 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 people who knew him best, and see it as their mission to keep his words and beliefs alive. Kolvet, who was Kirk's producer for eight years, told Secrets: "I feel it's a responsibility to honor Charlie's message and his wisdom. I try and remember that the fact that so many people want to claim Charlie in their viewpoint is an honor to Charlie and a testament to his leadership." "We do try to honor that, but it's not out of blind allegiance to Charlie. There's a lot of people still here at Turning Point, or keeping his legacy alive in other ways, that share his perspective." He said speaking for Kirk was "innate." And he described how a staffer cut clips from Saturday's show with one of Kirk's shows last year. "It sounds like we were ripping him off verbatim, but we hadn't actually had a chance to rewatch them," he said. For Mills, the anti-war voice, Kirk's words and shows were his "work product." Not using them now would be a discredit to his legacy of opposing war. At the same time, it underscored how his murder was a pivotal time, laden with triggers for a deeper reckoning on the Right. "Kirk's death feels like a Franz Ferdinand moment for dialogue on the right, and everyone is trawling their different interpretations," he said, describing how Kirk, in some ways, was the glue that held a disparate movement together. "Some of it is gross, but it keeps his memory alive." But the Kirk show, and its new presenters, did not have a monopoly on that memory. "Even though they are the successors, they don't 100% know what a dead guy would do," he said. No one knows how the war in Iran will play out. It will be a test of Trump's leadership and of the guardians of Kirk's legacy. "Charlie was cautious about foreign adventurism, foreign interventionism," said Kolvet, "but he understood that Trump had essentially found a third way where you could achieve strategic ends and objectives without prolonged, boots-on-the-ground forever wars." Only time will tell. Trump ally's Middle East rescue mission Alex Bruesewitz, a Trump adviser, happened to be in Qatar when the missiles began flying in all directions over the weekend. With all flights canceled, he called aides in the White House and liaised with Saudi and Qatari officials, as well as Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), to charter a flight out for him and other stranded Americans. "For those who may not know, I happened to be traveling through the Middle East just as the Iranian attacks erupted, leaving me stranded amid the chaos," he posted on X. "The past 72 hours have been utterly surreal, like nothing I've ever experienced before. Iranian missiles were flying directly over my head." He paid for the plane himself — those strategist jobs must pay well — and flew via Saudi Arabia to Greece, with the help of Greek Ambassador Kimberly Guilfoyle. Among the evacuees was Sarah Gaither, a dogwalker who is apparently famous on TikTok. Secrets wants to know… Have you ever been rescued from a warzone by a Trump adviser? Do email us with your story. Trump's mainstream media strategy Secrets has Trump's phone number, just like every other journalist in Washington, it seems. Since the strikes began, the most powerful man in the world has answered calls from the Daily Mail, the New York Times, Fox News, the New York Post, the Telegraph, the Washington Post, Axios, CNN, the Atlantic, MS Now, and others. Where are the Real America Voices and Benny Johnsons in this list? Trump may have derided the "fake news" and rode to election victory via podcasts and fringe rightwing broadcasters, but the president is showing his natural understanding of the media. You campaign on Newsmax, but presidents fight wars on CNN. Republicans accuse Democrats of putting the homeland at risk Republicans on the Hill have found a political use for the war. They are accusing Democrats of playing partisan games by refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security at a time when the FBI is on high alert amid credible attacks by Iran or its proxies. Today is the 18th day of the shutdown. Mike Marinella, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said: "So-called 'Leaders' Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, and their band of far-left Democrats are still playing politics and putting the homeland at risk. They have another opportunity to fund the very agencies tasked with preventing the next attack, and refusing to do so would be gross negligence." House Republican leaders are looking at holding another vote on Thursday, but Democratic leaders say their position has not changed. They won't let up without reforms at immigration enforcement agencies. Lunchtime reading Controversy hasn't stopped Ken Paxton yet. Will a Senate run be different? Voting ends today in the Texas Senate primaries. Well worth dipping back into this profile of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Republican front-runner. Iran strikes highlight fractures in GOP ahead of war powers votes in Congress: "Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky is leading the House war powers effort alongside Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California. Massie has criticized the strikes in strong terms, claiming the approach is not in line with the 'America First' agenda, while saying that lawmakers must go on the record on the issue." You are reading Washington Secrets, a guide to power and politics in D.C. and beyond. It is written by Rob Crilly, whom you can reach at secrets@washingtonexaminer DOT COM with your comments, story tips, and suggestions. If a friend sent you this and you'd like to sign up, click here. | 
Comments
Post a Comment