Speaker 1: Welcome to today's podcast, sponsored by Hillsdale College. All Things
Speaker 1: Hillsdale at Hillsdale dot ed or. I encourage you to
Speaker 1: take advantage of the many free online courses there, and
Speaker 1: of course I'll listen to the Hillsdale dialogues, all of
Speaker 1: them at Q for Hillsdale dot com or just Google, Apple,
Speaker 1: iTunes and Hillsdale. Good Friday, too, big weekend show coming up,
Speaker 1: and I'm pleased and honored to begin with Secretary of
Speaker 1: the Interior Doug Bergham. Secretary Burgham, Happy new year to
Speaker 1: you in advance. I'm so glad you could join us.
Speaker 1: I've been talking to various people tender your throne, Chris Wright,
Speaker 1: others about the year in review. You've got one of
Speaker 1: the biggest agencies and you've had a year. Now, what
Speaker 1: do you count as the accomplishments at Interior in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five?
Speaker 2: Well, Hugh, great to be with you, but accomplishments for
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five is really implementing President Trump's common sense
Speaker 2: agenda about unleashing American energy and that broadly speaking, I
Speaker 2: mean we're talking about.
Speaker 3: Oil and gas.
Speaker 2: A year ago, US was had LNG export restrictions on
Speaker 2: under the Biden administrations now world's largest exporter.
Speaker 3: Of LNG, bigger than number two and number three in
Speaker 3: the world.
Speaker 2: And of course when we're exporting LERG, that's good for
Speaker 2: Americans here because when we've got foreign purchases or when
Speaker 2: our allies are buying from US versus our enemies, we're
Speaker 2: stopping funding wars abroad. And then those purchases here helped
Speaker 2: pay for the infrastructure, the pipelines, and all the facilities.
Speaker 3: Here that help make our nation richer. So that part key.
Speaker 2: But when you take a look at this broad swath
Speaker 2: of all these amazing, incredible, abundant resource filled federal lands,
Speaker 2: five hundred million acres of surface, seven hundred million acres
Speaker 2: of subsurface, and three point two billion of offshore, the
Speaker 2: world's largest balance sheet of any company in the interior.
Speaker 3: It wasn't just the energy.
Speaker 2: Industries that the Biden administration was trying to shut down.
Speaker 2: They effectively killed mining, they were killing timber, they were
Speaker 2: attacking our ranchers with the great on bureau land management.
Speaker 2: So bringing back, bringing back the balance sheet of America,
Speaker 2: restoring these assets to being productive assets which produce for
Speaker 2: the American people, whether it's food, whether it's energy, whether it's.
Speaker 3: Timber, all of these things.
Speaker 2: One hundred and eighty degree reversal here following the Trump administration,
Speaker 2: the policies President Trump's lead and so.
Speaker 3: Exciting. First year off to a great start.
Speaker 2: And I think it's showing up in the economic data
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 1: I thank you and Secretary Wright are going to win
Speaker 1: or lose the twenty twenty six elections because energy drives
Speaker 1: down prices. Energy is freedom. Without it, we don't get
Speaker 1: anything done. We need nuclear reactors, we need all this
Speaker 1: different stuff beyond exports of LNG. Are we increasing production
Speaker 1: or the leasing of land on which production can occur
Speaker 1: in the next three years within the United States including
Speaker 1: the coastal zone.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely permits.
Speaker 2: The number is there's never been a line on a
Speaker 2: curve like this, but I think permitting for drilling permits
Speaker 2: on Bureau land Management.
Speaker 3: Is like up fifty.
Speaker 2: Five percent over any other period time period. So really
Speaker 2: getting back into delivering on the drill, baby drill side
Speaker 2: of this, and of course doing it responsibly and smarter.
Speaker 2: We do it cleaner, smarter, safer than anywhere else in
Speaker 2: the world. People should be celebrating the fact that we're
Speaker 2: producing more here we did hit record oil production numbers
Speaker 2: this year and then shows up at the pump with
Speaker 2: the gas prices, but it doesn't maybe show up in
Speaker 2: California because you know, it's two forty four in Houston
Speaker 2: and it's over five bucks in California. And part of
Speaker 2: that is because we've got a set of policies at
Speaker 2: the state level which are disrupting the energy in our
Speaker 2: United States. We've got parts of our part in the
Speaker 2: northeast part of our country in New England, led by
Speaker 2: New York, looks more like the EU. California is in
Speaker 2: a league by its own sixty three percent of the
Speaker 2: oil in California now important foreign countries. California, as you know, Hugh,
Speaker 2: used to be an energy powerhouse.
Speaker 3: So I mean back at one.
Speaker 2: Hundred years ago, California is producing twenty five percent of
Speaker 2: the world's oil production, and now it's down to it's
Speaker 2: barely on the list of states in America, down to
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand barrels of oil a day, even though
Speaker 2: California is sitting on this resource.
Speaker 3: California used to have forty refineries.
Speaker 2: Now it's got eight refineries, and two of the biggest ones,
Speaker 2: Valero and Chevron have announced they're closing their plans. So
Speaker 2: under the current leadership of California, not only are we
Speaker 2: importing oil into the state of California through San Francisco
Speaker 2: Bay and through Long Beach for refining. When those refineries
Speaker 2: shut down, we're going to be importing refined products by ship,
Speaker 2: often from foreign countries, just to keep the largest fleet
Speaker 2: of internal combustion engine vehicles of any state in America
Speaker 2: going in California. So again it's a common sense versus
Speaker 2: climate elitism, and those two things are colliding, and affordability
Speaker 2: is going to win that because the Green new Scam,
Speaker 2: as it's been called, because it was a scam. It
Speaker 2: made promises it couldn't deliver on. It's done one thing.
Speaker 2: It's delivered higher prices. So whether it's electricity or gas
Speaker 2: prices higher in blue states than they are in red states.
Speaker 3: Don't look at the averages. Look at it the state
Speaker 3: by state.
Speaker 2: That's where you can see specifically where President Trump's policies
Speaker 2: are working, and that's where all the capital is going
Speaker 2: to flow. It's going to flow the new wave of investment,
Speaker 2: record investment in our country for capital expenditures in the
Speaker 2: next generation of AI. It's going to flow towards states
Speaker 2: with low energy prices, and you're going to see states
Speaker 2: like California, New York missing out on this next wave
Speaker 2: of capital investment.
Speaker 1: Now, mister Secretary, I don't think it's possible to permit
Speaker 1: a mind in a year, But are you working on
Speaker 1: critical minerals rarers minds. We just had this big discovery
Speaker 1: in Utah. I noted, so that by the end of
Speaker 1: the term, America will become more self reliant on our
Speaker 1: own resources in the critical categories of rarrors.
Speaker 2: Well, fabulous question and great that you're so astute about this, Hu,
Speaker 2: But it turns out you can permit a mine in
Speaker 2: less than a year. We pumited the Resolution mine. They've
Speaker 2: been working to get a permit for Resolution Mine in
Speaker 2: Arizona for twenty nine years, and we've got that mine
Speaker 2: permitted through because we've got again Office of Surface Mining.
Speaker 3: If it's on federal land.
Speaker 2: Those permits come from the Apartment of Interior, a Bureau
Speaker 2: of Land Management or the Office of Surface Mining. Four
Speaker 2: months we got them a permit. In four months, we've
Speaker 2: permitted uranium. Uranium mine in America, got that restarted again.
Speaker 2: They were waiting for an eis ES normally takes two years.
Speaker 3: We did it in twenty four days.
Speaker 2: We've done some EEA, some environmental assessments which take over
Speaker 2: a year, We've done those in twelve days. And all
Speaker 2: of this by just focusing on business process improvement.
Speaker 3: It wasn't we took and there was no shortcuts.
Speaker 2: You know, if a process took two years to deliver
Speaker 2: a permit, it wasn't two years worth of work.
Speaker 3: It might have been twenty four days of work interspersed.
Speaker 2: By sitting for twenty nine or thirty days in somebody's
Speaker 2: inbox as they did the whisper chain of sending the
Speaker 2: permitting paperwork around.
Speaker 3: Having come from a background in.
Speaker 2: Tech with business process thing, that's before we've even applied
Speaker 2: AI to this. This was just strike forces of people saying,
Speaker 2: you've come to work. All you do is focus on
Speaker 2: getting this permit out and let's see what the actual
Speaker 2: amount of work content. I think the product that they
Speaker 2: put out on these shorter timeframe is actually better than
Speaker 2: the ones that take one to two years because you
Speaker 2: have a focused team that's really really literally drilling into
Speaker 2: it and getting the work done. So and then yesterday
Speaker 2: the house of Representatives passed the Speed Act, which is
Speaker 2: about improving permitting in this country and providing certainty for
Speaker 2: economic development. That's a great piece of legislation. We'll see
Speaker 2: what the Senate can make it even better and stronger.
Speaker 2: But you know, we have to get back as a
Speaker 2: nation to being able to build great things and build
Speaker 2: them quickly. And we have to be able to get
Speaker 2: back to actually using our resources versus having an entitled
Speaker 2: and entire armada of NGOs and legal teams who make
Speaker 2: their living stopping building stuff in America by weaponizing laws
Speaker 2: supposedly designed to protect the environment. When you kill a
Speaker 2: mining project in the US, you move it overseas again,
Speaker 2: they do it over there without the EPA, without child
Speaker 2: labor laws, without whatever. I mean again, if you're concerned
Speaker 2: about the global environment, if you're concerned about the environment,
Speaker 2: you should want to have all of this, all the
Speaker 2: critical minerals here. That's before you even get to national security.
Speaker 2: But for national security, we've got to bring mining back
Speaker 2: alive in this country.
Speaker 1: Have you been able to get your arms I'm throwing
Speaker 1: a lot at you, bet. I just want people to know,
Speaker 1: have you been able to get your arms around the
Speaker 1: US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian
Speaker 1: Affairs and all of these different agencies. The Service is
Speaker 1: the worst that at a thousand thousand thousand rules, none
Speaker 1: of which often makes sense, and the employees of which
Speaker 1: are not exactly the most motivated people I ever worked with.
Speaker 2: Well, I'll tell you we've got some great progress there
Speaker 2: as well. And let me start with the US Fish
Speaker 2: and Wildlife. We're going through a complete remapping and redo
Speaker 2: of the Endangered Species Act. That was again a classic
Speaker 2: thing of it was highly weaponized. You know, they would
Speaker 2: have training classes, Hugh. If you wanted to stop a
Speaker 2: pipeline or a transmission line or some energy project, you know,
Speaker 2: you'd use the NIPA, use the EPA stuff to slow
Speaker 2: a project down. But if you wanted to kill it,
Speaker 2: then you used Environmental Species Act. The ESA became the
Speaker 2: Hotel California. I asked the question when I got here, Well,
Speaker 2: shouldn't we be celebrating when things come off the list
Speaker 2: opposed to going on the list. And because we're you know,
Speaker 2: we became a nation where people sell rated when things
Speaker 2: went on the Endangered Species List and what to do
Speaker 2: when they went on there, then we should be working
Speaker 2: to make those things better. Ninety seven percent of the
Speaker 2: species that have ever entered that list have never come off.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: That's if you're grading that on a scale of A
Speaker 3: to F, that's like an F minus.
Speaker 2: We've got if we're actually in the recovery business, we've
Speaker 2: got to be able to get things coming off. That
Speaker 2: means we're succeeding, and we should be able to get
Speaker 2: things to come off without moving goalposts. So big progress
Speaker 2: is going to be made on ESA. On the tribal front.
Speaker 2: It's been one tribe after another in my office saying
Speaker 2: that during the Biden administration, including the Alaska North Slope
Speaker 2: of Alaska Natives up there saying we need energy development
Speaker 2: for our economic basis, schools, healthcare. Ever so some we
Speaker 2: have some big wins going on in tribal country as well.
Speaker 1: That is a great quick summary, Secretary of Bergham, good
Speaker 1: luck in twenty twenty six and we'll check in again.
Speaker 1: That's that's quite a start. Thank you for joining.
Speaker 3: One little time.
Speaker 1: Welcome back America. I'm Hugh Hewett, joined by Congressman Michael Lawler.
Speaker 1: Mike Lawler represents New York's seventeenth congressional district he won
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two, he won in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: He's been on the program before. I get along with
Speaker 1: him really well. I like him a lot, but I
Speaker 1: think I'm going to have to support his Democratic opponent
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty six, and I wanted to talk to
Speaker 1: him about that, and he was kind enough to come on. Congressman,
Speaker 1: welcome back. I'm very upset about the discharge petition, and
Speaker 1: I don't want to talk about the merits. I want
Speaker 1: to talk about what you did to my party that
Speaker 1: I've spent my life building, which has put all of
Speaker 1: your colleagues in a terrible position. Why should I overlook that?
Speaker 5: Well, respectfully, Hugh, this is a situation where Democrats shut
Speaker 5: the government down for forty three days. They made the
Speaker 5: issue of the enhanced Premium tax credit the quote unquote
Speaker 5: reason for the shutdown, and as I did during the shutdown,
Speaker 5: I went and exposed Leader Jeffries hypocrisy on that, showing
Speaker 5: full well that really was not a the issue and
Speaker 5: b they had no interest in solving it. When the
Speaker 5: government reopened, we sat down a bipartisan group of us
Speaker 5: to actually come.
Speaker 6: Up with a plan to reform the system.
Speaker 5: It would do a two year extension, but it would
Speaker 5: actually start to make changes that conservatives have wanted to
Speaker 5: make to Obamacare for years, income limits, insurance reforms, rooting
Speaker 5: out fraud in the system, eliminating the zero premium plans,
Speaker 5: and actually requiring a payment from the individual, PBM reform,
Speaker 5: HSA expansion. We worked then the group of us that
Speaker 5: on the Republican side worked with House Republican leadership to
Speaker 5: force a vote. We wanted to put the bill on
Speaker 5: the floor and frankly let the Democrats vote yay or nay.
Speaker 5: I suspect was going to be that if there was
Speaker 5: a zero premium plan elimination in there, most of the
Speaker 5: Democrats would vote know and we worked through this. We
Speaker 5: tried to get it to the floor. Ultimately, we could
Speaker 5: not reach an agreement for various reasons. There was disagreement
Speaker 5: within our conference on a few fronts.
Speaker 4: But this is.
Speaker 5: Something that I felt very strongly about, both from a
Speaker 5: political standpoint but also from a policy standpoint.
Speaker 6: Doing nothing was not a solution.
Speaker 5: The fact is that for the seven percent of people
Speaker 5: who rely on the enhanced Premium tax credit, they are
Speaker 5: going to see an exponential spike, and we have been
Speaker 5: pushing leadership for months to say, Okay, we need a
Speaker 5: Republican plan. We need to address the issue of healthcare affordability.
Speaker 5: It's not enough to just say Obamacare bad and we
Speaker 5: hate Obamacare. We all know Obamacare doesn't work, and certainly
Speaker 5: not the way Democrats said it would work in terms
Speaker 5: of reducing costs. But we are in the majority, and
Speaker 5: we have a responsibility to govern and to address these issues.
Speaker 5: What I suspect with the discharge, what's going to happen
Speaker 5: when we come back in January.
Speaker 6: It'll pass the House, It'll go to the Senate.
Speaker 3: Stop.
Speaker 1: Stop. What will happen is all of the Republicans except
Speaker 1: the four will vote against that discharge petition because it's
Speaker 1: bad law. Am I right?
Speaker 5: No? I think there will be more than the four
Speaker 5: voting in favor of moving, not if I've got anything.
Speaker 1: To do with it, because it is such a bad idea. God,
Speaker 1: I just want to stand the discharge petition. I'll debate
Speaker 1: Obamacare for three hours, but the discharge.
Speaker 5: But nobody is defending the three year I said even
Speaker 5: as recent as yesterday, the three year is not acceptable policy.
Speaker 5: The problem is we need a VA to actually get
Speaker 5: reforms done. If when the three year passes, the discharge
Speaker 5: will be voted on on January sixth. When the three
Speaker 5: year extension passes the House, the Senate will not pass that.
Speaker 6: They've already shown they won't pass that. Okay, Lafon said.
Speaker 1: That Congressmen, all due respect, it's not the Senate. We're
Speaker 1: not going to filibuster. I'm focused on one thing, which is,
Speaker 1: you threw a hand grenade into my party that I
Speaker 1: spent my life defending. And two hundred and thirteen or
Speaker 1: two hundred and twelve of them are going to have
Speaker 1: to vote against what looks like it's a good idea,
Speaker 1: and that's going to be an ad against all of them.
Speaker 1: And if you can't get David Joyce, you can't get
Speaker 1: the most reasonable guy in the House, and he's my
Speaker 1: congressman from Ohio. If I were still living in Ohio.
Speaker 1: You threw all your guys overboard a minute to the break,
Speaker 1: and then we'll keep going.
Speaker 5: Well, respectfully, many of my colleagues have actually thanked us
Speaker 5: for doing it, because we need to have a vote
Speaker 5: and actually advance bipartisan legislation that includes reforms to Obamacare.
Speaker 6: So the fact is, Hugh this is my party too.
Speaker 5: I've spent my career electing Republicans and Conservatives across this
Speaker 5: country and in New York. But we have a responsibility
Speaker 5: to govern and I'm not going to shirk in that
Speaker 5: responsibility because there's a dispute within the House.
Speaker 1: Pause for a moment, we'll go off and then we'll
Speaker 1: come back on. Stay right there, Congressman. I'm back with
Speaker 1: michae Lawler. Congressman. I supported you when you use your
Speaker 1: leverage on the salt deduction. I understand your district. I
Speaker 1: understand it's difficult. But when you sign a discharge petition
Speaker 1: and the leadership says don't do it, you are exposing Kay,
Speaker 1: at least get you to admit it's going to be
Speaker 1: an ad in every marginal district in twenty twenty six
Speaker 1: that they voted against extending Obamacare something. It'll be a lie,
Speaker 1: but it will be an AD and they'll be voting
Speaker 1: against them.
Speaker 5: Well, the ads were already written about allowing it to expire.
Speaker 5: And that's that's the fundamental problem. That's why I said
Speaker 5: this is political malpractice not to have a solution to
Speaker 5: this issue, coupled with the larger reforms that we passed
Speaker 5: yesterday in the House that every Democrat voted against. I
Speaker 5: voted for our Speaker's plan because we do want to
Speaker 5: address the larger issue of healthcare.
Speaker 6: But to just dismiss the seven percent and.
Speaker 5: Say, oh, it's okay, their healthcare premiums can go up,
Speaker 5: I'm not okay with that, and I know many.
Speaker 1: Of my colleagues even it is dismissing.
Speaker 5: It is you have to have you have to have
Speaker 5: a plan, and you have to have a plan, and
Speaker 5: we didn't have one in time with the expiration of
Speaker 5: these premium tax credits. And by the way, we didn't
Speaker 5: just raise this issue because Democrats raised it.
Speaker 6: Members brought this up earlier this year in.
Speaker 5: May when we were negotiating the One Big, Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 5: We brought it up in September before the shutdown. This
Speaker 5: was something that's been discussed within our conference for months,
Speaker 5: and so it's not like people were shocked that this
Speaker 5: was an issue we had to deal with.
Speaker 1: Nobody it's the discharge petition. I'm really being focused here.
Speaker 1: I'm being focused. I might agree with you. I've been
Speaker 1: arguing for tax credits that are targeted for people or
Speaker 1: two hundred percent of the poverty line and are stuck
Speaker 1: in the state exchanges. There's a big debate to be had.
Speaker 1: There's plenty of time to do it afterwards. But the
Speaker 1: three year extension is bad law. It is inflationary law.
Speaker 1: It will never pass. It's a complete show vote. And
Speaker 1: what I'm really concerned, I don't even mind that. I
Speaker 1: mind the fact that you probably cost seats to the
Speaker 1: Republican Party because they have to vote on the discharge petition,
Speaker 1: and it's like voting on an hand grenade.
Speaker 6: I disagree with you.
Speaker 5: Doing nothing will cost us seats and what we did,
Speaker 5: and I just have a fundamental difference of opinion on
Speaker 5: the discharge. And many of my colleagues have signed discharge petitions,
Speaker 5: especially in recent years, including on conservative issues. The discharge
Speaker 5: arge petition is a tool of every member. It's not
Speaker 5: just a tool of the minority. And sometimes, like we
Speaker 5: saw back when John Bahner was Speaker and the far
Speaker 5: right did not want the XM Bank to move forward,
Speaker 5: John Bahner did the wink in the nod and said,
Speaker 5: go sign the discharge so we can move the bill.
Speaker 7: And I do not.
Speaker 1: Object to the discharge, So I object, that's philibout. I
Speaker 1: object to this one at this time, when the country
Speaker 1: believes that the Obamacare three year extension has a prayer,
Speaker 1: and you have already admitted it doesn't have a prayer.
Speaker 1: It will never pass.
Speaker 6: I've said, I've said it will not pass.
Speaker 5: But we needed a vehicle, okay, to get an actual
Speaker 5: bill passed. And so what's going to happen. The three
Speaker 5: year will pass the House. The Senate will not pass it.
Speaker 5: They've already voted it down. They did it last week
Speaker 5: when Chuck Schumer brought it up, and I slam Schumer
Speaker 5: for just doing a hyper partisan three year bill. I
Speaker 5: slam Leader Jeffries for just doing the hyper partisan three
Speaker 5: year bill and not supporting the compromise bill that we negotiated.
Speaker 6: But we needed a vehicle that could get.
Speaker 1: The compromise bill could actually have I'll come back on
Speaker 1: the other side. The compromise bill did pass, did it not?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, did pass what the compromise bill? The House
Speaker 1: bill did pass.
Speaker 4: It's beginning to go up like Christmas, Welcome back to America.
Speaker 1: Friends can disagree, and sometimes they have falling outs, and
Speaker 1: I'm having them with Michael Lawler because we're talking past
Speaker 1: each other. Congressman the GOP healthcare plan in the House
Speaker 1: did pass? Did it not?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 6: I'm sorry, Yes, the GOP plan that we put forward.
Speaker 1: Yes, So there is a vehicle that we go to
Speaker 1: the Senate that that vehicle will not get sixty votes.
Speaker 1: So if there's going to be a resolution, it's going
Speaker 1: to be done in the Senate, because the House can't
Speaker 1: do anything, but this can do anything by majority. But
Speaker 1: it takes sixty votes in the Senate. So you didn't
Speaker 1: need to sign the discharge bill to get a vehicle.
Speaker 1: You're making a facetious argument. You did that. I don't
Speaker 1: know why you did it. I think you're smart, you
Speaker 1: know what you're doing. You've used leverage before. Why would
Speaker 1: you put your members, your colleagues, your friends, the party
Speaker 1: in the peril that you did, And why shouldn't I
Speaker 1: be this pissed off?
Speaker 5: I disagree with you about us putting our majority in peril,
Speaker 5: doing nothing on the issue that Democrats weaponized during the
Speaker 5: shutdown and that the media has tried to explain to
Speaker 5: voters is the reason their healthcare premiums are going up,
Speaker 5: when you and I both know Obamacare itself is the
Speaker 5: reason it has failed to actually reduce cost. But doing
Speaker 5: nothing on this was the wrong decision, and we had
Speaker 5: an internal battle over this, and four of us signed
Speaker 5: the discharge. But I'm telling you there are a lot
Speaker 5: more A that we're willing to sign it and B
Speaker 5: that want something done on this, and so we are
Speaker 5: going to get a resolution come January and force a
Speaker 5: vote so that we can actually get a compromise bill.
Speaker 1: You could repay. Hey, I want to go through your
Speaker 1: objection doing nothing. The Republicans didn't do nothing. They passed
Speaker 1: an alternative, and as we just let the audience know,
Speaker 1: it passed number two.
Speaker 5: That you just pointed out that you just pointed out
Speaker 5: is not going to become law because it won't get
Speaker 5: the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Like the discharge petition. So we have something to put
Speaker 1: in the Dessendate's lap so that they can begin the negotiation.
Speaker 1: That didn't have to be the discharge petition. But as
Speaker 1: you just pointed out, the media has been framing this
Speaker 1: to hurt Republicans because the media is left wing. You
Speaker 1: fed into that narrative, and no matter how many people
Speaker 1: came up and wishard, do you will you to go, Mike,
Speaker 1: four of you signed it, four of you sent it
Speaker 1: to the floor, and it's going to force a vote
Speaker 1: where two hundred and fourteen Republicans are going to have
Speaker 1: to say no. Maybe it'll be two hundred twelve, and
Speaker 1: that because of the media that we just discussed is
Speaker 1: going to be the ad that sinks them. So I
Speaker 1: don't know how you can walk away from the car
Speaker 1: crash when you were driving and saying I got nothing
Speaker 1: to do with that, than what me?
Speaker 5: Again, We're just going to disagree because the reality is
Speaker 5: the ads were already written about the expiration of the
Speaker 5: tax credit.
Speaker 6: We are seeking to do a two pronged solution.
Speaker 5: Number one having an answer on the enhanced Premium tax
Speaker 5: credit with reforms number two addressing the larger issues within
Speaker 5: the healthcare system, which you and I are in full agreement,
Speaker 5: is a broken system. Under Obamacare, healthcare premiums have risen
Speaker 5: ninety six percent and meanwhile insurance profits are up over
Speaker 5: two thousand percent. Because Obamacare was written by the insurance
Speaker 5: companies for the insurance companies.
Speaker 6: That system needs to be reformed.
Speaker 5: And we have a plan that actually will are to
Speaker 5: reform the system, and that's what we're seeking to get
Speaker 5: across the finish line.
Speaker 3: You have two question making.
Speaker 1: I got two questions before I run out of time. One,
Speaker 1: can you take your name off the discharge petition?
Speaker 5: No, it's already active, it's two hundred and eighteen.
Speaker 1: Will you you can, however, apologize for it and reconsider
Speaker 1: and say I made a mistake. Will you think about
Speaker 1: doing that between now and January so that you vote
Speaker 1: against the petition you forced onto the floor.
Speaker 5: Look, I am comfortable with my decision and the decision
Speaker 5: I made. I didn't make it lightly, and I made
Speaker 5: it after exhausting every single option we had before us.
Speaker 5: Within our House Republican Conference, we worked tirelessly to get
Speaker 5: a deal with leadership, and unfortunately, as the Speaker said,
Speaker 5: we just couldn't, you know, solve this Rubik's cube. There
Speaker 5: were a lot of reasons why, and ultimately this is
Speaker 5: the decision I made.
Speaker 1: So, Congressman, did you or did you not win on
Speaker 1: the salt cap? You won on the salt cap?
Speaker 6: We did.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So the party has been good for you. The
Speaker 1: party did what you needed done. The party broke Mark.
Speaker 1: Mike Lawler got what he needed. So I'm listening to
Speaker 1: an ungrateful guy in a marginal district who wants the
Speaker 1: NRC seat to support him and people like me to
Speaker 1: do it, and you're ungrateful. I really, I'm just curious
Speaker 1: that you did this. Do you understand that?
Speaker 6: Respectfully? Yeah, respectfully, Hugh, I'm not ungrateful in the least.
Speaker 6: But I know this.
Speaker 5: My seat is one of only three seats in the
Speaker 5: country that Kamala Harris won that a Republican represents. We're
Speaker 5: at two hundred and twenty. If we lose those seats,
Speaker 5: we're out of the majority.
Speaker 6: It's that simple.
Speaker 5: And I am fighting to represent my district, to represent
Speaker 5: Mike stituents, and to give us the majority and keep
Speaker 5: Speaker Johnson in the Speaker's chair and keep the gabbles.
Speaker 6: So it's not about being ungrateful, all right.
Speaker 5: I've eaten a lot of votes this year on things
Speaker 5: that I don't necessarily agree with. There's people on the
Speaker 5: other side of the conference that have eaten votes on
Speaker 5: salt that they don't necessarily agree with. That's what happens
Speaker 5: when you have a small majority. Everybody's got a give
Speaker 5: and take.
Speaker 1: Do you listen when you're out in the district. If
Speaker 1: enough people come up to you and say I heard
Speaker 1: the Hewitt and Hewitt's right, and you should apologize and
Speaker 1: vote against your discharge of petition. Will you listen to them?
Speaker 1: Because I think you're a smart guy who made a
Speaker 1: mistake and that shouldn't end your career. You should win.
Speaker 1: But there are people like me who are just going
Speaker 1: to say you are more trouble than your worth. Will
Speaker 1: win the majority somewhere else, because if you stab me
Speaker 1: in the back, you'll stab me in the front. And
Speaker 1: this was a real backstab Mike.
Speaker 5: Yeah, che Number One, I do listen to my consents.
Speaker 5: I'm out every single day meeting with constituents. When I'm
Speaker 5: not in DC, I do dozens of events, you know,
Speaker 5: every week in my district, So I talk to everybody
Speaker 5: across the spectrum.
Speaker 6: Number two, I'm very blunt and direct. I don't I
Speaker 6: don't hide.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 1: I'm not being don't. I'm not being very subtle here.
Speaker 5: Either, but no, but my point is I'm not backstabbing anybody.
Speaker 5: I was very clear with the speaker what was going
Speaker 5: to happen if we couldn't figure this out, and so there.
Speaker 6: Was no backstabbing. It was straightforward.
Speaker 5: And I and I've owned my decision and I've explained it,
Speaker 5: and people are have every right to disagree with it,
Speaker 5: but it's not backstabbing.
Speaker 6: It's very straightforward.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm going to pray for a Christmas miracle. I
Speaker 1: know you're Catholic. Maybe on midnight Mass you realize you
Speaker 1: should apologize for this. I hope so. Mike, by the way,
Speaker 1: thank you for coming on. You knew it was going
Speaker 1: to be a rough, rough going. I appreciate that you
Speaker 1: found the time to do it. I'm Merry Christmas to you, Congressman.
Speaker 1: Taught to you in New Year is so delightful and
Speaker 1: since welcome back in America. I'm Hugh Hewett, joined by
Speaker 1: Charles C. W. Cook, Senior editor at National Review, host
Speaker 1: of the Charles cw Podcast, also a frequent contributor to
Speaker 1: The Editors Podcast. Charles, I've got to press you into
Speaker 1: servers today because we've got eight gallons to get into
Speaker 1: a three gallons show. Secretary of Rubio gave a press
Speaker 1: conference day looking back over the year. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to play you some clips and have you comment on
Speaker 1: Secretary of Rubio without benefit of my two cents so
Speaker 1: that we can get through them. Here's cut number two
Speaker 1: of the Secretary of State.
Speaker 8: When it comes to the Western Hemisphere.
Speaker 9: The single most serious threat to the United States from
Speaker 9: the Western Hemisphere is from transnational terrorist criminal groups primarily
Speaker 9: focused on narco trafficking, but they're in all sides businesses
Speaker 9: as well. So the good news is we have a
Speaker 9: lot of countries in the region that openly cooperate and
Speaker 9: work with us to confront these challenges. Mexico, their level
Speaker 9: of cooperation with US is the highest it's ever been
Speaker 9: in their history. Throughout Central America for the most part,
Speaker 9: except for maybe Nicaragua and to some extent, Honduras, we've
Speaker 9: had great cooperation from Ecuador, from El Salvador, from Ecuador
Speaker 9: being in South America, but across the Pacific coast world
Speaker 9: so undertaking efforts Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama. These are all
Speaker 9: nations that cooperate with us openly in search of stability
Speaker 9: in the region. You moved to the Caribbean Basin, in Trinidad,
Speaker 9: in Guyana, in Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic.
Speaker 1: Right is he right to paint sho rosia picture, Charles.
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 10: I think so.
Speaker 7: We have a tendency to look beyond our immediate neighborhood. Obviously,
Speaker 7: that wasn't always the case, the Monroe doctri put that
Speaker 7: as the number one priority of our foreign policy.
Speaker 10: I don't know what he says next. That's the problem.
Speaker 7: I mean, if he goes on to say but and
Speaker 7: then to list all of the problems that we have,
Speaker 7: then I think it will be balanced. But there is
Speaker 7: a lot of good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's go to next cut number five.
Speaker 9: So when I say these things about Maduro and his
Speaker 9: role in narco trafficking, it's not I hear as the reports.
Speaker 8: Marco Ruveal says.
Speaker 3: That it's not me.
Speaker 9: A grand jury in New York, in the Southern District
Speaker 9: of New York, Okay, a grand jury in the Southern
Speaker 9: District of New York was presented evidence and came back
Speaker 9: with an indictment not just against Maduro, by the way,
Speaker 9: but against a bunch of people in his government for
Speaker 9: narco trafficking. A bunch he had, you know, his nephews
Speaker 9: or the nephews of his wife and died it. Convicted
Speaker 9: in the United States for narco trafficking. Like this was
Speaker 9: until President Trump started doing something about these narco trafficking
Speaker 9: linking links. Nobody disputed that Maduro and his regime was
Speaker 9: in cahoots with narco traffickers, not to mention the fact
Speaker 9: that they unleashed trained at Agua gangs on the United States.
Speaker 9: They've unleashed, you know, a mass migration event, perhaps.
Speaker 8: The largest in history.
Speaker 9: Eight million people have left Venezuela since twenty fourteen. So
Speaker 9: also destabilizing all the countries in the region who have
Speaker 9: had to ass people that are fleeing this this this
Speaker 9: illegitimate regime. So but nobody disputed the drug links. So
Speaker 9: that's what the president has been focused on, and that's
Speaker 9: the problem. That's the problem in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: What do you think of that, Charlie Cook?
Speaker 10: So, I think everything he said there was correct.
Speaker 7: What I have a slight problem with is the jump
Speaker 7: that is made which turns narco traffickers into narco terrorists
Speaker 7: or proposes that we are in some sense at war
Speaker 7: with Venezuela. But it's obviously true, that's a huge problem.
Speaker 7: That country is unstable, it's not anymore if it ever
Speaker 7: was a proper democracy, and the export of drugs into
Speaker 7: the United States is a proper concern of the federal government.
Speaker 7: So I agree with pretty much everything he said. I'm
Speaker 7: just sometimes not on board with it, and then's.
Speaker 1: The and then in this case is the embargo or
Speaker 1: quarantine of the ghost fleet. I am one hundred percent
Speaker 1: in favor of that, are you.
Speaker 7: Well, I think we need some congressional authorization for it.
Speaker 7: I don't object to it, person say, I just think
Speaker 7: we will to be careful with our terms. As I say,
Speaker 7: I don't think that the problems that are being posed
Speaker 7: by Venezuela are terrorism. I think the problem is we
Speaker 7: have an unstable anti American regime very close to our
Speaker 7: borders that sends drugs into the United States, which we
Speaker 7: don't want them to.
Speaker 1: So I'm mostly with you, yeah, and I don't think
Speaker 1: we need congressional authorization. Back to nineteen ninety, we were
Speaker 1: siving Saddam's tankers after the invasion of Kuwait and there
Speaker 1: was no AUFM there. Let's go to his statement on
Speaker 1: Ukraine and Russia Cut number four.
Speaker 9: The reason why this war hasn't ended, and that is
Speaker 9: because there's complex factors at play. I know that sounds
Speaker 9: like a throwaway line, but it's true what we have
Speaker 9: tried to do in this entire process. And let's be
Speaker 9: clear about this. I mean the United States is engaged
Speaker 9: in this. It's the President says this, and I'll translate
Speaker 9: what I think you know he's trying to say to
Speaker 9: you and all of this, and I think he has been
Speaker 9: pretty clear about it is it's not our war in
Speaker 9: another continent. We have equities, we have engagement in this war,
Speaker 9: but it's not our war per se.
Speaker 8: But we have been told by everybody.
Speaker 9: I think everybody would agree that there's only one nation
Speaker 9: on earth. There's only one entity on earth that can
Speaker 9: actually talk to both sides and figure out whether there's
Speaker 9: a way to end this war peacefully, and that's the
Speaker 9: United States. And we've invested a lot of time, a
Speaker 9: lot of energy at the highest levels of our government.
Speaker 9: I believe you know, President Trump has had more meetings
Speaker 9: with foreign leaders and others on the war in Ukraine
Speaker 9: than on any other subject.
Speaker 1: Including wire there. We'll play the rest of the quote
Speaker 1: during the break, Charles will talk about it. We'll come
Speaker 1: back after the break and talk about the most controversial thing.
Speaker 1: Stay tuned in America. I'm quis Fortunes is a huge
Speaker 1: US show.
Speaker 2: Were brought to you in part by conservatives for lower
Speaker 2: healthcare costs.
Speaker 1: All right, let's finish the quote from Marco Rubio, where
Speaker 1: we pausitive.
Speaker 9: Please, Steve and Jared have invested time. I've invested time.
Speaker 9: The Vice President, the Secretary of War, others, Secretary of Treasury,
Speaker 9: and more have invested a tremendous amount of time and
Speaker 9: energy in this. And what we're trying to figure out
Speaker 9: here is what can Ukraine live.
Speaker 8: With and what can Russia live with?
Speaker 9: Sort of identify what both sides positions are and see
Speaker 9: if we can sort of drive them towards each other
Speaker 9: to some agreement. War's end generally in one of two ways,
Speaker 9: surrender by one side for another, or a negotiated settlement.
Speaker 9: We don't see surrender any time in the near future
Speaker 9: by either side, and so only a negotiated settlement gives
Speaker 9: us the opportunity to end this war. A negotiated settlement
Speaker 9: requires two things, both sites to get something out of
Speaker 9: it and both sites to give something. And we're trying
Speaker 9: to figure out what can Russia give and what do
Speaker 9: they expect to get. What can we Ukraine get and
Speaker 9: what can Ukraine expect to get. In the end, the
Speaker 9: decision will be up to Ukraine and up to Russia,
Speaker 9: will not be up to the United States. So that's
Speaker 9: the role we are trying to play in this, and
Speaker 9: that's why you see so many meetings going on. This
Speaker 9: is not about imposing a deal on anybody. It is
Speaker 9: about determining what both sides expect and need to have,
Speaker 9: and what both sides are prepared to give in return
Speaker 9: for it, and figuring out whether we can have those
Speaker 9: two overlap.
Speaker 8: And of course that takes a lot of time and
Speaker 8: a lot of hard work.
Speaker 9: It can't generally be done in the media are in
Speaker 9: press conferences. I think we've made progress, but we have
Speaker 9: ways to go, and obviously the hardest issues are opened.
Speaker 1: Charles, what do you make of that statement? That framing
Speaker 1: of what has happened over the past year.
Speaker 7: So I think Mark Rubia is very impressive. I also
Speaker 7: am aware that he's the Secretary of State in an administration,
Speaker 7: is not the President of the United States, and what
Speaker 7: he's doing there is reciting Donald Trump's position on it,
Speaker 7: which is more cuivocal than mine would be.
Speaker 10: Now, Ukraine is complicated.
Speaker 7: I do think there's some oversimplification of the matter, especially
Speaker 7: among Democrats, but I am still slightly uncomfortable with the
Speaker 7: way that this has discussed. I do think we have
Speaker 7: more of a vested interest in this than Rubio suggest
Speaker 7: did there. I would suggest that Marco Rubiya thinks so
Speaker 7: as well. It's not his role to say so. He
Speaker 7: works for the president, but he is right when he
Speaker 7: says that if we are not going to take that position,
Speaker 7: then we're going to end this with a normal political
Speaker 7: style negotiation and what each side can live with, rather
Speaker 7: than a more principled position.
Speaker 1: In the part that you think is oversimplified, what do
Speaker 1: you say about the Crimean Peninsula which was traditionally part
Speaker 1: of Russia. The Crimean War was between Britain and Russia
Speaker 1: and other people. What do you make about the Crimea
Speaker 1: in this conversation.
Speaker 7: Well, I'm not sure it has to be part of
Speaker 7: this conversation. I think that the whole question of geography
Speaker 7: in that ERAa is difficult. But the change here was
Speaker 7: made in February twenty twenty two when Russia went into Ukraine.
Speaker 7: The next country over from Ukraine is Poland. Now I'm
Speaker 7: not of the view that Russia is necessarily going to
Speaker 7: run across you Kraine into Poland, and I don't think
Speaker 7: it can run across Ukraine as we've seen. But to me,
Speaker 7: the Crimean question is more abstract to the United States
Speaker 7: than Ukraine is because Ukraine is next to a country
Speaker 7: that has been the source of a huge amount of
Speaker 7: conflict that is direct the United States and over the
Speaker 7: last hundred years. So I don't I'm not suggesting you
Speaker 7: thing otherwise, but sometimes I hear that a question asked
Speaker 7: as if it's like, well, that's complicated, then shouldn't Ukraine
Speaker 7: be complicated?
Speaker 10: And I'm just not sure those two things happen.
Speaker 1: No, I agree with you completely. If some parts through
Speaker 1: these are easy, and then you get closer to Poland,
Speaker 1: it gets very very top and we do not want
Speaker 1: to give up the fortress barrier that Ukraine has given
Speaker 1: or obliged them to stand by. We're coming back on
Speaker 1: the network with one more cut for Charles C. W.
Speaker 10: Cook.
Speaker 1: Welcome back America. I'm here, Hewett with Charles CW. Cook
Speaker 1: of National Review and the Charles C. W. Cook Podcast.
Speaker 1: Charles here. Secretary straight Rubio on Hamash in Israel. Cut
Speaker 1: number three.
Speaker 9: Let me just couch it to you this way. Everyone
Speaker 9: wants peace. No one wants to return to a war.
Speaker 9: If Hamas is ever in a position in the future
Speaker 9: that they can threaten or attack.
Speaker 8: Israel, You're not going to have peace.
Speaker 9: You're not going to convince anyone to invest money in
Speaker 9: Gaza if they believe another war is going to happen.
Speaker 8: In two three years.
Speaker 9: So I would just ask everyone to focus on what
Speaker 9: are the kind of weaponrries and capabilities that Hamas would
Speaker 9: need in order to threaten or attack Israel as a
Speaker 9: baseline for what disarmament needs to look like, because you're
Speaker 9: not going to have peace if two years from now
Speaker 9: Hamas is launching rockets or killing Israelis, are carrying out
Speaker 9: God forbid, another seventh of October type terrorist attack and
Speaker 9: so forth, you're not going to have peace. So who's
Speaker 9: going to invest in a peace? Who's going to invest
Speaker 9: in rebuilding a place is going to get destroyed again
Speaker 9: in the future war. So that's why disarmament is so critical. Now,
Speaker 9: what that entails, We're going to leave that to the
Speaker 9: technical teams to work on. It would have to be
Speaker 9: something obviously that they're willing to agree to that our
Speaker 9: partners can push them and pressure them to agree to.
Speaker 8: It also has to be something that Israel agrees to.
Speaker 9: In order for that to work, both sides have to
Speaker 9: on it, and we need the space to do it.
Speaker 8: But that's the way to think about it.
Speaker 9: Okay, you cannot have a Hamas that can threatn Israel
Speaker 9: in the future.
Speaker 8: If they can, you won't have peace.
Speaker 1: I think that is well put, perhaps as clearly as
Speaker 1: anyone has put it.
Speaker 7: What do you think, Charles, I think that I was
Speaker 7: sitting nodding along. You couldn't see it, but I was
Speaker 7: sitting nodding along. That's exactly what I think as well.
Speaker 7: I think he put it absolutely perfectly. And I always
Speaker 7: say to people who ask about this, if the country
Speaker 7: involved were not Israel and the threat were not from Gaza,
Speaker 7: if instead the country involved with the United States and
Speaker 7: the threat we was from Canada, it would be extremely
Speaker 7: obvious to you why the United States were taking that position.
Speaker 10: And I think we.
Speaker 7: Underscored that perfectly. You cannot have peace. It is a
Speaker 7: false piece while that threat hangs over.
Speaker 1: So setting aside tear up discussions which are endless on
Speaker 1: the national view of the editors, because Philip In says
Speaker 1: that they be brought up as to you, why do
Speaker 1: you grade the first year?
Speaker 7: Well, where I mean, are we doing foreign policy? We're
Speaker 7: doing a generally do it at all overview? Well, Okay,
Speaker 7: I think the foreign policy has been largely good. I
Speaker 7: don't like the way that Trump talks about foreign dictators sometimes,
Speaker 7: or how he sometimes talks about Vladimir Putin. I don't
Speaker 7: think he's a Russian asset or only of that nonsense,
Speaker 7: but I would rather a more forthright defense of the West.
Speaker 7: But generally speaking, I'll give him a bee there. I
Speaker 7: think he has made big mistakes on the economy. He's
Speaker 7: done some good things. The tax bill is very good,
Speaker 7: but I think tariffs have overshadowed it, and he hasn't
Speaker 7: got the cost of living under control, and he's in
Speaker 7: trouble in the polling because of that, may lose the
Speaker 7: midterms over it.
Speaker 10: So I'm going to give him a c there.
Speaker 7: Also, because while the tax bill was good, it largely
Speaker 7: maintained the status quo. I think I'll give him an
Speaker 7: a on the border, which he got under control within
Speaker 7: a couple of months.
Speaker 10: Perhaps even quicker people have forgotten this.
Speaker 7: This is bad for Trump at one level because now
Speaker 7: that that issue is solved, people are asking what did
Speaker 7: you do for me lately? But we shouldn't forget what
Speaker 7: an undertaking that was. And then when it comes to
Speaker 7: some of the executive orders, the dismantling of racial preferences,
Speaker 7: and some of the DEI material that had been invested
Speaker 7: in the federal government.
Speaker 10: I'm thrilled by that. So I'm going to give him
Speaker 10: an A.
Speaker 7: And the latest, of course was the backtracking away from
Speaker 7: so called disparate impact, so I'll give him an a
Speaker 7: there as well.
Speaker 10: And then on his personal conduct, I'm.
Speaker 7: Going to give him a F because I just think
Speaker 7: that he's his worst own worst enemy, and he is
Speaker 7: totally out of control sometimes and it just hurts him
Speaker 7: in the movement.
Speaker 1: Well, check in on. That's a pretty good report card,
Speaker 1: division and I appreciate your running through it. Charles. I
Speaker 1: will talk to you, if not next week in the
Speaker 1: new year. Thank you so much for joining me today.
Speaker 1: I like someone who can go through all those different
Speaker 1: issues and be coherent. Charles CW. Cook on X follow up,
Speaker 1: follow me to the next segment, and even Grace America.
Speaker 1: I'm to Hewett, joined by Ben domin H. Ben is
Speaker 1: editor at large at The Spectator, Fox News contributor owner
Speaker 1: of the transom over at Substack. Ben, I got a
Speaker 1: big topic for you today, started by the Big Ben
Speaker 1: podcast this week, which featured Robbie Starbuck. I don't know
Speaker 1: who he is, and I listened to him and first
Speaker 1: of all tell us who he is.
Speaker 11: Well.
Speaker 4: Robbie Starbuck is an interesting cap because it's rare you
Speaker 4: have somebody who's influential and conservative politics, who also is
Speaker 4: famous for having directed the music videos of groups like
Speaker 4: the Smashing Pumpkins, and he has directed in various music
Speaker 4: videos Natalie Portman and Jamie Fox and people like that.
Speaker 4: He became more conservative while he was in California. He's
Speaker 4: someone who has a Cuban background and as such, you know,
Speaker 4: was already pretty anti communist and became someone who was
Speaker 4: essentially the tip of the sphere when it came to
Speaker 4: identifying DDI programs within major corporate institutions in America. He
Speaker 4: drove the likes of JP Morgan and Nike and a
Speaker 4: number of other institutions absolutely nuts by revealing the internal
Speaker 4: documents that they had leaked to him by various folks
Speaker 4: inside these entities that detailed DEI practices that were quite
Speaker 4: frankly illegal. I mean, you know, things that were most
Speaker 4: biased on race. And at the center of this, you know,
Speaker 4: he became someone who was feared by corporate America at
Speaker 4: the point that, you know, I literally have had so
Speaker 4: many people over the past couple of years say do
Speaker 4: you have an in with Robbie Starbuck. We're worried he's
Speaker 4: going to come after you know this, that or the
Speaker 4: other client, And I'm like, go with god, you know,
Speaker 4: I'm s well.
Speaker 1: It was a great conversation, and I was going to
Speaker 1: add him to my list. I've just posted on x
Speaker 1: a list of influencers, people to whose influence you ought
Speaker 1: to be open, not necessary agree. There's some people on
Speaker 1: there I disagree with, but they make arguments. A couple
Speaker 1: of reporters, a couple of producers, a couple of people
Speaker 1: behind the scenes, but mostly people who make arguments. I
Speaker 1: didn't put them on there for a simple reason. I
Speaker 1: want your reaction to this in your conversation. At one point,
Speaker 1: he went off on a jag denouncing Congress for doing
Speaker 1: too little, and he didn't appear to me to know
Speaker 1: that you need sixty votes to move legislation in the
Speaker 1: Congress in the Senate, and if you don't know that,
Speaker 1: you're going to have unrealistic expectations about what the Congress
Speaker 1: can do. Does that not trip your wire?
Speaker 4: Well, it trips my wire. A little bit. But I
Speaker 4: also think that one of the things that we know
Speaker 4: should be cognitive of is that a lot of times
Speaker 4: in these conversations, people will will extend out, perhaps beyond
Speaker 4: what is what is feasible within the reality of the situation,
Speaker 4: as opposed to what their ambitions would be like one
Speaker 4: Ted Cruz, so I respect very much ran into that
Speaker 4: a little bit back when he's started out in the
Speaker 4: United States. But one of the things that I think
Speaker 4: is key to UH to appreciate at this moment is
Speaker 4: that there actually are a lot of a a I think,
Speaker 4: an impressive number of younger voices that exist on the
Speaker 4: American right broadly speaking. And this is one of the
Speaker 4: reasons why that whole idea that you had to entertain
Speaker 4: the likes of Nick Fuentez or something like that in
Speaker 4: order to reach younger people always struck me as ridiculous.
Speaker 4: It's because we actually have a surplus, if anything, of
Speaker 4: younger voices who are very interesting on the right. They
Speaker 4: don't agree about everything, they have different backgrounds, they have
Speaker 4: you know, you've got your your homeschoolers, you've got your neocons,
Speaker 4: you've got your you know, people who were you know,
Speaker 4: in actual soldiers in the War on Terror. We have
Speaker 4: differences of opinion on either side of it. You know,
Speaker 4: you have people who have been through the elite institutions
Speaker 4: and want to retake them, and you have people who
Speaker 4: want to burn them to the ground. And those are
Speaker 4: all things that I think are healthy to have as
Speaker 4: a debate within the big tent of the right. And
Speaker 4: it's something that quite frankly, did not exist at least
Speaker 4: when I was coming up, as something that was more apparent.
Speaker 4: But now you've got a lot of people who are
Speaker 4: in there there, you know, later twenties to sort of
Speaker 4: mid forties, who I would say have enough experience to
Speaker 4: be informed practitioners of the realm of politics and in
Speaker 4: the realm of policy, and people who actually, you know,
Speaker 4: aren't just shooting from the hip. And that's something that
Speaker 4: I think is very healthy and a very beneficial thing
Speaker 4: because for a lot of us, you know, who started
Speaker 4: out on this in the early two thousands, there was
Speaker 4: far less of a of a gross campaign for younger
Speaker 4: Americans to get into this system, unless their attitude was
Speaker 4: more just climbing through the ranks in order to achieve
Speaker 4: power for power's sake.
Speaker 1: Now what I wanted to ask you about is being
Speaker 1: influenced or being an influencer. That's a new term, right.
Speaker 1: There are a few grand old voices in the movement.
Speaker 1: Whenever I'm on a panel with Britt Hume, I just
Speaker 1: want to look at Brett barn say, I yield my time,
Speaker 1: mister speaker to Brit Hume. And there's George Will and
Speaker 1: there are a few people like that. And then the
Speaker 1: boomers are rolling off. In the next five to ten years,
Speaker 1: we're all going to be retired. And then we got
Speaker 1: a pretty good healthy ranking from fifty to seventy. I
Speaker 1: mean people will be moving up. There are a lot
Speaker 1: of good voices, but under forty five it gets weird
Speaker 1: because they grew up in a different world, ben one
Speaker 1: where you didn't read a lot of books, where you
Speaker 1: didn't have to read a Battle Cry of Freedom by
Speaker 1: James McPherson to understand the Civil War. You might have
Speaker 1: an opinion or two, but I mean you had to
Speaker 1: do a lot of work. Do you think that forty
Speaker 1: five and under group are going to be ready for
Speaker 1: the debates that are coming. I do.
Speaker 4: And one of the reasons that I think that is
Speaker 4: because of the number of organizations that exist. He helped
Speaker 4: them along. And I don't just mean the ones that
Speaker 4: are most prominent institutions like Turning Point alike, but there
Speaker 4: are a number of organizations that I think came out
Speaker 4: of the benefits of the nineteen eighties and the success
Speaker 4: of the Reagan Revolution that have led to people having
Speaker 4: the opportunity to study more if they were interested in.
Speaker 4: The fellowships that are on offer are significant. The people
Speaker 4: who are there and ready to help you along and
Speaker 4: to give you advice about what to read and look.
Speaker 4: You are correct, You can get those gigs, You can
Speaker 4: get that impromature that from you know, a lot of
Speaker 4: different institutions without having done the necessary work. And I
Speaker 4: think though, in time, that reveals itself, and it reveals itself
Speaker 4: in the form of people who you know, are frankly
Speaker 4: not ready for those types of debates. This is the
Speaker 4: other thing that I want you to appreciate. You though,
Speaker 4: I think we really owe a debt to the Reagan
Speaker 4: generation of people, and I would include, you know, not
Speaker 4: just the work of of people who have surrounded you,
Speaker 4: but you know, I think of someone like Laura Ingram,
Speaker 4: who I was reading and paying attention to when I
Speaker 4: was when I was very young, who now, you know?
Speaker 4: I mean, I was on her show last night and
Speaker 4: I was talking about Erica Kirk, who's younger than me,
Speaker 4: you know, and the leadership that she is representing. There
Speaker 4: is a continuum here that I think is really important,
Speaker 4: and it has helped the ideological health of the right
Speaker 4: and the way that I think the ideological side of
Speaker 4: the left has crushed any ability to disagree. The people
Speaker 4: who are disagreeing on the left, they're doing it from
Speaker 4: an outside position that is socialist, that really wants to
Speaker 4: demolish our institutions in a negative way, to views the
Speaker 4: United States as a sinful, craven, horrible place that needs
Speaker 4: to be upended, turned around, and turned upside down in
Speaker 4: order to advance. And the reason that that happened is
Speaker 4: because they didn't cultivate any kind of ideological disagreement. They
Speaker 4: only have the kind of iliberal established and Ezra Klein's Madiclasius,
Speaker 4: you know, podsave America, bros at the top, and nobody
Speaker 4: else could really contend with them. And so what happens
Speaker 4: you have a whole diaspora of people underneath Bernie Sanders
Speaker 4: who emerge and who frankly, you know, don't share any
Speaker 4: of the American values that even the left, you know,
Speaker 4: has purported to share at various points. If you rewind
Speaker 4: even as you know, even twenty years ago, you could
Speaker 4: find a lot of things in common with a lot
Speaker 4: of mainstream Democrats, even you know, moderate centrist Democrats. And
Speaker 4: I mean that in a true way, not a fanciful way.
Speaker 4: And yet today the moderate centrist Democrats are just people
Speaker 4: who maybe don't talk as much about transitions.
Speaker 1: You know, Yeah, it's destroyed. Their party has shifted to
Speaker 1: the left now in the Reagan years, since you bring
Speaker 1: them up. I was a kid in the briefcase carrier
Speaker 1: in the White House Council's office, but they made a
Speaker 1: conscious effort to credential young people. Do you think that
Speaker 1: Trump and administration is doing that?
Speaker 4: So I believe that one of the big mistakes of
Speaker 4: the first go rounds with the Trump administration is that
Speaker 4: they did not do that, that they did not do
Speaker 4: a good job of cultivating younger people. I think this
Speaker 4: one second time around is doing a better job, in
Speaker 4: part because they hired as many gen xers as they
Speaker 4: did within this cabinet who are mindful of the future
Speaker 4: and who are trying to bring up young people and
Speaker 4: help them get credentials. We do not want a situation
Speaker 4: where we have people who are thirty years removed from,
Speaker 4: you know, having been sitting at important desks, you know,
Speaker 4: back in control again. You want to have a situation
Speaker 4: where you've cultivated people who've learned both from the good
Speaker 4: and the bad of bad past decisions, and who can
Speaker 4: bring that knowledge to bear when it comes to the
Speaker 4: challenges of the future. I think, particularly of China and
Speaker 4: the challenges that it represents, we don't want to have
Speaker 4: necessarily the same approach that we had, you know, twenty
Speaker 4: five thirty years ago, with people who have great credentials
Speaker 4: but also believed that we could bring China via most
Speaker 4: favored nations that us into the broader world in a
Speaker 4: way that turned out not to be the case. And
Speaker 4: so look, I believe we have a great variety of people.
Speaker 4: We have more libertarians, we have more populists, we have
Speaker 4: more people who didn't come up through the traditional era.
Speaker 4: We have people who love William F. Buckley and people
Speaker 4: who laugh at the invocation of williamath Buckley. And that's
Speaker 4: the kind of thing that I think is actually healthy
Speaker 4: we can have the very debate.
Speaker 1: Ben's going to stay here during the break, you'll be
Speaker 1: back on the other side. We'll talk about tpusay's gathering,
Speaker 1: Erica Kirks endorsement, and jd Vance and a lot more.
Speaker 1: Don't go anywhere. I'm here doing back now with Ben Dominic. Ben,
Speaker 1: I want to play for you what Erica Kirk said
Speaker 1: today at tpusay's gathering in Phoenix. Cut number one.
Speaker 12: We're going to ensure that President Trump has Congress for
Speaker 12: all four years. We are going to get my husband's
Speaker 12: friend jd Vance elected for forty eight and the most
Speaker 12: resounding was possible.
Speaker 1: All right now, Ben, I have nothing but admiration for
Speaker 1: eric at Kirk. I don't know her. I knew Charlie
Speaker 1: is a colleague and a text friend and a couple
Speaker 1: of events, but not a good friend. This was a
Speaker 1: mistake in my view, because.
Speaker 4: I'm glad that you said that, because I was sitting live.
Speaker 4: I was sitting waiting to go live with Laura Ingram
Speaker 4: last night in a van and I heard her say this,
Speaker 4: and I creighed a little bit. I'm glad that you
Speaker 4: agree with me, but I'd love to hear why.
Speaker 1: Well, because it's a long time to twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1: Many things can happen, and if other people get in,
Speaker 1: the people who might be thinking about doing running for
Speaker 1: it against Jade Vans are not going to support TPUSA.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: It's why I never endorse anyone. I want to do
Speaker 1: the debates. I want to be fair to everyone. And
Speaker 1: can you actually go to TPUSA. Now, if you're thinking
Speaker 1: about this and not get submarine?
Speaker 4: Why would we adopt a college football playoff attitude when
Speaker 4: we could have an l playoff attitude. That's my that's
Speaker 4: my perspective, you you know, Like, look, you know, I
Speaker 4: love a lot of these teams, but I'd like to
Speaker 4: see the Packers and the Bears go at it and
Speaker 4: see who comes back, you know. And so it's the
Speaker 4: kind of thing where when it comes to JD. Look,
Speaker 4: we've talked about how much we respect JD personally. I
Speaker 4: think he's the best vice president that we've had, you know,
Speaker 4: the best you know, sort of relationship that he's had
Speaker 4: with the principle since we saw Richard Nixon under Ike,
Speaker 4: you know, and and see that kind of relationship with
Speaker 4: a younger person who's going out there and fighting for
Speaker 4: the cause.
Speaker 1: That's great.
Speaker 4: There's going to be other people who run, and it's
Speaker 4: not just going to be people who are going at
Speaker 4: him from a more quote unquote centrist position, presumably someone
Speaker 4: like Len Younkin or somebody like that business lobby perhaps.
Speaker 4: But this is the kind of thing where I think
Speaker 4: you're going to get some conservatives who are going to
Speaker 4: run because the timing is right, because everything is right
Speaker 4: in their lives, to run, they think that they have
Speaker 4: a record or run on, et cetera. I think jd
Speaker 4: Vance probably emerges as the king of the CA at
Speaker 4: the end of that just given the skill that he
Speaker 4: has shown. But having him earn it on the field
Speaker 4: is something that I think is really important.
Speaker 1: That's why Hillary was a terrible candidate. Yeah, Hillary was terrible.
Speaker 11: Hillary.
Speaker 4: Based the kind of challenges that she had to in
Speaker 4: order to get that candidacy, she probably would have been
Speaker 4: a better candidate, and because she didn't, she ended up
Speaker 4: being a worse one. She wasn't prepared for any of
Speaker 4: the arguments used against her. And look, I personally think
Speaker 4: you're going to get at least one person in this
Speaker 4: race who is going to try to present themselves as
Speaker 4: the more authentic Maga figure than JD. Vance. And whoever
Speaker 4: that turns out to be, you know, it's probably going
Speaker 4: to be a member of Congress. It's probably going to
Speaker 4: be somebody who, you know, maybe surprises us by running.
Speaker 4: But it could be anybody, and they could be framing
Speaker 4: themselves as to his right, and that's something he's going
Speaker 4: to have to deal with as well. It's not just
Speaker 4: going to be someone where he can take up that position.
Speaker 4: And so because of that, I think an early endorsement
Speaker 4: is foolish. And and look, you know, I wish that
Speaker 4: she had just said it slightly differently, saying, look, you know,
Speaker 4: if the nominee is jd Vance, of course we're going
Speaker 4: to fight so hard.
Speaker 1: And if my husband's friend and I love him, that
Speaker 1: would have been fine. I'm coming right back with Ben
Speaker 1: Dominis because we got to talk about Ben Shapiro and
Speaker 1: Tucker stay tuned working back America. When I was a kid,
Speaker 1: Fraser Ali were the three fights that defined the era.
Speaker 1: I mean there were three knockdown fights that Thrill in
Speaker 1: Manila and two more and Ali won two and Fraser
Speaker 1: one one. And at the end Ali was the greatest
Speaker 1: champion ever. So Ben Shapiro knocked Tucker around the room
Speaker 1: at the Heritage Foundation this week, and then they both
Speaker 1: met up in TPUSA and Tucker gave his thing. Ben
Speaker 1: gave his thing, and Tucker did not answer the substance.
Speaker 1: He said, you're attacking jd Vance and that's why you're
Speaker 1: attacking me. That's a win by default, you think for
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro, what do you think?
Speaker 4: So Look, I think he had a very challenging position
Speaker 4: to navigate there, and I think he decided to lean
Speaker 4: in to the end degree, and I applaud.
Speaker 1: Him for it, because Ben Shapiro.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that you can't be around the bush
Speaker 4: with this situation anymore for all of us, even those
Speaker 4: of us who like me. I mean, I feel like
Speaker 4: I was a Tucker Crosson descender far longer than a
Speaker 4: lot of people who I know, because I have known him.
Speaker 4: I literally met him when I was fifteen, and I've
Speaker 4: always thought him to be one of the most charming, hilarious,
Speaker 4: entertaining people who I know within this industry, and I
Speaker 4: have very very little had very little disagreement, i would say,
Speaker 4: with him until just the past couple of years. But
Speaker 4: one of the things I think has been made clear
Speaker 4: in the time, you know, in recent times is just
Speaker 4: how much he is animated by a lot of I
Speaker 4: think personal vindictiveness, which is unfortunate and which has overwhelmed
Speaker 4: a lot of the values that I thought that he
Speaker 4: had beforehand. Ben Shapiro, I think, took a bold stand
Speaker 4: in front of that audience. It could have gone a
Speaker 4: different way, but it went the way that it did.
Speaker 4: And the way that it went is that the people there,
Speaker 4: particularly the young people in the audience, and I want
Speaker 4: to point that out to every listener. The young people
Speaker 4: in the audience were clapping for Ben. They were clapping
Speaker 4: loudly for him because they are tired. They are sick
Speaker 4: and tired of having the wool pulled over their eyes
Speaker 4: by people who have personal gripes, dendictiveness, spite toward people
Speaker 4: who are leading other institutions, or who feel like they
Speaker 4: need to make these wild claims in order to keep
Speaker 4: people listening to them. And you know, Ben Shapiro has
Speaker 4: his own tone. Sometimes it turns people off because, hey.
Speaker 1: It's way too fast. I've told Ben, if anyone talks
Speaker 1: faster than me, it's too fast.
Speaker 4: I know, I know, but and I'm a Southern pers
Speaker 4: so it's even worse for me. Yeah, but it's one
Speaker 4: of these things where I think that he prosecuted that
Speaker 4: case as well as anyone possibly could. And then I
Speaker 4: think Tucker got out up there and really was unprepared
Speaker 4: to deal with it and tried to change the argument.
Speaker 4: I don't think it worked at all.
Speaker 1: And I think that here's what I also want to
Speaker 1: get in now it should be over. There are some
Speaker 1: people who do not deserve our attention, and I mean lunatics,
Speaker 1: and we do not need to deal with them. And
Speaker 1: there are some people for whom we don't want fights
Speaker 1: between them to go on. It's a big tent. It's
Speaker 1: a really big tent. And what Tucker does. He's an
Speaker 1: elegant writer. He can defend himself. He's got a million followers.
Speaker 1: He might choose to answer it, but he shouldn't answer
Speaker 1: it by saying, you're really attacking JD. Vance, because that's
Speaker 1: not really what's being attacked. Most of the people that
Speaker 1: applauded Ben love JD. Vance. It's a false choice. You
Speaker 1: don't have to like Tucker and jd and or you
Speaker 1: have to like Ben Shapiro. That's a false choice. It's
Speaker 1: a question of I it's just about their ideas. Do
Speaker 1: you think we can get it back to that? Because
Speaker 1: I have no time for the other of the nutters none.
Speaker 1: I don't want to talk about the nutters.
Speaker 4: The truth is that we have to get back to that.
Speaker 4: And the reason we have to get back to that
Speaker 4: is because the longer we spend getting involved in these
Speaker 4: personal fights where you have to pick sides and where
Speaker 4: you know, well, you listen to this person and I
Speaker 4: listen to this person, and we have to have a
Speaker 4: dispute about it, it doesn't make any sense, especially at
Speaker 4: this particular moment, you when it actually is clear that
Speaker 4: there's so much that can be done and that should
Speaker 4: be being argued in the public square that people are
Speaker 4: being distracted from. Quite frankly, yes, all sorts of ludicrous,
Speaker 4: you know, conspiracizing and you know, kind of stand in
Speaker 4: fights for other things, and that's just not there's no
Speaker 4: point to that. We should be arguing about how to
Speaker 4: move this country forward and about the best way to
Speaker 4: do it. The policy is about to be pursued by
Speaker 4: this Congress and by this Republican majority and by the President.
Speaker 4: We should be talking about what ought to be done.
Speaker 4: As it lates the world at large, and I think
Speaker 4: that that conversation would be happening in the absence of
Speaker 4: a lot of this, and unfortunately we've been sucked into it.
Speaker 4: It's natural because of the power of charismatic people using
Speaker 4: the sounding board of a massive megaphone online. But we've
Speaker 4: got to get out of it. And I think, quite frankly,
Speaker 4: I hope that the Ben Shapiro message is one that
Speaker 4: helps us get out of it and help.
Speaker 1: I think it will, and I generally acknowledge it. I
Speaker 1: don't want Charlie Kirk's murderer to have successfully destroyed his
Speaker 1: movement by unleashing one hundred different demons. People in anger
Speaker 1: and people are aggrieving, and I just don't want that.
Speaker 1: He built a very good GOOTV. I've always thought turning
Speaker 1: point at GOOTV. I didn't think of it like the
Speaker 1: National Review semi every two years they get together and
Speaker 1: have an idea summit. That's not what it is. It's
Speaker 1: a GOOTV effort, and I just wanted to work and
Speaker 1: keep working, so I do too.
Speaker 4: I do too. I think it's possible. I'm hopeful, and
Speaker 4: I quite frankly believe that this Andora's Box that that
Speaker 4: this shooter, this assassin opened is one that actually has
Speaker 4: a lot more hope as it relates to Americans, young
Speaker 4: Americans in particular, coming back to faith in their own lives,
Speaker 4: being motivated by the things that motivated Charlie, appreciating those
Speaker 4: aspects of him beyond just to get out the vogue effort.
Speaker 4: And that's something that I think is very healthy, beneficial
Speaker 4: and good for the country. I just want it to
Speaker 4: be more centered around that, as opposed to these ridiculous,
Speaker 4: vindictive and pointless conspiracy theories mounted by people who are
Speaker 4: only getting the attention in part because it benefits the
Speaker 4: left to promote them. It benefits the other side of
Speaker 4: this argument to promote them and voicing that along on
Speaker 4: quite frankly, a number of people who I say don't
Speaker 4: have the necessary defenses against something like that because they
Speaker 4: have trusted these voices for so long.
Speaker 1: Well said. And on that note, we'll talk to you
Speaker 1: maybe once more before Christmas, if we don't marry Christmas,
Speaker 1: Ben have a great one. I've been telling you every
Speaker 1: day about consumer cellular and I want to tell you
Speaker 1: about it again. The phone number is one eight hundred
Speaker 1: four to one one forty four fifty four one eight
Speaker 1: hundred four to one one forty four fifty four, or
Speaker 1: you can go to Consumer Cellular dot Com slash q.
Speaker 1: It's Consumer Cellular dot Com slash q. The reason you
Speaker 1: want to do that is save money. Have you looked
Speaker 1: at your phone bill lately? Do you have any idea
Speaker 1: how m you're paying? And you know, don't be tempted
Speaker 1: by the hey phone on us Big Wireless offers. Their
Speaker 1: phone is not free typically the most expensive one. Look
Speaker 1: at the actual costs of the plan that you're paying
Speaker 1: for the length of the contract before you make what
Speaker 1: could be a thousand dollars mistake, and now for a
Speaker 1: limited time only and get a second month of service
Speaker 1: for free when you switch to Consumer Cellular. It takes
Speaker 1: less than twenty minutes. My special promo code is Hugh
Speaker 1: hug h or visit Consumer Cellular dot Com slash Hugh
Speaker 1: or call one eight hundred four to one one forty
Speaker 1: four to fifty four and mention you to get your
Speaker 1: second month free. Here's something my fifty year old and
Speaker 1: older listeners love. Two unlimited lines of data. Unlimited data
Speaker 1: for just sixty dollars and thirty dollars per line. Unlimited.
Speaker 1: It's an easy way to better manage your cost of
Speaker 1: living for a limited time called one eight hundred four
Speaker 1: to one one forty four to fifty four. Get your
Speaker 1: second month free by using the promo code Hugh or
Speaker 1: go to Consumer Cellular dot com slash Hue. And finally,
Speaker 1: angel Tree is asking you, we got six days left.
Speaker 1: I got one point five million children to serve. More
Speaker 1: and more of you come in every single day to
Speaker 1: help us with this. I'm just going to ask you
Speaker 1: to please go over to huewet dot com and find
Speaker 1: at the top you will be able to find at
Speaker 1: the top the banner. Here's James them in their CEO.
Speaker 11: Your investment in angel Tree enables that connection to be
Speaker 11: made between a mother and her child, or a father
Speaker 11: and his child. They just can't afford to celebrate Christmas
Speaker 11: in the way that so many of us do every year.
Speaker 11: And by you stepping in, by you getting involved in
Speaker 11: angel Tree, by you investing, you are enabling Christmas and
Speaker 11: the Gospel to be brought to these children right into
Speaker 11: their own homes.
Speaker 1: Every child costs thirty dollars. You can sponsor five children
Speaker 1: for one hundred and fifty dollars called triple A two
Speaker 1: O six twenty seven sixty four. Triple A two O
Speaker 1: six twenty seven sixty four. Where the banners at the
Speaker 1: top of hewet dot com. You've been mentioned it. You
Speaker 1: can say I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna do it,
Speaker 1: and do it today. All right, queuet dot com banner
Speaker 1: at the top. I'll be right back. Welcome back in America.
Speaker 1: I'm Hugh Hewett. Uilake is a contributor to the Free Press.
Speaker 1: He's the host of the Breaking History podcast. I love.
Speaker 1: His most recent one ELI today, the Turning Point USA conference,
Speaker 1: which is for the kids, right for the younger people
Speaker 1: than you and I. They had Ben Shapiro and they
Speaker 1: had Tucker Carlson. We'll talk about that in a moment.
Speaker 1: Erica Kirk made an announcement. I was somewhat surprised, but
Speaker 1: I want to play it for you and get your reaction.
Speaker 12: Cut Number one, we're going to ensure that President Trump
Speaker 12: has Congress for all four years. We are going to
Speaker 12: get my husband's friend jd Vance elected for forty eight
Speaker 12: and the most resoundingly possible.
Speaker 1: All right, So, before we moved to the second part,
Speaker 1: are you surprised that she did that.
Speaker 13: No, because Turning Point USA, I think was is always
Speaker 13: very much of a Vance twenty twenty eight operation. There
Speaker 13: was a moment after that horrible assassination where I thought
Speaker 13: there and I still think TPOSA should say is also
Speaker 13: doing this, But it could have turned into kind of
Speaker 13: a civic organization that encouraged people to find a church,
Speaker 13: find religion, go back to God, focus on the lost boys,
Speaker 13: as Charlie Kirk used to call them, who have found
Speaker 13: you know, who have sort of sunk into a life
Speaker 13: of nihilism online. But I think it's always been TPOSA
Speaker 13: is an organization that is largely political, and JD Vance
Speaker 13: was very close with Charlie Kirk, and I think people
Speaker 13: inside the Republican Party kind of understood this was the
Speaker 13: grassroots organization for Advance twenty twenty eight. I think that
Speaker 13: it might be more wide open than that, and this
Speaker 13: may be it's I think it's maybe too soon to
Speaker 13: kind of come out and say that, because I think
Speaker 13: there's a lot of things that can happen. But I'm
Speaker 13: not necessarily surprised now.
Speaker 1: I was surprised because it's an obstacle to growth. Whenever
Speaker 1: you're declaring you're excluding, and I thought they were growing,
Speaker 1: And I think JD. Vance is probably going to be
Speaker 1: the nominee, and he's a friend of my program, and
Speaker 1: I'm glad to have them on all the time. But
Speaker 1: I don't get involved in the presidential primary until the
Speaker 1: presidential primary is over, so I was surprised.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro gave a speech at Heritage this week which
Speaker 1: was a full frontal attack on Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: responded at TPUSA today in an unusual way. They ended
Speaker 1: up not debating an argument. Tucker ended up saying I'm
Speaker 1: being attacked because it's a way of getting JD. Vance
Speaker 1: that is, I believe wrong. And I think his ideas
Speaker 1: are being attacked by various people like Ben, like you,
Speaker 1: like me, on idea by idea basis. Do you think
Speaker 1: he capitulated today by switching from the idea debate to
Speaker 1: the oh, you're really attacking JD. Dance to be.
Speaker 11: No.
Speaker 13: I think that's part for the course, Unfortunately for Tucker,
Speaker 13: who I think was at earlier parts of his career
Speaker 13: a far more thoughtful and serious thinker and writer and broadcaster.
Speaker 13: I think that Ben Shapiro's speeches at Heritage and at
Speaker 13: TPUSA will be read in fifty years by young conservatives
Speaker 13: if they want to understand what was at stake in
Speaker 13: this moment. After the Charlie Kirk assassination in twenty twenty five,
Speaker 13: I thought they were absolutely masterful. Now, yes, the headlines
Speaker 13: are that he did get personal, not just with Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 13: but with Megan Kelly, Candice Owens and others. But I
Speaker 13: think he also laid out important principles that for the
Speaker 13: most part, people who are on the right, people who
Speaker 13: are conservatives, have to renew in every generation, and Ben Shapiro,
Speaker 13: in my view, has done that. I cannot tell you
Speaker 13: how much respect I have for what he did. I
Speaker 13: don't think this needs to be personal, and I think
Speaker 13: your approach is right. It's not about canceling the person.
Speaker 13: It's about grappling with the ideas. But a lot of
Speaker 13: the ideas that we're hearing and the style, the grammar
Speaker 13: of the political discourse has gone off the rails into
Speaker 13: conspiracy theory land. And I know that you don't like
Speaker 13: to talk about some of these people, and I think
Speaker 13: that's there's wisdom in that, by the way, but we
Speaker 13: have to grapple that there are millions of people who
Speaker 13: tune in online to hear innuendo, garbage, conspiracy, ahistorical stuff
Speaker 13: that gnaws away at the trust we need to have
Speaker 13: in basic institutions in order to reform them to save
Speaker 13: the country. So I mean, in my view, indulging ideas
Speaker 13: that you know, the French and the mo Soad and
Speaker 13: maybe even TPUSA staff may have played a role in
Speaker 13: the murder.
Speaker 1: Is it's just it's so toxic. Well, what I want
Speaker 1: to get to eli and make sure I get to it.
Speaker 1: I had a leader thun On this week and I
Speaker 1: put it to him squarely, is it a requirement to
Speaker 1: be a member of the Republican Party in ninety nine
Speaker 1: percent of the time to be a full throated ally
Speaker 1: of Israel and to recognize that they are America's most
Speaker 1: important ally? And is the GOP going to stand by Israel?
Speaker 1: And the leader did not hesitate. He said, absolutely, it
Speaker 1: is part of our core identity to be an ally
Speaker 1: of Israel. So that's not a negative attack on anyone.
Speaker 1: I said, Look, I know Senator Paul leaves your caucus
Speaker 1: on that occasionally, and Tom Massey's wigne, but in ninety
Speaker 1: nine percent of the time, you've got to be with Israel,
Speaker 1: and I think that's the positive case. You know, here
Speaker 1: are the things we believe in, which is what Ben did,
Speaker 1: although he left Israel off I think probably very smartly.
Speaker 1: But he said you got to have boundaries to have
Speaker 1: a party, just like you have to have boundaries to
Speaker 1: have a country. He did not mention part of my
Speaker 1: boundaries support for the state of Israel. Do you think
Speaker 1: that's going to be part of the boundary for the
Speaker 1: Republican Party going forward?
Speaker 13: I would phrase it differently. I think that there is
Speaker 13: plenty of room, and I've seen many Zionists and pro
Speaker 13: Israel voices have this conversation. I wrote about this eleven
Speaker 13: years ago. I should say for The Daily Beast that
Speaker 13: you can question whether the military subsidy is wise at
Speaker 13: this point, the aid to Israel, and there are a
Speaker 13: lot of Israelies, by the way, who would agree that
Speaker 13: it's time to phase that out. You can criticize tactics
Speaker 13: in a very hard war, but when you frame the
Speaker 13: conflict in Gaza without applying any agency to the party
Speaker 13: that started the war, and you describe it as a
Speaker 13: sort of genocide against defenseless people without mentioning the fact
Speaker 13: that the people who started the war are hiding under tunnels,
Speaker 13: under mosques and schools and apartment buildings and have a
Speaker 13: strategy of using human shields and don't wear uniforms. That's
Speaker 13: where it gets in my view, where it's a moral
Speaker 13: question or question of values. There's plenty of room to
Speaker 13: have people who would like a less robust American foreign
Speaker 13: policy that believes that when there are choices to be
Speaker 13: made with limited resources, we should focus more at home.
Speaker 13: I don't I think you can be part of the right.
Speaker 13: I don't think there's any problem with that. The issue
Speaker 13: is when the criticism curdles into defamation, and that has
Speaker 13: happened at light speed in certain segments in the online world,
Speaker 13: and when it becomes conspiratorial. When you hear people say
Speaker 13: the Israel lobby is the real government of the United States,
Speaker 13: which is just you and I both know is absurd
Speaker 13: to be stupidity, right, right, And when you even say
Speaker 13: that American citizens, many of whom are not Jewish, who
Speaker 13: support a strong US Israel alliance, are somehow being disloyal
Speaker 13: or not as lawyer, or not putting America first. That's
Speaker 13: where it leads into something which I don't think is acceptable.
Speaker 13: But those are again for value reasons. We can have
Speaker 13: a debate about policy, no problem. People say you can't
Speaker 13: criticize this realm. Sure you can, but that's not criticism.
Speaker 13: That is to another remanance, not really about Israel. It's
Speaker 13: but who we are as a movement on the right and.
Speaker 1: As a country and as a party. I'm a Republican.
Speaker 1: The party has to be for a strong defense, and
Speaker 1: a strong defense has to support Israel when it needs support.
Speaker 1: Whether or not that's a military subtry, I don't know.
Speaker 1: But if they need at thirty five, we sell them
Speaker 1: at thirty five. If that simple, they are our most
Speaker 1: important superpower ally, Eli Lake, thank you, my friend Vallmann
Speaker 1: et Eli Lake. Stay tuned.