It’s All OK

Hugely busy week, which means a hugely busy podcast. This week, the invaluable Byron York stops by to set us straight on just who might have penned that NYT op-ed, where in the world Bob Mueller is, and other D.C. shenanigans. Then Christopher Scalia, who knows a thing or two about the Supreme Court, joins to discuss the Kavanaugh circus, er, hearings. Also, so long, Bandit — you were one the of greats.

Music from this week’s episode: East Bound and Down by Jerry Reed

Subscribe to Ricochet Podcast in iTunes (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 iTunes or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

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

There are 27 comments.

  1. Petty Boozswha Member

    Reynolds turned down the role in Terms of Endearment that Jack Nicholson won an Oscar for.

    • #1
    • September 7, 2018, at 12:48 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  2. Plumberboy Member

    If the August 30 podcast is Episode 414

    What’s the September 7th podcast called?

    • #2
    • September 7, 2018, at 1:04 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  3. James Lileks Contributor

    Plumberboy (View Comment):

    If the August 30 podcast is Episode 414

    What’s the September 7th podcast called?

    #4134 (Blue Yeti, release the tape!)

    • #3
    • September 7, 2018, at 1:41 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  4. kedavis Member

    Ricochet Audio Network: Hugely busy week, which means a hugely busy podcast. Tis week, the invaluable Byron York stops by to set us stright on just who might have penned that NYT op-ed, where in the worked Bob Mueller is, and other D.C. shenanigans. Them Christopher Scalia, who knows a thing or two about the Supreme Court joins to discuss the Kavanaugh circus, er, hearings. Also, so long Bandit — you were one the of greats.

    Wow, lots of typos “tis week.”

    • #4
    • September 7, 2018, at 2:37 PM PDT
    • Like
  5. kedavis Member

    Plumberboy (View Comment):

    If the August 30 podcast is Episode 414

    What’s the September 7th podcast called?

    I’m amazed they made it this far without problems. GLoP numbering has been off since #45 and still not corrected. They’re up to #103 (actually #104) now.

    • #5
    • September 7, 2018, at 2:42 PM PDT
    • Like
  6. kedavis Member

    Marianne Moody Jennings has a great column about John McCain in today’s Arizona Republic. She would be a good one to have on. (Earth calling @exjon, come in please! @jongabriel)

    https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2018/09/07/john-mccain-statesman-maverick-rino-ignored-republicans/1217676002/

    • #6
    • September 7, 2018, at 3:37 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  7. Blue Yeti Admin

    I have fixed the numbering for this episode and we’ll get back on track on the show next week. The Google Doc we use for the rundown for each show got mis-numbered due to a typo and I forgot to correct it last week which led to this week’s error. My deepest apologies. 

    • #7
    • September 7, 2018, at 3:45 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  8. drlorentz Member

    Rob Long predicted that mole featured in the NYT OpEd was either Kudlow and Mnuchin. He told us that if he was right, we’d hear about it from him forever. But what about if he’s wrong? Will he be singing the Very Sorry Song on a subsequent podcast?

    The trouble with pundits is that they have no skin in the game: no consequences if they are wrong. As a public service, and a service to @roblong specifically, I’m offering to make an honest pundit out of him by giving him the opportunity to have some skin in the game.* I’ve got $100 with Rob Long’s name on it right here. If he’s right about Mnuchin or Kudlow, he gets the c-note. If he’s wrong, he pays me $100. If we never find out, no one owes anything.

    If that amount if too piddly for a big-name guy like Long, make it $1,000. That’s right, a thousand big ones. This is a serious offer. We can work out any unspecified details offline. If you don’t believe I’m in earnest, I’d be happy to send $1,000 to a trusted third party to hold in escrow if Mr. Long does the same. I have PayPal and I’m not afraid to use it.

    So right now, you’ve got to ask yourself one question, “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do you, Rob?

    *I notice Mr. Long used to use the expression “skin in the game” quite liberally in the past. It’s been strangely scarce of late.

    • #8
    • September 7, 2018, at 5:40 PM PDT
    • 22 likes
  9. kedavis Member

    You’ll have to get in line. He still hasn’t apologized for – or even admitted to, as far as I know – being wrong about the Oscars. (“The Paper” was going to win EVERYTHING, don’cha’ know.)

    P.S. I wouldn’t trust paypal to handle something like that. I barely use them at all, except for buying things on ebay. But that’s because the risk is all to the sellers, not to me as a buyer. Paypal makes a lot of noise about “buyer protection” and “seller protection,” but like Section 31 of the Federation Charter (hi, @jameslileks !) they can decide, any time they like, based on any evidence or none at all, that something is “suspicious” and take it back. Then suddenly, you’ve got nothing.

    • #9
    • September 7, 2018, at 6:05 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  10. Charlotte Member

    I could listen to Byron York’s dulcet tones for hours. I can’t think of a more amiable, pleasant guest.

    • #10
    • September 7, 2018, at 6:25 PM PDT
    • 10 likes
  11. drlorentz Member

    kedavis (View Comment):
    You’ll have to get in line. He still hasn’t apologized for – or even admitted to, as far as I know – being wrong about the Oscars. (“The Paper” was going to win EVERYTHING, don’cha’ know.)

    To be fair to Mr. Long, he has acknowledged being wrong about some things during the 2016 campaign. I haven’t been keeping score so I’m not sure about his overall record. Apologies, however, do not qualify as skin in the game. There has to be something at risk. Ideally, professional pundits (i.e., not referring to Mr Long) should lose their jobs if they are frequently wrong. For amateur and semi-pro pundits, a wager is a step in the right direction. This was inspired by the Simon-Ehrlich wager.

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t trust paypal … they can decide, any time they like, based on any evidence or none at all, that something is “suspicious” and take it back. Then suddenly, you’ve got nothing.

    In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m not in it for the money. In any case, I’m not relying on Paypal to arbitrate the wager.

    • #11
    • September 7, 2018, at 6:29 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  12. kedavis Member

    drlor

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t trust paypal … they can decide, any time they like, based on any evidence or none at all, that something is “suspicious” and take it back. Then suddenly, you’ve got nothing.

    In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m not in it for the money. In any case, I’m not relying on Paypal to arbitrate the wager.

    I didn’t mean arbitrating the wager, i.e., deciding who wins. I wouldn’t trust them to hold the money. Especially for something that doesn’t involve a purchase of specific items. They could, within their rules, decide that what you’re doing is “suspicious” and keep all the money themselves.

    • #12
    • September 7, 2018, at 6:33 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. kedavis Member

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    I could listen to Byron York’s dulcet tones for hours. I can’t think of a more amiable, pleasant guest.

    But that’s what he’s COUNTING ON!!!

    Oops, sorry. Got a bit carried away channeling the Trump Derangement Syndrome victims.

    • #13
    • September 7, 2018, at 6:34 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  14. drlorentz Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    drlor

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t trust paypal … they can decide, any time they like, based on any evidence or none at all, that something is “suspicious” and take it back. Then suddenly, you’ve got nothing.

    In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m not in it for the money. In any case, I’m not relying on Paypal to arbitrate the wager.

    I didn’t mean arbitrating the wager, i.e., deciding who wins. I wouldn’t trust them to hold the money. Especially for something that doesn’t involve a purchase of specific items. They could, within their rules, decide that what you’re doing is “suspicious” and keep all the money themselves.

    Not relying on them to hold the money either. Please see the original comment.

    drlorentz (View Comment):
    a trusted third party to hold in escrow

    The third party would be an individual we trust, not PayPal.

    • #14
    • September 7, 2018, at 6:45 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  15. kedavis Member

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    drlor

    kedavis (View Comment):
    I wouldn’t trust paypal … they can decide, any time they like, based on any evidence or none at all, that something is “suspicious” and take it back. Then suddenly, you’ve got nothing.

    In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m not in it for the money. In any case, I’m not relying on Paypal to arbitrate the wager.

    I didn’t mean arbitrating the wager, i.e., deciding who wins. I wouldn’t trust them to hold the money. Especially for something that doesn’t involve a purchase of specific items. They could, within their rules, decide that what you’re doing is “suspicious” and keep all the money themselves.

    Not relying on them to hold the money either. Please see the original comment.

    drlorentz (View Comment):
    a trusted third party to hold in escrow

    The third party would be an individual we trust, not PayPal.

    Even using paypal to transfer the money to some other trusted third party, is not wise. If they were to decide what you’re doing is “suspicious,” they could refuse to forward the money to the third party – or take it back, if it was already there – and not give it back to you.

    • #15
    • September 7, 2018, at 6:52 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. filmklassik Member

    Well, despite Rob’s predictions, Jim Gerghity over at National Review (and the Three Martini Lunch) makes a strong case for John Huntsman being “the mole.”

    But isn’t there a stronger case that it’s nobody? Let’s say you’re a bunch of zealous, left wing NYT editors (surely The Grey Lady has a few of those on salary, right?) and let’s say your goal is to stoke unrest within the Trump White House, can you think of a better way of cranking Trump’s paranoia up to “11” then by publishing a real-sounding Op Ed saying he has a spy in his midst, knowing full well it’ll send him into a frothing, red-faced tizzy as he runs around trying to flush him out? I sure can’t. I think it’s a brilliant move.

    I’m not saying this is what happened, I’m just saying it’s a plausible scenario — one that does manage to reconcile the known facts.

    • #16
    • September 7, 2018, at 11:44 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  17. Arahant Member

    @jameslileks, loved the fake near the end, not quoting verbatim, but on the order of, “Okay, then let’s end this podcast and you can tell us about it later.” I laughed.

    <span class="atwho-inserted" contenteditable="false" data-atwho-at-query="@blueyeti“>@blueyeti some weeks ago (months, maybe?), you said Mr. York would be having his own podcast. Have I missed the release? Or is that still to come? Or did negotiations fall through or Mr. York’s good sense come through?

    • #17
    • September 8, 2018, at 3:51 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. RufusRJones Member

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    Jim Gerghity over at National Review (and the Three Martini Lunch) makes a strong case for John Huntsman being “the mole.”

    Huntsman’s kid went off on Trump before she quit Fox News, too. 

    I see from the article that Huntsman likes McCain, “…a lodestar for restoring honor to public life…”. Except he could’d see fit to wipe out the ACA.

    • #18
    • September 8, 2018, at 4:17 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  19. RufusRJones Member

    The sports station here calls media-hyped blizzards “snow-namis”. 

    • #19
    • September 8, 2018, at 4:55 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  20. MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chri… Coolidge

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    I have fixed the numbering for this episode and we’ll get back on track on the show next week. The Google Doc we use for the rundown for each show got mis-numbered due to a typo and I forgot to correct it last week which led to this week’s error. My deepest apologies.

    Dude, it’s….all OK.

    • #20
    • September 8, 2018, at 5:23 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  21. MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chri… Coolidge

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Rob Long predicted that mole featured in the NYT OpEd was either Kudlow and Mnuchin. He told us that if he was right, we’d hear about it from him forever. But what about if he’s wrong? Will he be singing the Very Sorry Song on a subsequent podcast?

    The trouble with pundits is that they have no skin in the game: no consequences if they are wrong. As a public service, and a service to @roblong specifically, I’m offering to make an honest pundit out of him by giving him the opportunity to have some skin in the game.* I’ve got $100 with Rob Long’s name on it right here. If he’s right about Mnuchin or Kudlow, he gets the c-note. If he’s wrong, he pays me $100. If we never find out, no one owes anything.

    If that amount if too piddly for a big-name guy like Long, make it $1,000. That’s right, a thousand big ones. This is a serious offer. We can work out any unspecified details offline. If you don’t believe I’m in earnest, I’d be happy to send $1,000 to a trusted third party to hold in escrow if Mr. Long does the same. I have PayPal and I’m not afraid to use it.

    So right now, you’ve got to ask yourself one question, “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do you, Rob?

    *I notice Mr. Long used to use the expression “skin in the game” quite liberally in the past. It’s been strangely scarce of late.

    Best post on Ricochet – ever.

    • #21
    • September 8, 2018, at 5:28 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  22. MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chri… Coolidge

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):
    Jim Gerghity over at National Review (and the Three Martini Lunch) makes a strong case for John Huntsman being “the mole.”

    Huntsman’s kid went off on Trump before she quit Fox News, too.

    I see from the article that Huntsman likes McCain, “…a lodestar for restoring honor to public life…”. Except he could’d see fit to wipe out the ACA.

    If we need a load (star?) to help us restore honor to public life, maybe that means all of those participating in public life have a serious problem that they refuse to address. You shouldn’t need someone to save you from being a crapweasel. That’s on you.

    • #22
    • September 8, 2018, at 5:47 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  23. RufusRJones Member

    Many people that are at least nominaly politically right are excited about John McCain’s political leadership. I don’t get it. 

    • #23
    • September 8, 2018, at 5:55 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  24. J Ro Member

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):

    I have fixed the numbering for this episode and we’ll get back on track on the show next week. The Google Doc we use for the rundown for each show got mis-numbered due to a typo and I forgot to correct it last week which led to this week’s error. My deepest apologies.

    No worries. Most of us don’t know or care.

    But I get the feeling certain people are going to be really annoyed when Apple skips right over iPhone 9 next week.

    • #24
    • September 8, 2018, at 7:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Well, despite Rob’s predictions, Jim Gerghity over at National Review (and the Three Martini Lunch) makes a strong case for John Huntsman being “the mole.”

    But isn’t there a stronger case that it’s nobody? Let’s say you’re a bunch of zealous, left wing NYT editors (surely The Grey Lady has a few of those on salary, right?) and let’s say your goal is to stoke unrest within the Trump White House, can you think of a better way of cranking Trump’s paranoia up to “11” then by publishing a real-sounding Op Ed saying he has a spy in his midst, knowing full well it’ll send him into a frothing, red-faced tizzy as he runs around trying to flush him out? I sure can’t. I think it’s a brilliant move.

    I’m not saying this is what happened, I’m just saying it’s a plausible scenario — one that does manage to reconcile the known facts.

    Trump has been running around spouting stupidity in tweets, press conferences and rally speeches while his Administration actually runs the country. It was working for him with his base and even with the “don’t like him but he’s not Hillary and love the economy” crowd. I really think this is a Democrat or journalist (but I repeat myself) wanting to mess that up and send Trump into a tizzy. If you ask yourself cui bono, the answer is not the country or Republicans. It is the Democrats.

    • #25
    • September 8, 2018, at 9:19 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  26. MACHO GRANDE' (aka - Chri… Coolidge

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    filmklassik (View Comment):

    Well, despite Rob’s predictions, Jim Gerghity over at National Review (and the Three Martini Lunch) makes a strong case for John Huntsman being “the mole.”

    But isn’t there a stronger case that it’s nobody? Let’s say you’re a bunch of zealous, left wing NYT editors (surely The Grey Lady has a few of those on salary, right?) and let’s say your goal is to stoke unrest within the Trump White House, can you think of a better way of cranking Trump’s paranoia up to “11” then by publishing a real-sounding Op Ed saying he has a spy in his midst, knowing full well it’ll send him into a frothing, red-faced tizzy as he runs around trying to flush him out? I sure can’t. I think it’s a brilliant move.

    I’m not saying this is what happened, I’m just saying it’s a plausible scenario — one that does manage to reconcile the known facts.

    Trump has been running around spouting stupidity in tweets, press conferences and rally speeches while his Administration actually runs the country. It was working for him with his base and even with the “don’t like him but he’s not Hillary and love the economy” crowd. I really think this is a Democrat or journalist (but I repeat myself) wanting to mess that up and send Trump into a tizzy. If you ask yourself cui bono, the answer is not the country or Republicans. It is the Democrats.

    The White House is not the country. The fallacy is in assuming the government “runs” anything, other than itself, and the regulations it imposes on others.

    It’s similar to a line that I remember from West Wing. The President was having a one on one with his chief of staff, lauding him, saying “You run the country”. 

    I threw up into my hat.

    • #26
    • September 9, 2018, at 6:34 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  27. drlorentz Member

    Chris Campion (View Comment):

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Rob Long predicted that mole featured in the NYT OpEd was either Kudlow and Mnuchin. He told us that if he was right, we’d hear about it from him forever. But what about if he’s wrong? Will he be singing the Very Sorry Song on a subsequent podcast?

    The trouble with pundits is that they have no skin in the game: no consequences if they are wrong. As a public service, and a service to @roblong specifically, I’m offering to make an honest pundit out of him by giving him the opportunity to have some skin in the game.* I’ve got $100 with Rob Long’s name on it right here. If he’s right about Mnuchin or Kudlow, he gets the c-note. If he’s wrong, he pays me $100. If we never find out, no one owes anything.

    If that amount if too piddly for a big-name guy like Long, make it $1,000. That’s right, a thousand big ones. This is a serious offer. We can work out any unspecified details offline. If you don’t believe I’m in earnest, I’d be happy to send $1,000 to a trusted third party to hold in escrow if Mr. Long does the same. I have PayPal and I’m not afraid to use it.

    So right now, you’ve got to ask yourself one question, “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do you, Rob?

    *I notice Mr. Long used to use the expression “skin in the game” quite liberally in the past. It’s been strangely scarce of late.

    Best post on Ricochet – ever.

    Thanks. It’s been a couple of days and the response from the relevant party has been… subdued. Radio silence. Crickets.

    I guess someone’s not feeling lucky. Or intrepid. So much for skin in the game.

    • #27
    • September 9, 2018, at 1:05 PM PDT
    • Like