No both sides for the Washington Post, in fact I dare say Republican could complain.
KevinC
2723
I’ve been told that Hugh Hewitt is a Very Serious And Smart Republican yet for some reason everything he writes seems to be garbage, it’s weird. The headline:
jpinard
2724
Why is WAPO publishing this crap?
KevinC
2725
Well, all the conservatives in the Opinion section are all very anti-Trump, so I guess if you want to get a perspective of the other side you gotta keep scrape the bottom of that barrel.
I honestly don’t know, other than to drive rage clicks. I don’t see any value in it, and I wish they wouldn’t. I’m still happy to subscribe and support some of the last decent journalism out there but I grind my teeth whenever I see another Hugh Hewitt piece. Usually I just ignore it but this time they got me and I was curious what ridiculous things he’d have to say.
Well we are all talking about it aren’t we? I think your question answers itself.
When I saw the headline I at first assumed this was the Borowitz Report but no, it’s perfectly serious (and the usual glib, lazy Dems-can’t-work-together-and-nothing-proves-it-more-than-them-clearly-and-confidentally-working-together bullshit):
Too much array portends disarray in Dem camp.
I’m sure I’m the person who told you this. I’m pretty sure he is still smart. Although, it is entirely possible that hanging around Trumpers has decreased his IQ significantly. He clearly has drunk the Trump kool-aid and he is no longer serious. This seems like a phone in a column, and really isn’t worthy of being in the Washington Post.
antlers
2731
When after the election the Post found itself without any Trump-supporting op-ed columnists, they grabbed Hugh Hewitt and Marc Thiessen. I can’t remember which of the two is supposed to be more serious and respectable, but neither of them have a problem being dishonest in service of the Trump agenda.
The smartness of conservative columnists can never fail, it can only be failed.
KevinC
2733
I believe you did, but you were certainly not alone in that (a few of my acquaintances are somewhat fans of his) and my sarcastic ire was not intended to be a shot at you specifically. :) I’ve got nothing but love and respect for you, Mr. Strollen!
Whatever Hugh Hewitt may have been, my exposure to him has been his pieces in the Washington Post and as you say it’s clear he’s drunk the Kool-Aid. I don’t regret my WaPo subscription because I believe they are doing important journalism but it does irk me whenever I see Hewitt’s crap vomited up on their site. They can and should do better.
The chiron a little further says: “Trump: This is the most important election in the country’s history.”
Dang, now I agree with him on 2 things (the other being that ISIS are evil losers).
(Actually, 1860 and 1864 might still be more important. But maybe not.)
Marc Theissen is just an idiot, the only reason he had any recognition, is he was Bush 43 speech writer near the end of his term. He is partisan hack, and fits in perfectly with the conspiracy minded Trumpsters. Bush’s good speech writer Michael Gerson, also a WaPo columnist, became a Never-Trumper, so I’m sure that’s why WaPo called up the bench warmers.
Hewitt was serious, Theissen is Eric Trump, with a few more IQ points.
CraigM
2736
Only because the scale can’t go negative.
Yeah, these people live in an alternate reality in which there wasn’t a deliberate, widespread effort by Russian military intelligence to get Trump elected. Where 175K Americans haven’t died because Trump didn’t want to actually do his damn job and wanted to use “the power of positive thinking” to wish the pandemic away.
This is not revelatory to most here, but it’s notable in that it’s by Tim Alberta. His audience is a little different from say Dave Roberts. (I’m not a fan of Alberta to put in kindly, but would that more beltway journalists started reporting on the Republican party similarly.)
Earlier this month, while speaking via Zoom to a promising group of politically inclined high school students, I was met with an abrupt line of inquiry. “I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand,” said one young man, his pitch a blend of curiosity and exasperation. “What do Republicans believe ? What does it mean to be a Republican?
“You know, I don’t have a history of dodging questions. But I don’t know how to answer that. There is no consistent philosophy,” Luntz responded. “You can’t say it’s about making America great again at a time of Covid and economic distress and social unrest. It’s just not credible.”
Luntz thought for a moment. “I think it’s about promoting—” he stopped suddenly. “But I can’t, I don’t—” he took a pause. “That’s the best I can do.”
It can now safely be said, as his first term in the White House draws toward closure, that Donald Trump’s party is the very definition of a cult of personality. It stands for no special ideal. It possesses no organizing principle. It represents no detailed vision for governing. Filling the vacuum is a lazy, identity-based populism that draws from that lowest common denominator Sanford alluded to. If it agitates the base, if it lights up a Fox News chyron, if it serves to alienate sturdy real Americans from delicate coastal elites, then it’s got a place in the Grand Old Party.
“Owning the libs and pissing off the media,” shrugs Brendan Buck, a longtime senior congressional aide and imperturbable party veteran if ever there was one. “That’s what we believe in now. There’s really not much more to it.”
Bret Stephens produces yet another conservative anti-science anti-expertise screed, in which Biden’s promise to listen to the advice of scientists on how to manage COVID is a dangerous and careless message and could lead to Biden’s defeat in November.
Yeah don’t defer to science! That’s weak! Strong men just bull past the eggheads and nerds.
