Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week on the Ricochet Podcast, we’re joined by political consultant Mike Murphy for a look at the GOP’s future. Are demographics destiny? Is gay marriage a bellwether issue. We tackle those issues ourselves, with Mike, and later with The Transom’s (required reading around these parts) Ben Domenech, who takes the opposing view from Mike. It’s a passionate and spirited conversation about right-to-work, the future of the party, young versus old, left versus right, changing demographics, whether Steven Crowder matters, and what exactly constitutes a RINO. A great piece of audio to go over the cliff with.
Music from this week’s episode:
- The Boxer by Simon and Garfunkle
The Ricochet Podcast opening theme was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Another classic from EJHill.
Get a free audio book on us. Go to AudiblePodcast.com/Ricochet
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast 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.
The problem is that we don’t know the quality of a connection until we actually get the guest on the line. Most of the time, Skype works very well and the audio quality is much better than the phone. When it doesn’t, it’s often too late to do anything about it. But rest assured, it’s not a metaphor.
I’m sorry, Rob Long is completely off his rocker on the Crowder issue. As for Mike Murphy, who cares? He’s like the Charlie Crist of Ricochet.
Would it have been OK for one of the Tea Party crowd to have punched one of the Democrats who were pimp-walking their way over to the vote on Obamacare with sheet-eating grins on their faces? They were doing everything they could to provoke a violent reaction from the crowd, going so far as to make up a story about being called a bad name when nothing of the kind happened.
Would the media Leftists have said Nancy Pelosi was “asking for it?”
Can anyone remember the last election Mike Murphy (aka Bob Shrum) actually won?
James makes an interesting reference to the Victor Hugo Green publications that were published from the mid-1930’s through 1964. It made me wonder if there are publications (more likely apps for smartphones) that are the equivalent… but in reverse. Probably not.
First things first: as chastened politicians say, “I misspoke.” It’s not okay to punch people — even liberals — and I shouldn’t have said it was. Crowder didn’t “deserve” it anymore than I would if I got punched out at a Writers Guild meeting. Should I ever make the mistake of attending one.
As far as the “whining” goes, I still think our side — okay, I’ll keep it specific: I still think I do it too much. I think it’s a trap our side falls into, too often. We forget that it’s possible to win elections despite the left wing media. And as irritating and unjust as they are, as monolithically liberal and (especially with this president) as lickspittling little toadies as they are, Reagan won, Bush won (whatever you think of his conservative bonafides) and our next conservative candidate can win, too.
It’s harder for us. We have to be more cheerful, more tough, more together, and more appealing. That’s just the way it is.
I jumped down James’ throat and I shouldn’t have — though I do like to do that sometimes, because I love James and love arguing with him. (MORE)
But as these things wind on, we’d probably end up agreeing, in a roundabout way. My fears about our side is that we sometimes engage in these media skirmishes and even when we’ve got a point, we end up losing. We end up arguing about what makes it onto the front page, when I’m not sure that’s a verbal duel worth winning.
I’d rather focus on the fact that Michigan is a right to work state.
On the other hand, within the family — which is what this is, and what the podcast is — it’s fun and therapeutic to vent some spleen every now and then. I’ve certainly done my fair share. And maybe we need to do more of that.
I’ll still argue with James. As much as I can. As often as I can. One day, I hope to win one of them.
I agree: Federalism is the answer.
But we have won before. With an even more monolithic media than we have now. My point — which was maybe inartfully made — was that we spend too much time on complaining about the media, and not enough on pushing our ideas. Does anyone remember Reagan complaining about the media?
I’m torn whether to join in the complaining about not being able to understand Mike Murphy, or the complaining about being able to understand Mike Murphy.
Eh, I suppose it’s usually a good idea to make time to listen to people with whom one disagrees. But I felt like I’d heard so much of this before, so many times…and I’ve yet to see it vindicated in practice. (Perhaps I’m missing some obvious recent examples of not only Republicans, but also Democrats, successfully following the give-up-your-marginally-unpopular-principles advice?) And does Murphy really mean to suggest that Republicans should jettison any and every plank in the party platform as soon as polls start showing a majority of Americans opposing it? Boy is that the opposite of leadership.
(Gee, if only Barack Obama had been willing to adjust his extreme pro-abortion views–which over three quarters of Americans stoutly reject–he could have gotten elected President in 2008!)
On the subject of what makes a RINO, I’ve boiled it down to just one consideration:
Do you show more gusto, more enthusiasm, more aggression, more ruthlessness–and do you feel better about yourself–when fighting against Democrats…or fighting against fellow Republicans?
Our nominee’s obvious answer to this question was, in retrospect, the defining characteristic of the Romney campaign, and the biggest reason he was unable to turn his massive victory in the first debate into a win in November.
(This was also one of the larger anchors dragging down the McCain campaign four years ago.)
Though I like and admire Mitt Romney in many ways, and believe he could have made an excellent President, it is because of this that I will forever consider him a party-damaging RINO.
Maybe I’m too nice. Does anyone besides Rob call him a RINO squish? I mean, socially liberal fiscally conservative has historically been called the jackalope so far as I knew (because most of them were actually fiscally liberal too). Quite a few claimed to be libertarians, but maybe they were just marxists for lower tax rates.
But I’m not even sure socially liberal/fiscally conservative means what it used to mean because the GOP has been shaped so heavily by the war on terror. We’ll accept social liberals like Giuliani as part of the War Hawk leg, and not require them to sign on with the MoHawks and Fiscal Hawks (we’re working on spreading the new terminology). They don’t get to be president, but neither does the pure Moral Hawk of Budget Hawk -so don’t complain.
I guess what I’m saying is, to truly rate “RINO” you have to be more than merely heterodox. Rob is merely heterodox -therefore, Rob is no RINO.
Do you show more gusto, more enthusiasm, more aggression, more ruthlessness–and do you feel better about yourself–when fighting against Democrats…or fighting against fellow Republicans?
Our nominee’s obvious answer to this question was, in retrospect, the defining characteristic of the Romney campaign, and the biggest reason he was unable to turn his massive victory in the first debate into a win in November.
(This was also one of the larger anchors dragging down the McCain campaign four years ago.)
Though I like and admire Mitt Romney in many ways, and believe he could have made an excellent President, it is because of this that I will forever consider him a party-damaging RINO. ·23 minutes ago
Uh oh. This means I am definitely not a RINO.
But I’m not even sure socially liberal/fiscally conservative means what it used to mean because the GOP has been shaped so heavily by the war on terror. We’ll accept social liberals like Giuliani as part of the War Hawk leg, and not require them to sign on with the MoHawks and Fiscal Hawks (we’re working on spreading the new terminology). They don’t get to be president, but neither does the pure Moral Hawk of Budget Hawk -so don’t complain.
I guess what I’m saying is, to truly rate “RINO” you have to be more than merely heterodox. Rob is merely heterodox -therefore, Rob is no RINO. ·16 minutes ago
QED, sir. I accept your categories.
Uh oh. This means I am definitely not a RINO. ·4 minutes ago
QED, sir. I accept your categories. ·3 minutes ago
We members are glad to see you sensibly agreeing with us, Rob…or is it just that, even if you’re forced to abandon the “RINO” label, you’re still going to try to salvage the “squish” part?
There is a big difference between whining about media bias and pointing out obvious examples of it. A lot of the discussion and effort is focused on winning over younger voters, many of them will not realize just how biased the MSM is (if at all) until examples like these are brought to their attention.
When I was younger, media bias was the last thing on my mind. Nor was I looking for it, I had to be persuaded it existed by examples and facts. Isn’t the ultimate goal to persuading the mushy middle and younger voters that conservative policies are the right ones? Doesn’t persuading them that bias exists, help to achieve that end?
I was struck listening to the podcast this week that Rob Long’s continual long retreat and eventual surrender to every egregious position of the Left continued.
I listen to the podcast for inspiration, not surrender to the thuggish violence. The tacit endorsement of the violence is striking as it seems Long not longer has the ticker to lead this movement.
But Crowder is part of a cottage industry of provocateurs not trying to really report on anything but attempting to insert themselves into the action to make a point. The incident was effectively staged and Crowder made his point. But it was an obvious and self-indulgent one.
It is rare that conservatives have the high moral ground, you don’t throw away the opportunity.
Zero tolerance to political violence is the gold standard. Stop making excuses when a thug acts like a thug.
If you want to break negative power of unions have, totally remove their ability to use political violence. Bullies have more implied power than actual power. Unions are bullies and the general public know that labour unions believe they are above the law.
Acts like those in Michigan give you the power to change that dynamic and appeal to the believe people have in justice being applied equally in a peaceful, law-based way.
Did the Democrats stop being Democrats when they jettisoned gun control as part of their platform? Or did they realize that they had lost the issue and that it was costing them elections and reducing their ability to get anything done at all?
The answer is the latter. You know they’d love to bring gun control back, and they’ve moved even farther to the left on almost everything else. But gun control was a drag on the party, so they abandoned it and went on to win a majority in the Senate and House, and then the Presidency.
Sometimes you have to know when to cut your losses so you don’t lose everything. Murphy is right about that.
Just listened to the podcast and Rob’s comments made this the most irritating podcast in a while…and that was before Murphy came on.
Hooray for Lileks (who needs to speak up more). Rob’s position came across to me like someone who didn’t want to seem uncool by standing up for the nerds being picked on in the lunch room. It made me wonder if the Hollywood milieu has permeated his otherwise recalcitrant conservative instincts.
His characterization of “whining” about union violence is a call for a preemptive surrender to lefty spin. I can’t believe he thinks we should drop it and only focus on writing op-eds about right-to-work. That incident was an iconic lesson for the country about the Left’s seething intolerance. We must sieze upon such things for their powerful symbolic emotional impact. Fight fire with fire. Make them own that image. Label them as the thugs that they are. I loved Lileks’ wording about donut-eating something or other. (Anyone recall how he put it? It bears repeating.)
Speaking of whining and complaining . . . Geez, Rob. I’m only 16:45 into this podcast and I’m ready to bail. Whining and complaining about whining and complaining has become Rob’s “thing.”
James is all over the party direction, and rightly so.
We’re bombarded by the cool rich at all times. They must be pretty popular, or we wouldn’t be an E channel or the Star or red carpet interviews.
The message from the campaign should have been “we can do better.” You can never advance in life, own a Benz, buy a place by a lake or take great vacations if your sole source of income is government handouts. Ask where the voters individually see themselves in five years.
If the answer is that you want a home paid off or the sweet smell of a new car or a boat, you can get there. If you think there cashing government checks that increase slightly because you voted for President Robin Hood, you’re wrong.
Everyone’s mom was exactly right about applying yourself (is this the resonant message to win women over?) You can scrape by or you can thrive. Choose your path. We’ve already got divisiveness, lets direct it between those who aspire toanything better and those who don’t.
About right, James?
Would Rob’s response have been the same if the union thug had been slugging our beloved Andrew Breitbart? Maybe so….he was definitely as much or more confrontational as Crowder. Whatever the apparent problem Rob has with Crowder (referring to him as a comic), he is very popular among the college age politically active that I thought we are also supposed to be trying to win over. If Steven Crowder can penetrate the noise of the youtube generation and demonstrate some of the contradictions and irony of the left to them then who care’s if his methods are appealing to 40-50 yr olds??
I think Rob’s point is macro, in that our voice is limited to our own outlets. We shouldn’t waste that precious coverage on a dog bites man story.
The frustration we all feel is that, given sufficient access to President Bad Idea, we’d eventually get around to asking him why he doesn’t posess the courage to denounce his team when the occasion screams for it.
Sadly, when the rare opportunities present themselves we have to keep on the cliff, Bengazi, fast and furious and so on.
So the solution is to beat the drum for access. Pimp with a Limp won’t ask. Whoopi Goldberg won’t ask. How about a little courage to answer some questions outside your cocoon? Bush made the entire liberal circuit outside of Huffington Post. Without the proper tools of manhood and no clamor, his reputation with those outside the vital elements of his constituancy will never see the warts.
Yup..and providing the sound bites that will close the debate on the union violence whenever some on the Right brings it up to someone on the Left: “He was asking for it”, “He went there to get punched”…i don’t think Andrew B. would have been thrown under the bus so cavalierly. SO WHAT, THAT HE ISN’T DOING THE JOB OF BEING ANDREW AS WELL AS ANDREW? IT AIN’T NO PERFECT WORLD.
So, we go to protest with the protesters we’ve got. It might help if Rob didn’t cut them off at the knees for not doing things just like he’d like. These struggles are in the trying, learning, adapting, trying again…not in some perfect response..some perfect plan. Was Cindy Sheehan not a complete mess??? but, the “symbolic she” was one part of myriad attacks on Bush that led to 2006.
And NO, i do not watch FoxNews since it went to crap in ~2005-06. so sick of tabloid baloney and the word “shocking.” now, that is something to freak out over: “shocking”
Reagan conceded (implicitly and through his actions) that he wasn’t going to dismantle Medicare nor was he going to return us to a pre-Griswald v. Connecticut world. Tough for conservatives, particularly those of the time, but it payed off.
And here we are in 2012, with Medicare sure to destroy the public finances as Boomers retire; and as to the post-Griswold world, it’s given us ever-increasing suffering from sexual and family chaos, as Griswold-esque judicial tyranny continues to enable Federal tyranny more broadly…oh, and now religious liberty is under assault on account of that contraception thing.
(A combined religious-and-secular version of Neuhaus’ Law–“where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed”–is in effect here. There will be a push to compel churches to recognize and perform same-sex marriages…and it won’t take nearly as long as the push to compel them to pay for contraception.)
Even if the domestic-policy victories of the ’80s seem worth it to you now, I honestly don’t think they will in another 20 years’ time.
Content of the podcast aside, I found the Murphy interview frustrating because of all the dropouts when he spoke, and the clear indication that the hosts couldn’t hear/understand him well either (or at least Lileks.) Also, in the version I listened to via Stitcher, there appeared to be an edit chopping out some portion of the interview (around 35:20), since Murphy had just begun to answer one of Robinson’s questions, which was then immediately chopped off by a question from Lileks.
I understand that everyone’s time is valuable, and that you don’t have a lot of time to record these, but I’d rather you bail on an interview and not include it in the podcast if it is as difficult to hear and follow as was this one. Editing and rescheduling is OK by me (though I understand it may make your jobs more difficult.)
Stop humblebragging, Lileks. You know you do.
Sometimes you have to know when to cut your losses so you don’t lose everything. Murphy is right about that. ·5 hours ago
QFT
I worry about all the Murphy criticism. Many of the people criticizing him here seem intent on taking the side of unobtainable perfection over the very achievable good. The history of conservative success (and liberal success, believe it or not) involves making concessions on some issues where the broad middle of the country disagrees with them. Reagan conceded (implicitly and through his actions) that he wasn’t going to dismantle Medicare nor was he going to return us to a pre-Griswald v. Connecticut world. Tough for conservatives, particularly those of the time, but it payed off. The Reagan revolution ushered in much needed deregulation, tax reform, and at least partially led to a revolution in law enforcement in 90’s and the end of “welfare as we know it”.
Similarly, I could imagine a Republican today conceding on SSM and immigration, as Murphy advocates, in order to win over the broad middle on deficit reduction and government reform and reduction.
Greetings, Ricochaps and Ricochettes… long time listener, first time blogger.
For a consultant as astute and politically informed as Mike Murphy, it was remarkable to hear him suggest that the GOP candidates were “weak and pathetic” and that Rick Santorum was the “most capable of them”.
Really?
I have nothing against Rick, but a senator from Pennsylvania who has never led a national campaign in his life and who routinely feeds the media with poorly phrased comments and who is somewhat of a caricature of social conservatism oddness…
… was somehow, according to Mike, the “most capable”…
… compared to the conservative movement warrior who Mike Murphy knows helped Reagan get elected twice, who founded the Project for a Republican Majority in the early 80’s, developing strategies for over a decade, then designed and led the national movement against the Washington establishment that resulted in the largest landslide sweep of congress in history in the ’94 Republican revolution, which ended the Democrat’s 40 year stranglehold on congress…. and then he led the first reelected GOP majority since 1928.
“weak” and “pathetic” are not words I would use to describe the winningest and most accomplished reformer in this country’s history.