"'For all his urbane affect, Obama was still the left-wing agitator who had patiently steered the Democratic Party toward an illiberal, identity-obsessed progressivism,' Barr writes; no doubt actual 'left-wing agitators,' who have regularly denounced Obama for centrism, would like to have a word. Barr’s version of Trump, meanwhile, contains multitudes: The former president may have 'an imprecise and discursive speaking style,' even a tendency for 'madcap rhetoric,' but Barr also believes Trump has 'a deep intuitive appreciation of the importance of religion to the health of our nation.'
"Barr muses that 'the country would have benefited and likely seen more of the constructive, problem-solving style of government that President Trump previewed on election night,' if only he 'had been met by a modicum of good faith on the other side.' By 'good faith' Barr is perhaps imagining something like his own generous interpretations of Trump’s behavior, which he goes to great and often tortuous lengths to rationalize in his book.... The last chapter has Barr throwing Trump under the bus, albeit gently and with the utmost decorum. Barr laments Trump’s stubborn problems of 'tone,' faulting him for 'needlessly' alienating 'a large group of white-collar suburbanites,' and declares that it’s time to move on from the loser of the 2020 election by recovering 'something like the old Reagan coalition.' But Barr faces a quandary, which is to explain how Republicans can ditch Trump while keeping his fervent base...."That description of Barr that I put in the post title — that's what just about everyone does these days. I think Szalai is especially heated up about it because Barr is so skilled in the craft and, I'm guessing, because she'd like to see that craft applied for the benefit of the other side.
Posts
53 comments:
The short exerpts from Barr's book sound right on to me. At least I am in agreement with him on the opinions stated. It will be interesting to see how the book is met by non-partisans as opposed to the usual suspects.
Completely agree with your summation, Counselor
Ho Hum. The NY Times doesn't like Trump.
For all his urbane affect, Obama was still the left-wing agitator who had patiently steered the Democratic Party toward an illiberal, identity-obsessed progressivism,' Barr writes; no doubt actual 'left-wing agitators,' who have regularly denounced Obama for centrism, would like to have a word.
In this instance Barr is right, Althouse and other lefty lunatics are wrong.
He had a chance to make a difference, but alas, a swamp creature can't change his spots.
Heavy sigh.
And to think that so many here trashed Barr as a far left Deep Stater. Fact is, he is more of a genuine conservative than Trump and always has been, and far from an Establishment guy. As his leftist attackers know.
Fine distinctions; a lawyerly path throwing bomblets. Sounds like trench warfare in World War One where a soldier would go "bombing up the trench" throwing Mills bombs (hand grenades for the modern generation). You could kill a lot Germans that way until or unless they shot back.
I thought I wouldn't bother to buy Barr's book. But the fact that he's got a writer at the NYT all het up means that I'll have to buy it and come to my own conclusions.
He nitpicks his way to desired conclusions by carefully navigating a lawyerly path around finely drawn distinctions, all the while lobbing bomblets at anyone he defines as an enemy.
This is a good example of purple prose.
.... Purple prose is overly embellished language that serves little meaningful purpose in a piece. It’s characterized by strings of multisyllabic words, run-on sentences, and blocks of unyielding text. Universally discouraged by all manner of writing experts, purple prose slows the pace, muddles the content, and can lose the reader entirely. ...
... even a few "purple passages" can disrupt your reader. This is because:
1. The writing draws attention to itself and away from the narrative or thesis.
2. It’s too convoluted to read smoothly and can disrupt the pacing of your story.
So why, despite its many drawbacks, do some writers continue to use such unnecessarily ornate language? The answer, ironically, is simple: to try and appear more “literary.”
Think of purple prose as a cardboard cutout of a celebrity. From a distance it looks convincing, even impressive — but as you draw closer, you realize there’s nothing behind it. Purple prose is like that: beautiful from afar, with very little substance to it. ....
"Barr is perhaps imagining something like his own generous interpretations of Trump’s behavior"
Or perhaps avoiding the impeachments.
"faulting him for 'needlessly' alienating 'a large group of white-collar suburbanites,'"
Good on him. Of course, many pro-Trumpers would like to see a rerun.
"how Republicans can ditch Trump while keeping his fervent base...."
A challenge, true. But ditchingTrump is essential. Best accomplished by Trump crowning a successor.
"saves his harshest words for the former president’s critics,"
Good. Like what?
Bill Barr was dead to me the moment he refused to get on board with the idea that Mike Pence or Kamala Harris has unilateral Constitutional power to decertify states’ electoral votes and reverse a Presidential election.
Barr is a scumbag who made millions of dollars working in and around DC his whole life.
Barr was uniquely positioned by Trump to bring the swamp down and bring justice to the corrupt DC swamp.
He could have had a prominent position in history.
In the end he was just another soulless money grubbing coward.
Among the many questions that Bill Barr should be asked as he attempts to launder his reputation is:
What happened to the arrest warrant issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller against the owner of the Wagner mercenaries, oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin, (just hired by Putin to hunt down and kill Ukraine President Zelenskyy) for his personal role in Russia's 2016 meddling in US elections.
By now you would think the FBI could have at least latched onto his 122' luxury yacht, the "St. Vitamin." With his lifestyle, where it goes, he goes.
Among the many questions that Bill Barr should be asked as he attempts to launder his reputation is:
What happened to the arrest warrant issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller against the owner of the Wagner mercenaries, oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin, (just hired by Putin to hunt down and kill Ukraine President Zelenskyy) for his personal role in Russia's 2016 meddling in US elections.
By now you would think the FBI could have at least latched onto his 122' luxury yacht, the "St. Vitamin." With his lifestyle, where it goes, he goes.
I'd assume Barr is settling scores from within the safety of the deep state.
no doubt actual 'left-wing agitators,' who have regularly denounced Obama for centrism, would like to have a word.
I must have missed that there was any criticism of Obama from the left, much less "regular." Any examples cited?
She doesn't seem heated. She seems especially skilled in the craft of skewering the author, who I am sure is steamed.
gadfly at 4:10 PM
What happened to the arrest warrant issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller against the owner of the Wagner mercenaries, oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin ...
Prigozhin is a businessman in Russia's food industry. His main company is Concord Management, which manages some restaurants, catering companies, etc.
Because Pregozhin had to deal with complaints on the Internet about his food businesses, he established a company called The Internet Research Agency (IRA). Eventually this company became involved (among other activities) in buying Facebook advertisements. Supposedly, it was the IRA that spent literally tens of thousands of dollars buying the Facebook advertisements (e.g. Jesus arm-wrestling Satan) that enabled Donald Trump to defeat Hilary Clinton in the USA's 2016 Presidential election.
Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller stupidly indicted Concord Management -- Prigozhin's food company! -- for meddling in the US election.
Concord Management hired a US law firm and went to trial in the USA to defend itself against Mueller's indictment. Because Mueller's indictment was absurd, however, Mueller dropped the charges, and so the trial was cancelled.
This fiasco was summarized in the Wikipedia article about Concord Management as follows:
[quote; emphasis added]
A trial date was set for April 1, 2020 but as of March 2, 2020 the court is facing delays in the production of documents needed before trial by attorneys for both Concord and the Department of Justice.
The charges against Concord Management and Consulting were dismissed with prejudice on March 16, 2020.
Prosecutors complained that Concord did not submit all information required by the court and going to trial could reveal US investigative "tools and techniques". They added that the US government would have been unable to present some evidence to the court because that would compromise classified material.
Concord defense lawyer Eric Dubelier suggested that the indictment was political and said the "evidence was completely devoid of any information that could establish that the defendants knew what they were doing was in violation of highly complex US laws and regulations".
The Financial Times described the indictment as "a rare mis-step by Mr Mueller", because indicting a corporate entity allowed Concord "to obtain case information, taunt the US in federal court and go to trial with little fear of the repercussions that an individual would face".
US prosecutors said the US government would still pursue individual charges against Prigozhin.
[end quote]
Of course, the US Government never has and never will pursue any charges against Prigozhin, because the accusations were thoroughly absurd.
Oh NO! Can't criticize the holy and precious protected elite class of corrupt democrats!
Off with his head!
"But Barr faces a quandary, which is to explain how Republicans can ditch Trump while keeping his fervent base...."
Easy. Regardless of what Trump does, the radical leftists who have co-opted the Democratic Party must be treated just as they have treated Republicans - as enemies.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
Achilles said...
Barr is a scumbag who made millions of dollars working in and around DC his whole life.
He is indeed a scumbag but Forbes says that Billy Barr's net worth is $40 million. Most of his wealth came from private employers.
Barr became general counsel at telephone giant GTE Corporation, located in Stamford Connecticut, in 1994. When GTE merged with Bell Atlantic to form Verizon in 2000, Barr stayed onboard as executive vice president and general counsel from 2001 to 2007, earnings averaging $1.7 million per year in salary and bonus.
Barr stepped down from the Verizon at the end of 2008, receiving a $17.1 million distribution from Verizon’s income deferral plan, according to an SEC filing. On top of that, company documents also detail an additional $10.4 million separation payment for Barr.
'For all his urbane affect, Obama was still the left-wing agitator who had patiently steered the Democratic Party toward an illiberal, identity-obsessed progressivism,' Barr writes; no doubt actual 'left-wing agitators,' who have regularly denounced Obama for centrism, would like to have a word.
Obama always protected his "centrist" facade, allowing others to trash their party and reputations. Just look what's happened to the hapless Biden.
By 'good faith' Barr is perhaps imagining something like his own generous interpretations of Trump’s "behavior" which he goes to great and often tortuous lengths to rationalize in his book...
What exactly are the alleged Trump "behaviors" that need rationalization?
At least Barr (a deep state hack) "nitpicks" his way with facts, as opposed to the NYT, WaPo, and Gadfly who make s**t up out of whole cloth and willingly believe and pass along lies that are obvious to anyone with a modicum of rational sense.
After all, all of those listed above willingly believed and shared an obvious lie created by the Clinton campaign with the help of Russians and fed into the Obama administration and the mainstream media by the CIA and FBI in order to destabilize a fairly elected president.
Barr is astute, and Trump is a tough case. Trump really is his own worst enemy.
'a deep intuitive appreciation of the importance of religion to the health of our nation.'
For serious Catholics, not encountering active hostility counts as deep appreciation.
From the article:
"He nitpicks his way to desired conclusions by carefully navigating a lawyerly path around finely drawn distinctions, all the while lobbing bomblets at anyone he defines as an enemy."
Sounds to me like projection. How many times have I heard objections to dissentopinions characterized as 'cherry-picking' or 'demonization?' A bunch.
But Barr faces a quandary, which is to explain how Republicans can ditch Trump while keeping his fervent base...."
Fervent base? LOL - as a life-long libertarianish Republican, who is still fairly involved (albeit in commie Washington state), my impression is that most of that "fervent base" (however that might be defined) is primarily made up of folks who were never involved in politics before 2016 and 90% haven't been involved since, other than voting in 2020.
Bill Barr is not and never has been a political operative and it's really not up to him to "explain" how the Republican party should deal with Trump - we'll figure it out and Biden is determined to help us along.
gadfly at 4:50 PM
He is indeed a scumbag but Forbes says that Billy Barr's net worth is $40 million. Most of his wealth came from private employers.
Barr became general counsel at telephone giant GTE Corporation, located in Stamford Connecticut, in 1994. When GTE merged with Bell Atlantic to form Verizon in 2000, Barr stayed onboard as executive vice president and general counsel from 2001 to 2007, earnings averaging $1.7 million per year in salary and bonus. .... On top of that, company documents also detail an additional $10.4 million separation payment for Barr.
Now do James Comey.
Blogger Mark said...
And to think that so many here trashed Barr as a far left Deep Stater. Fact is, he is more of a genuine conservative than Trump and always has been, and far from an Establishment guy. As his leftist attackers know.
Lefty Mark likes Barr. Hmmm. I don't remember calling the deep state lefty. Just corrupt.
All of us "nitpick" the facts that support our narratives and ignore those facts that do not.
However, the leftist press consistently makes up "facts" to fit their narratives.
We have to respect Barrs truth.
$40M buys a lot of Twinkies, and it looks like it has.
I wonder if he and lieutenant colonel Chalupa get together, pig out, and whisper sweet nothings.
NTTAWWT...
"But Barr faces a quandary, which is to explain how Republicans can ditch Trump while keeping his fervent base...."
If Barr were on the left it would be easy to "ditch" a popular politician without insulting and alienating his supporters. The left will soon carry out the operation on Biden who they believe recently won 81 million votes. The left has already "ditched" the mask mandate and Fauci in less than a week. Supporters of the left have already been induced to accept that men are women in sports but women are women in relation to the Supreme Court. On the left intelligence has been cast aside and lies forlorn inside each head like a Raggedy Andy doll. Not so on the right and in particular among Trump supporters. And after all why think it's so necessary to try to fool us? Biden is refusing to increase gas supplies in the US and in the end Putin will grind his power over our energy supplies into our consciousness. Then what?
PS At SOTU Biden is going to try to pretend that he is a Catholic believer supporting the Catholic version of the doctrine of the common good as the goal of moral politics. By common good he will mean the usual policies of the US Dems and the left, perhaps endorsed by some other faux Catholics like Pelosi and by left-leaning, abortion-supporting Chanceries world-wide. It's the same problem as above - how to ditch the teachings of the Church and its popular leader, Jesus Christ, in favor of Karl Marx without Catholics noticing. Not so easy these days as it used to be.
I must have missed that there was any criticism of Obama from the left, much less "regular."
It’s hard to see if your idea of the left is CBS News, but I can tell you from listening to left-wing Pacifica Radio a good bit in the Bay Area that they regarded Obama as essentially a neocon — the term “Deporter in Chief” was a typical insult.
The reagan coalition is dead, dead as a mackeral. Because it is headed by mcconnell, ryan, romney, graham.
No thank you.
“Barr muses that 'the country would have benefited and likely seen more of the constructive, problem-solving style of government that President Trump previewed on election night,' if only he 'had been met by a modicum of good faith on the other side.'” So Barr sees Trump as some sort of Captain Queeg who wouldn’t have cracked up if the office holders on the other side had supported him. Interesting, but hard to reconcile with the oft-expressed belief here that Trump was the greatest President of all time.
Trump was the best president since Lincoln, but he lost the last election because he unnecessarily discarded 3-5% of the electorate who prefer his policies but hate the man due to his personal qualities.
Obama, in comparison, was not hated by anyone who liked his policies.
Barr gives a credible report regarding Trump's personal deficiencies.
Some "good faith" by the Republicans under Trump would have been nice too.
Do we have to buy the 600 page book to find out whether Barr has anything critical to say about the criminals in our government who framed the President?
Mike Sylwester said...
Prigozhin is a businessman in Russia's food industry. His main company is Concord Management, which manages some restaurants, catering companies, etc.
Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller stupidly indicted Concord Management -- Prigozhin's food company! -- for meddling in the US election.
Mike, you just have to keep up-to-date and rely less on Wiki. Mueller is a Republican, you know, and there was nothing wrong with his living up to his designated duties, only with his power to see his investigation to the end.
Prigozhin had his nose in all sorts of Putin-engineered activities, including interfering in our 2018 election and this latest contract to kill off Ukraine government officials.
check it out. - - Mueller was right yet again.
@Big Mike:"In this instance Barr is right, Althouse and other lefty lunatics are wrong."
@Wince::"Obama always protected his "centrist" facade, allowing others to trash their party and reputations. Just look what's happened to the hapless Biden."
@tommyesq:"I must have missed that there was any criticism of Obama from the left, much less "regular." Any examples cited?
Glen Greenwald, Matt Taibi, Jeremy Scahill, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, etc.
The issue with criticism is not whether it's left-wing or right-wing but whether it's valid or invalid, accurate or inaccurate. The above criticized Obama for escalating and expanding US militarism and supporting the neoliberal economic consensus.
The right-wing criticism of Obama was that he was a radical Marxist-Communist-Islamist-Kenyan Anticolonialist who was going to seize guns, put people in FEMA camps, and impose a one-party totalitarian state. The problem with this criticism is not that it's right-wing but that it's conspiratorial nonsense.
Republicans are adrift partly because of this relentlessly partisan worldview. The left-right dualism of the Cold War is not a useful frame for understanding the contemporary world. Attempts to do so invariably produce incoherence.
A good recent example is US views of Russia by party affiliation. In 2012, Romney was critical of Obama's ostensible pursuit of improved relations with Russia and declared Russia our "number one geopolitical foe." At the time, Democrats were much more likely to have less negative views of Russia than Republicans. In 2016, Clinton was pushing a more hawkish position on Russia, and Trump was pushing improved relations with Russia. Lo and behold, it was now Democrats who were much more likely to have negative views of Russia.
This suggests to me that people did not so much change their views as maintain their partisanship.
Barr is attempting to restore his legacy. To do that he has to criticize President Trump.
He doesn't need money, craves no more power. The only thing of value to him is his legacy. This book is a way to explain his decision to get within a time zone of the Trump administration.
Like others have mentioned, his legacy could have been exposing the swamp creatures. But he would have been persona non grata, in the cocktail/dinner party circuit. That would be an unbearable personal slight.
Nothing in that review makes me want to buy the book, which might have been point of the review....It's hard to understand who will buy this book. Trump lovers certainly won't. Trump haters, as the reviewer indicates, fill find just scraps to feed on.....Who reads such books anyway? I guess if you're a polisci or history student, you can throw in a few quotes to show you've done due diligence. That's not much of a demographic.....I read a couple of Henry Kissinger's books, not about his time as Secretary of States, but his histories of diplomacy and the Vienna Congress. They were readable and interesting.
It would have been nice to have a more tempered and more couth man to take up the causes that he did, and yet none would.
Barr's job was to protect the institutions, in addition to easing Trump out without too much push back. He navigated that the best he could and is just pissed Trump will not be quiet about it. His job, and what he really wanted Trump to do, was just take the manufactured loss. He was the clean-up crew for Mueller's cover-up crew.
I think Trump and Barr are . . . preferable to their real-life opponents, and some of the commenters here. If Barr did nothing more than make Mueller shit or get off the can, he'd have done a service.
It's likely he took on the job of AG for many reasons, and getting some licks in against some old DC frenemies would be a good one. He at least had the independence of mind not to buy the narrative, and the spine that is totally lacking in weasel-boy Sessions.
Trump had to depend on a company man like Barr, who was probably the only old hand who couldn't be bulldozed by his old colleagues; at the same time, Barr knew what secrets couldn't be allowed out and was well placed to limit blowback.
The reviewer's complaint reminds me of an exchange 25 years ago on an ACWABAWS newsgroup, when a very distinguished academic historian was accusing a retired, not as distinguished academic historian of "subtle flaming" of another commenter.
As it happened, the distinguished academic is a complete asuhole, known for acerbity and cutting--or would-be cutting--remarks, and the other was (he was quite a bit older) not.
I offered that the complaint was obviously not about the flaming, but the subtlety.
"[H]ow [can] Republicans . . . ditch Trump while keeping his fervent base"? Assuming Trump will seek the nomination (I'm not sure he will), how about potential Republican candidates whose policies appeal to Trump supporters, but are running against Trump in the primaries? Their argument can be that they support most (all?) Trumpish policies, but unlike Trump they won't be lame ducks immediately after the 2020 election. They don't have to say that they wouldn't be as confrontational as Trump. because any Republican, no matter how soft-spoken and polite, will be pilloried by the Democrats and their MSM affilliates (remember Romney in 2012?) in the media as "another Trump".
Barr uses the accepted RINO BS that Trump irritated too many voters by having a style that arrogantly insisted on winning every match for his middle class American supporters. Yeah, that was why they loved him and remain loyal to him. And it ain’t over yet.
I think Szalai is especially heated up about it because Barr is so skilled in the craft and, I'm guessing, because she'd like to see that craft applied for the benefit of the other side.
True. She doesn't realize that she is also a "culture warrior" herself. But that's in the playbook: "culture warriors" are always on the right and if they would just go away and accept everything that's being done there would be no culture war.
Szalai faults Barr for having too nuanced a view of Trump and a not nuanced enough view of Obama. Her view of Trump is a caricature that is invoked to justify absolute rejection and contempt for Trump. Her view of Obama doesn't seem to be much more subtle than Barr's, either. Yes, Obama was more of a centrist than Barr acknowledges and he was criticized by the sectarian left as well as by conservatives, but he did little to bring the country together and nothing to hinder his party's drift towards "illiberal, identity-obsessed progressivism."
gadfly at 7:22 PM
Mike, you just have to keep up-to-date and rely less on Wiki.
check it out. - - Mueller was right yet again.
Thanks for keeping me up-to-date by linking me to a 2019 article.
"I must have missed that there was any criticism of Obama from the left, much less 'regular.' Any examples cited?"
There was regular sharp criticism of Obama from the left, as there is now of Biden. You just weren't looking at the left. You may presume that the NY Times and CNN and other big-money mainstream sources of print and broadcast news and commentary are "left," but they are not, or are so only to a limited extent. "Kayfabe" was a word discussed here in recent days. The major media are "left" just as much as bad guy wrestlers are really bad guy wrestlers.
J. Farmer's comment at 7:41 PM is dead on.
"Trump was the best president since Lincoln....
Don't worry; the brown LSD will wear off...eventually...hopefully.
Post a Comment