribly difficult when everybody else is prostrate. The anonymous editorialist at The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review evidently returned from lunch drunk and momentarily forgot himself. Possibly while working as a busboy in Washington in the early Sixties he’d been the victim of some casual slight by Mrs Graham. At any rate, summing up her life he started conventionally enough but then wandered deplorably off-message:

Born in New York City, the daughter of multimillionaire Eugene Meyer, she grew up privileged. In keeping with her father’s fortune, she graduated from Vassar College, where she was involved with the leftist trends of the day …

She married Felix Frankfurter’s brilliant law clerk, Philip Graham, who took over running The Post, which her father purchased at a bankruptcy sale. Graham built the paper but became estranged from Kay. She had him committed to a mental hospital, and he was clearly intending divorce when she signed him out and took him for a weekend outing during which he was found shot. His death was ruled a suicide. Within 48 hours, she declared herself the publisher.

That’s the stuff! As the Tribune-Review’s chap has it, Mrs G got her philandering spouse banged up in the nuthouse and then arranged a weekend pass with a one-way ticket. “His death was ruled a suicide.” Lovely touch that. Is it really possible Katharine Graham offed her hubby? Who cares? To those who think the worst problem with the American press is its awful stultifying homogeneity, the Tribune-Review’s deranged perverseness is to be cherished. Give that man a Pulitzer!

But, of course, they never do. Instead, with feeble predictability, they gave the Pulitzer to Mrs Graham’s own carefully veiled memoir, Personal History. Her formula for her publications was succinctly expressed: “Mass With Class” – “perhaps the best three-word definition for what a good news magazine should be,” wrote Mark Whitaker in Newsweek*. But what “Mass With Class” boils down to in practice is the genteel middlebrow conformity that makes so much of the mainstream US media such a world-class yawnfest. “Mass With Class” means you don’t ask Hillary Clinton about her husband’s perjury and trashing of his female, ahem, acquaintances but only whether she finds it difficult coping with the accusations and if she thinks this is because conservatives have a difficult time dealing with her as a strong intelligent woman in her own right.

It retrospect, it was the first word in Graham’s “Mass With Class” strategy that made her publications viable far more than Graham’s desire for a parlor-room tone. There simply weren’t a whole lot of alternatives for news about DC during Graham’s heyday, as I wrote a decade ago in “Atlas Mugged,” a history of “How a Gang of Scrappy Individual Bloggers Broke the Stranglehold of the Mainstream Media:”

By the early 1970s, mass media had reached its zenith (if you’ll pardon the pun). Most Americans were getting their news from one of three TV networks’ half-hour nightly broadcasts. With the exception of New York, most big cities had only one or two primary newspapers. And no matter what a modern newspaper’s lineage, by and large its articles, except for local issues, came from global wire services like the Associated Press or Reuters; it took its editorial lead from the New York Times; and it claimed to be impartial (while usually failing miserably).

Up until the Reagan years, [Shannon Love of the libertarian-leaning Chicago Boyz econoblog] says, “definitely fewer than one hundred people, and maybe as few as twenty people, actually decided what constituted national news in the United States.” These individuals were principally concentrated within a few square blocks of midtown Manhattan, the middle of which was home to the offices of the New York Times. The aptly nicknamed “Gray Lady” largely shaped the editorial agendas not just of newspapers but of television, as well. As veteran TV news correspondent Bernard Goldberg wrote in his 2003 book Arrogance, “If the New York Times went on strike tomorrow morning, they’d have to cancel the CBS, NBC, and ABC evening newscasts tomorrow night.”

Love calls this “the Parliament of Clocks”: creating the illusion of truth or accuracy by force of consensus. “Really, the only way that consumers can tell that they’re getting accurate information is to check another media source,” Love says. “And unfortunately, that creates an incentive for the media sources to all agree on the same story.”

Curiously, old media hates the Internet’s diversity of news sources, and in the post-9/11 era, their rapidly growing popularity on both sides of the aisle ultimately led to the Graham family famously offloading Newsweek in 2010 for a dollar to elderly stereo mogul Sidney Harman (it’s since been sold), and then the Post itself to Jeff Bezos in 2013 for $250 million. “A huge wad to be sure,” John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post at the time, “but 1/20th of what the paper’s selling price might have been 15 years ago when no one thought it would ever be for sale — [it] is a reminder of the biblical adage: How art the mighty fallen.It certainly was mighty. And it deserved its fall. The Washington Post was once both a great and hateful newspaper.”

It’s no wonder that Spielberg and the MSM are nostalgic for an earlier era, when the MSM’s bottleneck on information led to the toppling of a Republican president**, and have the feverish desire to put the band back together again and do it again. The big surprise is that Kristol’s Weekly Standard seems to be yearning to see such an outcome as well.

* “Mass with Class” is definitely not the operating approach of Newsweek’s current incarnation.

** As veteran journalist Joseph Campbell notes at his Media Myth Alert blog, it wasn’t nearly that straightforward, but self-serving journalistic fables die particularly hard.

WEIRD HOW BILL KRISTOL STILL SEEMS SO CHAFED: Despite the chaos, Trump has managed to push the most conservative agenda in a generation. “This hitherto ideologically unmoored man has set in motion an administration arguably more conservative than Ronald Reagan’s. While the Congress controlled by his adopted party remains gridlocked, Trump is rolling back regulations and a number of the Obama administration’s most controversial achievements, including the internal structure of Obamacare and the Clean Power Plan. His foreign policy resets look increasingly sure-footed. His judicial nominees are uniformly conservative. It is inconceivable that any of the other leading Republican candidates from the 2016 cycle would have governed as boldly as Trump has.”

BILL KRISTOL: “Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.”

I’m so old, I can remember when conservative leaders actually championed the notion of a small government that would leave average Americans alone, rather than a faceless army of weaponized unaccountable bureaucrats.

FRED BARNES WARNS TED CRUZ: This is interesting editorial on a topic that’s still hot. Bill Kristol has fiercely opposed Donald Trump’s nomination. Once again The Weekly Standard shows it’s a good place where good people disagree. Fred’s right: “Divided parties are vulnerable.” Last week I used humor to send the same serious message.

SPENGLER: “Bill Kristol Isn’t a ‘Renegade Jew.’ Just a Sore Loser Throwing a Tantrum,” David P. Goldman writes:

It is a shame, really. As I wrote in this space last year (“Two Cheers for the Neo-Conservatives“), the movement that Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz incubated at Public Interest and Commentary during the 1970s provided the bulk of the ideas and the cadre for the Reagan Revolution, most importantly supply-side economics. They got heady with success. As I wrote then:

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To the neo-conservatives, every country looks like Poland, whose democracy movement in the 1980s was the thin end of the wedge that ruptured the Iron Curtain.

I come from the neocon movement. As chief economist for Jude Wanniski’s consulting firm Polyconomics, I was a card-carrying member of the Kristol Kindergarten back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But a stint of consulting for the governments of Nicaragua and Russia persuaded me that American democracy couldn’t be exported, and I went my own way.

Read the whole thing.

THE SELF-DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Bill Kristol begins his look at the American university system’s unraveling this week with a pair of quotes:

“To give oneself the law is the highest freedom. The much-lauded ‘academic freedom’ will be expelled from the German university; for this freedom was not genuine because it was only negative. It primarily meant lack of concern, arbitrariness of intentions and inclinations, lack of restraint in what was done and left undone. The concept of the freedom of the German student is now brought back to its truth. Henceforth, the bond and service of German students will unfold from this truth.”

Martin Heidegger 
“The Self-Assertion of the German University,” May 27, 1933

“If I am right in believing that Heidegger’s teachings are the most powerful intellectual force in our times, then the crisis of the German university, which everyone saw, is the crisis of the university everywhere.” *

Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind

As Kristol writes, “Let’s be clear about what is happening at Yale and Missouri, and at colleges and universities all across the nation: Freedom is under assault.” Read the whole thing.

* Curious isn’t it, that even as it defeated National Socialism, post-war America became an intellectual outpost of its predecessor, the Weimar Republic?

CHRIS MATTHEWS’ DOG WHISTLE? HE ACCUSES BILL KRISTOL OF BEING NEOCON PUPPET MASTER: “Matthews, as we’ve documented time and again, revels in hitting Republican politicians for ‘dog whistle’ and ‘code word’ racial pitches in political messaging. Certainly Matthews has to be aware of the not-so-subtle nature of his vicious attack on a prominent Jewish conservative thinker and how it walks like and quacks like anti-Semitism.” Also in the same post, video from earlier this year “wherein Matthews whined about pro-Israel ‘piggish money people’ and their influence on GOP politics.”

All that being said, I think John Nolte of Big Journalism is correct when he writes about Kristol’s threat to support a third party, “The old GOP Establishment hotness was demanding Trump pledge in writing to support the Republican nominee, even if it isn’t Trump. He has since done so. It now looks as though the new GOP Establishment hotness is threatening to support a third party candidate if Trump wins — the same third party maneuver the Establishment loudly and repeatedly assured would mean a Hillary Clinton victory if Trump chose that route.”

Ross Perot, call your office.

BEING A WOMAN THE WRONG WAY: Bill Kristol interviews Christina Hoff Somers for 1:03:49

Somers: “They say ‘oh, we’re for sexual liberation’ but they’re not really because if you’re conventionally feminine — which many women are — or conventionally masculine, then that’s, they ‘problematize’ that or they feel sorry for you or they think you don’t have free will.”
Kristol: “What’s sad about gender studies … it’s a very interesting topic … there’s all kinds of lessons to be learned … but there’s no actual study of gender in gender studies.”

A timely reminder from The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol about how and why Ronald Reagan was one of America’s greatest presidents and the most successful conservative political figure of the 20th Century. Hint: It wasn’t because he told a good yarn and it wasn’t because he and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill got together at night and shared a few bipartisan laughs.

#BENGHAZI: TEN QUESTIONS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, from Bill Kristol.

UPDATE: Some parsing from Prof. Stephen Clark:

There’s been much commentary swirling around the recent CIA and NSC statements that paraphrased amount to saying: No one denied requests for assistance and, it can be argued, that assistance was given. However, there are sins of commission and sins of omission: what does deny mean in this case?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Steve Eimers writes:

I decided to take my 8 year old son Vitali and picket in front of the Democrat HQ in Loudon County and near the early voting location in Lenoir City. I held a sign that said ‘What Happened in Benghazi?’ on one side and ‘Obama Unfit for Command.’

I had 15 people honk and give a thumbs up and 5 people flicked me and my eight year old son off. One woman came out and dropped the f-bomb on me and continued to curse me out in front of my son. Definitely could have used some ubiquitous video today. Next time I will have my camera!

You always want a camera.

There is an active and a passive meaning associated with that word. It is argued that assets were present and overhead during the attack on the annex: C130 gunships, drones, for example. Either they were or they weren’tAs evidence for the affirmative it is argued that Tyrone Woods, a former Navy SEAL, illuminated a mortar position, at severe risk of comprising his own position, and would have done so only with the knowledge that those assets were overhead. He either illuminated or not. Illumination suggests a direct request for use; was the request made?

Now, use of those assets has to be authorized – no passive meaning here. At any point in time, use of those assets can be denied actively; or passively by simply not issuing an authorization for use. There is no need for an order stating: “Do not use”. In this circumstance, note that it even can be argued that a request for use was not ignored or that there was a failure to respond, since the response would be no response. Remember, you’re dealing with word parsers in a situation now demanding much CYA in the wake of a FUBAR scenario.

All questions put must assume possible active or passive meanings to words. So, was direct authorization to use specific overhead assets in relief of the compound, or annex, issued during the time of the attacks: Yes, or no? If, “No”, then was a specific order to not use such assets issued: Yes, or no? If, “No”, then you have your passive denial of use.

I think the key bit is: “Remember, you’re dealing with word parsers in a situation now demanding much CYA in the wake of a FUBAR scenario.”

BILL KRISTOL: Dukakis, Kerry, . . . Romney? “Adopting a prevent defense when it’s only the second quarter and you’re not even ahead is dubious enough as a strategy. But his campaign’s monomaniacal belief that it’s about the economy and only the economy, and that they need to keep telling us stupid voters that it’s only about the economy, has gone from being an annoying tick to a dangerous self-delusion.” Focusing on the economy is important. But a single-note strategy is predictable, and has a single point of failure: Obama just has to make people feel good about the economy for a few months. And with the media’s help, if that’s all he has to do, he may be able to do it. Try striking from an unexpected direction sometime.

UPDATE: Mark Levin goes after David ‘the red’ Axelrod, tells Romney it’s time he pounded back.

BILL KRISTOL: HR1 — RESCIND THE EARMARKS. “I can’t believe the Democratic Congress will be foolish and hubristic enough to go ahead and jam though the omnibus appropriations bill with its 6,488 earmarks totaling nearly $8.3 billion. But if they do: Shouldn’t the Republican House leadership commit to making H.R. 1 in the next Congress a bill rescinding all the earmarks and the whole $8.3 billion?”

IS BILL KRISTOL ENGAGING IN WISHFUL THINKING, or has the left collapsed? My take: Great polls kid. Don’t get cocky.

POLITICS’ SAD LEXICON: Bill Kristol On “Marx, Keynes, Pelosi;” it’s sort of like Tinkers to Evers to Chance, except all the plays only bounce around the left side of the infield.