• 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

bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. I'm not impressed by a President I would not permit in my home.
 
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...

Weirdly, National Review continues, with no problems.
 
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.
Click to expand...
The Weekly Standard was the last home for Neoconservatism, not "the traditional GOP".
 
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...

How should they do that?
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
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
Click to expand...

We have peace and a great economy. I'll enjoy these things and you can worry about his relationship with Stormy Daniels.
 
bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the bottom line is Reagan was an easy man to like, Trump is an easy man to dislike. It's true there were no cable news networks during Reagan. CNN was just getting its feet on the ground. As for the attacks on Trump by the liberal news media, it simply because he defeated their queen. Then to make matters worse, Trump continues to give them tons of more ammunition to use against him each and every day.

But what Reagan didn't do was to drive a wedge between him and the independent voter. Trump has done exactly that. Does accomplishments matter if independents perceive Trump as a bad president because they don't like his personality or character. Unless one is up against someone else a voter dislikes more than they dislike you, they usually don't, won't vote for someone they dislike regardless of his accomplishments.

I think you seen this in the 2018 midterms. With no Hillary Clinton on the ballot to counter their dislike for Trump, they voted overwhelmingly Democratic. Independents didn't like Trump on election day, 57% had an negative or unfavorable view of him. But they voted for Trump because independents had a 70% negative or unfavorable view of Hillary. No Hillary on the ballot, they switched to the Democrats. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf
 
Jack Hays said:
Like TWS, NR is a money loser. Unlike TWS, NR ownership has no other competing project to which they wish to divert capital.
Click to expand...

Not sure what that means, but it's beside the point.

The point is, contra the OP, it's an establishment "GOP" publication, one highly critical of Trump, still going strong.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I’m in that position right now, in that the GOP is the closest but no longer represents the majority of my views. The bad thing is that we have a two party system that is at the root of our governing foundation. Our system would not work as Parliament works. So in that way, it is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

The bad thing is more likely the acceptance of gerrymandering than the number of parties in the mix. Extremism is bred where the candidate has nothing to fear but not being as rabid as his enclave demands.

The GOP will survive the Trumpism currently infecting it's membership. But to compare his insanity with the growing trend of medical care for all (not an extreme socialist view) misses the mark. Some on the right will cry 'Commie' at any plan that makes healthcare affordable and holds it's rate of inflation at least close to the true inflation rate. Howsoever far more moderate folks see Trumpism as a cancer on our nation, I hope the rank and file of what's left of the GOP see this, I was a Republican back in the olden days. Not ashamed to admit that, a bit ashamed to see what enlightened conservativism has morphed into...

It will be an interesting 2020 if the GOP tries the same old alliance with a more soft spoken front man vs a Dem candidate that wants affordable healthcare for all... :peace
 
Chomsky said:
I've been saying this for maybe 4 or 5 years, but now would seem to be a great time to start a 3rd party.

Hell, call it the Independents or Moderates or some such, keep out the extremes, and see were it goes. Put an emphasis on anti-corruption/anti-swamp for good measure, and it might go far ...
Click to expand...

Well you could always join the Unity Party.

Biden Should Run on a Unity Ticket With Romney

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/11/biden-2020-running-mate-romney-222861
 
I have just read in the news about the President's tweet regarding the magazine's closure.

He was not gracious. He was not kind. (Of course, he should have not said anything about the matter.)

You have to hand it to him: The blue tsunami will possibly bring him down in a short time, but he has apparently decided to go down fighting. He is not going to adopt a gentler approach in his words. He may have figured that changing his "colorful personality" will only be interpreted by his enemies as a sign of weakness. And he may be right.
 
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...

Yes, mot of the writers will land on their feet. It is sad to see Trump win out over this publication.
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps the bottom line is Reagan was an easy man to like, Trump is an easy man to dislike. It's true there were no cable news networks during Reagan. CNN was just getting its feet on the ground. As for the attacks on Trump by the liberal news media, it simply because he defeated their queen. Then to make matters worse, Trump continues to give them tons of more ammunition to use against him each and every day.

But what Reagan didn't do was to drive a wedge between him and the independent voter. Trump has done exactly that. Does accomplishments matter if independents perceive Trump as a bad president because they don't like his personality or character. Unless one is up against someone else a voter dislikes more than they dislike you, they usually don't, won't vote for someone they dislike regardless of his accomplishments.

I think you seen this in the 2018 midterms. With no Hillary Clinton on the ballot to counter their dislike for Trump, they voted overwhelmingly Democratic. Independents didn't like Trump on election day, 57% had an negative or unfavorable view of him. But they voted for Trump because independents had a 70% negative or unfavorable view of Hillary. No Hillary on the ballot, they switched to the Democrats. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf
Click to expand...

Again ... Personality.
You're supporting my point.
What you've described is an inability to separate personality from what (I believe) it is that matters.
Obama had a great public personalty and he won ... twice ... using it.
Did you vote for him? Why or why not?
 
bubbabgone said:
Again ... Personality.
You're supporting my point.
What you've described is an inability to separate personality from what (I believe) it is that matters.
Obama had a great public personalty and he won ... twice ... using it.
Did you vote for him? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Elections, on average 90% of republicans vote for their candidates, 90% of Democrats vote for theirs. Give or take a few points one way or the other. This is regardless of accomplishments, personality, likability or even dislikeability if you will. Independents are a different breed. Not as loyal to either party, although there are three classes of independents, those who lean Republican, those who lean Democratic and the true or pure independents with no leans.

Independents on whole don't follow the workings of government like those who are affiliated with both major parties. Accomplishments doesn't enter the fray as much for them. Quite a lot of independents base their vote on likability of a candidate. How they view the candidates, not so much on policy or stances on issues. Like it or not, our elections are beauty contests.

You think Trump has accomplished quite a lot. Fine. But when it comes to this group of independents, accomplishments takes a back seat to personality, character, how they view a candidate or president in this case. Reagan was likable, he won independents over Jimmy Carter 56-31 and over Mondale 64-36. Bush I and Dukakis, neither was likable, skip them. Bill Clinton was more likeable than Bush I, had a more outgoing personality, charisma if you will. Bill beat Bush I among independents 38-32 with Perot gathering 30% of the independent vote. Bill again won the independent vote in 1996 44-37 over Bob Dole, the rest going to Perot. I'll skip Bush II, Gore and then Kerry, neither were all that likable or had charisma. Yes, Obama was very likable, he won the independent vote over McCain 52-44.

No, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, I voted for McCain. I didn't vote for him in 2012 either. Neither did I vote for Romney, I voted third party against both. Exactly what I did again in 2016, voted against both Hillary and Trump. 2016, neither one was likable, in fact independents disliked both. Hillary, 70% of independents viewed her negatively or unfavorably, 57% viewed Trump negatively or unfavorably. But independents disliked Trump less, so they voted for him 46-42 over Hillary. Still 12% of all independents disliked both so much, they voted third party against both of them. Who knows how many stayed home refusing to choose between them.

Accomplishments may mean the world to you. It doesn't to independents who make up between 40-43% of the total electorate today depending on the poll. Gallup or Pew Research. If they, independents, swing voters, call them as you may, like a candidate, they'll vote for that candidate. Personality, character, charisma plays a huge role in which way they vote.

Trump has a 51% approval rating from independents on the economy, only 38% view him favorably though. The good economy, unemployment figures, jobs etc. certainly is a good accomplishment. Independents give Trump credit for that. But then why do only 38% of independents view him favorably. It's not accomplishments they're looking at. It is the man, his personality, character, his unpresidential behavior and yes, his dislikability. This latter in my opinion is why independents could vote for Trump 46-42 and then two years later vote against him in the congressional elections 42-54.

Hmm, notice the 42% who voted against Trump for Clinton, then the 54% who voted for democratic congressional candidates. That's a 12 point difference, the same percentage as voted third party in 2016 who disliked and didn't want neither Trump nor Clinton as president. They swung from third party to democratic since there was no Hillary on the ballot to cancel or save Trump and the GOP in 2018. They voted their dislikes, not accomplishments.
 

By Max Boot

December 14

The standard, so to speak, interpretation of the demise of the Weekly Standard is that it is symbolic of the fate of non-Trumpian conservatism. There is something to this analysis, but it is too neat by half. The Standard did not shutter its doors on Friday because it was rejected in the marketplace of ideas. Like most publications, it had lost print circulation in recent years but gained online readership. It did not make a penny of profit, but then magazines of ideas seldom do. They depend on wealthy patrons who will subsidize the losses to promote their worldview — and themselves. . . .

There’s nothing unusual about a rich owner losing interest in one of his playthings. What makes this case more tragic and infuriating is that Anschutz and McKibben refused entreaties from the Weekly Standard’s editor, Stephen Hayes, to sell the magazine. Rather than allow the magazine to live under new ownership, Anschutz and McKibben murdered it to harvest its subscriber list for the Examiner. So a talented staff of journalists is being thrown out of work just before Christmas in an act that is equal parts destructive, stupid and cruel.
The Standardites hope to reopen under a new name and with a new owner. Whether that happens, the Weekly Standard is no more, and it is appropriate to mourn its passing even while hoping for a rebirth. The Weekly Standard was, of course, a conservative magazine, but it is quite possible not to agree with some or even much of what it stood for while still appreciating its feisty editorials, fine reporting, elegant writing, witty satires, and a “back of the book” that offered serious book reviews, unpretentious film reviews, and cultural commentary from the likes of Podhoretz and Joseph Epstein. An awful lot of talented journalists have written for the Standard over the years, including Fred Barnes, David Brooks, Andy Ferguson, Matt Labash, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, P.J. O’Rourke — and even Tucker Carlson in his pre-demagogic days. . . .
 
Perotista said:
Elections, on average 90% of republicans vote for their candidates, 90% of Democrats vote for theirs. Give or take a few points one way or the other. This is regardless of accomplishments, personality, likability or even dislikeability if you will. Independents are a different breed. Not as loyal to either party, although there are three classes of independents, those who lean Republican, those who lean Democratic and the true or pure independents with no leans.

Independents on whole don't follow the workings of government like those who are affiliated with both major parties. Accomplishments doesn't enter the fray as much for them. Quite a lot of independents base their vote on likability of a candidate. How they view the candidates, not so much on policy or stances on issues. Like it or not, our elections are beauty contests.

You think Trump has accomplished quite a lot. Fine. But when it comes to this group of independents, accomplishments takes a back seat to personality, character, how they view a candidate or president in this case. Reagan was likable, he won independents over Jimmy Carter 56-31 and over Mondale 64-36. Bush I and Dukakis, neither was likable, skip them. Bill Clinton was more likeable than Bush I, had a more outgoing personality, charisma if you will. Bill beat Bush I among independents 38-32 with Perot gathering 30% of the independent vote. Bill again won the independent vote in 1996 44-37 over Bob Dole, the rest going to Perot. I'll skip Bush II, Gore and then Kerry, neither were all that likable or had charisma. Yes, Obama was very likable, he won the independent vote over McCain 52-44.

No, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, I voted for McCain. I didn't vote for him in 2012 either. Neither did I vote for Romney, I voted third party against both. Exactly what I did again in 2016, voted against both Hillary and Trump. 2016, neither one was likable, in fact independents disliked both. Hillary, 70% of independents viewed her negatively or unfavorably, 57% viewed Trump negatively or unfavorably. But independents disliked Trump less, so they voted for him 46-42 over Hillary. Still 12% of all independents disliked both so much, they voted third party against both of them. Who knows how many stayed home refusing to choose between them.

Accomplishments may mean the world to you. It doesn't to independents who make up between 40-43% of the total electorate today depending on the poll. Gallup or Pew Research. If they, independents, swing voters, call them as you may, like a candidate, they'll vote for that candidate. Personality, character, charisma plays a huge role in which way they vote.

Trump has a 51% approval rating from independents on the economy, only 38% view him favorably though. The good economy, unemployment figures, jobs etc. certainly is a good accomplishment. Independents give Trump credit for that. But then why do only 38% of independents view him favorably. It's not accomplishments they're looking at. It is the man, his personality, character, his unpresidential behavior and yes, his dislikability. This latter in my opinion is why independents could vote for Trump 46-42 and then two years later vote against him in the congressional elections 42-54.

Hmm, notice the 42% who voted against Trump for Clinton, then the 54% who voted for democratic congressional candidates. That's a 12 point difference, the same percentage as voted third party in 2016 who disliked and didn't want neither Trump nor Clinton as president. They swung from third party to democratic since there was no Hillary on the ballot to cancel or save Trump and the GOP in 2018. They voted their dislikes, not accomplishments.
Click to expand...


Why not vote for Obama? His public persona was just terrific. He was certainly likable. Like someone borne to schmooze. You must have had some reason to vote the other way. I contend that it was something other than likability despite the fact that likability runs thorough your comments as the deciding factor.

You don't have to keep posting voter stats. I'm aware of them and I don't care. What somebody chooses as their criteria for who gets their vote is nothing I can control. I'm simply saying that for me personality is far down the list and policy is at the top. I take a vote for President more seriously than a vote for best actor.
 
Jack Hays said:

By Max Boot

December 14

The standard, so to speak, interpretation of the demise of the Weekly Standard is that it is symbolic of the fate of non-Trumpian conservatism. There is something to this analysis, but it is too neat by half. The Standard did not shutter its doors on Friday because it was rejected in the marketplace of ideas. Like most publications, it had lost print circulation in recent years but gained online readership. It did not make a penny of profit, but then magazines of ideas seldom do. They depend on wealthy patrons who will subsidize the losses to promote their worldview — and themselves. . . .

There’s nothing unusual about a rich owner losing interest in one of his playthings. What makes this case more tragic and infuriating is that Anschutz and McKibben refused entreaties from the Weekly Standard’s editor, Stephen Hayes, to sell the magazine. Rather than allow the magazine to live under new ownership, Anschutz and McKibben murdered it to harvest its subscriber list for the Examiner. So a talented staff of journalists is being thrown out of work just before Christmas in an act that is equal parts destructive, stupid and cruel.
The Standardites hope to reopen under a new name and with a new owner. Whether that happens, the Weekly Standard is no more, and it is appropriate to mourn its passing even while hoping for a rebirth. The Weekly Standard was, of course, a conservative magazine, but it is quite possible not to agree with some or even much of what it stood for while still appreciating its feisty editorials, fine reporting, elegant writing, witty satires, and a “back of the book” that offered serious book reviews, unpretentious film reviews, and cultural commentary from the likes of Podhoretz and Joseph Epstein. An awful lot of talented journalists have written for the Standard over the years, including Fred Barnes, David Brooks, Andy Ferguson, Matt Labash, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, P.J. O’Rourke — and even Tucker Carlson in his pre-demagogic days. . . .
Click to expand...

Tucker has been demagogic for as long as I can remember but I don't know what he was like as a teenager.

I had read the same thing about the owners wanting to focus on the Examiner.
There's a lesson to be learned there. Something about balance ... although a daily newspaper isn't usually seen to have the same, um, flexibility as a weekly glossy, the WAPO et al notwithstanding.
 
bubbabgone said:
Why not vote for Obama? His public persona was just terrific. He was certainly likable. Like someone borne to schmooze. You must have had some reason to vote the other way. I contend that it was something other than likability despite the fact that likability runs thorough your comments as the deciding factor.

You don't have to keep posting voter stats. I'm aware of them and I don't care. What somebody chooses as their criteria for who gets their vote is nothing I can control. I'm simply saying that for me personality is far down the list and policy is at the top. I take a vote for President more seriously than a vote for best actor.
Click to expand...

Not a problem. As long as you are aware that in our beauty contests we call elections, likability is a factor. That you seem to be fully aware of. Each individual has their own reasons why they vote the way they do. We may think some are asinine to us, they may think our reasons are asinine to them. As an overview of elections, whether one likes a candidate or not usually determines whom they vote for.

I didn't like neither Trump nor Clinton and I didn't vote for either of them, Same goes for Romney and Obama. I liked McCain and voted for him. I liked his maverick and the fact he seemed to me to put country ahead of party on some things. Not so much his personality. Trump's personality turned me off big time early after he announced. I ceased considering him as a viable vote. Hillary, I always have had a certain disliked of her from the days she was first lady. Her e-mail scandal, putting this country at risk having all those classified e-mails on an unclassified server cinched the deal. No vote for Hillary.

Obama, I was comfortable with him as president. I disagreed with a lot of his policies. But I didn't dislike the man. I'm not comfortable with Trump as president. Seems a strange reason not to vote for the guy, at least in your opinion. I just don't trust him one iota, although I probably agree with him more than not when it comes to issues and what he has done.

Anyway, its been interesting. Likability, personality, character all are factors in how some determine their vote. I think more so with independents as they aren't that partisan, they aren't affiliated with either major party, more or less free agents. They also don't pay the day to day workings or government that much attention unless some hot issue gets the headlines. Take care.
 
Perotista said:
Not a problem. As long as you are aware that in our beauty contests we call elections, likability is a factor. That you seem to be fully aware of. Each individual has their own reasons why they vote the way they do. We may think some are asinine to us, they may think our reasons are asinine to them. As an overview of elections, whether one likes a candidate or not usually determines whom they vote for.

I didn't like neither Trump nor Clinton and I didn't vote for either of them, Same goes for Romney and Obama. I liked McCain and voted for him. I liked his maverick and the fact he seemed to me to put country ahead of party on some things. Not so much his personality. Trump's personality turned me off big time early after he announced. I ceased considering him as a viable vote. Hillary, I always have had a certain disliked of her from the days she was first lady. Her e-mail scandal, putting this country at risk having all those classified e-mails on an unclassified server cinched the deal. No vote for Hillary.

Obama, I was comfortable with him as president. I disagreed with a lot of his policies. But I didn't dislike the man. I'm not comfortable with Trump as president. Seems a strange reason not to vote for the guy, at least in your opinion. I just don't trust him one iota, although I probably agree with him more than not when it comes to issues and what he has done.
Click to expand...

Anyway, its been interesting. Likability, personality, character all are factors in how some determine their vote. I think more so with independents as they aren't that partisan, they aren't affiliated with either major party, more or less free agents. They also don't pay the day to day workings or government that much attention unless some hot issue gets the headlines. Take care.
Click to expand...

And you also.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Both parties are going through transitions. The GOP with the Trump extreme and the Democrats with the Pogressive/Socialist extreme.

My comment was based on the tenor of the thread, not what is actually occurring. We get dozens of these “the GOP is dead” threads weekly if not daily.

The GOP will survive this, although it may have to splinter off the extremists to do so.
Click to expand...

I think the GOP has suffered a bit more from this than the Democrats have due to Trump having the leverage of being POTUS and doing well in traditional GOP strongholds. I don't think the progressive/socialist extreme has the same kind of leverage even in traditional Democratic strongholds. When you look back to how Bernie Sanders fared, he still wouldn't have pulled in enough support to topple Clinton even if the DNC had been looking to keep him out. I still think there are a lot of differing views among liberals on how to make the ideals of social programs a reality, and some of the advocates of those programs still present too much of a "pie in the sky" for more grounded liberals to be feel comfortable supporting.
 
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...

It makes me so sad. I'm a huge Steve Hayes fan and always have been.

What's most disgusting is how that anti-American President actually cheered the demise of an American company and American jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom