Mona and Jay welcome a guest, Fred Barnes, the veteran political journalist. Jay remarks that, year after year, Barnes is a source of good sense. Indeed, a model. So it proves on this podcast. He discusses the presidential campaign, especially Hillary Clinton.

UnknownThen Mona and Jay discuss the campaign, especially the agonizing GOP primaries. Bob Novak wrote a book, after 1964: “The Agony of the G.O.P.” Mona and Jay concert on Trump, basically. They differ sharply on Cruz. They both like Marco (though Jay’s for his friend Ted). Other candidates get honorable mentions.

Iran comes up, and, finally, some music: the Mahler Second, “You Light Up My Life,” and other immortal works.

By the way, Barnes and Novak were very good friends. They attended basketball games together. After this podcast, Barnes hurried off to attend a basketball game.

Help Ricochet by Supporting Our Sponsors

Screen Shot 2015-02-20 at 8.56.20 AMThis podcast is brought to you by Harry’s Shave. For the finest shave at the best price, got Harrys.com and use the coupon code NTK at checkout.

 

 

 

mzl.zlixsgsvFor a limited time The Great Courses has a Special offer for Ricochet listeners. Order any of these 4 Business & Presentation courses – for just $9.95. Go to thegreatcoursesplus.com/NTK

 

Subscribe to Need to Know 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.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 8 comments.

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

    …..though Jay’s for his friend Ted

    This cannot be true.  I was told by Trump that no one liked Ted.

    • #1
  2. Eugene Kriegsmann Member
    Eugene Kriegsmann
    @EugeneKriegsmann

    I am totally in agreement with both Mona and Jay on the issue of Trump. However, I am split between the two of you in terms of Cruz vs Rubio. My preference is definitely Cruz, but I agree with Mona that Rubio is the most likely electable. Cruz does have a certain amount of abrasiveness which may not work in the general election. I am totally with Fred Barnes in that the only real goal at this point should be the selection of a Republican candidate who can win the general election. If we do not win this election we will watch this country get flushed down the toilet of history.

    • #2
  3. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    One minor quibble, Mona. Despite his windmilling on just about every other issue, trade is one issue where Trump has been consistent for decades. He has, rightly in my opinion, been vociferous in opposing our supine, lobbyist dominated capitulation on “free and fair” trade deals and enforcement of such deals. It would not cause a trade war to start enforcing the deals as written rather than how they are currently “interpreted” i.e., unenforced, for our side’s benefit.

    • #3
  4. Mona Charen Contributor
    Mona Charen
    @MonaCharen

    I did not know, when we recorded this podcast, that Rubio actually opposes the Renewable Fuel Standard and is for a phase out over 7 years. Cruz favors a phase out over 5 years. That is the difference. I’m sorry that I didn’t clarify that during the ‘cast, letting the impression stand that he favored something Cruz was taking a risky stand against.

    • #4
  5. Ario IronStar Inactive
    Ario IronStar
    @ArioIronStar

    Mona Charen:I did not know, when we recorded this podcast, that Rubio actually opposes the Renewable Fuel Standard and is for a phase out over 7 years. Cruz favors a phase out over 5 years. That is the difference. I’m sorry that I didn’t clarify that during the ‘cast, letting the impression stand that he favored something Cruz was taking a risky stand against.

    This too gives a false impression.  Cruz’s position is that the law should be changed now to effect a 5 year phase-out, decreasing the mandate by 20% each year until gone.  Rubio’s position is that he wouldn’t have supported the mandate, but now that it’s in place, he’d leave it alone until the law expires 7 years from now.  Rubio’s position is the same as a subsidy supporter’s for what is the better part of any two terms he might serve.  And then, who knows?

    By the way, Mona, I tried to be as specific as possible wrt the last NTK podcast and the question you asked about when you called immigration restrictionists racist.  I also noted, quite sincerely, that I look forward to each NTK, and not simply to complain.

    Let me note now that I’m beginning to enjoy and admire it less.  Each episode is sure to feature you and Jay whining about Trump supporters, and each episode the same.  You evidently make no attempt to understand “establishment” critics’ perspective.  Try.

    • #5
  6. mildlyo Member
    mildlyo
    @mildlyo

    The reason there is anger now that was not there in the 70’s is that we are now in the information age. Some of the consequences are good, some are bad.
    Politicians will succeed now, as always, if they fit their message to the current situation.
    Or they could emigrate and pursue their trade elsewhere. Trump, for instance, may better suit modern Scotland.

    • #6
  7. steven Iverson Member
    steven Iverson
    @stevenIverson

    Mona and Jay doubt the existence of an “establishment.” From The American Thinker’s Steve McCann, it is defined as follows:

    1. A preponderance of current and retired national office holders whose livelihoods (re-election for current office holders and lobbying or consulting for retired politicians) requires fealty to the Party in order to maintain financial backing as well as access to government largess;
    2. The majority of the media elite, including pundits, editors, writers and television news personalities based in Washington and New York, whose proximity to power and access is vital in order to gratify their self-esteem and to sustain their standard of living;
    3. Academia, numerous think-tanks, so called non-government organizations, and lobbyists who fasten onto those in any administration and Congress for employment, grants, favorable legislation and ego-gratification;
    4. The reliable deep pocket political contributors and political consultants whose future is irrevocably tied to the political machinery of the Party; and
    5. The crony capitalists, i.e. leaders of the corporate and financial community as well as unions, whose entities are dependent on or subject to government oversight and/or benevolence and whose political contributions assure political cooperation.

    I agree with McCann that only three candidates are not part of the establishment or are one who has confronted it head on,

    Cruz, Fiorina, and Carson. One of these three should be nominated, my 1st choice being Fiorina.

    • #7
  8. Ario IronStar Inactive
    Ario IronStar
    @ArioIronStar

    steven Iverson:Mona and Jay doubt the existence of an “establishment.” From The American Thinker’s Steve McCann, it is defined as follows:

    Steve McCann, via Mr. Iverson, provides a reasonable and useful explanation of the “establishment” in terms of its composition and motivation to pursue policies and to employ political strategies and tactics at odds with a large portion of its constituency; and further to belittle and alienate that constituency because of its righteous conviction of the wisdom of those strategies and tactics.

    I would further add that not all those who fit into a category of position and self-interest in the “establishment” act as such.  One may act on principle rather than self-interest and in so doing separate oneself from the “establishment.”  This happens case-by-case and event-by-event.  Moreover, just because one perceives oneself to be relatively without influence, as Mona and Jay protest they are, if one works in the interest of the establishment, one can reasonably be characterized as part of it on that issue.

    Thus when Jay supports Ted Cruz, he is not acting in the interest of the establishment.  When he supports the Republicans’ strategy of refusing to confront President Obama for fear of committing a political blunder like triggering a government shutdown, he is.  Just because many individuals cannot be neatly categorized does not mean that the “establishment” as a practical force does not exist.

    • #8