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 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
David French and those 200 Republican Staffers
In a recent installment of his Sunday Castigations, David French announced from his pulpit at the New York Times that he will be voting for Kamala Harris, urging the rest of us to go thou and do likewise. Because nothing says that one is in favor of, “…restoring a conservatism that values integrity, demonstrates real compassion and defends our foundational constitutional principles…” like throwing one’s support to a party that releases murderers and violent felons back into the community and allows upwards of 15 million unvetted illegal immigrants, gang members and terrorists into the country to roam about inhaling our tax dollars and exhaling murder and assorted violent attacks on American citizens with relative impunity.
Mr. French’s willingness to subordinate you and your family’s physical and economic well-being in order to assuage his conscience is truly a noble sentiment. It’s a calling, actually, as is the pledge of over 200 Republican staffers (representing the presidency and candidacies of John McCain, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney) who have signed up to bring your sphere of liberty down with their votes for Kamala Harris. Surely their willingness to sacrifice your life and liberty will no doubt secure their place in heaven. Which is fine with me, and I think perhaps they should be granted admittance. They keep getting in the way here.
Truly, the infernal generosity of these halo-wearing scolds is endless, as they will see you persecuted with a Justice Department that goes after the Democrat Party’s political enemies while squashing political dissent; disarm you with a “mandatory buyback” of legally owned firearms; continue the mutilation and sterilization of your children on the altar of the LGBTQEIEIO agenda; and continue the weakening of America’s military strength and the incapacitation of our foreign policy so as to whet the appetite of every totalitarian crackpot, radical weird beard and anti-semitic nut job on the planet.
Ah, but there I go again with my short-sided preoccupation with life and liberty. Of course, it takes a willingness to enrich Iran, then turn tail and retreat from Afghanistan while leaving behind billions of dollars in US weaponry to the Taliban, and abandon our troops on the ground in order to restore a conservatism that demonstrates compassion and values integrity. Anyone with a smidgeon of moral discernment would understand as much. Why, a conservatism as sacred and high-mannered as that must be occasionally fertilized with the dead at Abbey Gate, as David French plainly understands. Blessed be Mr. French who doeth all things well.
Just yesterday, Elon Musk shared a video of Harris’s statements on free speech on social media, amid Brazil’s move to take down the social media platform “X.” In 2019, Harris favored Donald Trump’s removal from Twitter, saying having access to an account “…is a privilege.” She continued:
The bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and another rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.
It’s a position that gives pause to anyone who values freedom of expression. But as with other “foundational constitutional principles,” this too must be retired if we are to save conservatism. Of course, Harris’ position on free speech is at odds with George Washington who wrote:
For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.
Poor George. It wasn’t his fault that he was born too soon to bask in the glowing wisdom of those who are now free from trifling worries about government censorship as they happily await the wise “oversight or regulation” of Kamala Harris. Because that’s how you save conservatism.
Meanwhile, in San Diego County, Venezuelan gangs attempt to hijack buses full of school children. In Aurora, Colorado, Venezuelan gangs have taken over apartment buildings. The list of homicide victims, rape victims, assault victims, all at the hands of violent criminals who pour in through open borders, continues to grow. Families continue to wonder how they are going to survive Bidenomics. American strength and prestige, abandoned three years ago in Afghanistan, remains AWOL as bad actors across the globe have their way with what Mark Steyn calls, “the dead husk of a moth-eaten sock puppet” in the White House.
Which begs the question — with Biden on perpetual vacation and Kamala recovering from an interview that was about as hard-hitting as an episode of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood, who is actually running the country? It sure as hell isn’t Kamala.
Which begs yet another question — why are such as David French and the 200 Republican staff weenies okay with the anonymous person(s) running things in the first place? I thought they were worried about preserving democracy and restoring conservatism. But what do I know? I’m sure that once Kamala Harris changes her residence to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we will see even more unvetted immigrants flooding into our cities and towns, the odds of triggering WWIII will be even higher than they are now, and life will resemble the utopian model that has thus far eluded masterminds like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-un, Chairman Mao, and other under-appreciated visionaries. Then we will have finally restored conservatism.
Published in General
I, too, have a short-sighted over affection for life and liberty. How 1776 of me.
This crew seems to put a fine point on the pathetically sad history of the Era of “compassionate” something or other and big-tent-ism at all costs. The hangover continues…
Made me LOL right out of the gate. In appreciation of that absurd end-of-civilization kind of way. . .
Good to see you, Dave.
Yes, it is downright deplorable of us, isn’t it?
I was impertinent and I’m glad you liked it. What a heavy morass we would be bogged down in if we didn’t have such a superior intellect on the “well fed right” to instruct us on how we could save the country if we’d only burn it down first. I must go away and say 10 Hail Obamas before contemplating how I can make restitution.
I’m checking my list of considerations to be made when deciding my presidential vote, and somehow the opinions of David French and 200 odd (very odd) DC lifers do not appear here.
Surely an oversight on my part.
St. David warned us not to back Trump and we did not follow. He stamped his feet and held his breath and we still refused to advocate a suitably mushy imitation of conservatism that could lose nobly as did McCain and Romney. Now we must be punished. We must spend a time in captivity under the Phistines/Babylonians/Egyptians/Woke until such time as St. David will lead us out of captivity after we have been punished.
The sheer narcissism of David French ought to be embarrassing. The Buckley rule is that you vote for the more conservative candidate even if not your first choice. In primaries you back the conservative candidate most likely to win the general. Tantrum-voting is not the behavior of an actual, patriotic, adult conservative, especially when the other side makes no effort to conceal their destructive intentions.
Did French flip on all of the policies that he pushed for years – so it makes sense he votes for VEEP
Just listened to most of Charles C W Cooke’s podcast, talking to David French. Charles called it “a friendly argument”, and it was pretty civil.
What wasn’t civil was what I was loudly swearing at while vacuuming the upstairs bedroom, with my earbuds in. French’s pomposity and illogical knot-tying could constitute more than a full-time job, but that’s pushing it. He’s painted himself into illogical corners to the point where he’s concluded, “logically”, that voting for a Democrat is a conservative’s best option.
The right thing to do in these cases is to do what I did long ago – stop listening to idiots, or reading their crap. It also adds fuel to their sissified fires of self-righteous glory.
David French is an evil man. He is willing for others to suffer for his righteousness.
Because they are 201 enemies. Which raises the question of when they became enemies. Did they only become enemies of the Republic in 2016?
I don’t think so. They were always people of the left, and therefore natural Democrats. They were accidental Republicans, associating with the GOP by way of social ties. They were and are dishonest.
Somehow it seems slightly wrong that I so enjoy the wonderful language used to describe a terrible idea. Thank you Mr. Carter for your clarity.
[I agree with @westernchauvinist that “In a recent installment of his Sunday Castigations, David French . . .” is one of the best opening lines in recent writings (and a reminder of why I stopped reading Mr. French and his “I’m a better Christian than you are” genre, a topic interestingly addressed in today’s sermon in our church).
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
— Luke 18:11
One man’s WWIII is another man’s culling the herd.
I can’t tolerate French so I don’t know if he is aware of the DNC’s recent success in garnering massive donations over the course of one day.
Yes just recently the Dems received a record breaking 500 million dollars from “donations” in one day.
James O’Keefe has detailed how the DNC has programmed “Act Blue” to not only be the process payment system by which rank and file members may donate their hard earned dollars, but to exploit a built in feature of the program.
So Susie Smith of Oswago NY donates 150 bucks to Act Blue. A while later, could be three weeks or three months afterwards, Act Blue inserts $1500 into its DNC account pretending that Susie Smith was again generous, although to a factor ten times greater than her prior donation.
Some donors have had multiple donations totaling tens of thousands of dollars. When O’Keefe goes to their door, to ask the individual if they did donate multiple times, in amounts that were substantial, the party being asked this admits they knew nothing about it.
Where does this money come from? From Soros? From local Dem-based programs run in individual states like in California? Programs involving education, or erosion control?
Here in California we have a tree cutting project that is awarding tens of millions of tax payer monies to individual counties to cut down trees. It is widely celebrated, because the logic goes that if everyone cuts down as many trees as possible, then there will be no more fires.
Of course the huge flaw in all this is that the 100’s of thousands of cut down trees need to go somewhere. So healthy trees are cut – as all trees BAD! – but often the workers doing this just take their loaded up flat bed truck several hillsides over and dump the trees that were cut over there.
The funding is enormous enough that it is easy to see that someone somewhere will be able to skim off the top. (Or so thinks cynical me.)
BTW even as we have had record breaking fires since July 2015 that continue to plague the state, our fire district houses are being shut down. A thinking person can’t but help wondering if it would not be better to have our state legislature come up with better thought out tree cutting programs using lesser amounts of monies with the remainder going to opening the needed fire houses?
If you replace “Christian” with “Marxist” in his writings the cognitive dissonance disappears.
Thank you! It’s comforting to know that my temper sometimes comes in handy.
OK, maybe some of y’all who have read Mr. French and others can explain their logic (so I don’t have to find them and read them).
I assume the thinking is that after the leftists destroy the republic, true conservatism will arise from the rubble.
On what basis do they think such a rise of true conservatism is more likely than some anarchic hellscape or a totalitarian regime? Even if some form of conservatism is likely to rise from the rubble of the republic, why is “true conservatism” more likely than any other kind of conservatism?
I guess I’m missing the logic of “we must destroy the republic to save the republic.” Can anyone help explain it?
“bIDen haS BEen a dISaPpoINTmEnT “
[EDIT: My apologies, Mr. Carter. Wrong thread.]
Flashback:
Harris and Walz are societal wrecking balls because they will say and do anything to get political power. No principles. Walz is born to be like that, too. The difference now with Walz is he has a somewhat balanced media pursuing him.
I think the worst thing about Harris is, she doesn’t read any policy papers and books put together for her by her staff and different agencies. I don’t get how you can go through so much law school, and be like that. She is going to cause a ton of problems if she’s POTUS. `
People have to stop loving government force so much. We have too much of it and it’s structured all wrong where you need it.
Nero was important too, so I suppose there’s that. As for being a “very good one,” the Taliban would certainly echo Claire’s endorsement.
That’s a quote from Gary for the record. I can’t understand how that guy’s mind works.
I completely forgot about Berlinski.
Government force is stupid. Stop wanting it. You can want it for actual public goods, but other than that, forget it.
Wow, Trump really wrecked some people. Claire had to set aside all the despicable Biden behavior over his long career in government — beginning and ending for me with his treatment of Judge Bork and Justice Thomas — to believe such improbable nonsense. Outside of TDS it’s inexplicable.
We have to remember that David French cotethered being part of a scheme that was designed to give the presidency to somebody who had not received more than say 5% at best of the votes.
He is unAmerican.
Such folks believe whatever they need to get a paying job.
If you don’t follow Gad Saad on X, I would urge you to have a look at his posts and see if they don’t resonate with you. In one of today’s posts, he identifies the problem too many academics run into, to wit:
Maybe they were just not cool enough back then to be admitted to the Democrat inner circle.