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
@Ed G — I wasn’t talking about Trump, so saying you think Trump has those skills seemed totally irrelevant — that’s why I thought you misread me.
That said, my skepticism about Trump doesn’t come from his showmanship but from lack of history (business is different) plus hints here and there (like from his quit-or-fired campaign manager) that he’s living in a bit of a bubble or that a thin skin might affect his judgment.
I’d argue, while there was plenty of political theater in Wisconsin, the boring stuff was incredibly important. Like deciding to exempt police and firefighters, winning all but one Republican Senator, finally convincing the Senate to take the budgetary portions out of the bill so that it would only require a smaller number of senators to meet the quorum and reassuring them it would make no difference to the perception that they were singling out unions. Redistricting before the recalls just in case, running fake primary challengers to delay the recalls giving the policy time to work, and passing one thing after another while everyone was occupied with Act 10. Passing a tiny “statewide” school choice program in 2013 to get the foot in the door so that they merely had to “lift the cap” in 2015, almost under the radar.
None of that gets national news coverage for good reason, but it’s the stuff that means victory or defeat for a policy — it’s actual “fight.”
Have you tried TX yet? Nectar of Texas.
It is fine. I was just enjoying the Trump form of speaking.
My preference, too. But my concern was always that Walker’s not used to having to prove his conservatism to conservatives — he’s used to defending it to moderates. He doesn’t use ideological language for the most part. He certainly didn’t say in 2011 he was “taking on the unions.” His formula worked beautifully in Wisconsin, where conservatives know he’s conservative and talk radio ensures conservative voters know what the governor is up to. It would work well in a national general election too. But it doesn’t work quite so well in a Republican national primary with voters who don’t know him.
So he’s in this bizarre situation where elements of the Left think he’s the most “extreme” conservative among the serious contenders, with some justification, while conservative groups are questioning his sincerity on a range of issues on which he actually has a very solid record. Like abortion. If you’re really familiar with Walker you don’t doubt him on abortion. And yet there are questions out there, because of one easily-misunderstood ad and because he doesn’t have much strong language on the record recently. Add one unquestionable flip-flop — even though that one’s openly acknowledged — and you have a narrative.
Jim, that sounds like a good idea. I’ll start on Friday, which is when the next one should be released.
No, I’ve never heard of that brand before. Is there a website?
I’ve been looking for a bourbon to replace Maker’s Mark since they joined the left in the culture war.
Re : 154
I haven’t been paying careful attention. What was his “unquestionable flip flop” ?
Is this the one?
Make my day.
Whose loyalties lie with people who are not.
I prefer the term Trumpaloompas.
That would be a fair point if their flip-flop were actually consistent, but as I pointed out they continue to insist that the rest of us are traitors to the cause for so much as saying something nice about the 80%-ers.
This whole thing bothers me as much as it does primarily because it confirms what I’ve feared all along, which is that the purity testers are more interested in the appearance of fighting than in actually getting stuff done.
I don’t see that dynamic, not within the same person at the same time, anyway. Who are you referring to? Perhaps I’ve heard that kind of thing concerning Jeb or Christie because some people doubt they are anywhere near 80%-ers or that they have any chance of winning the general, but I haven’t heard anyone called a traitor for supporting Walker or Fiorina for example.
Sorry, missed this yesterday. Walker used to support a path to citizenship and now opposes it, and his general hard line on immigration is new. He fully grants it’s a position change and says it comes from talking to other governors and learning more about the border situation.
The political timing was unquestionably convenient (though before Trump made it an issue — Trump’s wrong when he says he was the one who first started talking about it in this race). Walker’s managed to muddy the waters talking about immigration more than once — either from a lack of fluency with the issues, trying to have it both ways, or a combination of the two. But he doesn’t exactly have a demonstrable history of changing positions on key issues for political benefit, it’s true that as county executive and governor he had little involvement with the issue, and he has had a generally strong emphasis on law-and-order issues.
I’m skeptical that there is a purity test movement. People can accept compromise if they’re confident that we’re moving in the right direction and that the people doing the moving share the same goals and are getting the best possible outcomes.
I think there’s a lack of trust and much dissatisfaction with our leaders and that it manifests in complaints that stuff isn’t actually getting done and that our side appears to waver even before the negotiations and conflict begins.
I’d say that Trump’s support pretty clearly indicates it’s not a purity test.
But even those complaints don’t lead you to Trump, unless there is at least an element of style over substance. They lead you to Walker, or Cruz, or maybe Jindal, or — if you really want a non-politician — Carson or Fiorina.
Yes, I was thinking of Bush and Christie when I made my initial point. I thought it best to leave the names out because the blind hatred so many have for those two tends to cloud people’s judgment. Walker and Fiorina I’d put closer to the 95% mark (full disclosure: Walker’s been my guy pretty much since the moment he won his second term.)
Tom,
If you hit like on your original post, I think it reads “23 unlikes” even though 22 other people liked it. Try clicking “unlike” and see if it doesn’t pop to 22 likes on the screen. Sorry if you knew that, then the joke would be on me, and you are the jokester. :)