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.
We haven’t done one of these in a long time: a show with just the three hosts talking about the news. To be honest, it wasn’t planned that way, but a certain producer told the guest the wrong time. But luckily, we have three guys who can easily fill up an hour with clever conversation and camaraderie. This week, we cover ISIS, our confounding foreign policy, a (very) early look at 2016, how Scott Walker could have better handled that evolution ‘gotcha’ question (h/t to Rick Wilson and Ricochet member Brandon Phelps). Also, our annual Oscar preview and a Lileks segue so good, it can’t be interrupted. Yes, you read that right.
Music from this week’s episode:
Shake It Off by Taylor Swift
The opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
It’s no contest, EJHill.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps!
Help Ricochet by Supporting Our Sponsors!
Acculturated.com is where pop culture matters! Read the best young conservative writers on the web on books, comics, culture, fashion, movies, games, music, sports, tech, and TV.
Featuring the writing of Emily Esfahani Smith, Abby Schachter, R.J. Moeller, Mark Judge, and many more.
This podcast is brought to you by Harry’s Shave. For the finest shave at the best price, got Harrys.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
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.
When will these be live with chat again?
We are in the process of re-vamping that page with a new chat client. As soon as that it done, we’ll start live streaming again. Should be completed in a couple of weeks.
Yes, when will these be on live chat?
That’s Vol. 6 Number I.
The candidates who are actually performing the basic blocking and tackling of running a Presidential campaign are the only ones who can be taken seriously. Not only that, the notion that the Republican Party should nominate a FRESHMAN Senator (especially one whose electoral position in his state is tenuous at best) is suicidal.
Suicidal for the party, suicidal for that candidate and suicidal for the nation. We simply can’t have that.
For these reasons Marco Rubio shouldn’t even be on the stage. Despite his eloquence, his youth and his compelling personal story he actually has little record of actual accomplishment and has developed a reputation for tilting at windmills in the Senate with Ted Cruz.
Despite the obvious negatives about Jeb Bush, his candidacy actually possesses a credible thread of competency, experience and has the heft of money. He isn’t distracted by shiny objects.
Scott Walker can claim this as well. Now, that’s not to say that Rubio doesn’t make for an interesting Vice Presidential candidate who would bring a certain appeal to the ticket which “Yet Another Old White Guy” simply won’t.
Dang it, I was available as a guest . . .
May I name two freshman senators who ran for president? Barack H. Obama and John F. Kennedy. Sometimes it works out.
If you’re seeking the Democrat nomination, then yes. Republicans don’t seem to appreciate what those guys brought to the table.
Let’s face it: One was a lecherous drug addict whose callow attitudes precipitated an existential crisis for the world, and the other… well, let’s just say that the track record of Freshman Senators as POTUS is suspect, despite JFK’s martyrdom.
Not that I suspect Rubio of these things – I just think the Senate has the effect of freezing ones’ mien in place upon election. Look at Joseph Biden Jr.; the man is a menace and has been ever since he joined the Senate. It did nothing to improve him. What’s worse, it seems to be universal (Senatitis, that is) in that there are 100 of them and each gazes into the mirror and sees a President. This is not the attitude that we need in the Oval Office right now.
The comparison between the end of the Clinton Administration and now is eerie. The fundamental unseriousness of the past 6 years has emboldened our enemies to the extent that it seems almost inevitable that a large scale attack will occur in this country. Our borrowing capacity isn’t quite what it used to be (Thanks Obama) and our position in the world is diminished both economically and militarily.
Another back-slapping, Senatorial blowhard isn’t going to be the answer.
Majestyk, resorting to attacks on John F. Kennedy’s drug use and adulterations, while valid to the extent that one can critique his morality, does little to refute Peter’s point. The only issue that matters right now is electability, whether you like it or not. We Republicans need a win, (almost) no matter what. If a win meant the discrediting of our party for a generation, I might tend to agree with you that going for a (just for argument’s sake) sure win with Rubio may not be the best course of action.
A man doesn’t make a movement. Scott Walker, to be sure, does not possess the foreign policy credentials necessary to make existential diplomatic decisions with concern to Iran, ISIS, Russia, and other countries. The bright side is that, if he were to win, Walker brings an entourage of experienced advisers with him. When one man moves into 1600 Penn, hundreds more set up across the street.
What makes an effective president is 1) the right philosophical foundation, and 2) the necessary political savvy. A president need not get bogged down into details of the everyday. He can rely heavily on the policy expertise of his analysts.
Look, Senator Rubio may be relatively new to the national stage, but he’s had experience in politics before 2010 and has one of the more comprehensive moral and political philosophies in the field right now. Couple that with a knack for eloquence and the right mix of superficial (and trivial) candidate qualities, and you’ve got a good shot at the presidency. Even if he isn’t the Reagan we need, he might be the best chance we have. I’d take 60% odds for Rubio over 30% odds of Jeb any day of the week.
Say what you will about Rubio. There may be a number of things about him that could disqualify him for the nomination. The immigration bill may turn out to be his undoing. But to castigate him for the office he holds is ridiculous. Even more so is the sort of no true Scotsman argument that should disqualify Rubio, even though both freshman senators did a moderately effective job of advancing their respective agendas.
One thing Rob doesn’t mention about Ricochet’s free-market membership model is that liberal trolls generally will not join Ricochet because it requires them to spend some of their own money.
They decidedly prefer to spend other people’s money.
Add the fact that the Republican hold on his seat is even more tenuous without Rubio, who can’t run for the presidency and the Senate simultaneously, and we have another excellent reason for him to stay out. I don’t know when he would have to make a final decision either way.
I would not state it quite so broadly, but I largely agree about freshman Senators. On the whole, I think Marco Rubio would be wiser to sit this race out.
And yet… supposing Walker stumbles, who makes the most credible challenger to Bush? Huckabee is not serious. Cruz and Paul are also freshman Senators with narrow support. There are several serious, credible governors — but do they have anything close to Rubio’s name recognition or appeal?
But I am less and less inclined to expect Walker to stumble. He knows how to play this game as well as anyone.
“Chat Client”
Is Elliott Spitzer involved?
I don’t think that a Faustian bargain is either what is required to win or wise.
My broader point is that there are 2 standards for Presidential candidates: the one for Republicans and then everybody else.
The point is that if you are a charismatic, teleprompter-speechifying empty suit, or a drug-addled philanderer you can get away with this due to the media’s complicity… if you’re a Democrat. Then you’ll be lionized when what you manage to do is nearly blow the world up (The Cuban Missile Crisis… precipitated by Khrushchev’s assessment of Kennedy being a callow youth) or if you cause half of the world’s most volatile region to be seized by Islamic Radicals after you unnecessarily topple partially friendly dictators in favor of… Chaos.
If you’re a Republican and you do these things you end up as George W. Bush, who can barely show his face in public. If you’re a Democrat, you have people covering up for your sexual exploits and inviting you to A-List parties, like Bill Clinton – despite being the personification of “The War on Women.”
It isn’t fair. Like Rob Long has said, whining about it isn’t going to fix it – but that doesn’t change the underlying reality that Republican candidates have to possess a unique set of qualifications in order to garner serious attention on the national stage. Those qualifications typically are developed by holding a Governor’s office and managing it successfully.
If Marco Rubio wants to be President, he should seriously consider running for Governor to replace Rick Scott in Florida at the end of his term. I would give the same advice to Rand Paul in Kentucky.
Lileks’ vituperations and fulminations against the Obama Administration in this episode are worth the entire monthly fee all by themselves. Thanks, James, for putting it so well and so concisely.
Sorry, Peter, but Bush: NO! What Lileks said. No way.
Ideal ticket for 2016: Walker/ Rubio ….or Martinez/Paul ….or Jindal/Rubio…or Walker/Scott … or it’s too early to tell so can we leave it lie for about six months?
Thanks, Hartmann – if I had the power I’d comp you a month.
But that would be payola, wouldn’t it.
Except that “electability” tends widely and automatically to be used synonymously with “my favored candidate”.
Otherwise, electability is a highly subjective standard (as is “right leaning”). Aside from obvious disqualifiers (eg membership in a white supremacist group or an incident of drunk driving which led to the drowging death of a young girl). The dictum to vote for the most viable right leaning candidate is only really practical at an individual voter level. There is no way to apply it more broadly, except through primaries where each voter applies the dictum to their own vote.
Cut me in on it and I won’t tell.
But seriously, is the site fixed enough to notify me in time before I need to renew to make sure My Account information is up-to-date?
In response to Peter’s question of why Obama cannot cite el-Sisi in support of a good Islam/bad Islam distinction. El-Sisi overthrow the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt that the Obama administration supported. Boosting el-Sisi is a tacit admission that Obama was on the wrong side of that issue. In a choice between admitting he was wrong or rationalizing his failures at the risk of human life, Obama will never admit he was wrong.
Not to mention that he is not eligible because he is not a natural-born citizen. Neither is Jindal. I’m open to arguments for Cruz.
Before you start sputtering that it is insane to exclude fine men because of their parents’ citizenship status, consider that adherence to the Constitution would have spared us BHO.
On the “Gingrich moment” requirement, I hope Mr. Lileks is referring to the general election. The Republican party should firmly exclude all Liberal Fascist weenies from the inquisitor panels during the primary debates.
Ummm…what?
Both Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States.
I am actually tired of this controversey being brought up. It is the kind of legalistic, narrow, picking the fly scat out of the pepper that half makes me want to brain people to relieve their gray matter of the further indignity of being so ill-used.
Cite Rubio’s naivete in getting caught up in Chuck Schumer’s web of lies, speak of his clumsiness when asked how old he thinks the earth is – but please let the worms digest this talk of his parentage. That matter is covered already in the Constitution.
50% is a failing grade.
Marco Rubio can win. Enough said.
…What? Rubio was born in Miami. I assume you mean that he wasn’t a natural-born citizen since his parents weren’t born here?
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but my interpretation of “natural-born citizen” means that you were a citizen at birth. That mean that either a) you were born on US soil, and/or b) your parents are citizens of the US. That makes you a citizen at birth, so he’s eligible, as is Ted Cruz. Cruz’s mom is from Delaware, and her son’s natural-born citizenship to the US is extended through her. Am I missing something?
As Peter’s question of why Obama isn’t interested in grand strategy, I think the answer is that grand strategy is hard and requires making tough choices. Doing little to help Ukraine is easy. Sending drones instead of “boots on the ground” against ISIS is easy.
Spending his time pushing around McConnell and Boehner is easy, particularly where the MSM lays so much of the groundwork for their fights and neither man is particularly adept at fighting back. (Boehner next to Obama is a very diminished figure compared to Pelsoi vs. Bush or Gingrich vs. Clinton. Boehner may be a very nice man, but not nearly up to the task of leading the opposition to the president.)
It reminds me of Valerie Jarrett’s assertion that Obama has never really been challenged. It’s easy not be challenged if you always look for the easy way.