It’s no surprise that two RedState writers, Andrea Ruth and Kimberly Ross, both Never Trumpers, handed in their resignations on Thursday and elected to make their announcement in The Bulwark, the new conservative website founded in December by former Weekly Standard editors Charlie Sykes and Bill Kristol.
The Bulwark’s slogan “Conservatism Conserved,” reflects its creator’s fervent hatred for Donald Trump. Bill Kristol, once a prominent, respected conversative voice, has rendered himself irrelevant due to his inability to accept Trump’s victory.
Ruth and Ross are resigning because they “are no longer proud to write under the banner of RedState, or its parent group, Townhall Media, which is an affiliate of the Salem Media Group.” It’s fine that our opinions of Trump differ. But in their customary style of attacking a straw man, they make several quite sweeping and inaccurate assumptions. For starters, they claim that Trump supporters view him as “the post-Obama savior.” That is simply not true. For many of us, it was a binary choice between Trump or Hillary Clinton. That said, warts and all, I have grown to truly admire Trump and especially his long record of achievements.
Yes, Donald Trump is an imperfect messenger. He shoots from the hip. He’s loud and rude at times. And many of his supporters, including myself, wish he would sometimes tone down his rhetoric, and put down his cell phone.
But we look beyond these flaws and point to the results he has achieved in only two years while enduring the most incredible onslaught of negative press coverage any president has faced since Abraham Lincoln. In addition, he has been saddled with the burden of a counterintelligence investigation started by a highly politicized, weaponized Obama era FBI which then morphed into the never-ending Mueller probe. In the face of all of this, he has accomplished more than most presidents do in two terms.
None of Trump’s flaws and past behavior were a secret prior to the election. And Republican candidates who were perhaps more polite and who still remained in their first marriages, such as Cruz, Bush, Rubio, or Kasich, were rejected by primary voters. In fact, only weeks prior to the election, the Access Hollywood tapes were released, delivering a mighty blow to Trump, yet he still won the election. The times called for a president who was “rude” enough and bold enough to shake up an established, entrenched, elite political Ruling Class, which includes the go-along, get-along Republicans who are part of that culture, as well as Ruth and Ross.
Kimberly Ross and Andrea Ruth can’t see beyond their harsh personal judgements of Trump. They criticize Trump as “a politically inexperienced reality star playboy and a thrice-married lying philanderer who utilized bankruptcy laws and debt to con tenants and contractors out of their money.” They find it hypocritical that people who call themselves real Christians would support Trump. I would argue that, throughout the Bible, God has used imperfect messengers for his most important missions.
They criticize Salem Media by citing “unsavory” comments made by Milo Yiannopoulos during an interview with Salem radio host Eric Metaxas. That’s really reaching when a media outlet is condemned because of comments made by a guest on one of its radio shows.
When I first began as a diarist at RedState last summer, I came across a post by Andrea Ruth in which she excoriated comments made by Mark Levin during an appearance on the Hannity Show. Levin was discussing the Mueller team’s attempt to take down a legitimately elected US president. Unable to control myself, I immediately rattled off a rebuttal. (For obvious reasons, my post was not promoted to Redstate’s front page.)
Ruth wrote:
The first thing Levin says after his absurd comparison to Putin is Mueller is “threatening to take down a president of the United States.” When did Robert Mueller make such a threat? I cannot recall Mueller saying anything publicly. The accusation he’s threatening to take down Trump has zero evidence to support it.
To which I replied:
Ms. Ruth cannot recall Robert Mueller ever publicly threatening to take President Trump down? How many people who try to take down a President announce it publicly?
Trump has been under investigation for over two years now, first as the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation, and now as a subject of interest in Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation. It has cast a shadow over his presidency, and it shows no signs of ending anytime soon. And there is one man who has the power to end it – Robert Mueller.
After all this time, Mueller has found no evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. Why then won’t he exonerate Trump?
And what about the most fundamental principle of our system of justice, that a citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I wrote a recent post about the burden of proof here.
Furthermore, one’s guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. “If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.” For most Americans, this right cannot be violated. However, if you happen to be Donald Trump, or anyone associated with him, this right was stolen a long time ago.
Trump does not have to prove his innocence. Rather, the prosecutors, Robert Mueller and his team of highly partisan Democrats, must prove Trump’s guilt.
And, point for point, my rebuttal continued from there. Suffice it to say, her criticism of Trump and her agreement with his enemies is supported by weak tea.
In the meantime, Ruth’s scathing post was brought to the attention of Mark Levin, who ridiculed it on his show. He referred to Ruth as “some nitwit from RedState.” A friend who knew I had just begun writing for RedState heard it and texted, “Are you the nitwit from RedState?”
Ruth’s post was widely criticized by RedState readers. Examples include:
“Well, I’m late to the party. I read this on my phone earlier today, and was going to respond to it point-by-point when I got home – since every single argument it levies against Levin’s “diatribe” is clearly false. But I see that the community has already effectively shown that Levin’s alleged “swing-and-a-miss” was actually a grand slam. Someone might have struck out in this particular game… but it wasn’t Mark. Well done, all.”
And:
“Hmmmmm…. Mark Levin or Andrea Ruth. Who has more conservative and judicial credibility, experience and a history of being right?Love ya Andrea but I’m sticking with Mark. We all know what Mueller’s investigation is really intended to do…..But I do give you credit for generating lots of clicks and comments. You have certainly stirred up the ants in this nest!”
Those are only two of many more.
Ross’ posts draw similar responses. She takes a straw man position, then argues against it. A recent post, entitled “The Division Caused By Romney’s Op-Ed Is Just What The GOP Needs,” generated many reader comments, mostly negative.
“She makes no secret of her disdain for Trump voters.”
“Rarely does one see a more mockable article. If only the Democrats had such contrarians we’d probably see them losing more elections. That would be nice.”
“Well put. This diarist makes her living by trolling her readers. She makes no secret of her disdain for Trump voters. Judging from that, she’s proud of her bigoted stance. With friends like Ms. Ross, who needs enemies?”
I don’t understand why Never Trumpers are so unhappy with his presidency. Are they upset with record low Hispanic, Black and female unemployment? Are they upset with the rising labor participation rate? Lower taxes? The appointment of large numbers of conservative judges? When was the last time North Korea shot a missile over Japan? They should endorse all of his results. But instead, they concentrate on his marriages, his affairs and still cling to the hope that just maybe, Mueller will find some proof that Trump colluded with Russia to win the presidency.
Apparently, Ruth and Ross will feel immediately at home at The Bulwark, a site they are infinitely better suited to than RedState.
The post A Reaction to the Ruth/Ross Resignation Post in ‘The Bulwark’ appeared first on RedState.
