• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Weekly Standard is Dead

Jack Hays said:
He found them; they were turned away by ownership. Read the link.
Click to expand...

Maybe but this sounds like one of those stories where the just dumped wife tells some not completely true tales about the ex in a fit of emotion.

Let's see a week or so from now what the story is.



I reached out to Kristol for comment, but he did not respond in time for publication. But staffers inside the publication say that financial pressures aren’t the main reason the 23-year-old magazine is shutting down. Rather, one source told me that the magazine’s owners “have worked to sabotage TWS every step of the way” and now want to harvest the magazine’s subscriber base to help support the Washington Examiner, which is now expanding into a nationally distributed magazine.
Click to expand...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli.../weekly-standard-never-trump-magazine-closure

Circulation has been dropping like a stone for awhile but that had little to do with this?

Riiiight.
 
Last edited:
I believe the Weekly Standard took off during the Clinton years. Back then I enjoyed the publication. I thought the cover pages of each issue were so well done and filled with thought provoking commentary. Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol started the magazine. I would classify the views in the magazine mostly neo-Conservative. What are neo-Conservatives? Well they were originally Democrats who were strong on defense and hold traditional views on social issues. The Democratic party was becoming very much a "Dove" on defense and traditional views on social issues were no longer their standard. So these Democrats started changing parties to Republican where their views on defense and social issues were more aligned.

But the one thing neo Conservatives brought to the Republican party was their love for big government spending from their days of being Democrats. That has never changed. GWB is a neo-con. He pushed "compassionate conservatism" which translate into big government spender. Those at the Weekly Standard loved GWB.

The Tea Party was formed in retaliation to GWB's government spending and stopping the growth of the Federal government that GWB was engaged in.
Also the Tea Party was for securing our borders, something GBW was real wishy washy over. The reason is neo-Cons really aren't interested in securing the border because they are in bed with the Chamber of Commerce who lobby for open borders for cheap labor and fill the coffers of those who vote in their favor. Well since GWB and 8 years later after Obama's feckless immigration policies we are now at a crisis.


I pinpoint the beginning of the spiral downfall of the Weekly Standard in GWB second term. The 8 years of Obama slowed down the fall. Now the last two years at the Weekly Standard has been full of anti-Trump rhetoric. Kristol totally lost it the day Trump won the Republican nomination and from there he has spiraled into the worse case of TDS for all to see. Earlier this year he has launched a crusade to find an anti-Trumper to take Trump on in the primaries leading up to 2020. Well it looks like he is going to have a whole lot more time on his hands to pursue that mission because his once very good publication will be no more.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
I believe the Weekly Standard took off during the Clinton years. Back then I enjoyed the publication. I thought the cover pages of each issue were so well done and filled with thought provoking commentary. Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol started the magazine. I would classify the views in the magazine mostly neo-Conservative. What are neo-Conservatives? Well they were originally Democrats who were strong on defense and hold traditional views on social issues. The Democratic party was becoming very much a "Dove" on defense and traditional views on social issues were no longer their standard. So these Democrats started changing parties to Republican where their views on defense and social issues were more aligned.

But the one thing neo Conservatives brought to the Republican party was their love for big government spending from their days of being Democrats. That has never changed. GWB is a neo-con. He pushed "compassionate conservatism" which translate into big government spender. Those at the Weekly Standard loved GWB.

The Tea Party was formed in retaliation to GWB's government spending and stopping the growth of the Federal government that GWB was engaged in.
Also the Tea Party was for securing our borders, something GBW was real wishy washy over. The reason is neo-Cons really aren't interested in securing the border because they are in bed with the Chamber of Commerce who lobby for open borders for cheap labor and fill the coffers of those who vote in their favor. Well since GWB and 8 years later after Obama's feckless immigration policies we are now at a crisis.


I pinpoint the beginning of the spiral downfall of the Weekly Standard in GWB second term. The 8 years of Obama slowed the downfall down but so much of the policies the Weekly Standard promoted allowed Obama to win twice because they were promoting candidates in the mold of GWB.

Now the last two years at the Weekly Standard has been full of anti-Trump rhetoric. Kristol totally lost it the day Trump won the Republican nomination and from there he has spiraled into the worse case of TDS for all to see. Earlier this year he has launched a crusade to find an anti-Trumper to take Trump on in the primaries leading up to 2020. Well it looks like he is going to have a whole lot more time on his hands to pursue that mission because his once very good publication will be no more.
Click to expand...

Just when the Nation was beginning to figure out what a debacle Iraq was.

Coincidence?

You dont get to be wrong about Very Important Stuff that badly and not get hurt.
 
Chomsky said:
I guess the readers will have to move over to Breitbart. Have fun with that!

But I'm tellin' ya': Now is the time for Dems to open the tent wide for principled, sensible, reasonable, conservatives. There's room. I'll take 'em. Hell, George Will announced on CNN last night that he is going to vote Dem!
Click to expand...

Hell George Will left the Pub party a long time ago. He's a hasbeen, good riddance.
 
They tried to take on President Trump and they lost that fight. Maybe Bill Kristol can find a permanent place with Trump hating CNN.
That would be a perfect fit.



"He said the magazine had over the past several years seen "double-digit declines in its subscriber base" and that "after careful consideration" it "became clear that this was the step we needed to take."
 
Airyaman said:
The title actually is very meaningful as a reflection of today's GOP. TWS was mainly a mainstream Republican rag, and the modern day GOP is Trumpism. The Weekly Standard did not adopt Trumpism so it's target audience is mostly gone. The "standard" has changed, while The Weekly Standard failed to change with it.

I think that most of the writers will do fine however. They will be scooped up by other mags or will end up with other gigs.
Click to expand...

"The standard has died" because Republican standards died. - - there, I fixed it for you ;) :lamo
 
If a publication cannot interest enough people to support it, then it should close.
 
:lamo

The Weekly Standard DID NOT represent the views of the "traditional GOP"

It was a Neocon rag.

Good Riddance
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
This is the last blow to the traditional GOP. Never thought I'd see the day when most of the Democratic Party seems more moderate than the Republican, but here we are. The last leg of the Grand Old Party is closing shop.



I do not believe the weekly standard ever amounted to clickbait monetization. Sad to see it go. But social media is apart of it's death as well. The titans who ran it will still have a large voice and following on those platforms challenging those who want to put their opinions before facts or what's cool/hip over standards and practiced principles.

The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine critical of Trump, to shutter after 23 years
Click to expand...

For a majority of Republicans, Trumpism has replaced conservatism. At least traditional conservatism. With Trump's character, behavior, perhaps Trumpsim is also replacing religious conservatism. Instead of ideology, the GOP has moved to adulation or adoration of a man.

In short, to use words of Trump's supporters, populism, nationalism, nativism has replaced conservatism, especially replacing the traditional conservatism the party had stood for from Goldwater through Reagan.
 
Perotista said:
For a majority of Republicans, Trumpism has replaced conservatism. At least traditional conservatism. With Trump's character, behavior, perhaps Trumpsim is also replacing religious conservatism. Instead of ideology, the GOP has moved to adulation or adoration of a man.

In short, to use words of Trump's supporters, populism, nationalism, nativism has replaced conservatism, especially replacing the traditional conservatism the party had stood for from Goldwater through Reagan.
Click to expand...

I care about what a person does. How they get it done? Do I care if they fight insults with insults? Not so much.
What have they've accomplished that's different from what Reagan would have wanted done.

If Reagan had been President these last 2 years doing the same things as Trump he would have met the same Resistance.
The only difference would be that Reagan wouldn't have given them quite the same amount of ammunition.
But make no mistake, they would have gone after him with the same gusto using the same allies.
 
bubbabgone said:
I care about what a person does. How they get it done? Do I care if they fight insults with insults? Not so much.
What have they've accomplished that's different from what Reagan would have wanted done.

If Reagan had been President these last 2 years doing the same things as Trump he would have met the same Resistance.
The only difference would be that Reagan wouldn't have given them quite the same amount of ammunition.
But make no mistake, they would have gone after him with the same gusto using the same allies.
Click to expand...

The point is that Reagan would not have done what Trump has done.
 
As for the demise of the Weekly Standard, there are are already a plethora of never trump publications failing or floundering. I heard Vice, Vox, Mic, Buzzfeed, Mashable are all making the tough decisions about their future.
The Weekly Standard should have realized a business plan based on the irrational never trumpism of the boss would have too much market competition from others with more of a natural audience.
 
bubbabgone said:
I care about what a person does. How they get it done? Do I care if they fight insults with insults? Not so much.
What have they've accomplished that's different from what Reagan would have wanted done.

If Reagan had been President these last 2 years doing the same things as Trump he would have met the same Resistance.
The only difference would be that Reagan wouldn't have given them quite the same amount of ammunition.
But make no mistake, they would have gone after him with the same gusto using the same allies.
Click to expand...

During Reagan's first two years in office, the Democrats really did go after him. But Reagan had the charm for lack of a better word, the connection with the people, charisma perhaps. That by letting all the political attacks roll off his back worked. He would smile, tell a self depreciating jokes, even his enemies would laugh.

One huge difference, Reagan was able to keep independents on his side. Trump has lost their support. Where Reagan kept an average of 52% approval rating among independents during his first two years, Trump averaged 38%. It's with independents that these two depart, one could call it the likability factor. There was little difference among approval ratings from republicans, 82% for Reagan, 83% for Trump. But a huge difference among Democrats where Reagan averaged 31% approval to Trump's 8%.

I think it has/had a lot to do with their personalities. Non-confrontational, soft spoken, but determined vs. brash, confrontational, loud mouth and name caller. Also, Reagan worked closely with Tip O'Neal getting things accomplished, we'll see how Trump and Pelosi get along.

I think if Reagan tried to do what Trump has over the last two years, his personality, style, likability would have accomplished a lot more than Trump has and made a heck of a lot less enemies. Reagan's behavior was presidential whereas Trump's is more out of the WWE than the oval office. Perhaps the biggest difference is that Reagan was able to connect with the people whereas Trump hasn't outside of his base. You're right about the ammunition, Reagan didn't give his opponents any. Trump give his opponents all they need and more by his antics and behavior.
 
Jack Hays said:
Tariffs, questioning the value of NATO, border wall . . .
Click to expand...

He also didn't have to do anything about today's China. If he had, waddya think he would have done?
 
Jack Hays said:
Not to mention all the bragging and loutish behavior.
Click to expand...
That's the behavior I was talking about.
Like I said ...
I care about what a person does. Not if they fight insults with insults.
Reagan wouldn't have given them quite the same amount of ammunition to fight him.
But if you noticed, that didn't prevent the fights.
 
Perotista said:
During Reagan's first two years in office, the Democrats really did go after him. But Reagan had the charm for lack of a better word, the connection with the people, charisma perhaps. That by letting all the political attacks roll off his back worked. He would smile, tell a self depreciating jokes, even his enemies would laugh.

One huge difference, Reagan was able to keep independents on his side. Trump has lost their support. Where Reagan kept an average of 52% approval rating among independents during his first two years, Trump averaged 38%. It's with independents that these two depart, one could call it the likability factor. There was little difference among approval ratings from republicans, 82% for Reagan, 83% for Trump. But a huge difference among Democrats where Reagan averaged 31% approval to Trump's 8%.

I think it has/had a lot to do with their personalities. Non-confrontational, soft spoken, but determined vs. brash, confrontational, loud mouth and name caller. Also, Reagan worked closely with Tip O'Neal getting things accomplished, we'll see how Trump and Pelosi get along.

I think if Reagan tried to do what Trump has over the last two years, his personality, style, likability would have accomplished a lot more than Trump has and made a heck of a lot less enemies. Reagan's behavior was presidential whereas Trump's is more out of the WWE than the oval office. Perhaps the biggest difference is that Reagan was able to connect with the people whereas Trump hasn't outside of his base. You're right about the ammunition, Reagan didn't give his opponents any. Trump give his opponents all they need and more by his antics and behavior.
Click to expand...

One ... you're talking about behavior differences not accomplishments. I tried to make it clear I wasn't.

I think your analysis is wrong if you think the attacks against Trump are because he doesn't behave as Presidentially as Reagan (which is certainly true).
Trump's behavior is an excuse for the attacks, not the reason.
Reagan didn't have as much organized and professional Resistance as Trump.
Which, in addition to a personality that demands it, coincidentally explains his immediate response to attacks.
His support resources aren't nearly as overwhelming or pervasive so he does it himself because he can, wants to, and has to.
 
bubbabgone said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

Screwing porn stars and using the campaign to pay them off (that probably would have ended his candidacy right there), stealing from inauguration, hiring people who are completely unqualified for their job, watching TV 8 hours a day, blabbing about insane conspiracy theories and using the govt check book to figure out if they are true, quoting nice things talking heads say about him, playing constant rounds of golf, going to Hollywood every few weeks to party (trump goes to his resorts to party) etc. Etc. May I go on??? This is just off the top of my head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Screwing porn stars and using the campaign to pay them off (that probably would have ended his candidacy right there), stealing from inauguration, hiring people who are completely unqualified for their job, watching TV 8 hours a day, blabbing about insane conspiracy theories and using the govt check book to figure out if they are true, quoting nice things talking heads say about him, playing constant rounds of golf, going to Hollywood every few weeks to party (trump goes to his resorts to party) etc. Etc. May I go on??? This is just off the top of my head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's behavior. Not accomplishments. Sounds like the top of your head is exploding. Isn't that thing gone yet?
 
bubbabgone said:
That's behavior. Not accomplishments. Sounds like the top of your head is exploding. Isn't that thing gone yet?
Click to expand...

His behavior is what is preventing him from being the uniter he claims he wants to be. It trumps any "accomplishments" of which there are few and far between directly because of his behavior. You cannot separate the two and it is wrong to. Trump is not worthy of holding Reagan's pen. Let alone be compared to him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom