Hey, media—what if you threw a Russiagate scandal, and nobody cared?

The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes on current state of the Trump presidency

The Washington Examiner’s Sarah Westwood with an update from the White House press corp

And Donald Trump’s turning… FRENCH? C’est dommage!

Subscribe to Behind the Blue Wall in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Published in: Foreign Policy, Military, Politics
Please Support Our Sponsor!

Dollar Shave Club

There are 18 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    Michael, when you first came to Ricochet I couldn’t listen to you because of the neverism. However, you have moderated on that stuff. I can enjoy your show now. Koodos to you.

    I do take exception to something you said today.

    ” Trumps base cares more about the fight than policy ”

    That’s ridiculous !

     

    • #1
  2. FredGoodhue Coolidge
    FredGoodhue
    @FredGoodhue

    Yes, I think the treason comment was a joke.  But joke or not, it’s another example of President Trump shooting himself in the foot.  He had a “win” with the SotU speech and the Democrats sitting stonefaced when President Trump announced clearly positive economic news.  Now Trump haters are again reminded why they hate him and are again reminded why they want to vote against any Republican candidates.

    Sarah Westwood is another very good guest.  I did not know that CoS Kelly was a hard liner on immigration.

    I don’t understand why the DACA deadline will lead to a lot of deportations.  President Trump said a long time ago that they are not in his priorities for deportation.  Just deport the most unsympathetic DACAs like MS-13 members.

    • #2
  3. FredGoodhue Coolidge
    FredGoodhue
    @FredGoodhue

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Michael, when you first came to Ricochet I couldn’t listen to you because of the neverism. However, you have moderated on that stuff. I can enjoy your show now. Koodos to you.

    I do take exception to something you said today.

    ” Trumps base cares more about the fight than policy ”

    That’s ridiculous !

    From what I’ve observed, Graham is correct about a lot of Trump supporters.  Sticking it to the establishment is what gets them excited, not tax rates or regulatory reform.

    • #3
  4. Michael Graham Contributor
    Michael Graham
    @MichaelGraham

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Michael, when you first came to Ricochet I couldn’t listen to you because of the neverism. However, you have moderated on that stuff. I can enjoy your show now. Koodos to you.

    I do take exception to something you said today.

    ” Trumps base cares more about the fight than policy ”

    That’s ridiculous !

    Not only is it not “ridiculous,” it’s a mild paraphrase of comments by guests on my #MAGA Monday segments. It’s also evident in many of the comments here on Ricochet. And hey–I get it: Bushism and McCainism = “no principle is so important one must raise one’s voice in defense of it.” But it’s undeniable that alleged conservatives are now fighting to defend things they never would have before, simply to wage pro-Trump war.

    • #4
  5. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge
    JuliaBlaschke
    @JuliaBlaschke

    Michael Graham (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Michael, when you first came to Ricochet I couldn’t listen to you because of the neverism. However, you have moderated on that stuff. I can enjoy your show now. Koodos to you.

    I do take exception to something you said today.

    ” Trumps base cares more about the fight than policy ”

    That’s ridiculous !

    Not only is it not “ridiculous,” it’s a mild paraphrase of comments by guests on my #MAGA Monday segments. It’s also evident in many of the comments here on Ricochet. And hey–I get it: Bushism and McCainism = “no principle is so important one must raise one’s voice in defense of it.” But it’s undeniable that alleged conservatives are now fighting to defend things they never would have before, simply to wage pro-Trump war.

    I have no problem with the fight and pray that one day we have a Republican candidate who can fight like a thinking adult and that he/she can be elected.

    • #5
  6. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    Michael Graham (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Michael, when you first came to Ricochet I couldn’t listen to you because of the neverism. However, you have moderated on that stuff. I can enjoy your show now. Koodos to you.

    I do take exception to something you said today.

    ” Trumps base cares more about the fight than policy ”

    That’s ridiculous !

    Not only is it not “ridiculous,” it’s a mild paraphrase of comments by guests on my #MAGA Monday segments. It’s also evident in many of the comments here on Ricochet. And hey–I get it: Bushism and McCainism = “no principle is so important one must raise one’s voice in defense of it.” But it’s undeniable that alleged conservatives are now fighting to defend things they never would have before, simply to wage pro-Trump war.

    Its comformation bias Michael. I have it too. Its when we presume to get in the head of the other that it fails. We hear what we want to.

    So to suggest that Trump supporters are more interested in fight than policy is conformation bias. We want both. We believe that fighting is a means to policy. You hear it is the only thing we want.

    Why on earth would any sane person wish to fight if there is not policy to be gained ?

    The ground for disagreement is in tactics.

    Conservative detractors and conservative Trumpers want policy. Policy is king. Tactics we disagree on.

     

    • #6
  7. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Michael Graham (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Michael, when you first came to Ricochet I couldn’t listen to you because of the neverism. However, you have moderated on that stuff. I can enjoy your show now. Koodos to you.

    I do take exception to something you said today.

    ” Trumps base cares more about the fight than policy ”

    That’s ridiculous !

    Not only is it not “ridiculous,” it’s a mild paraphrase of comments by guests on my #MAGA Monday segments. It’s also evident in many of the comments here on Ricochet. And hey–I get it: Bushism and McCainism = “no principle is so important one must raise one’s voice in defense of it.” But it’s undeniable that alleged conservatives are now fighting to defend things they never would have before, simply to wage pro-Trump war.

    Sure, Michael, they are fighting to defend “things”, but those “things” are largely disagreeable aspects of Trump’s demeanor and personal conduct, not policies.

     

    Michael could you go beyond mild paraphrase and name a guest or two who has claimed that Trump’s pugnacious style is more important than his commitments, however newfound, on a set of issues?

    If Trump started supporting, in his signature pugnacious style, a constitutional amendment to guarantee abortion through the 20th week but no further, a broad amnesty for 12 million including voting rights, a determination of the IRS to revoke tax exemption from any church which doesn’t recognize gay marriage, and a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline to fund infrastructure and carbon offsets, and he did it by doubling down on his fighting style, how much of his base would remain?

    10%?

    • #7
  8. FredGoodhue Coolidge
    FredGoodhue
    @FredGoodhue

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    Michael Graham (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Michael, when you first came to Ricochet I couldn’t listen to you because of the neverism. However, you have moderated on that stuff. I can enjoy your show now. Koodos to you.

    I do take exception to something you said today.

    ” Trumps base cares more about the fight than policy ”

    That’s ridiculous !

    Not only is it not “ridiculous,” it’s a mild paraphrase of comments by guests on my #MAGA Monday segments. It’s also evident in many of the comments here on Ricochet. And hey–I get it: Bushism and McCainism = “no principle is so important one must raise one’s voice in defense of it.” But it’s undeniable that alleged conservatives are now fighting to defend things they never would have before, simply to wage pro-Trump war.

    Sure, Michael, they are fighting to defend “things”, but those “things” are largely disagreeable aspects of Trump’s demeanor and personal conduct, not policies.

    Michael could you go beyond mild paraphrase and name a guest or two who has claimed that Trump’s pugnacious style is more important than his commitments, however newfound, on a set of issues?

    If Trump started supporting, in his signature pugnacious style, a constitutional amendment to guarantee abortion through the 20th week but no further, a broad amnesty for 12 million including voting rights, a determination of the IRS to revoke tax exemption from any church which doesn’t recognize gay marriage, and a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline to fund infrastructure and carbon offsets, and he did it by doubling down on his fighting style, how much of his base would remain?

    10%?

    Trump is talking about caving on immigration.  Has he lost much support from that?

    • #8
  9. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    FredGoodhue (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    Michael Graham (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Michael, when you first came to Ricochet I couldn’t listen to you because of the neverism. However, you have moderated on that stuff. I can enjoy your show now. Koodos to you.

    I do take exception to something you said today.

    ” Trumps base cares more about the fight than policy ”

    That’s ridiculous !

    Not only is it not “ridiculous,” it’s a mild paraphrase of comments by guests on my #MAGA Monday segments. It’s also evident in many of the comments here on Ricochet. And hey–I get it: Bushism and McCainism = “no principle is so important one must raise one’s voice in defense of it.” But it’s undeniable that alleged conservatives are now fighting to defend things they never would have before, simply to wage pro-Trump war.

    Sure, Michael, they are fighting to defend “things”, but those “things” are largely disagreeable aspects of Trump’s demeanor and personal conduct, not policies.

    Michael could you go beyond mild paraphrase and name a guest or two who has claimed that Trump’s pugnacious style is more important than his commitments, however newfound, on a set of issues?

    If Trump started supporting, in his signature pugnacious style, a constitutional amendment to guarantee abortion through the 20th week but no further, a broad amnesty for 12 million including voting rights, a determination of the IRS to revoke tax exemption from any church which doesn’t recognize gay marriage, and a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline to fund infrastructure and carbon offsets, and he did it by doubling down on his fighting style, how much of his base would remain?

    10%?

    Trump is talking about caving on immigration. Has he lost much support from that?

    Lets wait for that to pan out.

    On that note. As a hard line oponent on iligals.  I knew the Daca’s were going to stay to make any kind of deal.  Americans support that even though I don’t. Establishment republicans practically want open boarders. Compromise will have to be made for any hope of a deal.

     

    • #9
  10. DouglasC Inactive
    DouglasC
    @DouglasC

    great morning show Michael – keep it up.  And no, I’m not buying dollar shave club stuff – bought the Harry’s stuff from the other Ricochet podcast guys.  Maga Mondays are lots of fun.

    • #10
  11. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    FredGoodhue (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    Michael Graham (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Michael, when you first came to Ricochet I couldn’t listen to you because of the neverism. However, you have moderated on that stuff. I can enjoy your show now. Koodos to you.

    I do take exception to something you said today.

    ” Trumps base cares more about the fight than policy ”

    That’s ridiculous !

    Not only is it not “ridiculous,” it’s a mild paraphrase of comments by guests on my #MAGA Monday segments. It’s also evident in many of the comments here on Ricochet. And hey–I get it: Bushism and McCainism = “no principle is so important one must raise one’s voice in defense of it.” But it’s undeniable that alleged conservatives are now fighting to defend things they never would have before, simply to wage pro-Trump war.

    Sure, Michael, they are fighting to defend “things”, but those “things” are largely disagreeable aspects of Trump’s demeanor and personal conduct, not policies.

    Michael could you go beyond mild paraphrase and name a guest or two who has claimed that Trump’s pugnacious style is more important than his commitments, however newfound, on a set of issues?

    If Trump started supporting, in his signature pugnacious style, a constitutional amendment to guarantee abortion through the 20th week but no further, a broad amnesty for 12 million including voting rights, a determination of the IRS to revoke tax exemption from any church which doesn’t recognize gay marriage, and a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline to fund infrastructure and carbon offsets, and he did it by doubling down on his fighting style, how much of his base would remain?

    10%?

    Trump is talking about caving on immigration. Has he lost much support from that?

    Trump is talking about a DACA deal in exchange for a border wall and an end to chain migration and the diversity lottery.  Would he prefer to move further towards the soft center-left with Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio and the Chamber of Commerce/Koch contingent.  Maybe.  I don’t know.  But his base won’t let him.

    Fred, the question is:  could he adopt those positions (not negotiate a deal on immigration) with his Trumpian bluster and aggressiveness and keep his base.

    Answer:  No.

    • #11
  12. FredGoodhue Coolidge
    FredGoodhue
    @FredGoodhue

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    FredGoodhue (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    Michael Graham (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Michael, when you first came to Ricochet I couldn’t listen to you because of the neverism. However, you have moderated on that stuff. I can enjoy your show now. Koodos to you.

    I do take exception to something you said today.

    ” Trumps base cares more about the fight than policy ”

    That’s ridiculous !

    Not only is it not “ridiculous,” it’s a mild paraphrase of comments by guests on my #MAGA Monday segments. It’s also evident in many of the comments here on Ricochet. And hey–I get it: Bushism and McCainism = “no principle is so important one must raise one’s voice in defense of it.” But it’s undeniable that alleged conservatives are now fighting to defend things they never would have before, simply to wage pro-Trump war.

    Sure, Michael, they are fighting to defend “things”, but those “things” are largely disagreeable aspects of Trump’s demeanor and personal conduct, not policies.

    Michael could you go beyond mild paraphrase and name a guest or two who has claimed that Trump’s pugnacious style is more important than his commitments, however newfound, on a set of issues?

    If Trump started supporting, in his signature pugnacious style, a constitutional amendment to guarantee abortion through the 20th week but no further, a broad amnesty for 12 million including voting rights, a determination of the IRS to revoke tax exemption from any church which doesn’t recognize gay marriage, and a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline to fund infrastructure and carbon offsets, and he did it by doubling down on his fighting style, how much of his base would remain?

    10%?

    Trump is talking about caving on immigration. Has he lost much support from that?

    Trump is talking about a DACA deal in exchange for a border wall and an end to chain migration and the diversity lottery. Would he prefer to move further towards the soft center-left with Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio and the Chamber of Commerce/Koch contingent. Maybe. I don’t know. But his base won’t let him.

    Fred, the question is: could he adopt those positions (not negotiate a deal on immigration) with his Trumpian bluster and aggressiveness and keep his base.

    Answer: No.

    It’s an amnesty with promises of future changes in immigration law.  Changes that will likely be undone when Democrats get back in power.  It’s a cave with a figleaf.

    • #12
  13. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    FredGoodhue (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    FredGoodhue (View Comment):

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    Michael Graham (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    Michael, when you first came to Ricochet I couldn’t listen to you because of the neverism. However, you have moderated on that stuff. I can enjoy your show now. Koodos to you.

    I do take exception to something you said today.

    ” Trumps base cares more about the fight than policy ”

    That’s ridiculous !

    Not only is it not “ridiculous,” it’s a mild paraphrase of comments by guests on my #MAGA Monday segments. It’s also evident in many of the comments here on Ricochet. And hey–I get it: Bushism and McCainism = “no principle is so important one must raise one’s voice in defense of it.” But it’s undeniable that alleged conservatives are now fighting to defend things they never would have before, simply to wage pro-Trump war.

    Sure, Michael, they are fighting to defend “things”, but those “things” are largely disagreeable aspects of Trump’s demeanor and personal conduct, not policies.

    Michael could you go beyond mild paraphrase and name a guest or two who has claimed that Trump’s pugnacious style is more important than his commitments, however newfound, on a set of issues?

    If Trump started supporting, in his signature pugnacious style, a constitutional amendment to guarantee abortion through the 20th week but no further, a broad amnesty for 12 million including voting rights, a determination of the IRS to revoke tax exemption from any church which doesn’t recognize gay marriage, and a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline to fund infrastructure and carbon offsets, and he did it by doubling down on his fighting style, how much of his base would remain?

    10%?

    Trump is talking about caving on immigration. Has he lost much support from that?

    Trump is talking about a DACA deal in exchange for a border wall and an end to chain migration and the diversity lottery. Would he prefer to move further towards the soft center-left with Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio and the Chamber of Commerce/Koch contingent. Maybe. I don’t know. But his base won’t let him.

    Fred, the question is: could he adopt those positions (not negotiate a deal on immigration) with his Trumpian bluster and aggressiveness and keep his base.

    Answer: No.

    It’s an amnesty with promises of future changes in immigration law. Changes that will likely be undone when Democrats get back in power. It’s a cave with a figleaf.

    Whether that’s true or not, the question is:  Why does he need the figleaf if whatever policy he adopts with a fighting style is acceptable to his issue-ignorant groundling base?

    Keep sidling from the central question Fred.

    • #13
  14. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    Quake Voter (View Comment):

    If Trump started supporting, in his signature pugnacious style, a constitutional amendment to guarantee abortion through the 20th week but no further, a broad amnesty for 12 million including voting rights, a determination of the IRS to revoke tax exemption from any church which doesn’t recognize gay marriage, and a $1 per gallon tax on gasoline to fund infrastructure and carbon offsets, and he did it by doubling down on his fighting style, how much of his base would remain?

    10%?

    I would say more than half.  His base has a way of convincing themselves that anything Trump supports must be awesome because if it wasn’t awesome, Trump wouldn’t be supporting it.

     

    • #14
  15. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge
    JuliaBlaschke
    @JuliaBlaschke

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    I would say more than half. His base has a way convincing themselves that anything Trump supports must be awesome because if it wasn’t awesome, Trump wouldn’t be supporting it.

    Yep we’d hear more about 3D chess and rope a dope.

    • #15
  16. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    I was going to make this comment on another thread this morning.

    It seems that there are three kinds of people in every Trump thread.  1) People that are for whatever Trump said because Trump said it; 2) People that are against whatever Trump said, and 3) People whose views are unchanged by Trump’s support of the idea (i.e., if they supported it before, they still support it even if Trump supports it and if they opposed it before, they still oppose it even if Trump supports it.)

    Ricochet seems to have a lot of vocal people in category 1, and a smaller but very vocal group of people in category 2 and not very many vocal people in category 3.

    I’ve been told that category 3 is actually a majority of Ricochet but these people simply choose to not participate; that could be.  Certainly the behavior of people in both category 1 and 2 inhibits any actual conversation.

    • #16
  17. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    If Trump only tweeted “sensible” things, as his critics urge, then (aside from political junkies) how many people would read his tweets?  There has to be a balance between information and sensationalism.

    Similarly, the vast majority of Americans did not watch the State of the Union.  They don’t know what the Democrats did.  Many will learn about it only when the liberal nets, attacking Trump, have to explain what he was talking about when he provocatively referred to the Democrats as traitors.

    In any case, as long as Democrats continue to refer to Republicans as racists, Republicans should call Democrats traitors.

    Sometimes, it’s barely an exaggeration. For example, when Diane Feinstein released her torture report in 2014, it was impossible to deny that this gave aid and comfort to our enemies.

    • #17
  18. contrarian Inactive
    contrarian
    @Contrarian

    Wow. I just had a quick note about the show, but sheesh – these comments are something else.

    First the note: @michaelgraham please try not to assume that your listeners know something because it’s ‘commn knowledge’ on the right. You don’t know how old someone is and you should also remember that we’re in the midst of a political realignment. I know guys who never voted Republican before 2016.

    The big reveal from Gowdy was: Blumenthal

    Not the CT Senator?

    No, someone from the 90’s whom I ought not to trust… which describes the Smoking Man from the X-Files.

    • #18
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.