Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor and chief of the Federalist and
David Arsani, 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: Oh, on that note, David, do you think you got
enough feedback on your request for information about what type
of gun you should carry? Because I think we got
enough feedback.
Speaker 1: I knew that when I threw that in there, I
was going to get a ton of email because gun owners,
especially when you ask them about what is the best
sort of gun for X like concealed carry, as I did,
they have a lot of opinions.
Speaker 2: My favorite thing was that the very first email was like,
what have you done? You just asked for feedback, and
then there was just a deluge, yeah, of commentary.
Speaker 3: But it was.
Speaker 2: Actually interesting, you know, even though it wasn't my question
to read through what people were recommending.
Speaker 1: Well, it's funny because they had like back to back
emails where one person's like, oh, yeah, the Glock forty
three X is the best, and then the next one's like,
you shouldn't get that. That's you know.
Speaker 3: Some people will say to get the glove for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I actually will go and test out a few
and see which one I like best, and that's the
one I shall buy.
Speaker 2: I don't think there's one right answer, but there are
definitely going to be better. You need to have what
you feel most comfortable with and that works with your body,
your handle, like the grip, yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Think, and then the one you feel most comfortable shooting.
So let's move on to we should tell people that
we are. We are taping this on Tuesday night, Election
Day in a couple of plays in a few places
in Virginia, in New York City for instance, Pennsylvania. I
think I have some racist calign has some races. You
are in actually Los Angeles right now, right?
Speaker 3: I am.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Los Angeles. Did
you know that I love it? Really? Oh? Yeah, you
told me you have friends out there, don't you.
Speaker 2: Well, No, I love Los Angeles because it's a beautiful
city with beautiful weather. The people are beautiful. I mean,
every time I go in and get a coffee, it's
like starlits are making my perfectly crafted pistachio latte.
Speaker 3: Or whatever. It's just like a nice place to be.
Speaker 1: It's a place where I where I've when I've been there,
I've just been on highways that have like fifty five
lanes for hours. Basically, that's what I feel like.
Speaker 2: So on that note, I will say that the California
of my youth, I remember it being so pristine. It
was almost like you couldn't tell the difference between being
at Disneyland and being on the one oh one. You know,
it just looked like the same lovely, manicured.
Speaker 3: Road.
Speaker 2: And now it's just lots of trash and lots of
homeless encampments and stuff like that. So that's sad to see.
What a downer. Anyway, we're taping this, we should pretend
that this is after the election and just act very
confident about who we say has won or hasn't won.
Speaker 1: The one prediction, as you well know, that I've ever made,
was that I thought Trump would lose in twenty sixteen,
and since that day I have not even come close
to I'm not going to be confident. I'm not going
to pretend I don't know. Do you want to actually
do you want to throw out some predictions.
Speaker 2: Kind of I feel like it's only going to make
people mad at me, but I still feel compelled to
do it. And my prediction and I am a bit
of a Debbie Downer at all times for the right,
but when it comes to election results, I anticipate no
victories for Republicans.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know about all the races, but in Virginia,
I predict Democrats are going to win. Actually, I don't
want to say it's a prediction.
Speaker 3: I think he's going to win. Do you think Jay
Jones is going I think.
Speaker 1: That's incredibly close. And I in the end, I just
don't think the messaging got through.
Speaker 2: So I was thinking about this as he was embraced
by the highest echelons of the Democrat Party this past weekend.
Barack Obama was campaigning with him. Abigail Spanberger was fully
embracing him. And I fear that not only will he win,
but that he will win in part because he wants people.
Speaker 3: Like me killed and my children killed.
Speaker 2: And that's what's so terrifying about It's like, it's not
just him, It's like that I worry that there's way
too large a percentage of the population that's very cool
with public calls for assassination and child murder.
Speaker 1: I believe that there are a large group of people
Democrats but Republicans in some sense to who are going
to vote for their party's candidate for them no matter what,
like for they'd have to do so. They literally we
have to shoot someone, right, I'm not even sure that,
you know, I'm not even sure, and I'm not I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't even hate that in general. But there's something
where after the Charlie Kirk assassination, when I had that
realization that there are neighbors of mine that would celebrate
my getting killed, it just makes it makes it so
that I don't want.
Speaker 3: To live here or live there.
Speaker 1: I get it.
Speaker 3: I know, I should just calm down about it. I really, I.
Speaker 1: Think J Jones, Oh my lord, I always forget that
dude's name. But anyway that he is, it's not just
those texts. He is literally a criminal himself who got
you know, got off with this lenient sentence. I mean,
he does not should not be a g you know.
So I get that there's partisanship, but this is a
law enforcement position, you know, I mean for for a
great state, right.
Speaker 2: Like, in a way it wouldn't be so bad if
you were running for as a member of Congress or.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like a delegate at the House or something.
Speaker 2: Now, I do have still thoughts on what to think
about what happens, even though I've just said that, I
think it will be a very good night for Democrats,
or it will have been, since most people will be
listening to this on Wednesday. But I think that the
percentage by which mum Donnie wins actually is kind of significant,
or whether he has more people voting for him or against.
Speaker 3: Him, And I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, he might win with sixty percent of the
vote for all I know, or he might lose. But
if he doesn't have like a really strong mandate, I
think that means something in New York because you saw
how Kathy Hokeel was like following him around like a
puppy dog, like she's scared about having a primary challenge.
And if he turns out not to have strong majority
support in New York, that might make his left wing
policies seem less exciting to the New York Life legislature
or governor. So that might sound like cope, but I
actually think it kind of does matter a little bit.
Speaker 1: Well, let me go back to Virginia just from my
perspective for a second. So no, it's okay, Earl Sears.
I just don't think that she had ran a very
compelling campaign. I have to be honest, I just don't
think she was a great candidate. Watch her win and
I'll look like an idiot. But it just doesn't seem
like she could really she had this one great moment
where she asked Spanberger why she didn't say anything about
those texts of Jay Jones. Other than that, I can't
really think of a great moment in her campaign. And
I'm not really even blaming her. I just, you know,
I just don't think I just don't think she was
that effective. And maybe that's a problem with the Virginia
Democrats Republicans. I don't know enough about the internal politics
of Virginia to say. As far as mom, Donnie, I
think you're exactly right. I feel like there is I
could be wrong again, thinks because we're going to be
people going to be, you know, dunking on us.
Speaker 3: When we're on it was by forty points, it'll be like, oh,
we know.
Speaker 1: It feels like there is a little that that race
has closed a little. It's very difficult to tell.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I want to say something about that.
Speaker 2: People talk about this, and I particularly notice it during
big national elections. They'll do polls in like a month
out Trump is way down, but by election day he's
way up, and people forget that what matters is the
day you voted. Like, yeah, maybe maybe people are kind
of souring on Mom, Donnie. I have no idea. I
don't really trust boles that much anyway, but let's say
they are. Who cares if they voted a month ago
for him?
Speaker 3: You know what I mean? Like people have been voting
for how long? For a while, that's true.
Speaker 1: And I actually, even as I was saying closing in
and stuff like, I don't I hate when pollsters say,
like the race is getting closer, Actually no one has
had when no one votes, it's not getting closer or
father it has no one has voted, right, It's just
I just it's it's an It's a misleading way to
speak about something because first of all, we don't need
to trust the polls anyway. What I mean is it
feels like more as you get closer to election, more
and more people pay attention and maybe what they were
learning about Mom Donnie they're not liking. Obviously, I am
against early voting. It's just a joke. But I just
think it's not How can I say this. I think
it's a big deal because he's been normalized by national Democrats.
I don't think it's a big deal that he won
New York. He's the Democratic Party candidate. He's a socialist,
AOC is a socialist. Shee won in a district in
one of the New York City districts. And there are
other wacky mayors out there. There's a guy running in Minneapolis, right,
isn't he a socialist as well? This Somalian guy Somali.
So I don't know how big a deal it is.
What makes me interested in the race is that a
lot of left wing commentators and magazines have now essentially
made the argument that he is the template for how
everyone should be running in the country, which I find
very humorous because Spamberg or Abigail Spamberger is a leftist
and portrays herself as a moderate, and she's probably going
to win a state that is you know, that's all
kinds of.
Speaker 3: It currently has a Republican governor.
Speaker 1: Exactly, or like I said last week, I think Fetterman.
Fetterman is very popular in Pennsylvania and he rejects socialism.
Pennsylvania's the state that Donald Trump won. Why isn't that that?
I mean, Fetterman can't be the template. But you know
what I mean, why can't this more moderate type of
Democrat be the template? I don't know, So I think
maybe the Democrats are fooling themselves a little with Mom Donnie.
Speaker 2: Well, there's also the fact that a lot of people
are voting for Mom Donnie, who he's appealing to people
that it is surprising for some you know, I found
like forty percent of Jews in New York are voting
for Mom Donnie. So if you can pull forty percent
of Jews with is views like, why not be that extreme?
Speaker 1: I think we have to put that in context. I
thought maybe I mentioned this last week, But the context
is this, it's usually ninety percent of Jews voting for Democrats.
A B. Yeah, you know a lot of Jewish people
who are incredibly secularized. Some of them are beyond secularized.
They have a new religion called socialism. I bet you
of the forty percent of Jews, and we'll see what
the number turns out, I've seen polls that show him
pulling in fewer than from that. If you're more religious,
you are probably the less inclined you are to vote
for him. The more orthodox you are, the less inclined
your vote for him. And those people take their Judaism
a lot more seriously than others.
Speaker 2: There's this morbid thing that I saw from the Babylon
b where it said New York's elderly Jews torn between
man who would kill them for being Jewish and man
who would kill them for being elderly.
Speaker 1: I mean, and that's another thing think about. There is
no organ exactly.
Speaker 2: Wait, that's something that is important context.
Speaker 3: Yes, go on, Sorry, I mean.
Speaker 1: I mean Cuomo is a failed, corrupt governor of the
state that basically sent old people to their debts, and
isn't you know terrible was a terrible governor. And then
you have this, you know, Curtis Sliwa, who has been
around forever. He's just a publicity hound. He's not a
serious person. I think though, that if he dropped out,
everyone's like, oh, you know, he's he's getting the socialist selected.
I'm not sure about that. I think the vote for
him is like a libertarian vote, it's a protest vote.
Libertarians don't all of a sudden vote Republican when you
get rid of the libertarian candidate. It's not that simple.
So even when Eric Adams dropped out, Mamdanie's total went
up a little. Like, I just think people are confused.
Most voters aren't as ideological. So yep, okay, we'll see
those are the two. Are there any other important races?
Speaker 4: Prop?
Speaker 3: Sixty.
Speaker 2: I assume we'll pass here in California with the party
dynamics being what they are out here to increase the
number of Democrat districts. It's worth remembering that when Texas
wanted to do some mid census redistricting, the left said
that that was the most terrific thing you know, in
the history of mankind. And yet you have these Democrat
states where the districts greatly already preference Democrats. There's like,
not much you can do to improve it. And even
in California, they're like, well, what if we did a
little bit more just to squeeze out a few more votes.
So that's happening, and I guess interesting mayoral races that
will be We'll have to see.
Speaker 1: So Okay, well we'll see how we did next week.
Speaker 3: Well, did we have we talk about that show?
Speaker 2: It's like, not Bob Odenkirk, but who's the other guy
that was always his.
Speaker 1: Partner, mister show, David Cross?
Speaker 3: Maybe David Cross.
Speaker 2: And he's doing this thing it's called like the pre
tape call in show. He's very frustrated because people keep
calling in to talk about the topic that's airing while
they're pre taping next week's show, which is what they're
supposed to.
Speaker 3: Call in for.
Speaker 2: And I feel like we did a little bit of
that with the pre tape call in the post election
analysis of an election that technically is going on while
we're taping.
Speaker 1: We'll have to u on, you know, when we have
national election bitterms, we'll have to alter our schedule maybe
and do it afterwards or have a special episode, yeah,
or live episode.
Speaker 4: Talking heads are preaching that you're entitled to your social
security but are you the watch Doout 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. Two Supreme Board decisions have said condors can
cancel social Security tomorrow and you can get nothing. You
may want to believe the Social Security myth, but you're
not entitled to it. Whether it's happening in DC or
down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Okay, So former Vice President Dick Cheney passed away. I
believe he was eighty four years old. Now, listen. I
think that his reputation has taken an immense beating over
the years, and he is disliked, deeply disliked. I think
by a lot of people who are in power now
i'd call them more realist or paleo cons or whatever
you want to call them. Dick Cheney is very unpopular
with them. I know, I am less, as you might imagine,
I am less. You know, I've never was a huge
fan of Dick Cheney, but I don't have this anger
towards him and stuff. I think that the entire Bush
administration deserves discredit for what happened there. I don't think
it's one person or the other. I think Dick Cheney
was actually a pretty impressive man overall his whole career
when you look at it, you know, I think he
was the youngest chief of staff maybe ever, I'm not
sure if that still holds for in the Ford administration.
I think he's a pretty impressive guy in many ways
and a smart man. And I think he also kind
of redefined the vice presidency for a while as not
a person who was waiting in the wings, but a
person who was running, helping run things, who brought some
use the word gravitas, you know. I was going to
say then Obama had Biden for the same reason, But
did Biden really bring any gravitas? I don't think so.
I think Dick Cheney was a lot smarter man than
Joe Biden. Anyway, he was a big part, you know,
for younger people might not know. He was just a
really big part of American politics for a pretty long time,
and he was definitely the most influential probably vice president,
you know, in a long time. So I don't know
what are your thoughts on Dick Cheney as well.
Speaker 2: I'm just, you know, feel sad for his family and
loved ones. He had had heart trouble for a long time,
but that art kept on ticking, which you know, I'm
sure his family really appreciated. And when someone dies, pretty
much all I think about is how sad his loved ones,
his friends and family are. And I, as you might imagine,
you know, did not support his policies. But he never
made me crazy, like the left was made crazy by
Dick Cheney when he was prosecuting the Iraq War, and
I was opposed to that war, but he still didn't.
Not only did he not make me crazy, I kind
of like found him almost likable.
Speaker 3: I remember.
Speaker 2: My mom had liked him at the time. She's a
pretty typical Republican type person. Now she definitely doesn't like
him because her views have changed.
Speaker 3: I shouldn't say that she doesn't like him.
Speaker 2: She's disappointed in him, and her views on his foreign
policy have changed in twenty years. It's okay to change
your views. But she really liked him at the time.
And I'd found this headshot of him or a picture
of him, and I had someone pretend to sign it
with an expletive. Oh, because he'd like set a cuss
word on the floor of the like at the State
of the Union or something he'd told someone to f
off or something.
Speaker 1: Oh, right.
Speaker 2: I had like a friend fake sign it to Carolyn
with that phrase, and she's a pastor's wife, so it
was it was meant as a joke, and she took.
Speaker 3: It very appropriately. She thought it was funny.
Speaker 2: So, you know, dear Carolyn blankety blank.
Speaker 3: But you know, he his legacy is not great.
Speaker 2: And what I mean by that is you're absolutely right
that he played this outsize role in the George W.
Bush administration. He was tasked with finding a vice president.
He determined that he would be the right person for it,
and he might have been right, you know, in terms
of winning the election. And then he was the person
who kind of led the effort to do the Iraq War,
and that ended up not just tarnishing George W. Bush's legacy,
but it hurt the Republican Party. That foreign policy became
quite toxic for the Republican Party. And so he was
this like big Republican from Wyoming sort of. And then
in the end he's campaigning for Kamala Harris and renouncing
most conservative positions. And so i'd seen someone tweet, you know,
rest in peace to Democrat activist Dick Cheney because he
campaigned for the Democrats last two cycles. But I'm okay
with him having made that switch, and I, you know,
hope he rests in peace.
Speaker 1: Well, it is funny that you brought up his I'm sorry,
it is not funny in like a haha way, but
you brought up his heart trouble because I remember everyone
thinking he was going to just drop out of a
heart attack at any minute throughout his vice presidency. His
first heart attack at in nineteen seventy eighty was thirty
seven years old. He had them in eighty four, eighty eight,
two thousand, twenty ten or arrested.
Speaker 3: For attempted manslaughter.
Speaker 2: Just kidding, I'm joking, but I had to get the
reference to him shooting someone.
Speaker 1: One said he's the only vice president who could shoot someone,
and then the person who she shot apologized that it happened.
It's not funny, but.
Speaker 2: Imagine being in the White House the day that they
that They're like, okay, we have to deal with the
fact the VP just accidentally shot someone.
Speaker 1: In them Yes, accidentally shot someone. Sorry, accidentally. But what's
funny is that he was perhaps the most hated person
in that administration by the left, and then once you
know he didn't like Trump, it is what it is,
and once he didn't all of a sudden, you like,
even now they talk about him and stress that part
of his life as being the most important, when really
I didn't. I know that he was anti Trump, but
I didn't see him around a ton his his his
time as vice president, his time in the Ford White
House were hugely important compared to his you know, his
activism against against I.
Speaker 2: Saw a friend said something, who does not like Dick
Cheney and never did, but he said, it's nice that
he took an interest in his daughter's activities. So like
as his daughter was leading the never Trump hysteria, he
just took an interest in you know, he was supporting
his daughter.
Speaker 1: Now he has two daughters, right, he has another daughter.
I interviewed the other daughter once when I was in Denver.
She might I don't know what she was doing there anyway,
but she seemed very nice. I never met with Cheney.
I did see Dick Cheney speak a few times during
the two thousands.
Speaker 2: Was he also because his other daughter was is gay?
He was an early gay rights activist for the Republicans too,
But with that back when he was a.
Speaker 1: Republic he was his pro gay marriage before Barack Obama's
pro gay marriage. I think I'd like to turn to.
Speaker 2: We talk about the Trump wanting to do the filibuster
end really quickly.
Speaker 1: Sure, obviously, I think I honestly believe this. I think
the filibuster right now is one of the only tools
left preserving some sort of federalism. Right you're going to
just have if you just need a bare majority, you're
just going to have one giant bill after the next
passing I get by people of clustrulls.
Speaker 3: That is, you wouldn't like.
Speaker 2: It would be one thing if Republicans would use the
end of the filibuster to fix a bunch of stuff
they wouldn't like, they wouldn't do anything with it. But
then when Democrats came in, they would probably use it
to pack the Supreme Court or do other things they're
not able to do. And so I think of the
many arguments against it, it's like I don't see Republicans
even using it for good for a short period of time.
I just think they would do nothing with it.
Speaker 1: I've always thought this. I mean, if you think about
concerns see.
Speaker 2: The government open, like get rid of the filibuster so
you can keep the government open.
Speaker 1: No, that's another thing. So you're going to get rid
of the filibuster to keep the government open, when though
Democrats to put themselves in a terrible spot. In my
opinion right now, it doesn't make any sense but as
a political matter. But I think Conservatives suffer from this problem.
If you think about conservatism in the old in the
in the Reaganite sense, you know, or in the smaller
government sense, is that Republicans have far fewer big giant
bills to pay, like. They just don't have the kind
of big giant ideas thankfully the Democrats have. So I
think they're always at a loss. I've seen I've seen
people argue this Republicans should get rid of it and
then just jam through right now a whole slew of
bills that are going to make put Democrats on their
heels for you know, a decade. It doesn't work that way.
If they regain power, they will overturn those bills one
after the next. These bills aren't in perpetuity. You can
overturn existing law pretty easily, right, So I just think
it's a big mistake.
Speaker 2: So, like I hate the idea, I understand that this
is not like a constitutional requirement decision people can make
about how they order things, just like having a Supreme
Court with nine members isn't required by the constitution. But
these are things that have turned out to be good
for governance and the idea. The only barrier against insanity
right now, as you point out, is that we have
this filibuster and you can still do an actual verbal
filibuster if you want, or you know you they don't
even use that hardly any or.
Speaker 1: They do for no like no like for reasons.
Speaker 3: Yeah, never makes sense.
Speaker 2: But the only good thing about the stupidity of this
push for ending the filibuster is that it forces the
media to be honest about who is causing the shutdown.
Forces people to understand that Democrats are forcing this. Like
if you have to explain it, you have to, you
have to explain it.
Speaker 3: Then you have to.
Speaker 2: Then it means that even though Republicans have the majority,
they don't have enough of a majority to keep the
government open.
Speaker 1: It's it's I just remember the coverage of Republican instigated
shutdowns Hill. It's just like the nihilists who don't care,
you know, but I think it's a completely legitimate form
of political Uh. You know, strategy to shut to have
a shutdown, you want to block something that's up to you.
But this idea that Democrats aren't doing it is nuts.
And they keep saying, who runs the House and the
Senate and the president, how could we shut down the government? Well,
you're doing it just like Republicans did because they tried
to you know, you know, extract something. So when you know,
I just wonder though, how much of that message messaging
is getting through the voters because their icy polls where
they're blame blame split, which honestly is very good for
Republicans because typically Republicans are blamed at a much higher level.
But here's the thing. I don't think that it's hurting
Republicans now. I don't think it's going to hurt them
in the midterms. And at some point Democrats are going
to have to give in. So when Donald Trump says
let's get rid of the filibuster, it almost sounds like
he feels like they are the pressures on them and
that they have to do something to fix us, And
I think that undermines their overall argument. Maybe we want
to talk about Comy a little, right.
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 2: So Comy was indicted for lyne to Congress, right, and
two charges. Yeah, I think obstruction. Maybe I'm so sorry
that I don't know I need to. I'm very much
wanting to do my deep dive, but I have a
few other things that are preventing me from doing that.
But he wants the charges dismissed for a variety of reasons,
and so the government put out a lot more evidence
than you normally would see at this point in a prosecution,
and it shows that Komy was, you know, openly willing
engaged in leak operations about the DJ And I know
how frustrating it is for people that thus far, basically
no one has been held accountable for the horrific coup
attempt of the first russiacclusion hoax, and other nefarious activity
from deep state actors. But you and I've spoken before,
David about the importance of just the truth coming to
light too, and I appreciate it when I know what's
going on, and I feel like I understand things so
much better now, precisely the means by which bad actors
in the media used other people to push things they
had to know were lize and so seeing these email
communications where Komy by the way, the judge overseeing the
trial I think literally used to work for Komy. I'm like,
there's so many conflicts of you know, he's got his
legal team or all people that were possibly going to
be called to testify in their own participation in the leagues.
But anyway to see how Comy used his one of
his best friends to be a conduit who would work
with broadcast in print media as one of these like
government officials. He had like a quasi governmental position, so
he could have this air of authority, and then Komy
would tell him what to tell people, and then so
Comy could be like, well, I never leaked, just talking.
He made this guy like kind of a legal advisor,
so it was all protected. And just seeing how that
works and how Michael Schmidt won a Pulitzer for being
a stooge of these very bad people, very evil people
who should be in jail. I like knowing about it.
Knowing is a big part of the battle. So I'm
a little depressing. And who knows, Like maybe he really
will be convicted, that's also a possibility, but just knowing
he's guilty from the evidence that we've had this far,
not in a court of you know, not in a
court of law, but in what we can read with
our own eyes.
Speaker 3: It's just great.
Speaker 1: It's like we needed for this historical record. I want
to know what went on and why it went on.
It's obviously something we should know about. It's a sad
thing that we need to learn through courts what's going on.
They should have been congressional true congressional hearings on all
of us, like they had for Watergate for.
Speaker 2: Instance, you know, related to this, though there were good
people in Congress who, using their constitutional authority, were asking
for information, and people at DOJ were obstructing those investigations,
many people at DOJ. But one of the things that's
interesting about these handwritten notes from Komy and other communications
from his private email, his rhine hold maybe your private
email account, are that they were found in these you know,
the common like burn bags in a room where normally
things would be set to burn, but they weren't. Just
kind of wondering like how'd they get there? And were
there good actors in the FBI who were hoping that
a good person would find them, you know, like I
don't know.
Speaker 1: Just interesting, yeah, I mean, in that kind of environment,
even if you're a good person, it's probably very hard
to do the right thing. You know, you essentially have
to be a whistleblower or or not. Okay, so now
let's turn to a less fun topic and talk about
what happened with Tucker Carlson, Nick Quintas, Kevin Roberts at
the Heritage Foundation. It's a big story on the right, right,
I mean, it's it's it's I think an important one.
I never thought i'd say this, thinking back to twenty sixteen,
but I think Trump is a moderating force on the
GOP in a way, right, So I think that these
just that he's.
Speaker 2: He's like a blanket that covers a lot of debates
that will happen once he's gone.
Speaker 1: Right, So I don't think it's any secret what I
think about Tucker Carlson. He had on Nick Quentas no
secret that I think that that was going to happen.
Nick Fuentes is a just a horrible person, a provocateur
in my view. Tucker had him on to to make
him seem far more moderate than he was, to bring
him into the fold, to bring his people into the fold.
I think it was disgusting. And then Kevin Roberts came
out with this video. I happened to be on Twitter
when he like pushed send and I saw it immediately,
and which says I'm on Twitter too often, I think.
But so I immediately saw it, and I was I
thought it was reprehensible, but I was taken aback by
it in the sense like I'm like, why is he
doing why is he even doing this? Like what's the
why is he doing this? And there was a you know,
I think that's fair to say there was a pretty
big blowback to it from from certain people, myself included.
I wrote a long piece on the first free expression
parts of it. I think people are gaslighting me when
I criticize all of this. Anyway. I found a lot
wrong with his statement, starting with the beginning part, where
there's a bunch of red herrings and intimations that people
who or pro Israel put America second and all of
that without giving any specific people or instances of that,
which I think is very wrong. And then I think
it's also a red herring to talk about cancelation of
Nick Fuentes and he says we have to meet these
people and the realm of ideas and debate them. Well,
you know what, I think the debate over Hitler is cool.
I thought we tabled that. I thought we'd moved on.
I don't feel like I should have to debate that again,
and if I do something seriously wrong with this country.
Speaker 2: So I remember this piece I wrote in twenty sixteen
that was called something like when it comes to Donald Trump,
I hate everyone, and it was about how I hated
Donald Trump, and I hated people who loved Donald Trump,
and I hated people who hated Donald Trump, and I
hated the media. Like I just kind of went through
everybody and everyone was annoying me. And that is very,
very much how I feel this week with this story,
Like I hate everything up it and I don't even
know totally where to begin. So like, there's so much
we could talk about, so let's just like, let's just like,
you know, are there any like particular angles that you
are frustrated by or that you're upset by?
Speaker 1: Well, I, yeah, well I believe that there's a problem
on the right. I wouldn't even call them people on
the right, but obviously there are a lot of people
who are drawn to very ugly ideas and ugly people.
I have to say this though, it's like a lot
of people, if you like Nick Fuentis, I forgot. I
wish I could credit the writer. You're talking about a
bunch of people who are really excited by seeing moral pornography.
It's fun to say Hitler's great, Like you really pissed
the boomers off, right, Like, I don't know how serious
all that is, but it's not something that serious people
to talk about in a serious way. So when when
when Kevin Roberts is like, don't cancel him, you know,
don't cancel him, don't can't It's what do you mean.
Speaker 3: Don't cancel him? Who's him?
Speaker 1: Nick Clentis, That's exactly what Kevin Roberts said.
Speaker 2: No, that's not he was talking about Tucker. So let's
just kind of like start at the beginning.
Speaker 3: So the thing.
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm not sure if I'm proud of this
or not. But prior to last week, I had successfully
avoided ever having to listen to Nick Flintees at all.
And when this became a huge thing, I watched the
Tucker Carlson interview.
Speaker 3: Did you watch it?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 3: Okay, so.
Speaker 2: I came out of it. I obviously had a negative view.
I am not a supporter of Nick Flentis or his views.
So I already had an negative view going in, but
I came out of that interview with a more negative
view of him. I assume you did too, if it's
possible to have a more negative view.
Speaker 1: I had a more negative view of Tucker, not Flentis,
because I've looked at what Quentis has said. Yeah, and
I realized that, first of all, I need to correct you,
and I do this very with very with respect. Okay,
I have the transcript of Kevin Roberts's initial statement, and
here is, verbatim quote. I disagree with and even the
poor things Nick Quentas says, but canceling him is not
the answer.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: Sorry, when we disagree with the person thoughts and opinions,
or challenge our ideas, debate, et cetera, et cetera. So
for me, that was incredibly ridiculous because he deserve worse
than Jimmy Kimmel, or does he deserve worse?
Speaker 3: Okay, let's go back to what I just said.
Speaker 2: Though, So, like I had my first encounter at length
with Nick Flentis making a like he had the floor
to make the case for himself and I came out
with a more negative view of him. I mean to
the point that, like, one of the things that I
saw by watching the interview was that one of the
things people say is Tucker did not push back at all,
and that's just not true.
Speaker 1: Barely. That's not push That is barely barely. But that's
not the point. The point is this, he never asked
him about the real problems with Nick. Foind this. Now,
I don't want to say these words on this show,
But when a guy says that Jews are responsible for
every war in the world and they should be deported
or executed, Tucker doesn't bring that up. When he says
women are whrrores and stupid dirty b words who want
to be raped and having the and having men beat
the s out of them, he doesn't ask him about that.
He moderates the guy's views by pushing back on things
that are making him seem like he's kind of wacky
and he has some weird opinions, but not the real
opinions that he has on his show all the time.
Speaker 2: So that's in so far as those things were said,
like I'd had in those kinds of encounters with Nick,
pointis just enough to know that, like, no matter what
the context is there, it's not a good situation. Although
it's also true that sometimes people take these little snippets
and sometimes the context actually is significant somehow. Whereas hearing
him speak it was a weird thing, but just bear
with me here. Hearing him speak without someone shouting like
you're a Nazi and you're crazy, for me was more
devastating to encounter that, Like he had the ability to
make a case for himself. I think he was trying
to moderate and I'd heard from someone else that he's
been on a recent tour of sort of like trying
to moderate some of his hard edges, and it didn't
really work well for him. And Tucker pushed back, like
specifically on the issue of blood guilt, on the issue
of whether we live in a pluralistic society or not,
and whether his views are compatible with living in a
pluralistic society. And then another thing that you don't hear
people talking about right now, but.
Speaker 3: What he did to reveal.
Speaker 2: Nick Flantis as someone who has never had the touch
of a woman was humiliating, I think, and it was subtle.
It was almost like fatherly in a way, and so
I agree with you that he if he's going to
have this guy on, which I would not recommend, but
if he's going to do it, he should push back
much more than he did.
Speaker 3: But I also saw in it.
Speaker 2: Him trying to get this guy to not have odious views.
And I'm not sure if that's the worst thing or
if it should have the reaction that we have seen
to it.
Speaker 1: I guess I just We're just going to have to
disagree on what Tucker's goal is here, even if he
by some chance made Nick Fuentes can only make himself
look stupid. But that's not the point.
Speaker 3: He's just what He gave him an opportunity to do that,
and he did.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, well, he gave him an opportunity to
seem less of a terrible person than he is. And listen,
this is but I take this, I view it holistically. Okay, Yeah,
Tucker has eighty ninety percent of his guests are obsessed
about one thing, Israel and making American Jews look like
they are trying to undermine America and send us into war.
And he is not an idiot. You don't interview Nick
fuents with that. First of all, let's talk about this.
When he interviewed Ted Cruz, I saw his hyper antic
filibustering when he didn't like someone and when he likes someone.
There's a difference. Now who deserves more respect and a
debate Ted Cruz or flent Tests and who does Tucker
show more respect to? Ted Cruz or flent Tests? That
says something about him.
Speaker 2: So like all of his interviews, all of Tucker's interviews
have been so friendly, and as long as all.
Speaker 3: Of them more friendly, you could say like, oh, this
is just his approach.
Speaker 2: He wants to have conversations with people you're not supposed
to have conversations with and just see where they go.
The Ted Cruz one was so like back to an
old style of Tuker interview where he might push back more.
And it also showed he was capable of doing that.
Speaker 1: That'd be great for if he did that with every
interview he had.
Speaker 3: Whatever, I just I'm just not sure, like there have
been ways. So I just said this like I would not.
Speaker 2: Have a Nick Fuentas on a show if I had
the If I had that show, I don't think that's
like great and I would not have have failed to
push back. But I also heard people saying things that
did make me feel concerned, like where they say you
shouldn't quote unquote platform this person. I don't like that language.
That's language of the left. Well, first off, he already.
Speaker 3: Has the platform. He already has millions of followers, So like,
I don't like.
Speaker 1: The word platform because it's kind of obnoxious. But I hear.
But you're saying you wouldn't do it, but yet you don't.
You're literally saying what the people you're saying you don't
like hearing are saying that you wouldn't platform him.
Speaker 3: I said I would not, Yes, why.
Speaker 2: Or maybe a better way to say it is, if
I did it, I would conduct it differently.
Speaker 3: But I'm a different person too.
Speaker 2: And I do think that a lot of the pushback
on this has has you just said you think it's
gaslighting to talk about freedom of expression or.
Speaker 1: What would you go into that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I think the question is partly too, And
I think this is a I think this is a
good question because I'm not one hundred percent sure what
the answer is. The standards that people have for journalists
on who they should talk to are different than the
standards people have for thought leaders, right and as a journalist,
he should be able to talk to anybody he wants to.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Yes, As a thought leader, there are responsibilities involved and
tons of effects, and I think he's kind of a
combination of those things and that's what's making it. That's
what's making people kind of excites here and muddying the issue.
Speaker 3: Does that make sense.
Speaker 1: Sort of? But I would push back on that. I
think we've already determined that it was a friendly interview
with him, So it wasn't any kind of into top
level intellectual discussion. It wasn't an antagonistic interview where you're
trying to pin someone down on their actual beliefs. And
I determined that you would.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think because it wasn't a hostile interview that
it might have been more effective at pushing back against
the Nazism of Flentes than if it had been hostile.
Speaker 3: And I just want to say another thing.
Speaker 2: I saw some people, by the way, there's so many
people I love and respect who have kind of be
clowned themselves on it's like just getting like way too
emotional about everything. And I get that it's an emotional issue,
but like it would be nice to have people just
calm down a little bit. But during the interview, since
you watched it, you know, this quent it says something like,
I remember it was this date because the date was
Stalin's birthday and I'm kind of a Stalin fan. And
Tucker is like, I'm sorry, what, and he's like, yeah,
I kind of like him, and he's like, we'll get
back to it. And then they never do, right, They
never get back to why is Nick Foente's a Stalin
pan But it's also true that him saying that, which
he does, I'm sure thinking like as eighteen year old
boys do, and he's not eighteen any longer, that this
is like a cool, edgy thing to do to excite
the stupid boys. It just made him look like a
complete and utter loser, and also was self contradictory, like
does he know what Stalin did to the Nazis and
he's also a Nazi? And like it just didn't even
make any sense, and it showed he was kind of
not as smart.
Speaker 3: As I had.
Speaker 2: You know, sometimes these really evil people are actually quite smart,
And in that case, I didn't find that to be
a particular evidence of intelligence.
Speaker 1: I guess our disagreement here is just that I do
not concede that Tucker is doing some kind of interview
to make Puents look bad. I think he's trying to
make him look good.
Speaker 3: I said, he might be trying to help him.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, or or that he's doing it for some
good Marion.
Speaker 3: Help help him get away from.
Speaker 1: I believe Tucker Carlson hates Jews, right, that's just something
I believe. You don't have to agree. I'm just going
to tell you so from me might.
Speaker 2: Say in the interviews contrary to that, because he doesn't
have a racist or an identitarian view of it.
Speaker 1: First of all, I don't care that he says that.
I see what he does. He has people on his
show constantly personally, he lies constantly, and he lifts up
people who lies lie and does not challenge them. But
more than that, it's always some kind of smear of
American Jews. And that's fine. People want to listen to it.
It's fine. But then he has an acquentisas he has
Candice Owens on before he has the guy, you know,
a fake historian who talks about how the Holocaust happened
because of Churchill or whatever, like one thing like that.
You're like, all right, that's a weirdo, and he likes
to have some conversations like that. Week after a week
of that tells me something different. But I want to
talk about the canceling part. Yes, I think canceling is wrong.
It corrodes discourse in civil society right. Canceling is going
after someone you know, who wears a maga hat at
a baseball game or a media a tweet that is inelegant,
you know, and or it's taken out of context, and
then people get them fired and rally to get them fired.
All the people are claiming, like Roberts, who are claiming
that people are trying to cancel here, he's just trying
to tone police other people. He's just telling me that
we can't criticize. He called people who criticized Tucker a
venomous coalition. Not Tucker who brings on a Nazi on
his show. Not Tucker who says that Christian Zionists are
worse than anyone in America. He hates the more. That's
fine with him. Why can't he just say Tucker's my friend?
He says, you know whatever, And I want to defend
him rather than trying to create this gaslighting over an
issue of people being mad about something legitimate. Surely you
can concede that you can see why, let's say a
Jewish person would be anxious about what Talker is up to. Right,
are they part of a venomous coalition? Am I part
of a coalition?
Speaker 2: Because like, there's so many parts of this of like awfulness.
So the first part we've talked about, right, Talker brings
on Nick Foantes and drops a bomb into conservative discourse
right ahead of elections. But then I don't I still
don't understand why Kevin Roberts, who's someone who I know
to be a very good man, why he felt compelled
to issue a video about this.
Speaker 1: You'll have to ask him. But you'll have to ask him.
I say this, Everyone tells me he's a good man, right,
A lot of people have told me that, and I
believe it. I have no reason to think he's not
a good man. But the bottom line is we live
in a world where we're out in the look. To
some extent, he's a lot more out in the public
than I am. He runs a big thing tank, and
good men also have to defend their actions and words.
And he has not said I shouldn't have said those
things or anything like that. He pulled the Oh, you
just misunderstood the nuance of what else said. I'm sorry
that you misheard what I said, David.
Speaker 2: I will say I saw you responding to it right away,
and I know that you're operating in good faith. And
I know other people were horrified by what he said
and they thought it had the wrong tone and everything,
and even just like the fact of it. But if
you listen to what he actually said, I don't think
he said what he's being accused of. Like people keep
just kind of asserting things without substantiating it. And I
don't think he should have issued a statement. I don't
love how he said. I mean, I actually, but I
don't even have a problem with like what he said.
What is your problem with what he said?
Speaker 1: Virtually everything? Now, I went initially heard it and was upsetting,
and I'm like, maybe I'm I think about this, by
the way, maybe I'm being too sensitive here, right, I
think that I'm not melting down about what Nick Fuente
says because he's just a provocateur. I get that. It's
like he thinks it's funny. I think it's stupid. Right.
It's the people who try to bring him into the fold.
Who lift him up? You know, who think that, oh,
these are just some young men looking for ideas. No
they're not. But anyway, the first paragraph I wrote out
the whole his whole statement, so I could read it
on paper on my computer.
Speaker 2: Can you like literally read the part that's a problem.
Speaker 3: For you to us?
Speaker 1: Okay, I can read the whole first paragraph if you'd like. Okay,
Christians can critique the state of Israel without being anti Semitic.
Do you have a problem that's a complete I almost
just dropped an F bomb. That is the biggest straw
man on earth. Okay, I haven't.
Speaker 2: I mean, I fel it's some kind of what we're
talking about right now.
Speaker 1: Right criticism of Israel. Where is their criticism Israel in
this statement? It's it's a defense of someone who put
Nick flintest on. Do you think Nick Flents has good
criticisms of Israel? I mean what criticism? I want specifics?
You know this, I can criticize Israel. Memo did not
go after the New York Times, Washington Post, every single
major legacy you know outlet, and now every single right
wing outlet almost like so give me a break with that.
I mean, I'm not saying, are you. I'm sure you've
been critical of Israel. Don't think you're an anti sementy
People critical of Israel all the time who.
Speaker 3: Aren't actually not not so critical. I'm like people.
Speaker 1: Engaged in a genocide, for instance. That goes farther. But anyway,
the point is he doesn't mention what this, What does
that have to do with Tucker? What does that have
to do with what happened with Tucker and Nick flintest?
Speaker 2: But aren't Doesn't it seem that there has been some
conflation here. So speaking back to Ted Cruz, I think
it was maybe in that Tucker interview where he says,
I believe that there's this scripture verse that says those
who bless Israel will be blessed, Which do you want
to say, for many Orthodox Christians would be a misreading
and to say that as a way of supporting the
current secular state of Israel, that would be viewed by
many Christians as a misreading of that scripture, not by all,
but by some by many. And then, like Mike Pence
today said, there is no room in the conservative movement
for people who do not support like the support of Israel.
Speaker 3: Did you see that?
Speaker 1: No, it's like saying there's no room in the Conservative
party for someone who kills who's in a pro abortion
Let's say, I mean people can have opinions about an ally.
I don't know why that's so offensive.
Speaker 2: No, I'm just saying you sometimes act like, Okay, there's.
Speaker 3: No room in the conservative moment. I'm I'm reading the.
Speaker 2: Pence quote because I want to get it right. There's
no room in the conservative movement for opposing American support
for Israel. So you can act like it's crazy that
people feel like a need to react against him.
Speaker 1: Does he say that's where? Does he say it's anti Semitic?
He's what we're talking about here?
Speaker 2: Well, and then hold on he I feel like there
was something else he said, but I don't remember where
it was.
Speaker 1: Can I get to the point that one question.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, like I have been spending some of
the last few days trying to help people who are
not Jewish understand why Kevin's statement hurt so much. I
would also like people to understand how the environment for
conversations here has also made it hard for people to
speak freely about not supporting Israel, and the Mike Pence quote,
to me is a great example of that. He's not
a nobody. He's former Vice president of the United States.
He's well liked by many people. And when he says
that there's no room in here for debate about how
much support to give Israel, that's restrictive to what and
it's unhelpful.
Speaker 3: Actually, I think it's not good.
Speaker 1: That's what politics is. There's restrictions on a lot of things.
I'm sure that JD. Vans would say there's no room
for pro choice people in the conservative movement. It's a position.
It has nothing to do with the Constitution or anything
like that. It's a moral position, and people have a
moral position on Israel anyway. We can discuss that later.
But here's the thing. This whole paragraph, he goes on
and on about this right no reflexively supporting government for
the globalist class and inte you know, and mouthpieces in Washington,
and then at the end he says, the the Heritage
Foundation did become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement
by canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians,
and we won't start doing it now. One paragraph later,
he says that we should not cancel Nick Fuents. He
basically puts Nick Flentis on the same side as on
the right, on Heritage's side, and on the other side
the venomous coalition of anyone who dares critique what Tucker
put Nick Flentis on, which has almost nothing to do
with Israel.
Speaker 2: When he tweeted it out, he said it was a
statement about Tucker, not Nick Fuente's.
Speaker 3: So I think.
Speaker 2: I think someone true though that there is a debate
about whether you should have any engagement with roeper stuff,
with Nick Fuente's stuff, or not. And you and I've
had this debate for a long time, like long before
Nick Pointes existed, I'm sure, which is like, is it
worth it to fight back against evil people? Or should you,
like do buying engaging with them? Do you legitimize them somehow?
This is a longstanding debate, and I don't totally know
what the answer to it is, but I do think,
actually we there's benefit to winning in the marketplace of ideas,
to engaging and defeating.
Speaker 1: There's something wrong with a person who hates and vilifies
Christian Zionist and that's a theological argument for you guys
to deal with. Okay, I'm happy I like Christian Zionists,
but that's I don't have a stake in that treating
them with who are venom and vilifying them. Then you
do a guy who says women want to be raped
and then not bringing that up when you interview him,
tells me something very seriously wrong with Tucker. So he's
in an ideological and moral freefall in my view, And
won't not that he doesn't debate twent This doesn't debate
anyone like you know. And all I'm saying is that
Kevin Roberts didn't even have to be involved with this.
His name didn't even come into my head when this
was going on there. I don't know why he has to.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm like, Why did this even happen? And
how did this help anything or did it hurt?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: I do think there's some benefit to actually having some
of this out about foreign policy, and I think there's
something we should mention, which is the reality that views
toward Israel are becoming much more negative in the last
few years.
Speaker 3: There was a Pew.
Speaker 2: Pole from March that just asked if you had a
favorable or unfavorable view of Israel, and among adults in general,
the percent that had had an unfavorable view in twenty
twenty two was a minority forty two percent, still pretty high.
In twenty twenty five it was a majority fifty three percent.
Among Republicans, it went from only twenty seven percent had
a negative view to thirty seven percent, but among Republicans
under fifty, it's now half have an unfavorable view of Israel.
Among Democrats, the situation is dire. Basically, it's like three
quarters of Democrats under the age of fifty have a
negative view. This is just a real thing that we
have to deal with and that I think people are
panicking over and not showing wisdom about how to respond.
And I don't think saying you're an anti Semit if
you don't like Israel, like even if you believe that,
I don't know if that's going to be effective.
Speaker 1: I'm going to need you or anyone to show me
a serious person in the world who says you're an
anti Semite if you don't like Israel. I've not met
that person. I've not seen that quote. No one can
ever provide one for me. They when people say someone's antisemitic.
They give specific of why, But when when Robert says,
my loyalty as a Christians to christ firus to America,
always and on and on his intimating that people who
disagree with Tucker do not have America in their minds.
And I want to know, I want someone to explain
to me when Israel has undermined American interests. You don't
have to support Israel, but you keep pretending, like that
kid who asked JD. Vans a question at a TPUSA
event the other day, that Israel is trying to drag
America into a world war and blah blah blah blah blah,
and Jdvance doesn't say, that's that's hysterical what you're saying.
You know, the Adelsons don't want us in a world
war or whatever. No, he says, don't worry. Donald Trump
won't let them do it. So to me, that's a
problematic statement. And people I see are connecting Vance and
this and that. Well, yeah, I mean, Tucker's friends with Vance.
It's very fair for people to wonder about his opinion.
I'm not you know, you said before you wish we
were talking about real issues. Yeah, Tucker did this Robas
Knows was saying, like I want.
Speaker 2: To write the piece like when it comes to this,
I hate everybody, like I've just annoyed with everybody, But
I'm also annoyed by this mob mentality.
Speaker 3: I will totally.
Speaker 2: Grant that I think it was unwise for Kevin Roberts
to issue this statement that he could praise things differently.
Speaker 3: One of the things I wish people would do.
Speaker 2: And I fail at this all the time, and it
would probably mortify people to know how much I actually
work on this, given how much I fail at it.
Speaker 3: But in the Lutheran.
Speaker 2: Catechism, the when we study the Aidh commandment about not
bearing false witness, and then we talk about how how
do you keep that commandment, we learn that it's not
just about not lying about people or saying falsehoods or gossiping,
but also about putting the best construction on what they said.
And I think we would all do better to do
that and think about the sum total of someone's work.
And you know, I know Kevin Roberts. I know he's
a good man. I know he loves his fellow man.
I know he loves Jews. I know he supports Israel.
I know because of the things he's said in private
and public, and I wish people were showing him far
more grace than they are. And it just seems like
there's this like braying mob just you know.
Speaker 1: You know, out for him and it What about the mob?
What about the mob that that defends Tucker in no
matter what he says. What about that mob that's a
mob too?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: You know, you know, you know, Kevin.
Speaker 3: Real sounds like a defense instead of a First.
Speaker 1: Of all, he doesn't have to be pro Israel whatever.
I don't think he's pro Israel. He didn't say a
single pro Israel thing here. Maybe he is a job Okay, I'm.
Speaker 2: Just saying I know that personally. His job at the
Heritage Foundation is not to be necessarily pro any other country.
It's to be pro America. And he's very good at that.
Speaker 1: Why do we keep pretending that there's some That's my
problem right there. I'm pro Taiwan. I think bring protai
one great. I'm thinking undermindes American interest. I can say it,
and I can say I love America and pro Taiwan.
I could say in pro is there's no there's no
conflict there. What's the cost there?
Speaker 4: Is this.
Speaker 2: So when Nick Fuentes, I think Tucker was talking about
how Nick had said all these horrible things about Tucker,
and he was like, yeah, I hate the way you
say things, and I even hate that you say that
we should treat Israel like any other country. He's like,
it's not like any other country. And so he's like,
because of their history and the Holocaust and everything, their
diaspora is different than the diaspora of other countries. And
he means this as like a negative against against the
Jews in America.
Speaker 3: But I think of it.
Speaker 2: As like a positive thing. And it's why I do
think America has a special relationship with Israel, because we
are a country with a lot of Jews, and because
we care about what happens to Jews when they don't
have protection, either in our country or in their own country.
Speaker 3: I mean that sounded that sounded that.
Speaker 2: I didn't mean that that way, like either in America
or in Israel. I think we do have a special
relationship because we have a lot of Jews here and
I'm not upset about it. And like once I it's
not the most like principled thing in the world, but
it is just who we are as a people, it's
okay to have a special relationship with another country.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 1: I think it's a good ally and I think it's
worked out well. I think it helps the United States
when it can, and and all of that. But you know,
I kind of think about it this way. If the Vatican,
you know, if that was its own country and it
was constantly under attack and it was constantly a threat,
you know, there was a threat of nuclear annihilation and
Catholics were being slaughtered elsewhere and so forth and so on,
Catholics in this country would rally around that. That doesn't
mean they didn't love America. It doesn't mean that they
put America second. There's no conflict there. These people, Tucker
and others want there to be a conflict. They're mad
at the dispensational list. There's some kind of theological thing
going on, you know what have at it. I don't
really care, but this idea, uh that Jews are fifth
columnists in this country is very offensive, and he pushes that.
I get it also when you're not if you're not Jewish,
sometimes like I'm not Lutheran, right, someone's saying something about
Luthany that I might not understand. It, and you know what,
maybe I wouldn't even care that much. I'd be like,
who cares about the Lutherans right now? I get that
people aren't involved in this as much as I am.
But I think there's a moral question here that we
have a moral imperative not to lift up people who
you know, Nick Quentez said that Charlie Kirk was you know,
he called him really ugly, things said he wasn't a patriot,
so forth and so on. So if if Jimmy Kimmel
can be canceled and I don't have to lift him up,
the Conservative celebrated when they thought he was going to
be canceled celebrated, I have to.
Speaker 3: Treat what do you want to canceled from?
Speaker 1: I don't want him canceled. What I'm saying is we
don't have if he says something bad and people are
critical of him and stigmatize his views and stigmatize him,
make him toxic to be around, like you should with
other you know, terrible people on the left or whatever.
First of all, I don't even think the guy's on
the right in any way.
Speaker 2: I don't even know if he would say he's on
the right.
Speaker 1: You saw What's Happened, and New York Times is a
big piece about how Nick Fintess has taken over for
Charlie Kirk, Right. I don't think that's true. This blowback
shows me that that's not really true. But the thing
is that's going to be you know. And they use
this picture of him where they make him look like
handsome and masculine. I don't know how they did that. Yeah,
I tweeted out a picture of myself taken by the
same photographer, but it was a picture of Brad Pitt.
But that's going to be hung on people if we
have this chorus of people pretending that it's censorship and
canceling and whatever. Tone policing, and yeah, we tone police
because we're moral people. How am I going to be
a lot of the people who defend Tucker are the
most you know, are religious people. They say, right, and
they are always talking about morality and the importance of
it of it in our society. And then they defend
a person who says things like that, or did they
defend the lifting up of that person? I think that's
problematic for the right. This could really hurt them in
a way with people who aren't as forgiving or I
would say, like independents who don't understand really even what's
going on, they're not going to make these distinctions that
you and I are making anyway.
Speaker 2: So this was not for publication, but someone who does
listen to our podcast was talking, and he listens to
a lot of podcasts, and he was getting very annoyed
by how sanctimonious some of the podcasts he was listening
to were being about this topic. And he said, I'm
getting very annoyed here when people say America is so divided,
so polarized, we need to treat each other with more charity,
what do they think that means? And he referenced this
situation where a prominent neo con called Sean Davis Adolph
junior and said that Hitler, like Hitler's brain, was in
Sean Davis's brain. He says, first, it means not calling
Sean Davis Adolph junior. It also means giving a respectable
hearing to people with whom we disagree, even Nick Fuente's,
this is his argument. It means chilling the heck out
before someone else gets shot. Would it be acceptable to
delight in the death of Nick Fuentes if you were shot.
Charlie Kirk is the easy case because he was so
beloved and conducted himself so well, and yet leftists celebrated.
Was it okay to celebrate the shooting of George Wallace?
The right needs to get a grip. People have a
variety of ideas. They clash. Goodness, gracious. There's a difference
between being happy that the head of Hamas was assassinated
by the idef and being happy that any of our
fellow citizens was assassinated for any reason. I'm sure we
can come up with counter examples, but they should be
banishingly rare. But it was kind of just like the hysteria.
I do worry is assassination the ish meaning like to
say that someone is not even worthy of debunking, that
there's no nothing to do like.
Speaker 4: It.
Speaker 3: It could be dangerous, right or no.
Speaker 1: I think that's a terrible email, terrible thinking and filled
with straw men. I have every I'm not gonna have
my speech chilled because some fanatic somewhere is going to
kill someone over it. I've said that never would say anything,
you know me, I never would call for violence on anyone.
I don't want Nick Fuentes to be shot. I want
him to be safe. I want him to be stigmatized.
I want him to be toxic to normal people because
his ideas are violent. He preaches violence, he talks about violence.
Lifting him up makes us more violent. And it seems
like just listen, Tucker can bring a million people on
who are going to say stuff about Israel, a million
people who are terrible. But this is the person he
brings on. He made it more famous. We're talking about him.
I don't know what to do. I'm like, I shouldn't
talk about these people, these people terrible. I'm a small voice.
Speaker 2: I'm actually happy not talking about him for the longest time,
for forever.
Speaker 1: What are we going to do? And then you know,
I hear and I don't know if it's true that
tons of people are big fans of his who work
in DC, who work at Like initially, here was my
theory on Kevin Roberts. I felt like he didn't know
what was really going on fully right, and someone wrote
him this script. Like I didn't think he wrote this
script right. He has this guy who works for him
who has been fired or let go or whatever, resign.
Maybe he did it right. Who's a younger person younger
people more into this stuff, and instead of I think
saying something to bring people together in a real way,
there's this reactionary thing on the right now where you
can I saw someone I'm not going to say their
name on Twitter saying well, David French is mad and
this one's mad, so they Tucker must be right. Yeah,
like that is just yeah, it's just vacuous. And there's
a lot of that that goes on on both sides.
But there's a lot of that that goes on.
Speaker 2: And to that point, I remember once talking to a
pastor and I said something like, well, if so, I'm
miseration Lutheran and there's this very left wing Lutheran branch
called the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and I once
said something like, well, if we ever wondered what to do,
we should just do the opposite of what they're doing.
And he was like, no, they're extreme. So if you
do the opposite of what they're doing, we're just an
extremist too. If you do the opposite of David French,
you're just being an extreme in an equally stupid direction.
And conservatism really is about a balance there.
Speaker 1: Well, man, one quick thing. I'm sorry. I just want
to say that I think the left kind of do
you remember like in the New York Times newsroom, some
editorial assistant would like run the newsroom and the head
guy would like apologize to them for insulting them. Like
there's a sense of this going on on the other side.
It's like the blue haired, genderless thrupple has taken over
the Democratic Party and now we're going to let the
groyper you know, frog face have a say in what's
going on On the right. It gets more every time
you remove one stigma, keeps going another step, and you're
going to ge crazier and crazier. And these people are
not normal. They're not normies. The Republicans one last time
in my view, because they were normal, Like that's all
you have to be is normal to win in this country,
and they're not. And I think it's going to be
you know, it could get worse and there could be
some guy quickly. One more thing. David From had a
you know, I never quote David From, but he said
that it was interesting. People like attacked him, but I
think they misread what he said. He said. I do too,
I know what you're going to say, yeah, so there's
there's anti semitism on the right and left, but on
the right there's actually a big debate about whether that's okay,
And I think that speaks well of the right, So
we shouldn't just try to chill speech of the people
are critical of Tucker either, just because he's very popular anyway.
Speaker 3: So I do I do not.
Speaker 2: I did not get the impression that Nick Fuintes was
some intellectual giant worth paying attention to, so I don't
want to give that impression here. But I saw Mark
Levin say something like, cancelation is awesome, and cancelation works.
We canceled Pat Buchanan, didn't we, And I was like thinking,
I don't think that worked very well for the people
who did it. Meaning people are complicated creatures. And Pat
Buchanan is a brilliant man with many good ideas and
also had some ideas.
Speaker 3: That weren't so good.
Speaker 2: And it's okay to engage with someone that way, like
to take what's good or to yeah, to take what's
good and to renounce what's bad. And you know, there
are all sorts of views on Buchanan, but like, canceling
isn't a good idea, and also it didn't work because
the ideas he had that were good, I think are
still around and people are you know, enjoying reading what
he had to say about them, or even like people
always comment on how Buckley canceled him, how he wrote
that like completely unedited screed about him being an anti semit.
Speaker 1: Are you talking about David against Oh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sorry, Buckley did something like that.
Speaker 1: I have the book right here with all those essays
in it. He goes through, Uh, buck I just I'm
sorry to interested, So yeah, I guess say something like.
Speaker 2: Good about it. Though what I want to say is
ha Buchanan loved William Buckley and honored him and credited
him with being like this really important leader of conservatism,
and then they also had a falling out that was
like really bad and everything and vice versa, like there
are people are complicated and it's okay to deal with
the complication there.
Speaker 3: And one of the things that.
Speaker 2: I learned from watching this interview was that uh Fuentes
was really I don't know, like like his origin story
involves a lot of his feeling that the right wasn't
doing enough about immigration, And I was thinking about how
one of the reasons why you want to do good
You want to do a good job with your position
of authority.
Speaker 3: Is that so you don't.
Speaker 2: Like create people who get radical and sometimes failing to
do good things can lead to radicalization of voting blocks.
Speaker 3: Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: Yeah, But we don't make excuses for the far left
wing young person who's psychotic, you know, Commy, we don't.
We're not like, oh, you know, no.
Speaker 2: I think I think it's good to understand it on
that side too, right, Like what am I always talking about?
Like it's it's hard to blame people when it's hard
to buy a house or form a family. I'm not
excusing left wing terrorism or radicalism, but I do think
there's no harm in understanding the particular plight of individuals,
or understanding how they've been educated for decades to hate
America and they do, you know, Like, I'm not saying
that's a good thing, but.
Speaker 1: I think the same thing is happening on the flinta side.
I think they also hate America in a different yeas.
Speaker 2: I think I think they don't even realize, like they've
accepted this left wing framing of America being evil without
realizing that they've accepted it in some cases.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I don't think Bukenan had many ideas, but
I respect him a lot more than I do. Nick
Tuentes is an intellect. It's funny because I grew up
I watched Honestly, why I do what I do. Probably
one of the main reasons is when I was a
kid with my dad, I sat down and watched CNN
and I watched Pap Buchanan debate on Crossfire like and
he was great. And I didn't even know he was
kind of like I was too young to know, probably,
but you know, he just seemed like a regular conservative
in many ways. I saw someone tweet out Buckley lost
and Buchanan one, which is the stupidest thing I ever heard.
I don't think Buckley or Buchanan, either of them would
say that, you know that they.
Speaker 3: Were on there's a complix.
Speaker 1: Well, Nick Quentas has nothing in common with me. And
by the way, last thing on this and I'm going
to but it's very hard for me to hear from you, fine,
but from others about how we all have we have
this big tent and blah blah blah, when they have
been trying to chase out the so called libertarians and neocons.
I mean, is there anyone that paleocons hate worse than
a neokon? They would rather have Democrats in their party.
I mean so, And by the way, I think that
those words are misused. You know, if I'm pro Israel,
I'm a neocon, which is not how that works, That's
not what it means.
Speaker 2: So I do think though that this is also what's
making me hate everybody involved in this is people are
using all of this kerfuffle as a proxy war for
not about the who's in the tent, but who's who's
at the top of the podium, you know, who's controlling
the party and who's directing it.
Speaker 3: And I think.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of just like good faith concern about
any encounters with antisemitism on the right, you know, I
think that's I think that's real and valid and good
that people have that concern. I also think there are
some people who are trying to push a foreign policy
that might not be as favorable with the party in
general as they would like it to be. And so
we need to just keep having these debates, keep talking,
keep working it out.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 2: It's good to be united and We are strong when
we're united in purpose and understanding that when you have
even people with strongly held foreign policy differences tearing each
other apart, it is just making it easier for.
Speaker 3: Us all to be destroyed.
Speaker 2: And I genuinely appreciate the debate and I'm all for
it continuing. But we have really serious problems in our
country and in our world, and if we are tearing
each other down and getting engaged in really stupid conflict
is just it's not going to work well for anybody.
It's going to be much easier for the left, which
wants all of us dead, to kill us all.
Speaker 3: That's not a little extreme, but you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: Like, no, nobody's like in my faction. I'm not running
to faction. But I am not on the same side
as Tucker Carlson. So I'm perfectly fine. Not that he
gives us a crap about me or whatever, but I
am perfectly fine with me and my few people pointing
that out. So I don't I don't want him running
anything on this side. I mean that that to me
is a worse faith than having a moderate Democrat running something.
So why should I be on the same side as
the Stomart, you.
Speaker 2: Should be more tolerant here and more strategic. So for instance,
and I don't this might be a too personal a question,
but did you vote for Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: I don't vote. You know that, Okay, don't vote for anyone.
If I had to vote last time, if I told you,
I've said is I don't vote. I've never I haven't
voted in almost my whole life. If I had to
vote for in twenty sixteen, I would never have voted
for Donald Trump. I probably, I don't know what I
would have done. Right in the last election, I would
have voted for Donald Trump for sure. I would have
voted for Donald Trump for sure. And I think Donald
I think Donald Trump has got is much better than
his rhetoric as a in foreign policy. I think he's
a foreign policy Here's my point to you, though. All
these people you're talking about on this infighting it they're
the ones who opposed Donald Trump's foreign policy. Tucker Carlson
is the one who poses Donald Trump's and I think.
Speaker 2: A bit more, a bit more, that's preposterous and ridiculous.
Vice president who's an advocate for the president disagrees with Okay,
that's just.
Speaker 1: I don't think he would have bombed any Iranian nuclear sites.
I don't think so.
Speaker 2: That may be true, but that's still let's talk about
another time yet.
Speaker 1: But no, I just.
Speaker 2: Want to say for everybody else, I get that you
are a party of one and you join with no
one and you're an individual, and that's great and I'm
happy for you, But like the rest of us need
coalitions to achieve good things and to save the country.
And I would just say I would love some leaders
of the conservative movement to think a little bit more
prudentially and like it, be more savvy about how delicate
a work it is to keep a coalition together that
does in fact include probably Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney
accepting for different reasons, the neocon those types of neocons,
but like neocons in general, and people who have a
more non interventionist foreign policy. It's there are people who are,
you know, pro choice that might be part of the
coalition that pro lifers wish weren't there, but like sometimes
it just helps. We can have some contradictions here, but
like people need to keep there.
Speaker 3: They need to just they just need to be thinking
more like statesmen and less like.
Speaker 2: How can I jockey for power here in this particular moment.
Speaker 1: And you don't think you do you think, Tucker Tucker.
Speaker 3: Carlson speaking, I'm speaking to My point.
Speaker 1: Is if I, if I were a big podcast and
millions of followers like he does, who do you think
would have be more open to having a bigger ten coalition?
He or I, Yeah, I think it would be me.
He called He decided it's me. He called pro Israel people,
he called them, he called them all kinds of names.
I mean, like if you are not you know, if
you're like a you know, not totally pro Israel, not
a neok on whatever. I think there has to be
room for that group in a coalition on the right.
I asked. There has to be a group of pro
Israel people in the right, even though they're on a
ton of left, I guess, but there's still a significant faction.
Tucker's the one who wants to get rid of Christian Zionists.
He says it's a heresy. He hates them more than anyone,
more than pedophiles of Satanists or any Calm down a bit,
I don't want to come.
Speaker 2: He's hyperbolic in how he talks he's very like he
immediately goes to the extreme, but is also shown himself
to be kind of open minded in talking to other people.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you're talking about there, He's only open.
Speaker 2: You just said, you put it this way. Like he lies,
he will speak in a hyperbolic fashion on I've listened
to many of his podcasts, and.
Speaker 1: I think he lies. But my point more is that
he brings on people to lie and then you know,
lets them do it when he knows it's false. Can
I say something quick about Tucker I read a piece
from him today, but from I'm sorry from Politico. He
wrote in twenty sixteen about Donald Trump. It's like one
of the best things I've written. I think he's like
a masterful writer.
Speaker 3: I know he's a small good writer.
Speaker 1: That's why we know something's we or something weird is
going on with him. This is not a person who's thoughtful, really,
And I don't think he wants a coalition of Israel supporters. Yeah,
I don't accept it. I don't think he'd accept Christian Zionists,
which is there.
Speaker 2: Very non interventionists, and he seems to have had a
focus on Israel. Yes, but he's not an interventionist with everybody.
It's not just that he's not an interventionist when it
comes to Israel, so he he's been leaning into that
position more.
Speaker 3: What I wanted to say.
Speaker 2: Was that one of them, I'm not proud to have
once identified as a libertarian. It's kind of embarrassing how
late in life I was still identifying as a libertarian.
But one of the things I liked about that phase,
of that lengthy phase of my life was there was
just like a culture of being okay with talking about
any argument. Nobody was you know, someone could come up
with really outlandish claim and they would just be heard out.
And I do think we could use just like a
tad more of that right now as we battle through
some of these issues and just don't fear some of
these conversations and win through the quality of our ideas
which we have. I think it shouldn't be that hard
to win. And you but we're good at it too.
Speaker 1: So I am not interested in really litigating if rape
is good or if Hitler's good. I think it's crazy
that you can say that hold on.
Speaker 2: You sometimes need to, you might not want to, but
if people are embracing really odious ideas, and the rape
thing is a great example to slavery is good. Like
you might be like, this is preposterous. We've advanced past this,
we shouldn't have to do it, but there you are,
and you need to. You need to make the cues again,
and it's okay, Like, don't freak out about it, just
make the game again and just not freak.
Speaker 1: Sad about that. I'm not freaked out about the person
making saying that because there's no real intellectual reason for
them to say it to other than to piss off
boomers or to like I said, moral pornography. That's the point.
It's provocation, just for provocations.
Speaker 3: They didn't have a good education because they were cated
an impersion the school.
Speaker 1: The problem for me is normal I hate using that word,
but normalizing that sort of discussion when we should be
way past that, Like why don't we start talking about it.
Pedophilia is okay? I mean just because someone says it,
maybe they have a big audience on Twitter on well
by the way.
Speaker 2: Or how about we don't and we live now in
a world where people are doing.
Speaker 1: It right and relative.
Speaker 2: But my point is you need to keep fighting the
battle over and over and over again. We don't get
an escape from it. We have to fight evil wherever
we see it, and we just have to keep doing it.
And other people might not handle things the way you
wish they would. You just keep fighting.
Speaker 1: It's the LEPs moral relativism that made that be normalized
and happen, and now you have to beat it back.
The right should not be doing the same thing in
some other ugly way. In my view, all right, we're
just going in circles. But I think it was a
good conversation.
Speaker 2: I yell at each other, which is good, Well, I do,
I do think so. I think people are very discouraged
having seen this and it's been such a mess. They
should feel some optimism that this will produce a good
outcome here at some point, and having the relitigation that
you hate should produce some good results.
Speaker 1: I think it doesn't look like we're head in that direction,
but we'll see. I am, I am. I should say
just to leave on a positive note for this conversation
that I am happy that there was blowback to what happened.
It shows me that there I think there are more
and more people willing to say, okay, let's do it
let's have this debate, right, I think Trump really glues
most of it together.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, and like, yeah, he's gone, it's kind of
it's gonna it's when he's gone.
Speaker 3: It's going to be a mess.
Speaker 2: And so the more that we can manage some of
this stuff or like work through it now, it's probably good.
Speaker 1: Okay, mom, let's talk about culture. Do you have anything
this week?
Speaker 3: I don't really I had.
Speaker 2: I have been so busy and I had some medical
issues and so I haven't done anything at all whatsoever.
I traveled to Los Angeles and I was actually out
here doing a Prager You book talk with Michael Knowles,
which i'll talk about when like it probably won't come
out for months and months, but we read through the
book We by Guinny Zimya.
Speaker 3: Oh you like that book.
Speaker 1: I haven't read it in many years. I remember being
a very good or maybe a Norwellian dystopian world that
sort of thing, right, Well, you say.
Speaker 2: Rowellian, but he wrote it twenty oneth so he's kind
of like the original, the father of dystopic fiction. So
I reread that, which was fun to reread. And you
can listen to my book talk when it comes out
here in a couple of months, and gosh, I have like,
oh no, I think we already talked about that. Did
I talk about the show? I think we did already
talk about it. Yeah, the the Magnum p I or yeah,
the Island thing. Okay, yeah, So I watched a few
more of those, but it wasn't it's not really that great.
Speaker 1: I have nothing really either. I watched I continued watching Foundation.
I was so into it that I'm like remembered how
much I loved the books, even for even it's so anyway,
I started reading the books. But what's funny is there
Paul Krugman's favorite book because it's about this massive technocracy.
Uh yeah, technocracy is that right where you know, equations
can tell you the future and every you know, controlled
by government and this and that. For me reading it's
like dystopia. For him, it's like pat you know, utopia.
But it's such a well thought out world and book
and it it and and then the show takes ideas
from him, but you know, it's not exactly really faithful
to the novel or anything. But anyway, Isaac Asimov's Foundation,
and he's got a bunch of sequels, one thing. I
actually have a podcast that I've been listening to that's
really good for music lovers. I think it's called Life
of the Record. What the guy does is he takes
he interviews everyone in a so he'll take a record,
twenty fifth anniversary of a record, whatever, and he'll interview
everyone in the band who's alive and get really in
depth on each song. Where did the lyrics come from?
How is it recording?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 1: He talks to them. Really good Life of the Record.
If you're into music, I think you will enjoy it.
And if you'd like to email a show, please do
so at radio at the Federalist dot com. You'd love
to hear from you, and we'll be back next week.
Until them be lovers of freedom and anxious for a friend.