- Progress on former, not so much as to the latter
This is a very preliminary, nay, premature observation but the inkling from today’s posts at RedState, and over the last couple of weeks, gives us the impression that the virtually neverTrump publication has decided not to be so grudging or condescending towards Trump — even a little more defensive of him. Oh they have railed about proper conservative things and against the deep state but usually with a bit too much condescension towards Trump when he does the right thing. Yes we realize they have had a big shake-up. It was needed in our estimation as regards expressed demeanor at least. Consider this response to the shake-up from one of the “purged” in a rush to be published by the (no ulterior motive there) LA Times — bold our emphasis. It serves to pretty much explain the appropriateness of the “purge.”
For instance, I wrote that although I approve of Trump’s judicial appointments and elimination of regulations, his budgets are continuing to increase our national debt. I complained that he did not press hard enough for the repeal of Obamacare, which I believe increases premiums and reduces freedom. (V’pac – we have written as much but it is all about balance, selectivity and tone)I wrote that Trump is unfit to be president — morally, intellectually and temperamentally. I called him a cruel bully, a philanderer, a narcissist and someone prone to issuing rash and unwise statements. Why, even his supporters say that we should ignore the nonsense he taps out on Twitter every morning.
The publication now seems less scornful and full of itself towards Trump. The following link is to one of the articles that caused my inkling. By Alex Parker, it concentrates on a critique of the media without their previous obligatory bashing of Trump:
It really is a great critique of the media. We would add that the attitude Parker excoriates is imbued in most of news journalism including at the local level and even business and other house organ publications.
Apologia in RedState as to the Pope
Then, as we were reading RedState, we see from one of the retained writers who is capable of being objective, or at least worth reckoning with — Streif – comes an arguable apologia for Pope Francis regarding his recent alleged comment about homosexuals “God made you that way”. His is actually more worthy than Ed Morrissey’s apologia at Hot Air. Morrissey seems purposefully evasive of the main issue with the Pope’s remarks being the theological implications (assuming the Pope said it — and given his track record it is easy to believe he did) that “God made you that way”. No one worth responding to maintains that the Church should not preach that we are all sinners and Christ’s redemption. Morrissey responds to a straw man by implying that was the controversy rather than the implications of “God made you that way.”
Streif, while expressing frustration with the Pope in a very compelling way, equivocates that Pope Francis’s responsibilities in speaking off the cuff are no worse than Trump’s. The Pope’s ways are worse than dismissable as frustrations or irritations. Comparing Trump’s and the Pope’s communication proclivities is ridiculous given the environment in which they are “followed” and the deep implications of what is at issue.
Trump mouths off about public matters and it is well understood that he is, for one thing not in office for life, and that he is an advocate, not a definer, so to speak. There is at least an attempt through Trump’s appointed staff to revise and extend his remarks as needed on a timely basis with regards to any misunderstandings. Policy formulations and implementation are actually transparent and opposition actually has an array of opportunities to subvert Trump. The Pope, simply put, labors under none of those things. Instead irresponsibly and purposefully at this point he imparts confusion by allowing propagation of “off the cuff comments” that confuse or undermine important traditions and doctrine.
While we accept the admonition to look to what the Pope does rather than what he says, and that something ascribed to him may be corrupted by those with a focused independent agenda, if the Pope is going to live by the press, as his pontificate does, then he needs to do so responsibly. What he says (and does not say or does not correct) can undercut what he does. Allowing anything corrupting to be promulgated incorrectly without timely and clear correction is not properly dismissable or innocent.
More on some of the Pope’s”policy” issuances, and other matters to come. R Mall