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.
The Press and the President’s Daughter
The general rule guiding the press and the offspring of a sitting President is hands-off unless the child has reached adulthood. Then everything is fair game, especially when it comes to that adult child’s chosen profession.
But the President is still a father, no? So, what happens when that fatherly instinct takes over? What happens when the President of the United States threatens a Washington Post columnist with physical harm?
What should you do with a President that is so unstable, so undeferential to the role of the free press in our society that he would have the temerity to write this to the columnist:
It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you’re off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.
Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beef steak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!
If you’re a Democrat you stand up and cheer. Wait … you don’t understand why the Democrats are cheering? Because the President I’m speaking about isn’t Donald Trump, it’s Harry Truman. The excerpt above is from a letter Truman wrote to Post music critic Paul Hume in 1950 after Hume reviewed Margaret Truman’s singing.
Margaret had a pleasant enough voice but tended to be a bit flat. Hume simply told the truth.
Amazingly, looking back at it from today’s perspective, Hume not only chose not to respond, The Post declined to publish the letter. It only came to light when Hume told a colleague about it, which he said he always regretted. Today it would dominate the news cycle for days.
Margaret continued singing throughout the 1950s with mixed success. She was a frequent guest on “The Big Show,” a 90-minute variety show that was NBC’s last gasp at keeping radio relevant in a television world. Its host, the actress Tallulah Bankhead, praised her performance skills. But, of course, they had a bit of “spiritual” connection, too. Her father, William Bankhead, was swept up in the Roosevelt tidal wave in 1933 and spent the remainder of his life representing the 7th District of Alabama, and for the last six as the 42nd Speaker of the House.
This morning, President Trump is taking heat for Tweeting about retailers severing ties with his daughter Ivanka and her clothing line. Now all we have to do is find out if Ivanka can sing.
Published in Culture, Politics
I’m old enough to remember when free market Republicans believed that a private business was free to carry or not carry whatever product they wanted for whatever reason they wanted.
Hey, looks like I’m in pretty good company criticizing the President’s Tweets:
Where did people say that Nordstrom wasn’t free to do this? They said they were upset about it. (and almost no one thinks this was about lagging sales)
Brick and mortar department stores are hardly in the position to be passing on hot selling merchandise. If Ivanka’s clothes were selling, they’d keep the line in the stores.
I’m old enough to remember when free market Republicans believed that people were free to express their opinions about the actions of those businesses.
And how the hell did ‘so-called judges’ become part of this discussion? (BTW, did you go out of your way to make that hard to read?)
I don’t know. Having all your windows smashed can really eat into the old profit margin.
Billy Carter took a huge payoff from the government of Libya. Roger Clinton was a coke head. Ted Kennedy got drunk and killed a young woman. Ivanka has done what exactly?
@blueyeti
That hasn’t happened but nonetheless, pretty sure all the stores carry insurance policies.
She’s done nothing but produce a clothing line that apparently didn’t sell well at one department store. All the more reason why her father shouldn’t be involved.
Or Republican. Because the Trump family is by far the most private sector family that’s ever set foot in the White House. The others usually opt for the family business of politics, arts or media.
Perhaps the last Presidential offspring to have a real job was Michael Ford who became a minister. He heads the Office of Student Development at Wake Forest University.
Doesn’t cover the lost sales from the full day of protests, the time you spend repairing, the lost opportunity since you’re replacing windows instead of running your store or the fact that some people will avoid your store after that because of ‘the trouble’. Ask any store owner if that insurance check makes them whole.
These next 20-24 years are going to be hard on you if you persist in this sort of “Then he’s in the wrong job” sneering. The treatment of President Obama by the press opened the door to President Trump and every other celebrity/businessman/athlete that meets the constitutional requirements to run. All they need is for the public to already know and follow them.
Pretty sure you’re making my point here: for whatever reason (sales, bad PR, unwanted political associations), Nordstrom’s has determined that it doesn’t make financial sense to carry Ivanka’s clothing.
They’re a department store, not a political movement. It’s not a constitutional crisis if they decide they don’t want to carry blouses designed by the President’s daughter.
Damn. Until I was reminded to BE HONEST I was planning on being a lying hypocrite. Another day down the crapper.
I’ll be fine. The country — maybe not so much.
Pretty sure I’m not. You jumped into a sub-thread that started with the statement that Nordstrom’s pulled her line because of poor sales for that line. The protesters that I’m expecting to smash windows aren’t customers unhappy about a crooked hemline, they are the usual suspects of the left, protesting solely because it’s related to Trump.
Retailers are notorious cowards when it comes to avoiding anything controversial. But I believe the reason for all of these sudden business decisions is political pressure.
You are free to believe it, even though Nordstrom’s has explicitly denied it:
Are you talking about the same President that, I am guessing here, you never wanted to be President in the first place? Trump is not going to change who he is, even if he knew it would make THE Blue Yeti happy. Sorry, but remember, Trump will always fight for himself and his family…and…he will always fight for us as well. Give a little, get a little.
I’ve already seen that, in fact I think I referred to it at least obliquely along the way. Reread the part I wrote about being cowards in controversial situations. If they tweet that they are dropping it because they don’t want their windows smashed, they will piss people off. And they didn’t deny it; they ignored the political aspect.
I think we’re going in circles here.
You’re assuming they’re making strictly a business decision. The company is based in Seattle, and fashion is a notoriously Democrat industry. You think they didn’t want to cut this brand loose?
I confess, I don’t believe them. I’m not sure many people do. If this was just a business decision, they’ve handled it rather badly, as in ‘case study’ badly.
I feel confident that Nordstrom’s board, the banks that hold their loans, and the investors who hold Nordstrom’s stock don’t care about politics. If Ivanka’s line was selling, they’d keep it.
I think you’re extremely naive about this issue.
The President, Peter Nordstrom, circulated a letter to the company in response to the Selected Immigration Pause (like that name!) just days before the brand was dropped. I’m sorry, but they “do” politics.
The exact word that occurred to me.
You’re making an assumption based on a hunch with no actual evidence (including no broken windows over the past year while Ivanka’s clothes were in the store and Trump was running and winning repeatedly). I’m making my assertion based what they have publicly stated.
I think Michael said it best:
Any private industry is free to do however they choose in my opinion. I would nonetheless bet a kidney, not my kidney mind you, that this issue was done for political reasons.
Yeti, do you or do you not think a massive collective war to undermine every aspect of this administration is occurring?
Probably, (although as I said above, much of it is self-inflicted) but I think Nordstrom’s is not a front in the war. They have their own problems to attend to.
Here’s what I think happened:
The brand is probably a very small portion of their overall sales, so not a big deal in the overall scheme. I believe they wanted to jettison it (this election is different and people feel strongly), but do so without much fanfare so as to avoid angering too many people thus affecting sales. So, they wait a while after the hashtag campaign begins, then say sales suck and drop the brand. The immigration thing appears to have bothered them ‘bigly’, causing the company president to dash off a memo to staff supporting all ‘immigrants’ (most of whom were completely unaffected by this order – lolz), casting doubts on their motives for the elimination.