Ever since Donald Trump broke his brain, we can’t help but be concerned about The Bulwark’s Charlie Sykes. It’s been genuinely depressing to watch him go from reasonable and pragmatic conservative to shameless liberal shill in Principled Conservative’s™ clothing.
What poor Charlie Sykes (and Bill Kristol and the rest of the #NeverTrump grifter contingent) doesn’t seem to realize is that there are people out there who understand that it’s not only possible to take issue with Donald Trump and the modern GOP while still maintaining conservative principles, but that it’s not even all that difficult to do so.
Take the Washington Examiner Magazine’s Jay Caruso, for example. He’s been quite critical of Donald Trump and the Trumpist wing of the Republican Party, but he’s managed to do that without compromising his conservative values. Crazy, right?
This morning, Sykes complained about GOP Sen. Josh Hawley’s focus on Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record with regard to sex offenders:
Morning Shots: Hawley's Deplorable (and Dishonest) Attack on KBJ
Plus: Why the alt-right loves (and Steve Bannon) loves Putinhttps://t.co/fKYpXRH42Y
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) March 21, 2022
Some context:
Once upon a time, conservative Antonin Scalia was confirmed by the senate on a 98-0 vote; RBG was confirmed 96-3. The justice that Judge Jackson will replace, Stephen Breyer was confirmed by a margin of 87-9.
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) March 21, 2022
The first woman on the Court, Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed by the senate 99-0. The first African-American on the Court, Thurgood Marshall received 69 votes when he was confirmed in 1967.
Elena Kagan received 63 votes; a year earlier, Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed 68-31.— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) March 21, 2022
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin referred to a recent piece by National Review’s Andrew McCarthy to defend Jackson against Hawley’s charges, and, for what it’s worth, Caruso believes that McCarthy made valid points but nonetheless has had it with Sykes schtick.
One final note on this. Bork was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court in 1982 by unanimous consent. But five years later, he was a menace that had to be stopped.
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) March 21, 2022
BTW, from everything I have read abt KBJ, it is ridiculous to hold her time as a defense attorney against her as @AndrewCMcCarthy writes, but Hawley is a charlatan who will grandstand just because. Still, Sykes's "Those were the days" talk is nonsense. https://t.co/SsKQ9UsfiK
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) March 21, 2022
Yeah, here’s “more context” from Sykes’ Bulwark piece:
Some nominations were more contentious. Clarence Thomas received only 52 votes; and Robert Bork was actually rejected on a 42-58 vote.
“Contentious.” Well, yes, we suppose that’s one word for what some of those nominations were, yes.
"Some nominations were more contentious. …Robert Bork was actually rejected on a 42-58 vote."
Bork was the target of a smear campaign led by Ted Kennedy & PFAW unlike anything ever seen with a judicial nomination. But sure, sweep it under the rug as "contentious." https://t.co/A73wHa53Qk
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) March 21, 2022
Brett Kavanaugh was accused by sitting Senators of sexual assault and was accused of taking part in gang rapes, but "Oh no! Josh Hawley! And look, Chris Rufo and Jesse Kelly tweeted something! It never used to be this way." GMAFB.
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) March 21, 2022
Charlie Sykes should give all of us a FB.
Oh FFS.
No, I did not say it was NEVER this way.. At one time, big bipartisan confirmations were common (with exceptions.)
And your point? They smeared X, so we get to smear Y… is…. juvenile. https://t.co/Yn6ARVjdnS
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) March 21, 2022
That’s not Caruso’s point at all, Charlie, but you go off.
Don't get mad that I quoted your words and now you respond with a straw man. I didn't claim you said it was "never" this way. The point is, you glossed over it, rather than address that is part and parcel of a much larger problem that bubbled up 35 years ago. https://t.co/2jnFc7vyeo
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) March 21, 2022
And pay closer attention to what I say instead of making lazy assumptions. https://t.co/KtrHUbDl1I
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) March 21, 2022
But lazy assumptions have been Charlie Sykes and The Bulwark’s bread and butter for several years now.
Charlie Sykes is just lazy, period. Can’t even be bothered to answer simple questions:
Jay can you ask Charlie for me which Wisconsin town his mistress was from? He won't answer me.
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) March 21, 2022
Oh, snap.
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member