Speaker 1: Hello, They're happy Thursday, and welcome to another episode of
Speaker 1: the Chuck Podcast. Here at Chuck podcast World Headquarters. The
Speaker 1: Thursday recording means we are at the end of our
Speaker 1: production week of sorts, and we say of sorts because
Speaker 1: they've oh sixty or seventy other commitments that I feel
Speaker 1: like I'm constantly juggling here. But these are good problems
Speaker 1: to have, right you know, at the beginning of this
Speaker 1: calendar year, there were not as many commitments, so that
Speaker 1: is a tribute to the growth of the audience. You
Speaker 1: guys have been out there. You guys have been terrific.
Speaker 1: Got my newsphere show coming up later this week, Please
Speaker 1: tune in for that. We'll have another another version of
Speaker 1: a preview of campaign twenty twenty five. You know, it's interesting.
Speaker 1: I can tell that Campaign twenty twenty five is not
Speaker 1: grabbing folks. You know, is not the you know I
Speaker 1: assume on too day itself, people will be fascinated with it.
Speaker 1: You should tune in. I'm going to be doing an
Speaker 1: election live stream along with pretty much all of my
Speaker 1: friends in the political data geek world. We're going to
Speaker 1: be doing it in partnership with my friend Chris Eliza
Speaker 1: Decision Desk HQ, which is quickly turning into the premier
Speaker 1: organization for counting and calling elections these days, and so
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to this live stream. But it was interesting.
Speaker 1: I did my preview on substack, and you could just
Speaker 1: sort of feel the And I think part of it
Speaker 1: is there's actually no drama in the top tier part
Speaker 1: of these races. So maybe that's why people aren't just
Speaker 1: gobbling up every piece of information, whether it's Virginia governor,
Speaker 1: feels like you kind of know where that's going, New
Speaker 1: York City Mayor, and the really drama is does he
Speaker 1: get over fifty or not? And Mom, Donnie, I am
Speaker 1: here to tell you folks, New Jersey Governor. I think
Speaker 1: it's got some drama to it. But for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: I think the candidates are running. They're pretty normal politicians
Speaker 1: and we're so used to crazy thanks in the Trump
Speaker 1: era that when you have two people running relatively normal
Speaker 1: campaigns that would have been normal in the pre Trump era,
Speaker 1: that maybe it doesn't grab our attention, grab our attention
Speaker 1: the way all things Donald Trump grabs our attention. But
Speaker 1: this week you're reminded when Donald Trump is is in
Speaker 1: essentially halfway around the world and therefore time zone wise
Speaker 1: halfway around the world as well. There is a perception
Speaker 1: of a slower news cycle in Washington, which frankly shouldn't
Speaker 1: be the case, because we're in the middle of a
Speaker 1: government shut down and you're sitting there going where is
Speaker 1: the sense of urgency. We've got deadlines happening all over
Speaker 1: and you know, in some states, the expiration of funding
Speaker 1: for snap benefits for people for working poor and others
Speaker 1: who need school assistant, school lunch assistants, things like that.
Speaker 1: The fact that that's expiring, that that isn't creating urgency
Speaker 1: here is frankly a bit frustrating for someone like me
Speaker 1: who's sort of a considers myself a reformist and just
Speaker 1: wants to get things working. You know, I count myself
Speaker 1: among those who views government like your toilet. When it
Speaker 1: doesn't work, I just want to do whatever it takes
Speaker 1: to get it working again, and then I don't want
Speaker 1: it to bother me that much overall, And I think
Speaker 1: we're the fact that we have a clogged toilet. The
Speaker 1: collective American government is clogged, and nobody's even willing to
Speaker 1: pick up the plunger at this point is kind of frustrating,
Speaker 1: But I think there is a I think it's obvious
Speaker 1: if you sort of sit back here and understand why
Speaker 1: we're going nowhere in shutdown negotiations at this point. Number one,
Speaker 1: I've been telling you there's no Donald Trump in the
Speaker 1: room right his inability to sort of focus on this
Speaker 1: be dragged into the conversation. As he himself said earlier
Speaker 1: earlier in the week, he is both the speaker and
Speaker 1: the president, and Mike Johnson cannot do a thing without
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Mike Johnson is a Spino speaker in name only.
Speaker 1: He has to get all of his you know, whatever
Speaker 1: he needs to get done whenever he needs votes, he
Speaker 1: has to get the White House involved, he has to
Speaker 1: get Trump twisting arms. So he can't speak for the
Speaker 1: Republicans only. Donald Trump speaks for the Republicans. So that
Speaker 1: inability right now of him engaging being interested in this
Speaker 1: is one of the problems. But there's a second problem here,
Speaker 1: and that is sort of when you sort of look
Speaker 1: this century in particular, but really going back to the
Speaker 1: two you can go all the way back to the
Speaker 1: Reagan era and note this, and that is when you
Speaker 1: when you don't have divided. When you don't have power
Speaker 1: divided among the two parties, the moderates in both parties
Speaker 1: become extraordinarily weak. There are a handful of moderates a
Speaker 1: lot still left in both parties. They don't really have
Speaker 1: power within their own conferences unless there is split government.
Speaker 1: Unless there is a divided government Republicans controlling either one
Speaker 1: House of Congress, Democrats controlling the other House, or obviously
Speaker 1: split between the White House and Congress. And the fact
Speaker 1: that you know it's this is a you know, full
Speaker 1: Republican control of Congress, and you need but you do
Speaker 1: need a bipartisan vote in order to open up the
Speaker 1: government in the Senate. In the Senate without without this
Speaker 1: sort of split control, there is no incentive for the
Speaker 1: moderates to sort of tiptoe out and work amongst themselves.
Speaker 1: We don't really have the gangs of the past, even
Speaker 1: of the recent past. Right, there's no cinema and mansion there.
Speaker 1: But their empowerment either comes with when you're sitting literally
Speaker 1: at a fifty to fifty Senate, which we are not
Speaker 1: in this case, or you have this divided government. The
Speaker 1: point is the lack and I think you can look
Speaker 1: at one of two ways. They're not enough moderates who
Speaker 1: truly see themselves as moderates, or the moderates are too
Speaker 1: weak politically to sort of step out in this moment
Speaker 1: because of the polarization issue in the country. But the
Speaker 1: bottom line is that's why we are getting nowhere. The
Speaker 1: moderates have no power in Congress. And whether you want
Speaker 1: to argue, do they have a spine, I think they
Speaker 1: do have a spine, but you know it's within reason, right,
Speaker 1: it's a soft spine, if you will, and without without
Speaker 1: the ability of sort of obvious compromise that has to
Speaker 1: be made because of split in a situation where there
Speaker 1: would be split party control of some form or another.
Speaker 1: The fact that there's not. There's just at this point
Speaker 1: there's I think the moderate Democrats, not enough of them
Speaker 1: see enough to be gained. That said, I do think
Speaker 1: we're tiptoeing to a point where Democrats, frankly, probably a
Speaker 1: week or two too late as far as it because
Speaker 1: of some of the damage that's going to be done,
Speaker 1: I still think they can declare victory here. They still
Speaker 1: have Donald Trump on the ropes with health care. He's
Speaker 1: sort of rambling about, oh, you know, we've got to
Speaker 1: do something better than Obamacare. Dude, You've had ten years
Speaker 1: to come up with a plan. The Republicans have had
Speaker 1: ten years to come up with a plant better than Obamacare.
Speaker 1: They've yet to be able to agree on anything. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump had a whole term in Congress and couldn't do it.
Speaker 1: He had a whole exile, you know, he was exiled
Speaker 1: for four years, didn't focus on a health care plan,
Speaker 1: and now here he is again sort of begging for
Speaker 1: help to come up with an alternative to Obamacare. It's
Speaker 1: just not going to happen because there is a policy
Speaker 1: laziness on the right to come up with an alternative,
Speaker 1: because the only alternative that's affordable will deny most of
Speaker 1: you insurance. Right. The only way you can create affordable
Speaker 1: insurance is if you create a healthcare situation where they
Speaker 1: can deny insurance coverage for people that actually need it. Right.
Speaker 1: But as long and at this point, there is a
Speaker 1: baseline believe here, pre existing conditions cannot be used to
Speaker 1: decide what your premiums are and whether you get insurance
Speaker 1: coverage or not. And because of that, this is always
Speaker 1: going to get expensive unless there's a a tougher regulation
Speaker 1: on the insurance markets in general. Number one or number
Speaker 1: two is sort of an acceptance that medicaid is America's
Speaker 1: catastrophic insurance coverage. Ultimately, I think that is what medicaid
Speaker 1: is basically become. But until there's sort of an acknowledgment
Speaker 1: that that's what it is going to be for the
Speaker 1: country rather than always just based on income there, I
Speaker 1: don't know how much stability you're ever going to have
Speaker 1: in the insurance markets there. But the point is the
Speaker 1: fact that Democrats orchestrated the shutdown and snap benefits are
Speaker 1: going to expire. How do you explain that away long term?
Speaker 1: I think that's a tough thing to explain. Democrats have
Speaker 1: the power to open temporarily, open up this government, get
Speaker 1: this money flowing to the people that really need it,
Speaker 1: and they still have Republicans on the defensive on healthcare.
Speaker 1: What's the why keep this shutdown? This isn't going to
Speaker 1: make this better for better politically. And I know I
Speaker 1: sound like a broken record here, but you're in a
Speaker 1: great place at this point. Mike Johnson has completely abandoned
Speaker 1: work here. You have a restive Republicans, there is a
Speaker 1: divide among obamacares. You're going to win this And the
Speaker 1: question is do you just hope that you can extract
Speaker 1: a little more political pain and hope it doesn't punish
Speaker 1: more Americans while you extract and ounce more of political gain.
Speaker 1: Here just something to think about as this shutdown drags on,
Speaker 1: as we get closer to November one, because oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, the bill that's been on the floor would
Speaker 1: only open up the government till November twenty first. As
Speaker 1: it is, so we're really starting to feel the pinch.
Speaker 1: And if this is why, I think this is an
Speaker 1: easy answer. If snap benefits are about to expire, Democrats,
Speaker 1: just vote yes on this thing. You're looking at three
Speaker 1: weeks and then you get to force leverage one more
Speaker 1: time and healthcare premiums are out there for all to see.
Speaker 1: So look, no one said Chuck Schumer was really good
Speaker 1: at tactics. He has displayed a lot of mediocrity right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the fairest way to describe Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer's leadership is kind of like Bill Belichick as coach
Speaker 1: of North Carolina Great career Hall of Fame coach Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer peak. Chuck Schumer political savviness as good as anybody
Speaker 1: for a long time. You know, knew that there was
Speaker 1: always a little bit of baggage trying to be a
Speaker 1: national Democratic leader, but being based in New York City,
Speaker 1: always was really good at balancing it really well. You know.
Speaker 1: I think now he's in the Bill Belichick coach of
Speaker 1: North Carolina faith. Every once in a while he calls
Speaker 1: a pretty decent play. The game plan may be there,
Speaker 1: but I think in this moment where politics are today headed,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, I think tactically this has passed
Speaker 1: them by. But the fact is both Jeffreys and Schumer
Speaker 1: seemed paralyzed in some form here, and I think some
Speaker 1: of it has to do with what's going on in
Speaker 1: New York City and this divide inside the party and
Speaker 1: this fight inside the party between progressives and pragmatists, which
Speaker 1: I think is certainly really what is the overhang of
Speaker 1: this government shutdown strategy that were't in. But it leads
Speaker 1: me to something else about Washington these days that I
Speaker 1: thought I would share for my non Washington listeners. I
Speaker 1: think those that live in and around here, and we'll
Speaker 1: find what I'm saying to be quite familiar. Look, I'm
Speaker 1: participating in quite a few reform projects. Many of these
Speaker 1: meetings or conferences that I go to or all Chatham
Speaker 1: how rules meaning you know, we're we're We're there with
Speaker 1: unique groups of people trying to figure out, you know,
Speaker 1: if it's on the journalism side of things, ideas and
Speaker 1: fixing this information ecosystem, how do we reanimate local news?
Speaker 1: If it's on the democracy reform side of things, you know,
Speaker 1: it's with you know, do you break up the duopoly?
Speaker 1: How do you open things up here? Do we there
Speaker 1: is this the moment to call for a constitutional convention?
Speaker 1: Things like that? And what's fascinating about Washington in this
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five, And I think I've discussed this before,
Speaker 1: the sort of you vacillate between you know when when
Speaker 1: you know right now in DC it's just a it's
Speaker 1: a weird feeling, right the way Trump sort of stormed
Speaker 1: the city this time, there's almost right he's there's there's
Speaker 1: self segregation of the sort of political elite in Washington, right,
Speaker 1: MAGA only hangs out with MAGA. Then there are Republicans
Speaker 1: who aren't MAGA, who still want to, who still believe
Speaker 1: that there's a Republican party, think like you know that
Speaker 1: will exist after Donald Trump. I think the John Thune
Speaker 1: wing of the party, right, whatever's left of there, which
Speaker 1: is really a lion's share of Republicans in Washington or
Speaker 1: not MAGA, right, they are sort of institutionalists Republicans, and
Speaker 1: you know they still you know that part of the
Speaker 1: political bipartisan world. You still you still see that. But
Speaker 1: MAGA is its own separate thing, right, The MAGA elite,
Speaker 1: you know, payoff Donald Trump Junior for his club that
Speaker 1: he created. And then you have some of the you know,
Speaker 1: the tech bros that have moved here, that throw their
Speaker 1: own parties. They all just sort of mingle with each
Speaker 1: other and all that. And there's in some ways that
Speaker 1: that group of people is constantly thinking out, hey, man,
Speaker 1: there's no security right now in government contracts, government money,
Speaker 1: there are no rules. What can we do in this
Speaker 1: moment before the gig is up to sort of secure
Speaker 1: government contracts? He said secure. It's a bit of a grift, right.
Speaker 1: They're just constantly saying, you know, hey, now that we've
Speaker 1: got a president that will blow past any ethical line,
Speaker 1: that there is a compliant Congress, a House Republicans set
Speaker 1: in particular, that will do whatever is asked. There won't
Speaker 1: be oversight. It is open season for a certain group
Speaker 1: of lobbyists. And so there's basically three groups, three types
Speaker 1: of Washington gatherings these days. Right, There's those in that
Speaker 1: sort of mega lobbying world who are like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: it's a jewelry store without security, and there's all sorts
Speaker 1: of things we can get and everything is open season,
Speaker 1: and you know, how do you make as much money
Speaker 1: off of this period in time where Trump is basically
Speaker 1: created a no rules environment. Right, So that's one group
Speaker 1: of people who sort of are occupying Washington in this moment,
Speaker 1: who go to gatherings, but who are just there trying
Speaker 1: to figure out out, Hey, this is there's never been
Speaker 1: at a time essentially to steal money from the government
Speaker 1: with nobody watching anything. What kind of schemes can we
Speaker 1: come up with, Whether it's a crypto scheme, whether it's
Speaker 1: a creating a new you know, public private partnership for
Speaker 1: screwing the government taxpayer. I think I made up that
Speaker 1: last part, but the public private partnership I didn't. And
Speaker 1: then there's two other sort of entities out there that meet. Right,
Speaker 1: you have this group of of Democrats and it's two
Speaker 1: different groups of Democrats that are constantly having various meetings. Right,
Speaker 1: I think you have a progressive set is saying, okay,
Speaker 1: this is a moment where progressives can take over the party.
Speaker 1: The established innshment has proved that they can't deal in
Speaker 1: the Trump era, they can't win in the Trump era. Clinton, Biden, Harris,
Speaker 1: you know that wing of the party is atrophying, Schumer, Jeffreys.
Speaker 1: They don't know what they're doing. This is the moment
Speaker 1: for progressives to takeover. So there's this, you know, instead
Speaker 1: of you know, sort of a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of gatherings that are about, you know, how can progressives
Speaker 1: take advantage of this moment. Then you have sort of
Speaker 1: what's left of sort of the establishment wing of the party,
Speaker 1: or the pragmatic wing of the party, or the frustrated
Speaker 1: Democrats who want to win first, want to want to
Speaker 1: rally the base into something and say, hey, look, the
Speaker 1: goal should be to build a broader coalition that that
Speaker 1: has an animated progressive base but also is appealing to
Speaker 1: swing voters. And there's you know, those types of gatherings.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's the abundance debate that has recline.
Speaker 1: Matthew Iglesias Derek Thompson have been sort of talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, is there better policy solutions that Democrats ought
Speaker 1: to be standing for that would be more appealing to
Speaker 1: a broad a broader set of the electorate. So you
Speaker 1: have those conversations, and then there's a third group of
Speaker 1: gathering of gatherings, And this is the group of gatherings
Speaker 1: I'm most involved with. And one last week a trusted
Speaker 1: with a organization that I've talked about before on this
Speaker 1: podcast called Trusted Media, where it's a sort of it's
Speaker 1: a coalition of folks who have worked in government, worked
Speaker 1: in a national security space, including uh NSSA and CIA
Speaker 1: and State Department, who are concerned that the information ecosystem
Speaker 1: is untrustworthy. And it's like, this is bigger than just
Speaker 1: a media problem, right, you know, this is this is
Speaker 1: larger than that. So we did a gathering that gathered
Speaker 1: business leaders, gathered scientific scientific experts, journalists, government of former
Speaker 1: government officials talking about why you have if you don't
Speaker 1: have trust, if our information ecosystem is untrustworthy, how this
Speaker 1: suddenly essentially makes us less safe, you know, less safe
Speaker 1: as a country, less safe. Uh individually, you know, when
Speaker 1: you think about health scares and viruses and things like
Speaker 1: that and less safe in your community. And so that's
Speaker 1: one type of sort of gathering that I am anticipating
Speaker 1: in because we've got to fix this information ecosystem. It's
Speaker 1: not just about journalism. It's not just about you know,
Speaker 1: what corporations have done, the legacy media, what big tech
Speaker 1: is doing and what and the AI impact is about
Speaker 1: whether we're going to be able to you know, scientists
Speaker 1: can come up with something and it's trusted, and whether
Speaker 1: a doctor prescribing a pill won't get sort of distrusted
Speaker 1: by their patients because of what doctor Internet is telling
Speaker 1: them or is pretending to tell them, or what you know,
Speaker 1: the Kennedy crazies are assuming at any moment in time.
Speaker 1: On that front, there's a reason results matter more than promises,
Speaker 1: just like there's a reason Morgan and Morgan is America's
Speaker 1: large just injury law firm. For the last thirty five years,
Speaker 1: they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for more than half
Speaker 1: a million clients. It includes cases where insurance companies offered
Speaker 1: next to nothing, just hoping to get away with paying
Speaker 1: as little as possible. Morgan and Morgan fought back ended
Speaker 1: up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania, one client was
Speaker 1: awarded twenty six million dollars, which was a staggering forty
Speaker 1: times the amount that the insurance company originally offered. That
Speaker 1: original offer six hundred and fifty thousand dollars twenty six million,
Speaker 1: six hundred fifty thousand dollars. So with more than one
Speaker 1: thousand lawyers across the country, they know how to deliver
Speaker 1: for everyday people. If you're injured, you need a lawyer,
Speaker 1: You need somebody to get your back. Check out for
Speaker 1: the People dot com, Slash podcast, or dial pound law,
Speaker 1: pound five to nine law on your cell phone. And
Speaker 1: remember all law firms are not the same, So check
Speaker 1: out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free unless they win.
Speaker 1: And then there's also those that are in the They're
Speaker 1: they're there that are in the how do you stop
Speaker 1: prevent Another Trump? And that group of folks are sort
Speaker 1: of the true what I call the true reformists because
Speaker 1: they're not partisans. That doesn't mean they don't have partisan
Speaker 1: points of view that they do, but these are gatherings
Speaker 1: that include liberals and conservatives who have one thing in common.
Speaker 1: They're constitutionalists and they are alarmed by the fact that
Speaker 1: there are so many entities essentially not using the Constitution right.
Speaker 1: You have Corporate America choosing not to use it to
Speaker 1: defend their First Amendment rights. You've had other companies choosing
Speaker 1: not to use it to to defend their their various
Speaker 1: constitutional rights when it comes to mostly frankly due to
Speaker 1: First Amendment issues in different free speech free speech issues.
Speaker 1: So it's in this space that I'm also like to
Speaker 1: get involved. And again, all of these are under Chathamhouse Rule,
Speaker 1: so I'm you know, I don't want to I'm not
Speaker 1: going to out any individuals, but I wanted to share
Speaker 1: an experience I had recently because it was a new
Speaker 1: take on how to find hope. Right, there's there's always
Speaker 1: you know, I had somebody ask this question in the
Speaker 1: last podcast. You keep using the expression your short term
Speaker 1: pessimistic but long term optimistic, and you know, explain that
Speaker 1: more if you will, And you know, I always sit
Speaker 1: there and say, well, I'm my long term optimism is
Speaker 1: mostly due to our history, our nation's history, and that
Speaker 1: we've had moments like this before where we're at a
Speaker 1: fork in the road and you know, we can end
Speaker 1: up in one direction or the other, and we sort
Speaker 1: of always end up in the right space. We meander,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, I will reiterate what I love
Speaker 1: to reiterate the Martin Luther King quote about the arc
Speaker 1: of history. Well, an arc sometimes goes backwards before it
Speaker 1: loops its way around to go forwards. And sometimes you
Speaker 1: have to go backwards if you're going to if you
Speaker 1: are going to be able to do something that actually
Speaker 1: takes this country forward. And it's pretty obvious that we
Speaker 1: have to update this constitution, we have to update the democracy.
Speaker 1: I mean, what's happening now with the redistricting wars is
Speaker 1: just a symptom of this larger problem. I mean, we
Speaker 1: now have Virginia is going to try to do this,
Speaker 1: and you have Indiana is going to try to do this,
Speaker 1: and you're in North Carolina is going to try to
Speaker 1: I mean, we're just it's it's getting absurd, and it's
Speaker 1: clear that we need to do a constitutional reform, specifically
Speaker 1: on this issue in particular, to sort of stop this madness,
Speaker 1: because what it is doing is disenfranchising voters, pure and simple. Right.
Speaker 1: It's state after state after state, partisan disenfranchising of voters.
Speaker 1: Part stop. That's what Texas Republicans want to do to Democrats.
Speaker 1: That's what California Republicans are doing to Republicans in California. Response,
Speaker 1: it's what Indiana Republicans are doing to Indiana Democrats. It's
Speaker 1: what Virginia Democrats are going to be doing Virginia. You
Speaker 1: see run point here, right, It is depending on the
Speaker 1: state that you live in. If you're in a one
Speaker 1: party control state, there's now an incentive politically to disenfranchise
Speaker 1: voters of the other side. This is you know, I
Speaker 1: could argue that all of this is it should be
Speaker 1: covered by the equal Protection Clause in the Constitution, but
Speaker 1: I think we have to spell it out and spell
Speaker 1: out exactly what is fair and what isn't on that front.
Speaker 1: But the reason, you know, sometimes there's something that's staring
Speaker 1: you right in the face and you're like, well, duh,
Speaker 1: I should have of course, that's the best argument you
Speaker 1: could make for why we shouldn't be afraid to ask
Speaker 1: the voters for big change. And this person was making
Speaker 1: the case that the second election of Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: actually the best case you could come up with to
Speaker 1: prove that Americans are looking for something different. They're not
Speaker 1: looking for status quo and The point is is that
Speaker 1: you can make an argument for something different, something big,
Speaker 1: something bold. This is an electorate that if you persuade them,
Speaker 1: if you go out there and make the case, you know,
Speaker 1: if you say to them, look, we've got we cannot
Speaker 1: allow ourselves to again have seventy five year old presidents.
Speaker 1: We have our second seventy five year old president. I
Speaker 1: think we now second term in a row where many
Speaker 1: Americans have real questions about whether our president is all there. Right,
Speaker 1: There was obvious moments during the Biden presidency where that
Speaker 1: was an issue, and there are obvious moments pretty much
Speaker 1: now every day with Donald Trump. Right, Donald Trump cleverly
Speaker 1: set the bar of crazy so lower high, depending on
Speaker 1: how you want to describe the metric that you know
Speaker 1: it was. It was easier for folks to see that
Speaker 1: something was wrong with Biden because we had seen a
Speaker 1: competent version of Biden for so long in the public
Speaker 1: SA square. With Trump, right, he's had his meandering, his weight, weave,
Speaker 1: his crazy. He's been out there for so long that
Speaker 1: only the folks that are following, that follow him super
Speaker 1: closely start to notice that, hey, you know this he's using.
Speaker 1: His vocabulary is shrinking. He seems to be harping on
Speaker 1: the same stuff. He seems to not quite always know
Speaker 1: who's all there. And maybe some of it's laziness. I've
Speaker 1: always said, a big chunk of Donald Trump's misspeak and
Speaker 1: all that stuff, he's just lazy. Right. He never reads
Speaker 1: a speech before he gives it, you know, let alone
Speaker 1: actually participates in the writing of any speeches. Right. I
Speaker 1: don't even think he does the dictation into a into
Speaker 1: his iPhone and then hey, transcribe this as a way
Speaker 1: to get started on a speech for speech writers. So
Speaker 1: there's always been an inherent laziness that weirdly has made me,
Speaker 1: has given me a sense of hope, hope, hope's not
Speaker 1: the wrong way, a sense of why I don't assume
Speaker 1: the worst, because he's too lazy to pursue the worst course, right,
Speaker 1: the worst course, you know, trying to consolidate power being
Speaker 1: an authoritarian. There's actually some work that would have to
Speaker 1: be done, right, you know, if he truly were desired
Speaker 1: untiltalitarian authoritarian, you know, presidency, he'd be orchestrating a campaign
Speaker 1: to amend the constitution to allow him to run again, right,
Speaker 1: to come up with some sort of amendment that somehow
Speaker 1: would allow him to run, but would bar Barack Obama
Speaker 1: from running for a third term. Maybe it would be
Speaker 1: you know, presidents can run for reelection if they don't
Speaker 1: win reelection the first time, or some bizarre thing, right,
Speaker 1: the non consecutive to sort of find a to create
Speaker 1: a non consecutive term loophole. But the fact of the
Speaker 1: matter is he's he and mag are too lazy to
Speaker 1: pursue a constitutional option, right, So it's always at you know,
Speaker 1: if they really you know, if there's an easy shortcut,
Speaker 1: they'll try it. But if if it's a little more
Speaker 1: legwork or if it's a little more effort, like writing
Speaker 1: a health care plan. You know, he's always claimed he
Speaker 1: wants to come up with a better healthcare plan, that
Speaker 1: it would be easy, Well do it, write it. But
Speaker 1: he's lazy, right, you know, he's not. You know, the
Speaker 1: reason our democracy is, I think safer than some people think,
Speaker 1: is because of how lazy he is. Just let's not
Speaker 1: you know, overestimate you know something. He may have desires,
Speaker 1: but he is too lazy to pursue some of those
Speaker 1: some of those desires. But I want to go back
Speaker 1: to this optimism and I want to go back to frankly,
Speaker 1: a call to action. I think we've all you know,
Speaker 1: there's one of the ways that some people have explained
Speaker 1: Trump's success in twenty twenty four over Democrats has been
Speaker 1: because he's on the right side of eighty twenty issues,
Speaker 1: right like the border wasn't turned out to be an
Speaker 1: eighty twenty issue. Transgender women in sports is an eighty
Speaker 1: twenty issue, you know. So he's been on where Democrats
Speaker 1: have had to explain exactly why they're on the side
Speaker 1: of an issue that doesn't have popular support. And you
Speaker 1: know the rule in politics if you're explaining you're losing.
Speaker 1: Reforming this government and reforming our constitution is an eighty
Speaker 1: twenty issue, folks. The lack of leadership in the general
Speaker 1: common sense middle has been quite frustrating. It does not
Speaker 1: exist in this current Congress. Nobody has stepped up to
Speaker 1: be the leader of the common sense movement that says, hey,
Speaker 1: what we've been doing these last decade is insanity. This
Speaker 1: is crazy. This is no way to run a lemonade stand,
Speaker 1: let alone the largest government in the on the globe.
Speaker 1: And it's about time that we fixed the proverbial metaphorical
Speaker 1: bridges and roads of the American democracy. Would you tell
Speaker 1: folks about it? It's in eighty twelve. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that makes sense that we need these things, getting rid
Speaker 1: of partisan primaries right like it is obvious. Now you've
Speaker 1: got to connect these issues to people's day to day lives.
Speaker 1: It can't just be an esoteric Hey, this is what
Speaker 1: the founders would have wanted, right that that may appeal
Speaker 1: to someone like me, but that's not going to appeal
Speaker 1: to the to the everyday American who's not a political
Speaker 1: or civics junkie, who's simply trying to make the best
Speaker 1: of their lives, raise their kids, build a nest egg,
Speaker 1: and and have a good life in this country. But
Speaker 1: if you tell them that the current system is rigged
Speaker 1: against them and you want to unrig the system, you
Speaker 1: can't trust a part of politician to do this on
Speaker 1: their own because either they don't have the power or
Speaker 1: they are never going to be looking out for you.
Speaker 1: They're going to be looking out for their self interests.
Speaker 1: We need to prevent that. We need to create a structure.
Speaker 1: We need to update the constitution to change our incentive structures.
Speaker 1: You know, whether it's getting rid of partisan primaries, putting
Speaker 1: in a campaign finance reform minimum, putting in age maximums
Speaker 1: for serving in federal office, whether it's an appointment to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court or running for the presidency. And yes,
Speaker 1: all of those are going to have to be constitutional amendments.
Speaker 1: If you have age minimums in the constitution, it means
Speaker 1: you have age maximums. The US House was supposed to
Speaker 1: expand with the population. It is stopped, but you're going
Speaker 1: to have to force that into the constitution. There's an
Speaker 1: easy metric to come up with on that point zero
Speaker 1: zero zero one percent of the population. Boom done. You
Speaker 1: have your baseline metric for that, and it will easily
Speaker 1: decide how many congressional districts state. And oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: the electoral college and the popular vote won't be as
Speaker 1: easily split if you actually have a Congress and a
Speaker 1: US House that fits the country. So if you already
Speaker 1: have a group of voters that are willing to experiment
Speaker 1: on the first African American president right where there was
Speaker 1: some skepticism is this going to work? And they were
Speaker 1: willing to do it, And then you have group of
Speaker 1: voters that are willing to basically a failed celebrity, fake
Speaker 1: billionaire as president and try him twice because they want
Speaker 1: because they know the current system is broken. So this
Speaker 1: is the good news. The voters already know the system
Speaker 1: is broken. What we need is a good leader from
Speaker 1: the common sense center that makes the case of, hey,
Speaker 1: we can fix this. Are you tired of having to
Speaker 1: just find a cult of personality that might be able
Speaker 1: to be the bull in the china shop to shake
Speaker 1: things up? Right? That is not how you run a country.
Speaker 1: That may be how you run a small business. Right,
Speaker 1: you get a better leader, and you might be able
Speaker 1: to transform a small business. It might be a better
Speaker 1: way to run a football team. You don't want a
Speaker 1: democracy deciding deciding a game plan for a football game.
Speaker 1: Your head coach does need to be an authoritarian of
Speaker 1: some sorts, benevolent. I think a malevolent coach these days
Speaker 1: doesn't work, but a benevolent authoritarian. But in this case,
Speaker 1: just this isn't going to be a functional solution. The
Speaker 1: functional solution to the dysfunction that we have is to
Speaker 1: update the rules of our democracy, update the blueprint of
Speaker 1: our democracy. That's the constitution, that's the leadership that is necessary.
Speaker 1: And the fact is, and like I said, I just
Speaker 1: wanted to channel. If you don't believe the public would
Speaker 1: would support this, you haven't been paying attention. Right. The
Speaker 1: public knows something's wrong, which is why they keep voting
Speaker 1: against status quo. Whenever they get the chance, they keep
Speaker 1: throwing people out. Okay, but in fairness to the general public,
Speaker 1: they've got to live their own lives, and so you
Speaker 1: need to If you lead them to the stream, they'll
Speaker 1: drink the reform water. But someone's got to lead them
Speaker 1: to the stream, and you've got to galvanize it. And
Speaker 1: again we have seen it. That's why I began with
Speaker 1: the shutdown and the lack of leadership from the Common
Speaker 1: Sense Center here, and this is what needs to happen.
Speaker 1: We're going to continue to sort of, you know, go
Speaker 1: back and forth, like we've erected barriers in front of
Speaker 1: the gutter. You know, they have little kids come up,
Speaker 1: they erect the little barrier so that they don't have
Speaker 1: to throw a gutter ball. So we always the system
Speaker 1: does just enough to pure gutter balls presidencies, But we're
Speaker 1: sort of our ball is slamming back and forth. If
Speaker 1: we need is a bit a bit smoother set of leaders.
Speaker 1: But we're not going to get it without an updated
Speaker 1: structure that creates the incentives, that makes it so that
Speaker 1: some some terrible leader doesn't take advantage of our weak system,
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's for personal financial gain, or whether
Speaker 1: it's for some other pet project that they might have
Speaker 1: their own narcissism, or whatever it is. And right now
Speaker 1: our system is weak enough and rickety enough where we've
Speaker 1: allowed that to happen, and the focus needs to be
Speaker 1: on preventing the next strump. In some ways, you know,
Speaker 1: you can tie some things up with lawsuits and it
Speaker 1: slows things down, it comes up the works, But the
Speaker 1: real solution is going to be coming with fixing this
Speaker 1: small d democratic infrastructure. But this lack of interest in
Speaker 1: a political leader making this the platform to run for
Speaker 1: national office to galvanize the country on this has been
Speaker 1: disappointing to me that that somebody hasn't had the guts
Speaker 1: to go down this road. But I actually think that
Speaker 1: you have an electorate that is hungry for this. They
Speaker 1: don't fully know what they're hungry for, they know what
Speaker 1: they don't want to eat, but they're hungry for this.
Speaker 1: You just have to make the case and you have
Speaker 1: to connect it to hey, the shittiness that they feel
Speaker 1: about how government's been and not helping them live their lives.
Speaker 1: This better structure will create the We'll create the opportunity
Speaker 1: so that government can be put to work to simply
Speaker 1: help you live your life better. So, look, I'm often asked,
Speaker 1: you know, sometimes I'm a bit pessimistic on here. You know,
Speaker 1: give people something tangible to be hopeful on. The tangible
Speaker 1: aspect is we have a hungry electorate that wants change,
Speaker 1: wants reform. What we need is some leaders that have
Speaker 1: the guts to pitch the reform in such a way
Speaker 1: that it is not about themselves, that it is not
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump alone. Okay, that is about you know,
Speaker 1: how we end it up in this situation, how two
Speaker 1: parties exploited Rickety rules to do put us in the
Speaker 1: situation that we're in. Because I promise you, I know
Speaker 1: there's some of my friends of the left and think,
Speaker 1: stop both sidesing this, or some of my friends on
Speaker 1: the right saying you're you're picking on Trump, You're not
Speaker 1: doing you're not saying enough about how the left contributed
Speaker 1: to this. The point is we're never going to get
Speaker 1: anywhere if we just argue about who's more fault. That's
Speaker 1: why we need a leader that comes from the eighty
Speaker 1: This is an eighty twenty issue, fixing the infrastructure of
Speaker 1: American democracy. It's an eighty twenty issue, folks. We just
Speaker 1: need the right leader to grab this, grab this platform,
Speaker 1: and run with him. The good news is this electorate
Speaker 1: is hungry for it. They just haven't been given a
Speaker 1: meal prepared for them in such a way that they're
Speaker 1: ready to eat it. All right, Little Q and eight
Speaker 1: DoD ask Chuck, this comes from Mike Salex. Uh. I
Speaker 1: don't know if this is Mike P. From Salex, Iowa
Speaker 1: or Mike P. Salex from Iowa. So as an Iowa guy,
Speaker 1: I'm going to see if Salex it is. It's town,
Speaker 1: So my apologies for not knowing Salex, Iowa. It's a
Speaker 1: small city in Woodbury County near the Missouri River, so
Speaker 1: the western side of the state. All right, I see
Speaker 1: I see you there, I see you Salex, Iowa. So
Speaker 1: it might be My apologies, little Uh. My eastern Iowa
Speaker 1: geography is much better than my western Iowa geography. But anyway,
Speaker 1: here's your question. Chuck Love the podcast never missed them.
Speaker 1: I'm curious what you think would happen if Democrats took
Speaker 1: back the House with a five to ten member advantage
Speaker 1: and took the Senate fifty one to forty nine. You
Speaker 1: think Dems would try and impeach Trump? Obviously they would
Speaker 1: start huge amounts of oversight and slow down or completely
Speaker 1: stops agenda. Just curious on your thoughts. Did that happened.
Speaker 1: I do not think there will be a third impeachment, Okay,
Speaker 1: I really don't. It just it is. I don't think
Speaker 1: a Democrat will it will will instigate a third impeachment.
Speaker 1: The only shot you would have at a third impeachment
Speaker 1: of Trump is if Republicans in the Congress were the
Speaker 1: ones to instigate it. For some reason, there's Democrats are
Speaker 1: not going to start this because the minute it becomes partisan,
Speaker 1: you're not going to get anywhere. You're going to get
Speaker 1: a lot more. It's going to be a lot more fruitful, frankly,
Speaker 1: to do the oversight, a lot more fruitful to force
Speaker 1: this administration to tell to tell the country what it's doing,
Speaker 1: whether it's on military campaigns like what's going on in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: what they've been doing with USAID, what's been happening at
Speaker 1: the Department of Education, what's been happening at HHS and
Speaker 1: the CDC that is, you know, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: you know, in some ways, impeachment would be a distraction
Speaker 1: from all the work that in oversight, work that needs
Speaker 1: to be done in a variety of other places. So
Speaker 1: I think it would be politically it is. Look I
Speaker 1: think Republicans in some places are going to use as
Speaker 1: part of their count are messaging in the midterms that
Speaker 1: Democrats just want control of Congress in order to impeach Trump,
Speaker 1: because they're going to be trying to figure out how
Speaker 1: to goose the Trump voter to show up for the midterms.
Speaker 1: And so I do think the impeachment issue is going
Speaker 1: to be somewhat salient in these campaigns, but mostly from
Speaker 1: Republican campaigns. And you're going to have I think a
Speaker 1: lot of Democrats running for the House and Senate saying no,
Speaker 1: we're not going to pursue impeachment, and probably saying it
Speaker 1: on the campaign drum. So I don't expect an impeachment.
Speaker 1: I expect rigorous oversight. I go back to something I
Speaker 1: hinted at in a previous episode, This is the bad
Speaker 1: bet Corporate America's making this decision to essentially allow themselves
Speaker 1: to be extorted by Trump, whether it's to give money
Speaker 1: to the building. Again, I could make a patriotic case
Speaker 1: for funding the building, and you know, and as the way,
Speaker 1: presidential libraries are sort of kind of bipartisan money, people
Speaker 1: will throw money at, you know, the Biden Library and
Speaker 1: the Trump Library right to sort of claim that they're
Speaker 1: balancing themselves out. I think all of these corporate entities,
Speaker 1: whoever's given money to the inaugural fund, whoever's given money
Speaker 1: to the to the building, these various crypto ventures, they're
Speaker 1: all because while Trump may be able to use executive
Speaker 1: privilege to prevent a lot of testimony from Trump appointed officials,
Speaker 1: Corporate America is not going to be able to hide
Speaker 1: from these subpoenas as well. And that's where I expect
Speaker 1: there to be a lot of action and potentially a
Speaker 1: lot of confessions, and where we'll find out exactly how
Speaker 1: how Trump Trump World's extortionist tactics work, right, How does
Speaker 1: it work? There's going to be corporate entities that, if
Speaker 1: Democrats get control, that are going to be put in
Speaker 1: some uncomfortable positions thanks to subpoenis that's where I expect
Speaker 1: the most fruitful ways. And you may say, well, they'll
Speaker 1: probably what gets uncovered. May say, hey, that's impeachable, of
Speaker 1: which I would argue anything's impeachable. It's whatever a majority
Speaker 1: of the House says, right it is. There's basically a similarity.
Speaker 1: You know how they say grand jury's you know you
Speaker 1: can get it. You can indict a ham sandwich. Well,
Speaker 1: you can impeach a ham sandwich if a majority of
Speaker 1: the House decides to impeach anam sandwich. So anything to
Speaker 1: me and an impeachable offense, I think it goes into
Speaker 1: what should be an impeachable offense on that front. All right.
Speaker 1: Next question comes from Chris k out of South Carolina.
Speaker 1: Chris K Jr. Don't want to leave that out. We
Speaker 1: got it have we got it wrong when it comes
Speaker 1: to how we compensate members of Congress and government officials. Lately,
Speaker 1: I've been wondering if better pay might attract more serious,
Speaker 1: qualified individuals but service. If term moments are the future,
Speaker 1: who besides the wealthy can afford to pursue a short
Speaker 1: lived political career. Would a higher salary make it more palatable?
Speaker 1: Demanding stock trading and divesting from personal financial interests within
Speaker 1: that helped shift the focus from personal enrichment to public service.
Speaker 1: Civic duty may only go so far, go Hawkeyes. So look,
Speaker 1: I've always been a bit more empathetic of members of
Speaker 1: Congress and this salary. Right, I think you have to
Speaker 1: do this one of two ways. You either have to
Speaker 1: make it easier to be a member of Congress and
Speaker 1: have essentially have two living conditions. Right, the idea that
Speaker 1: members of Congress have decided they're going to sleep in
Speaker 1: their office because they don't want to to pay extra
Speaker 1: money for you know, a rental or something like this. Look,
Speaker 1: I think we out of corporate housing for members of Congress.
Speaker 1: So you know, we might have dormitories, right, you know,
Speaker 1: high end dormitories, high in corporate housing. That was a
Speaker 1: popular thing a decade or so ago. With remote stuff.
Speaker 1: It's corporate housing is sort of not no, no, not
Speaker 1: as prolific as it once was. There was used to
Speaker 1: be quite a few corporate housing complexes here in DC.
Speaker 1: There's still a fair number because you do get a
Speaker 1: lot of temporary deployments in the government, particularly military or
Speaker 1: defense contractors and things like that. But I think corporate
Speaker 1: housing would be a more affordable way. You know, it's funny.
Speaker 1: I I think congressional pensions. I I don't think members
Speaker 1: of Congress should get a pension, but or if you
Speaker 1: do get it, or it should be sort of if
Speaker 1: you want the pension, then you've got a band stock
Speaker 1: trading like. I think you could do something like that
Speaker 1: for what it's worth, because once you've hit five, you
Speaker 1: get this pension and it's you know, it's quite something.
Speaker 1: I think staffers ought to be eligible for this stuff.
Speaker 1: But I think you could have a conversation about elected
Speaker 1: official But look if you if you could, if you
Speaker 1: had corporate housing so that there wasn't this pressure to
Speaker 1: have two locations, if you could have remote voting. And
Speaker 1: I do think if we don't look the House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: if we if it were, if it were right sized,
Speaker 1: what with the ratio that it should be about, want
Speaker 1: to say, one for every four and one thousand people,
Speaker 1: we'd have about eight hundred somewhere between eight hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty nine hundred members of Congress eight hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: one if you buy one calculation that I did, but
Speaker 1: somewhere between eight fifty and eight ninety and I do
Speaker 1: think that that would diversify the pool of people. It
Speaker 1: would sort of make it a little more accessible to
Speaker 1: get in if if you will, but you allowed people
Speaker 1: to still could deal with their families, remote vote every
Speaker 1: once in a while, have remote committee meetings. I do
Speaker 1: think there should be some more flexibility where your main
Speaker 1: office is your constituent's office and maybe you really only
Speaker 1: have a small hideaway here in Congress. You know, there's
Speaker 1: there's very The bottom line is I think it's Congressional
Speaker 1: salaries are awfully low for have to have two households, right,
Speaker 1: essentially two places to live. At one hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a year, that's you know, that's not yes,
Speaker 1: you get all your expenses paid, your travel expenses. You
Speaker 1: know you're likely eating for free things like that. You know,
Speaker 1: if you told me we were going to have hard
Speaker 1: term limits to you know, to your terms, and I
Speaker 1: might be all in favor of doubling or tripling the
Speaker 1: salaries because it's only a finite amount of time and
Speaker 1: then definitely no pension on that if you did term limits.
Speaker 1: So I think it really just depends on This goes
Speaker 1: back to the need for a constitutional convention. I think
Speaker 1: we would rethink all this if you will, I really do,
Speaker 1: and I think it all needs to be thought about here.
Speaker 1: But corporate housing could help, and I think that would
Speaker 1: lower the barrier or entry, the financial barrier to entry
Speaker 1: to some. I think that would help, making a little
Speaker 1: more ease of participating in committee meetings, remotely voting from
Speaker 1: your congressional district. You know, I might say you have
Speaker 1: to vote from your congressional office. You couldn't just vote
Speaker 1: from anywhere remotely, that you'd have only either vote in
Speaker 1: the four of Congress or your vote from your official
Speaker 1: district office. But I think there's a lot of room here,
Speaker 1: which is why we need a constitutional convention, all right.
Speaker 1: Next question comes from Greg from Alexandria, Virginia. You've talked
Speaker 1: a lot about political reforms, yes, I have, But what
Speaker 1: are your thoughts on the biggest reform of them all?
Speaker 1: If you could waive a magic one, would you make
Speaker 1: the US a parliamentary system where the executive branch is
Speaker 1: chosen by the majority party in Congress? Things raise high, Greg,
Speaker 1: You know no, and I'll tell you why. I thought.
Speaker 1: You know. One of the most compelling articles I've read
Speaker 1: about the state of the American democracy was about a
Speaker 1: month ago. I recommended it. If for some of you
Speaker 1: may remember when I recommended this reading it. It was
Speaker 1: in Politico magazine, right, and I don't even know if
Speaker 1: they publish a hard copy, but it was under their
Speaker 1: magazine section of their website. And it was a case
Speaker 1: of sort of like you know, it was as a writer.
Speaker 1: It was a political science professor was basically arguing that, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, all we read about is all the ways
Speaker 1: that were the democracy is eroding, but not explaining, like
Speaker 1: you know, and comparing different things here with what to
Speaker 1: happen in countries where the democracy failed. Right, Usually it's
Speaker 1: a comparison to something that happened in Germany in the
Speaker 1: nineteen twenties or thirties. But this person pointed out, hey,
Speaker 1: take a look at the countries that didn't fall to
Speaker 1: authoritarian fascism or authoritarian socialism versus the countries that did.
Speaker 1: Parliamentary systems are very vulnerable to authoritarian populists. You can,
Speaker 1: you can sort of, you can, you can you can
Speaker 1: win with a minority. You know. The issue with a
Speaker 1: parliamentary system and how it makes you, I think, more
Speaker 1: vulnerable to an authoritarian is that you can win with
Speaker 1: a minority, you know, with the largest minority, and then
Speaker 1: cobble together a majority to hold power, you know, using
Speaker 1: you know, just look at how net Nyahu has held power.
Speaker 1: He's held power by cobbling together a majority in order
Speaker 1: to get power in the Knesset even though none of
Speaker 1: those parties have sort of majority support in the country, right,
Speaker 1: And so you can you can sort of win small
Speaker 1: d democratically and have a government that is immediately unpopular
Speaker 1: with a majority of the country because it's not what
Speaker 1: a majority of the country voted for. So, you know,
Speaker 1: it's funny when I grew when I was growing up,
Speaker 1: I grew up in a household that was I think
Speaker 1: i've expressed this, that was, you know, somewhat divided politically.
Speaker 1: So I grew up in a very bipartisan way, sort
Speaker 1: of always being shown you know, well at this point
Speaker 1: of view, that point of view, and I'm always was
Speaker 1: very thankful of that. You know. My mother and father
Speaker 1: in some ways were training me for this job, and
Speaker 1: I don't think they fully do it, and my father
Speaker 1: wasn't would occasionally make the argument in favor of a
Speaker 1: parliamentary system and he was, you know, he was somebody
Speaker 1: who was frustrated that Democrats always had control of Congress,
Speaker 1: even though a majority of the country seemed to prefer
Speaker 1: sort of you know, more center right politics, right, and
Speaker 1: that was in an era, right we kept electing Republican
Speaker 1: presidents because we had the assumption was, well, Democrats always
Speaker 1: control Congress, and for like forty years it felt like
Speaker 1: they did, right, that this was just sort of the
Speaker 1: permanent majority, and that was the case. I mean in
Speaker 1: the eighties, you know, we were in the thirty fifth,
Speaker 1: thirty six, thirty seventh, thirty eight, forty, you know, a
Speaker 1: year of democratic control of the House, and and the
Speaker 1: six years that Republicans controlled the Senate in the eighties
Speaker 1: at the time was sort of a I think the
Speaker 1: first time that happened in a couple of decades. So,
Speaker 1: you know, he would occasionally express interest in that. But
Speaker 1: the older I've gotten and that that article really you know,
Speaker 1: I could I could go back and forth. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a I think the ideal system is more I'd
Speaker 1: like to see a four party system in presidential runoffs.
Speaker 1: I think the top four system is probably the best
Speaker 1: of both worlds, where it forces some coalition building right
Speaker 1: where you'd have the top two party vote gethers then
Speaker 1: meet in a runoff so that somebody wins fifty percent
Speaker 1: of the presidency. That I think that that's the system.
Speaker 1: I would want four major parties, top four, you know,
Speaker 1: and frankly, no other third part you know, no other
Speaker 1: top four political parties, you know, no independence you'd have
Speaker 1: to form your own party to get on the ballot.
Speaker 1: That might be one reform I might include in here,
Speaker 1: but top four party nominees, you know, essentially, you know,
Speaker 1: can get major party status in any election cycle, and
Speaker 1: the top two vote getters meet in the runoff, and
Speaker 1: then they figure out in a democratic way with the voters,
Speaker 1: rather than in a back room smoke filled way that
Speaker 1: would happen in a parliamentary system whose voters you go
Speaker 1: out after to build your coalition. I think you would
Speaker 1: get the best of what parliamentary systems give you, which
Speaker 1: is sort of a force of compromise coalition building without
Speaker 1: the vulnerability of minority authoritarianism. Next question comes from David
Speaker 1: in Highland Park. All right, hey, check, I'm a longtime
Speaker 1: fan of yours. Thank you love the podcast. SAW sixty
Speaker 1: minutes interview with Dana White on Sunday, and I couldn't
Speaker 1: help but notice this a couple of weeks ago. Now
Speaker 1: I'm catching up. I'm trying to catch up on some questions.
Speaker 1: So my apology, but couldn't help but notice the softness
Speaker 1: of the questions as well as not asking once about
Speaker 1: his efforts to change the Mohamad ali ak. Is this
Speaker 1: a signal that sixty Minutes and CBS are transitioning to
Speaker 1: a fox stout propaganda machine. Side note, I used to
Speaker 1: be a sports reporter in Tallahassee and some of the
Speaker 1: most intense football, baseball, and basketball rivalry games were between
Speaker 1: Miami and FSU. Yes, sir, they are were, That's for sure.
Speaker 1: I'd almost say the baseball games equal the intense hatred
Speaker 1: between the two schools on the football field. In your mind,
Speaker 1: who is Miami's most hated rival regardless of sport? Keep
Speaker 1: making these podcasts. Your unique long term optimism means a
Speaker 1: lot in these uncertain times. Kindly, David, thank you for that. Yes, look,
Speaker 1: I think you have to realize that the Dana White
Speaker 1: interview happened what like one week after Paramount announced a
Speaker 1: massive investment in UFC rights. Right for paramount plus and
Speaker 1: all of that. So I think, look, I think what's
Speaker 1: fair to say is on what you're going to see
Speaker 1: with sixty and this, And I kind of almost want
Speaker 1: to defend the promotion. As long as sixty minutes can do,
Speaker 1: it's still going to devote a segment to something hard hitting.
Speaker 1: You know, you can sort of, you know, you can
Speaker 1: accept the premise that, hey, corporate overlords want to promote UFC,
Speaker 1: so here you go, and you can sort of suck
Speaker 1: up and accept it. And by the way, I would argue,
Speaker 1: sixty minutes is always sort of have They've always preserved
Speaker 1: one of their pieces for something soft, for sort of
Speaker 1: a cultural icon. That and and those interviews never have
Speaker 1: heard any questions. And you can go back to the
Speaker 1: Mike Wallace days and know that those things existed, right
Speaker 1: there was like they would almost have three types of segments,
Speaker 1: and I suspect that because of the sixty minutes brand,
Speaker 1: you'll still have this, You'll have one that was basically
Speaker 1: to service the football viewer, right, so they could they
Speaker 1: you know, with the sixty minutes is mostly a ratings
Speaker 1: juggernaut thanks to football, right, you sort of can see
Speaker 1: the distinction between sixty minutes ratings in the spring versus
Speaker 1: the fall. But there's always been sort of the tough,
Speaker 1: hard hitting piece, the think piece, the analytical piece, and
Speaker 1: then the soft piece, right the entertainment piece. And in sports,
Speaker 1: they've always kind of been soft. So I understand, I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not disputing your observation here. I had the
Speaker 1: same reaction, And I think Dana White in particular has
Speaker 1: been a polarizing figure and probably deserves some questioning in
Speaker 1: a in a straight news setting, and you're not. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: it was pretty clear that in that first week of
Speaker 1: Paramount Control, sixty wasn't going to do that. I'm guessing
Speaker 1: there's you know, it's Dana White's not the prime minister
Speaker 1: of a country, and he's not a US senator, and
Speaker 1: he's not a governor. So it is it is, you know.
Speaker 1: I also don't know if you know, if you're if
Speaker 1: we're going to totally hammer them for this. Do I
Speaker 1: wish they did a little accountability with him. I do
Speaker 1: with Brian Gumble and real sports mean, but there's a
Speaker 1: reason real sports existed even in the era of sixty minutes,
Speaker 1: because sixty minutes never did sports in a hard any way,
Speaker 1: Real Sports and my friend Brian Gumble that was another story, right,
Speaker 1: they'd have done a piece on Dana White that that
Speaker 1: that would have that would have either included him or
Speaker 1: not included him. But that might have been And by
Speaker 1: the way, I miss Real Sports and Bryant. If anyone
Speaker 1: gets this to you, man, just thinking about you, hang
Speaker 1: hang in there. But that was you know, I think
Speaker 1: Brian Gumbele is one of the last great sports journalists
Speaker 1: on that on that on that run, if you will.
Speaker 1: As for Miami's most hated rival, I don't hate Florida State.
Speaker 1: And it's not just because I'm married to a Florida
Speaker 1: State alum. This was true even before, Right, It's what
Speaker 1: made my family accept the Florida State alum and why
Speaker 1: her family accepted a Miami fan because it's a sibling.
Speaker 1: Florida State has always been a sibling rivalry. The heated
Speaker 1: rivalry for Miami's is basically for me and my childhood
Speaker 1: is Notre Dame. But that was more of we were like,
Speaker 1: screw Notre Dame. Right, We were not Notre Dame's biggest rival,
Speaker 1: but we felt Notre Dame was ours. And it's the
Speaker 1: same with Florida. So the hatred is for the Gators
Speaker 1: and Notre Dame. But I'll even admit my hatred for
Speaker 1: Notre Dame is softened with Marcus Freeman, as I just
Speaker 1: think he's a stand up dude, and I think that
Speaker 1: there's there's less arrogance to the team, Right, Lou Holtz
Speaker 1: plus Notre Dame. I mean, you couldn't have come up
Speaker 1: with an easier sort of villain to deal with. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, Steve Spurrier and Florida combo platter was
Speaker 1: a good set of villains for me. And throw an
Speaker 1: urban Meyer and Florida was a good combo platter for that.
Speaker 1: You know, there's never even been a coach pairing with
Speaker 1: Florida State that says, oh, what a jerk coach? You know.
Speaker 1: Do I think what Jimbo did to them was a
Speaker 1: jerky move? Yes, I don't think he was a jerk
Speaker 1: coach on that front. So I think, Look, the ESPN
Speaker 1: archives will tell you. I think who Miami's you know,
Speaker 1: most hated rival is. For a certain generation of Miami fans,
Speaker 1: it's those boys from South Bend, that's for sure. All Right,
Speaker 1: I'm going to do one more question here and then
Speaker 1: we'll just in college football. Gillian F. Frights, Hey, Chuck,
Speaker 1: I was listening to your podcast on the treadmill this morning.
Speaker 1: Had to write in, I share your belief that political
Speaker 1: violence is no place in America, but I disagree that
Speaker 1: it's equally fueled by all sides. I never said it
Speaker 1: was equally fueled by all sides in reference. In fact,
Speaker 1: that's been my frustration from my view, the rhetoric and
Speaker 1: inaction on gun violence coming from the right epitomized by
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk's comments about accepting gun violence to protect the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment, drive much of today's dangers. His racist and
Speaker 1: homophomic remarks like saying black women lack the brain power
Speaker 1: to be taken seriously make that hypocrisy even starker. As
Speaker 1: a pre k teacher and mother of an adopted black daughter,
Speaker 1: I find it infuriating, especially when those same voices hide
Speaker 1: behind Christianity. I appreciate the pod Joan, I, I don't
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not gonna First of all, you're you're
Speaker 1: your concern. I get it, and I and I share it.
Speaker 1: My point on all this is trying to trying to
Speaker 1: win the debate that one side does this more than
Speaker 1: the other is an unwinnable debate because it just it's
Speaker 1: no way to get anything done. Like you're going to
Speaker 1: have to if you want to get a larger focus
Speaker 1: on this issue, you're going to have to let someone think, well,
Speaker 1: they're going more than halfway, so I'll meet them there
Speaker 1: and vice versa. It just you sort of have to
Speaker 1: you have to. It doesn't matter if it's thirty sixty
Speaker 1: or sixty thirty. If everybody's going to come to the table,
Speaker 1: there has to almost be this sort of Okay, we're
Speaker 1: all going to admit some fault here, but we're all
Speaker 1: secretly going to believe the other side's more at fault.
Speaker 1: But we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna stop that part
Speaker 1: of the argument and accept the premise that we've got
Speaker 1: to turn the temperature down. So that's that's, you know,
Speaker 1: my nuanced way of trying to go about this, like
Speaker 1: trying to say, you know, trying to own a moment
Speaker 1: that's terrible, particularly when it you know, came from one side,
Speaker 1: you know, did come from from you know, this person
Speaker 1: was inspired. You know, there's enough political violence inspired by
Speaker 1: the left and the right to say there's a problem
Speaker 1: on both sides. Is it equal. It's never equal. There's
Speaker 1: moments in time that that one rises more than the other.
Speaker 1: It's never equal. But it is very reactionary and violence
Speaker 1: always is met with more violence, and so we have
Speaker 1: to stop. And we could probably agree that, you know,
Speaker 1: I do. I think Donald Trump is responsible for the atmosphere.
Speaker 1: I think he creates the political weather. That does not
Speaker 1: mean somebody that's inspired to violence on the left while
Speaker 1: due to the weather that Donald Trump is created, that
Speaker 1: that person that we should blame Trump for that person
Speaker 1: on the left's actions. No, the person on the left's
Speaker 1: actions are who responsible for that action? Anyway? I hope
Speaker 1: that gives a little more clarity to what the argument
Speaker 1: I'm trying to make and why it's not about whether
Speaker 1: I am not. And this is where people people sometimes
Speaker 1: with this both sides stuff it is they use it
Speaker 1: as a way to compartmentalize and ignore the times where
Speaker 1: maybe an ally isn't behaving correctly. And I think that's
Speaker 1: that's our problem right now in our polarized system. The
Speaker 1: left doesn't police the left, and the right doesn't police
Speaker 1: the right. The right only wants to police the left.
Speaker 1: And the left only wants to police the right, and
Speaker 1: until we get out of that cycle, we're going to
Speaker 1: be stuck in this place that we're stuck in. I'd
Speaker 1: be remiss if I didn't admit that I'm now two
Speaker 1: days removed from that eighteen inning game, and I still
Speaker 1: feel like I haven't recovered from enough sleep. I fell
Speaker 1: asleep between innings twelve. Sort of, I sort of woke
Speaker 1: up when Kershaw survived it got out of the inning.
Speaker 1: I didn't see him come in. I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: Kershaw's pitching, but he survived the inning. And then I
Speaker 1: kept watching that game, and you know, it was interesting.
Speaker 1: I was listening to somebody, somebody who talked about being
Speaker 1: at that game. You know, when you're at a game
Speaker 1: like that, you don't actually know some of the little
Speaker 1: things that's going on. I mean, I was mesmerized in
Speaker 1: the eighteenth by the fact that Yamamoto was warming up
Speaker 1: to come in in the nineteenth and Shane Bieber was
Speaker 1: stretching to get ready to warm up to come into
Speaker 1: the nineteenth. So as a as a baseball fan, I
Speaker 1: was sort of kind of rooting for the nineteenth inning,
Speaker 1: But then all of a sudden, it was two forty
Speaker 1: five e straight time, and I was like, man, I
Speaker 1: couldn't fall asleep. But anyway, it was just a mess
Speaker 1: on that front. But I know some of you have
Speaker 1: known me a long time agoing, aren't you a Rabbit
Speaker 1: Dodger fan? You know, aren't you excited about this? And
Speaker 1: you know the rise of the Gnats. My son's love
Speaker 1: of the Nats really has I've, you know, so the
Speaker 1: first time I've lived in a city with a major
Speaker 1: league team. So I'm I'm more Nats fan, you know,
Speaker 1: the Dodgers of the team of my youth. I still
Speaker 1: collect Dodger paraphernalia from my youth and even further back.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm a Roy Campanella collector because that was
Speaker 1: my dad's favorite player. I collect any cool, affordable pieces
Speaker 1: I can get, Jackie Robinson and Don Newcomb. I just
Speaker 1: love those, those those early Dodger players, and of course
Speaker 1: all things Sandy Kofax. You know, as Jewish Americans, we
Speaker 1: love our avatar in Sandy, if you will. So I
Speaker 1: still sort of glorify the past. My greatest memory as
Speaker 1: a Dodger fans the eighty eight World Series, watching watching
Speaker 1: the Dodgers win that World Series with my dad on
Speaker 1: his deathbed, but he did get to see the Dodgers
Speaker 1: winning win that World Series from there, So it is
Speaker 1: there is so much and so I will always root
Speaker 1: for the Dodgers as my second team. But as I
Speaker 1: learned during the NATS playoff run of the teams, whenever
Speaker 1: they were matchup with the Dodgers, I wanted the Nets
Speaker 1: to win. So I knew that the switch had been
Speaker 1: the switch had been complete. But wow, is it so
Speaker 1: much fun to watch Otani play baseball. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just unbelievable. Five walks, nine reached base nine times in
Speaker 1: one game, four for four and it's not even the
Speaker 1: best game that he played this postseason. It's just astonishing,
Speaker 1: it is. It is awesome when great players are great
Speaker 1: in big moments. It's just awesome, right, It's amazing when
Speaker 1: they step up in great moments, right, Like it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, I'll tell you when I finally sort of
Speaker 1: got over my sort of denial that Brady was great
Speaker 1: and it was the twenty eighth to three Super Bowl,
Speaker 1: You're like, the dude did it in a Super Bowl, right,
Speaker 1: something like that at a Super Bowl? Right? You just
Speaker 1: when great players are great in big moments. It's there's
Speaker 1: nothing like it. It's just a joy to watch as
Speaker 1: a sports fan, even if it's for a team you're
Speaker 1: not rooting for. All right, let's talk about this weekend
Speaker 1: in college football, because guess what, I'm about to go
Speaker 1: see my beloved Miami Hurricanes in person for the fourth
Speaker 1: time this year. Went to the Notre Dame game, went
Speaker 1: to the Florida game, went to the Florida State game,
Speaker 1: going to the SMU game. Close Listeners' podcast know I
Speaker 1: now have a divided family. I my mother, my kid's grandmother,
Speaker 1: tried to get the tried to get a Miami SMU
Speaker 1: half and half shirt and she but she's tried so far,
Speaker 1: claim that they don't have the copyrights to do that.
Speaker 1: I'd love some advice from any of you on how
Speaker 1: to do those divided loyalty shirts, because I can tell
Speaker 1: you I have a mother and grandmother who would both
Speaker 1: like to be wearing Miami some sort of joint Miami SMU.
Speaker 1: It's not the most requested dual jersey type things out there.
Speaker 1: They're probably there are Miami Florida State divided loyalties. Those exist.
Speaker 1: I'm guessing the big Miami, Florida State SMU ones are
Speaker 1: harder to come by, but if anybody has advice on
Speaker 1: how to do that, I would love to have it.
Speaker 1: So I will be seeing SMU in person there. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna lie little concerned, not as concerned as I
Speaker 1: was going into the Louisville game. But this is Miami's
Speaker 1: first road game out of the UH, out of the
Speaker 1: state of Florida, believe it or not, first time they
Speaker 1: have traveled outside the state of Florida. This is a
Speaker 1: small stadium, but this is going to be an excited
Speaker 1: SMU fan base. It's a good thing for Miami that
Speaker 1: this is a day game, not a night game. I
Speaker 1: think this would be a much tougher atmosphere if this
Speaker 1: were at night there. But I'm looking forward just my
Speaker 1: first in person SMU football game, if you will, so
Speaker 1: looking forward to that. That should be fun. I do
Speaker 1: wish SMU had won last week, because then I think
Speaker 1: it would make this game a little bit bigger. The
Speaker 1: game would have probably been later in the afternoon, maybe
Speaker 1: even at night, and oh, by the way, game Day
Speaker 1: might have been there. In fact, I think game day.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine, like they assumed Penn State. Ohio State
Speaker 1: would be where they would go, or maybe Miami SMU.
Speaker 1: I think they're out west, They're doing Utah, Cincinnati. Anyway,
Speaker 1: we shall see. But I think the most important thing
Speaker 1: is is there any coach that gets fired this week
Speaker 1: for performance? Or are we done with all the fired
Speaker 1: coach games? Right? I guess the only coach that it
Speaker 1: might be on the hot seat before the end of
Speaker 1: the season at this point is Luke Fickle at Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: but he has you know, been shut out and back
Speaker 1: to back games. Frankly played a slightly better game against
Speaker 1: Oregon than I think many people expected last week. He's
Speaker 1: probably the only in person, the only coach left that
Speaker 1: could get at least in the power for that could
Speaker 1: get candled. Though what happens if Brent Benables loses two
Speaker 1: of the next three games just something to think about
Speaker 1: in Oklahoma. But anyway, so we got the big Miami
Speaker 1: SMU game. Other than that, I think that you know
Speaker 1: the playoff implication games, Mimi SMU is one of them, right.
Speaker 1: The third loss for SMU eliminates them, right, and they're
Speaker 1: basically they have a very narrow path at the ACC
Speaker 1: title game. But it does seem unreal. And I'm really curious, right,
Speaker 1: three loss teams this week who maybe had visions of
Speaker 1: making the playoff, how do they perform? Right? How does
Speaker 1: an lsu perform? I just just very curious on those front. So, anyway,
Speaker 1: the playoff oflmitigation games Vanderbilt Texas. Right, if Vanderbilt beats
Speaker 1: Texas backup quarterbacks starting this week at Texas, what happens
Speaker 1: if backup quarterback does well? Anyway? As a gambler, Texas underdog?
Speaker 1: Are they an underdog? I think they're going to be
Speaker 1: a slight favored by game time and kickoff. Look, Vanderbilt
Speaker 1: wins this one, and I think they lock a playoff spot.
Speaker 1: Vanderbilt loses this one and they may not, I don't
Speaker 1: you know. Then they have to win out, and I
Speaker 1: do think if they went out, which would mean a
Speaker 1: victory over Tennessee they attended to, Vanderbilt does get into
Speaker 1: the playoff, but nine and three Vanderbilt doesn't at this point.
Speaker 1: So and certainly for Texas, this is a playoff elimination game,
Speaker 1: and they can. They have the schedule to win out.
Speaker 1: Now they have to play Georgia and A and M.
Speaker 1: Only anybody thinks they're going to win both those games.
Speaker 1: But guess what, when they were preseason number one ranked
Speaker 1: team in the country, I think there was some assumption
Speaker 1: that they they could and so in the Texas defense
Speaker 1: is pretty good. Point is Vanderbelt Texas. They gets a
Speaker 1: playoff elimination game. The other playoff elimination game is probably
Speaker 1: Oklahoma Tennessee. Certainly a third loss for either team, and
Speaker 1: that's it, right, That's that's done. There's no I don't
Speaker 1: think we're seeing a three loss team get into this
Speaker 1: playoff win the first three loss team that isn't a
Speaker 1: conference champion because we've had that with Clemson, but a
Speaker 1: three loss team at large that gets into the playoff,
Speaker 1: it will be an SEC team and it will be Alabama,
Speaker 1: Notre Dame. Those are right now. I think the only
Speaker 1: two programs that the ESPN Invitational because it is and
Speaker 1: I know, you know, my friends at ESPN don't like
Speaker 1: when I want I refer to that. But it's it's hard.
Speaker 1: You know, we know that that stuff matter. Okay, that
Speaker 1: stuff matters because if it were straight metrics, they'd tell
Speaker 1: us it was straight metrics, and it is not right.
Speaker 1: There's there's enough leeway there in order to find ways
Speaker 1: to make sure you find ways to get bigger programs
Speaker 1: into this thing. So sorry, Vanderbilt, you're not going to
Speaker 1: be the first three loss SEC team to crack the playoffs.
Speaker 1: So playoff elimination game there, playoff elimination game. Oklahoma Tennessee
Speaker 1: and technically I think Cincinnati Utah, USC Nebraska are both
Speaker 1: playoff elimination games. But you have to believe that USC
Speaker 1: Nebraska are are somehow realistic. If the winner of this
Speaker 1: game could win, could win out now they both could.
Speaker 1: And that's the point. Big ten and SEC you know,
Speaker 1: ten and two Big ten teams we're going to are
Speaker 1: going to get strong consideration, and ten and two SEC
Speaker 1: teams are almost all going to get in. And USC
Speaker 1: Nebraska still technically can both become ten and two teams.
Speaker 1: So loser, though, you know you're out. So that's why
Speaker 1: pay attention to that. And Cincinnati Utah, right, the loser
Speaker 1: of this game is going to not be able to
Speaker 1: get to that Big twelve title game, but the winner
Speaker 1: is going to. I think the winner is still going
Speaker 1: to feel alive. So I have to say this is
Speaker 1: where I love the addition of this playoff and I'm
Speaker 1: all for making sixteen team shoot. I like the twenty
Speaker 1: four and twenty eight team idea that the big ten
Speaker 1: through a round. Actually I could get behind that idea
Speaker 1: because I think you could actually make it a little
Speaker 1: more metric based and keep the ESPN TV executives out
Speaker 1: of the decision making process. But the point is this
Speaker 1: expanded playoff means we have essentially playoff games. Look, Miami,
Speaker 1: I would argue, sorry Miami to say this. Do I
Speaker 1: think at ten and too Miami team should have been
Speaker 1: invited last year? Yes, should attend into Miami Team probably
Speaker 1: get invited this year? Yes? Will they? No? Not unless
Speaker 1: it's Miami and Notre Dame for the last two slots,
Speaker 1: and then they'd have to give it to my me
Speaker 1: since might be beat Notre Day. But I think Miami
Speaker 1: has to operate on the one loss mindset and that
Speaker 1: every game now is a playoff game. And this is
Speaker 1: the real test for me with Mario and this staff,
Speaker 1: which is and this team is do you have these
Speaker 1: team mentally prepared to realize that every game is an
Speaker 1: elimination game going forward, there can't be any slip ups.
Speaker 1: I was sorry to see Shannon Dawson take the bait
Speaker 1: of some straightforward media questions about about run calls, the
Speaker 1: play calling on the run side of things. Never let
Speaker 1: them see your sweat, Shannon, You've been pretty smart about
Speaker 1: that going forward. Don't do it. Don't do it. You
Speaker 1: never win a debate with crazy fan boards, So don't
Speaker 1: try to win the debate with fan boards simply saying, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know, we've been pretty happy with our run game.
Speaker 1: You could just say it. You know, we've got running
Speaker 1: backs that know that are more comfortable running in those
Speaker 1: small A and B gaps. You know, we are better
Speaker 1: ways to answer that question without getting defensive on the
Speaker 1: play calls. And you know you do try to run outside, right,
Speaker 1: That's what jet sweeps are for, and a few other things.
Speaker 1: But I thought the defensive nature of your response, it
Speaker 1: strikes me that you're feeling some pressure. I get it.
Speaker 1: This is the big time. All of you are going
Speaker 1: to feel pressure. I understand it. But always think about
Speaker 1: your answer before you say it, especially in this media climate.
Speaker 1: I am happy, by the way, Coach Chris Ball, if
Speaker 1: you would like to hire me for any media training
Speaker 1: for any of your coaches, count me in for that.
Speaker 1: All right, With that, I've gone ramblan long enough, by
Speaker 1: the way, for you NFL gamblers out there, nine home dogs,
Speaker 1: be careful out there, and with that, I'll see you
Speaker 1: next week.