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.
Andrew Wept
You may recall the recent Hewitt v. Trump thread, where the silver-haired lickspittle of the Cocktail Circle Corps demanded that Donald The Brave tell him the atomic weight of Boron and other gotcha! questions. Trump, to his credit, noted that he would get up to speed on the periodic table, and know more about the elements than Hewitt ever would – possibly by finding the best scientists in the world, hiring them, liquifying their brains, and having the rich, brilliant slurry injected directly into his cerebral cortex.
In the comments, I noted that the outcry after the interview would result in Hewitt’s banishment from the ranks of True Conservatives, because he was elite, squishy, and no doubt part of a plan to resettle the entirety of Kansas with Mexican gang members on the orders of the Jewish Masons. (They secretly control the regular Masons.)
On cue, breitbart.com obliged with a piece: HUGH HEWITT, GOP DEBATE QUESTIONER, SIDES WITH ESTABLISHMENT, NOT VOTERS. The comments are … well, go read them, and you’ll be slapping your wallet to re-up for Ricochet. (Did you know Michael Medved is a Jew? He is.)
Disclosure: Hugh is a friend, and I am a regular guest on the show. I am also a daily listener for 15 years, during which time I enjoyed many appearances by a fellow who also held Hugh in warm regard. Guy by the name of Andrew. Hugh was a big booster of Andrew, and whenever he had a new project or made the news or just wanted to pop off, Hugh had him on.
I knew this Andrew too. A capital fellow. Last time I saw him was in my kitchen at the end of a party; he was the last to leave, and he was talking about the toll it all took. The man had endless fearless energy, and it never occurred to us that sometimes it must have been damned hard being Andrew. I miss him to this day, and I know, if he was still around, he’d be on Hugh’s show saying whatever he wanted to say, and if he said something that clashed with something Hugh said, Hewitt would say hold that thought and keep him over for the next segment.
Andrew left a brand. His heirs soil it. A good site, once. Now it’s a toll house on the edge of the fever swamp. I wish they’d change their name, but of course they won’t.
Without it, what would set them apart?
Image Credit: “Andrew Breitbart” by Gage Skidmore. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Published in General
Hewitt’s show led me to you, Mr. Lileks, and to Mr. Steyn, the late Mr. Breitbart, and eventually here.
As to the “Bigs,” I burrow straight to Delingpole. I avoid most of the rest.
Um, actually James not so subtly points out that there is an obvious strain of racial animus and anti-semitism to the work and fans of the current Breitbart, hence the remark, “It’s become a toll house on the edge of a fever swamp.”
The fever swamp denizens James laments bare no resemblance to Gen. McClellan strategically or otherwise. McClellan’s strategic shortcomings were the marks of an unduly high regard for his own sophistication and a fear of battle. Breitbart.com is looking to whip up ugly bigotries and ride the mob to the bank.
Point of Clarification: It wasn’t James but one of the commenters that made the comparison to McClellan. That said you’re missing the forest for the trees. The point was much broader than the nitty gritty of why McClellan was a bad strategist. McClellan was a bad strategist, so are the people James and original commenter were talking about. That is as far as the comparison goes.
Its been some time now since I considered Hugh Hewitt show worth my time*. He really is an “establishment” republican (for want of a better word). So I didn’t listen to the Yoo/Hewitt interview, but have sympathy with people who find Hewitt lacking.
I remember when Cantor was defeated, much to my joy! I wanted to hear discussion about this historic event, but could only find Hewitt’s show discussing it. He was on air with this usual blustery style admonishing people not to “read anything into” the defeat.
Its a problem that the core of the republican party leadership refuses to hear and understand why they’re losing part of their base. And Hugh Hewitt is part of the problem, not the solution.
*the only thing I miss about the shows is the guest appearances by Lileks and Steyn.
Exactly. As I said… “the strategic sense of McClellan,” i.e. none at all.
Ok, my view of Hewitt’s interview style is that he is loud, too free with his own opinions – very often dominating the conversation. That is not my idea of a good interview style – even if he is “well prepared”.
Right, which is why I was pointing out the GGG’s point made no sense.
You are the one missing the point. Breitbart.com and it’s wingnut supporters aren’t bad strategists. They’re loony bigots. Strategy isn’t entering the thinking at all. Saying that they’re merely misguided in their strategic approach irresponsibly minimizes the nature of what they support.
They aren’t just bad strategists, they’re bigots and anti-semites. Your comparison downplays the nature of what Breitbart.com has become.
Well no one is in Peter’s league really, but for radio Hugh does very well. He prepares, asks relevant questions, explores the answers in depth when needed, etc.
Nobody says it like Lileks! I’ve read just about everything he’s ever put online. Forgive putting this name anywhere near James, but he has a gift sometimes shown by B. Clinton: even when saying something I either don’t much care about or disagree with, I still like his style.
And, another unmissed opportunity to slur Trump supporters by branding their reasons as “an ugly element.” And by all means, my friends, avoid triggering news.
Still crossing candidates off my approval list. Fiorina is out for her anchor baby position. Carson is on death-watch for slightly arguing for not deporting criminals. Cruz is still steadfast on the issues tens of millions of honest and quiet Americans care about intensely, along with Trump, of course.
Am warming up to this election season as never before. There are so many important ideas and policies floating about. The self inflicted, possibly fatal Iran “deal.” Calling LGBT marriage the law of the land and jailing a Christian in the lions den is the richest lode yet! Don’t remember voting for those five black-robed legislators…
I think breitbart represents GOP electorate very well, they jump on to trumps bandwagon like anybody else.
I lamented the fall of Brietbart in February of last year and was excoriated for it. Hope James has better luck than I.
I did think that Hewitt’s question to Trump on the Quds was a bit esoteric for a general interview. And I remain an anti Trump guy. Despite that, Hewitt gave Trump an out to talk his way through but Trump pursued it by claiming he knew the Quds. Trump did say that. So I don’t think Hewitt was completely unfair. Trump sort of strangled himself with the way he steered the conversation.
By the way, I think Hugh Hewitt is the best of the conservative talk show hosts.
One last thing. I hardly ever go to Brietbart. They have become a demogogue site. I don’t care for right wing demogoguery almost as much as left wing.
I think that is a touch unfair. Remember Trump gets 20-30% of the vote. So 70 to 80% of voters like someone else. Breitbart represents a view point and a faction of the GOP electorate not the entire electorate.
So Tom, are you a Breitbart.com supporter or not? Can’t tell by your backhanded praise to James.
Do you agree with this concluding paragraph from Breitbart
Are you a Buchananite, Tom? Do you think it’s a coincidence that many of Trump’s supporters, like Buchanans supporters, take issue with certain critics of those men being Jewish?
Jager,
Thomas Sowell predicted that Trump cant win because too many people didnt like him. Trump was then very unfavorable. Sowell was wrong, because trump is now most favorable. The rest will join eventually. Simple as that. There is no other option.
I may be missing the point and I have not kept up with Breitbart well. In what way is Breibart management anti-Semitic or are you referring to something/one else?
So we are fighting here in America over immigration while Hungry builds a razor wire fence on the border of another European Country to deal with migration. There are political parties in European countries that are Anti-Immigration and powers that push for more immigration. In what way is the above paragraph wrong?
I think the appeals to Pat Buchanan are telling, as are the over the top and unfair running tirades they continue to run against Goldberg and Podhoretz. And it’s not merely anti-semitism, its a general antipathy toward hispanics. Their high dudgeon over politicians speaking Spanish to Spanish speaking crowds has more than a whiff of nativism to it. And then there is the unfailing commentary from the Alex Jones, Storm-Front, and white supremacist crowd that seem to attend every pro-Trump, anti-Goldberg/Podhoretz, anti-“establishment” piece.
One might call it dog-whistle, but it’s really not that hard to hear or see. You may think it’s paranoid, but one cannot read the attacks against Trump critics or the defenses of Trump as anything approaching reasoned discourse. It’s agitprop loaded with innuendo and accusations of dual-loyalties.
If you don’t see it, you don’t see it. Personally, I don’t think the right can afford to flirt with the nastiness that surrounds the Breitbart et al Trump boosterism we’re seeing from the infotainment commentariat on the right. It’s a loser for the conservative movement as much as it gets ratings and cash for the demagogues.
It doesn’t surprise me that the comments over at Breitbart get out of line. The comments everywhere are getting less and less civil. Coherence is suffering as well; half of those jamokes are functionally illiterate, yet they must share their spittle-spewing rage.
Some of them are genuine racists. Some of them are progs stirring up trouble. Some of them are bus station mumblers with Internet access.
What this country needs is a better class of rabble.
Oh yes, if you want immigration enforcement you ARE a Nazi. James Lileks, thank you, oh so much, for being SO brave. So brave.
Heal thyself.
James may or may not be truly brave, but at least James posts under his real name. You post your simplistic and inane straw men courageously as “BD.”
I agree with that paragraph completely. So are you going to read me out of the conservative movement?
The New York Times was recently attacking Australia’s Government for turning back people trying to arrive by boat, Europe is in “crisis” and immigration is one of the big issues in our Primary. Agreeing that this is an important issue gets you read out of the conservative movement? If you get kicked out take me with you.
Wow everything above is just the tone I come to the site to find.
I’m not reading anyone out of anything. I just point out that Pat Buchanan and his nativist, isolationist, anti-zionist rhetoric and positions aren’t the lights we should be looking to. And the hysteria about hundreds of millions of brown people overrunning our borders is nothing more than fear mongering and an appeal to racialist paranoia. Immigration is not our number one, two, three or tenth most pressing issue and to abandon all of the other conservative issues and supporting a carnival barking charlatan like Donald Trump because of such deluded and misplaced priorities is not what any right thinking person should be characterizing as conservative.
This sentiment is an example of why Trump is receiving so much support. You slander those of us who believe that the government should secure the border and protect American citizens against foreign criminals as “nativists” and trot out additional (and irrelevant) pejorative terms to drive the point home. Immigration is not an important issue? Try living in communities that have been struggling with illegal immigration for decades, seeing crime rise and social services drained. Or try working in industries where corporations actively try to import cheap, foreign labor to the detriment of American workers. And the reference to “brown people” is merely more white guilt-tripping, which to someone of Hispanic descent like me has no effect whatsoever. Nice try.
Hugh is a fine fellow. He is conservative in many unimportant ways. The balkanization of America will undermine everything he thinks is important. As a citizen of California he is used to treating conservatism as just a theoretical concern only to be quibbled about on the radio. By the way Trump is way down my list but I will vote for him if it comes to that.
I am willing to give you “carnival barking charlatan” as a description of Trump. I am not sure where you get the idea that wanting stronger immigration means abandoning all other conservative issues.
I was not at the meeting where all the “right thinking people” decided what should be considered conservative and what are 1-10 priorities should be. Is it possible that I could disagree with you without being an idiot non-conservative?
Consider your 1-10 on important conservative issues. Now open the borders and let in a bunch of new voters who will vote 60-80 % with the Democrats. How many of your 1-10 did you get with Democrats running the House, Senate and Presidency? That is why Democrats support comprehensive immigration reform. Why exactly “must ” a conservative support comprehensive reform?