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!

Ricochet400This 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.

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

There are 38 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    I’ve had to stop listening to NTK. All the anti-Trump all the time got tiring. I’d rather Cruz than Trump but if Donald wins the nomination I’m voting for him. Better him than Hillary – that’s the bottom line.

    • #31
  2. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Ario IronStar:

    Hoyacon:

    Ario IronStar:Now Trump. And Mona decides that she’s going to take her ball and go home.

    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. …I’m not blaming her if she can’t “stomach” Trump.

    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.

    I dunno, maybe I’m missing your point.  If “immigration skeptics” are supportive of Trump, why should we respect their viewpoint given the numerous holes in his position?  I’m not sure that compromise from the apparently uninformed is something to dismiss.  Again, maybe we’re talking at cross purposes, but the idea that many Trump supporters have a very simplistic notion of Trump’s immigration positions is a good reason for skepticism about his candidacy.

    • #32
  3. Ario IronStar Inactive
    Ario IronStar
    @ArioIronStar

    Hoyacon:I dunno, maybe I’m missing your point. If “immigration skeptics” are supportive of Trump, why should we respect their viewpoint given the numerous holes in his position? I’m not sure that compromise from the apparently uninformed is something to dismiss. Again, maybe we’re talking at cross purposes, but the idea that many Trump supporters have a very simplistic notion of Trump’s immigration positions is a good reason for skepticism about his candidacy.

    It’s not about skepticism of Trump’s candidacy.  The whole podcast was about how to keep Trump from getting the nomination, so skepticism of his candidacy is a given.

    If you want to beat Trump, you’re gonna have to peel away his voters.  To do so, you have to understand why some who might otherwise be voting for Rubio/Cruz/Kasich (especially the ones who self-identify as conservatives) are drawn to Trump.  I couldn’t care less whether you respect them.  You want their votes.  Figure out how to get them back.

    I’ve been making the case that it’s largely about immigration, at least for a good chunk of Trump voters who are swayable.  Mona, and now you above, appear to be making the case that they’re all just stupid (or ignorant) and they’ll be voting Trump no matter what.

    Your stance on this appears to me to be neither productive nor a realistic assessment.  People are complex, and some Trump voters are swayable.

    • #33
  4. Ario IronStar Inactive
    Ario IronStar
    @ArioIronStar

    Hoyacon:I dunno, maybe I’m missing your point. If “immigration skeptics” are supportive of Trump, why should we respect their viewpoint given the numerous holes in his position? I’m not sure that compromise from the apparently uninformed is something to dismiss. Again, maybe we’re talking at cross purposes, but the idea that many Trump supporters have a very simplistic notion of Trump’s immigration positions is a good reason for skepticism about his candidacy.

    So then, what’s a possible plan?  Twofold:

    1)  Attack Trump for backsliding on his tough immigration talk.  Point out, not that his plan won’t work, but that he’s planning to import lots of cheap labor for him and his cronies to profit, which tons of his history and some of his recent comments suggest (it doesn’t matter that this is exactly what you may want, you want to stop Trump for myriad other reasons.)  This is the most important tactic because the 2nd prong should have been done long ago and will be less effective now, which is

    2) The other candidates have to talk tough and credibly on immigration.  Completely leave out any talk of love and compassion for immigrants;  you’re (i.e. the candidate) for rule of law and against the corporate interests’ abuse of the immigration system.  Don’t equivocate.  You need to convince that Trump is squishier than you on this.

    To me, this is the lowest hanging fruit.

    • #34
  5. Mona Charen Contributor
    Mona Charen
    @MonaCharen

    Smilin' Jack: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?

    Oops. I didn’t listen all the way through.

    • #35
  6. AUChief Inactive
    AUChief
    @AUChief

    I’ve got a question I hope someone can answer for me. What is the opening music for the NTK podcast? I remember it being mentioned once before where it is from and I think it was something Mona chose. The reason: My son is in a Music Appreciation class in college and each week has to write a short paper on a different composer. I played the opening clip and he was intrigued but I found no answer after a brief internet search. So I turn to the vast Ricocetti. Thanks in advance.

    • #36
  7. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    AUChief:I’ve got a question I hope someone can answer for me. What is the opening music for the NTK podcast? I remember it being mentioned once before where it is from and I think it was something Mona chose. The reason: My son is in a Music Appreciation class in college and each week has to write a short paper on a different composer. I played the opening clip and he was intrigued but I found no answer after a brief internet search. So I turn to the vast Ricocetti. Thanks in advance.

    It’s this version of Sabre Dance:

    • #37
  8. AUChief Inactive
    AUChief
    @AUChief

    The Blue Yeti: Better info and faster than an internet search (at least one of mine). Thanks!

    • #38
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.