Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Red Eye Tonight: Change Is Good
The show goes on, even without Greg. (The host, Greg Gutfeld, is moving to his own weekend show on Fox News.)
I’ll be on tonight, and it’ll be weird without Greg, but the show must go on. It’ll be weird and different — but Red Eye was always that anyway.
Tuesday #RedEye with @KennedyNation, @RCBL, and @Gavin_McInnes at 3am ET/12am PT. Seize the day! #GoRedEye
— Red Eye Pit Crew (@RedEyeAlerts) March 3, 2015
I know, I know: we’re conservatives. We’re supposed to hate all change. But sometimes change is good.
Published in General
I’m bummed to see Greg leave, but am surprised it took Fox News this long to make the switch. Red Eye will still be great and hopefully will get a fresh jolt of weirdness with the new host. DVR set.
If you crossed a Sunday News Show with Mystery Science Theatre 3000 and only showed the outtakes, that was Redeye. At it’s best, hilarious, at it’s worst, better than most tv drivel. Unhip and proud of it.
Best show ever- The Beckel Brothers.
So, Rob, trying out for the host slot?
COMING TO YOU LIVE FROM THE SPRINGFIELD ALKALI FLATS!
Good time to ask Gavin to guest on the flagship podcast?
I’m looking forward to seeing the music number Rob will be leading in the new Red Eye format. I can’t remember if it will be “Be a Dentist” from Little Shop of Horrors or “My Favorite Things” from The Sound of Music but I know it will be good
Ooh good call. McInnes is awesome, drunk and sober!
Rob for host!!
Coming up today on Red Eye
Will James Lileks finally snap and strangle Rob with Peter Robinson’s sweater?
Will Peter Robinson ever really have just one last question?
Did Rob Long move to New York to host a certain late night show on Fox?
None of these stories tonight on Red Eye.
Watch this video of Rob swanning about Fox studios in his new office.
Gavin McGinnis, definitely! I hope the Blue Yeti is paying attention.
The question is, which persona do you want him in?
I am simultaneously furious and heartsick at watching Obama negotiate a timetable (10 years apparently) for the next holocaust. Those emotions may have colored my reaction, Rob, to your repeated comments about how risky and ill-advised it was for Bibi to speak to Congress. I deeply wish that you had spoken more about the truth of Bibi’s comments, rather than the political risks of him speaking “in the well of Congress.”
I respectfully disagree with your position. First, there isn’t all that much risk. Obama’s loathing of Israel is as obvious as it was predictable. Obama will do as little for Israel as domestic politics will allow. Offending him risks very little.
Second, who cares about political risks? When your entire country and at least half of your people are at risk of annihilation? To the extent that there are still Americans who are sympathetic to the plight of Israel (and there are), it would be irresponsible to remain silent rather than to speak to those Americans. And it is irresponsible for anyone who cares about the survival of Israel to distract from the urgent message of Bibi’s speech by focusing on the timing and the politics.
But Larry, how can you avoid talking about the politics of it? He made the speech in the main chamber of the legislative branch of American politics! His aim was to persuade the American people, and in turn pressure 100 senators, to reject a deal that hasn’t even been written down yet. By my lights, that’s a whole lot of politics and a whole lot of timing, a whole lot of moving parts. It’s not irresponsible to talk about that. We don’t all have to sing the same song at the same time.
Look, he’s playing a political game — both here and back home. And for the record, I think he’s right about Iran. But what does that matter if he oversteps and overplays his hand? What if — weeks from now, when the “triumph” of his speech has faded and Americans are thinking about something else — the deal is announced with enough vague optics that it isn’t a ten-year waiting period then a black check? The risk then isn’t about what Obama will do, it’s what the senate — and the American people — will do. And no one has a crystal ball — we don’t know what they’ll do, or what their opinion will be. But we do know that Netanyahu won’t be asked to speak, again, in front of Congress when the deal is eventually announced. And we do know that Obama and his foreign policy team will work tirelessly to assure us all that this isn’t a bad deal, at which point Netanyahu will just seem like a broken record. If Obama gets Democratic senator Bob Menendez on board, the deal goes through. And Netanyahu will have already played his best hand, weeks and weeks before.
That seems risky to me. That seems like a bad timing issue to me. It’s not wrong to say that, and it’s not irresponsible, either.
On a less-serious note: Gavin McInnes would be a terrific guest on the flagship. As would David “Iowahawk” Burge.
If I were the executive producer of “Red Eye”, I would have McInnes on the panel as often as possible and would sign Burge for a regular mid-show spot with a social media emphasis (would have to be a remote from Austin, obviously). He could interact with the panel; it would be great and would break up the monotony (I don’t mean that as bad as it sounds) of the panel discussion.
Rob, I’ll certainly be pleased to agree to disagree with you. No hard feelings.
To me, this is as if when Paul Revere went riding through the streets to yell, “The British are coming,” someone had said, “How inconsiderate of him to do that at night, when people are sleeping.”
We all know that the Administration’s professed objection to Bibi speaking shortly before Israeli elections is a sham. Obama would have found a reason to object no matter when Bibi chose to speak. Obama is hell-bent on giving Iran anything it wants, and what Iran wants is the destruction of Israel. And then of us.
In the 20th Century, the name and face of appeasement and cowardice was Neville Chamberlain. In the 21st Century, that name and that face will be Barack Obama. However, I seem to remember that there was one British politician who had the courage to speak out against Chamberlain, even when it was unpopular to do so. Many people said that Churchill was being “impolitic.” If Bibi was being impolitic, he is in good company.
I agree, Larry. We don’t know how this will turn out. Which is why I’m concerned.
The timing issue, really, has nothing to do with Obama’s reaction. (I think we’re on the same page here in our assessment of the relative value of Obama’s opinion on anything!) It has to do with when it might be right to get out the biggest gun possible, in PR terms, and fire it. I think it’s highly likely Netanyahu did this too soon. (Maybe I’m wrong; it was a pretty spectacular speech…) But he can’t make it again. And when the issue becomes a concrete proposal in a few weeks, my bet is that all of this goodwill will have evaporated enough for Obama to get the deal done. And that would be a tragedy.
Your comparison to Chamberlain is apt. But I’m maybe on another side of that issue, too. I think he gets a very bad rap. When he went to Berlin and brokered a deal — what they call “appeasement” — he had zero other choices. War with Germany at the moment would have been disastrous for Britain. They were woefully under-armed and ill-equipped. The smart move was to buy some time, arm up, and fight when they were stronger. Chamberlain is on record — then, at the time — as saying he thought war with Germany was inevitable. What was important, for the future of the free world, was the timing.
Rob, your points have merit, and it is possible that Bibi’s speech would have had more impact at a later date. I wish I could believe that. But Obama is going to do what he is going to do, if he can get away with it. He is not going to give the Senate a chance to ratify or reject any deal. He is just going to announce, and unilaterally impose, whatever deal he makes. And he won’t care what the American people think either. All of which may be beside the point, since Iran is probably just stalling, and won’t agree to any deal even if it is effectively a unilateral surrender by Obama.
Worse yet, whatever Obama’s last offer might be, that offer will become the new baseline for any future position the US might take, whether it be the imposition of renewed sanctions or (better yet) airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Obama will never punish or attack Iran for doing anything that Obama had offered to give Iran in these negotiations. In short, Iran gets whatever concessions Obama offers, without giving anything in return.
So if I was in Bibi’s position, I would object early and often, and hope that public opinion would force Obama to toughen up a bit while there is still time for some toughness. Waiting until a deal is announced is waiting until it is too late.
I’m only halfway through the show so far, and already it’s the best episode of “Red Eye” I’ve seen. Kennedy, McInnes, Levy, and Long provide the perfect blend of thoughtfulness and humor. Too often, the panel is just so-so on the show. It’s hard to get the right blend of smart and funny.
Thanks, Johnny. It was fun. I’m going to do it a couple more times between now and early April — I’m not sure who, eventually, is going to host, but I think the combination of Joanna and Andy is a really strong one.
Larry, you may be right. (I hope we’re both wrong, actually…) But I’m a worrier. If sanctions aren’t in the cards (and it looks like they’re not; sanctions will only work with an international agreement) then we’re going to need some practical and fairly clever way to keep Iran in a box. My instinct is, the best way to do that is with a combination of inspections and the credible threat of military action. I honestly don’t think the 10 year/12 year/whatever is going to make the difference. Part of me thinks that if the deal buys us time and forces Iran to forgo enrichment for 10+ years (with verification; if they cheat, the sanctions go back on) there might be a scenario in 2025 where a different leadership there, and a different leadership in Russia, and a decade of lower oil prices, might mean a more optimistic outcome.
And if it doesn’t, well, maybe then we can let the Israelis handle it in their signature style.
But, you know, it’s a tough neighborhood.
Is anyone else surprised they pushed Gutfeld to a weekend slot, as opposed to primetime or early afternoon? I get the need to replace Mike Huckabee (an average host and a worst politician), but I think Greg is ready for a more prominent role.
Regardless, he is a talent that wields both wit and wisdom and will be a strong political voice for the next 10 years or more.
Rob as a regular contributor on that show would be great!
Agreed. They’re both great, and she’s only going to get better as she gets more comfortable in the host role (should she be the permanent replacement). She let the panel members talk, and talk amongst themselves, which is difficult for some hosts (feeling they have to jump in and steer the conversation).
As long as I’m singing RL’s praises… I have finally gotten around to reading “Conversations/Set Up, Joke” and I’m thoroughly enjoying it.
this.