Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Author, commentator, veteran Presidential advisor, provocateur, and MSNBC survivor Pat Buchanan joins for a vibrant conversation about culture, immigration, religion, and his new book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive To 2025? Then, a lively discussion of Rick Santorum's rise in the polls, followed by a Ricochet Podcast watershed moment: Rob declares "I'm for Romney." Call us Mitt, we'll give you his number.
Music from this week's episode:
- This Is Why We Fight by The Decemberists
- Sympathy For The Devil by The Rolling Stones
Here's the direct link to this week's episode (but use our new audio player below!), however the best way to hear the podcast is to subscribe! Visit our Feedburner page for a number of other subscription options. Or better yet, use Stitcher.
The Ricochet Podcast is proudly sponsored by Encounter Books. This week's featured title is Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy by Ibn Warraq. Available at EncounterBooks.com and Amazon.com.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Can't wait to listen to this tonight. Awesome and well done, Ricochet crew.
Aug '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Jun '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Buchanan has a good point. If you don't have the spirit of the Constitution in your heart, you won't be able to find it in the text alone. The text (of the Constitution) is the reminder of what America is--it's not the wellspring. Our culture, of God-given freedom and individual dignity, is the wellspring.
Oct '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Mitt Romney is our best shot at beating Obama. . .in much the same way John Kerry was for the Democrats. Still, Romney won't hurt Congressional races, and if we can just pick up the Senate. . .
Nonetheless, he does have a chance at beating Obama. It depends on how the economy is doing. If he wins, we may be able to get a good start on entitlement reform, and we'll likely do tax reform as well.
It's a bad situation, but no one decent ran. Not a one. We all talked about how wide and competitive the field was back in 2010. Our best hope is for a brokered convention that nominates Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels, but the odds of that happening are probably zero.
Mar '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
This was a great idea for a podcast, but it was a wasted opportunity that there wasn't time scheduled for the regulars to mix it up with Buchanan on their reservations about his take on where the US is (except for Robinson on a couple of points). I find myself hoping PJB lands a spot on Fox in part so that he and Krauthammer, Steve Hayes, et al. can debate their different understandings of American conservatism. (Any distraction from the Republican primary campaign would be welcome.)
Aug '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
I'm not sure. With Romney as our candidate, I don't see any enthusiasm that would translate to wins in the Senate. I'm convinced if we nominate Mitt Romney, we lose the White House, and lose seats in both the House and the Senate.
Mitt has negative coat-tails. We would be cutting our own throats if we nominate him.
Aug '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
I'll likely listen to this one, like I have since I started listening to the podcast, but man, I've listened to Pat Buchanan since the McL Group in the 80s, and I don't want to listen to him anymore.
Feb '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Rob, if nominating Goldwater shows conservative candidates can't win then please explain how Reagan won the Presidency (twice); and if it is because he was a great speaker then you must agree that a Christie candidacy - through a brokered convention - would win. Further, what good did nominating McCain do to the Republican party and the country as a whole in 2008?
Nov '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Having finally listened to the whole podcast I'd like to point out to Rob that while losing the '64 election has caused many problems in '08 we went the exact opposite direction: electing a media-beloved (until he became the Republican nominee) moderate as our standard bearer. That went about as well.
Jul '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Reagan won the Presidency because the country was fed up with Carter and Reagan became acceptable considering the alternative. There was a lot of trepidation re Reagan in 80. He won 84 because of his success in his first term.
Reagan changed the terms of the debate in the country, economically, internationally, etc. He permitted the New Deal settlement to be questioned. The tea party could not have occurred in 80 and, I believe, could in 10 because Reagan made the arguments publicly plausible more than 20 years before. And a large part of the country absorbed them. Because the counter revolution was not completed in 88, doesn't mean it will ultimately fail. Reagan brought us a long way.
Rob's point re making the argument is critical. Current politicians, such as W and McCain and perhaps Romney, do not know how to make the argument and do not, perhaps, even believe forceful arguments are important. Christie does it very well, and so does Newt, mostly, particularly when he takes his meds. But it's a long slog and persuasion is critical.
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
DrewInWisconsin
With Romney as our candidate, I don't see any enthusiasm that would translate to wins in the Senate. I'm convinced if we nominate Mitt Romney, we lose the White House, and lose seats in both the House and the Senate.
Mitt has negative coat-tails. We would be cutting our own throats if we nominate him. · 3 hours ago
If this is the case, wouldn't you expect to see the people whose jobs depend on positive coat-tails overwhelmingly endorsing Santorum? Do you believe that this is an accurate representation of how things have actually gone?
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
To the point James was making in regards to the young woman demanding birth control on his blog, I'd like the say the issue in education is how we view the position of a teacher. Now I know that, as conservatives, many of us are skeptical of the altruistic nature of a teacher, but I heard Newt make the generalization either to Peter or during another interview that teaching is must be taught by those who have some sort of passion. That to be a teacher you're doing some indescribable good which is laudable beyond imagination. I disagree. I think it's a job like any other. Just because you love to teach doesn't mean you should. I'm a teacher. I know many of my colleagues who should be nowhere near a child. However, they love it.
Teaching should be done by those who can reduce any task to its basic parts and make it easily accessible to those who are naive to the subject matter. This does not take love, this takes skill. It's a skill that is neither recognized nor rewarded, and until this changes expect the entitled to demand their birth control.
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Rob Long says that there's been no advances in pro-life legislation and is corrected with the point that there's been some state legislation passed.
It seems worth noting that a: it really isn't the federal government's place to pass abortion laws; intrastate killing is not interstate commerce, properly understood, and
b: Rick Santorum got the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed, which made huge strides in actually persuading people, by framing the pro-life question much more favorably than the throwing women in jail arguments. There's a reason National Review likes him.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Then what? Four years of wringing our hands as President Obama invokes executive authority to tell insurance companies and who knows what industry next how they will run their businesses?
Constitutional or not, it seems a President doesn't need a legislature for much anymore. Everyone's talking about this contraception-insurance mandate on the grounds of whether or not it "should" be done, rather than whether or not the Executive branch has the authority to enact such nonsense.
Winning the Senate will not help us if we fail to take the Presidency.
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Aaron Miller
Then what? Four years of wringing our hands as President Obama invokes executive authority to tell insurance companies and who knows what industry next how they will run their businesses?
Constitutional or not, it seems a President doesn't need a legislature for much anymore. Everyone's talking about this contraception-insurance mandate on the grounds of whether or not it "should" be done, rather than whether or not the Executive branch has the authority to enact such nonsense.
Winning the Senate will not help us if we fail to take the Presidency. · 7 minutes ago
All too true.
Jun '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
This podcast has convinced me beyond any doubt that Mitt Romney will manage the American decline better than Barack Obama. Huzzah!
Aug '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Loved hearing Lileks talk about history. The man knows his classics
Oct '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Aaron Miller
Then what? Four years of wringing our hands as President Obama invokes executive authority to tell insurance companies and who knows what industry next how they will run their businesses?
Constitutional or not, it seems a President doesn't need a legislature for much anymore. Everyone's talking about this contraception-insurance mandate on the grounds of whether or not it "should" be done--<snip>
Winning the Senate will not help us if we fail to take the Presidency. · 8 hours ago
And who should we run? We have a chance of winning the presidency with Romney. It's not a good chance--in my more optimistic moments, I figure it's 50/50--but at least Romney won't engineer a national rejection of conservatism, the way Rick Santorum might.
We haven't had anyone capable of articulating our views since Ronald Reagan. Newt Gingrich came close in the 90s, but his own egomania and instability crashed his career. Chris Christie may yet turn into another Reagan, but he declined to run this time around. We can go down the list: Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Paul Ryan--none of them would run.
Nov '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
I grant Rob Long's point that Santorum comes across as a scold. And that he would very likely be disastrous against Obama.
But here's something to consider: If politics is persuasion, and nothin' but persuasion, as Rob Long alleges, then it sure seems odd that he wants staunch conservatives to desist from running for POTUS, since he thinks conservative statesmanship is perfectly bereft of the ability to persuade and shape opinion. Odd. Very odd.
And yet the Left is free to shape opinion and mores. The so-called "center" lurches ever leftward.
We need better statesmen, not men of less conservative conviction. We need statesmen who can articulate the connection between policy and first principles (natural rights, self-government, etc.) -- who can do this in compelling, fluid and cheerful ways.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #107: The Devil and Pat Buchanan
Joseph, I believe Romney, Gingrich or Santorum are all capable of winning. It all hinges on whether or not they will allow Democrats to control the debate. Liberal media can't be avoided but can be beaten.
The notion that Romney, the stiff rich man during a prolonged recession and the height of class warfare rhetoric, is more electable than the other candidates boggles my mind.