Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Henningway, editor in chief of The Federalist and
David Harsani, 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. Molly. How's it going
good and great?
Speaker 3: I think we've just been a record for the most
time we've spent before, hitting record of just chit chatting.
Speaker 2: Let's just keep going, and we still don't know what
we're doing.
Speaker 1: Let's start with Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris. Sorry, I'm always
very nervous. I'm going to mispronounce that first name and
get in trouble.
Speaker 3: Nothing worse you can do in life than mispronounce her name.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 1: Did you see this New York Times piece? Kamala Harris
isn't ready to be written off? Huge puff piece. Well,
I'll get to my theory on why it was written
after I give you a quote from the piece. This
is from the former vice president. I understand the focus
on twenty eight and all that she told the Times,
but there will be a marble bust of me in Congress.
I am a historic figure like any vice president of
the United States ever was. And then she goes on
and on about how important she is. I actually don't
think she's a very important vice president. I can't think
of a single thing she's actually done or accomplished. If
you remember, she was tasked with helping figure out the
border crisis on the southern border, which she I think
came up with the idea that it was climate change that.
Speaker 2: Was the root cause of the refugee crisis.
Speaker 1: But more than that, she was completely disconnected from Joe Biden,
clearly because she didn't even know that he is not
able to do his job. So how important of a
vice president is she?
Speaker 2: Molly?
Speaker 3: I like the idea that she's as important of a
vice president as any vice president in American history, because
it famously is not in office that has had a
lot of import and the better vice presidents actually know that, right,
not worth a bucket of warm spit, I remember even Okay,
So like Mike Pence had a little part of his
library at the Naval Observatory that was devoted to the
history of the vice presidency, and he was very self
deprecating about the unimportance of the role. And I think
it's better when you're vice president to understand you have
to be alert, you have to be ready, you have
to be supportive, like there are really important things you're
doing in that role. You're learning a lot about being
president in case you will become president. But it's not
like the most important office in the history of the universe.
Speaker 1: The most important vice president in recent decades was Dick Cheney.
He might have been the most important vice president in history.
Actually in my view, just when he was a vice president,
meeting that he helped run the White House, that he
helped forge policy. You could like it or not, I
would say that Harris is one of the least important
vice presidents.
Speaker 2: She was complete.
Speaker 1: I remember reading a story where she hadn't even met
like she wasn't even meeting with the president, like for
long stretches for half a year, things like that. But anyway,
I just anyway, my theory on why we see pieces,
and I bet we're going to see more pieces like this,
is that the Democrats really don't have anyone.
Speaker 2: Very compelling.
Speaker 1: I mean, I actually think they do, but they don't
believe they have anyone who's going to be compelling in
twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 3: To most people, we quickly stick with the Kamalin Harris piece, though,
because I thought it was really fascinating. You noted it
was a puff piece by Shane Goldmacher. Almost everything published
by The New York Times, with some notable exceptions, recently,
is puffy or it's what you would call way after
the fact journalism. So maybe like five ten years after
it matters, they'll report something true and negative about the
Democrat Party. But this was very positive and it was
almost written like a pr piece about her. It was
about how popular she is, how many crowds are out there,
how the lines are very long, and it was making
me laugh because I remember standing in a very long line.
This is so embarrassing to reveal, but let's just do it,
standing in a very long line as a teenager to
get Dan Quail's autograph on my copy of his memoir
at the Tattered Cover in Denver, Colorado. And I'm not
saying anything negative about dan Quilt because I love the dude.
But he didn't go on to become president. Like a
lot of people in America probably don't even remember that
he was president or never learned it, right, So like
long lines for book signings don't necessarily mean a ton, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but also from what I thought, I thought that
that she didn't get a lot long a lot of
long lines. I mean I read that things weren't actually
going well for her on that stur But anyway, and
then yeah, they mean.
Speaker 3: Nothing like just this is a maybe pedantic but the
author writes the book takes small swipes at potential twenty
twenty eight rivals. She didn't consider Pete Buddha Judge for
vice president because she didn't believe America was ready for
a ticket with a black woman and a gay man.
Is that a swipe at Pete Buddha Judge or America?
You know what I mean? Like, it's just weird how
gently it's written and also inaccurately. But I don't know,
it just seems like the thing, the number one vibe
I get from her, I don't know if other people
get this, is just that she she puts off a
laziness vibe, like she can't really be bothered to put
the work in. And whether I didn't even get that
from Joe Biden and he was incompetent but he didn't
seem like he was incompetent through laziness so much as
mental decline. But usually your presidents are people who hustle
and work hard, right.
Speaker 1: I mean Biden, I don't think was that by the
time he became present, you remember how he ran. But yeah,
I agree, in general, that's the vibe she gives off late.
Speaker 3: Was that laziness or was that that he wasn't ever
very bright? He was mentally incompetent and she wasn't.
Speaker 2: Ever very right outcome? Well, that's true, all that's true.
Speaker 1: And he had a long record of actually working hard,
working hard to destroy the country, but still working hard.
Speaker 3: Before the mental decline, there wasn't a lot of mental
to work with there.
Speaker 2: Right, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know that Kamala is especially bright in that
way either, though I don't think she's I think I
don't think she's dumb or anything like that. But when
I think of her, I think of an unseerious person,
I guess, more than even a lazy person, in the
sense that I don't think she's ever thought about anything
very deeply. She doesn't really have any kind of core
moral moral center. The thing that I When I think
of her and her accomplishments, I think of her smearing
Brett Kavanaugh, putting into the congressional record that he was
a gang rapist, right like, I think of her as
completely corrupt in that way, given things, never earning them.
She's a DEI higher. People get so upset when you
say that. But I don't know why. If de I
is this great equalizer, why can't Kamala Harris be a
beneficiary of it?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: And the problem is people don't like her very much.
I think that's a real important factor in winning the presidency.
You have to you have to connect with people. Donald
Trump doesn't connect with everyone, but he definitely connects to
a certain group of people.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, for all the things we say about him,
connected with certain types of people. Bill Clinton did, Barack
Obama did, All presidents do. I don't think she has that.
I mean, the only way she wins is if she's
up against some terrible candidate.
Speaker 2: I guess. But let me ask you this.
Speaker 1: I mean, if we can move on obviously very early,
you know, but the most recognizable people on the Democratic
side are people that Democrats want to run for president.
Speaker 2: She's actually on the top.
Speaker 1: A lot of those polls Newsome and her I think
are in the top two.
Speaker 3: I don't think those polls mean that much. It's usually
about name recognition at the beginning. Name recognition is important,
and then also what the So the Democrat Party picks
its nominee through more of a top down procedure than
the publican party does. So it's going to depend on
who the top guys in the Democrat Party decide will
be the one that they will foist on the voters.
And I think it's too early to say. I think
Gavin Newsom is just like a much stronger candidate than
most people say. He's willing to lie. What did he
lie about this week? That was just like so brazen,
but I think it works for him. I think he
said he was singed in the fires because he was
like fighting fires in California. It's just not true in.
Speaker 1: A weird way. I definitely agree with you. I think
he's much stronger than people think, but in a weird way.
There's remember when Trump brann in twenty fifteen, there were
a lot of people were just sick of the old
party and wanted someone who fights. I think there are
a lot of Democrats who feel that way about Gavin Newsom. Yeah,
of course he's a blatant liar and all that, but
they feel like he's a guy who's not going to
back down.
Speaker 2: Maybe.
Speaker 3: I also wondered if so this situation in Maine where
the guy with the Nazi tattoo is the nominee per Senate,
I was thinking about how Democrats seem to respond to
that what would normally be considered a scandal your candidate
has a Nazi tattoo, by just ignoring it and deciding
they would go with it anyway. And I was wondering
if they had even they had gotten sick of their
woke insanity, and if that will affect how things go
in the Democrat primary. So for a while there, it
was like you had to be a person of color
or you had to be having sex with people of
the same sex in order to be considered like a
potential star. And if you were a white man, you know,
there was like a feeling of sadness about it, even
if you became the nominee. And now I wonder if
they're just kind of done with that in admitting that
it's okay to be a white not.
Speaker 2: Just a way man.
Speaker 1: But they're very great, rich white guy, right. I feel
like it's a weird Kennon, But I was like that.
Speaker 3: You were talking about Joe Biden at first, and then
I realized you're talking about Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom, Yeah, I don't know, we'll see. I think
the best candidate for that would be Shapiro, but I
don't think he'll ever. I don't think he'll get out
of a nominating process. He's popular in Pennsylvania, which is
the type of state you need to win. Democrats will
win California, it doesn't matter who runs, but you need
to win Pennsylvania, Michigan back and then you're gonna win elections.
Speaker 3: And Donald Trump was like cosmically, probably gonna win in
twenty twenty four, no matter what. But if you don't
look back on the failure to pick Shapiro as one
of it and instead to pick Tim Waltz too, Like
it wasn't just that she didn't pick Shapiro, but that
she picked him Waltz.
Speaker 1: That is because because she thought he was going yeah, sorry,
I'm sorry interrupted you, but because but the reason she
picked him was because he was going to connect with
like working class men, white men and Michigan stuff. And
then remember him holding the gun like he was just
terribly terrible. I'm very effeminate in a way, and yeah,
how would you say it? Theater kid like? But did
you see the Atlantic story about Josh Shapiro where they
mentioned that Kamala Harris had basically portrayed him. I think
because she knows she made a mistake, she needed to
come up with an excuse for and she portrays him
as very what did he call it? That he was
just selfish and cared about himself and asked the wrong
questions and all that, and he said that that was
all I that she was just trying to sell books
and cover her ass, and then he kind of.
Speaker 2: Walked it back a little.
Speaker 1: I don't think he can win the nomination as a
person who's in the past been pro Israel, as a
person who's Jewish. In the Democratic Party today, I just
don't see the squad, which is obviously like there are
all these kind of far left candidates running in the country.
You had that in the Tennessee special election, you have
it elsewhere. They are the people right now who are
dominating the Democratic Party. I don't see Shapiro winning in
that kind of environment, I.
Speaker 3: Think it's hard to say, and I know that the
nominee will be picked outside of a normal general population process.
But if the Republican Party fails to have a like
a case for its voters and you start losing a
lot of independence who are willing to go Democrat, the
urge in the Democrat Party to just be normal and
to reject all of the insanity that is fueling it
right now will be strong. You just don't know how
things are going to go because there's too much time,
or like, you know, even just the fraud committed by
people close to the squad, such as the Somali fraud
skin handle that's continuing to brew in Minnesota, it could
make those people more toxic in terms of their ability
to pick who they're going to want.
Speaker 1: Well, let's talk about Let's talk about that a little
bit and segue into something else.
Speaker 2: I I believe.
Speaker 1: That the you know, the we had the yeah, the
Tennessee special election where a Republican underperformed.
Speaker 2: Probably don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think it means as much as everyone else does,
But I do think that that race exemplifies in many
ways the problems that both parties face want and.
Speaker 2: That's of the post Trump world. One of them.
Speaker 1: Of course, you had the AOC of Tennessee, right, which is,
you know, the way the Democratic Party is going. And
then the other side you had a Republican candidate who I,
who I. I'm not an expert on that race, but
it seems to me that the Republicans are going to
be grappling for kind of identity after Trump.
Speaker 2: Trump is a.
Speaker 1: Towering figure in American politics, and to force of will
in person, he changed the dynamics of the election. I
now may perhaps we can continue in that direction, perhaps
it's going to be something else, but seems to me
like that's a problem. I wanted to talk about Trump
derangement centric, but I don't think it's effective to be
talking about Trump all the time, as they did in
Tennessee and elsewhere, because Trump is still you know, with
three years, still Trump, and there's going to be a
lot going on. But the elections themselves are not about
Trump anymore, and people have to figure out what to do.
And I don't think either party has figured out where
they're going to go.
Speaker 3: I have well, it's two separate things, right, I have
no idea what the Republican Party is thinking. The most
alarming thing after that Tennessee special election was Mike Johnson
came out and he was like, you know, it's not
true that this is a Republican plus twenty two district
because it ended up not being a very close race
at all. I think the guy won by seven, eight
or nine points.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know.
Speaker 3: And Mike Johnson was like, yeah, no, this is this
is what we would want to end expect and people
are lying when they say that it's a Trump plus twenty,
which is not I mean, it was a Trump plus.
Speaker 2: Twenty two plus Trump twenty two.
Speaker 3: And it's not off your election, so like we're feeling great.
That alarmed me so much because what I want to
hear from a Speaker of the House who's in charge
of keeping the House of Representatives Republican, would be something like, yeah,
we squeaked this one out. We are not happy with
how close it was. Everybody who wants a Republican majority
needs to open their checkbook right now, write a check
right now, get five people you know registered right now,
because if we don't, you know, focus on this, we're
gonna lose badly. And for him to be like everything's
great and there's no problem. We're happy. I'm like, oh
my gosh, like this is going to be a nightmare.
Next year. It's going to be horrific. It's going to
be you know, what was that? What was the year
where Republicans lost everything? It's gonna it's it's gonna make
that look like a beautiful year.
Speaker 1: This is well, it's probably it's probably going to be
a bad election for Republicans because of historic precedent to
begin with, even though it's a little weird because Trump's
actually in his second term, but I think this will
be treated more like a first term midterm probably And.
Speaker 2: Oh but I also want to say, yeah, oh sorry, no, no,
go ahead.
Speaker 3: I you know, I imagine that Republicans will lose the House.
I I you know, if they're smart, they won't lose
the Senate. And so you're going to go into the
end of Trump's second term with a divided government, but
not you know, a completely Democrat Congress, which would probably
be good for the Republican nominee to have a better
shot at continuing after you know, Trump's end of time
than they would otherwise.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just I would if I'm a Republican.
Speaker 1: I worry that you had a kind of realignment was
based on Trump himself and not the Republican Party.
Speaker 2: He has a lot of voters.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of voters who like Donald Trump
and come out and support Donald Trump who probably don't
have any historic or emotional connection to the GOP really
in any way. In fact, Trump's message from twenty fifteen
was I am the GOP is bad, and I'm going
to you know, I'm going to get the job done.
And that is something they have to work on. I
don't I have different views on that. I don't really
even want to. I don't think about it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think this is this is the huge thing.
So the Republicans are gifted this once in a you know,
once in history kind of guy, Donald Trump, who's so
different than most men and able to do things that
no other candidate could possibly do. So I'm not denying
that he has a strength of personality that is remarkable.
It's also true that he has policies that are very
very well liked and create new voters for the Republican Party. Now,
if the Republican Party wants to keep those voters in
elections where Donald Trump is not on the ballot, and
he will not be on any ballot ever. Again, you
have to like codify and figure out how to take
those things, match it with all the other interests in
your interest groups and make it a healthy, long term
governing majority or a viable political thing. And instead you
got people like everything's fine in Tennessee, Mike Johnson sounding
like like if Mike Pence were a little bit weaker
than you normally think of him, and being like that's
the guy leading you for the next generation. Like it's horrifying.
And I don't even mean like I'm not saying that
thing against Mike Johnson, like as a person or anything.
And probably I agree with him on a lot politically,
But you, I've been gifted this larger than life persona
who has brought to you literally millions of new voters,
and you have to do something to keep them. And
what is Congress doing? What policies have they codified? I mean,
even on something like the Venezuelan boat dronings, there's some question.
I think there are some legitimate questions about the lawfulness
of how Donald Trump is going after them. I know
that this is what presidents have done going back decades,
both against drug traffickers and also other entities. I'm not
singling out Trump here, but it would be probably a
smart move for Congress to work with Trump to have
some actual authorities put into place, and it would be
a difficult issue for Democrats to fight against the efforts
to stop drug dealers. It would be a good debate
to have, and they're just like not having any debates.
Congress doesn't do anything. I know this is your pet peeve,
but like they're not doing anything to make permanent this
gift that they have been repeatedly given against all odds.
Speaker 1: I agree with all of that, but I think we
would disagree on the future in this way. I don't
think Donald Trump has a coherent policy agenda. That doesn't
mean he doesn't have things that he does that are popular.
But I think he also because he only because he
goes by instinct, he does some stuff, and you know,
let's say on protectionism, that will that a lot of
his supporters will just go wherever he goes. I don't
know that they will give that kind of leeway to
whatever whoever comes next. So I don't think this realignment
is real or long lasting in the sense that I'm
not sure working class voters will come out for whoever
comes next in Pennsylvania, Michigan. And I think that if
I were a republic I would be very concerned that
I'm losing suburban voters and middle class voters and upper
middle class voters in Arizona and Georgia in places in Virginia.
So I think the Republican Party needs to actually think
about who they're appealing to, or try to appeal to
both a little more. Donald Trump is a special kind
of character where he had with the whole party. When
you see a maga hat, that's Donald Trump's party. I've
never seen anything like that. Maybe Obama for Democrats in
the beginning. So whatever he goes, they follow him, right, No.
Speaker 3: No, no, disagree. I mean, first of all, he did
not invent the term of making America.
Speaker 2: I understand, but the red hat and everything else.
Speaker 3: So he definitely didn't invent the idea of of pride
in country and putting your country first above other people's interests.
He didn't invent these things. He understood that it's a
very American concept to care about these things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but we have disagreements on what that means. I mean,
I don't think that's fine.
Speaker 3: I mean, to me, that's okay to have somebody. So
the point is, I'm just saying, shouldn't people move forward
with a vision of how to go forward, because you
can't go forward with Trump, but you should go forward
with something that blends all the good that you can put.
Speaker 1: Into and everyone will, all the contenders will claim to
take that mantle, right, But I'm just saying that when
you really think about what's popular that he does, it's
the border stuff.
Speaker 2: People are sick of it.
Speaker 1: His foreign policy is very popular, and I'm sorry to
bring this up to people, but it is not isolationist
at all. It's just not true neo conservatism in any way.
I mean, he's not nation but but he's out there
and he's involved in a lot of the things that
are going on in the world.
Speaker 3: So this is a good point. Actually. So the national
the National Security strategy, I forget what it's called.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, which, yeah, go on.
Speaker 3: It came out and one of the things that was
focused on was how we've had this long term alliance
with Europe, but that Europe is not upholding the Western
civilizational values that caused that alliance. A lot of Europe isn't.
There are some countries like Poland that are doing a
great job that we're growing stronger with, but there are
other countries like the UK that are violating certain long
held principles and it's making it harder to keep that alliance.
And that's a good example of something that a lot
of Americans agree with and that have that concern. And
Trump has said and a Republican Party that wants to
have a strong future of leading on foreign policy should
be speaking about this.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I guess I have to read it and
see what I think of it. And not to say
that they won't be popular or will be because of
my opinions, I'm just in general anyway. My point only
is that the Republican Party will be very different, and
elections today are already not about Trump. In my view,
I don't think you're going to get very far with
any kind of you know, Trump derangement syndrome stuff in elections.
But I also don't think you're going to get away
with kind of just leaning on trump Ism and support
for Trump in elections in the midterms, in governor's races.
And I didn't if you saw, but Republicans are going
to lose a ton of state houses, you know, possibly
there's there's a big and those are incredibly important in
policies that actually affect people's lives. I know everyone's always
thinking about the presidency, but your your state elections are
far more important. Anyway, I think we're there and we
have to start thinking about what's going to happen. And
I do think there's going to be somewhat of a
little civil war in the Republican Party about the future.
Speaker 3: Well, on that note, David, I will just say I
am not going back like I am not. I mean
the Republican the Republican Party might go back to Bush
era neo conservatism and all that, but I'm not going
with it.
Speaker 2: But that's who wants to go back. That's there's a
los choice. And not saying I mean.
Speaker 3: You don't live in DC. I do. Much of the
wants to go back.
Speaker 1: Yes, if people want to go back to the well
like for instance, Donald Trump's all of his most popular policies,
especially in his first term, but even today are policies
that were supported rhetorically at least by Republicans forever, even
if they didn't follow.
Speaker 3: It's like John McCain would say, we're going to build
a wall to keep the immigrants out, and then when
he got in Congress or when he was elected, he'd
be like, no, we're going to do amnesty. I never
said that. I understand that people talked the way that
Trump talks right in order to get elected and then
and then didn't do what they said. What I'm saying
is I'm not doing that anymore. I'm just not doing it.
But I want someone who speaks clearly, forthrightly, is proud
to be American, and then also implements the policies he
claims he believes in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but we need conservatives, not status like JD. Vance
and others who just want to use the state, the
welfare state. There's no lever of power he does yet.
Speaker 3: And I'm also not going back to that thing of
like we're going to do nothing while the Democrats destroy
the country, and then when we're elected, we're going to say, oh,
we're not going to use the government. Like I'm not
doing that either.
Speaker 2: I'm just you should be dismantled.
Speaker 3: You should be by the way you just said that.
They don't want to go back to that thing that
you clearly want to go back to I don't.
Speaker 2: Want to go back to that.
Speaker 1: I want to I want them to follow through on
all the things that they're they're talking about them totally
for that. By the way, Congress doesn't do that because
they probably can't, but even they don't try.
Speaker 2: And I agree with that.
Speaker 1: But this idea that you have to be Mitt Romney
or you have to be some kind of you know,
pap Buchanan type, that's not the choice. Papu Can was
never popular in this country and he's not going to
be popular tomorrow in this country. And but Reagan was popular.
Now I'm not saying go back to Reagan. I know
everyone gets all upset.
Speaker 2: But the the the.
Speaker 1: Heritage types now, I guess and others who want to
just wash away the last fifty years because that's what
they always say, the last forty years are terrible and
go back to a Republican party. There's just an other
big government party. I don't think that that that's right either.
Donald Trump is not that guy. When you look at
what he does, his deregulation, even his foreign policies not
neo conservative, but is it is activists in a way
for American interests. It's not isolationists and all those things.
That is much more in line with the traditional fusionist
vision of conservatism than it is. This paleo vision that
I'm supposed to believe is the future, which I don't
think will appeal to most Americans, including all the protectionism.
Speaker 2: So you're smiling.
Speaker 3: So I'm just saying I'm not going back. That's all
I'm saying.
Speaker 2: I want's going back.
Speaker 3: That's just what you talk about makes me just want
to never vote Republican every Well.
Speaker 1: I don't want to go back to the nineteen forties
to seventies when they were out of power with their
isolationist views and their post liberal economic views. I mean,
the Republican Party incidentally, before nineteen eighty was out of
power for long decades.
Speaker 2: And decades and decades. Why would I want to go
back to that either.
Speaker 4: The Treasury just made a huge announcement regarding illegal immigrants.
The Watchdot 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. The Treasury says
illegal immigrants will be removed from the financial system completely.
If you can't get a job here, and you can't
get benefits, you're not going to come. This should have
been done years ago. Whether it's happening in DC or
down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the watchdod on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: I think what is needed are people realizing how on
the brink things are. I don't mean this like in
a we're all going to die tomorrow or the country's
going to implode, but there have been a lot of
genuinely bad things done to how we run this country
and how we run various states in the LA one
hundred years, and people need to take it seriously and
have very aggressive ideas for how to restore the country.
I mean to take one years great example, the mass
immigration crisis that has been beset upon us by people
in both parties. Yes, but you know, we think of
it most notably with the overt efforts of the Biden
administration to just completely open up the borders incentivize the
worst people in the world to come here and take
advantage of our very generous socialism and welfare systems and
to destroy the country, like it's destroying the way people
interact with each other. We're in a low trust We're
in a much more low trust system now than we
were previously. We have massive groups engaging in fraud with
the help of our systems and people running those systems
and our administrative state. Like these are really serious problems.
And to have people be like focused on other countries
instead of our own country or to I understand that
foreign policy requires us to be focused on other countries, And.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't understand why you can't do both
things at once. It's just to me such a false choice.
We can have a foreign policy, we kind of a
domestic policy. One does not undermine the other. Just seems
like I do.
Speaker 3: You can have a much higher percentage of caring about
what's happening in your own country and a lower percentage
of caring about other countries.
Speaker 2: I don't know that we do care about what's going on.
Speaker 3: Or like even so much. Which countries we care about
is important too, you know, Like looks like we're ending
the Ukraine Russia thing now we're picking up on Venezuela.
Still not doing probably what's necessary with regard to China.
But anyway, it's just people need to be aggressive about
solutions to some of our problems, and the mass immigration
crisis is a major one. And I was glad to
see that the Supreme Court will be taking up the
case of the Executive Order on birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1: By the way, yeah, I don't know how that's going
to turn out, though there's a lot of precedent going
the other you know, in the way that it will stand,
I think, but maybe.
Speaker 3: There was wrong Greme Court precedent going the other way.
There's been a pattern of when immigration, particularly like a
long time ago, was at a much lower level, of
not treating it like the existential crisis that it is
to have people come here legally and then have children
and live here for a long time. But I don't
think there's I don't think it's kind of crazy that
the Court hasn't taken this up earlier, but I'm glad
they're doing it now.
Speaker 1: The way around that problem is to shut your borders
and not let illegal immigrants into this country. Also, when
people overstay their visas, they should be thrown out. Let's
talk about ice. Then, I guess it's a good segue. Right,
So we have Ice acting in a way they've never
acted before. They're going after a legal immigrants across the country.
You'd think that this was Nazi Germany right now to
hear Democrats talk about it, Mom, Donnie the new Well,
I guess the incoming mayor of New York City explain
it to me. I think he had a video or
something where he showed people how to avoid ICE attentions, right,
something like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he did put a video out and he was like,
if you know, here's what you should do if ICE
comes knocking, and here's what you don't have to do.
And he kind of had a big leaf at the end,
like don't actually commit violence if ICE is coming after you.
But it was a really good reminder that for a
lot of prominent Democrats, they view illegal aliens, and in
some cases, in many cases in New York City, criminal
illegal aliens. We're talking people who are accused of rapes
and murders and child sex trafficking. They viewed that group
as a constituency that they care about, in some cases
more than actual American citizens. And Mamdannie won election in
part on the backs of immigrant voters. So non illegal alien.
Speaker 2: Folks.
Speaker 3: But he It was just kind of shocking to see
that brazenness of him opposing ice enforcing the nation's laws,
particularly when he's like, I'm going to follow the international
law and arrest bb net and Yahoo if he comes
to New York City, but he won't even follow his
own country's laws, his alleged own countries laws. When it
comes to enforcing border security and removing criminal illegal aliens.
Speaker 1: There's no such thing as international in the United States.
Can't usurp the constitution and the law. But Mamdannie is
exactly the kind of immigrant we don't want.
Speaker 2: I mean nothing. He hates this country. What I'm serious, Yes,
I know that's that we're not supposed to say that.
Speaker 1: We're supposed to pretend every immigrant is great and every
immigrant wants to be an American, But that's just not true.
People come here for idealistic reasons, and they come here
for material reasons, and that's fine. But if you know,
when you take the oath of citizenship, it says that
you will place the Constitution above all other laws and everything,
and they do not do it, they're bad immigrants. And
if they don't believe in it, they're bad immigrants, and
Mom Donnie is a bad immigrant. So I am pro
immigration for obvious reasons, personal and otherwise, but we have
to do a better job of thinking about who we
allow into this country and how they're going to assimilate.
And Mom Donnie, I think is a poster shop for
the opposite.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I looked at this Ice story and he tells, you know,
he gives them legal things to say, like you know,
you don't have a warrant, you can't come in, and
so forth and so on, but it does speak to
what he finds important, right. He finds it important that
a place that has a housing christ affordability crisis and
all these things, even though you know it's more complicated
than just immigrants but or legal immigrants, but he finds
that more important than anything else going on. He finds
it more important to say he's going to arrest beeB
neta Yahoo than anything that's actually going on in the
city because he's a complete radical. And I hope, you
know whatever, so New York deserves what they get with him.
Speaker 3: I will say, I thought he was going to tone
it way down so that he could work with the
business community and other interest groups. In New York City
and that he's I'm not sure, you know, he had
that very friendly meeting with Donald Trump, but then he's
like back out there seeming to be the radical that
he is.
Speaker 1: But anyway, did you see who he surrounded himself with,
like as advisors. One guy's a former con you know,
I forgot what he did, something terrible.
Speaker 2: He's in jail for seven years.
Speaker 1: And some other radicals who want to defund the police,
uh and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: So I don't know.
Speaker 1: I guess New Yorkers get what they do. You know
what they want here. Truth is that New York is
almost ungovernable, and it doesn't it matters who the mayor is.
But it doesn't matter as much as it might in
a smaller town, I think because the city councils.
Speaker 2: Are it's already you know, you have socialists there.
Speaker 3: So I was trying to get you to talk about
Humphrey's executor and how that might be overturned in Supreme
Court by referencing the Supreme Court. But I'm just going
to bluntly suggest that we.
Speaker 1: Talk about it as usual. I miscues given to me
by others.
Speaker 3: So I think Humphrey's executor is this case that people
love to talk about as what people who are interested
in Supreme Court jurisprudence usually have a list of what
they think are the worst cases in Supreme Court history.
So dred Scott would be one that you hear a lot.
Movie Wade, of course, was one that you hear about
a lot. And Humphrey's Executor was this landmark decision in
nineteen thirty five that ruled that the Constitution permits Congress
to enact laws that limit the president's ability to fire
executives in certain agencies. So they created what they you know,
they said, there's these independent agencies where the president can't
terminate because these agencies, they say, have our quasi legislative
or quasi judicial. So there was this guy, William Humphrey,
who was Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, and Roosevelt
had fired him, not not Wilson. Roosevelt had disagreed with
him about economic regulation and the New Deal, and there
had been a bill that prohibited firing an FTC commissioner
for any reason other than like malfeasance, and he disagreed
with him on policy. And at the time that this
Supreme Court decision was made, it was always bad, but
at the time it was made, these independent agencies or
quasi independent or legislative, quasi judicial, quasi legislative agencies, there
weren't that many of them, and they weren't that important.
And then in the ninety years, hence they have become
massive in terms of their ability to control regulate parts
of the economy. And so what was a bad decision
to begin with has become like a horrifically bad decision
for a constitutional republic, because having people who can't be
held account, having people in executive offices that are not
under the control of the executive is a constitutional nightmare.
And so Donald Trump kind of took this on and he,
you know, he's being sued over the removal of people
from various boards and agencies like the National Labor Relations Board,
and so the Supreme Court heard arguments this week on that,
and people widely considered the way that the arguments went
to indicate that this will be at least a six'
to three decision in favor of the executive of having
the authority to fire people in executive in the executive.
Speaker 1: Branch trump the slaughter is the, case and, yeah so
THE ftc was created Under, wilson AND i guess the
argument is that it is quasi legislative and even. JUDICIAL
i think they were, saying but of course there is
no there can't be. Anything an independent agency can't, Exist
there's no such thing in the. Constitution there's no fourth
branch of, government of, course such AS i, mean this
is like right down his, alley, right this is the
kind of stuff he.
Speaker 2: Hates so hopefully we'll see the end of. It AND.
Speaker 1: I saw a bunch of stories from left wing media
saying that this Gives trump unchecked power of a. Dictator
AND i just don't understand why they believe that these
giant bureaucracies and people with tremendous power should be immune
from the electoral, process essentially when they're supposedly fans of,
democracy LIKE i SHOULD i should be the one.
Speaker 3: Who is having people who can't be. Fired that's.
Speaker 2: RIGHT i, mean what you're saying is that there's the.
President it's.
Speaker 1: Funny they're always for giving power to wherever they, are
and they're in the bureaucracies like this is their power
center all the. Time my concern always is that these
sorts of these sorts of decisions are are you, know
are you have these decisions and then everyone just ignores
them like janis or you, know there's just a ton
of decisions on our bureaucracy is still, huge, right and
no one does anything about.
Speaker 3: IT i don't actually think it's that people are ignoring.
Them it's takes a while for something to work its way.
Through like the big problem With congress devolving all authority
to the executive agencies took a long time to build
up and it's going to take a long time to.
Correct like having the tools to do it is. IMPORTANT i,
mean it's even like with The dobbs. Decision it doesn't
solve the debate of ending unborn humans, lives it does
give people a chance to start. FIGHTING i, mean it
was kind of. Crazy it was a fifty year battle
just to get to the starting. Line and with removing
some of this administrative agency, tyranny it's going to take
time to.
Speaker 1: Unravel Well Chevron chevron was overturned, too and it just
doesn't seem like much has, changed so hopefully in the
long run it. Does but CAN i quickly just say
That sotomayor said that you're asking us to destroy the
structure of government is what she. Says And i'm, like,
yes we are asking you to destroy. THIS i want
to go back, Here, MOLLY i want to go back
to a time where they weren't these agencies running the.
Speaker 2: Country is really what's happening right for a lot of.
Speaker 3: People so, Anyway, Yeah Randy, barnett WHO i just think
is wonderful and.
Speaker 2: A great explainer on.
Speaker 3: This, yeah, sorry, writer but he also had just like
a brief tweet THAT i really enjoyed where she, says you,
know the argum meant is that allowing the president to
remove administrative officials will transfer an enormous amount of power
to the. President the question transfer from whom who currently
has all that? Power so you saw it in the
media and you reference. This everyone was, like Like axio,
said The Supreme court will hear arguments On monday On
President trump's firing of A democrat Federal trade commissioner in
a case that could quote dramatically inflate the president's power
to reshape the. Government so who currently has this dramatic
power to shape the. Government and when the answer.
Speaker 2: Is what the? Desocracy, yeah of, Course so.
Speaker 3: These people want the an unelected unaccountable bureaucracy to have
all this power to shape the government and not the
people or they're elected representatives or. Leaders and The Wall Street.
JOURNAL i, was, oh, Gosh so The Wall Street journal
subscription is very, expensive so we canceled it a while,
back and they won't stop sending it to our, house
which makes it difficult because, normally when you go on
vacation or, something you can pause the distribution of the,
paper but we can't because we already canceled, it but
they keep sending. It. ANYWAY i was taking the train On,
monday pick up the paper that's out there that is
being sent to, me and on the front, page The
Wall Street journal, Wrote trump's firing spree at federal agencies
has snowballed into A Supreme court showdown about how Modern
american government should work with the independence of experts at.
STAKE i love this idea that in a constitutional, government
that anybody in the government should be quote, independent that
anyone shouldn't be accountable to the, People LIKE i, know
that's How europe does things in other. Countries We're. America
we don't do, independence. Right and then the other THING
i love is this idea that there are experts in the,
government and no offense to my many fine friends working
in the federal, government but, like, REALLY i, mean do
we really think that we're talking ABOUT i, mean first of,
all when you're firing like a head of an, agency
they're not. Experts they're politicals, Right they're they're. Political they're
people who are put there because they're. Political they might be,
smart they might be well, credentialed but this idea that
we are supposed to be governed by experts instead of
the people is Very wilsonian in its thinking and completely.
Unconstitutional well two.
Speaker 1: Things one what makes me laugh is that just the
hypocrisy That democrats want to democratize the judicial. System they
want to add seats onto The Supreme. Court they want The,
court which is the one agency that is counter, majoritarian
to become. Majoritarian but yet they want these agencies to
function on their. OWN i do actually think independence with
a small eye is a good thing for like THE.
Speaker 2: Fed i'm not saying they should, be but they shouldn't.
Speaker 1: Be immune from Being that's an agency under the executive,
branch and that's who the answer. To, NOW a good
president will let put good people in those. Spots and
let them function without being constantly you, know scared to
do the right thing because you, know for political. Reasons
but that's a different, story that kind of independence and
the independence that that The democrats, want which is to
say they can't be.
Speaker 3: Fired AND i do think that assuming that humphrase executors,
overturned that you will see presidents frequently even if they
disagree with someone or have problems with, someone they they
might let them stay for reasons including that when you replace,
someone you, know you bear more responsibility for. It, actually
THAT'S i could also see it being just where they
turn over everybody immediately upon. It it could be, election
which is perhaps.
Speaker 1: Fine one of the one of the factors that makes
our governance, BETTER i think than a parliamentary system is.
Stability so if you have someone at the feder's just
doing a good, job it's good to keep them on.
Whatever but, YEAH i could SEE i could see you
going into another, direction WHICH i don't think is, Great
but that's still that's up to the. Electorate the president
runs or a candidate, runs he Says i'm not going
to fire THE faed, guy OR i am going to you,
know and people get to Decide that's how it. Works
there are democratic and you know, forces and then there
are undemocratic forces in.
Speaker 3: GOVERNMENT i just want to do a little side note,
here which, IS i, was are you going to a
lot of? PARTIES i feel like we're just doing nothing
but Doing christmas parties here IN.
Speaker 1: Bc as you, KNOW i avoid those things that IF i,
Can BUT i have gone to a.
Speaker 3: Couple, Yes BUT i met someone at a fun party
of A fox. Colleague and this was related to an,
agency not one of these quasi judicial or quasi legislation of,
agencies just when we all, acknowledge is an executive, agency
and you know he's done some auditing work of that,
agency and the percentage of people who were qualified for
a particular job that he was overseeing was. SHOCKING i
mean by this that they were hiring for people that
were supposed to have a certain skill. Set but somehow
all of our arcane bureaucratic rules and regulations made it
so that if someone claimed that they had an expertise
in a particular, area you weren't allowed to determine that by.
Testing apparently testing was viewed as racist or something like,
that so you couldn't. Test so someone said that they
had a certain. Skill let's say this is not the,
case but let's say it was a coding a coding,
skill and they just put it on their. Resume that
was the furthest you could. Take. It couldn't even ask
questions about, it, Right and so an audit was done
of what percentage of let's say there were five thousand
people in this, position what percentage had the skill that
they were hired to? Have And i'm just going to
ask you to guess what or like how many out
of five thousand just.
Speaker 2: From your, TONE i would say, low like ten?
Speaker 3: Percent literally it was like just over a. Dozen. Wow
so that's what we're dealing with with the expertise in our.
Government and just imagine that like across every, agency across
every issue area like things that would however messed Up
Corporate america, is and it can be very messed. Up
it's nothing nearly so bad as.
Speaker 1: That, yeah because there's SOME i, mean a company will
go out of business and NEW ceo, comes what you,
know trims the. Workforce you can't do any of that,
here it's too. Difficult we'll. See do you want to
talk ABOUT i think that you said you were going
to disagree with me on, this the speaking of stupid government.
Ideas the gym's in the airport thing THAT ourfk has
come up, With, now what's your what's?
Speaker 3: Your explain what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: First, so from WHAT i, saw and it just, happened
ironically THAT i was on a line at an airport
WHEN i was reading this on my, PHONE ourfk has
come up with this idea of putting gyms in airports
so that people can do a little exercise between flights
or what they're waiting for flights or. WHATEVER i think
getting all sweaty at a mini gym BEFORE i go
on a flight is A i'm in a you, KNOW
a two foot by two foot seat is a really
Bad right next to somebody is a bad. Idea more
even worse is that the person next to me might
have gone to a gym before. THAT i don't think
we need gyms and. AIRPORTS i think we need flights
to be on time SO i don't have to run
across the terminal like the five mile, terminal to get
to another gate to see.
Speaker 2: If my delayed flight is taken. OFF i got enough.
Speaker 1: EXERCISE i was At Kennedy AIRPORT jfk the other day
AND i was online the security line for like an
hour and a half and then my flight was delayed
AND i had to go to another, terminal take a.
Bus THEN i had to run across a terminal catch my.
Flight that was enough exercise for. ME i don't THINK
i need a gym in the, Airport please tell me
WHY i.
Speaker 3: DO a couple of TIMES i have had to run so,
hard so fast that it's, embarrassing you. Know and one,
time WHEN i was much, younger had to catch a
flight In, atlanta which is an insane. Airport, yeah and
SO i had a connection and running across AND i
passed out WHEN i made it into the into then
committed on the.
Speaker 1: Plane SO jfk is so old that they don't even
have like just one or two. Terminals it looks like
all spread out and you have to get on.
Speaker 2: Bus it's just, terrible.
Speaker 3: Right and THEN i also recently with my, assistant was
running from one end Of chicago O'Hare to, another AND i,
mean we're, panting and, like you, know we made. It
and when we got to the, flight the flight attendant was,
like we were holding the plane for. You you did
not need to run this, hard And i'm, like, okay
well no one told me, so thank. You but WHAT
i saw from a Secretary duffy was that they're just
putting in things that would enable just a little bit
of physical, activity like a bar that people can try
to do pull ups. On this does not take up
a huge amount of. Space, also as someone who unfortunately
has to fly all the, time it's true that it
disrupts your workout schedule in a way that can be,
difficult and sometimes you're just doing literally nothing LIKE i
bring a, PAPERBACK i listen to, PODCASTS i make phone.
Calls BUT i would like to have as part of
it the chance to easily do a little bit of physical.
Activity right, NOW i do it WHERE i just kind
of do like a leaning push up against like a
chair that's that's sitting. There but it's also kind OF
i wish THAT i could do it in a little
bit of, privacy you, know or a you, know like
a stand against the wall or jumping jacks or a
jump rope or something like. That it doesn't need to
take up a bunch of, Space and it also reminds
people that physical health is important and that it is you,
know something that we should encourage in each. Other and
sometimes people do have trouble in on planes with blood
cloths and other, things and so it's just like not to.
Me it's just not the worst idea in the, world
and in fact would have some. BENEFITS i think would
normalize doing a little bit of physical.
Speaker 1: OUTPUT i guess IF i just IF i had a
list right of stuff THAT i think they should be
doing at, airports putting a pull up bar in, THERE
i think would be you, know in the hundred or
two hundred. Area the other idea for them is that they're,
going you, know to have healthier.
Speaker 2: Food at, airports WHICH i think they. Do there is
always a place with some kind of salad stuff that
you can buy. Already usually LIKE i, mean it looks pretty.
GROSS i don't know how about.
Speaker 3: It's like it's like fried food or it's like, prepackaged,
yeah stuff that's like been sealed in plastic that you're,
LIKE i don't know anything about the cleanliness of this
salad or you, know JUST i know that's a issue
wherever you're, Going but you want.
Speaker 2: To hear something. AMAZING i had sushi the other day
at the.
Speaker 1: AIRPORT i can't BELIEVE i did, that BUT i could
not have any more fried.
Speaker 2: Food you, Know i'd been in. Airports the here's the.
Speaker 1: Thing food is so expensive at, airports and they don't
really have the FACILITIES i think to make fresh. Food
so that's the. Problem i'd rather have some kind of
more Competitive.
Speaker 2: I'll look at that, dog so, cute.
Speaker 1: More competitive pricing or. SOMETHING i, mean it's just. INSANE
i don't.
Speaker 2: Know.
Speaker 1: People IF i have a, family you know you're spending
one hundred dollars getting them food at the. Airport it's just.
Insane but you, know here's another. Thing you can bring
your own salad with you bring a.
Speaker 3: Banana it's no big. Deal.
Speaker 2: Okay do you want to talk about? Culture do you
think you're? There?
Speaker 1: OKAY i only have one thing Because i've been traveling
and it's.
Speaker 3: WEIRD i watched quickly talk before she gets. Down is
this not the cutest dog you've ever? Seen?
Speaker 2: Yes what kind of? Dog is? It?
Speaker 3: Cavalier, okay very. Cute it's so.
Speaker 2: GREAT i love what is a dog's? Name i'm not.
Speaker 1: Saying, okay it's a cute. Dog not as cute as,
mine but cute.
Speaker 2: Enough she was.
Speaker 3: Taken care of by a friend of mine WHO i
go to church with for two, weeks AND i think
that woman who took care of her spoiled her, ridiculously
and so now she's being like neanier than.
Speaker 2: Normal that always.
Speaker 1: Happens someone watching my dog and my dog came back a. Beggar,
actually do you have? Anything do you want to go?
Speaker 2: First i'll go.
Speaker 1: FIRST i watched an, old old movie Called It happened one.
Night my wife just had it, on AND i love
that sat. Down you, KNOW i don't like old. MOVIES
i actually love this. Movie other than the casual physical
violence That Clark gable you, know inflicts On Claudette, colbert
it was actually well. Done So what's The year is
a thirty Three, no not thirty, three thirty four and
it is somewhat, risque, Right and apparently it was one
of the last movies to be made before the hate
what was called The Hayes act or, whatever which was
a kind of self. CENSORSHIP i thought it was. GOOD
i usually don't like old, movies BUT i liked. It
have you ever seen?
Speaker 2: It?
Speaker 3: YEAH i love. It it is RISK i haven't seen
it in a long, time SO i might have to
watch it, again.
Speaker 2: That's it other than the airport.
Speaker 3: Stuff, Okay SO i have seen a couple of. MOVIES
i don't know, why BUT i got into The christmas
spirit a little earlier than. Normal so normally we would
Watch christmas movies only when the kids are On christmas,
break but totally without, CHILDREN i. Think mark AND i
Watched Daddy's home?
Speaker 2: Two is that With Mel gibson And Mark. Wahlberg who's
The Wilf farrell know who's the? Other, Well?
Speaker 3: Beryl and Then John, Cena.
Speaker 2: John cena, okay.
Speaker 3: Yeah AND i thought it was pretty.
Speaker 2: Good CAN i ask you a quick.
Speaker 3: QUESTION i had such low. EXPECTATIONS i have to admit
that going, in but it just kind of worked and
it was a good.
Speaker 2: Cast is that A christmas? Movie?
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, yeah, okay the conceit is that they're all
together For. Christmas and THEN i WATCHED i think the
weirdest Movie i've ever seen with an excellent cast Called
love The.
Speaker 1: Connors oh my, gosh my. WIFE i watched that Movie
that's just now WHEN i was. Away That's Diane keaton
And John goodman maybe or.
Speaker 3: Something, yes a better.
Speaker 2: Cast, yeah on did you like?
Speaker 3: It it was? Horrible like it was so weird AND
i don't even care because it's an old. MOVIE i
can do. This and thank you to all the readers
who make fun of my reviews of old books and old.
Speaker 2: Movies you're, Mean but have you heard of A Wonderful?
Speaker 3: Life but it's, narrated which is always the sign of
a bad movie when you have to have a voice, OPENER.
Speaker 1: I hate you hate nothing more that you hate exposition
more than anything in a.
Speaker 3: Movie, True and at the end you realize that the
narrator was the dog real which doesn't like it's so
Weird and it was billed as like a comedy and
instead it's a, dark dark film about like marital, decline
AND i was, like what is going?
Speaker 2: On oh? Man all?
Speaker 3: RIGHT i went on Like twitter to see if other
people hated, it and they, didn't SO i don't know what's.
WRONG i, mean nobody loved. It it has bad, reviews but,
yeah it should be marked as a very as a
failed film with a dog. Narrator the dog Is Steve,
martin which.
Speaker 2: What really is?
Speaker 4: It?
Speaker 2: God John goodman's always good.
Speaker 3: Though he was good in this, too.
Speaker 2: And the Late Diane keaton's in it, right AND i think.
Speaker 3: My mom's. Age she, died and SO i just like
my mom cannot. Die, no And i'm glad she's. Healthy so,
yeah me.
Speaker 1: TOO i, Mean i'm sorry to tell you, this but
we all eventually will will pass, away but hopefully you,
know far away from.
Speaker 2: Today, okay that's.
Speaker 1: GREAT i think that we'll be back next week with
More christmas movies BECAUSE i plan on watching a.
Speaker 2: FEW i like to watch them this time of.
Speaker 1: Year, yeah you can reach the show with better suggestions
For molly on movies at radio at The federalist dot. Com,
now we'll be back next, week and until, then be
lovers of freedom and anxious for the.
Speaker 2: Fray don't you give me all that job about things
you wrote?
Speaker 3: Before has a, lot because this is a eighteen twenty, three,
eight even nineteen seventy