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.
Just so we don’t start talking past each other…it seems to me that there are two issues at hand. One – That members of the media lose their objectivity (to the degree that they had any) and get in the tank with a politician or a presidential candidate and then still attempt to pass themselves off as fair and objective journalists. Andrea Mitchell is one of the worst at this. George Stephanopoulos, Chris (Mr. Tingles) Matthews are pretty terrible.
And Two – That those journalists or commentators who through a spouse or relative may or may have had some professional relationship with a politician or campaign. Given human nature and Cupid’s arrow, these people do work in the same circles and blow off steam at the same bars and restaurants from time to time. So, natural romantic attractions are likely to occur. And then well, marriages and you know the rest. That’s not going to stop no matter how the status quo inside the Beltway changes (which it won’t change much anyway).
And some journalists are going to end up “falling in love” and working for politicians too. Who’s that Stephen K. Bannon fellow running Trump’s campaign again? Where’d he come from? Has Breitbart.com’s coverage of Donald Trump, other Republicans and the election season in general been fair, balanced and objective?
So, to make a long story longer, I’m not sure how you don’t literally tolerate it, since this status quo isn’t likely to change.
So, yeah…one might have just keep track of who the players are on the field at any given time. Millions of average Americans don’t have the interest or time to do this, of course. Nor in some respects should they be expected to. Unfortunately, for the last 100 some years the power has been gradually more centralized in the federal government and not at the state or local level. So, keeping better track of these dubious and shadowy characters might be more than a little necessary from time to time to find out why and how we’re all being hoodwinked.
But I know them too. And VDH. One of my happiest memories of an NR cruise was sitting in a tender going to Half Moon Cay, listening to to VDH recount his experience advising the makers of the movie “300.”
I have equal respect for Jonah and VDH, even thought they’re on different sides of the fence on this issue, because each has intellectual integrity. Yes, it will be an interesting NR Cruise this year, but I think it will be one of the best, regardless of the outcome. There’s always an underlying vibe of respect and commonality, and if we can hold to that tradition and argue amongst ourselves in a civil fashion – you know, Ricochet style – the dinners will be lively and fun.
Or, I get a table of Trump supporters every night, and they rip me several new ones. We’ll see.
The relationship between the press and politicos is much more prevalent than George Will. Each Sunday the big political shows are rife with conflicts as they purport to tell us what to think. Meet the Press Chuck Todd’s wife is a big Democrat operative in Washington D.C. George Stephanopolus on ABC was a major part of the Clinton years and hosts his own show. I could go on and on. Take a look at pictures of the big time jouralists attending state dinners at the White House. How about all the Georgetown cocktail parties they all attend together? The press will say they need to have relationships with politicians in order to be able to do their job. Freedom of the Press was intended so the Press could report directly to the people about government activities or corruption without fear of prosecution. I am not unsympathetic with their dilemma, but the cozy relationship they currently have with those on whom they report is surely not what the founders intended.
I’ve been at social functions in the DC area and heard journalists complain to politicians that if their spouse didn’t work they might not be able to afford that second (or third) house down on the Maryland shore. And they say that standing in the poolhouse that has more bathrooms than my house.
Charlie Sykes agenda is open borders. He said this when Scott Walker was taking a (relatively) tough stance on border enforcement early in the primaries: “I think nativist rhetoric does not come naturally to him.”
The feelings are pretty raw on both sides if Ricochet is any example. We haven’t taken a poll here in quite a while. It would be interesting to see who the members intend to vote for at this point in time.
One criticism I absolutely don’t understand is that of David French. VDH is taking issue with a tautology: French is writing negative articles about Trump at the same time he is considering taking political action against him!
And while I understand that individual writers being in favor of “their guy” could be a problem, NRO maintains diversity of conservative opinion. Compare NRO writers during the Bush administration to any left wing magazine during the age of Obama and Hillary. The left swoons at their leaders, as one would expect from the ideology that puts the submission to the state as a high virtue.
Well, except for that one issue of the magazine.
Full disclosure: My GreatGreatGrandfather was a Democrat politician.
-It is a divisive election when we are debating VDH. I “saved” the podcast because I liked what he said so much.
-This will be my 8th NR cruise and I can’t wait. I disagree with several NR writers over this election but hold no personal animosity towards them or the magazine. It would never occur to me to cancel my subscription or pass on the cruise over this, perhaps because I have gotten to know them and they are real people to me, not just names on paper. Cruz said, vote your conscience. I do not feel it is my place to condemn a moral person’s act of conscience. If I wanted groupthink, I would subscribe to a liberal rag.
– I have moved from leaving it blank to voting for Trump because Hillary is dangerous and her corruption should not be rewarded. If Trump loses, I can rest easy that Hillary’s damage is not my fault. NeverT’s will have to face their own demons when Hillary starts on her evil path. They may find that conservatism will be damaged more by her. I can separate Trump’s hyperbolic speech from the actual actions he might take once surrounded by a sound Cabinet.
-Most military will vote for Trump. They are bombarded with mission and career-killing PC, know Hillary mucked up Benghazi, and have heard our stories about how Clinton is rude to military folks.
Was anything written in that issue proven to be false? Don’t forget, out of about 18 opinion pieces in the Trump issue, only three were written by NR writers. A broad group of conservatives contributed. After the election, the debate might change from whether it should have been published to whether folks should have paid attention to it. We put up the politician closest to the Democrats and their beliefs and still the Democrat voters chose to go with the lying crook. You better change the culture, first.
Jonah could just come down the stairs again without his pants, everyone would laugh, then all would be forgiven. Anyone too upset to enjoy the cruise will stay home. I’ll be sitting near the free cookies and coffee during the seminars.
“Diversity of conservative opinion.”
OK. You got me there.
I don’t get the whole ” I live in a blue state so therefore I will not vote for Trump, because he’ll lose anyway”. There are a couple of reasons I do not like this arguement. One, it concedes defeat before an election occurs, turnout is important in elections and there have been upsets in the past. Two, it kind of reminds me of the pacifist argument. Out of conviction I will not fight to defead my freedom but I will live under the protection of Those who will make the sacrifice that I will not Make. If James or rob lived in Ohio how would they vote?
Also on Election Day keep in mind those in the military and what kind of commander in chief we want them to have to deal with. Trump has his flaws but at least he loves this country and admires the troops. Hillary has a history of treating the military like garage and Benghazi is a glaring reminder to anyone in uniform overseas that their government doesn’t necessarily have their back. just something to noodle over
To infer that voters have to dig deep into the weeds to find out whether a journalist has any conflicts of interest in order to judge their credibility is asking way too much. What this election has taught us, if anything, is that the endless parade of talking heads on the Sunday shows and writers for influential newspapers need to be replaced with genuine journalists who aren’t invited to the White House dinners and don’t hang out with the politicians they are supposed to cover, nor do their spouses. Since we have almost elevated the press to the fourth arm of the government, we need to make sure there is a true separation of powers. If you laugh as you read this, I don’t blame you as the likelihood of this happening is probably zero. We have made high-paid celebrities of the national media, and they love their power over politicians and public opinion.
Could well be that some of those who believe this just might wind up in a state with the election closer than they thought.
Also, the popular vote count has been used for political points.
Well, I can only speak about California – not a lighter blue state that may be in play. In the once Golden State, the decision not to vote for Trump is based on reality. Trump has been losing in California by probably the widest margin in any state since it was announced he was the nominee.
Here are two screen shots of the current state of polling in the state. First from Real Clear Politics:
And a glimpse from Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight site:
Short of a catastrophic health issue with Hillary Clinton or SMOD dropping on her house in Chappaqua, New York, Hillary is going to win all of California’s 55 electoral votes. No amount of wishing and hoping for a miracle or SMOD or that Donald Trump will suddenly start to look and sound like Ronald Reagan and be surrounded a shimmering golden aura – is going to change this.
So, my voting for Trump would be throwing my vote away needlessly. Better to vote for Jill Stein on the pretext that there may be enough Bernie supporters and low-information Millennials that could at least register a sizable protest vote about Clinton and at least send a message that a greater number of Dems than she or her administration imagined aren’t happy with her and may be inclined to be a thorn in her side when she’s elected.
See bold type above. Please propose a credible way to achieve what you describe. If you can’t, then I’ll just consider it a rant.
Also – Not to put too fine a point on it… you say that these journalists need to be replaced with genuine journalists but at the same token you complain that no one has the time to research who these journalists are… so, which is it? And who is going to be responsible for culling the herd based on what information since many can’t be bothered to look into the matter.
As I said in my comment, I don’t blame you if you laugh as you read this. We can all see the problem, but how to solve it is anyone’s guess. By the way, Brian, I’m as entitled to rant as the next guy. :-)
I wasn’t laughing. I was just asking for a reality check on what could and could not be done. And rants are fine. It’s often my stock in trade.
We can both agree there. How did you make that big smiley face? I love those.
It’s an unresolved website bug whenever someones quotes and responds to the previous comment that has a smaller smiley face included. Max is working on it.
Okay, I’m trying for the big smiley.
If you go to your profile picture then scroll down and select Blog and the Comments, you’ll see them even bigger.
Wow. My respect for Professor Hanson just nosedived. He thinks Trumpers get more abuse than they give? Really? Does he read his own website’s comment section? Did he read David French’s account of what the alt-right has done to him and his wife? He sanctimoniously claims that he won’t call out NeverTrumpers while passive aggressively doing exactly that, and he expects us not to notice because he doesn’t name names?
Given the anonymity of the internet, I have to wonder what percentage of the abuse attributed to the alt-right is actually coming from the clever little provocateurs we saw on the O’Keefe videos.
That has been my suspicion for a while. THe behavior fits the image they have of us.
And it confirms the never-Trumpers in their never-Trumpism.
I agree with @victordavishanson–shrug and vote for Trump. Brilliant man with many great points!
I really hope to see the acrimony between members of our own team end soon.