MAGA world asks ‘what would Charlie Kirk do?’ as it squabbles over Iran
We're watching the same failure loop.
Welcome to Washington Secrets, your daily look inside the power politics of the nation’s capital. Today we talk to Charlie Kirk’s longtime producer about keeping his legacy alive, look at Donald Trump’s very mainstream media strategy, and see how Republicans are looking to weaponize the Iran war on the Hill…
The ghost of Charlie Kirk looms over the Republican Party as squabbling factions of the America First movement lay claim to his legacy in the debate over Iran.
Opponents of strikes have shared old clips of Kirk ridiculing the idea of a regime change war.
In return, President Donald Trump’s loyalists accuse them of taking the late conservative activist’s name in vain.
And in the middle is the team of producers and friends who have kept the Turning Point USA co-founder’s flame burning in the podcast studio of The Charlie Kirk Show.
In a two-hour broadcast on Saturday, Andrew Kolvet, Kirk’s longtime producer, addressed online activists who claimed to know what the late activist would have said or thought.
“Charlie would not rush to judgment,” he told the audience. “Charlie would have been, I think, instinctively against a regime change war, that is very clear.”
“But he also would have understood the fact that President Trump is stuck between a series of very difficult decisions, and that is why we worked so hard to get him elected: To make these types of difficult decisions.”
It was a nuanced response to a complicated war, and it neatly illustrates the stark split in Republican circles.
At its center is a question about whether to support a war of choice when Trump campaigned against foreign entanglements.
It pits the likes of Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative, who has called the strikes a “betrayal of the base”, against Laura Loomer, the online influencer, who has lined up squarely behind Trump.
And Kirk’s words have become one of the weapons. A clip doing the rounds shows him in June last year, just before “Operation Midnight Hammer” attacked key nuclear sites, pushing back against Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who was calling for regime change.
He called the idea “pathologically insane” and warned of the dangers of sparking “a 90-million-person civil war.”
TRUMP’S ‘AMERICA FIRST’ COALITION BALKS AT STRIKES AGAINST IRAN
Loomer accused them of exploiting Kirk and his death.
“Of course it’s sad, but Charlie Kirk was wrong about a lot,” she posted. “Just like he was right about a lot.”
Not so fast, say some of the …
We're watching the same failure loop.
Welcome to Washington Secrets, your daily look inside the power politics of the nation’s capital. Today we talk to Charlie Kirk’s longtime producer about keeping his legacy alive, look at Donald Trump’s very mainstream media strategy, and see how Republicans are looking to weaponize the Iran war on the Hill…
The ghost of Charlie Kirk looms over the Republican Party as squabbling factions of the America First movement lay claim to his legacy in the debate over Iran.
Opponents of strikes have shared old clips of Kirk ridiculing the idea of a regime change war.
In return, President Donald Trump’s loyalists accuse them of taking the late conservative activist’s name in vain.
And in the middle is the team of producers and friends who have kept the Turning Point USA co-founder’s flame burning in the podcast studio of The Charlie Kirk Show.
In a two-hour broadcast on Saturday, Andrew Kolvet, Kirk’s longtime producer, addressed online activists who claimed to know what the late activist would have said or thought.
“Charlie would not rush to judgment,” he told the audience. “Charlie would have been, I think, instinctively against a regime change war, that is very clear.”
“But he also would have understood the fact that President Trump is stuck between a series of very difficult decisions, and that is why we worked so hard to get him elected: To make these types of difficult decisions.”
It was a nuanced response to a complicated war, and it neatly illustrates the stark split in Republican circles.
At its center is a question about whether to support a war of choice when Trump campaigned against foreign entanglements.
It pits the likes of Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative, who has called the strikes a “betrayal of the base”, against Laura Loomer, the online influencer, who has lined up squarely behind Trump.
And Kirk’s words have become one of the weapons. A clip doing the rounds shows him in June last year, just before “Operation Midnight Hammer” attacked key nuclear sites, pushing back against Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who was calling for regime change.
He called the idea “pathologically insane” and warned of the dangers of sparking “a 90-million-person civil war.”
TRUMP’S ‘AMERICA FIRST’ COALITION BALKS AT STRIKES AGAINST IRAN
Loomer accused them of exploiting Kirk and his death.
“Of course it’s sad, but Charlie Kirk was wrong about a lot,” she posted. “Just like he was right about a lot.”
Not so fast, say some of the …
MAGA world asks ‘what would Charlie Kirk do?’ as it squabbles over Iran
We're watching the same failure loop.
Welcome to Washington Secrets, your daily look inside the power politics of the nation’s capital. Today we talk to Charlie Kirk’s longtime producer about keeping his legacy alive, look at Donald Trump’s very mainstream media strategy, and see how Republicans are looking to weaponize the Iran war on the Hill…
The ghost of Charlie Kirk looms over the Republican Party as squabbling factions of the America First movement lay claim to his legacy in the debate over Iran.
Opponents of strikes have shared old clips of Kirk ridiculing the idea of a regime change war.
In return, President Donald Trump’s loyalists accuse them of taking the late conservative activist’s name in vain.
And in the middle is the team of producers and friends who have kept the Turning Point USA co-founder’s flame burning in the podcast studio of The Charlie Kirk Show.
In a two-hour broadcast on Saturday, Andrew Kolvet, Kirk’s longtime producer, addressed online activists who claimed to know what the late activist would have said or thought.
“Charlie would not rush to judgment,” he told the audience. “Charlie would have been, I think, instinctively against a regime change war, that is very clear.”
“But he also would have understood the fact that President Trump is stuck between a series of very difficult decisions, and that is why we worked so hard to get him elected: To make these types of difficult decisions.”
It was a nuanced response to a complicated war, and it neatly illustrates the stark split in Republican circles.
At its center is a question about whether to support a war of choice when Trump campaigned against foreign entanglements.
It pits the likes of Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative, who has called the strikes a “betrayal of the base”, against Laura Loomer, the online influencer, who has lined up squarely behind Trump.
And Kirk’s words have become one of the weapons. A clip doing the rounds shows him in June last year, just before “Operation Midnight Hammer” attacked key nuclear sites, pushing back against Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who was calling for regime change.
He called the idea “pathologically insane” and warned of the dangers of sparking “a 90-million-person civil war.”
TRUMP’S ‘AMERICA FIRST’ COALITION BALKS AT STRIKES AGAINST IRAN
Loomer accused them of exploiting Kirk and his death.
“Of course it’s sad, but Charlie Kirk was wrong about a lot,” she posted. “Just like he was right about a lot.”
Not so fast, say some of the …
0 Comments
0 Shares
43 Views
0 Reviews
