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.
With the election just about upon us, (hooray!) we strive to bring both points of view to the candidate. Representing the #NeverTrump position we’ve got Wisconsin talk radio show host Charlie Sykes, who takes us through his reasons for opposing Trump. On the other side, it’s Victor Davis Hanson, who makes his case with his usual clarity and logic. Fair and balanced, that’s what we are. Also, the Al Smith dinner, the impact of Wikileaks, and a recap of last week’s meet up in Manhattan. Personal to Mr. Charles Berry of St. Louis, MO: a hearty and happy 90th birthday, sir, and thanks for all the great tunes. Many more of both, please.
Public service announcement: if you’re not a member of Ricochet and enjoy this podcast, be one of the 1,500 and join today.
Music from this week’s podcast: Too Much Monkey Business by Chuck Berry
The brand new opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps! And leave a comment too!
Check please, @EJHill?
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.
Harry's Shave
Use Code: ricochet
Harry’s produces high-quality razors for 1/2 the price of drugstore brands. Get $5 off your first purchase by using coupon code “RICOCHET” at checkout.
Duke Zeibert’s. You must be thinking of Drew Breitbart’s.
That was as passionate as I have ever heard VDH. I agree with him as I will hold my nose and vote for the Donald.
Since VDH knows them so well and about what inspires their antipathy, you might go back and listen again to what he actually said about his colleagues who are vehemently anti Trump and had personal interests in someone else’s campaign. He mentioned, for example, David French by name, but he didn’t say a word about anyone at NR opposing Trump on principle.
I have long adored VDH and would vote for him for president if ever given the opportunity. He’s just about the only voice of reason left at NR. When they talked about the cruise, I wondered how many of the usual attendees will not be going this year because of NR’s Trump opposition.
My
My favorite Chuck Berry tune.
I always assumed C’est La Vie was some old cajun tune covered by Chuck Berry, turns out it’s a Chuck Berry tune covered by everybody else.
Found this live You Tube from the German Television show Beat Club in 1972:
Yes, they do. Dentists too. Cops are a different story, but then journalists are a different one too. It’s hard to analogize those disparate kinds of careers.
Or how many new attendees of a different point of view? I know I never donated or subscribed before this year.
I have been on only one NR cruise, so I do not claim to be an expert. The attendees were wonderful, fun people and all committed Republicans, many of whom were Club for Growth members also. The Club for Growth is very pro free trade, has opposed moderates in favor of Tea Party types and has vehemently opposed Trump. I have read, however, that many of its members have broken ranks and are supporting Trump. How much that affects the NR cruise attendance is anyone’s guess.
Didn’t Mark Steyn used to participate?
Yes he did and was immensely popular. I hardly ever hear him anymore except he occasionally substitutes for Rush, a show I rarely ever listen to as it just takes too much time.
He appears to be back posting at steynonline.
I disagree with VDH’s position that an opinion columnist who has worked for a candidate or whose spouse has worked or work for a candidate are unethical if they comment on politics.
If they disclose the relationship, then people can factor that in when deciding how much credence to give their opinion.
I believe that Jay Nordlinger always mentions that he is a personal friend of Cruz. I have seen other similar disclosures from other writers for NR.
I don’t think the same can be said for many of the journalists/spouses in the liberal press.
Can I suggest first that “open primaries” get thrown out the window? Trump did very well in open primary states and I don’t believe his nomination is due to only R votes.
On a personal note, I find the incestious relationship between the media and politics to be disgusting, regardless of whether there’s a one line disclaimer at the end of an article.
And did Will make note of his wife’s gig every time he appeared on TV? I don’t have a TV, but I read and watch a lot online. And this was news to me
Many of us were appalled With @joeofengland (that didn’t link??) ‘s post about Ted Cruz “the Psychopath”. For all I know the fact he was volunteering for Rubio was common knowledge but I am finding it difficult to keep track of everyone these days. Mainly cause there’s too many everyones.
I can only speak for myself, but when Scott Walker was active as a candidate, every time that I saw George Will on the FoxNews Sunday panel or on Fox’s Special Report and even occasionally on one of the other network Sunday programs, he also prefaced his remarks by saying, “In the interest of full disclosure, my wife is currently working on the Scott Walker campaign.” When I saw his columns on NRO or in the Washington Post, the article would lead off with the same essential disclosure. So, I think he was pretty diligent and transparent about it. And yes, every reporter or commentator with any integrity should follow his example.
I don’t think it’s enough.
I know Will is anti Trump but not his wife’s gig. Consider me the average American.
And can I assume that as walker is no longer active it’s no longer disclaimed ?
Hear ye, hear ye!
That’s a good idea, but I don’t think it is up to the parties. I believe that it is state law that controls whether people have to register for a particular party.
My understanding as well.
Regardless of how it needs to happen, I think it deserves attention
one of the reasons I am not panicking about the alt right and feeling horrible about threats to French and others is that I am not convinced those voices are from the right.
How are you going to “purge” people from your party if they’re not even part of it ?
I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying. It’s not enough because you didn’t hear him say this or see this in print? Whose fault is that?
And yes, he stopped making that disclosure when Walker dropped out of the race.
Perhaps he should have had the disclosure tattooed to his forehead or worn a sandwich board. How much disclosure do you require?
See this link from an article he wrote in August of last year. Scroll down and look and the disclosure:
@brianwatt
can the sarcasm
As I said , I don’t have a tv so what good would a tattoo on his forehead do me?
I have been reading Will since he wrote for Newsweek. Not as much lately but he is often quoted and I have heard him interviewed on radio more times than I can count.
I am hardly an uninformed American yet his wife’s gig was news to me. Go ahead and think I am irresponsible for not being better informed but be aware there’s millions like me.
And no disclaimer since Walker became inactive ? There’s an argument to be made that info was – and is – still relevant.
“An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” — Thomas Jefferson.
At some point it becomes an “average” citizen’s duty to learn something about who is providing them information rather than just waiting to be told by someone else. Thomas Jefferson didn’t have a personal computer or access to constantly updated encyclopedic information as is found on Wikipedia that can be called up at a moment’s notice.
Why here’s an extract from Chuck Todd’s Wikipedia entry – that I chose at random – that mentions his wife:
Information like this is more easily obtained than you might have imagined and can help you decide whether the journalist or commentator you’ve been listening to is being fair or biased on a given topic or when discussing a particular politician. Sometimes it’s quite obvious. Sometimes it’s more subtle. But it’s not as though the information is unobtainable. Use the tools that are available and learn.
Then access his biographical information on Wikipedia:
If you consider that his wife’s role in Walker’s campaign might still be relevant, what about her work for other Republican candidates? Should her entire political curriculum vitae be attached to everything he writes or should he be required to relate all of her previous political work every time he appears on television? What’s the more logical standard? For journalists or commentators like Will to disclose this information even if their spouses are no longer affiliated with a particular politician or organization? Or would it better if the average American did some of their own homework and due diligence if they’re that concerned?
Gosh Brian. Thank you SO much. How do you spell that again W I k e p e d i a ?? Do I have that right?
As mentioned, just your average American here. I would argue more informed than most.
As mentioned several comments ago, there are simply too many people to keep track of Government, candidates, campaigns, campaign workers, opinion makers and opinion givers
While I appreciate your quote , one wonders what Jefferson would have to say about all these incestious relationships. Sure the citizenry needs to informed, but do I need to keep track of who is married to whom?
Will’s anti Trump stance gave me pause, but didn’t inspire me to change my mind. Had I known his wife worked for a competitor I could have saved taking the time for that pause
No one is saying that you have to memorize Wikipedia on these matters. But I would assume that if someone’s commentary disturbed you at some point or sounded a bit off, you may be inclined to check into the said commentator’s background and personal life.
Well, if Jefferson were here, bringing up relationships with him might be kind of a touchy subject.
See my response above.
Doubtful that his wife’s work for Walker had much to do with George’s distaste for Trump. George is a gentleman. Trump is a vulgarian. George felt that Trump wasn’t and still isn’t suitable to be president. Trump at one point publicly attacked Will, so that didn’t really endear Trump to him.
Anyway, according to Trump, “It’s over” for George Will. So, all this fuss about this “loser” is just a waste of time.
Have a nice night.
And the point if your last response was what exactly?
while uninformed on Will’s wife’s gig, I am fully aware of what Will thinks of Trump and vice Versa.
And your opinion of Will and how he formed his opinion of Trump is hardly the topic here.
Several comments ago I said a disclaimer wasn’t enough. What I meant by that is that these relationships between candidates and media are unseemly at best. And they shouldn’t be tolerated. And they wouldn’t be except everyone involved has a self interest in it continuing
Frankly I don’t understand why a gentleman like Will wouldn’t agree with me.
Cheers
Okay, still here. Just had to feed the boy more food.
One of Jefferson’s best friend’s and collaborators was a journalist (and a bit of womanizer as legend has it). Of course, that was before he became President.