There’s More Than One Kind Of Corruption

 

When people think of corruption in high places, they tend to think of elites feathering their own nests. Bill and Hillary Clinton monetized political power into a personal fortune of hundreds of millions, and played the system better than any couple since Napoleon and Josephine. Paul Manafort is alleged to have sold his services to sketchy foreign powers (including a Putin puppet in Ukraine), pocketed multiple millions, evaded American taxes, and according to evidence presented in his trial, spent up to a million dollars on cashmere suits and ostrich jackets (being rich doesn’t mean having taste).

President Trump is defending his former campaign chairman: “Paul Manafort worked for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other highly prominent and respected political leaders. He worked for me for a very short time. Why didn’t government tell me that he was under investigation. These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion – a Hoax!” The president might answer a few questions too. Why didn’t he do any background investigation of Manafort? His career representing tainted foreign leaders like Ferdinand Marcos and Jonas Savimbi was public knowledge. Allegations that he received off-the-books payments from overseas interests were also only a click away. In 2016, Manafort flatly denied the allegations: “The simplest answer is the truth: I am a campaign professional. . . .I have never received a single ‘off-the-books cash payment’ as falsely ‘reported’ by The New York Times, nor have I ever done work for the governments of Ukraine or Russia.” That didn’t age well.

Another question for President Trump: Didn’t it strike him as odd that a man of Manafort’s tastes and lifestyle would agree to work for Trump (supposedly a billionaire) for free? Didn’t he pause and reflect, “Hmm, I wonder what he expects to get out of this, and from whom?”

Manafort is the poster child for Washington corruption of the old-fashioned variety – the influence selling and pocket lining kind. A remarkable number of Trump’s people have displayed a similar foible. Just in the first 18 months, the Secretary of HHS (private jets at taxpayer’s expense), the Secretary for Veterans Affairs (vacations for the family at government expense), and the EPA chief (a soundproof booth inter alia), have all been forced out for misusing government funds for their own little luxuries.  The Secretary of HUD (a $31,000 dining room set), the Interior Secretary (a land development deal adjacent to his property), the Commerce Secretary (shorting stocks on non-public information), and the Treasury Secretary (misuse of military aircraft) have all been accused of improper spending as well. Far from drained, the swamp has been stocked by this administration.

But there is another kind of corruption that is more disturbing for the health of our republic – the retreat from governing in favor of posturing.

As Yuval Levin notes in a Commentary essay “Congress is Weak Because Its Members Want it to be Weak,” the 21st century’s profusion of technologies permitting transparency have had some good but many baleful effects. Because virtually everything is televised, politics itself has become less and less about actual governing, with the trades and compromises that requires, and more like performance art.

This tendency among legislators to grandstand and to posture as the brave truth tellers condemning the “dysfunction” of their own institution, is actually the true dysfunction. When nearly every member seeks to be a cable or local TV star rather than a lawmaker, it’s no wonder that very little actual legislating gets done. As Levin notes, even controlling both chambers and with a Republican president poised to sign anything they send up, the Republican Congress has achieved very little. They passed a tax cut, but concerning the other priorities they campaigned on for years – reforming the health care system, adjusting the immigration laws, confronting the entitlement crisis – they have done nothing and seem to have no plans. As for the chief job of Congress, developing a budget, well, for the first time in 40 years, neither chamber has even considered a budget resolution. And while Republican leaders demur, the President is again threatening a government shutdown.

That we have a president who struts and howls and shows little interest in the mechanics (to say nothing of the norms) of governing, is well known. But the Congress, designed by the founders to be the most powerful branch, is willingly surrendering its intended role for the pleasures of a few hits on MSNBC or FoxNews. That is an outcome that the founders didn’t anticipate and will likely outlast our current Tweeter-in-Chief.

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 35 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Mona Charen: But there is another kind of corruption that is more disturbing for the health of our republic – the retreat from governing in favor of posturing.

    Mona,

    Now I think you are onto something. When the narrative isn’t required to reflect the facts, the new left-wing dogma, anything goes. Obama made about 50 speeches in which he repeated literally how much the average American family would save from their health care bill under Obamacare and this turned out to be the grossest fraudulent lie imaginable. Tens of millions of Americans who were already straining under their healthcare costs now found that Obamacare had raised their premiums by 50% and more. The lockstep left-wing media had nothing to say. When the Iran Deal was systematically stripped of anything like reasonable safeguards and then passed by an unconstitutional majority vote instead of the required 2/3 vote, again the lockstep left-wing media had nothing to say. Ben Rhodes like Jonathan Gruber before him was kind enough to come right out and laugh in everyone’s face and say “we lied”.

    You must forgive me for not being able to conjure up enough feeling about the terrible crimes of Manafort. After watching Obama destroy the health care of the entire American people and destroy the security of the entire Middle East while being told what a genius Obama was, it left me a little numb. Not only did Bill & Hill make a fortune by peddling foreign influence but Barach & Michelle were constantly traveling with an entourage that an Emperor would envy. Michelle had over 20 personal assistants. Both Eleanor Roosevelt & Mamie Eisenhower managed with less than 4. Again my sensibility towards such offenses became numbed.

    You must excuse my character weakness. After 8 years of ‘the narrative with facts or without facts’ and the threat of another 8 years of exactly the same thing, I am not completely recovered. However, there is one thing I might ask you.

    Why is a special prosecutor whose existence was created by fraudulent information, whose continued scope of investigation has no standing, whose record of bias has been profoundly proved, now prosecuting Paul Manafort? I admit that Manafort’s taste in clothes makes him the diabolical mastermind behind all of Western Civilization’s problems. If only he had listened to you when you tried to send him that copy of “Dress for Success” all of this might have been avoided.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #1
  2. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    What @jamesgawron just said. Amen!

    • #2
  3. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    That we have a president who struts and howls and shows little interest in the mechanics (to say nothing of the norms) of governing, is well known.

    Made it all the way to the last paragraph before the requisite (unnecessary to the column) swipe.  That’s progress!

    • #3
  4. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    Mona Charen: But there is another kind of corruption that is more disturbing for the health of our republic – the retreat from governing in favor of posturing.

    More disturbing for the health of our republic than actual good old fashioned banana republic-style corruption, you say Mona?  That would make a terrific dissertation topic for a grad student in political science, I wonder if Professor Steven Hayward has any grad students who might want to study that topic.  Just think of the evidence:

    • On the banana-republic side, we have examples such as Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador.  Lots of empirical evidence to demonstrate the severity of the risk that good old fashioned banana-republic style corruption poses to a republic.
    • On the newfangled “retreat from governing in favor of posturing” side, we have Donald Trump’s America.  4.1% economic growth; aggressive deregulation; strengthened military; drastically weakened public employee unions; students’ rights-crusading education policy promotion; …

    Lots of data to crunch.  I volunteer to help with the regression analysis.  The resulting charts will surely show just how much more disturbing the new corruption is.

    Mona Charen: President Trump is defending his former campaign chairman: “Paul Manafort worked for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other highly prominent and respected political leaders. He worked for me for a very short time. Why didn’t government tell me that he was under investigation. These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion – a Hoax!”

    Mona, can you explain to me what in the quoted passage constitutes a defense of Paul Manafort?

    I have been highly critical of your reflexive anti-Trumpism since your first Need to Know podcast following Trump’s inauguration.  You write for National Review, a highly prominent and respected publication.  That’s not a defense of you.

    • #4
  5. Hank Rhody, Probably Mad Contributor
    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad
    @HankRhody

    Mona Charen: President Trump is defending his former campaign chairman: “Paul Manafort worked for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other highly prominent and respected political leaders. He worked for me for a very short time. Why didn’t government tell me that he was under investigation. These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion – a Hoax!”

    That’s a defense of Manafort? Sounds more like a defense of Trump.

    • #5
  6. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Mona Charen: Manafort is the poster child for Washington corruption of the old-fashioned variety – the influence selling and pocket lining kind. A remarkable number of Trump’s people have displayed a similar foible. Just in the first 18 months, the Secretary of HHS (private jets at taxpayer’s expense), the Secretary for Veterans Affairs (vacations for the family at government expense), and the EPA chief (a soundproof booth inter alia), have all been forced out for misusing government funds for their own little luxuries. The Secretary of HUD (a $31,000 dining room set), the Interior Secretary (a land development deal adjacent to his property), the Commerce Secretary (shorting stocks on non-public information), and the Treasury Secretary (misuse of military aircraft) have all been accused of improper spending as well. Far from drained, the swamp has been stocked by this administration.

    Other than maybe the Secretary of HUD, most of these other Secretaries were the type of people who would at least be considered for jobs in other administrations. There seems to be something about going to Washington that makes an otherwise acceptable candidate become “swampy”. 

    It is my contention that no matter who of the like 20 something Republicans and Democrats that started the primary won, the Swamp would be restocked. Trump, with his unique style, has invited greater scrutiny of his administration than might have otherwise have happened. It might not be on purpose but the Trump Presidency has resulted in us knowing about this stuff and a number of resignations. The swamp has not been drained but at least its excesses are being spotlighted. 

    • #6
  7. Hank Rhody, Probably Mad Contributor
    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad
    @HankRhody

    As long as we’re enumerating the types of corruption, what about the power trip of the petty bureaucrat? The guy who, just because he has a job at the FBI, feels like he’s the ultimate arbiter of justice?

    • #7
  8. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    Mona Charen: But there is another kind of corruption that is more disturbing for the health of our republic – the retreat from governing in favor of posturing.

    More disturbing for the health of our republic than actual good old fashioned banana republic-style corruption, you say Mona? That would make a terrific dissertation topic for a grad student in political science, I wonder if Professor Steven Hayward has any grad students who might want to study that topic. Just think of the evidence:

    • On the banana-republic side, we have examples such as Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador. Lots of empirical evidence to demonstrate the severity of the risk that good old fashioned banana-republic style corruption poses to a republic.
    • On the newfangled “retreat from governing in favor of posturing” side, we have Donald Trump’s America. 4.1% economic growth; aggressive deregulation; strengthened military; drastically weakened public employee unions; students’ rights-crusading education policy promotion; …

    Lots of data to crunch. I volunteer to help with the regression analysis. The resulting charts will surely show just how much more disturbing the new corruption is.

    Mona Charen: President Trump is defending his former campaign chairman: “Paul Manafort worked for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other highly prominent and respected political leaders. He worked for me for a very short time. Why didn’t government tell me that he was under investigation. These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion – a Hoax!”

    Mona, can you explain to me what in the quoted passage constitutes a defense of Paul Manafort?

    I have been highly critical of your reflexive anti-Trumpism since your first Need to Know podcast following Trump’s inauguration. You write for National Review, a highly prominent and respected publication. That’s not a defense of you.

    The statement of Charen’s that you quote at the top above is—idk, dumbfounding!  

    What doe it even mean?  

    Hint: nothing!

    As Erving Goffman demonstrated years ago, we all bear the burden of our public persona whenever we think we are observed by other people.  This means everybody postures,  all the time.  You might as well say that grooming, fashion choices, regional accents, are another kind of corruption and yea, the worst kind. 

    I guess corruption, like fascism, has now become one of those generic words for behavior the speaker doesn’t like. 

    • #8
  9. GLDIII Reagan
    GLDIII
    @GLDIII

    Remember Mona, never go  full Jennifer Rubin.

    • #9
  10. Curt North Inactive
    Curt North
    @CurtNorth

    Don’t bother to address the author, she doesn’t engage here or respond.  Trump must live rent-free in Mona’s head because in nearly column she writes she finds room to talk smack on Trump. 

    I believe her columns are only carried here as click bait, which I suppose I just contributed to myself, dang it!  

    • #10
  11. Hank Rhody, Probably Mad Contributor
    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad
    @HankRhody

    Curt North (View Comment):

    Don’t bother to address the author, she doesn’t engage here or respond. Trump must live rent-free in Mona’s head because in nearly column she writes she finds room to talk smack on Trump.

    I believe her columns are only carried here as click bait, which I suppose I just contributed to myself, dang it!

    She used to respond, until bad behavior by members drove her out of the comments on this site. Feel pretty embarrassed about that myself even though it wasn’t me.

    • #11
  12. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    “Manafort is the poster child for Washington corruption of the old-fashioned variety – the influence selling and pocket lining kind. A remarkable number of Trump’s people have displayed a similar foible.”

    Mona, as a former member of the Never Trump group, I won’t even try to defend some of Trump’s choices of associates. That said however, past indiscretions of some of his associates actually are not evidence that Trump’s administration is corrupt, particularly  compared to outright callous disregard for the law and Constitution of the previous Obama Administration where it has been documented that just Hillary alone ( not to mention others) sold influence around the world to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars.

    I am not aware of any really serious corruption charge ( on the level of those in the Obama Administration) related to Trump or his cabinet during this administration. Also apparently the Manafort trial is not going well for your hero Mueller. From Thomas Lifson in “Mueller team signals it may not call its star witness agains Manafort”:

    “There are definite signs of big trouble in the prosecution of Paul Manafort for crimes unrelated to Russia and the Trump campaign.  Yesterday saw the judge in the case, T.S. Ellis, rebuke the prosecution for seeking to incite class envy and jealousy among jurors.  But for its part, the prosecution let slip a shocking revelation: that it may not even call to the stand its star witness against Manafort, his former business partner Rick Gates.”

    “The prosecutors may wish to shield Gates from cross-examination by defense attorneys, perhaps fearful that he could wreck their theories of guilt.”

    “On Tuesday, defense attorney Thomas Zehnle blasted Gates in his opening statement.  He called Gates a thief and a liar who embezzled millions from Mr. Manafort’s company and then committed financial fraud to cover it up.”

    “Mr. Zehnle also alleged Gates, not Mr. Manafort, was responsible for the crimes prosecutors have lodged against his client.  Defense attorneys could still call Gates as a witness, but that could prove challenging with[out?] the ability to attack his initial testimony on behalf of the prosecution.”

    Mona, it also seems that you may have smeared Mr Manafort unjustly and owe him an apology, if what his defense teams says is true. It is also true that Mueller and team clearly have engaged some very dubious actors and distinctly unlawful tactics in their unlawful pursuit to take down the President.  Will you also please explain Mueller’s destruction of the Attorney/Client privilege in his pursuit of a lead where no crime was committed?

     

    • #12
  13. Curt North Inactive
    Curt North
    @CurtNorth

    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

    Curt North (View Comment):

    Don’t bother to address the author, she doesn’t engage here or respond. Trump must live rent-free in Mona’s head because in nearly column she writes she finds room to talk smack on Trump.

    I believe her columns are only carried here as click bait, which I suppose I just contributed to myself, dang it!

    She used to respond, until bad behavior by members drove her out of the comments on this site. Feel pretty embarrassed about that myself even though it wasn’t me.

    Nothing to feel embarrassed about.  I recall a couple years back when legit questions were raised by several paying members regarding her snarky insults to Trump, she ignored them.    

    • #13
  14. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    To the extent that Mona’s post focuses on the changed status in Washington, it’s incomplete and, I think, unintentionally misleading. She writes

    Mona Charen: Far from drained, the swamp has been stocked by this administration.

    That sounds like a legitimate claim, until you ask yourself: what was it like before this administration?

    This gets to a pet peeve of mine regarding coverage of this administration, particularly from the right: it too often neglects the effects and implications of a press that was somnolent, or perhaps catatonic, throughout the previous administration.

    This isn’t whataboutism. I’m not saying that, since Obama was worse than Trump (he was), that Trump isn’t in may ways awful (he is). Rather, I’m saying that the standards of transparency and criticism are vastly different for the Trump administration than they were for the Obama administration, and so discerning trends is difficult, and it’s easy for someone to lull herself into believing that things are suddenly much worse than they were.

    For example, do we actually know how Obama’s cabinet behaved? Do we know how they spent our money, what deals they cut, what scandals they avoided simply because the press looked the other way? Do we know that the swamp is worse, now, than it was six years ago? I don’t think we do. Investigative journalism was dead during the Obama years.

    When Mona writes

    Mona Charen: That we have a president who struts and howls and shows little interest in the mechanics (to say nothing of the norms) of governing, is well known.

    She’s right, it’s well known because it’s all reported. What wasn’t reported under the previous administration is that we had a President who arrogated to himself authority he didn’t possess under the Constitution, and then used that authority to try to reshape the country; whose administration abused executive power, not to buy expensive office furniture (though perhaps that — we wouldn’t know, would we?), but rather to silence conservative organizations by refusing their tax exemption status; who casually nullified laws to serve his own interests, whether in ACA implementation or immigration enforcement; who promised full disclosure on scandal after scandal, then waited them out as the press looked elsewhere, so that he could eventually retire and claim a “scandal-free” tenure in office.

    Again, this isn’t whataboutism, because I’m not excusing anything President Trump is doing. Rather, I’m saying that I think we have, and Mona has, no sound basis on which to claim that the current situation, vis a vis the Presidency and the executive branch, is actually worse than what it was.

    In fact, I think it’s probably much better. I suspect, if one were to overlook the sheer gaucheness of this administration and focus instead on matters of law and substance, that one would conclude that integrity has been enhanced, rather than diminished — that true corruption has been reduced, when evaluated in terms of significance rather than primarily on how trashy it seems.

    In short, I think the executive branch has improved, not worsened, since President Trump’s election. It is not, however, nearly as pretty nor dignified, and I think those things carry more weight with some people than they do with me.

    • #14
  15. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Okay, I’ll admit it.  I’ve had a crush on Mona since Useful Idiots came out.  Ditto Do-Gooders, and I will buy her latest book, then grovel on my hands and knees for her to sign it (as she did the first two).  Still have the crush, but I’ve grown tired of the Trump bashing.

    I think Mona misses the boat on Trump – why people voted for him, and why they (we) support him in spite of all the manure thrown his way, and in spite of his many flaws as a human being.

    First of all, I probably have just as many flaws as The Donald, maybe more.  I’ve been married three times, and while I’m not a real estate mogul, I’ve managed to build two houses in my life.  I’m also a little overweight, and I smoke cigars and drink – something Trump doesn’t do.

    Neither of us is a regular church goer, but I respect Christianity and Judaism as the founding religions of our country (okay, more C than J) just like The Donald.  I’m also extremely wary of Islam, as is Trump.  We both see what’s happening in Europe – the Islamic invasion that will destroy the Old World if they don’t send them back.

    I resent having to “Press 1 for English”, and seeing dual-language signs in my local Lowes when we’re not in a place Spanish speaking tourists visit.  I hate seeing Mexico laugh as they allow illegals to “pass through” their country to come to the US, knowing if the illegals stop in Mexico, they will be jailed (laws rougher than ours).

    No, Trump is doing what I want.  If it takes a flawed man to get the job, then so be it.

    As for government shutdowns, my Federal coworkers and I were begging for a shutdown during Obama’s second term.  Hey, we could have handled it – we were ready!  The MSM will not report just how much of the Federal government stays in place in case of a shutdown.  It’s a lot more than the average person knows.  But I know, and so does Trump.

    Okay, I wanted to make a point (forgot what it was), and ended up in a rant.  Oh yeah – Mona, you’re wrong about Trump.  Will you not acknowledge the good things he’s done?

    Forget the tweets . . .

    • #15
  16. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Mona Charen: But the Congress, designed by the founders to be the most powerful branch, is willingly surrendering its intended role for the pleasures of a few hits on MSNBC or FoxNews. That is an outcome that the founders didn’t anticipate and will likely outlast our current Tweeter-in-Chief.

    I would expect so. It didn’t start with this President; it’s unlikely to end with him.

    • #16
  17. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

    She used to respond, until bad behavior by members drove her out of the comments on this site. Feel pretty embarrassed about that myself even though it wasn’t me.

    If Mona and Chuck Schumer’s favorite Republican candidate Marco Rubio had somehow have been elected president, I doubt that Mona would have appreciated a lot of conservative echo chambers which would have constantly criticized Rubio’s presidency and his proposed illegal immigration surrender.

    Weird how the world works.

    If a conservative can’t handle Ricochet commenters, then…

    • #17
  18. Theodoric of Freiberg Inactive
    Theodoric of Freiberg
    @TheodoricofFreiberg

    Mona Charen: But the Congress, designed by the founders to be the most powerful branch, is willingly surrendering its intended role for the pleasures of a few hits on MSNBC or FoxNews. That is an outcome that the founders didn’t anticipate and will likely outlast our current Tweeter-in-Chief.

    That’s news? Congress surrendered much of its power to the Executive branch over the past several decades.

    • #18
  19. Richard Fulmer Inactive
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    Mona Charen: Far from drained, the swamp has been stocked by this administration.

    Trump hires only the best.

    • #19
  20. Mikescapes Inactive
    Mikescapes
    @Mikescapes

    Trump didn’t have to research Manafort. He knew him personally. Yet he gives him the highest profile job in the campaign. Brilliant. Sleazers like Manfort and his Mr. Fixit, Cohen were part and parcel of Trump’s world and he kept them on board. Mona listed the offenders who early in the administration lined their pockets with public money. Other qualified individuals refused jobs rather than be associated with Trump. Others quit the administration while they were ahead. Quite a turnover before the halfway mark, wouldn’t you say?

    I don’t see where Mona is so off the mark. She acknowledged the successes of the Administration. She might have missed the removal of regulations strangling business. The Republicans in Congress are divided and haven’t been totally supportive of Trump. Some of this is policy differences (tariffs), and some is a wish not to be too closely associated with his personalty. Some simply find him obnoxious. Imagine that!

    A disfunctional Congress: Yeah, but the division between left and right was never this bad. Reach across the aisle these days and get your fingers chopped off. Tough to do the people’s business. Of course these politicians posture and don’t follow up with legislative accomplishments. Always have, but I think Mona’s point is that it’s worse than in the past. Still, Congress’s weakness hasn’t resulted in an imperial presidency this time around. 

     

     

     

    • #20
  21. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Mikescapes (View Comment):A disfunctional Congress: Yeah, but the division between left and right was never this bad. Reach across the aisle these days and get your fingers chopped off. Tough to do the people’s business. Of course these politicians posture and don’t follow up with legislative accomplishments. Always have, but I think Mona’s point is that it’s worse than in the past. Still, Congress’s weakness hasn’t resulted in an imperial presidency this time around.

    Mona’s “point” is undermined by her unremittent Trump-bashing, illustrated by the sentence (noted above) in the last paragraph that was unnecessary to her column, yet was included to inform us of what is “well known” (presumably in her circles).  When we’re discussing shades of corruption, credibility (in this case Ms. Charen’s) matters in assessing whether it’s truly “worse” than in the past.

    We have the regrettable litany of problems in the present Cabinet, but we should note that they are likely couched in the worst possible light, considering the source.  Mona’s colleagues in the anti-Trump press are highly motivated to ferret out these issues, and report them without concern for whether there is any “other side.”  Had they been so motivated in the previous Administration, one wonders what we’d know.  Still, as it is, we have Lois Lerner, Fast and Furious, politicized law enforcement agencies etc., etc, etc.  But let’s worry about dining room sets as evidence of a swamp, rather than a bureaucracy that considers carbon dioxide a pollutant or rules by Title IX letters.

    • #21
  22. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    Had they been so motivated in the previous Administration, one wonders what we’d know. As it is, we have Lois Lerner, Fast and Furious, politicized law enforcement agencies etc., etc, etc. But let’s worry about dining room sets.

    Hoya,

    Funny thing the Democrats are doing really well with fundraising right now not because the “little people” are making contributions but because the billionaires who want the slave labor of mass migration to continue are pushing the Dems. Of course, this story isn’t of much interest. The size of Trump’s swimming pool at Mar-a-Lago, now that’s an issue.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #22
  23. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    Mikescapes (View Comment):
    Trump didn’t have to research Manafort. He knew him personally.

    Are you sure about that?  I thought Manafort was recommended by Reince Priebus, because Manafort was well connected in the national Republican Party organization.  I’ve not heard that Trump knew Manafort.

    Mikescapes (View Comment):
    I don’t see where Mona is so off the mark. She acknowledged the successes of the Administration.

    Where?  When?  Not in this essay.  Not at Rob Long‘s ConPodCon.  Every time I’ve tred to listen to the Need to Know podcast in the past year, she hasn’t acknowledged the successes of the Trump Administration, preferring instead to snort and sniff at Trump’s boorishness unconnected to his administration’s successes.

    Mikescapes (View Comment):
    I think Mona’s point is that it’s worse than in the past. Still, Congress’s weakness hasn’t resulted in an imperial presidency this time around.

    So in other words, since we have no imperial presidency this time around, things aren’t worse than they were in the recent past.

    I’m not sure I understand your defense of Mona.   On the other hand, I am certain that I don’t understand Mona‘s irrational refusal to consider the fact that Trump has governed as the most effective conservative policy-implementing president since Ronald Reagan, and in many respects Trump’s policies are more conservative and more effective than Reagan’s, e.g., Trump’s aggressive deregulation policies; admonishment of NATO; intolerance of media bias.

    • #23
  24. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    A great Post, including the final paragraph.

    • #24
  25. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    A great Post, including the final paragraph.

    Yes, including the final, completely subjective and gratuitous sentence leading the paragraph.  Seven words do not a defense make.

    • #25
  26. Curt North Inactive
    Curt North
    @CurtNorth

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    Where? When? Not in this essay. Not at Rob Long‘s ConPodCon. Every time I’ve tred to listen to the Need to Know podcast in the past year, she hasn’t acknowledged the successes of the Trump Administration, preferring instead to snort and sniff at Trump’s boorishness unconnected to his administration’s successes.

    Exactly, she has made that podcast into a haven for the GOPe and unbearable to listen to for Trump supporters.  Rob has done the same for the flagship podcast, I check that out these days only when Rob is absent, Trump lives inside Robs head, not good listening.

    • #26
  27. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Curt North (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    Where? When? Not in this essay. Not at Rob Long‘s ConPodCon. Every time I’ve tred to listen to the Need to Know podcast in the past year, she hasn’t acknowledged the successes of the Trump Administration, preferring instead to snort and sniff at Trump’s boorishness unconnected to his administration’s successes.

    Exactly, she has made that podcast into a haven for the GOPe and unbearable to listen to for Trump supporters. Rob has done the same for the flagship podcast, I check that out these days only when Rob is absent, Trump lives inside Robs head, not good listening.

    While I agree that Mona is hard to listen to anymore, I don’t agree about Rob and the Ricochet podcast. Rob gives credit where it’s due, and I think his criticisms make a lot of sense. 

    • #27
  28. Curt North Inactive
    Curt North
    @CurtNorth

    But Henry, seriously listen sometime, if Rob gives Trump credit for anything, it’s either preceded or followed by a dig on Trump, literally 100% of the time.  I heard him on the HLC podcast about a year ago, when he really got rolling on Trump hatred, I thought he was going to burst an artery.  Rob, like so many podcasters, used to be interesting to listen.  IN the age of Trump he is unable to focus on the positive, just my opinion of course.  

    • #28
  29. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Curt North (View Comment):

    But Henry, seriously listen sometime, if Rob gives Trump credit for anything, it’s either preceded or followed by a dig on Trump, literally 100% of the time. I heard him on the HLC podcast about a year ago, when he really got rolling on Trump hatred, I thought he was going to burst an artery. Rob, like so many podcasters, used to be interesting to listen. IN the age of Trump he is unable to focus on the positive, just my opinion of course.

    Curt, if you listen to Rob’s podcasts over the last week or two, I think you’ll find he sounds almost pro-Trump. I mean, for Rob; he still doesn’t like or respect Trump — but then, neither do I.

    I agree that some pundits seem unhinged in their criticism. I put Charon, Kristol, and Nordlinger in that camp: they’re three I just find repetitive, whiny, and tiresome. But I enjoy listening to Rob.

     

    • #29
  30. Curt North Inactive
    Curt North
    @CurtNorth

    Well, I’m going to be careful here not to morph into a long-winded a fruitless debate on Trump.  I like the guy, you don’t.  You don’t hear the bias from Rob when he discusses Trump, I do. 

    I’m not trying to get in the last word so feel free to respond, but I’ll leave it with this – I know James is also not a fan of Trump, to put it mildly, and when pressed he can go full on TDS rant with the best of them, but he is able to keep a lid on it.  Rob isn’t.  And if you have to put qualifiers on it “…he almost sounds pro-Trump.  I mean, for Rob…”  That should be an indicator that he really isn’t as open minded as you might think.  This is subjective, it’s all just my opinion in the end.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.