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.
David French Is Not a Serious Conservative
The one area where we have had strong movement, gun rights, he attacks. Idolatry? Please. French wants to compromise and give up on progress made.
But, that is not the real reason he is not a serious conservative. No, this is just icing on the cake. Proof, if you will, of his nature. He proved he was unserious when he genuinely considered Bill Kristol’s plan to run for President and try to get the election thrown to the House. A serious conservative would never have courted a constitutional crisis because he did not like the GOP nominee.
So, of course, French is against standing our ground on guns. What else can we expect from a man who thought it would have been a good idea for our Republic to be selected President after 90%+ of the voters voted for someone else.
Published in General
LOL, I think more and very are similar in meaning in this context but ok very
Oh Bryan, once you get an idea in your head, you will refuse to hear anything to the contrary.
Oh Bryan! With all due respect, you suffer from GRDS.
Your money, your choice. They’ll survive.
Because their “real” income is from donors, not subscribers.
I pay for NR plus. No complaints.
Ok. i will work on it
You better worry less about NR and more about ricochet. Time to upgrade your membership level and give some gifts to others.
Problem is, the only upgrade from Coolidge at $5/month, is to Reagan at $42.something/month. They got rid of levels in between, except for people who had them before can keep them.
Yes; I try not to fund people who hate me.
I ran across this tweet today, and I think he captures the issue nicely.
I have said several times, some are for the fight and some are for the write.
I could definitely join for more than $5 a month. I would join for $10 a month even if they had no extra benefits and just called us MAGA Coolidge.. @alex
Two things. First, I liked this post before reading it because the title itself is truth.
The second is a quibble I have over the term Constitutional crisis. Throwing the election into the House isn’t a crisis at all. It is the enumerated way that elections absent a majority in the Electoral College are decided. That is hasn’t happened since 1824 doesn’t make it any less legitimate.
Now, one can say that throwing the election to the House to try and get another candidate wasn’t wise, or one can say that it wasn’t realistic, but it would not be a crisis.
I cancelled my NR+ membership shortly after 1/6 and their cowardice in its coverage.
I thought that was the Thatcher level in the old days. I’d be in for it too (I prefer the Thatcher moniker given that MAGA Coolidge is probably an oxymoron, buy to each his own).
He is definitely a social conservative, not a fiscal conservative, is an interventionist, and a free trade absolutist. Mostly though he is a lawyer who sees everything through the prism of the courts and thinks that every person can just take a case to the courts and hire a high priced lawyer, like himself, that will argue their freedoms before the court and take it all the way to the Supreme Court if required. Because…every one of us has the funds and the patience, and the time to adjudicate their freedoms in court for years, paying millions to lawyers (like French) to gain relief from something that they never should have had to fight in the first place.
His split from what I would call the mainstream of the conservative movement came when he was personally attacked on the internet by people who called him a “cuck” and insulted his wife and adopted child. I don’t remember what caused that, it might have been his opposition to Trump, but it might have been earlier. I would be quite upset if people insulted me, my wife, and my kids…but honestly, how can one BE a pundit and not develop a thick skin.
You forgot “sanctimonious scold.”
I kept it but haven’t answered their appeals for donations figuring if they were that intent on committing suicide, I was wasting my money. NR plus increases my own pleasure.
He definitely was treated poorly by many Trump supporters who did nothing to help Trump. Even I was late getting on board because their boorish behavior back then only reinforced the boorish image of Trump. Since I have cruised with him many times and was even at his supper table several times, I know him as a nice person; however, I now see him as woefully wrong about several things and am sad he sold out his pro -life creds. He is merely someone to disagree with, not someone to hate… more of a tragic figure than anything else. I had blocked him on Twitter but followed him again this week to see what he wrote that Kevin referred to. I noticed his support in the comments leans heavily left. I wonder if he has noticed. Sad.
True, while I don’t sport MAGA clothing, I use the term liberally just to bother the left.it is more benign than the things they call me, words I don’t use.
This “list” of principles conservatives is an admission against interest. You should have included Jen Rubin and Max Boot to be more complete. I elided the ones that I don’t follow and thus cannot really comment on, but of the remaining
LOL…well, he has always been that. He and ChiefJusticeJohnRobertsHeWillNeverLetConservativesDown are peas in a pod.
I didn’t care much for the NR+ outside of less ads, but I did enjoy the FB group until it became solely a place for NTers to scold anyone who didn’t want Trump impeached and then thrown in jail, tarred and feathered, drug behind a truck, and anyone who didn’t agree with them was “what was wrong with Republicans”. When the group became 90/10 unpleasant to pleasant I had to pull that rip cord for my sanity.
I have no doubt that David is a fine person. My disagreements with him are not personal, but in his policy choices, and, more so in his approach to how to address issues. Specifically, he thinks like a lawyer and sees lawfare as the resolution of everything. He seems completely out of touch with the fact that the vast majority of people cannot afford to fight.
Here is an example (not political, but worse). I have a friend who had accommodations under the ADA for severe asthma. His employer (a heath care provider) decided to revoke his accommodations in an effort to get him to quit his job. They knew that if they fired him he could sue them and win, easily, because of his accommodations. So, they made his work environment unbearable with petty BS. On my recommendation he talked to an employment lawyer who would not even talk to him until he paid him multiple thousands of dollars in a retainer. The advice was that he could win his suit, and likely would, but it would cost him about $50,000 up front and no guarantee that he would recover that in damages. The lawyer wrote a letter to the employer letting them know that a suit was possible but that if they gave him back his accommodations (and his job that he had finally quit), that there would be no suit. They refused and my friend, who had no job and thus no income, didn’t have $50k to roll the dice on a trial.
That story is repeated daily throughout the US, and not just in employment law. In family law, in criminal law, in every aspect of law. Lawyers are expensive and few can afford them. The supposed legal protections mean nothing if they are unattainable, and David French appears to not care about that. In fairness, that describes the majority of lawyers (IMO).
Republicans have given them plenty of help.
I appreciate the IMO. However, I note that you seem to be extrapolating a single experience with one lawyer into a broad-based generalization. The most immediate thought that comes to mind is why there would be so many lawsuits at different levels of importance if “few” can afford them. I’d also note that the rolls of attorneys include thousands of small firms and solo practitioners. These would not exist if the profession was not economically viable–that is, if their prices were prohibitive to clients.
IMHO, lawyers who actually project a win will agree to split the winning (pro-rated by risk) and may go without *any* upfront, or maybe some earnest money. If they won’t — then they never believed.
The question that you should be asking is…how many lawsuits are never filed because doing so is too expensive. If I had to go to court to fight something that required a lawyer I would not be able to afford it, absent selling my house or otherwise leveraging my home’s equity. When my wife and son were in a single car accident I talked to a lawyer about our options. He was a personal friend and advised me for free what to do. In the end I had to sue my wife on behalf of my son and the insurance company had to pay for it, as well as the guardian at litem. Just crazy for an award that was automatic and capped. In another couple of years when he turns 18 he will get the first payment of that award fourteen years after the accident. The only reason any of that happened is because I didn’t have to pay for it. If I had, then there would have been nothing. When someone goes to a lawyer they do so as a last resort, because few people have thousands of dollars to spend unless there is going to be a tangible benefit. Heck, many people don’t have thousands to spend when there IS a tangible benefit.
I don’t think I follow their facebook site. I have pretty much given up on facebook except for cruise news. Even there you get the battle between pro and anti Vax
I share your contempt for what the legal profession has became. When the country unravels, that profession will share in the blame.