Hello, everyone, Welcome back to a new episode over You're Wrong with Molly
Hemmingway and David Harsani. Molly, do we have a dress code at the
Federalist Not to my knowledge. I think we have a general culture that encourages
the wearing of pants when in the presence of other colleagues. Thank god.
I don't see you guys personally that often now, but I do wear pants,
but I dress. I can't remember the last time I wear suit.
I'm not a big fan, but if I were in the Senate, I
believe I would wear a suit and tie every day because it's an incredibly you're
you're making incredibly important decisions about life and death, about war, about taxes,
about other people's lives. And if you dress like a complete lazy if
you're a lazy slab and you wear hoodies to do that, I think it
sullies those decisions, undermines those decisions, and is un serious. Yeah.
I don't know why it bothered me so much to learn that they were dropping
that. Senator Schumer unilaterally decided to drop a dress code for the senators while
still keeping one for everyone who works for a senator. It just seems like
this late stage republic sign of decline to not just have a basic sign of
respect for each other in the Senate. And I get that Senator Fetterman is
depressed and doesn't like to put on a suit, and I understand that,
I truly understand that, but it just does not seem like it's helping him
even to lower the standards to accommodate his mental health issues. Is that?
Is that why he doesn't get dressed up because he's depressed, isn't it?
I don't know, but I'll tell you something. Dressing that way would make
me depressed, makes me more depressed, right Like, if you're just hanging
around in your house and you're not taking care of yourself, which it seems
to me he does not look like he takes care of himself properly, that
would make me more depressed. But oh sorry, no, no go.
I'm I've suffered a little bit from that myself. And one of the things
my husband always tries to do is just like get me up and going,
like it's a very important thing to have people around you encouraging you too,
you know, just put on the clothes and get up, And the more
you act like a functional human, the more you end up being a functional
human. But also it's just one of my problems with the way he dresses.
Isn't that it's sweat shorts and hoodies, which is inappropriate for any outside
dress, much less in the Senate. It's that those clothing items always look
like they're really dirty and grimy, which makes me feel worse to look at
him. That he doesn't seem to be keeping himself clean and knowing how to
keep his clothes clean, Like that's that's a that's a problem. I want
people who love him to take care of him a little better. Well,
two things on this I have, and then you know, we can move
on. But one, I wouldn't mind dropping the dress code if it was
for some senator who was eccentrically you know, like some maybe he was from
you know, his cult, his roots go back to another country and he
has some kind of different kind of you know, clothing he wears or her
or whatever. But this we're changing the rules so someone can dress like a
slob. Secondly, he used to have a better He used to have better
attire when he was a candidate, when he was a mayor of whatever town,
he was a mayor of like, he's gotten worse when he came to
the Senator. He dresses worse now, he looks less kept. Now that
is not normal. What if he's just like all a desperate cry for help,
Remember he has the stroke. They make him stay in the race.
His wife, who seems very you know, lady macbeth, like keeps him
in the race. Then he's in such a bad situation that esco to Walter
read for impatient mental health help and she do you remember during that time she
was like sending out notes about how happy she was on her vacations, like
if my husband were in the hospital, would I would stay nearby? But
anyway, and nobody is letting him leave, and maybe he's just like,
what if I start dressing like a dirty slob, They'll have to understand the
seriousness of this situation. And instead Chuck Schumer was like, hey, buddy,
we need that vote. You're going to stay and we're just going to
drop the dress coat for you. Yeah, that's a good theory. Actually,
I mean, there's something not right about that guy. He wasn't listen.
I know he's struggling with certain things, and I'm sorry for that,
but that doesn't mean that he should be in the Senate. I mean,
what I'm saying is he cannot fulfill his obligations and duty is as a senator,
clearly, and then he shouldn't be there and he should deal with whatever
he needs to deal with. But anyway, I just I don't know why
it bothers me either, because I'm not big on dress codes and stuff.
I just it's it just I don't know, it's just it's just annoying.
Let's move on to more serious topics. Yeah, I don't know because I'm
struggling with it myself. Why this annoys me so much? Like I'm button
holding senators to be like, what are you doing about this? This is
a problem. But it really does feel like an insignificant thing that's also significant,
Like it shouldn't matter that much, but somehow it does. It is
a sign that we don't respect ourselves. How you dress is a way of
showing respect to others while also showing you you know something about your own identity.
I love fashion. I love I love that as an art form and
as a communication style. And when you say like this doesn't matter enough for
me to bathe or like this doesn't matter enough for me to put on a
clean item of clothing, or this doesn't matter enough for me to put on
clothing that signifies that I'm an adult. It affects the institution. And I'm
not saying that a lot of these people who are dressed by adults aren't also
making a mockery of the institution. They are. There's basically no leadership in
the Senate. And Mitch McConnell puts a suit on every day and Chuck Schumer
puts a suit on every day, but they were overseeing the destruction of a
once great institution. So I'm not like naive about the real problem. But
these basic standards of civility matter for being in community with other people and having
order. Just the chaos of it all is very disconcerting. That's a good
point, and I think it'd be more forgiving and let that it matters of
this sort of thing if Federman was actually a really you know, sharp bright
mind who gave soaring speak and had new ideas for us and you know,
but he's none of those things. He can barely put a sentence together.
No fault of his own, I guess. But when I see him interviewed
and mocking people who are bringing this up. It also rubs me the wrong
way because he's making a mockery of the Senate. And you say he's mocking,
I think it's his staff who aren't stroke victims are running his social media
accounts. He's not running his social media accounts. So when you see him
mocking people who have commented on the dress code, that's just like the twenty
four year old, you know, into young staffer who's trying to lean into
the persona of a fetterman who's not mentally diminished. And you know, it
does show that you can be a senator and basically not even really be making
any of the decisions. You know, you have an entire staff. You'r
handlers, people who tell you what to do. And that's what's going on
here. I mean, it's clear David Senator Diane Feinstein's daughter has power of
attorney over her and she's still a senator. Yeah, Mitch McConnell has these
brain freezes, which we're told we have to believe is a result of dehydration.
On that note, I have talked with many senators who what frustrates them
is not that Mitch McConnell will, in the words of the way one person
put it to me, only leave in a casket, you know, like
he refuses to step down even though he's having all these troubles. It's that
they're being told that they have to just accept this patently absurd claim that his
brain freezes, which happen in front of a live you know, national audience,
are the result of dehydration. You know, they need real leadership.
We are at a very bad time in the country. We have a regime
that is trying to imprison its political opponents and prevent the right of people to
vote for whomever they want to. It would be kind of a good thing
to have an opposition party that acted like that was not okay, And instead
you have Mitch McConnell brain freezing all over the place, agreeing with Chuck Schumer
on everything, like on this budget battle that's going on, saying nothing to
stop what is a deeply alarming situation for a lot of people. And anyway,
I just heard heard from more than a few senators that it was the
being lied to about how serious the problem is that is bothering them more than
anything. It hit me the other day because when Federman was running and he
had a stroke, some doctor came forward and said, oh, he's fine,
he's already back to being normal almost. You know, this one inhibit
his you know, him from running at all. Just a complete lie.
And doctors are constantly and then Mitch McConnell's doctor said he was dehydrated. And
you have these doctors also, Presidential doctors are always coming out and president is
always perfectly in great healthy eighty year old guy. People are perfectly in perfect
good health. It is it's kind of weird that we can't really even trust
with doctors say anymore. It's not weird. Actually, it's part for the
course lately, speaking of the elderly. This is a good segue. There
have been there are some rumblings David is it David David Ignatius at the Washington
Post, who's you know in a pretty important columnist right on the left,
I would say, especially sort of the establishment left, wrote a piece saying
that Joe Budden shouldn't run in twenty twenty four, someone else should run.
And basically I believe his case was that Budd's just too old right to be
running and he can't really fulfill the promises and duties in a second term where
he'll be I don't know what will he be eighty four eighty five by the
time it's over. What do you make of this? Do you think there's
not going to be any kind of concerted effort to just, you know,
to dispose of Biden? Or do you think this is just a columnist like,
oh my god, I need a topic to write about on a Thursday.
It's not because David Ignatius doesn't write those kinds of columns. He writes
whatever the CIA tells him to write. So people, I said this last
week on Special Report, you know that maybe outside of DC in New York,
people don't really care who David Ignatius is. In DC, he's a
reliable spokesperson for the CIA at the Washington Post. So, for example,
when they wanted to do the Russia collusion hoax, in which they falsely claimed
that Donald Trump was as secret agent of Russia, he was the guy who
legitimized that by putting in the Washington Post that Mike Flynn had had diplomatic calls
with Oh, I forget who that ambassador was from Russia who was no longer
the ambassador and that the deep State was thinking about pursuing Logan Act claims against
him. It just patently absurd, And yet because he said it, everybody
went out and they were like, yes, Logan Act. Logan Act a
thing from like seventeen ninety eight that had never been used successfully in a prosecution.
That is also unconstitutional. That says like, unless you're an agent of
the government, you're not allowed to don you're not allowed to disagree with American
foreign policy, like publicly with a foreign government. Something that would be interesting
in light of oh, I don't know, John Kerry touring Iran at the
end of the Trump administration, you know, something like that. But because
Mike Flynn was the incoming National Security advisor, he was having these conversations with
his Russian counterparts like, Hey, I know that at the end of this
Obama term they're doing sanctions and stuff, just like stay cool, don't let
things get hot, We're coming in soon. Actually an appropriate thing to do.
And David Ignatius laundered this Russia collusion hoax through the Washington Post. So
when he's saying I don't think Biden should run again, he's not saying he
David Ignatius thinks he should be running again. He's saying the people who control
him think that Biden shouldn't be running against So it's super, super interesting,
and everybody in DC did take it to be as interesting as it seemed that.
And I don't know exactly what's going on there, is it that these
people are extremely worried that looking at the situation now, their plot to indict
their top political opponent and put him in prison seems to be backfiring. That
in fact like long ballgame, but odds on right now looks like Trump could
come back. Looks really much like Trump could come back, And they're just
desperate and they're wanting a change because they don't think that Biden, with all
of his corruption, baggage and age and policy failures, will be able to
pull off a win again. I don't know, but it's very very interesting.
Hey, y'all, this is Sarah Carter, investigative columnist and host of
The Sarah Carter Show. Thanks for listening to the Federalist. We all have
a heartfelt reason to support blood pressure. In fact, more than half of
the US population would benefit from blood pressure support. Super beats heart shoes are
easy and convenient way to support healthy blood pressure and promote heart healthy energy paired
with a healthy lifestyle. The antioxidants and super Beats are clinically shown to be
nearly two times more effective at promoting normal blood pressure and a healthy lifestyle alone.
I tell you this, I've felt it. I love taking super Beats.
Not only are they tasty, they're great to chew, but I love
to know that I'm supporting a healthy heart. It's effective and clinically studied.
Super Beats is the number one pharmacist recommended beat brand for cardiovascular health support.
It's blood pressure support. You can trust. Get a free thirty day supply
of super Beats heart shoes and fifteen percent off your first order by going to
get Superbeats dot com and use promo code Sarah. That's SAAR eight Yet Superbeats
dot Com code Sarah to get fifteen percent off your first order Yet Superbeats dot
Com promo code Sarah. Well, so there are I think there's a bunch
of stuff to unpack. One is that what's interesting to me about the column,
first of all, comes filled with nonsense about Biden success, alleged successes
which are just not true. If he was that successful, David Ignatius wouldn't
be writing this column. Secondly, he throws Kamala Harris in there as well
as not to run, which is very interesting because she's incredibly unpopular. But
if so, if it was about age, why is Kamala Harris part of
this duo that needs to step down? She should be running for president,
shouldn't. I mean, she's the obvious next choice, of course, partner
in this successful administration. Right. Yeah, she's done a great job at
the border for instance, and whatever else she does, I'm not sure what
she does. But obviously the problem here is that if Joe Biden were somehow
pushed out her or convinced to step down, there would be of a civil
war in the Democratic Party, right, I mean, it would change the
dynamics of everything, the suppose that successes could not be relied on, because
you know, Biden has taken personal you know, you know, credit for
those things. But also, who's going to run if it's not Kamala Harris,
She's not just going to step aside. I mean, it would just
blow up the Democratic Party, wouldn't it. Yeah? I think it would
be very I think they're in the pickle. They know Biden was only able
to be hauled over the finish line in part because of the uniqueness of the
year in twenty twenty, where they had so many not that a lot of
these things aren't completely still in place, but they had all the COVID changes
to how you vote. He was able to have an excuse for why he
couldn't campaign, and he was able to be presented as a moderate, something
that is much more difficult to do after four years of experiencing, you know,
destruction of energy policy, the economic problems, the completely open border,
a surging crime. You know, all this stuff makes it much harder to
present him as a moderate this time around. Oh but yeah, I don't
know, Like I do think, if they're going to make a change,
it should probably be now September, October, November. It gets a little
bit harder, I think, to do a change later. And maybe this
was a way to sort of see how much they could get someone else to
just throw their hat ring or something. I don't know, like yeah,
like a trial balloon. The thing is, it's not the first time.
And you often get these stories before elections where someone's you know, about someone
stepping aside for the vice president, or firing the vice president. That's another
story you see a lot before elections. But I just don't see why Biden
would do any of that. He doesn't seem personally like the type of guy
who would step aside for the good of the party or something. The very
reason he's president is because he has zero principles and it was very easy to
mold into whatever you want people to believe he is. He'd take any position
depending on what's going on, and that's what made him a successful you know,
that allowed him to successfully run for president. But let's talk about if
if you don't have nothing else on that, and who would if he did
step aside? Who what prospects do Democrats have. I think they have a
pretty thin or short bench, I guess, is what I'd say. I
don't know. I don't understand the Democrat Party as well as I should,
and I just always sort of think it's Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer, which
also has its own problems because that's a white man and a white woman,
and the Democrat Party is completely beholden to identity politics. So if you were
taking out the first black female vice president and not letting her run or knowing
she couldn't collect a single vote, and then replacing her with a white man.
That might be a problem. I don't know. I think it should
be RFK J yeah, Junior. Sorry, RFK is dead. Yeah.
I don't buy any of this. So that's why the ignacious thing is kind
of curious to me. I just don't buy that he would step aside.
I don't buy that there there are enough people to make him do it.
I don't see any kind of contingency plan for them. I just I just
don't see it. People don't know who news him is in most of the
country, and he's a far leftist. I don't think that flies in a
lot of places. And the way Biden can still sort of present himself as
a moderate just because esthetically he's a moderate, I guess, but you know
what I'm saying. So I just I don't don't see it. I don't
see it. All right, Well, that answered nothing I wanted to hear
that there was some conspiracy afoot. Wait, I have one word say you
say about Biden. This week, he's been up in New York and he
gave a speech about how like it's one of these democracy is on the ballot
things and how the Republican Party is against democracy. And first off, I
really do think people get annoyed when they refer to our country as a democracy
instead of a constitutional republic, which is what we actually are. But we
have democratic values infused in our system. And right now, the Joe Biden
campaign strategy is to imprison his top political opponent and remove him from the ballot
to prevent people from being able to vote for him. Yeah, that's about
as clear an attack on democracy as you can have. Like, that's that's
like at the very top of attacks on democracy. And it's just I'm not
surprised that the media and other Democrats are not pointing this out, but it's
a it's a brutal attack. It's one of the hallmarks of a free and
fair election is that people can vote for the candidate of their choice. And
when we say that Russia doesn't have free elections, we're saying that because they
will say that an opposition leaders has fomented it in direction and is not eligible
for the ballot. That's what we mean by they're not doing free elections.
So when you're doing it yourself, making false claims about political protests, as
an excuse or pretense to remove someone from the ballot so that tens of millions
of your people cannot vote for that person. That's an attack on democracy.
Yeah, that's a good point. I'm not sure if you saw. Even
George will who hates hates hates Donald Trump, wrote a column about how corrupt
this was try to get him off the ballots. But I would say this,
you know my feelings on democracy. The reason that people don't want to
call it a democracy, It's not a mistake. They're not just now that
they think they have the votes and that they have more people on their side,
or suddenly they want to turn everything into a direct democracy. That's not
a mistake. And when you say it, they laugh at you when you
say, oh, we're not a democracy. That's so Jejune, you know,
because but there's a reason behind it. Moreover, though, the modern
Democratic Party is authoritarian. That's why they want to take people ballots. That's
why the central argument of Joe Biden has been that we need one party rule
or democracies in trouble, which is the most authoritarian thing you can say.
And they act in authoritarian ways and they believe the state should be lording over
your life in very virtually every way. It doesn't forgive what Republicans quite often
do that I don't like. But the idea that Democrats are pro democracy is
of course a complete joke. They're pro you know, they're pro winning elections
when they can, and they're pro getting rid of candidates when they can,
and they're pro the court's instituting policies when they can unilaterally with the president using
executive orders to govern, et cetera. So it just drives me crazy when
they talk about democracy. For them, democracy is just a euphemism for whatever
policy they want to institute. And one of those policies they used to force
US an institute through FIAT and through bogus judicial power is abortion. So let's
talk about abortion. Donald Trump gave an interview again. I find it annoying.
And you may disagree that Donald Trump gives interviews to the worst people out
there, which he should, but then doesn't debate other Republican candidates. I
understand why he does it, but it still annoys me. I'd like to
hear his case for some of this stuff, but we can talk about that.
But anyway, she was interviewed, what's her name Christine Welker, Kristen
Welker, Kristin well sees Meet the Press. She's the new host I think
of meet Meet the Press, right, I believe. So they call her
a moderator. They don't say it's a host. They say it's a moderator,
which is weird because she didn't interview Trump. She debated him. You
know, he did well in part because everyone on the left was furious that
she allowed him on air. They say, in journalism, you shouldn't interview
someone you disagree with, who's a former president and highly potential future president,
who's the top front runner of the party that you don't belong to, because
that's what journalism is these days, not interviewing political opponents. And they were
very, very mad, and they were mad because he generally does you know,
he's able to get his message out when you interview him. They think
the way to win for their party, which is the Democrat Party, is
to prevent interviews with candidates who appeal to voters. You know, I saw
that. I forget his name all the time, but one of these fascist
journalism professor dudes on Twitter talking about how he shouldn't be interviewed. The president
Republican presidential candid he was the former president anyway, I thought he actually did
pretty well in that interview in general, except on abortion, which I think
he did not do well. But let's talk. So there's two things to
discuss here. I think there's the wet welker lies, her begging of questions
in the form of lies and misleading the public. And you wrote a column
about it which really went into it, and I wrote a column about it
as well. He wrote we wrote it at the same time, and then
it was like, whoops, So yeah, I do actually really quickly want
to talk about Kristin Walker's format for her propaganda so she has on Donald Trump.
I actually don't have a problem with Donald Trump being on there, only
because he's pretty effective at battling the media. I don't want anybody going up
against him. He's not always like there have been some really bad interviews he's
had, but he's generally pretty good. I like it when you see a
Republican politician understanding that the propaganda press is a political opponent rather than someone you
should try to get to like you, and he does seem you know,
I don't know, they're I have many conflicted feelings about it, but I
agree with all that. By the way, okay, the format she chose
was to do a taped interview and then after the fact insert what were presented
as fact checks that were not factual and were not checks of things he'd actually
said, but were these desperate attempts to win back the narrative. This reminds
me of something that a radio producer had said to me that they think when
members of the media interview political candidates, they shouldn't have an earpiece in with
producers telling them what to ask. It's like an unfair advantage for that debate
partner unless the candidate also gets to have people in his ear or her ear
saying what they should say back it is. It's actually kind of true,
right, It's like a weird, unfair advantage. But anyway, she inserts
these fact checks that were not factual, sometimes included outnout falsehoods, or weren't
responsive to things. So if Trump said something about the Biden family corruption and
how it implicated President Biden, something that's undeniably true and has been spoken to
on the record in sworn testimony, you know multiple business partners being like yep,
the business brand was based on Joe Biden being president. And she does
a fact check where she's like, there's no evidence at all whatsoever in the
universe that Joe Biden ever benefited in any way from Hunter Biden's business. It's
like, hey, that's not actually what President Trump said. B would the
multiple emails and texts from Hunter Biden claiming that he pays his dad's bills,
you know, be evidence? Would that be evidence? You might it might
not be true. You know, in a court of law, you might
be able to show that he was lying when he claimed that the money he
got from the family business of influence peddling went to pay Joe Biden's bills.
Oh, there're also I guess some checks from Hunter Biden to his parents or
payments of rent, you know, exorbitant rent payment things like. There's there's
actually quite a bit of evidence that there was a benefit to Joe Biden of
his son's running of the influence peddling scheme based on his dad. Also,
it's not a standard journalist journalists have ever used before. And you know,
Adam Schiff would go on meet the press and say, literally, I'll meet
the press and say that he had you know, in contestable evidence and a
smoking gun of collusion, and no one's like we haven't seen the evidence,
or like, you know, they wouldn't even challenge him. And this went
on interview after interview, it went on with the Kavanaugh stuff. It's gone
on forever, and no one ever ever had this kind of fact checking.
The whole thing is to intimate that Donald Trump is somehow, you know,
worse than out of the norm, worse than normal politicians, and how he
conducts conducts himself, and he is on some level, but not on the
lying level. Joe Biden is just as prodigious or more and of a liar,
and no one does this sort of fact check on him. And I
also just say christ And Walker was only because the she she was one of
the debate moderators in twenty twenty. She was widely viewed as not bad only
because Chris Wallace moderated the first debate, and everyone, including Chris Wallace,
admits that that was a disaster. But it is kind of worth pointing out
that in that second debate, when President Trump brought up his opponent's influenced peddling
business, Kristen Walker was like, we got to move on and talk about
how I think you're racist, and she kind of said it repeatedly, and
that is one thing I think, and maybe he did in the full interview
that was chopped. Why you don't like it when Trump goes on these interviews,
he should have said, hey, Kristen, good time to revisit how
you were a complete propagandist during the twenty twenty election. And wouldn't let us
talk about something that is now involved in impeachment and an impeachment inquiry inquiry?
Oh, Also her question on impeachment was like have you talked to Kevin McCarthy
about it? And it turned out that the answer was no. But also
who cares if he talked to who? He's a private citizen. He can
talk to Kevin McCarthy about like whatever he wants to talk about, including that
he thinks that President Biden should be impeached for corruption. Like what his office,
he wasn't allowed to a phone call with the Landscape about investigating corruption and
now these out of office, he wouldn't be allowed to have a phone call
saying like hey, this guy's corupt Like it's just insane, it's just they
create they're so sneaky, right, like they create these new standards through questions.
It's the same thing like we talked last week about Aldo Alido refuses to
accuse himself like he has no reason to. No one ever did. Former
president can talk to us. He's the former president of the United States.
Is a leader, you like it or not. He's a leader in the
Republican Party. He's allowed to talk to people. Barack Obama, there's a
long piece a few weeks ago. Barack Obama talks to people all the time
he's in DC. No one asked him, did you discuss impeachment? He
literally gives speeches saying that Republicans, you know, are racist and against democracy
and so on. So, yeah, it's ridiculous. She's ridiculous. I
just quickly said, I'm I'm not against this interview. I think I've argued
for a long time. I think you should give interviews to everyone. Just
make sure you tape all of it yourself, as but you should give interviews
to people disagree with you. I think Republicans do pretty well, a lot
of them when they do these sorts of things. I just wish that Trump
was involving himself in the primary debate as well. But I think that that's
ship has probably sailed, Like you said the other the watched Aldom Wall Street
podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet. Flashback to Obamacare, health insurance
costs for employers are set to take their biggest jump in years. How does
this affect you? Good luck getting a raise with inflation still high. Don't
expect to thank you card from those who got subsidized health insurance. Whether it's
happening in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be
informed. Check out the watched Altom Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apples,
Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Well, wait, can
I say it before I want to? I want to talk at length about
the abortion things. I've been thinking about it for days, I thought.
The funniest part of the interview is when she asks him something like, so
tell us about the time that you wrestle the Secret Service agent to the ground
on January sixth, and the way he looks at her is like, oh,
wow, Like I didn't. I didn't realize you were stupid, like
he looks at her like I did not realize I was dealing with a stupid
person, and then you realize she's she either does believe this conspiracy theory that
Donald Trump wrestled a Secret Service agent to the ground Donald Trump like a seventies
something year old man, or that she's pretending to believe it, and it's
all based on this Cassidy Hutchinson testimony where Cassidy claimed she talked to someone who
talked to someone who said this happened, so for it's not even like anyone
with's claiming firsthand to have done it. Immediately in the aftermath, even far
left media organizations were like, yeah, we talked to the Secret Service,
and don't think that one's true, guys, And nobody else ever corroborated it.
Liz Cheney's January six committee never tried to corroborate it, meaning they didn't
even ask the Secret Service agents because they kind of knew it wasn't true.
But here's Kristin Welker literally pushing it. But it was just funny to be
for him to be like and she she says, so you dispute it,
and he's like, uh, yes, yeah, this is this is not
true. Why would you think it's true. It was just really funny to
watch that portion. It's like if Joe Biden was there, he would be
asked some questions about his accomplishments, and then he would be asked about Donald
Trump and how terrible Trump is. But you know what I'm saying that Democrats
talk about how bad Republicans are, and Republicans have to defend themselves from how
bad they are, you know, whether it's true or not. And that's
how these interviews go. It's annoying. I don't know how to fix it.
There's no real way to fix it other than two, as you say,
deal with them as the enemy. Okay. I also want to say
she said there was no evidence that Biden had pressured Garland to indict Trump,
and that's also not true. And it's just really insane that she either pretended
not to be aware or wasn't aware that. In April of twenty twenty two,
Biden's White House laundered the pressure through The New York Times, which is
like the in house newsletter for Democrats, and they had The New York Times
publish on their front page that he was frustrated that Trump hadn't been indicted and
that he hadn't said anything directly to Garland, but he had been talking to
other people about it. And then it wasn't like a secret message that was
passed to Garland. It was put in the New York Times for all the
world to see, so to say that there was no pressure and if that
weren't true, If that were not true, Joe Biden and his people could
have been like, Hey, we're a little worried that that seems like we're
running a pressure campaign through the New York Times, so we want to make
clear that we are not doing that. Nope, nothing like that, or
even you know, leak privately that they didn't do that. Nope. They
were happy to have this in the New York Times. And she said there
was that there was nothing to it, and then finally, oh sorry,
now, I was just saying that no evidence thing is such a stupid red
herring that they constantly throw in. Right, It's like that, as Eddie
Scarry says, do they not know what evidence is? Like? It can
be testimony, it can be emails, it can be received whatever, but
they're supposed to find the evidence that's their job, Like, of course,
there's no evidence. There's no like definitive evidence of everything. People say something,
you know, in politics, that's what their job is to try to
figure it out. But anyway, go on. So also Trump said something
about Nancy Pelosi not not taking the steps needed to protect the capital, and
in her fact check, christ and Walker was like, no one blames Nancy
Pelosi for the riot. That's absurd. It's like, okay, it wasn't.
I mean, here's the fact of the matter. Nancy Pelosi is responsible
for the security of the Capitol. She oversees the House Sergeant in Arms Mitch
McConnell also had responsibilities there. They claim that they had intelligence that there was
bad stuff coming down the pike. You have a police chief who has said
publicly and in testimony that he requested help and didn't get it from the House
Sergeant at Arms who is under Nancy Pelosi, and for her to not know
any of that or not like know that Merril Bowser rejected National Guard troops that,
you know, because they had allowed the riots that attacked Donald Trump and
his White House. That was all very important to allow that to continue.
So they couldn't very well, bring in National Guard that would do anything about
January sixth. It just she said repeatedly, you're the commander in chief,
meaning like you control the military. You should have done this, which is
just kind of also interesting that the same journalists who just a couple of years
ago, when they were calling for help in quelling the riots that were destroying
American cities across the country in the summer of twenty twenty, the BLM riots,
you know, they said that that was like so awful that the New
York Times actually fired their their editorial page editor because he published an op ed
from a US senator calling for that. And now she's like, why did
you not bring the US military to bear as commander in chief against American protesters?
I mean, it just she sounded like a crazy person. Yeah,
there's no consistency, Okay, yeah about it. Well, I just I
found it's I don't know that that the press lies about anything more blatantly than
abortion. I don't know if that's actually true, but it's definitely up there,
right, It's it is up there. And she is a useful straw
man because she unleashed some of the most ridiculous lies about abortion. Do you
want to you wrote a long piece. Do you want to talk about them
one by one or do you want to just overall? Yeah, just to
continue with the aston Walker stuff before we get to how Trump responded. What
frustrated me was she was just brazenly lying about Democrats position. So she the
second half of the televised interview was all about abortion, and that's because Democrats
are trying to make abortion like an animating issue for their base. And so
Trump is responding by pointing out that Democrats are very extreme on abortion. They
support abortion at such an extreme way that they do not believe there should be
limits even at six, seven, eight months of pregnancy. So he's he's
saying that. He also said that and sometimes after birth, and that is
as Yeah, they're also true. Yeah. I live in Virginia and our
previous governor had a boo boo where he accidentally admitted that he thought, if
you survived, if you're, if you're, if you weren't wanted, you
could be allowed to die after birth. Yes, and that was on videotape
and on audiotape. So she says, Democrats aren't saying that. I just
have to say Democrats are not saying that, and that's a lie. That
is a bald faced, brazen lie. Last year in the United States Senate,
there was a bill that every single Democrat senator except for Joe Mansion voted
for that would prohibit protections for unborn children at the state level. But you
see what she's doing there. It's a pedantic parsing of words. Democrats aren't
saying that, saying that they're not in publicly what they actually vote for.
Yeah, like it's like this is also a completely new standard. Now you
have to affirmatively say, hey, you guys should go down and get abortions
at thirty weeks, or you actually don't support it, which is a complete
nonsensical way to look at things. Democrats support abortion without limits. They do
it in national legislation, they do it on the state level, and Colorado,
for instance, is one of the worst laws. New Yor and others
have no limits on abortion. And she's just absolutely just a liar. No
one's talking about that is her way of saying that because she looks at it
like this, abortion should be legal because it's a choice. So just because
you think people should have the choice, you don't support it. That would
be like me saying, well, I think people should have the choice to
give violent felons fully automatic weapons, but I have no responsibility for what they
do with those fully automatic weapons, because you know that's their choice. And
that's not even a really good example. It's the best that could come up
with them. But you know what I mean again, Zander Sanctis I quoted
her in my piece. She wrote that the bill is an effort to codify
ROW, not only declaring abortion of fundamental right for any reason throughout all of
pregnancy, but also nullifying any state law that prohibits or regulates abortion. The
bill would forbid state laws protecting unborn children after they're old enough to survive outside
the womb. It would nullify bands on abortions chosen for discriminatory reasons, such
as the unborn child, sex, or diagnosis with a disability. It would
prohibit even the most modest regulations, such as informed consent laws, waiting periods,
ultrasound requirements, and even safety standards for abortion clinics. And every Democrat
voted for that, except for Mansion or everyone every Democrat voted voted for that
except for Mansion. And the House had a version, and only two Democrats
didn't didn't vote for it, and Guy Benson noted that in twenty seventeen or
twenty eighteen, Congress voted on a bill to ban abortions after twenty weeks,
which is a wildly popular position, by the way, to protect children at
that point, and ninety seven percent of Congressional Democrats voted against it. Now,
only seven countries in the world allow barbaric abortions after twenty weeks, and
ninety seven percent of Democrats voted with them. The Democrats National bill also stripped
with strips. So usually you know how Democrats like to say, it's a
decision between a woman and her doctor, meaning any kind of like if you
have a migraine, you can get a mental health exception. They took that
away too. You don't need to be a doctor, You just need to
be a healthcare professional, meaning you can be like a psychologist, not even
a psychiatrist, and tell a woman she can get an abort right her,
you know, exception. So it would have essentially allowed abortion forever. But
by the way, even right now in Colorado and Maryland there they're all what
are they called all all I forgot what they're called, but they allow all
trimester abortion shops. Well, what's that guy's named? Warren hearn does it?
And Maryland there's a place, And Warren Hearne, in an Atlantic piece,
admitted, Oh, that's the other thing I wanted to say. He
admitted that perfectly healthy women and perfectly healthy babies are being aborted, and he
was fine with that. And studies have shown, though they don't do them
anymore, that people that women get late term abortions, their trimester abortions for
the same reasons they get abortions at any other times during pregnancy. It's basically
just a birth can she lied? Welker said that only one percent of women
get these abortions, and they get them in a state of crisis. That's
not true. It's not a state of crisis. And one percent of all
near viable or abortions equals ten thousand or more babies. Does she say,
oh, only one percent of school shootings are you know they're only shooting?
Is only one percent of school shootings? Those shootings don't matter, Those lives
don't matter. She would never say that, but for some reason, this
argument about it only being one percent is if that of a percent of police
interactions result in a shooting by a police officer exactly, so therefore we don't
need to talk about it. Yeah, just complete pro abortion hackery here,
and this is the norm, almost always, it's the norm. Member CBS
had that reporter who was like, who's now an abortion activists? Basically she
hasn't even changed were she You're gonna have to be more specific there. The
CBS had like a what a reproductive rights reporter? Like if you use that
kind of visim, you know it's going to be terrible. And then she
went over and like works for not planned paranoid? What's the one that's even
worse? I forget there, Nay Rail pro choice America, nayral I think.
Yeah. I just want to say it was my awareness of this issue
and how corrupt the media were about it that awakened my interest in both media
criticism and being a reporter, and it continues to animate me to this day.
But let's talk about Trump's response or do you want to say more about
No just makes me bad? Okay? So Trump said within this interview that
he believed that the six week ban in Florida, was it specific to that
was terrible? Yes, And this is the thing that made me very angry.
So I think the moment this happened, you had a lot of people
jumping on what Trump said, and some of what they said was unfair,
and we can get to that, but this is what angered me. He
has this stupid strategy of attacking I think anything the Santis has said or done,
that's his strategy for the primary, including all the wonderful things that Rond
de Santis has said and done. And one of the good things that Rond
de Santis did last year after the dab's decision came down, was signed legislation
that Florida had passed, like the Florida legislature passed a heartbeat protection boat.
What that means is once a heartbeat is detected in an unborn child, they
restrict abortion from that point on. A number of states have passed these bills
protecting children once the heartbeat can be detected. And Donald Trump says, I
think it was terrible and it was a mistake, or it was a terrible
mistake or something like that. And I understand that he was speaking probably politically,
but he's wrong. He's mostly wrong morally, because it's not wrong to
protect children. You can have debate. It's about the proper way to do
it. But it's not wrong to protect children who from violence in the wound.
But it's also just wrong politically to say it was a mistake, like
if you're saying he's saying it was a mistake politically in that Ron Decant just
won re election after signing that by like twenty points, and you had other
governors signing abortion protection restrictions on abortion to protect women and children in Tennessee,
in Texas, in Ohio, in Georgia, and all of those governors won
reelection. Pro life states not just can, but should pass pro life laws
now that the dab's decision returns the right of the people returns to the people
the right to work on abortion law. So I just it just infuriated me.
Actually, what do you think at the same reaction. First of all,
it doesn't make sense his argument. He bragged about getting personally overturning row
yet he had a lot to do with it, that's for sure, And
then talked about how that people could vote for it and make their own decisions.
But then when they do make their own decisions that are pro life and
then are successful, like you just mentioned in numerous states. He calls that
terrible. It is obviously he's running for that. People don't like six week
bands nationally, and he's running for national elections. So he's doing what he's
doing. But there are a million better ways to go about it, even
if you're going to cynically do this thing, and we don't need to do
that. We're writers, we're not politicians. I get he's a politician.
He could say I don't believe in a national national laws the way, but
look, Florida gets to do what they want to do, and if New
York has different ideas they can, I'm going to do it best I can
to bring more, you know, to protect babies, et cetera. But
he didn't do that everything for him where most of what he does to me
seems, you know, very political and not principle based, and that's always
been my problem. I just don't believe he's a conservative, so I don't
think he even knew why what he was saying might offend people who are socially
Okay, this is I have so many thoughts on this, so I want
to say, first off, something nice, which is a lot of Republican
politicians have messed up the discussion about whether this is a state's issue or not,
and you can you can have a constitutional discussion about whether there can be
things done at the federal level. I happen to think it definitely can be.
I know people who I love in respect who think it should just be
a state's issue. The Dobb's decision did not say it is returned to the
states period. It said it was returned to the people, and the people
can operate both at the state level and at the federal level through elected representatives,
okay, or other means. So he actually got that right. She
keeps trying to say, like, are you for or against federal you know
line? And when he's like, I'm not going to take a position on
that, it can be either, and I was like, why can't more
Republican politicians figure this out? So there was that there was something else you
just said that I wanted to respe just quickly. That's the Alinsky thing,
where you you force your opponent to live up to their principles where you don't
have any because Democrats have no problem with national laws codifying row as law,
so they but Republicans aren't allowed to fight back in the same way okay.
Now, apart from this, everyone was like, how dare he call for
a fifteen week ban when the real pro life position is abolition, And that
was where I started to lose, Like that annoyed me for the criticism.
I do think Trump should be criticized for saying that heartbeat protection bills are a
mistake. But a fifteen week ban, I think is the official position of
the Susan b Anthony List right like that, that's the next step that Republicans
should go for. It is politically incredibly popular, like a majority of Americans
support protecting children once they reach fifteen weeks of age. Now, I,
as someone who does not believe in killing people, would love that to be,
would love to be have those protections much further back. But politically speaking,
that's not where the country is. So the debate is do you push
abolition? You know, and this was a debate like in slave ry too.
You had the people who were just trying to restrict and restrain the slave
trade or its practice in states, and then you had complete abolitionists. And
you know, even a great great man like Lincoln was not pushing abolition until
until he could, until he could politically right. So this is a political
argument. I actually think it's a pretty smart one to make. Right now,
we have corrupt media and other Democrats trying to position Republicans as being radical
when their views are actually very much in the mainstream of American thought, lying
about the radical nature of Democrats position, and I thought he did all right
in getting that out there at the Democrats. You know, Christian Walker did
her very level best to lie on behalf of killing babies, but he at
least got it out there, and I think more Republicans should be hitting that
point. Yeah. I mean some of the reaction is was from Desanti's people,
and I get it because he was successful in this, and you know,
in passing that law focused on that comment and not on his pushback on
how Democrats are radicals, which I think is actually in some ways an even
bigger point that needs to be made nationally. But you're right about incrementalism.
The left understands this. They want to socialize medicine, so they pass whatever
they can to move towards that direction, and then they retrench and they do
it again. You can't get everything you want. My position would be anything
that moves us closer to protecting babies. If it's twenty weeks or fifteen weeks
or six weeks, whatever we can get done, whatever I could convince you
to vole for. I am going to move in that direction. And that's
what we should be thinking, not you know, never going to get full
bands right away. And it should be also mentioned that the six week band
in Florida allows for a lot of exemption exceptions for you know, meant for
health, for real health issues, mostly for fetal abnormalities, for other things.
It's not as strict, and as you know, sp try to to
frame it. But the third thing I want to talk about is another little
like weird word word usage that bothers me by the media. Everyone calls it
twenty week ban or fifteen week ban. It's not a ban. If you
restrict something, everything is restricted in this world. It's you're not banned from
driving because there's a thirty five mile per hour speed limit. It's not a
ban. There are limitations and regulations and restrictions on things. Abortion is not
a right. It's not a right. You don't have a right to do
it anymore than you have a right to drive. So we should stop calling
them bands. In my opinion. It's not a bank you think of regulation
is the right word for it, Yeah, it's you know, Yeah,
I don't know, I have to find the right word. But ban it's
not a week limit limit. If you have a fifteen week limit, and
people hear that that's different than hearing band because they're constantly saying on the media
whenever I watch it that there's bands being passed across the nation, when people
are passing fifteen week bands or whatever it is in Virginia. Yeah, that's
actually really good point. And I'm I always think of it in terms of
maybe it's because I'm a woman who has given birth, but I always think
of it as a protection for women and their children. So you're protected from
the violence of abortion at fifteen weeks or at six weeks, So fifteen week
protection would have a very different field than a band, right, Yeah.
Well, and you know, and it does seem like since it is a
violent taking human life, that protection and you restrict that that a protection is
a good word for that. But it is interesting how they always and this
goes back to sixties and seventies, they've take over the language, the usage
of words. You can be and that a lot of times we go along
with it because that's how we're taught, that's how we're brought up, that's
what we've read growing up. And then we use the language that they've invented
for these things that gives it a certain kind of flavor or framing that is
wrong. I mean, if you think about protecting the baby, then this
is not a band of anything. It's a protection. So that's a good
word, and that's the one I think I'm going to start using. So
I just I also want to and I know that if I were the de
Santist campaign, I would have made a major hey about this interview as well.
But I thought people kind of were shortsighted and some of how they went
after this. You know, Trump was a little shortsighted too well, or
maybe he's not. Maybe he just knows he's wrapped up the primary battle so
he can do stuff like this. But there are a lot of people who
care a lot about this issue, and he's been very good at being transactional
with pro lifers, and that's the first time I think pro lifers have really
learned this was through him. I trust Donald Trump to have the right foreign
policy instincts He has shown that again and again and again on the pro life
thing. You know, I know his story about how he became pro life.
He has demonstrated a pro life He's done amazing things with pro life policy.
He deserves a lot of acclaim for being the most pro life president in
American history. I don't know if I you know for him. For him
though, I still think it's transactional. I think he understands he got a
lot of support from pro lifers and he had to deliver. What he needs
to understand is he can continue to get that support from pro lifers, but
he needs to continue to deliver. His plan for pushing for like a fifteen
week protection or something like that is not a bad plan for all the reasons
you stated, But when you say something like heartbeat laws are terrible and that's
what pro lifers are working on, it feels like an attack on the pro
life community. So needs to improve the messaging on that, even as his
plan to move things in a better direction for the pro life cause is probably
politically sicked, and it might be if there was any kind of consensus nationally,
which there won't be. As John Davidson wrote in the federalist. There's
not going to be any kind because Trump promised that he would bring a truce
on this issue to the American people. But a consensus a fifteen weeks seems
like, I'm actually a pretty fair consensus, not that I think it's moral,
but a consensus for those two groups. But I agreed with John that
it's insane to think that radical, bloodthirsty pro pro abortion people are going to
concede anything or work to have a compromise. But I also think that the
way that pro lifers should message is by pushing for something you know, quote
unquote reasonable. It's never reasonable to take the life of a numborn child.
But but again, the American people are very much in the camp of protections
around fifteen weeks. They're not yet where they need to be on earlier than
that, and so calling for a consensus is different than thinking you'll actually get
the far left Democrats to agree to a consensus. Does that make so?
But yeah. Also, by the way, Texas has a ban. I
was reading this story when researching the piece I wrote, where it talks about
how thousand extra babies were born in Texas since the abortion band went into effect.
But I was like confused because the whole, the whole framing of the
piece was how this was somehow like a negative thing not a positive thing.
So it could like I like, I just not compute. But yeah,
I have to say. I mean, for person my age to even if
you had told me twenty thirty years ago when I was growing up, for
instance, that the Roe v. Wade would be overturned, I would never
have believed you. That would I just I would have thought that the First
Amendment could be overturned before Roe v. Wade was overturned. Right, So
I still disagree with you. I thought Roe v. Wade was going to
get overturned. Well, I guess are you saying post Casey, I thought
it was going to get overturned ahead of Casey. When Casey came down,
I was pretty I don't know, I was very concerned. But looking back,
I'm kind of surprised it took so long. Can I say something about
this case in nineteen ninety two, Casey, that that should have overturned Row
at that point in time, they had to do such contortions. Sandra Day
O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy had to do such contortions to get to where they went,
and it did such damage to I mean, it's just it was just
like absurd what they did. So yeah, I do you know why I
didn't think that way about Casey because I was probably drunk on a couch eating
Derrida, was watching football because I was twenty two, David, So,
okay, sorry, but I just realized, like people are like, what's
Casey? So we're talking about kcv. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court case
that should have overturned Rubby Wade in nineteen ninety two and didn't because of Sandra
Day O'Connor and Anthony and Kennedy. But I want to say that when I
was nine I found out what abortion was. I asked my parents. I
had heard about it, and I asked my parents and they told me.
And I still remember, you know, sitting at the kitchen table with them
telling me and just thinking there is no way that that's real. There is
no way that we are doing that to children, And it just changed the
course of my life forever. Like So, yes, when I was nine,
I was thinking that. So I was definitely thinking that. I mean,
oh, did I, David? I used, I was finding these
old papers, but I kept in high school. This's like me feeling sickly
sweet about my younger self. And at the end of each year, i'd
put like, what I'd done that year to fight abortion? Oh wow,
I have to be honest with you. I never thought like I didn't really
give it serious thought growing up, you know, And it wasn't until I
was in my early third I always thought it was sort of wrong, but
I didn't care that much. It's just the truth of it. In my
twenties and in my thirties, I didn't want to get too into it.
But this woman near my house got ran over but I hit and run driver,
and she was pregnant. And the big debate was should they prosecute for
two murderers or one? And I thought about the dimensions of that, and
the moral dimensions and the philosophy that says, oh, baby's only a baby,
you decide it is, and how ridiculous that was, and that put
me on a path of which I think is not a religious one. Really,
it's more like just rationally thinking about life, though there are obviously,
it is about ethic morals and ethics of human life. And that put me
on the road that I'm on right now. And I cannot understand arguments for
abortions, certainly not abortion of viable babies that make and none of them make
any sense to me. And that's why people like welk Or can't really make
those arguments for why it's okay. So that's why they have to lie and
diminish the importance of it. And you do what they do and engage in
that kind of propaganda. Okay, And I know we need to get off
this, but I shouldn't say one last thing. I also think that apart
from politics and apart from law, this really is an issue where every single
person needs to think about how they are living their life and how they are
helping out the women and unborn children that they may encounter. And this is
something that politics and law can't save us regarding. But we need to be
a culture that loves and supports life and defends it and apart from whatever the
laws say as well. Okay, that's an amazing point, because I'm just
my last thing. It's just politics will not solve this in the end.
You have to change the hearts and minds of people, speak to them rationally
with the motion as well about this issue and people always tell me, like,
but it's not popular, Like, what do you want to lose elections
forever? If it's okay to kill ten thousand babies who are completely viable,
then what's an election really worth? Right? So I don't care. I'm
not a politician, and we need to convince people that that's immoral, like
we did with slavery. They hate when you say that, but it's true
anyway. Oh, that's a pretty serious issue for me to like segue into
culture now, But let's just do it. What's going on with you out
there in the world of music, movies, books. I'm going to see
Peter Gabriel tonight, which I'm pretty scited about. Yeah, how old is
Peter? I can't believe he's like in his seventies. Yeah. You know,
a lot of these people tour now they're cashing in and a lot of
them. For instance, the band I like, you know years ago called
Pavement is touring and I see they have these huge crowds. But when I
like them, they're like like a hundred people showed up. Now they're just
massive, and I'm sort of happy for all these people that they get to
make a lot of money now. I guess Peter Gabriel has always been a
big rock star, so it's a little different. I don't know if this
is cultural, but I went to Maine for the first time in my life.
Really, isn't it beautiful? It was like unspeakably gorgeous. I couldn't
believe it. I wanted to stay there, like not come home. Yeah,
May and new Ham, sure, I like a lot as well.
Over Month's pretty nice. That's not culture, but that is nice to know.
I have you ever watched this terrible sitcom, The Big Bang Theory.
No, it's on like twenty four seven. I've been watching it and it's
pretty funny. It's pretty funny. It's like, how can you say this?
You know? In the it's like just empty calories. It's like chewing
on Twizzlers or something. It's you know what I'm saying, like, doesn't
make me think I just wrote like it just reactively laugh when I'm supposed to
do like a robot, and I watch episode after episode completely hooked. But
it's but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but I'm watching it. Did
I talk about last week? I talk about watching John Wick four? I
don't think so. Oh I watched that too, where Keanu Reeves kills about
four or five times as many people as words he speaks in the movie.
That sounds like a good movie. It was all right. It was fun
that the way to the look of the movie, the cinematography and stuff,
it's really inventive and fun to look at. So yeah, I watched that.
My husband and I celebrated seventeen years of marriage. Well, actually didn't
celebrate because I was out. He was out of town and I was out
of town. But we marked our seventeenth anniversary. That's pretty cool. Congratulations,
That's that's amazing. Yeah, well I don't think it's that amazing,
but I do. Like I was thinking about this where we were talking the
other night. It is we really liked being married, and we are enjoying
our marriage, and I don't think we expected to like it. I mean
we you know how you don't know what you're getting into when you get married.
You probably don't think that much into the future. But insofar as we
did, I don't know if we realized just how great it would be.
Like it's nice to really get to someone and have their support and everything.
So I think, how can I say this I think I enjoy being married
now more than I did when I first got married, or two years into
my marriage or three years, so it actually gets better and better, and
now that we're empty nesters, it's even better. Yeah. Well we had
a little bit of a rough start, so that's definitely true in our case.
But like my heart still goes pitter patter when when I see him after
I haven't seen him for a little bit. Yeah, I don't want to
make it sound like it's always easy. I'm not an easy person to be
around all the time. But you know, you know, I feel like
I'm the one that's not easy to be around. I feel badly about that.
But anyway, everyone's got their their their their stuff. That is that
it. Yeah, I'm just feeling all she about my husband, about your
husband. I have one last thing which your husband actually would like and you
would like to hear about. Probably. But they're rereleasing the Replacements album,
Tim. I think it's the might be the fortieth Year Anniverse or something on
My Lord Am I old? But now Tim was the Replacements, which it's
a lot to me as as a teenager I used to you know, I
just loved them, and I went to see them numerous times, but tim
was their first major league album, and it was like way over produced.
The sound of it is really tinny and not great. Had like that eighties
sheen that a lot of those bands had in their production values. So they've
been they've I've heard a few of the songs. They are kind of amazing,
but they stripped the whole thing down and sort of reproduced it, you
know, re engineered it so it sounds fuller and you really can hear it.
And I'm super excited about that. There's a big box set with songs
you know I haven't been released. It's like it's like eighty bucks to buy,
but I'm probably going to do it. It's a lot of money,
but I think it'll be worth it. Right, It'll bring me back,
bring me back to the mid eighties. You're replacements fan too. I think
we've spoken of yeah we are. Yeah, So all right, Well,
it was nice talking to you, great talking to you. Oh and people
we aren't continuing to get amazing emails. I love that. I'm also it's
like a little embarrassed and impressed by the level of email correspondence we get,
like it's so smart, so interesting, so detailed, so so please keep
sending anytime. Some of them are some of them are jerks though a little
bit. Like they say, they personally correct me all the time. And
just because I'm not answering, it doesn't mean you're right. Just want to
everyone to know that. And secondly, they're always saying how much they love
no I do love a certain kind of letter. And I've probably said this
before where they say Molly's the best, She's always right, but David's right
about this or that. I like when they say that, But I like
the person who this week chastised me for recommending Lawrence of Arabian. Oh my
gosh. I like it's like next week you're gonna say, have you heard
about this movie Bridge Over River kwai Alcalypse Nowocalypse? Anyway. Oh so,
if you want to send us mail, please do at mail? But wait,
is it mail radio at the Federalists Radio at the Federalist dot com?
Embarrassing? I am not a host. Were doing my dust radio at the
Federalist dot com, I would say we read almost all your letters unless they're
very mean and we use bad words. But other than that, we'll be
back next week. Until then, the letters of freedom, and anxious for the fret