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.
Trump v Univision
It’s 3:00 a.m in Paris, and I’m awake owing to a cat-related incident. After realizing that no, I wasn’t going to be able to fall asleep, I checked the news. As one does. Headlining: Donald Trump kicked TV’s most influential Latino newsman out of a press conference. Oh, I thought. Is this really the most important thing happening in the world right now? To judge from the headlines, you’d think so. Here’s the first part of the exchange:
And here’s the second:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7_HaEOIJhM
Two quick observations:
1) The Washington Post says, “The lasting image will be that of Ramos — who serves as Univision’s lead anchor and is effectively one of the (if not the) most powerful newsmen on Spanish-language TV — being hustled out of the room after trying to ask Trump a question.”
Perhaps. But that may be because that’s the easiest image to find. You have to work a bit harder to find the images of Ramos coming back and asking his questions. It’s not impossible. We looked for it backstage and it took us about five minutes. But clearly the Post and many other news agencies quickly decided what the “lasting image” would be and furnished it: In most of the videos in the headline news, the clip ends with Ramos being hustled off.
As you can see from the second clip, however, that’s not where the story necessarily ends. So I’m not sure the Post is correct about what the “lasting image” will be.
2) As we were looking for the full clip — not the “lasting image” clip — I said, “From abroad, it feels as if Trump is already the president.” It wasn’t a deep thought: It was just something that occurred to me. Nachtgedanken, so to speak. The Yeti said, “You should post that.” To which I responded that I wasn’t sure what I meant by it:
Claire: He gets more news coverage; he seems larger-than-life.
Yeti: I assume it means that Trump is suffocating every other candidate’s media oxygen.
Claire: Not only every other candidate — but the seated president.
I don’t know if that observation is meaningful. All I can say is that those words occurred to me while reading the news at 3:00 am in Paris.
And now I can’t sleep.
Published in Elections, General, Politics
So, to tie this together, some of us are rooting for Trump, because he’s a fighter. The Turks feel for this guy because he’s a fighter.
If they weren’t so successful in the scrap, either story would just be a footnote.
Possibly. After all, he shares the same surname as my cousin Annie the Cheerleader and LaRouche/LaRoche/LaRush are all variations on the same name. Moreover, the family was among “Les Habitants” – the original settlers of what is now Québec who arrived in the 1600s.
A bit of background makes it very clear that Ramos was at that conference spoiling for a fight and explicitly doing so in the role of an activist. It appears he has been wishing to take a few shots at Trump for awhile now but has been unable to secure an interview.
Nothing wrong with my shades. As pointed out upthread, Ramos is an activist and an ethnic chauvinist who got exactly what he deserved. In the immortal words of Kwai Chang Caine, “Men do not beat drums before they hunt for tigers.”
John Derbyshire explains what he calls the Goodwhite-Badwhite Civil War in his latest podcast.
Indeed, the vast majority are. But racist/irredentist groups like La Raza are not. Funny thing is, growing up in an ethnically homogeneous bordertown like Laredo (95% Hispanic) I hardly ever heard such grievance mongering and ethnic separatism; didn’t encounter it in any significant form until I pursued my undergraduate studies in San Antonio. My maternal ancestors have fought on the Texan/American side of every war since the 1830s. My great-great-great grandfather was formally administered his oath of American citizenship in 1847 by none other than Mirabeau B. Lamar, the former President of the Republic of Texas. The blatherings of fools like Ramos are utterly foreign to me.
I still don’t see how Trump failed to “handle” – ahem – Kelly. He seems to have won the moment, and people keep asking him about it so he responds now. My suspicion is that people can’t get over the thought that this episode was supposed to have damaged Trump – but I don’t see the damage. It didn’t mean much at the time and it still doesn’t mean much.
I have no doubt that Trump has excellent skills in this area too, aside from the political theater. Perhaps even better than many of the seasoned candidates he’s up against. The doubt comes from what exactly it is that he wants to get done.
Except that we’ve been complaining for how many decades that it’s all kabuki anyway. Only it’s been bland, meaningless, and apparently ineffectual (for us) kabuki. It’s yet to be seen whether Trump’s version will be an innovation or an utter error.
Just watched both videos. Ramos was a disrupting force, and Trump was the oil on the water. I haven’t expressed support for him before, but I did think Trump’s response was calm, measured, and direct. He spent considerable time on Ramos, who didn’t deserve it, and didn’t really show anger, belligerence, or bombast. He gave some specific answers (get rid of the gangs), and it amazed me how long it took for Ramos to agree the gangs need to go. Trump said the good people are welcome to return and become citizens—legally.
Someone posted on another thread asking why is it so difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to become a citizen. Ten to fifteen years aren’t uncommon—how long does it take to check out someone? We spend more effort vetting people wanting to be citizens than we did on a certain President!
Speaking of b.o., how do you think HE would have handled a difficult reporter acting like Ramos?
Agreed. However, the “the base” has been getting slammed (unfairly, IMO) for demanding purity. Now there’s fervor for a guy who might be with us 50% of the time and the base is being excoriated for not being pure enough.
Much of this comes down to differences over what “electable” means or over what “acceptable compromise” means. Then there’s also the criticism that he’s unserious: I suspect that may be somewhat true, but this series of clips isn’t evidence of that.
Unless he was talking about Jeb, in which case I just don’t know if the claim is true or not.
130+ Replies and counting, and we’re still on the topic of the OP.
It takes Trump to trump the Topic That Shall Not Be Named.
What I’m seeing, though, is a bunch of people who frequently declare that 80% is not enough lining up to support said 50%-er (I think you’re being generous) while still insisting that the 80%-ers are unacceptable.
Support for Trump has no rational basis and seems to be based entirely on “the feels” (as the kids say.) That never ends well.
Amen. I happened to watch much of it live. I can’t stand Trump and think he’d be a lousy President but he did a great job handling Ramos. What could be more emblemmatic than a spokesperson for illegal immigrants demanding he be given priority over the other reporters in asking questions? I applaud Trump for how he did it and wish others would stand up as forcefully. And if it came down to choosing between Trump and Bush I’d pick Trump.
It’s all a metaphor for the immigration issue anyway. Someone goes out of turn and contrary to the rules, is given a chance to correct himself and join the team, is asked to leave when he refuses to correct himself, and then is still given a chance to return later. That dance is apparently now hateful and unfair to the guy jumping in out of turn, even to the point of putting Ramos in the place of a victim of a pogrom.
EDIT: Mark beat me to pointing out that this episode was a symbolic of the whole immigration issue.
Ok, maybe they’re hypocrites. Or maybe they have other reasoning. The basic point still stands, though: if they were wrong to not support an 80% candidate then is it more important for them to be consistent or for them to embrace the logic of 50% is better than 0%?
As I also said earlier, though, I think there is a fundamental disagreement at play over what “electability” means in general and as applied to particular candidates.
I take your point, but this isn’t 1950. The United States doesn’t have the relative power it once did, and it’s futile to pretend otherwise.
To pick one example, in 1950 Detroit was home to some of the world’s most advanced manufacturing capability along with two million people, and Singapore was a third-world irrelevance. Today, Detroit attracts tourists to look at the ruins, and Singapore has its own air force and navy.
Yet the United States is still promising to defend Singapore, recently stationing one of our increasingly scarce navy ships there. Meanwhile, back in Detroit, much of the city is abandoned to lawlessness.
It seems to me that this situation displays misplaced priorities for the United States government.
This has and will have many consequences, one of which is the surprising success (so far) of Donald Trump and his message.
I’ve seen of it, although like most people I’d never heard of this Ellen Page person.
Thing is, though, people like her have gotten away with so much for so long that they literally do not understand that they need to have their own arguments and logic- and when they lose they’re too oblivious to even notice.
Sad, in a way.
Re : 124
I feel really guilty about having mostly enjoyed that radio program at the link you provided.
Awesome video. I’ve got to admit, I have wondered whether the prejudice against Irish people is new to my generation. My parents say they never experienced the sorts of things I and a few of my friends have (especially the employment discrimination; apparently that is new).
Look, Irish people tend not to have social skills as good as other white ethnic groups (people like Joe Biden are not exactly uncommon). It’s very easy for us to accidentally annoy people, especially us males. And people do not understand just how underprivileged Irish men of my generation are. I attended a university in northern Arizona for three years, where I witnessed people much less qualified than me get comfy students jobs seemingly at the drop of a hat, while the only work available to us Irish kids was fast food (which I was physically incapable of doing).
And that’s only the beginning. When I finally did get a job, I discovered I had taught myself software engineering to a graduate level (I do research in computer graphics as part of my job now). Most people do not have to self-educate themselves to that degree just to get an entry-level engineering job.
Yep, listening to a Derb podcast is like enjoying an extra shot of fine bourbon whiskey.
Nothing in Trump’s policy proposals or rhetoric indicates to me that he’s grappled with the reality of needing to actually get things through Congress. They’re not going to vote for “making Mexico pay for the wall.” Or for taxing businesses who manufacture in Mexico at 35% (or whatever it was). And so on.
But leading with what you think you can get through congress is not the way to either campaign or negotiate. That’s been a big problem with our side for a long time. Now is not the time for grappling, now is the time for sharing a vision and a direction. When the time comes to grapple, we still shouldn’t give ground unless the other side first forces it.
What? What is this, a Clint Eastwood movie?
You are a disaster at metaphors, the absolute worst. Sorry for the blunt talk but I was using a Donald Trump form of speaking.
I generally avoid metaphors and analogies, but the parallels to this episode are rather obvious. Which part of the chain I described do you disagree with?
I don’t think you quite took my point — that’s not what I’m trying to get at. The question was why the people who had actually fought for conservative principles and won battles — Walker, Jindal, Perry — aren’t gaining more traction. I think that at least in part, it’s because what they actually did to win those battles is really rather boring. That the hard work of actual governance is usually boring. That the difference between a good policy and a bad one can be a few really boring details.
And that we don’t like to pay attention to “boring” when choosing candidates.
I took your point, and my suspicion is that Trump has those “boring” skills too. You’re taking his display of media skills now as evidence that he lacks the blocking and tackling skills. I don’t think it follows. Howver I do share your misgivings about what Trump’s policy positions really are.
As to why Walker et al (I’ll stop at Walker since he’s my preference) can’t get traction, I can’t explain. Except that Walker didn’t exactly go stealth mode and boring in his Wisconsin battles: they were out in the open and straightforward and unapologetic. He doesn’t have that same immediate conflict to play off of in the presidential campaign like he did in his Wisconsin exploits. Trump is being given all kinds of conflict to play off of.
Mike,
Derb..Derb..Derb!!!
Why don’t we have a weekly member feed sponsored Derb pod cast. Well at least we can post the link where people will see it. Yep, back by popular demand or at least popular URL.
Regards,
Jim