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
He didn’t rip the commenters – that would require substance and analysis, instead of a snide, misleading aside.
Bernie Sanders is a non-religious Jew. He voted against the 2007 Bush comprehensive immigration reform bill over opposition to its guest worker program and previously stated, “I’m very dubious about the need to bring foreign unskilled labor into this country… These are kids, young high school graduates, and the unemployment rate is just extremely high. I do not understand why they cannot hire those people and need foreign labor.” Sanders argued that 2013 guest worker program would “allow large corporations to import hundreds of thousands of blue-collar and white-collar workers from overseas.”
(cont.)
The Mickey Kaus-Jennifer Rubin is interesting, if accurate. I can see how the United States and Israel can have slightly different views on immigration, but it doesn’t make sense to me that they should have completely different views. The 14th Amendment birthright citizenship and the welfare state are a recipe for disaster.
Today from Breitbart.com:
62% illegal immigrant-headed households are on welfare
49% for legal immigrant
30% for natives
Legal immigrant homes account for 75% of immigrant welfare use
Israel does seem to have a bit of a reverse 14th Amendment birthright citizenship cause, as I believe a Jew can (probably or usually) claim (eventual) citizenship no matter where he or she was actually born. It seems that Israel has been very successful in integrating these fellow Jewish immigrants into their society, but that does not mean that the United States should have a similar policy.
Is this the reason for Jewish Americans viewing the situation differently? I don’t think so. I heard a nativist-type quote or two and an analysis that explained why hard anti-immigration view don’t seem to be allowed in Jewish circles. I can’t remember the complete analysis. There is also the topic of geography. Do Jewish conservatives living within a few miles of the Mexico-Arizona border share the same views as those living in New York and Northern Virginia?
There’s no such thing as a Jewish position on immigration; there have been plenty of examples given here already. There’s no particular unity among American Jews that says America’s laws and Israel’s must be the same. The strategic needs of the two countries are radically different, and Jews on both sides have always known that.
One member dragged the Jews into this, double-thick, with a comment that was uninformed, fact-free, and just plain dumb.
I’m not naming him. I’m playing the ball, not the player. I have no idea who these people with pseudonyms are, anyway. The remark reads like it was written by someone who’s never met an actual Jew in his life.
Correct, it has nothing to do with Israel. Most leftist “Jews” are anti-Israel or at least prioritize their acquired religion of leftism over their ancestral religion and any ethnic affiliation.
Not much more than any other conservative views. There is a bit of a reluctance among even conservative Jews to seem racist or nativist.
It’s not like NY and VA are devoid of illegals.
Restrictionists are too busy toothlessly playing the banjo. Hey, don’t take that personally.
Interesting that Andrew Breitbart has reached in death the same mythical status as long-time conservative figures like Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan.
How would this person feel about a certain issue if still alive today?
Buckley had some positions that were outside of mainstream conservatism, and he practically “invented” it. Iraq War, Friedman’s marijuana legalization, etc. Ask his son Christopher or his nephew Brent Bozell how Buckley would feel about something. You could easily get two different views — and they both might be wrong. The same is possible when talking to Reagan’s two sons about their father.
Andrew Breitbart was usually the regular guest host for Dennis Miller’s radio program. (Wow, apparently he even guest-hosted for Michael Savage!) Dennis and Andrew seemed to have some similar Southern California conservative or pragmatic views, although Breitbart was the one who liked to stir it up and cause trouble. Dennis had some differing and surprising political views. I think Breitbart was the same way. Dennis said that he liked Trump three weeks ago, but he’s also a comedian. He liked Herman Cain four years ago and suddenly abandoned that, although his Obi-Wan Charles Krauthammer would never let Dennis forget being on the Cain Train.
I don’t think Breitbart would do the full Ann Coulter though.
He might be somewhere in the middle regarding Trump views.
However, Breitbart might have been the biggest anti-Trump person. Andrew hated nothing more than a bully.
Hey, I’m not toothless!
So I got the banjo part right?
Yeah, but you missed the black Trans-Am.
100% agree with the OP…..and those weren’t gotcha questions. Try listening to the interview if you think they were. He told trump the names he didn’t ask him.
If you say an obscure name and ask fot their position, it’s as much of a gotcha question as if you say the position and ask for the name.
I thought it was funny, laugh-out-loud funny. Wasn’t it intended to be so, original poster?
But he didn’t do that in a quiz style. He asked trump if he knew some of those guys without a cheat sheet and to him they aren’t obscure because he is a foreign policy guy. I think it’s legit to say, “hey I really think some of those names will change” or “I will seriously address all those names in my security briefings but for now let me tell you my general strategy to deal with islamic terrorism…”. But don’t cry that the question isn’t fair. For a tough guy he sure does cry about being picked on a lot. I don’t really think much of that.
Get your resume to Hillary Clinton ASAP! You are even better at nuanced interpretation than her current team.
The interview wasn’t phrased in a “gotcha” manner, that’s just how I hear it. I will leave it at that.
Hugh Hewitt, to his credit, has been geeking out on this stuff since he read The Looming Tower. No doubt, The Donald has not read it. Now I as well have geeked out on this stuff since Hugh recommended The Looming Tower. Riveting. But not necessary unless you want to be in on the understand thing.
Some Presidents want to brain up on this stuff. They wind up like Clinton, personally handling minor decisions until well after midnight when exhaustion resets your priorities for you, papers strewn about the floor, as the only desktop large enough for an unmanaged herculean task. It is a form of (literally) executive dysfunction.
Other Presidents say that they have people for this. It is not an abrogation to delegate properly. You tell me that the intelligence consensus, multiply sourced over time, says this is the guy to whack? Whack him.
After all, we seek an executive, not a strongman.
Fair enough, but that’s not what The Donald did. He blustered that of course he knew who these people were and when pressed on it couldn’t back it up. Its one thing to state that you don’t know the details but can outline a policy by which those people will be dealt with and quite another to intimate that you know everything and that those that question you are acting in bad faith. This performance doesn’t indicate that The Donald is a great executive so much as a narcissistic man child who can’t handle pressure.
Just rolling back n some of the reflexive criticism.