Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
President Trump and Steve Bannon, his former strategist, have come to verbal blows. It began earlier today when Bannon attacked Paul Manafort and several of the president’s family members in the pre-release of a new book,
Bannon was always a head-scratcher to me, clearly an intelligent guy but seemingly always ready to pick a fight, sometime with whoever is in the room and for whatever reason. Trump looks to me like he was ready to leave well enough alone, but Bannon’s new book and the crazed accusations of treason within it forced Trump to fire with both barrels. Hopefully Trump with let Bannon scream at the sky, ignore him, and not be tempted to stoop down to to fight him anymore.
Trump won, Bannon lost (and continues to lose). President Trump should move on.
Bannon is probably a head-scratcher to himself. I mean look at the guy. Buy a Harry’s razor for gosh-sakes!
I choose #2! Although I’m not wild about everything he says in the statement. Maybe he’s learned that the qualities of the people he picks for his administration really are important. Not just his choices for SCOTUS.
My, my, my!
Rich Lowry at National Review is not a friend of Mr. Bannon…apparently.
His parting shot:
You chose wisely! Mindy Finn — McMullin’s former running-mate and present fellow scold — however, appears to have chosen… unwisely.
I know: You’re all shocked.
And no, I don’t follow Finn on Twitter.
Bannon seemed okay as a balancing force against some of the Washington insiders. Who needs a bunch of councilors who all provide the same opinion? I could never understand why Bannon was given much of anything to do with foreign policy. However, I also wonder what Jared Kushner’s foreign policy qualifications are supposed to be.
I hate most international organizations. Most seem to hate the United States, Israel, capitalism, Bill of Rights freedoms, Christianity, Western civilization, technology which promotes independence and privacy, and the common ordinary citizen, but I am more hawkish than some conservatives/libertarians.
Glad this popped up quickly to the Main Feed so it can be easily shared.
(Well done, Mr. Meyer!)
Hoo! That made me LOL — hard! So Trumpian.
Really? You think that’s a fair characterization? I think it comes within a hair’s breadth of repeating the Left’s narrative about all Republicans (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted).
Bannon calls his outlook “economic nationalism.” You may disagree with him, but I suspect, like Trump, your objection is more about style and method, and there’s actually quite a lot of overlap between your and Bannon’s policy goals.
Yes.
Sure, there’s some overlap, but not as much as that. Bannon’s trade policies and mine are directly at odds with each other. More generally, I want the government to protect our liberties, defend our interests, and then shut up; Bannon wants to use it for some kind of counter-culture war and I’m not interested.
Makes me wonder what he told mueller.
I sorta like Bannon. At least more than I like those who don’t.
If one side will use the government for culture warfare and the other side will not, then the other side will lose the culture war.
Loose cannons like Bannon should not be in the White House, and I’m trying to be consistent with what I said/wrote around the time of his appointment.
Still, Bannon has been accused regularly of being a white nationalist, and, occasionally, of being an anti-Semite (Ben Shapiro says “no”). His quote from who knows when to Mother Jones about making Breitbart the “platform of the alt.right” has shown up in dozens of articles (about half of them by David French seemingly). Yet when I’ve asked for actual evidence of his “leanings,” I get . . . a nothingburger. So I don’t know what to think.
Did he liaise with the Mercer’s before such coup de grâce?
Was there any interview of such kind? Has is been confirmed?
Agreed. Though, just having worked for an investment bank does not necessarily imbue wisdom, generate self-earned wealth or render you leader of nations, either. As much as we cheer on those who fight with us we shall always recognise miscreants, man with ire, and malevolents. Whereas his instinct as to China being a main adversary remains certainly shared Mr. Bannon who may have felt more than thought such way had decided to follow rather deluded ideas as to trade and economics, defence and war many moons ago. We thank the sergeant for his service which he certainly rendered versus the evils of the American elitist left and he shall step back. Unfortunately, for his lack of style, he will not. Expect more vile, acerbic prose and media exposure.
This is why I asked whether the Mercer’s have been contacted before or at at least in the meantime.
I like Trump’s statement and it’s nice to see you approving that Trump turned his Twitter ire to an adversary that makes his Twitter usage worthwhile.
Perhaps you will have a more understanding view of those who enjoy his usage of it against the media, a far more threatening adversary than a kicked out dude with an increasingly marginalized news site.
This has been a cudgel used against Trump and Bannon by the anti-Trumpers from the get-go. I’d like to know what, specifically, you mean.
I think the libertarian ideal of “free trade” would actually necessitate the elimination of all trade deals, because any parties entering a trade deal are representing their (narrow) interests and are not promoting free exchange between individuals (and corporations). It’s fairly typically unrealistic libertarian utopianism.
Whereas Trump (and Bannon) have the more realistic view that we’ve been making trade deals which benefit everyone except us and “our” (probably the most frequently used word in Trump’s vocabulary) American workers. It’s about time someone at the head of government is on our side.
The saddest thing of all was him taking over Breitbart’s operation. He is the antithesis of Andrew’s cheerfulness and desire for inclusiveness.
Exactly my question. “But Bannon has explicitly rejected a nationalism based on ethnicity,” I thought. “Or maybe the poster knows something I don’t about him.”
Further, when someone tell someone to crawl under a rock, I get nervous. I’d reserve that for the truly inhuman amongst us.
Still, anyone who thinks Roy Moore is a good bet…
Andrew Breitbart was a great man, and I loved reading his work. It is beyond sad that he passed away and that his name has been commandeered by Bannon et.al.
That’s how you got Steve Bannon in the first place.
I don’t like or trust Bannon, I just hate him less than most of the viable alternatives.
Still, this seems like a massive overreach for him; Tucker Carlson might be in a position to capitalize.
I’ll stick up for Bannon (sort of) and disagree with my friend Tom on this one.
I don’t understand the paranoia and garment-rending over Bannon among mainstream conservative journalists (like Jonah Goldberg, who has singled out Bannon for personal attack on most episodes of his otherwise great podcast). They paint Bannon as some Bond villain with his finger hovering over a doomsday machine that can destroy the entire conservative movement with the press of one button.
Bannon doesn’t pose a threat to anything or anyone, save perhaps his local Goodwill when they get a new donation of tweed jackets.
Bannon is simply a shrewd, patriotic businessman who recognized that a bloc of consumers who have been around since at least the end of WWII (i.e. the loose group now termed the “alt-right”) was being underserved in the media/commentary market. He then slightly tweaked an existing media platform which was already nearly a perfect fit for these consumers and it went gangbusters. He didn’t create anything and he’s shown no sign of being a capable power player or kingmaker. He simply acts as a conduit to match existing demand with existing supply.
Furthermore, Trump’s denouncement of Bannon is not what Tom should really want: a denouncement of Bannon’s (and Breitbart’s) political worldview. Trump is merely attacking his former colleague for disloyalty, not for his political leanings (requisite snark: does Trump even know what Bannon’s political leanings are?). This is merely Trump again showing that he’s a sore winner.
I have no doubt that Trump would fully embrace the Breitbart worldview in an instant if he found it politically expedient.
Calling Trump’s son treasonous wasn’t taken lightly by the president…for some reason. Bannon’s arrogant and nasty reputation preceded him before joining the Trump campaign and being appointed a White House advisor. He has arguably sullied Andrew Breitbart’s legacy and reputation with his stewardship of Breitbart.com turning a once promising venture into a dishonest rag…dishonesty recently admitted to by its own editor. Bannon is profoundly impressed with his own presumed intellectual prowess and charismatic appeal (perhaps after he washes his hair, shaves and looks at himself in the mirror) and is even considering running for president himself…because, you know, millions of Americans were waiting and praying for the day that he would announce his run for the presidency. He is an ego unchained and run amok.
I’m going to retract the bolded below:
If taking an interview like this, I find myself nodding along for about 75% of the time saying things like “Sure, sure. Not how I’d put it, but close enough. The thing is, those things are pretty uncontroversial and — as I read him — aren’t really what excites Bannon.
Bannon’s basic schtick is that normal people are constantly getting screwed over by elitist cabals. I think this is largely incorrect as he describes it and pretty damned toxic. Doubly so considering how consistently eager he is to align with illiberal elements like the alt-right and the National Front. Weirdly — especially since he should know better — he blames the Financial Crisis solely on the greedy banks without a word about how the government was doing all it could to encourage them to make irresponsible loans.