It’s the morning after the “small hands” debate. Mona is joined by the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Henry Olsen, an expert on elections and politics. They pick over the pieces of what was once a great American political party. Can it be saved? Is it worth saving? What about a contested convention – is that even possible? How in the world did this happen?
Note: We had some technical difficulties with this show and the recording abruptly cuts off at the 32 minute mark. Do not adjust your listening device. We apologize and promise to do better in the future.
Support Our Sponsors!
This podcast is brought to you by Hillsdale College and their Constitution 101 course. You can sign up for FREE today. Once you start the course, you’ll receive a new lecture every week to watch on demand, along with readings, discussion boards, and more. Sign up for Constitution 101 for FREE at Hillsdale.edu/Ricochet
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.
Mona, this interview is solid gold. I hope with all my heart a copy will find its way to Team Rubio as well as Club for Growth.
Jeff Sessions, plus Ingraham, Coulter, Hannity, Kaus, et. al – there is no thought I can express that will not get me bounced. But what you and Henry said was perfect: “The people who are the most desperate to have someone fight for their cause have picked the least likely champion.” NOTE: I’ve voted for Sessions twice in Alabama – in spite of his obsession with the immigration issue. It is to retch.
Found the article Henry mentioned about Joe the Plumber.
Finally: “Proto-fascist.” Yes.
(guy from Alabama paid for this skywriting over the Rose Bowl)
Mona, thank you and Jay for leading the fight against Trump, because he presents an existential threat to our country and to the world. I hope that you, Ben Sasse, and others can help organize a conservative third party to take on Trump if Democrats and Independents who never vote decide to take over the GOP and nominate Donald Trump. I don’t want to vote for Hillary or Bernie, but I will do whatever it takes to stop Trump, as he is a menace appealing to the most banal, visceral, and emotional portions of the American electorate. I know many on Ricochet think that I should not insult, but rather try and persuade, Trump supporters to abandon their support. My view is that if you admit to supporting Trump, you are beyond persuasion, becasue only by suppressing rationality can you come to the conclusion that Trump should be the president.
Mona, I believe you need to add Rush Limbaugh to the list of Trump enablers. He has aided end abetted Trump for months. With Rush’s audience and influence, he could have exposed Trump as a counterfeit conservative and significantly undermined his campaign in the early stages. Rush has a lot to answer for. #NeverTrump. Semper Fi
P.S. Did I hear profanity on you closing song?
Thank you Mona so much for your passion and your assessment of Trump’s character. I share your despair. Please know that there are some out here who appreciate your (and Jay’s) messaging every week about the disintegration of the Republican Party, even though it’s tough to hear.
I am sympathetic to this argument, but Rush is not one to endorse in primaries. Rush has repeatedly expressed his satisfaction with Rubio and has said Cruz is the closest we have to Ronald Reagan. Rush has openly mocked Trump over his retweet of Mussolini. Rush is opposing Trump in a way that fits his program style and in a way that fits what he wants to accomplish. Rush, in my view, is actively presenting the case against Trump by 1) pointing out how conservative Cruz is and how conservative Rubio is with the exception of the gang of 8 and 2) mocking Trump and having callers on his show inquire about how in the world Trump has the support he does.
A telling moment from last week’s program was when he let a caller on the air whose whole point was that those who support Trump are really not very bright. Rush jokingly described these individuals’ understanding of politics as “rudimentary” in an effort to use a word they may not understand. This ties directly into Rush’s themes of Rio Linda and low information voters. This backhanded humor aimed at Trump’s non-conservative support is very effective at undermining any support Trump may have among Rush’s listernship.
When Rush appears to be sympathetic to Trump, in my view, he is more or less sending up a flare to those whose career it is to either run for office or provide consulting services to those who run for office. Rush’s message is – Trump is figuring out how to harness the nascent anger in the electorate. Rush is telling the GOP in office and the consultants they rely on that, in Rush’s opinion, these GOP types need to do the same thing Trump is doing but with an actual conservative. In other words, Rush is saying that Trump’s ability to tap into voters’ emotion is something a conservative candidate needs to figure out how to do, and they need to figure it out fast.
Bucky Boz, You make some excellent points about Rush’s analysis of Trump voters. Why couldn’t Rush have made those points months ago while exposing Trump’s lack of conservative bona fides. I think Rush was having too much fun sticking it to the “Establishment.” Rush is very late to the party.
Rush bought into Cruz’s theory that those voters on the sidelines would be brought in by Trump and then vote for Cruz. Both underestimated just how uninformed and emotional these people actually are.
Rush is dead to me. Jack is 100% correct, and he’s way more generous toward Rush than I am. ‘Nuf said.
Meantime, boys and girls, we need to absorb Henry Olsen’s important advice. If I understand correctly, he is saying in order to peel off 15-20% of Trump’s supporters we need to a) dwell on the fact that Trump is not their friend or their champion, he is taking them for a ride. Then, b) point them to a candidate who genuinely understands their frustrations with economic stagnation, elitism, etc.
To that end, today I’m engaging at a couple places around the net on the topic of Trump University and the bogus counter-claim by Trump and his minions of an alleged fax sent to FoxNews during the debate, purporting to show an “A” rating for Trump U.
It ain’t fun work, but it might help.
I think Reihan Salam has a better explanation of what’s going on here than that Trump voters are simply uninformed and emotional:
As I’ve said before, there’s a deep irony here.
The conventional wisdom at the moment seems to be: to win the nomination, you must defeat Trump. But in order to do that, you must win Trump voters. How are you going to win Trump voters over?
A Republican candidate who emerged championing the kinds of ideas that Reihan talks about in that article would be called a moderate squish and a sellout by these talk radio personalities, the same ones who for months made the gambit that Jack and Bucky describe (i.e. go soft on Trump, figure he’ll fade and Cruz will get his votes). Instead of fading away, though, Trump now appears to have a chance (no one seems to be in a stronger position) to win the nomination.
So, the Reformicons who would have been scolded have an agenda that might actually persuade Trump voters to stay, but it won’t get a hearing from the same talk radio personalities who helped fuel the rise of Trump, a man whose domestic policy positions are significantly to the Left of Reformicons.
Is this what Trump supporters say? The supporters I’ve encountered support Trump based on emotion, on the sense that Trump gets it, whatever it is, and that he’s going to win for them. Maybe they think, like the Chicago-Obama supporter, that Mr. Trump will pay their mortgage. Maybe they think Trump will go kill some terrorists. The point is, Trump is not running on actual issues, he just says he’ll win, even if it’s not an actual fight or contest that is even occurring. People like they way winning feels, so they vote for him.
I am sure some people want to vote for Trump because they think Trump will end free trade so Apple will start making iphones in the US. If this is the case, I expect these people don’t realize that their two year contract will now be a four year contract and that consumer goods’ prices will skyrocket across the board.
The real, deep, problem that I have is that Trump supporters are comfortable with Trump winning against American companies and against American citizens that dare disagree with Trump. This kind of support is truly frightening. It is quasi-fascist in nature because what Trump thinks is good ipso facto becomes what is good for the U.S., i.e., Trump becomes the state. Let me just say this, Trump being the state is very bad. Very bad. America will lose, believe me, America willl lose, and it won’t be tremednous.
We shouldn’t have to fight this fight, but it is worth fighting. I hope Rush changes format to stop Trump as well, but I understand his business and professional reasons for offering softer criticism of Trump. A con-artist or a criminal look poised to become the next president, yay America.
For the record, I read your earlier post (above) on this as well, and, while I get it, I’m going to have to disagree. “Business and professional reasons” have not been a significant concern to Rush in the past where clarity (as opposed to a degree of fence-straddling) is needed. Yes, Trump is labeled as a Republican, but his candidacy is so different from anything we’ve seen before that I don’t think Rush’s rather subtle tone cuts it. Trump is not good for conservatism, not good for ideas long espoused by Rush, and is well on his way to putting HRC in the White House. Rush has not been shy about taking on direct threats to conservatism on the other side of the aisle, and I’d suggest that kind words for Cruz fall well short of what’s needed.
With possibly a few exceptions in talkers that I don’t hear, the talk radio commentariat has largely come up empty on Trump. I regard Laura Ingraham as particularly culpable, but the tendency of others (Levin?) to dance around the edges of Trump is an issue as well. This idea that his perceived “outsider” status gets him a pass because we’ve been ill-served by that “establishment” is really simplistic.
Haven’t Levin and Beck publicly endorsed Ted Cruz? I think regular listeners to all of the programs are not likely to support Trump. I don’t think coddling Trump in his infancy was a very good thing, but, I did not listen to the programs last fall, so I am not sure to what extent talk radio did coddle Trump.
This is very true.
Thank you.
I’m not in a Beck market; he’s kind of sui generis anyway. If Levin did endorse Cruz, I’m not sure he’s actually gone after Trump directly (dancing around the edges?). I didn’t mention Savage, who I gave up on a long time ago, but I’m willing to go out on a limb and speculate where he’s come down on this.
I heard Levin blasting Trump last night on my commute home, but I only listen to a few minutes of his show in any given week.
Levin has daily been blasting Fox and Trump – you can listen to rewind for free to verify.
No need to verify, and I stand corrected. I’ll admit I only listen to him in small doses.
God’s great blessings on the man behind that skywritten message in Alabama. Trump is Mussolini in clown make-up.
Long before Trump, Rush, Levin and many others were setting the table for Trumpism by creating a sort of Parallax View manipulated reality of semi-conspiracies, innuendo, and one-dimensional criticism of everything that wasn’t 100% pure in their minds. There’s a whole industry of mini Trumps who could care less about people, ideas, or virtue. They do nothing but stoke rage, anxiety, and madcap conspiracies, all to raise money and keep the echo chamber alive and bristling with intrigue. It is shameful beyond words, and we are seeing the fruit right now.
For too long, many good people on the Right have willfully ignored the vicious parasites in our midst who manifestly are not Republicans – all they do is vomit on the Republican Party 24/7! They can’t exist without the GOP to beat up and rail against. They really do need their own party – to destroy.
Michael Savage, come on down.
Mona has always been on the front lines of the pragmatists for the battle for the soul of the GOP. Every criticism leveled by the “purists” in the party has been met by Mona with a scolding: “how immature to sit it out if you don’t get everything you want!” she would say.
Now Trump. And Mona decides that she’s going to take her ball and go home. No need to reflect that hey, maybe compromise is actually a two-way street. No thought that superior attitudes like hers may have played a part in alienating some of the electorate.
I notice Mona still can’t stomach the idea of a Cruz nomination, either. No suggestion from her that that might be an option. None. It must be Rubio or the electorate is foolish.
I’m not going to disagree with your overall characterization because of ignorance of what Ms. Charen has and hasn’t said. However, looking for “compromise” on Trump is IMO misguided. Not everyone who fits the “purist” characterization of an “establishment-type” is incapable of compromise. We just wonder why the purists don’t train the same lens on Trump, and why the fact that he isn’t from Washington obscures his less-than-conservative background. If Ms. Charen can’t “stomach” Cruz, I’ll part company on that, but I’m not blaming her if she can’t “stomach” Trump. She’s in good company.
The way to peel away Trump voters is to hammer him on his wobbliness on immigration. His blunt and impolitic talk about immigration was always his biggest selling point. It was an issue whose importance was unrecognized by the “adult” GOP candidates, officials, and commentariate. Condemnation of Trump by the “adults” on this convinced the disaffected voters that Trump was the guy on their side.
If these Trump voters can be shown that Trump might not build the wall, or stop Muslim immigration, or open up H1B, or whatever, they may feel betrayed and either switch their vote or stay home. Cruz might be able to woo them, because he wasn’t one of the folks going apoplectic previously.
Rubio, in my view, is out of luck. I think he’ll lose Florida handily because these voters feel betrayed by him, regardless of what they might think of Trump. We shall see in a few days whether that’s the case.
I never heard Mona say she can’t “stomach” Cruz. When and where was that? He’s not her preferred candidate, but still let us know when she actually said she can’t “stomach” him.
What a great podcast. The analysis was spot on and entertaining as always. “Everyone, I’m on an interview. Please do not interrupt me!” LOL. I love it!
My point about compromise is that Mona expects immigration skeptics to put on their big boy pants and compromise that for the good of the party. She thought the immigration enthusiast portion of the party could ram that down the skeptics’ throats. When it turned out there were more skeptics to whom it was more important than she thought, she (and those like her) either refused to recognize it or simply stubbornly refused to budge.
So it’s not about stomaching Trump. It’s about recognizing that, politically, open borders is not going to fly right now. You’ve got to give it up for the time being. Instead, institute the kinds of policies that will give us a robust economy and immigration reform will be possible.
But Mona et al. have steadfastly refused to budge. They’d rather have Trump or Hillary than admit their tactical error on immigration. In this area, they are the purists who would rather blow the party up.
You will notice on this podcast that in discussing how to stop Trump, the guest/co-host spoke inclusively about all three other candidates. Mona reacted by saying, “but we’re talking about Rubio.”
If you can remember her positing the question of how Cruz might be able to beat Trump to the nomination, it escaped me. I’ve listened to every NTK podcast for the last two years, so I’ve heard every one since the race got going. Her dismissiveness of Cruz has been consistent (despite Jay being a Cruz supporter). She has explicitly blamed Cruz for creating Trump (she appears to think Cruz simultaneously immensely influential and politically impotent.)
Mona thinks Trump will be a disaster, but clings to her resentment toward Cruz. You exclude that option, at this point you hugely raise your chances of getting Trump. Even Lindsey Graham has been able to figure that out.