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.
The hard thing about producing a weekly podcast is coming up with relevant topics to talk about. Nothing ever happens in this boring administration we’ve elected. Yawn. This week, we’ve got Pat Buchanan (you must buy his new book Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever) who weighs in on those endless Nixon/Trump comparisons, and gives us his take on how the President is doing so far. Then, our old pal Dennis Prager made some waves this week with a column titled Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump. We delve into that and his new project with Adam Corrolla (he’ll be on in a few weeks too), No Safe Spaces, a film on the decay of free speech/thought on college campuses and what this means for our country. Also, join us on July 23rd for a special taping of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson at the Reagan Library, hosted by Pat Sajak. Details here.
Music from this week’s podcast: Fixing A Hole by The Beatles
The all 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 review too! And for Peter’s sake: JOIN RICOCHET TODAY.
Cool, @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.
That’s understandable.
The larger problem is (and the reason I continue to pull my hair out over it and pray for a change) is that with a huge portion of the “conservative” punditocracy overcome with Trump Derangement syndrome, we are going to lose our opportunity and turn the ball over by failing to move it. And I guarantee the Democrats are going to march as fast as they can holding, and clipping, and facemasking, and scratching, and biting, just as they did last time.
Yes, on this, Mr. Buchanan does not seem to be on Earth.
The final comment makes the implication much too harsh. At least w.r.t. 1917, nobody can accuse you of calling him a Nazi.
Unless you were being slyly churlish and expected everyone to make that anachronistic connection.
hey-SOOS, James! What the hell do you expect? Trump IS a political naif. You certainly appear to know that. He’s gonna be pretty easily led on most stuff that isn’t of some sort of core importance to him.
The real question should be: what the hell are Ryan and McConnell doing anyway?
Quit just bashing him and engage in some intelligent analysis. I’m certain you are capable of it, you have been in the past.
If you keep up what you’ve been doing, you will remain a bore as you have been lately, which is the cardinal sin for your profession. (That’s more of the Rob Long “tough love.”)
What was the perception on the left on November 7th? Smart of you to disavow predictions.
This is fine, appropriate criticism (and praise.)
Not convinced. Trump is not a comedian. And Sasse has shown serious signs of moral preening. And being a first amendment absolutist does not preclude one from criticizing anyone for anything.
But kudos to Sasse if he really would treat Trump same as Maher.
Nope. You’re as wrong as can be.
Prager has chosen to work to get conservative policies enacted and rightly sees denigrating Trump as a distraction and counterproductive.
You and and National Review want to be seen as moral lights regardless of how much harm you actually do by preventing any progress toward worthy goals.
Great job.
I dont’ follow Twitter. But if Ben Sasse has been Tweeting extensively about “covfefe”, and that’s what it sounds like, that makes your comments about Sasse look really foolish. Moreover, it makes Sasse seem really foolish. Pretty disappointing from a guy I relied upon to focus on the right stuff.
Still, that’s enough “ifs” to tread carefully.
You seem to have difficulty following an argument.
That analogy is unbelievably bad. Even if Barack Obama had done things comparable to your fantasy citations, it wouldn’t make him in any way comparable to the reality (so far) of Trump.
Kudos for obliquely noting how terrible it is. Cheers.
Moderator Note:
Personal attack.[Redacted.]
Phew, made it through all the comments! What a workout!
You’re cute when you’re angry.
Buchanan wrote a book arguing that British involvement in WW I was a mistake. Further, that the US was duped into siding with the Allies. An old style isolationist.
Funny story. What a charming, and self-aware man Ronald Reagan was.
And that’s the difference. Reagan knew he didn’t know that stuff. And he was confident enough not to care if others knew it, too. (And he was probably right about Gorbachev as well).
I cannot imagine Trump making that sort of self-deprecating comment. He is, after all, the guy who said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.” (See here for a list of other, similar remarks about things like banking, taxes, infrastructure, trade, energy, etc. etc.)
There’s nothing dangerous about admitting you don’t know something about something. There’s something very dangerous about being sure you know everything about everything. Yes, you can get some good things done. But if your ego never takes a back seat to the business at hand (don’t see much evidence, or have much hope, that Trump will ever put his ego aside), sooner or later, there’s going to be a mess. And therein lies the problem.
Wow — a tour de force. I liked every single one of your comments. Thanks for the clarity and defense of the obvious.
Put aside that we now know Reagan was incredibly well read. His decision making rubric was elegant: does it advance my objective and does it comport with my principles?
Being a master of detail at the Presidential level is a classic case of confusing means with ends. Expertise can be hired. It takes a lifetime of experience to hone one’s judgement.
Of course, he loves amnesty.
Moderator Note:
Yep.Thanks, sweetie.
[Redacted.]
Thanks, and yeah, taking stock and focussing on your goals should be obvious. But I’ve now finally learned that nobody is beyond cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Thanks for the clarification.
Hahahaha! Very nice. :-)
Editor Note:
Obvious reason for redaction is obvious.[Redacted.]
Can’t the Hoover Institution afford level floors?
This is what I was hoping for with Trump, and I hope we will yet get. As much as I like gridlock, I would like to see some wheeling and dealing to actually get (useful) legislation passed. I figured that underneath the bombast he’d be eager to make deals, but so far I haven’t seen much evidence that he’s talking to Congresscritters. It’s sad that we’re in a state that just getting the parties negotiating legislation is a herculean task.
His poor start has removed any incentive for the Democrats to deal.
They were trying to impeach the guy since before Thanksgiving. Did you think they ever had any incentive to deal?
I think if he had come out of the gate strong, rather than stepping on his manhood with golf shoes, they might have.