Thank you for this. Bret Stephens is a preening, self-righteous pain in the rear. The Times today published an anti-abortion screed as well. I'm a former journalist who used to write for the Times, but no more. By the way, on the topic of rallies, Women's March announced events planned for October 2nd to protest the Texas law backed by the cowardly Supreme Court conservatives, but the organization itself doesn't appear to exist any longer. That said, I'm organizing a statewide rally at our State House here in Vermont on that date in tandem with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Others can do likewise in their states. If not me, who? If not now, when? We all need to stand up and be counted now.
Bronwyn, can you please keep me apprised of your efforts to organize a rally in Vermont? i would be happy to advise readers of your event. Thanks for being a leader in the fight to defend women's rights!
Robert, it's October 2nd, 2-4 pm on the State House Lawn in Montpelier, VT. If readers want to do the same ask them to coordinate with Planned Parenthood in their state. PP is taking care of a lot of it!!!
Exactly! Stephens is a no-trump republican, but in a short time seems to have forgotten the daily shit show of his party. This is irresponsible commentary, and just shows how short-sighted his views are. Would he like trump back in 2024? Biden is failed? What a joke.
I was shocked by the ad hominem attacks. Stephens is much better than that. I truly believe that he is angry that Biden is refusing to give in to the media demand for a confession of error.
A needed rejoinder to Stephen's and a boost to those of us working to turn out all Democrats and progressive Independents in all elections local, State and Federal, thanks
Hi, Leonard. Many readers have asked me to comment on Tribe's article in the Globe. I will do so tonight. Truthfully, I just ran out of gas last night after my response to Bret Stephens.
I am interested in what you have to say. I'm not a lawyer, but my wife is. She thought it was interesting (in a good way -- it was a possible way of attacking the problem)
You dismiss the reactionary Press in a sane and analytical way, and that is exactly right. Most of the opinion shapers, no matter what their political persuasion, seem intent on sensationalizing more than they are reporting. I am sick of most of them. Manichin is only one self-interested voice. The fever-pitch of September emotion and commemoration has crested prematurely like a frog-leg in a petri dish. Thank you for patiently bringing reason to bear in a most unreasonable season.
Thanks, Jim. I appreciate the feedback. Some readers say that I shouldn't write about the media's treatment of Biden, but should write about Biden directly. That is a fair point up to a point. The reason Biden's poll numbers have dipped is because of the media's pummeling of Biden over Afghanistan. They could have written that Biden made a wise choice to fight terrorism globally rather than from the caves and mountains of Afghanistan. But, no, that doesn't sell as many newspapers or drive as many clicks.
Another excellent newsletter, Robert. And I agree completely with your statement that “It is up to all of us to help Biden achieve success.” Let Bret Stephens say what he wants; we are still so much better off with Biden at the helm than we were with his completely inept (and worse!) predecessor, there is no meaningful comparison!
Agree with you completely about Trump comparison, but the amazing thing is that Biden, if he can pull this off, will outperform Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush etc.
I read Stephen’s op-ed and was disgusted. Brett is (was?) a never-trumper republican. How quickly HIS memory seems to have faded of the horrors of that presidency. Perhaps it is he who is in the early phase of dementia. He and too many others don’t realize that our nation is in a battle against fascism/terrorism from within, and have lost sight of this; some of your readers included. While Afghanistan was messy, Biden and the military did what they could, and evacuated 120,000 people - it was necessary and will be viewed positively in the rear-view mirror of history. I am relieved we finally ended that war and left that country. I believe this decision and effort will be remembered as courageous and correct. Biden is doing all he can to protect us in the face of the pandemic, and not a peep about that from the whiner from the NY Times. In my lifetime most president’s approval rating goes up and down. It doesn’t help that half the country believes in “Q” and want to break our system of government. Finally, Stephens supports Manchin’s views - that says it all. As far as I’m concerned Joe M appears to be working to demolish the hopes for voting rights, women’s rights, climate change etc; he is a faux democrat and a dangerous legislator. He is the one to criticize, not Biden. When you bring up these criticisms from some of your readers Robert I feel ill. What the heck are they thinking? Your calm and thought responses are wonderful; I couldn’t do it.
" Before I harshly criticize and strongly disagree with Bret Stephens, I acknowledge that he is a Pulitzer Prize winner who writes for one of the world’s great newspapers. I, on the other hand, am a guy with a laptop who publishes a small newsletter on Substack. So, give my opinions due weight."
First and foremost, you are far too humble. While I will read Bret Stephens on occasion to see what the "other side" has to say, I read you every day you publish your newsletter. You provide "insight" whereas Bret generally "slights" those who disagree with his all-eminent conservative opinion.
However, I do believe Stephen's is right in one way w/r/t the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I would have really appreciated if Biden, a man who has heretofore shown immense humility, had simply stood at the podium (or better yet, sat in the Oval Office) and acknowledged (a) the fall of Afghan forces was far more precipitous than he imagined (not pinning blame on American intelligence), that this is a very difficult situation (which he did), and that he will do all he can to evacuate every American and Afghan who assisted the US in the coming days and after Aug 31st. That was all he "needed" to say; the most important thing he needed to do show contrition. Unfortunately, his demeanor and attitude were defensive and that hurt him. The weight of being president is unforgiving at times and can cause one to lose sight of who they are. I believe this is one of those occasions. Biden is a good man in a tough job.
Second, on the question of finding "a theory justifying federal intervention by the DOJ when Congress has failed to protect the right to abortion" . . . I have a suggestion taken from civil rights movement: Deputize the Texas National Guard and have them provide escort to women in need of an abortion. Let the bounty hunters file suit against these TNG who "aid and abet" these women and abortion providers. Now perhaps you have justification for a federal suit.
Unfortunately, I don't believe Merrick Garland is up to the task. While he would have made a fine Supreme Court Justice, he does not appear to be up to the task of enforcing the Constitution.
A failed presidency? Whatever would Bret Stephens have made of Lincoln's presidency eight months after it began? Lincoln was faced by a united Confederacy, rebel troops were across the Potomac, almost in sight of the (unfinished) Capitol, the Union blockade was a sieve, and it looked likely that Britain, and perhaps France, would intervene on the side of the South. Disaster loomed everywhere! (And things would not really look up for another eighteen months.)
Got to remember that Stephens has to churn out so many columns a week. And he's trying to recover some credibility with his former allies on the Right. This is a guy, recall, who voted for Trump in 2016, Pulitzer Prize and all.
Thank you for your Concluding Thoughts today. Everything feels like the right is closing in but I see slight rays of hope and believe in voting the bonehead GOP out of office is possible! Your suggestions for activism have motivated me! Thanks.
The first hire of James Bennet when he became the NYT opinion editor was Bret Stephens. That was his first mistake. He ultimately lost his job when he allowed the Tom Cotton op-ed piece encouraging a policy to send in the troops to police riots following the video of the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman with three others looking on. Stephens came from to the Times from the editorial board of the The Wall Street journal , one of the most right wing portion of Mainstream media. Frankly I cannot recall an op-ed piece by Stephens that has not had right wing stink since he arrived. Stephens has also been a repeated apologist for Netanyahu. A contrarian without facts to back up his views should be fired. Stephens writes columns like that all the time. Biden has nothing to apologize for in regard to his decision on Afghanistan. Stephens stands ready to have others do the fighting in a lost cause which is what Afghanistan had become. He is also of that cadre of Journalists that cheered on the disastrous Iraq war thereby causing us to take our eye off Afghanistan. He has never apologized for that.
There are a host of conservative pundits who are pretty much wrong about everything they pontificate on: William Kristol, economist Stephen Moore, Larry Kudlow, and Brett Stephens.
Larry Summers also fits nicely into that group, though he poses as a Dem and his perspective isn't as radical. I believe Brett's real role at NYTimes is apologist for Likud and Netanyahu's policies to grab Palestinian land and undermine the two state processes. Most Times readers who take time to post about such things seem to be hep to Brett's pony shows--they would probably be disappointed if he failed to flail at his usual dead horses.
Bret Stephens is in fact a hack, who along with his co-NYT columnist David Brooks, has never had a coherent or well supported idea in his life. If either submitted their columns to a freshman poli sci class they'd get a C+. The grade would reflect a B+ for writing style and a D- for content, esp due to the failure to provide any verifiable citations for any factual assertions. They are living proof that the term "conservative intellectual" is an oxymoron.
I truly appreciate your optimism during these difficult times. During the past 25 years of engaging in local town politics, I have learned that positive, community-oriented goals can be reached by educating people and motivating them to vote!!! Here in New England, many towns still operate under a system that has been in place for hundreds of years. The Town Meeting form of government is the purest form of democracy I have ever witnessed, but it takes citizen involvement and good communication to make it work well. I am happy to report that, over time, it is possible to overcome the positions of those who are self-involved and short-sighted, but it takes hard work and vigilance. We all must keep our shoulders to the wheel and not let up. Thanks for the daily dose of balanced and positive messaging.
Thank you for this. Bret Stephens is a preening, self-righteous pain in the rear. The Times today published an anti-abortion screed as well. I'm a former journalist who used to write for the Times, but no more. By the way, on the topic of rallies, Women's March announced events planned for October 2nd to protest the Texas law backed by the cowardly Supreme Court conservatives, but the organization itself doesn't appear to exist any longer. That said, I'm organizing a statewide rally at our State House here in Vermont on that date in tandem with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Others can do likewise in their states. If not me, who? If not now, when? We all need to stand up and be counted now.
Bronwyn, can you please keep me apprised of your efforts to organize a rally in Vermont? i would be happy to advise readers of your event. Thanks for being a leader in the fight to defend women's rights!
Robert, it's October 2nd, 2-4 pm on the State House Lawn in Montpelier, VT. If readers want to do the same ask them to coordinate with Planned Parenthood in their state. PP is taking care of a lot of it!!!
Exactly! Stephens is a no-trump republican, but in a short time seems to have forgotten the daily shit show of his party. This is irresponsible commentary, and just shows how short-sighted his views are. Would he like trump back in 2024? Biden is failed? What a joke.
As for Stephens' NYT Op Ed, I quit reading it when he called Biden inept. The gall! Back-seat drivers get an easy spot, don't they?
I was shocked by the ad hominem attacks. Stephens is much better than that. I truly believe that he is angry that Biden is refusing to give in to the media demand for a confession of error.
A needed rejoinder to Stephen's and a boost to those of us working to turn out all Democrats and progressive Independents in all elections local, State and Federal, thanks
1. Just right about Stephens' opinion piece. 2. Here's a link to a Lawrence Tribe and David Rosenberg opinion piece that contains a theory that the Justice Department could work with: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/09/07/opinion/how-massachusetts-case-could-end-texas-abortion-law/?p1=BGSearch_Overlay_Results
Hi, Leonard. Many readers have asked me to comment on Tribe's article in the Globe. I will do so tonight. Truthfully, I just ran out of gas last night after my response to Bret Stephens.
I am interested in what you have to say. I'm not a lawyer, but my wife is. She thought it was interesting (in a good way -- it was a possible way of attacking the problem)
You dismiss the reactionary Press in a sane and analytical way, and that is exactly right. Most of the opinion shapers, no matter what their political persuasion, seem intent on sensationalizing more than they are reporting. I am sick of most of them. Manichin is only one self-interested voice. The fever-pitch of September emotion and commemoration has crested prematurely like a frog-leg in a petri dish. Thank you for patiently bringing reason to bear in a most unreasonable season.
Thanks, Jim. I appreciate the feedback. Some readers say that I shouldn't write about the media's treatment of Biden, but should write about Biden directly. That is a fair point up to a point. The reason Biden's poll numbers have dipped is because of the media's pummeling of Biden over Afghanistan. They could have written that Biden made a wise choice to fight terrorism globally rather than from the caves and mountains of Afghanistan. But, no, that doesn't sell as many newspapers or drive as many clicks.
Absolutely continue to write about the media's treatment of Biden. We cannot let misinformation stand.
I could not agree more. The media has more to answer for than usual this year.
Thank you for your calm reasoned presentation of FACTS.
Thanks, Christopher.
Another excellent newsletter, Robert. And I agree completely with your statement that “It is up to all of us to help Biden achieve success.” Let Bret Stephens say what he wants; we are still so much better off with Biden at the helm than we were with his completely inept (and worse!) predecessor, there is no meaningful comparison!
Agree with you completely about Trump comparison, but the amazing thing is that Biden, if he can pull this off, will outperform Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush etc.
I read Stephen’s op-ed and was disgusted. Brett is (was?) a never-trumper republican. How quickly HIS memory seems to have faded of the horrors of that presidency. Perhaps it is he who is in the early phase of dementia. He and too many others don’t realize that our nation is in a battle against fascism/terrorism from within, and have lost sight of this; some of your readers included. While Afghanistan was messy, Biden and the military did what they could, and evacuated 120,000 people - it was necessary and will be viewed positively in the rear-view mirror of history. I am relieved we finally ended that war and left that country. I believe this decision and effort will be remembered as courageous and correct. Biden is doing all he can to protect us in the face of the pandemic, and not a peep about that from the whiner from the NY Times. In my lifetime most president’s approval rating goes up and down. It doesn’t help that half the country believes in “Q” and want to break our system of government. Finally, Stephens supports Manchin’s views - that says it all. As far as I’m concerned Joe M appears to be working to demolish the hopes for voting rights, women’s rights, climate change etc; he is a faux democrat and a dangerous legislator. He is the one to criticize, not Biden. When you bring up these criticisms from some of your readers Robert I feel ill. What the heck are they thinking? Your calm and thought responses are wonderful; I couldn’t do it.
" Before I harshly criticize and strongly disagree with Bret Stephens, I acknowledge that he is a Pulitzer Prize winner who writes for one of the world’s great newspapers. I, on the other hand, am a guy with a laptop who publishes a small newsletter on Substack. So, give my opinions due weight."
First and foremost, you are far too humble. While I will read Bret Stephens on occasion to see what the "other side" has to say, I read you every day you publish your newsletter. You provide "insight" whereas Bret generally "slights" those who disagree with his all-eminent conservative opinion.
However, I do believe Stephen's is right in one way w/r/t the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I would have really appreciated if Biden, a man who has heretofore shown immense humility, had simply stood at the podium (or better yet, sat in the Oval Office) and acknowledged (a) the fall of Afghan forces was far more precipitous than he imagined (not pinning blame on American intelligence), that this is a very difficult situation (which he did), and that he will do all he can to evacuate every American and Afghan who assisted the US in the coming days and after Aug 31st. That was all he "needed" to say; the most important thing he needed to do show contrition. Unfortunately, his demeanor and attitude were defensive and that hurt him. The weight of being president is unforgiving at times and can cause one to lose sight of who they are. I believe this is one of those occasions. Biden is a good man in a tough job.
Second, on the question of finding "a theory justifying federal intervention by the DOJ when Congress has failed to protect the right to abortion" . . . I have a suggestion taken from civil rights movement: Deputize the Texas National Guard and have them provide escort to women in need of an abortion. Let the bounty hunters file suit against these TNG who "aid and abet" these women and abortion providers. Now perhaps you have justification for a federal suit.
Unfortunately, I don't believe Merrick Garland is up to the task. While he would have made a fine Supreme Court Justice, he does not appear to be up to the task of enforcing the Constitution.
A failed presidency? Whatever would Bret Stephens have made of Lincoln's presidency eight months after it began? Lincoln was faced by a united Confederacy, rebel troops were across the Potomac, almost in sight of the (unfinished) Capitol, the Union blockade was a sieve, and it looked likely that Britain, and perhaps France, would intervene on the side of the South. Disaster loomed everywhere! (And things would not really look up for another eighteen months.)
Got to remember that Stephens has to churn out so many columns a week. And he's trying to recover some credibility with his former allies on the Right. This is a guy, recall, who voted for Trump in 2016, Pulitzer Prize and all.
Hear, hear!
Thank you for your Concluding Thoughts today. Everything feels like the right is closing in but I see slight rays of hope and believe in voting the bonehead GOP out of office is possible! Your suggestions for activism have motivated me! Thanks.
The first hire of James Bennet when he became the NYT opinion editor was Bret Stephens. That was his first mistake. He ultimately lost his job when he allowed the Tom Cotton op-ed piece encouraging a policy to send in the troops to police riots following the video of the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman with three others looking on. Stephens came from to the Times from the editorial board of the The Wall Street journal , one of the most right wing portion of Mainstream media. Frankly I cannot recall an op-ed piece by Stephens that has not had right wing stink since he arrived. Stephens has also been a repeated apologist for Netanyahu. A contrarian without facts to back up his views should be fired. Stephens writes columns like that all the time. Biden has nothing to apologize for in regard to his decision on Afghanistan. Stephens stands ready to have others do the fighting in a lost cause which is what Afghanistan had become. He is also of that cadre of Journalists that cheered on the disastrous Iraq war thereby causing us to take our eye off Afghanistan. He has never apologized for that.
There are a host of conservative pundits who are pretty much wrong about everything they pontificate on: William Kristol, economist Stephen Moore, Larry Kudlow, and Brett Stephens.
Larry Summers also fits nicely into that group, though he poses as a Dem and his perspective isn't as radical. I believe Brett's real role at NYTimes is apologist for Likud and Netanyahu's policies to grab Palestinian land and undermine the two state processes. Most Times readers who take time to post about such things seem to be hep to Brett's pony shows--they would probably be disappointed if he failed to flail at his usual dead horses.
Bret Stephens is in fact a hack, who along with his co-NYT columnist David Brooks, has never had a coherent or well supported idea in his life. If either submitted their columns to a freshman poli sci class they'd get a C+. The grade would reflect a B+ for writing style and a D- for content, esp due to the failure to provide any verifiable citations for any factual assertions. They are living proof that the term "conservative intellectual" is an oxymoron.
I truly appreciate your optimism during these difficult times. During the past 25 years of engaging in local town politics, I have learned that positive, community-oriented goals can be reached by educating people and motivating them to vote!!! Here in New England, many towns still operate under a system that has been in place for hundreds of years. The Town Meeting form of government is the purest form of democracy I have ever witnessed, but it takes citizen involvement and good communication to make it work well. I am happy to report that, over time, it is possible to overcome the positions of those who are self-involved and short-sighted, but it takes hard work and vigilance. We all must keep our shoulders to the wheel and not let up. Thanks for the daily dose of balanced and positive messaging.