Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
Today, we've got professional pundits prognosticating profusely as The New York Times' Ross Douthat and National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru stop by to talk Newt, Mitt, Ron and Jon, and all of their, er....luggage. Skycap!
Listen in here:
Music from this week's episode:
- This Is Why We Fight by The Decemberists
- (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction by The Rolling Stones
Here's the direct link to this week's episode (great for mobile devices!). But please, subscribe! Not part of the iTunes revolution? Visit our Feedburner page for a number of other subscription options. Or better yet, use Stitcher.
Thanks to EJHill for the photo.
The Ricochet Podcast is proudly sponsored by Encounter Books and their Broadside series. This week's featured title is Why Progressive Institutions Are Unsustainable by our own Richard Epstein. Available soon at EncounterBooks.com and Amazon.com.
- Comment (58)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
Guys, guys, guys. I love you. But you guys you cant see the wall for all the writting on it. The republican party as in the people who vote for republicans dont trust their punditry, they dont trust their party operatives, and have had the taste of republican blood and like eating republicans as much as they like democrat flavored flesh. The party is factionalized and candidates become the human avatars of those factions. All the punditries negativity of those avatars translates to negativity towards the faction. Stop attacking candidates, stop attacking your voters, and stop trying to condescend to them. It only makes them madder and less trustful of you than they already are. People have way to much contact with each other with too little of a civility filter with the new media, and it is destructive. So please for the love of all the influence the reasonable smart punditry has left, only say good things about all the candidates. Attacking the candidates only hurts your own influence, it hurts the party, and it does nothing about the ever increasing amount of bad blood that exists and does not dissipate because of the poor standard of civility online.
Oct '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
"our ran Richard Epstein"?
Jul '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
Are Ricochet readers the exception to Ramesh's GOP voters? There seems to be a decided lack of contentment with the crop of candidates around here, and I haven't really run into anyone yet in my travels who thinks we have anything but B-Listers running.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
Bottom line from Douthat and Ponnuru: The voters are stupid. As soon as we wisen them up, they will line up behind Romney. We know. We're insiders. We've seen Newt up close! You dolts!
Dec '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
What Vanity Fair really thinks about Rick Perry, Peter.
That seems to be the subplot of this election cycle. I thought Republicans were the ones who trusted in the will of the voters more than in the will of our wise men.
Nov '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
The King Prawn:
That seems to be the subplot of this election cycle. I thought Republicans were the ones who trusted in the will of the voters more than in the will of our wise men. · Dec 7 at 3:07pm
Whataya mean this election cycle? That's the way I remember 1996, 2000 and 2008, as well. It's just that this cycle is so important, the base isn't just grumbling and going along.
Question for our supposed betters: does the "next in line" phenomenon that the GOP is infamous for not play any role in the weakness of the current field? To what extent did the "better" candidates sit this one out because, not being next in line, they would have little shot at the nomination? Finally, how much is the GOP "establishment" to blame for the "next in line" phenomenon?
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
Well in '64 the "next man" was Nelson Rockefeller but he was not a contender in 1968. By the way, in total votes cast in 1968, Reagan had more than Nixon in the primaries.
Nov '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
My thoughts, as well. I've spent way too much time reading opnions and analysis during this election cycle and I haven't read anyone who's satisfied with the GOP options.
How does Ponnuru square this supposed contentment with the speed with which each "non-Romney" has been dropped when they turned out to not be up-to-snuff? It seems the only folks content with the current crop of candidates are those 25% who consistently favor Romney. Maybe we have some projection going on here.
Methinks these guys need to venture outside their establishment bubble more often.
Nov '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
EJHill
Well in '64 the "next man" was Nelson Rockefeller but he was not a contender in 1968. By the way, in total votes cast in 1968, Reagan had more than Nixon in the primaries. · Dec 7 at 3:33pm
Interesting. However, I doubt the GOP establishment of 44 years ago wields much power today.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
I haven't read the post, I haven't even downloaded the podcast. But EJ, all I can say is: YMCA!!!!!!
Aug '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
The King Prawn: What Vanity Fair really thinks about Rick Perry, Peter.
That seems to be the subplot of this election cycle. I thought Republicans were the ones who trusted in the will of the voters more than in the will of our wise men.
The GOP "establishment" would probably be in worse straits today if not for the rise of the grassroots in the form of the Tea Party. I don't think Karl Rove ever sent a thank you note, the ingrate.
Jan '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
Wow, the fellas seem to have touched a nerve. Well I didn't hear anything condescending or insulting toward the base. Just a frank assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates and how those would wear in both the nominating cycle and the general.
As one who has been a rather cranky, squeaky wheel about how our benefactors have been unevenly vetting the candidates, I appreciate the recent, in my eyes, more balanced assessment being presented.
Thanks for bringing Murphy, Caddel, and the two latest squishes on the podcast recently, guys. I promise I'll lay off the more inflammatory comments for awhile. At least until tomorrow afternoon. ;-)
Edited on December 8, 2011 at 2:03amJan '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
If I understand it right, the most common complaint against Newt is that fellow politicians are annoyed at his ego.
He annoys fellow politicians ... somehow, I can't get too worked up about that. I kind of like it, actually.
You know, I have some problems with Newt. A politician has to know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em, and I don't like that Newt occasionally folds conservatism when he thinks that government can fix some problem in the headlines. (In my view, conservatism teaches that government power is a seductive illusion. Don't fall for it, even when it sounds like a good gamble.)
But the fact that his personality rubs some politicians the wrong way? For me that's not a bug. That's a feature.
Jan '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
BThompson:
Thanks for bringing Murphy, Caddel, and the two latest squishes on the podcast recently, guys.
Roger that. These guys are very bright and enlightening.
I'm so very depressed that Murphy, Caddel et al must make pretty good coin in their chosen career. There should not be such riches in "public Service".
Hey, has anyone ever heard of this New Hampshire guy, Mark Steyn? Perhaps Rob only has room for one Canadian in his life at any one time. When Rob works on TV with the Canadian Comic, he can't roundtable with Mark and Jonah/
Apr '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
EJHill
Well in '64 the "next man" was Nelson Rockefeller but he was not a contender in 1968. By the way, in total votes cast in 1968, Reagan had more than Nixon in the primaries. · Dec 7 at 3:33pm
Yeah, that is interesting. Reagan "ran for president for 12 years."
Aug '10
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
Funny, the main thing I got from Douthat was that he was bending over backwards to avoid insulting the primary electorate.
Dec '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
2008 was essentially the same as well: Everybody that didnt support Romney was an ignorant rube and they just need to shut up and send money.
We already have enough northeastern and west coast liberals to condescend to us, we dont need our own punditry to do as well.
I would like to challenge our Punditry to spend the next month until election day only talking about the reasons why a candidate should be supported. I think its time for our media personalities and conservative punditries take a queue from Reagan and follow the 11th commandment. It boggles the mind why supposedly savvy people would sow the seeds of internal dissent, and think that this is somehow a good thing.
Nov '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
anon_academic
Funny, the main thing I got from Douthat was that he was bending over backwards to avoid insulting the primary electorate. · Dec 7 at 5:51pm
I thought both Douthat and Ponnuru were trying to make nice. Douthat was fairly successful. Ponnuru not so much -- I got the distinct impression he was trying not to be condescending, which is itself condescending. If you don't feel condescension, there's no need to try, is there? From the comments here, it appears I'm not alone.
The thing is, their arguments were persuasive. I'm not a partisan for Newt, nor for any of the other "not-Romneys" that have come and gone. I'm just trying to figure out who has the best chance of beating Obama, and we'll just have to deal with whatever imperfections they bring to the office.
Once I heard the barely-concealed smirk (which I don't feel was even directed at me), and the claim that the base is content with the current candidates, it undermined their argument and lowered my opinion of Mr. Ponnuru.
Dec '11
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
How many American voters know who Douthat and Ponnuru are? And, of those, how many care what they think?
I know who they are.
I don't care what they think.
Re: Ricochet Podcast #97: Baggage
Unfortunately, this was what I heard too.