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 or #NeverTrump? Haley Barbour and Charles Murray Disagree
On the podcast today, Rob and I interviewed two genuinely brilliant men. Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi, has dedicated the better part of his life to the Republican Party. He helped transform the South into a central component — perhaps the central component — of the GOP base, then served in the Reagan administration (where he and I became fast friends), and then as chairman of the Republican National Committee. Charles Murray has written half a dozen books, including two of the most important works the conservative movement has ever produced. His 1984 masterpiece, Losing Ground, detailed the case that the expansion of welfare did more harm than good to the very people it was intended to help; twenty-eight years later, Coming Apart chronicled in heartbreaking detail the growing gulf between a prosperous new class and those beset by wage stagnation and dissolving families.
Although Haley and Charles joined us at different points in the podcast, Rob and I asked each man the same question: If Donald Trump were to capture the Republican nomination, should we vote for him or support an independent candidate instead? Rather than paraphrase, I’ll let each explain, in his own words, how he answers the most important question conservatives may face this year.
Here’s Barbour:
And here’s Murray:
Two patriots, two fine, deeply-informed minds—and two utterly opposed answers.
Over to you, Ricochet.
Published in Politics
Although my very favorite Founder, Hamilton was a bit impetuous and thus so died. Besides, the worst options for president after GW in his day were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
One of Murray’s arguments was how despicable Trump is. He brought up his multiple marriages, his business practices (apparently Trump will only pay a contractual obligation 80% of what is owed, because it’s too expensive to sue and get the remaining 20%), and his crony capitalism as well as how he treats his underlings.
But he was trying to make the case that Hillary is better than Trump. He didn’t thread the needle. He didn’t compare Trump’s character with Hillary’s. I argue that Hillary’s character is just as bad. Unless they are especially favored, she treats underlings just as bad as Trump.
And there’s the lying, with Benghazi and the email server just the most recent incidents. What really condemns her is that she didn’t just look the other way regarding Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct, but actively assisted his staff in covering it up, or worse, attacking the women who made the allegations.
Trump is definitely cruder than she is, but just because she’s slightly smoother than Trump doesn’t make her better than he is.
And just as Trump shows a contempt for women, if you look below the covers, Hillary shows a contempt for men, especially if they’re white.
Personally, if I have to decide to vote between Trump or Hillary, the deciding factor will be the Supreme Court vacancy. But if the Senate confirms Obama’s nominee, then I’ll probably find a 3rd candidate to vote for, or not mark my ballet for president at all.
I’m certainly not an expert on Senate rules, but I don’t think this is true. If it was, the Republicans should have able to block more stuff when they were in the minority.
Ok, I’m late to the party—again—and haven’t read the 7 pages+ of comments, so apologies if this has been mentioned. But, wasn’t a Barbour involved in that mess in Mississippi 2 years ago with Cochran and Chris McDaniel? Also, I kno
w breitbartis 24/7 Trump, but I just discoveredthe conservative treehouseis just as bad. There’s a ‘hit piece’ (my take on it) talking about how Ted Cruz must be running out of ‘direct’ campaign money, because his ‘TrusTed’ logo is not being used at his Utah rallies. I saw a little bit of his program withhannity, and it wasn’t visible in the background. In the same piece, it noted the Cruz campaign needs to return donations to people who exceeded the maximum allowed (Sanders’ campaign got caught doing the same). Here’s the kicker—it showed the official letter from the government, in full, with a FULL alphabetical list of donor’s names AND the amounts! There must have been 40+ pages!!! That info isn’t public domain, is it? All I know is my eyes and brain need to be put in an autoclave now….