For a little while there, it was looking like Joe Biden — despite his advanced age and obvious decreased cognitive function — would be running for the Democratic presidential nomination unopposed. But then healing-crystal fairy Marianne Williamson entered the race. Her presence would likely be humorous, but not a serious threat to Biden's chances.
Robert F. Kennedy's long-term viability as a candidate remains to be seen, but he, unlike Williamson, does appear to be making a bit of a dent in Biden's mojo. Maybe it's RFK Jr.'s position on the COVID vaccine that's helping him. RFK Jr.'s been an loony anti-vaxxer for decades, but with some of the doubts about the COVID vaccine actually having legs, his anti-vaxx position has found a place in modern politics. His COVID vaccine skepticism, coupled with his defense for free speech, has endeared him to some on the Right.
Charles C.W. Cooke, despite not being an RFK Jr. fan himself, is still able to recognize what some on the Right might find appealing about RFK Jr., even if he disagrees with them. And because of that, The Bulwark's Cathy Young concluded that Cooke would be a great example of a member of RFK's "fan club on the right." Cooke got a special shout-out in her recent piece:
My latest at @BulwarkOnline: #RFKJr and his fan club on the righthttps://t.co/RNA1NEC1rk
— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@CathyYoung63) July 24, 2023
Unfortunately, in Cathy's mind, writing about Cooke's remarks regarding RFK Jr. didn't require actually including the substance of Cooke's remarks. And, following criticism for that, she eventually found herself in the irritated position of deciding to include them later:
My piece on the right wing’s strange new love for RFK Jr. is updated with @charlescwcooke’s podcast comments, which he says were unfairly omitted from my piece (& of which I was unaware; a pitfall of podcasts w/o transcripts is that they're easy to miss).https://t.co/RNA1NEC1rk
— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@CathyYoung63) July 25, 2023
Recommended
While I’m happy to add to my article a mention of Cooke’s podcast comments, in which he called RFK Jr. a “kook” and criticized him for his damaging lies about vaccines and autism, I don’t believe those comments affect the substance of my article.
— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@CathyYoung63) July 25, 2023
For the record, I did note that Cooke’s semi-positive comments about RFK Jr. on the Megyn Kelly show were far less enthusiastic than the views of another National Review writer, Matt Scully. I also noted that some other NR authors were far more critical of RFK Jr.
— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@CathyYoung63) July 25, 2023
And I did not, as some have suggested, lump Cooke together with the likes of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon—in fact I explicitly drew a distinction between NR authors and the more radical, “anti-establishment” right.
— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@CathyYoung63) July 25, 2023
The fact remains that on the Megyn Kelly show on May 11, Cooke called RFK Jr.’s pro-free speech stance “admirable” and described him as a “fairly mainstream Democrat” with “some eccentricities.” Cooke’s harshest criticism was that Kennedy praises Franklin Roosevelt too much.
— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@CathyYoung63) July 25, 2023
Cooke now says he didn’t bring up RFK Jr.’s conspiracy theories or authoritarian calls for speech suppression because of wanting to “move on,” albeit “inartfully.” But in the roughly 2 mins he spoke about RFK Jr., he focused mostly on the political threat Kennedy posed to Biden.
— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@CathyYoung63) July 25, 2023
"Cooke now says." Cathy makes it sound like Cooke is the one who wasn't being honest. This woman is something else.
Because, Cathy, that’s what I’d been invited onto the show to discuss, having written a piece about that exact topic. This isn’t that hard to grasp: I went on to discuss that, so I did. My views on this are clear, and you’re a hack. https://t.co/wsqI1quUMC
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) July 25, 2023
"Hack" might still be too polite a term for someone like Cathy Young. But Cooke is nothing if not the consummate gentleman.
It's pretty funny that she's complaining that she shouldn't be expected to know Charlie's position and then blaming him for her screw up. She might not be as stupid as Rubin, but she's definitely a hack.
— Boo (@IzaBooboo) July 25, 2023
Definitely:
And when Megyn Kelly started to wrap up the program with more praise for Kennedy—“a charming guy” who has been “so censored” that many Americans are "just getting their first look at him"—Cooke offered no objection. https://t.co/XySXpJRbyV
— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@CathyYoung63) July 25, 2023
It is also worth noting that even when Cooke criticized RFK Jr. in fairly harsh terms on the July 19 NR podcast, he did not have a single word of criticism for Republicans in Congress or the right-wing media for platforming him.
— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@CathyYoung63) July 25, 2023
Shut up, Cathy.
The amusement I’m getting from someone at the Bulwark writing about hypocrisy can’t be charted. https://t.co/Bv3EHuEJLU
— Hooch (@CompanyHooch) July 25, 2023
No kidding. This is The effing Bulwark we're dealing with.
That includes Megyn Kelly: Cooke could have criticized her on her own show or on his podcast for giving over an hour to this “kook” who, as he acknowledges, has caused real harm with his health misinformation. But Cooke gave her no such challenge, not even a gentle tut-tut.
— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@CathyYoung63) July 25, 2023
That's an awful lot of tweets when what you really want to say is "Meh, who cares if I misrepresented Cooke's position in order to slime him?"
So, was my criticism unfair? You be the judge.https://t.co/RNA1NEC1rk
— Cathy Young 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@CathyYoung63) July 25, 2023
We will be the judge, Cathy. And our ruling is that it was indeed unfair, and that you indeed are every bit the hack we thought you were, and then some.
Cathy Young could have avoided all this if she had reached out to Charles for a comment before publishing. As one should.
— Holden (@Holden114) July 25, 2023
In fairness, she wouldn’t have got hold of me as I was in bed with RFK Jr. at the time.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) July 25, 2023
Ha!
You could have just said “I was wrong to include Cooke in this piece.”
— Kyle Smith (@rkylesmith) July 25, 2023
She could have said that. She should have said that. But she didn't. And she won't.
And even if she did say it now, she's already make it abundantly clear that her apology would be worth nothing.
A bit of research or a phone call would have obviated the need to do this much backtracking and explanation. Simply retracting the article would have been a better response.https://t.co/5rPSPnMEal
— Peter Cook (@_Peter_Cook) July 25, 2023
Yeah, well ... Cathy can't be bothered with such trivialities as honesty or humility.
It is without question unreasonable if your reaction to “hey this is hard” is:
— Hooch (@CompanyHooch) July 25, 2023
“Ah, to hell with it, I’ll just print it.”
A problem that ought to inspire reticence, not calumny.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) July 25, 2023
Yeah, well, Cathy sucks, so.
What you’re seeing in the Charlie/Cathy dust up has broader implications for the field of political writing. One of them takes their charge seriously and is a jealous guardian of his work, the other says things like ‘lol, relax I can update the piece.’ https://t.co/CiNBBnzP8J
— Hooch (@CompanyHooch) July 25, 2023
The Bulwark wouldn't know integrity if it punched Young and The Bulwark in the face. That said, integrity definitely needs to punch The Bulwark in the face. Over and over and over again.
You all are so much Trump it’s not funny. You can’t just admit you’re wrong and apologize. It’s hilarious to see you become as bad as the Orange idiot. You all acted so principled. So much better. You’re all just the same trash.
— GOPPouncer (@Mellecon) July 25, 2023
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member