Speaker 1: Welcome back everyone to a new episode. If you were
wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of the Federalist,
and David Harsani, a senior writer at The Washington Examiner.
Just as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show,
please do so at radio at the Federalist dot com.
Speaker 2: We love to hear from you, Mollie.
Speaker 1: This week, Kamala Harris, presidential candidate for the Democratic Party,
is going to go on Fox News and to be
interviewed by Brett Behar. Do you think that this signifies
a panic within her campaign because it seems unlikely.
Speaker 2: To me she would do this if she felt like
she was ahead.
Speaker 3: Well, I sort of, yes and no. Obviously, her campaign
is being an indication that they do not feel that
she is where she needs to be in the race.
But she should have been going on Fox News a
lot earlier than now, given how poorly she's doing with
people who are well represented in the viewing audience of
Fox News, and so it would have been smarter for
her to have had a primary battle where she was
doing a lot of TV so she could kind of
work her way up to a Brettbaer interview, making this
her first interview where she might this might be her
first interview where she's asked any sort of questions of
the type where Americans want to know her answer, and
so she it'll be something where she has to perform
pretty well.
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, I don't think she would be doing
this interview if she didn't feel like she was struggling.
A lot of the numbers I see in some of
the polling on black support, black you know, support and
about black men but also black women is obviously still
very good, but far under historic know historic numbers. So
that would tell me that she's in trouble. Though other
pollsters I see, like Nate Silver or others, you know,
still think she's going to win, and I do kind
of trust. I'm not saying he's going to be right,
but I trust that he is trying to be fair.
Speaker 2: About his polling.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you disagree with that, you don't know.
But so I don't know, is the answer. But clearly
I think the campaign is pretty panicked. Right, there's no
way should go on Fox. I wrote a long piece
at the Washington Examiner. Someone yelled at me for not
specifying where I write things about how I think she's
incapable of answering a question because I don't think she
actually believes in anything. I think you're one hundred percent right.
This isn't going to be a very precarious position for
her because I don't know that she's going to be
able to coherently answer real questions and she has barely
faced any right, So I mean, on.
Speaker 3: The other hand, it's probably not going to be that
long of an interview, and she does she is able
to memorize answers, they're not always the answers to the
question she's being asked, which is why I think it'll
be key to ask follow ups if the answered that
she's memorized is not relevant to the question that was
asked or doesn't actually respond to it. But I don't know,
what do you think he should ask her about?
Speaker 1: Well, Fox News is not going to splice together answers
like CBS News did for We'll get to that in
a second. I think that you need to ask her
about plagiarism her book. Christopher Rufo so he pronounced it,
I'm not sure, but he's a really good investigative journalist,
you know, from the right, and he went through her
book called smart on crime, I believe, and went through
it and found numerous instances of plagiarism. Now, I want
to preface this by saying a lot of times people
are accused of plagiarism, and to me it's pretty weak.
It's you know, they're rewriting just foundational things or facts
that it's very difficult to be very you know, to
not use this similar wording. But this, in my view,
was completely plagiarized, almost verbatim, many long passages.
Speaker 2: If you were in.
Speaker 1: College and they found you doing this, you would be expelled.
If I did it in a book and they found out,
my publisher would drop me and I would have to apologize.
But she, I don't even think other than maybe on Fox,
she's even going.
Speaker 3: To be asked David. I do want him asking her
about that. But there was something you said about Nate Silver,
and I gave a look about how I wasn't sure
if I had as high of a view of him
as you did. There's his work, which I think is,
you know, sort of fine. But did you read that
interview that John Hylman did with Nate Silver a few
weeks ago?
Speaker 2: No, Oh, my gosh.
Speaker 3: They both sounded insane, and it made me realize, like, oh,
you can't actually listen to anything these people are saying.
I just want to share it, just this little bit
about John Hylman says, you were quoted in The Guardian
recently saying that one of the advantages of probabilistic forecast
models is that they allow people to prepare for what
might happen in the future. And you said that if
the forecast says the outcome of Harris versus Trump is
basically a coin flip, people should be making their contingency
plans for after the election, not necessarily stockpiling Ammo and
peanut butter, although I don't think that's a terrible idea personally,
but figuring out strategies to protect American institutions in the
event that American voters chose someone we didn't like. Just kidding,
he says, in the event of Trump reclaiming the White House,
are you making contingency plans and what are they so? Then,
Nate Silver says, I am a lucky and privileged person
who probably doesn't have existential stakes, although as a gay person,
I'm a little worried about the GOP shift toward new
waves of anti LGBTQ hysteria. I understand that I don't
have control over the election outcome, as much as people
might try to read alterior motives into my forecasting. But
you know, he goes on, what in the heck is
he talking about?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know what either of talking about, really,
I don't. It's just so embedded in their out worldview
that Donald Trump is the next Hitler, that they can
only talk about these things, you know, as if his
winning the election is the end of America. I just
it boggles my mind, only because I think Harris and
Democrats pose a far larger threat to the constitutional order
in a much more serious way, because their ideas, like
let's say Trump goes is his worst instincts come into play.
You know, he's a man, and he's a person, and
he's a politician. What they want to do is destroy
the court forever.
Speaker 2: They want to.
Speaker 1: Destroy the filibuster forever. They want to do all these
things that will destroy the constitutional order. And I just
I see it. It's very difficult for me to even
understand where they're coming from.
Speaker 3: So you hear all the time people on the left
say that if Americans vote for someone, I don't like,
or if members of another country choose to elect someone
that we don't like, that democracy is threatened. And it
is such an insulting, idiotic thing to say that if
you lose an election that people will choose someone that
you don't like. That therefore democracy, which is by the way,
not even what our system is, that that's somehow threatened.
And then if you ask them to make their case,
so like, if you understand democracy to mean the bureaucratic
administrative state that we have built up around the constitutional order,
it makes sense what they're saying. They feel that Donald
Trump is a unique threat to the administrative set state,
that group of bureaucrats who are unaccountable to elections, who
get to dictate what happens in the country with no accountability. Right,
And on that point, I will just say, if you
get them to nail it down even more, they'll say, oh,
if Donald Trump were elected, he might prosecute his political opponents. Okay, So,
first off, he was president once before and did not
prosecute a single political opponent, and in fact went out
of his way to say he thought it would be
unhealthy to prosecute Hillary Clinton. You had broken the law
by the way, but it would be bad because you know,
you don't want to settle these things through law fair
you know, she just lost an election. And then you
have the last four years of every Democrat prosecutor at
the local, state and federal level trying to imprison their
political opponents, bankrupt their political opponents, keep their political opponents
off of the ballot, and so that's all ignored. And
then the case they make for why Donald Trump would
be a unique threat is that he said, if you
break federal election law, he's going to make sure that
you're prosecuted this time. Does anyone disagree that if you
break federal election laws you should be prosecuted.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean their assumption is and what they're saying
is that he's going to lie about that and then
just prosecute his political enemies, which, like you pointed out,
he didn't do last time.
Speaker 2: But it's all just projection from them.
Speaker 1: Everything that they're nervous about are things that they do
think they should be able to do it because they're
in the right in their moral and Donald Trump is terrible.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't even know what we were
talking about.
Speaker 3: My best we were talking about plagiarism and I'm so sorry.
Speaker 1: Oh it's okay, so far afield uh plagiarism. You know what,
here's a segue. They tell me Donald Trump is not
competent to be present. Has Kamala Harrish shown you any
reason that we should believe that she can actually handle
the job with the presidency. She cannot answer a question coherently,
She does not know anything, and her book is plagiarized.
Now in seven instances I think major instances. I want
to say, did you yeah, there are more more instances.
Speaker 3: I was just seeing that Christopher Ruffo had a tweet
thread where he provided evidence to the New York Times
of like dozens of examples of plagiarism, and they lied
about him and claimed that he only he only had
like six major examples of plagiarism, which in a normal,
sane world would already be a MA issue. I just
want to remind people that when rand Paul had a
speech that had some similar lines about the movie Gatica
to a Wikipedia entry, it was a major scandal for
the New York Times. Here you have a book pretending
or claiming to be claiming to have been written by
Kamala Harris that has massive, you know, repeated sections that
are clearly plagarized. It's not there's not an allegation. It's
just unless Wikipedia went back and changed their entry to
what she wrote, which is it's not.
Speaker 1: It's not just Wikipedia, though there there there's there are
studies she takes from. I don't think she putnotes them correctly.
I am like obsessive about this stuff when I write.
And I'm not a presidential candidate, but I like, I'm
always like, do I really need a thousand footnotes on
this my political book here? But I do because I
want to make sure. Let's just break this down a bit.
So that book is ghost written. In fact, co author
is on the of the book. I think that you're
responsible if you're an author or the if it's ghost written,
you're responsible for that work. But what made me laugh
was imagine if she went on Fox whenever she's going
to be on, had said I didn't actually write that book,
that would be the funniest thing. She would have to
throw her under the bus, her co author or take responsibility.
It's only two ways to deal with that. So what
does the New York Times do? I forgot what the
headline was something like Republicans pounce or something.
Speaker 2: What was it?
Speaker 3: I think conservative activist seizes on passages from Kamala. Harris
book expert says, no big deal. You can move on
and ignore this.
Speaker 1: Experts says Kamala did the good plagiarism.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: But the funny thing about this, First of all, why
would a newspaper reporter, a big paper needs to have
an expert on plagiarism. This is like your job to
know what plagiarism is. This expert, this expert they asked,
said it was.
Speaker 2: No big deal. But in his defense, I saw him.
Speaker 1: On Twitter say they only gave me like three of
the least you know, offensive passages. They didn't give me
these other passages which were much worse or something like that,
and put words in his mouth. So Rufou I think,
had a post on that that they had only forwarded
because some of them weren't as bad as others, honestly,
and it seemed like they only forwarded certain ones to
get the answer they wanted from this expert. I don't
think it's going to matter to voters. I mean, I
just don't think it's a big story anymore. I think
our moral standards are just shot.
Speaker 3: Okay, yes and no. I do think that we're seeing
so many examples of so called elites, you know, professors,
university presidents, people on the left, Kamala Harris, who are
engaged in widespread plagiarism that the institutions that would normally
place a check on that are also compromised by it. Like,
no offense to the journalism profession, but we're not sending
our best and brightest if we ever were, they're no
longer in the industry. They think they're super smart, but
they're not. I think they're plagiarizing each other's ideas. I
don't mean to belittle the actual problem of plagiarism, but
they're not really independent thinkers. They view their job as
protecting their political party. So it's on the one hand,
you can say, yeah, it's not going to be a
big deal. On the other hand, I loved like Jade
Vance was out there saying, if you want someone who
wrote their own book, you know me, And if you
want Kamala Harris, who just plagiarized from other people, that's
what you're gonna get with her. I think people sense
the IQ differential between Kamala Harris and Tim Walls on
the one hand, and Donald Trump and Jade Vance on
the other is maybe the most dramatic we've ever had
in a presidential race, and I think that does actually
affect things.
Speaker 1: Let me talk about this for a second. I don't
know about Donald Trump so much as jd. Vance, who
is obvious the most polished candidate out there, clearly the
smartest candidate, the most well spoken candidate, the candidate who
answers questions most coherently and succinctly, and the candidate who
challenges journalists when they ask him stupid questions in ways
that are very effective.
Speaker 2: All of that's true.
Speaker 1: I mentioned this, and I prefaced it by saying, I
know I'm not a jd. Vance fan, and everyone attacked me.
But the reason I mentioned that is I don't think
anyone anyone in the world watching this thinks would think,
or saw him in performing, would think that Jadvance is weird.
Do you remember that whole thing Jadvance is weird? He's
the most normal. When he told I forgot the ABC reporter,
do you hear yourself? That was like the most normal
reaction a person could give. And you know, he's been
very good he's as politically, I'm just saying very good.
Speaker 3: I've just been going around using the phrase do you
hear yourself Martha? Over and over again. It's the Martha
that really seals it. I think.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I loved watching two interviews with jd. Vance in particular.
One was with this New York Times reporter who clearly
had no idea of her actual intelligence relative to what
she know what. She has a self conception of her
intelligence that is very much off. I can't remember her name,
like Lulu Garcia Navarro or something, And so she's interviewing
Jade Vance. She comes off so cartoonishly hostile, and when
he's talking about economic policy and immigration and how illegal
immigration harms the working class in this country, and she's like, well,
I think most most experts wouldn't agree with you. In
other words, she knew so little about economics that she
thought that her very like, tiny little area that she'd
read was the universe of economic thought on illegal immigration.
And he handled it so well. I loved when she
was like, sorry, how would homes get built if we
don't have a ton millions of illegal immigrants? And he's like, oh, Lulu,
that's a great question. Because as you know, you know,
in the nineteen sixties, when there were very low rates
of illegal immigration, we had no homes built. So that's
a really really smart question. I mean, it was just
so brutal, and I don't know if she realized how
brutal it was for her. And then oh, sorry, I
was just gonna say.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of these reporters are living their
own little bubbles and they just don't even know how
to debate or talk about anything.
Speaker 2: And it's not just reporters.
Speaker 1: Just remember the Tanasi Coats interview, Like they cannot they
don't understand how to debate because they're never really challenged.
And obviously Jade Vance is constantly challenged and he's very
adapt you know, debating.
Speaker 3: And Martha radditts, sorry, I saw a comment that is
so mean that I probably shouldn't share it. And I'm
no place to talk this way, but someone said Martha
Radditz has a face for radio and a voice for print.
I'm just always surprised. Like and again, I you know,
if beauty were if beauty were the only metric, you know,
for being on television, I would obviously not be on there.
But there is something weird to me. Sometime's like there
are people with like really bad voices, or you know,
like you're you're like, this is a visual and audio medium.
You know, like we should kind of remember that at
some point. Anyway, Martha Raddits gave another cartoonishly hostile debate
performance against JD. Vance, and the part that everyone really
loved was when she said that only a few apartment
complexes in Aurora, only a few apartment complexes in Aurora,
had been taken over by a violent criminal gang out
of Venezuela. So she says, so you're lying, and you're
your running mate is lying about how bad it is.
And Jdban says, have you wait, do you hear yourself? Martha?
Do you hear yourself? And I'm thinking that is what
hundreds of millions of Americans are asking corporate media. Do
you bleep and bleep hear yourself? You're monsters, like you're
nothing but propaganda. A new poll came out today showing
that media trust in the media to report the news
with any degree of honesty is at another all time low.
Republicans already feel that way, Conservatives already feel that way,
but even independence now They're just like, well, obviously, I'm like,
how many times can you lie to me and engage
in propaganda? But they just keep getting worse and worse
and worse. CBS is imploding right now, and they're doing
it willingly.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about CBS. It's funny.
Speaker 1: Every time we speak, you'll say something about NBC News.
I'll be like, yeah, actually, you know, I often forget
they're the and then CBS, I know, actually they are
the worst. Like they're all so bad, and CBS might be,
as far as television goes, the worst. So you'll remember
the Tanasi Coats interview. I think it was two weeks ago.
Someone dared to ask him I forgot the guy's name,
dared to ask him a question about his book. Yeah,
So the whole place melted down, all the people working there.
They had to bring in a DII specialist to deal
with their mental break. Then they interviewed sixty minutes interviewed
Kamala Harris. They asked her a question about Israel Lebanon.
I don't know if you've heard it's in the news.
You figure a presidential candidate would have some polished answers
on it. She goes on this just she just vomits
out a bunch of gibberish and platitudes. They make no sense.
They use this as the trailer for the sixty minutes interview.
People are like, wow, she is really stupid. Just watching
this makes no sense. CBS pulls it, they resplice it.
We're not even sure exactly. I'm not sure if they
cut it for length to make or sound coherent, or
they spliced it in. I'm unsure because we don't have
the transcript and put that out. They refused to release
the transcript of an interview they had with a presidential candidate,
which is clearly interference. I'm not saying it's illegal, but
it's interference in the election. It does not let people
know what the candidate really said, and they did that.
Another thing they did I quickly want to say, is
that CBS News says you can't mention Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel. I should have said that with the
Ta Nazi codes thing. It's not a news organization in
any way.
Speaker 2: Sorry, go on, Well, I.
Speaker 3: Guess we're going to list things. We should also mention
that they did an interview with Speaker of the House
Mike Hn Yeah, and Mike Johnson gave his first hand
testimony of problems with the federal response to Hurricane Helene
in western North Carolina, and they cut it out because
a big part of the propaganda machine right now is
claiming that if you report honestly or accurately about failures
at FEMA. And by the way, failures at FEMA is
almost redundant because FEMA has been a failure since Jimmy
Carter started it. It's just like a patronage organization that
has very little success to its name. But if you
report honestly and accurately about that, we're now told that
that's misinformation or disinformation. But yes, this CBS transcript scandal
is fascinating to me. I think people understand that if
you interview someone and then you're airing it on TV,
that you might cut out the portions in between questions,
or you might even stop the answer of a question
a little early. You have to be very careful about
how you do that so you don't materially change the
substance or the you know, the quality of the answer.
These types of editing decisions can always be done in
a way to favor your political friends and to hurt
your political opponents. But what we're talking about here is
so much worse than that. You know, they really least
one gobbledygook answer about the US and the relationship with Israel,
and then when they aired it, they aired an answer
that is it's unclear if she's actually answering anything approaching
the actual question that.
Speaker 2: They air totally unclear, Totally unclear, and.
Speaker 3: It's not what they released earlier, and it's so substantively
different that it requires an explanation.
Speaker 1: And I quickly say, you can juxtapose these two instances.
One they edited it to help make her sound coherent.
With Mike Johnson, they edited it to make him sound
crass in a way about FEMA, where the middle part
of that question he goes on about the people he
met in those states that told him that FEMA wasn't helping,
which I think is an important enough point. You can
you don't have to believe him whatever, but it's important
enough for people to hear for sure.
Speaker 3: Sorry, So what makes this interesting is when they were caught,
and they almost didn't get caught. There are so many
ways you could not get caught on this because only
you know what actually happened. But they made that stake
of releasing one thing then another, so they got caught.
They are refusing to release the transcript in a way
that is very suspicious. So if you google for the
transcript of the interview, you only get a transcript of
what aired, which, as we just established, is not what
actually happened. All the time, they'll cut things out and
then they release a full transcript or they post the
entire video. You can watch for yourself how the whole
video went, and you can read for yourself what all
the full answers were, and you can kind of compare
it versus what they aired. In this case, they are
hiding it. And I think they're hiding it because they
spliced it an answer from a completely different question. And
I think also they might have done it so many
times that it would be just complete, a complete disaster
for them. But you have these former CBS journalists like
Catherine Herridge who says, well, when I interviewed Donald Trump,
we released the whole thing, And you had other people
within CBS who are leaking to other reporters that they
feel this is really embarrassing that they won't just release
the transcript full video, And how.
Speaker 1: Do I know that they haven't done this before. How
do I know they haven't done this with other politicians
they like? And you know, we don't know now, I
don't know. We never would have known if some low
level producer hadn't cut that question out and put it
up as a trailer, we would not have known. Well, yeah,
with Katie Couric at CBS, I forget, but remember that
she did that documentary with the gun owners and then
spliced in like a moment of silence to make them
sound the fuddle at one of her answers. I mean,
they probably have been doing this since Walter Kroncott. Don't Croncott,
I don't know. I mean, we don't know.
Speaker 4: If you haven't learned your lesson yet, never rely on
the federal government. The watch Dout on Wall Street podcast
with Chris Markowski. Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection
between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet.
After another theme of fallout, while My Yorkers shopped at
designer stores. At some point we need to eliminate it
and outsource it to the private sector while using the
military like we did for Katrina. Whether it's happening in
DC or down on Wall Street. It's affecting you financially informed.
Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: You know, CBS sixty minutes has kind of traditionally done
interviews with presidential candidates ahead of the election. And what
happened four years ago is that Leslie Stall engaged in
propaganda warfare against Trump when he brought up the laptop
which showed how the Biden family business operated working with
foreign oligarchs to get money to the Biden family in
exchange for policies or favors to be named. Later, she
said that that was Russian disinformation, or she said it
wasn't verified. She you know, she just like lied, or
she's such a bad journalist that she should, you know,
recant everything she ever did. And Donald Trump said he
wanted an apology and they wouldn't give it. He needed
a lot more than an apology in my view. But
I think they got like ten million viewers for that
sixty minutes with Kamala Harris, which is not an in
significant number. Well, Kamala Harris leaked to the public that
she's thinking about doing a Joe Rogan interview. And I
don't know if this is the type of leak of
Beyonce is going to be at the DNC, in other words,
a lie. But maybe maybe she's going to do a
three hour segment with Joe Rogan or however long those
things are. Joe Rogan gets two hundred million downloads a month.
He is the new mainstream media and CBS is not.
CBS is a joke. Nobody takes CBS seriously, and they
had a stellar reputation undeserved, but they had a stellar reputation,
and now like who cares what they think?
Speaker 1: Well, people who defend Leslie Stall. All she said was
that it wasn't verified, and that was true. No, it
wasn't true. The New York Post verified that story. They
did very good reporting.
Speaker 2: They did.
Speaker 1: The level of professionalism in that reporting was better than
what big major outlets did for the Russia coclusion stuff,
and it was as verified as anything else. She did
it to make him seem like he was lying about
something which he wasn't lying about. They were just suppressing it.
Speaker 3: So the other thing about Leslie Stall is that, yeah,
CBS is trying to say, oh, we never, we never
suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story. We just said that
it wasn't able to be verified. Well, first of all,
as you noted, it was able to be verified, and
it was verified when it was put out there by
the New York Post. You had people who were on
the emails saying, yep, I got that email. You had
eyewitness testimony. You had Tony bob Olinski, who was actually
part of the Biden family business, giving not just confirmation
of what was on the laptop, but going so much further,
and only Fox News interviewed him. She also claimed because
Trump references like, you know, you've also suppressed this story
about the Russia collusion hoax and how the how was
my campaign was spied on? And she's like, that's just
made up. That's not made up. They took out fazas
on four Trump campaign folks, what do you think those
are four? Those are spy warrants, so you can grab
communications not just to the people you're targeting, but anyone
that they've been talking to, and anyone that those people
have been talking to, Like that's the whole point of
the spy warrants. And so she lied about so much stuff,
and she said something like, I'm not lying. I just
don't know what you're talking about. So again, either she's
an idiot or she's a liar or both. But it
was so much worse. And I love that Donald Trump said,
like you're going to be this way, I'm not going
to be on I'm not going to be on your show.
Speaker 1: I mean, I have to say I've argued with you
a little bit about this before. I think it's fine,
and I think Jade Vance proves this to go on
a show with people who are aggressive and fight back.
But now if you have a network that splices together
answers of your opponent refuses to, you know, let people
read the transcripts, I think that's a different level now.
I mean that now you're just changing reality.
Speaker 3: Okay, No, I just have to push back here on this. Yes,
jd Vance is a revelation, and yes jd Vance speaks
for all Americans. But jd Vance is just one out
of thousands of Republican officials, and he is better than
almost every single other Republican official combined, and so like
even him going on ABC News Martha raddits the way
they framed his utter obliteration of Martha raddits was that
he confirmed Donald Trump's a liar, like they lied even
as they got their asses whooked by JD Vance. And oh,
I shouldn't say that. Sorry, No, it's okay. They lied
even as they got so destroyed by jd Vance. Most
people don't have the skill of a Jdvans And.
Speaker 2: So, oh, please, you know.
Speaker 1: JD Vance is a revelation because we live in an
idiocracy where politicians are cowards and can't give straight answers.
He gives straight answers. Don't tell me that he is
like a super intellect or something everyone should.
Speaker 2: Be like JD. Vance. They're just a bunch of cowards
who don't actually believe in anything.
Speaker 3: Or they're lazy and they don't do the amount of
work lazy.
Speaker 1: Where they're scared, or they're scared because they don't want
to upset the ABC reporter or the whoever.
Speaker 3: I forget the name of RFK Junior's running mate. It
was like Nicole Stranahan for me, I'm so bad with names.
She had a tweet thing talking about all of these
long form interviews that Donald Trump has done and how
they have changed her perception of him. And I do
agree with this like the long form podcast interviews, he's fantastic,
And she picked up on this thing that I also
noticed and was just struck by. He in these friendly environments,
not friendly, but just like more casual environments. He gets
asked tough questions, but in a way that's not so hostile,
so he actually answers them, whether they're about you know,
January six or other issues that are kind of like fraught,
and he's constantly asking the hosts questions about themselves, which
is my experience of working being with him too. You know,
it's kind of weird. His TV personas campaign persona is
particularly you know, prior to this moment, I think people
viewed it as so hostile, but if you actually talk
to him, he's so nice. He asks you about your
life and asks you what you think, and he you know,
it's just a very nice, pleasant conversation, and that comes
out in these podcasts. And it was saying, She was saying,
the media, by becoming this performative caricature of themselves, have
managed to not elicit anything interesting from him too, because
they're just all they want to do is destroy, and
so that they don't just like let the conversation naturally happen,
and it's been to their detriment.
Speaker 1: Just as an overview of that. I don't do much TV,
but when you do, you have, you know, a shorter segment.
You have to like have talking points prepare, you have
to get to the point very quickly. There's an art
to it that some people aren't great at. But when
you speak on a podcast and you can, you know,
just riff or extemporaneously speak on whatever, it shows a
different side of people and their intelligence. But I will
say this, people like Kamala Harris who don't have a
belief system, more scared to speak, who are always you
can see her mentally going through her file, you know,
her card file, to see what she's supposed to say,
what you want to hear. I think she would have
a tough time on Joe Rogan. We mentioned that before,
but we'll see right.
Speaker 3: The extended cut. I do want to say, I don't
think it's that she doesn't have a belief system. I
think it's that she's having to lie about what her
consistent belief system is. She's been pretty consistent her whole life.
She's a far left radical. She supports the most extreme
policy positions you can hold. You know, she likes to
say she was tough on crime. We had a piece
at the Federalists this weekend showing that one of her
big plans as DA of San Francisco was to not
prosecute drug dealers until their third arrest. And everyone else
was like, oh, so you're making sam Fantis basically a
sanctuary city for drug dealers in order to attract them
so that, like, only on their third time will they
ever have a chance of being prosecuted. That's genuine Kamala Harris.
So it's not that she doesn't have a belief system,
it's that she's lying about it. And you saw Jonathan
Martin this week last week talk about how she just
needs to do more of the lying about who she is.
I'm like, are you a journalist or not?
Speaker 1: You know, I do think that's true. I don't think
she's she sat down and read marks or anything. But
I do think her instinct is authoritarian always and to
increase her own power. But I'm just saying she's taken
so many positions, she's walked back so many positions. She
doesn't know what to say anymore. Jade Van sits down,
he talks about the stuff he believes in. I don't Again,
he might be wrong, he might be right, but he
knows what he believes. I don't think Kamala can do that.
I don't think she could do that kind of interview.
And you know, and Donald Trump says whatever comes into
his mind. I mean, he literally is unfiltered, right, I
mean most of the time.
Speaker 3: That always. You know, he's also remarkably consistent himself. Like
you go back to his interviews in the eighties and nineties,
he's talking about China the same way he talks about
them now, like he's just you might might not agree
with it, but he's very consistent.
Speaker 1: Now you can tell when there's a set of stuff
he really believes in, that the trade stuff, you know,
the immigration stuff, when he talks about that, it's consistent.
It's when like he tries to talk about let's say,
you know, social issues and stuff, then he starts, then
you could see his mind working to say the right thing.
But even then sometimes he just will come out up
with something that is obviously just off the cuff. It's
not like he's repeating talking points. I don't ever feel
that with Donald Trump. Say what you will about him,
what did I want?
Speaker 2: What? Oh?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So let's talk about Kamala a little bit here,
just to wrap up. And I do think she's panicking.
I don't know. I have to assume that there's internal
polling that tells him what's really going on. She released
this plan, for instance, the other day or today even
maybe on opportunity Agenda for black men, providing one million
loans fully forgivable, twenty k supporting education and training and
so forth. What the last one is legalizing recreational marijuana
to create opportunities for black black Americans to succeed in
this industry.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: That sounds pretty racist to me somehow. What do you
think about that last one?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm not sure if the pandering will work. You
do know that. Okay, So the polls technically should not
be alarming her, Right, she's up one point two percent
or something nationally, Like, I.
Speaker 1: Haven't seen any movement in the last week that would
make me feel like, I know there's a vibe shits
blah blah blah, buth. I don't really see it that.
Speaker 3: I can't remember which propaganda, whether it was ABC or NBC,
had a poll on Sunday where their previous poll had
had Kamala up five points, but their latest poll had
it tied. All the direction does seem to be moving
in Trump's favor and against Kamala. But my point is
being technically she's up in the polls. So why is
everybody panicking so much? Well, partly it's because Donald Trump
is up in the battleground states, and because we are
a constitutional republic where we're elected through the electoral college,
that gives him an advantage for winning the electoral college.
And the other thing is that her placement in the
polls relative to Biden and Hillary Clinton is like really bad.
So she's like eight nine points behind where Biden was.
And again, Biden won by forty three thousand votes across
three states, so she's well behind where she wants to be.
She's behind where Hillary Clinton was and Hillary Clinton lost,
so even though she definitely could win, and we don't
know what ballot operations are in play that warranton play
four years ago, And I will just flag one in
particular that keeps me up at night, which is yuakava ballots,
which are overseas ballots the Biden administration has made grabbing
ballots from overseas. Technical Americans like a high priority, and
there are millions of these people. And some states don't
really require that you lived in that state before you
file a ballot from that state. I think Michigan and
North Carolina are two that have very lax rules on this.
So nobody should be complacent. You know, Kamala shouldn't be
complacent because she's well behind where her predecessors were. But
Trump supporters shouldn't be complacent because who knows what kind
of shenanigans they've developed over the last four years and
how difficult it will be to detect them in real time.
So if they want to win, they need to understand
it's not about polls, it's about moving those ballots into
the boxes.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to again stress that of her five
point plan, one of the points is to create more
or create black drug dealers selling pot. Now, listen, I
am still generally for allowing people to ingest whatever they
want in their body, but the idea that the black
American that this is something they should aspire to rather
than helping them become engineers, helping them have small businesses
of their own, and all kinds of other growing industries
in this country, but to specifically talk about the pot.
Speaker 3: It is definitely pandering and it seems to embrace some
of the derogatory stereotypes about black men. But the campaign
in general has done a very bad job with black men.
They normally at any Democrat will get nearly every black
voter supporting them, and we are on pace for the
worst Democrat vote total for Black Americans since like nineteen sixty.
I mean, it's really really bad. Kama Harris is not
performing well. But they had Barack Obama come out and
chastise black men for not voting for her being enthusiastic,
and it went over very poorly with a lot of
black men who are like, Okay, so she can pick
a white husband, but I can't pick a white presidential
candidate who's better for me and my family? Like where
do you get off telling me I have to vote
for someone because she has a black dad, even though
you know, like it's also like highlighting how different from
many black families Kamala Harris is. She wants to be
perceived as like black Mama Kamala, but it's not like
Barack Obama, who also had you know, is abandoned by
his black father raised by a white mother. But Mary's
a black woman and has black children and is like
just sort of more comfortable I think with his black
family identity than she is. But then they're trying to
like race bait people into feeling guilty if they don't
vote for her.
Speaker 1: I think there's two factors for why Donald Trump's doing
better with black males. One is a lot of people
knew Donald Trump before he was in politics, from watching
him on TV and just in culture, and they just
aren't that easily scaremongered into being scared of him, right.
And then the second one is I think when you
have economic distress, and obviously black men like everyone else,
feel that that is an issue that will allow you
to vote for some other party more than some cultural
issue or whatever.
Speaker 2: You know what I mean.
Speaker 3: I do have we thought about how apparently suburban women
and white women are coming out for Kamalaw more than
you would expect given her level of intelligence and policy
proposals like what's up with that?
Speaker 1: It's kind of can't I can't speak to how women think,
that's for sure, or something that's not in my wheelhouse,
So I don't know why they would do that.
Speaker 2: But I would say that maybe abortion's part of it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's a love of violence in the womb for
some women, or maybe a guilt associated with things they've
done to their unborn in the womb. I don't know,
but it just is like, just because you're a woman
doesn't mean you have to be stupid.
Speaker 1: I think that many of them, at least people who
aren't really paying close attention, understand how radical the lef's
position on abortion. On abortion is that maybe I'm rationalizing
or justifying their positions because to me it's so immoral
that I can't really grasp it.
Speaker 2: But maybe they just don't get it.
Speaker 3: Do you remember the Life of Julia Barack Obama's pitch,
I sure do, Okay, so in twenty twelve, I think
that was he's he comes out for this like life
of Julia, and the life of Julia is one where
she doesn't really have a healthy family. She never has
a husband, she doesn't have a boyfriend, but she does
have a kid. She hasn't a father, like, she's just
on her own, and it's about sort of the life
of Julia is one where the government comes in and
becomes her family. That was the big pitch, and it
kind of worked, like as part of the war on
women messaging that also was from the Obama campaign. You know,
the whole goal is to keep you single and able
to kill your offspring, Like that's the whole Democrat policy agenda,
like you don't need a man will sadize your existence.
And so you see that married women tend to vote
Republican and single women tend to vote Democrat. It creates
perverse incentives for Democrats, like they want to keep women
single so they can keep in power. But we also
know that happiness tends to you know, women who are
in healthy, happy families are happy obviously, and they report
much greater satisfaction with their lives. And so if we
actually cared about women, we would want to be having
of course, family friendly policies and a family friendly culture.
But that's just not what we get. We get like,
you can kill your babies and it doesn't matter how
violent you want to be, We'll let you do that,
which is a weird pitch. I'm just surprised women are
going for it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I wish we stressed more, and perhaps Republicans
do that being married brings economic success personal fulfillment and happiness,
you know all, you know, just a better retirement, a
better life. But you know, so, I don't know how
much much government policies can make people do that.
Speaker 2: But yeah, so is that it? Do you want to
talk about culture?
Speaker 3: Sure, although I don't really have anything to report other
than I finished No the TV series Nobody Wants This,
Oh Rabbi, and he's dating a sex podcaster and there's
a lot to not like about it. But it's just
a very well written show. I'm not sure. I feel
like it's not, you know, family friendly content.
Speaker 1: But yeah, all right, I have nothing. I have been
very busy, but I did go on a record buying spree.
Do you think people will be bored if I just
go through on?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: I think you do think they will be I got
the Kinks Arthur in the Fall of the British Empire.
Do you like the Kinks?
Speaker 3: I love the Kinks?
Speaker 1: An Evening with Mike Nichols and Ellen May Oh.
Speaker 3: I think Ellen May, Ellen May Wait, I have not
so funny?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this is an old one. I found this
in a thrift. Robert Fripp and Brian eno Oh.
Speaker 3: I think I have that.
Speaker 2: XDC. How many did you get like twelve?
Speaker 1: Okay, Bonnie Prince Billy who I love The Letting Go.
I highly recommend this album. The Violent Themes third album,
The Blind Leading the Naked, which is I think underrated.
They the lead singer was a religious Baptist and these
songs about are about Christianity, and I think a lot
of people thought he was being sarcastic, but he's being
completely earnest about it. This is one of this I
just saw. It was just in Priestine. Condition Herb alberts
t Want to Brass and the Whim That is.
Speaker 3: One of the best covers of all time. Obviously, yes,
not whipped Cream, but.
Speaker 2: Love it is that true.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm always on the lookout for these because I
know you have a most all of them, so I'm
always trying to find like rare Ones.
Speaker 3: I think I have the world's largest herbalper collection. I
have foreign import you know, got stuff from Japan and
various South American countries like I've got it all.
Speaker 1: A double album of the Hard Quartet. This is a
band with me with Steve Malchmiss of Pavement in it
and others. It's excellent if you're into that sort of thing. Sorry,
I'll do this quick. Another XDC album, The Big Express.
I would say, this is not a great album of
theirs Christian.
Speaker 3: Huh, they're not Christian. Just kidding because you were talking about.
Speaker 2: The Other Party and Tom Waits Blood Money.
Speaker 3: How did you get these?
Speaker 2: I went nuts online.
Speaker 3: So one of our listeners was telling me that I
need to dunk on you next time you say something. Okay,
so this is what you said. You need to dunk
on Harsani next time he says something like I went
to the Stone Temple sex Pistols concert on Sunday, and
then you'll just say, oh, I find punk metal, so banal,
my craves, my daughter singing a eque hobbit shown air
blicktt but you know, to each his own de Gustavus
non aced disputandem. Okay, so the reference is because my
daughter is now in a Bach collegium which they sing
these beautiful you know Bach pintatas, and this person.
Speaker 1: You should tell this person that you were the one
more likely to go to a sex pistol whatever concert
than me. I went into one concert in.
Speaker 2: Like ten years.
Speaker 3: I was like, by the way, the last concert David
went to was with my husband's okay. He's like, okay,
So what you should say is so I put on
David'll say.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 3: I put on my hemp knit cap and went down
to this cool little vinyl shop in Williamsburg, the hip
one in Brooklyn, not the antique one, to pick up
a compilation of lionel Richie's greatest hits, and it totally slaps.
And then you're supposed to say, I'm so say, have
I mentioned that my daughter sings counterpoint in German every
single Sunday? So anyway, this is my this is we
have a really professional, wonderful music program at our church, and.
Speaker 2: So I am going to a concert on Thursday. This week.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go see jazz guitarist Julian Layish. I
think you pronounce it at the local place over here. Yep,
that's all I have. I did not watch.
Speaker 3: Any time Elaine Elaine May.
Speaker 2: Elaine May. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: I kept on butchering and I was like, that's wrong.
My mom loves Elaine May and I love her movies
and all that, so okay, that's it.
Speaker 1: Her daughter is also. I think in movies Elaine May
may have directed Ishtar.
Speaker 2: I believe she did.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I love all of her movies.
Speaker 1: So because I'm keeping a professional, this week I will
mention that you can write us emails and give us
suggestions or make mock us at radio. At the Federalist
dot com, we'd like to hear from you. Want to
mention that I have a book coming out in a
little bit called The Rise of Blue and on how
the Democrats became the Party of spiracy theorists.
Speaker 2: Do you have anything?
Speaker 3: Buy that now? Right? They buy it? They should buy
it before it comes out, so that then on the
day it comes out, it has a really nice launch.
Speaker 1: That would be great if they go they feel like it. Yeah,
it's uh, yeah, it's hard on it. I think it's
a good book. But yeah, so I appreciate that, Molly,
and we'll talk next week. You have anything else, all right?
So until next week everyone, until then be lovers of
freedom and anxious for the fray.