Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
We go across the pond for this week's guest, Radio Free Delingpole's own James Delingpole whose disposition is generally as sunny as London in January. Nonetheless, it's a rambling show as Lileks visits L.A., Rob's making a pilot, Peter eases up up on Romney, while Delingpole lowers the boom on him.
Hear it all here:
Music from this week's episode:
- This Is Why We Fight by The Decemberists
- Rule Britannia by The Royal Marines
The direct link to this week's episode (great for mobile devices!). But please, subscribe! Not an iTunes devotee? Visit our Feedburner page for a number of other subscription options.
Thanks to EJHill for the graphic.
The Ricochet Podcast is proudly sponsored by Encounter Books. This week's featured title is New Vichy Syndrome by Theodore Dalrymple, now in paperback. Available at EncounterBooks.com and Amazon.com.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
As he's a prisoner in a corrosive socialist miasma on the far side of the ocean I can partially excuse the blindness of Mr. Delingpole with regards to the many and profound deficiencies of Mr. Cain as a candidate. The native hosts of the podcast, however, have no such excuse for their stubborn refusal to acknowledge the massive gaps in Cain's knowledge, the utter amateurishness with which his campaign is run, the serial corrections and revisions he constantly has to issue for all the ridiculous gaffes and bizarre statements, and the overall sense Cain projects that he simply has no clue as to the enormity of the job he is asking us to give him nor what is required to accomplish it.
I mean it's fine to point out how Romney makes you nervous ad nauseum, and to invite guests on week after week to add to the pile on. But you've got to wonder at some point where the constant dragging down of the likely nominee is going to get you when you have absolutely nothing better to offer as a replacement.
I mean, yes, Cain seems like an infectious optimistic guy, but surely the assessment needs to go deeper than that and actually, at least occasionally, look at the fact that we will need a leader who can articulate what he knows and what his vision is without having to issue two or three follow up retractions/clarifications a week. And surely we don't need a president who sees tossing out unsubstantiated conspiracies and wreckless accusations about others with zero evidence to be acceptable operating procedure. And I would hope the hosts would recognize that a campaign has to be built on much more than a gimmicky, one-note policy foundation that is totally politically impractical.
I know we'd all like to believe in miracles and superheroes, but not talking about the big problems with Herman Cain and instead repeatedly pointing out how likeable he is, and how the tent pole of his entire campaign, 999, might be good starting point for a conversation, won't make his farcical campaign magically professional and coherent. It's great you guys think Herm is a swell fella with a great smile, but how about casting about that critical eye you have no problem constantly focusing on the guy youll probably have to vote for next year, Mr Romney, a bit more evenly, eh?
Edited on November 10, 2011 at 2:07pmFeb '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
Peter, you ask what happens if Obama is reelected but the Republicans take the Senate and hold the house.
First, there will not be enough to override vetoes or even to stop filibusters, so forget repealing Obama's health care or anything else - or enacting anything significant.
Second, Obama has already begun ruling by administrative fiat. Expect that to get way worse.
Third, do you trust all the GOP Senators to vote against SCOTUS nominees?
Fourth, foreign policy.
Fifth, unknown unknowns.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
A LIVE GOAT!
Seems like a phrase ripe for political campaign deployment for fake enthusiasm, either at live events; a cousin of astroturfing.
(PS, I didn't know about the live goat re-deployment; just one of the amazingly interesting things for which I love this place!)
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
Was anyone else crestfallen as they discovered how lefty Elvis Costello was (or alternatively, was anyone else crestfallen as they discovered they were conservative, and that how Elvis Costello was not)?
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
James Delingpole is a smart thinker, but clueless about American politics, and fairly clueless about Mitt Romney, as well.
Peter Robinson made, more or less the argument that has always governed by choice of Romney for President. The question is why anyone ever thought an uber-conservative President was ever going to win, or would ever be the ideal President. You don't want a polarizing President--EVER! Reagan won election in spite of his conservatism, not because of it!
Edited on November 10, 2011 at 5:17pmJul '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
The same could be said for Obama, replacing conservatism with socialism, of course.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
The same could be said for Obama, replacing conservatism with socialism, of course.
True. Are you suggesting that such a symmetry negates my point?
Essentially, you don't want a polarizing, heavily ideological, polarizing President. You want your ideology in Congress, and a conservative, but less polarizing executive. That's how you move the conservative agenda forward. Also, whenever possible, you don't couch a conservative agenda using the term "conservative." Just as Romney has done, you call the opposing ideas failures (and not "liberal failures,") and couch your conservative ideas as "common sense ideas that will work."
Edited on November 10, 2011 at 5:17pmJul '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
Not at all! Just making the additional point that nobody gets in on their ideology alone, they need something extra. Reagan had it, Obama had it, Ron Paul doesn't have it. Romney might have it but he is missing the ideology we crave...
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
I think the thing to remember about Reagan (I've said this before) is that he was a cultural icon. What this did was (1) either reassure Democrats and independents enough to get them to vote for him or (2) it was all or most of what they saw/"heard" (d'aprés Frank Luntz) when they looked at Reagan Because most people either lack the time or intellect to study candidates.
Most voters are pragmatic. They don't care about ideology. That simply perceive that "this President is working" or "this President is a failure." That's why Romney's strategy is a winning strategy.
Edited on November 10, 2011 at 8:37pmMay '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
James D is coming to Stanford?!?!?! Shouldn't we have a pizza soirée? I would be willing to get on a plane. Anybody interested?
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
Took a while to get round to listening, sorry. Thought I should respond to some of the more obvious issues.
He's not detoxifying the brand.That was a platform of multiculturalism, with liberal touches on gays, and race, and promising to grow government healthcare and environmental laws.
Mitt has been prominently anti-gay marriage for longer than anyone else running (most people didn't go on the record on the matter before 1994, when Romney first gained prominence in his support for traditional marriage). He was unusually supportive of gays in '94, but while his position has not changed, the world has changed around him and... try raising his name now with a gay activist. See how non-toxic he is. He's loud about being pro-life (not a UK issue, but if it was, it would have been a part of Cameron's program).
He's an immigration restrictionist, to the right of everyone on the issue in 2008, and almost everyone now. He's wanting to cut back environmental regulations and government health care. He's not shy about these positions. He also supported conservatives in primaries, which is the opposite of the Cameron position.
Edited on November 11, 2011 at 4:02amApr '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
There are three arguments that we need a strong conservative this cycle.
1. Judges. 2 likely SCOTUS seats are coming up. We don't want Obama to nominate 4 in total, nor a RINO like, in this context, Reagan (Kennedy and O'Connor?). We want someone competent like Bush 43. Romney was strong on judges, the other candidates weak or without a record (Santorum doesn't count). This basis wasn't discussed; judicial politics doesn't happen in the UK, so that was probably wise.
2. Foreign Policy. The world is destabilizing, financially, but also Iran, South Africa (after its next election), Norks, Arab Spring, et. al. It's valid to want a Reagan who will build our military power. Earlier, the hawks' guy was Pawlenty. Now, we have Mitt wanting to increase the budget, Perry and Cain keeping it equal, all with similar security instincts (although Perry has served), and Newt with expertise but no clear defense budget position (his defense policy does include detail on teaching kids math, though). If this was the problem, I could see people choosing any candidate as the most conservative (although a Paul pick would have to be criteria 3). None have records.
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
3. There's the budget and deregulation. This is what was discussed. It's true, we need a conservative. We need someone effective, and someone who believes. Mitt has been running on cutting spending and cutting deficits all his political life. He was a fanatical and brilliant whipper into shape of budgets before then; what a turnaround artist does is save companies from bankruptcy; this isn't the same as turning around government deficits, but the Olympics was a lot like that, and his time as Governor was precisely that. He has always advocated small government and deregulation, and has an intense and powerful focus on it, with a record that shows results.He was probably the most fiscally conservative governor of Massachusetts since Ricochet's patron Coolidge held the seat. (Alvin Fuller, 1929-1931 cut spending more, but supported Hoover).
If your reason for wanting a conservative is because you're scared of the deficit and the spending, there's no contest. Cain and Perry both have gimmicky ideas that they've barely thought through. Newt has thought his through, but has the discipline of an ADHD kid on a sugar high. Romney is committed, principled brilliant, and thorough.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
You know who James Delingpole reminds me of most? Thomas Friedman. Think about it.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
The Ricochet Podcast is the best hour of my week!!
Mar '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #93: A Special Relationship
One issue w/ comments between Lileks, Delingpole & Long on no democratic mechanism in EU negotiations:
It is scary how the cabal of big bankers + statist pols are simply negotiating deal points with other people's money, but the pols job is to handle these details; all western democracies are blended democratic representative governments, i.e. electing reps to make decisions, then voters lobby/reelect to respond to choices (esp. the case for any kind of negotiating, deal making).
The central issue is our insane pattern of democratic behavior: 1) philosophical misunderstandings by reps about the purposes of their institutions (e.g. statism vs. constitutional republicanism), 2) govt reps collectively over long periods taking the easy way out by borrowing and then inevitably being beholden to the lenders, 3) voters going along w/ the charade b/c they think it's always someone else's problem to fix (and to pay for the voters' security, e.g. Greece/French riots, Ohio).
Democratic involvement like the Greek referendum now will most likely bring #2-3 in play: voters say "NO," pols won't act and wait for some good option to come along (like you guys said of current negotiation mindset).