Speaker 1: Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from
Speaker 1: personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.
Speaker 1: We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
Speaker 1: the best shape. My mother single mother, now widow, myself
Speaker 1: sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
Speaker 1: pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had
Speaker 1: one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot,
Speaker 1: but it was important at the time, and it's why
Speaker 1: I was able to go to college. Little did he
Speaker 1: know how important that would be in that moment. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what. That's why I am here to tell you
Speaker 1: about Etho's life. They can provide you with peace of
Speaker 1: mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst
Speaker 1: comes to pass. Ethos is an online platform that makes
Speaker 1: getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect
Speaker 1: your family's future in minutes, not months. There's no complicated
Speaker 1: process and it's one hundred percent online. There's no medical
Speaker 1: exam require you just answer a few health questions online.
Speaker 1: You can get a quote and it's a little ten minutes,
Speaker 1: and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving
Speaker 1: your home. You can get up to three million dollars
Speaker 1: in coverage and some policies start as low as two
Speaker 1: dollars a day that would be billed monthly. As of
Speaker 1: March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number
Speaker 1: one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect
Speaker 1: your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free
Speaker 1: quoted Ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos
Speaker 1: dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary and the
Speaker 1: rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life
Speaker 1: insurance is something you should really think about, especially if
Speaker 1: you've got a growing family. So joining me now is
Speaker 1: who's frankly has got the passion that I'm trying to
Speaker 1: bring to this podcast, and you know which is to
Speaker 1: focus on how do we get out of this current
Speaker 1: mess we're in. We all know we're in a mess.
Speaker 1: We have disagreements about why we're polarized. We have disagreements
Speaker 1: about whether the current situation is sort of a symptom
Speaker 1: of something larger or whether the current actors are the
Speaker 1: problems themselves. I've obviously been focused on the media side
Speaker 1: of things. My guest today is a very familiar name
Speaker 1: to those of you that are political junkies. Jack dan Forth,
Speaker 1: former Republican senator from Missouri, an episcopal priest. And I
Speaker 1: bring that up because, as you know, as many of
Speaker 1: my listeners know, Senator, I've been yearning for what I
Speaker 1: call for a pastor for patriotism. I feel like America
Speaker 1: needs somebody to help us. They're just sort of renew
Speaker 1: civics and renew sort of what we understood America to be.
Speaker 1: That it was an idea, it's not an ethnicity, there's
Speaker 1: not a religious thing. And boy, there's nobody that could
Speaker 1: speak better to this moment. I wish you were thirty
Speaker 1: years younger right now, and let's run you for breadth
Speaker 1: it right, trust me, we all want to be twenty.
Speaker 2: Three other reasons. Yeah, yes, so.
Speaker 1: But your your focus is trying to rehabilitate the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: Walk me through what your focus is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I guess the broad picture is pretty
Speaker 2: much as you present it. I think that a great
Speaker 2: purpose of America has been simply to hold ourselves together
Speaker 2: as one nation, with all of our differences, with all
Speaker 2: of our conflicting opinions, but to hold ourselves together, and
Speaker 2: right now we're coming apart, and to hold ourselves together
Speaker 2: means to me to restore that part of the country
Speaker 2: which is a venue for bringing us together. Part of that,
Speaker 2: I think is restore the role of Congress. Congress was
Speaker 2: created as the place where all these different interests, all
Speaker 2: these opposing points of view came together and worked things out.
Speaker 2: It was a place of compromise. Congress has now been diminished.
Speaker 2: And one of the things that's happened is, and this
Speaker 2: is now an issue before the Supreme Court in that
Speaker 2: tariff case, is the concentration of power, not just in
Speaker 2: a few hands, which is what Madison was concerned about,
Speaker 2: but in one person's hands, the presidency. The power to
Speaker 2: tack the Congress has withered away, so it doesn't really
Speaker 2: amount to much of anything now, much less not being
Speaker 2: a place where different interests work things out. A lot
Speaker 2: of people, a lot of people have said that the
Speaker 2: basic role of now a member of Congress has performative
Speaker 2: that is, self promotion rather than legislating part of it.
Speaker 2: And then the second part of the sort of creating
Speaker 2: the venue is restoring the political center of America. And
Speaker 2: that's what doesn't exist anymore. Really, It's right now, each
Speaker 2: of the two parties has gravitated toward its extremes. And
Speaker 2: so now people go to the polls now and they're
Speaker 2: faced with the choice, and the choices to two alternatives,
Speaker 2: neither of which they want. You know, one would be
Speaker 2: the far left, one would be now the Republican Party,
Speaker 2: the maga right. And so the idea is, Okay, where
Speaker 2: do people come together? Well, most people are in the center,
Speaker 2: So let's restore that center.
Speaker 1: So this is the conundrum I have, which is, let me,
Speaker 1: let me. Let's deal with one of the fun riddles
Speaker 1: that I like to throw out there about American politics today.
Speaker 1: The two major political parties have never been weaker, and
Speaker 1: yet are the pull of the two of the red
Speaker 1: and the blue. Right has never been stronger. Right, The
Speaker 1: parties as institutions are super weak. They have no money,
Speaker 1: no resources, no ability to vet I mean, look, I'm
Speaker 1: old enough to remember when the chairman of the RNC
Speaker 1: tried to shame Donald Trump for attacking John McCain that
Speaker 1: eventual chairman of the rn C would become the chief
Speaker 1: of staff at the first Trump presidency. I say this
Speaker 1: with no disrespect to rights previous. I think he's a
Speaker 1: man with a good heart, and I think I think
Speaker 1: if given the opportunity, would try to do, would try
Speaker 1: to do the right thing here. But is the problem
Speaker 1: our political parties are too weak? Is the problem too
Speaker 1: much money? And the reason I say I'm offering a
Speaker 1: lot of choices here these answers to say, it's all
Speaker 1: a problem, But what's solvable first? What do we need
Speaker 1: to do first? I keep coming back to a third
Speaker 1: party or an independent candidate temporarily because of the impact
Speaker 1: I saw Ross Perrot have on both parties. It sobered
Speaker 1: them both up right. It made the Democrats a little
Speaker 1: more fiscally responsible, made the Republicans a little more sensitive
Speaker 1: to working class folks on the issue of trade. So
Speaker 1: it actually had a moderating effect on both parties. So
Speaker 1: I think about the various reform efforts. Where do we begin?
Speaker 1: Where would you begin?
Speaker 2: Well, actually, I've tried both of both approaches. I am
Speaker 2: a Republican and I've spent so much of my life
Speaker 2: in Republican elected politics, that's my identity. But I did
Speaker 2: in the last senatorial election in Missouri, I did support
Speaker 2: an independent candidate, and he was the independent candidate really
Speaker 2: was is a true ditional Republican, you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: you would just say Okay.
Speaker 1: Wait, by the way, John Bailey and I work together.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, okay, back in the day. Yeah he So
Speaker 2: this guy was just right down the line, bright guy,
Speaker 2: attractive guy, very well educated, and he ended up with
Speaker 2: less than one percent of the vote.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So, I mean the history and the third Party is
Speaker 2: actually winning has been pretty bad. So maybe, I mean,
Speaker 2: maybe that's the one alternative. My approach has been within
Speaker 2: the Republican Party because right now, of course, elections are
Speaker 2: determined in primaries, and that means to energize the extreme base.
Speaker 2: But I think that there are just a ton of
Speaker 2: people out there who are essentially conservative in their outlook,
Speaker 2: traditional Republicans in their in their way of thinking and
Speaker 2: approaching things, and that the idea is to appeal to them.
Speaker 2: So that's my focus has been on trying to restore
Speaker 2: that traditional Republican party. Maybe maybe it's feudal. I don't know,
Speaker 2: I just don't.
Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you this about the party. I
Speaker 1: always comfort myself by reminding people that the the isolationist wing,
Speaker 1: the sort of America First wing, whatever you want to
Speaker 1: describe sort of in MEGA has a lot of resemblance
Speaker 1: to it. Okay, it's not fully that, and in fact,
Speaker 1: I think we're about to see the I think the
Speaker 1: coalition is cracking. I think we're and part of it
Speaker 1: is just the passage of time. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: you've you've been through a lot of these periods where
Speaker 1: there's these cultive personalities that have a grip on the
Speaker 1: nation of the country or a part. But the grip
Speaker 1: basically is a decade, and it is tough to ever
Speaker 1: hold on beyond it. Right, Reagan's grip basically didn't last
Speaker 1: but half of Bush's term. Right, Clinton's grip didn't even
Speaker 1: make it to a third term. Neither did Obama's.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: It just and I think we're seeing that now. It's
Speaker 1: just sort of exhaustion, We burn out. Do you think
Speaker 1: if Trump is disappears, the the Reagan coalition comes back
Speaker 1: and the America First sort of isolationist wing, arguably both
Speaker 1: of Missouri senators or members of that wing, does that
Speaker 1: fade or what do you foresee in the near term.
Speaker 1: You know, you got started in politics during the old
Speaker 1: Taft Eisenhower disputes.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, I'm I'm not quite that old, No.
Speaker 1: But you were, but you were familiar with them. You
Speaker 1: were familiar with them back then.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure, yeah, yeah, you know what here's here is
Speaker 2: and maybe this maybe I'm just Pollyanna, you know, but
Speaker 2: I think that it's not just that. Do people say, okay,
Speaker 2: you know the cost of living and that's going to
Speaker 2: turn people, And yeah, I think that's part of it.
Speaker 2: But I think mainly most people in our country are
Speaker 2: not ugly. They're not nasty, they're not.
Speaker 1: Mean.
Speaker 2: And I think what's happened in politics now, and particularly
Speaker 2: in the Maga world, in the Trump world, is it's ugly.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just terribly mean and angry and aggrieve
Speaker 2: and bitter. And look, I've been out of politics for
Speaker 2: thirty one years now, but I don't believe human nature
Speaker 2: has changed that much in thirty one years. And I
Speaker 2: really knew the people of my state. I thought, really well,
Speaker 2: I mean I for a long time. I spent so
Speaker 2: much time with them, and you know what, they're good people.
Speaker 2: I mean, they're just good, decent people.
Speaker 1: And does it matter if you're in the rural parts
Speaker 1: of Missouri seven or the inner city know, and.
Speaker 2: They're you know, and it was and they had they
Speaker 2: they were funny, I mean, they had good senses of humor.
Speaker 2: They laughed. Where's the laughter now in politics? Where's the
Speaker 2: joy and adult It's all so angry and so bitter
Speaker 2: and so outrageous cruel I would say, there's a cruel
Speaker 2: some of this immigration stuff, you know. I mean when
Speaker 2: they're when they are sending ice agents out to break
Speaker 2: up families. I thought our party was supposed to be
Speaker 2: family values. Well, how about deporting the husband and what's
Speaker 2: going to happen with a wife and children. I know
Speaker 2: of a case like that right in my home state.
Speaker 2: This man is he's going to be deported and he
Speaker 2: won't be able to return for a minimum of twenty years.
Speaker 2: And he's married, and he has two small daughters and
Speaker 2: one of them is a special needs child. Are we
Speaker 2: that kind of country? Are we that kind of country
Speaker 2: that cheers that on, that says, oh, we got to
Speaker 2: keep these immigrants out to the point of shoving them
Speaker 2: out the door when they've got families. So there's a
Speaker 2: cruelty in all of this. I think that if there's
Speaker 2: a way, and I've been thinking about how to do
Speaker 2: this as a matter of fact, if there's a way
Speaker 2: to just ask the American people put the question to it,
Speaker 2: are we really like this Are we really this angry?
Speaker 2: This mean? You know what? This week, there's going to
Speaker 2: be a meeting in Washington. I read about it, and
Speaker 2: it's a meeting about how Christians are being picked on,
Speaker 2: I mean crimea river. Christians are supposed to feel they're victims,
Speaker 2: They're being pushed around. The elites are out to get them,
Speaker 2: governments out to give them please. Are we really is it?
Speaker 2: Is it sustainable to stoke up that kind of grievance,
Speaker 2: feeling of grievance and anger? Is that sustainable? Or is
Speaker 2: there some equilibrium out there where most people really are
Speaker 2: kind and decent and caring and want to live with
Speaker 2: their neighbors, whether their neighbors are progressive or conservative, whatever
Speaker 2: they are them.
Speaker 1: I was counting on that exhaustion, the exhaustion from the anger,
Speaker 1: the exhaustion, and I think we all thought, let me
Speaker 1: put it this way, I shouldn't do the we all.
Speaker 1: I thought the idea of Biden's presidency was supposed to
Speaker 1: be this they I don't want to give me the
Speaker 1: jolly guy, right, You're in the Joe Biden I covered
Speaker 1: for most of the time, and I'm not going to
Speaker 1: count the presidency because, frankly, it was a different Joe
Speaker 1: Biden than the guy I covered his vice president and
Speaker 1: the guy I covered as a senator. And I'm sure
Speaker 1: you probably felt the same way. Yeah, But the one
Speaker 1: thing about Joe Biden is that guy was always joyful.
Speaker 1: That guy was always a better he was a better
Speaker 1: angel guy. So I do think that's what the country
Speaker 1: kind of hoped he was going to offer of a
Speaker 1: of a moment. Frankly, I go back to my phrase
Speaker 1: pastor for patriotism, that maybe he was going to serve
Speaker 1: as a bit of a faith healer, you know. And
Speaker 1: I'm not a very religious person. I know you are,
Speaker 1: but I kind of need we need a We need
Speaker 1: somebody to restore faith in the idea of America. And
Speaker 1: I do think it has to end up coming from
Speaker 1: our If our president can't do it, who can, right?
Speaker 1: And we are we?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: I think I think Obama had that ability in him.
Speaker 1: I think he made a few errors at the end
Speaker 1: and sort of not reading, not understanding what was happening
Speaker 1: inside his own party, and they led them down the
Speaker 1: wrong road there. But so I take your point on this,
Speaker 1: is this something I mean? Do you think I know
Speaker 1: what I think? When you say those, I think, well,
Speaker 1: this is what social media has done. It has made
Speaker 1: us all self centered, it is, it's made us all
Speaker 1: more it is, we're all I always joke because I'm
Speaker 1: obsessed to try to fix local news. So I'll always say, well,
Speaker 1: the one thing I've learned with this phone and I'm
Speaker 1: holding it up, is we're all a little bit narcissistic,
Speaker 1: and we all think whatever's happening right around us. We
Speaker 1: had to talk about, Hey, that's local news. Maybe people
Speaker 1: want more local news, right, let's let's get more micro.
Speaker 1: But it does feel as if our politics changed when
Speaker 1: the iPhone became the primary source of communication for political information.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think that's right. And there's been
Speaker 2: a lot of commentary about that. It's a great book
Speaker 2: called The Anxious Generation. I'm just that about the effect
Speaker 2: that the iPhone is having, especially on on younger people,
Speaker 2: and I think that all that's true, And I don't know,
Speaker 2: I don't know that there's any antidote to that, but
Speaker 2: I do think that there has to be a sustained
Speaker 2: effort to focus public attention on the question of who
Speaker 2: are we and are we really angry and mean and
Speaker 2: cruel as people? Or are we not? And I think
Speaker 2: that that that effort will call for a lot of us,
Speaker 2: and it will call for the media, We'll call for
Speaker 2: anybody who's got.
Speaker 1: Well, what do you do if the sitting president of
Speaker 1: the United States does not agree with that assise?
Speaker 2: Oh no, he doesn't know. He's the opposite. He is
Speaker 2: the opposite. He's the That's what he is. And that's why.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's one of the reasons I think he's
Speaker 2: caused more damage to our country than any other person
Speaker 2: in our history. But so now what it was, and
Speaker 2: I think it's got to be more than just top end.
Speaker 2: I think it's got to be bottomed up. I think
Speaker 2: it's got to be the American people being faced through
Speaker 2: that question of who we are and is this really right?
Speaker 2: And does Donald Trump and what he stands for really
Speaker 2: represent us and what we stand for who we are?
Speaker 2: And so how to sustain that well, I can think
Speaker 2: of how to do it in bits and pieces.
Speaker 1: In This episode of The Chuck Podcast is brought to
Speaker 1: you by Wildgrain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
Speaker 1: Frozen subscription box for our teasonal breads, seasonal pastries, and
Speaker 1: fresh pastas, plus all items conveniently bake in twenty five
Speaker 1: minutes or less. Unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain
Speaker 1: uses simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation
Speaker 1: process that can be easier on your belly and richer
Speaker 1: in nutrients and antioxidants. Wildgrain's boxes are fully customizable. They're
Speaker 1: constantly adding seasonal and limited time products for you to enjoy.
Speaker 1: In addition to their classic box, they now feature a
Speaker 1: gluten free box and a plant based box. I checked
Speaker 1: out the gluten free box and let me tell you,
Speaker 1: they have a gluten free sourdough bread.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 1: We got two loads of it and we've done one
Speaker 1: loaf already. It's a cranberry and almond sourdough bread. It's
Speaker 1: like the best raisin bread you've ever had, except it's
Speaker 1: not raisin. It's great. You're gonna love this. You know
Speaker 1: it's hit or miss if you mess around in the
Speaker 1: gluten free bread world. This is a hit. Seriously. I
Speaker 1: was impressed, So look for a limited time. Wildgrain is
Speaker 1: offering our listeners thirty dollars off your first box, plus
Speaker 1: free croissants in every box when you go to wildgrain
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast to start your subscription. Follow these instructions.
Speaker 1: Free croissants in every box thirty dollars off your first
Speaker 1: box when you go to wildgrain dot com slash toodcast
Speaker 1: that's wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or simply use the
Speaker 1: promo code toodcast at check out. Always use the code
Speaker 1: get the discount. I'm telling you it's excellent, excellent. Brett, Well,
Speaker 1: let me give you a suggestion because, and I know
Speaker 1: I'm curious how much conversations you've had. There are two
Speaker 1: senators that always jump out to me as two senators
Speaker 1: that I would like to lead, to see lead a
Speaker 1: conversation like the one you've described. And they're the actual
Speaker 1: They're the two senators who are also happened to be pastors,
Speaker 1: James Langford out of Oklahoma and Raphael Warnock go to Georgia. Langford,
Speaker 1: to me, is the closest thing to you that exists
Speaker 1: in this current Senate. I say that not just because
Speaker 1: of his past being an ordained pastor, but more his
Speaker 1: in who he is, who is his temperatip. I think
Speaker 1: I got to think you know Langford a little bit.
Speaker 1: He is I think a top notch human being. I
Speaker 1: think if it were politically safer, he would be speaking
Speaker 1: out more. But I go back and forth of whether
Speaker 1: I how much grace I give certain senators. I'll give
Speaker 1: him more grace than others because I feel like I
Speaker 1: know who he is. Should what role could those two play?
Speaker 1: I feel like if they chose to play a role here,
Speaker 1: they could play a powerful role. But Langford would have
Speaker 1: to criticize his own party, and I don't know if
Speaker 1: he's ready to do that.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't, yeah, But I don't think you need
Speaker 2: to start out criticizing your own party. I think you
Speaker 2: end up. You start out as we have with our
Speaker 2: organization called our Republican Legacy, putting forth certain points of
Speaker 2: view or principles that are positive, that stand on their
Speaker 2: own and if you put, if you put to the
Speaker 2: American but who are we? How do you want to
Speaker 2: treat your neighbors? You know? Do you? How do you
Speaker 2: want to do that? I think there would be a response.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's necessary. It would be wonderful it
Speaker 2: would come for the present and wonderful of more political leaders.
Speaker 2: Anybody with the soapbox, though, can do it. I think
Speaker 2: that there's a real role for religious congregations to do
Speaker 2: this bringing people together who are different, who have different opinions,
Speaker 2: breaking bread together, you know, invite a Republican to lunch?
Speaker 2: How about that? Right? I mean any other way around? Right?
Speaker 2: No anything, And they're you know, so, I mean there
Speaker 2: could be a real effort. It could be led by
Speaker 2: religious congregations, and it should be because the root of
Speaker 2: the word religion is the same as for ligament, holding
Speaker 2: things together. So how do we do that? Are there
Speaker 2: tactics for doing it? Invite a Republican to lunch? How
Speaker 2: about if somebody that you know who has got the
Speaker 2: opposite political view has hit something awful, happened by way
Speaker 2: of health or family laws, call them up. Call that
Speaker 2: person up and say I care about you. And Saint
Speaker 2: Paul said, rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those
Speaker 2: who weep. And I think that that is what it takes.
Speaker 2: I think it's I think essentially it's a question of
Speaker 2: what we're really right and we're not like this. I
Speaker 2: know that, I absolutely know that we as a people
Speaker 2: are not like Donald Trump. I know that.
Speaker 1: So obviously you hope this is repairable from the inside out,
Speaker 1: But when you look at the grip he has on
Speaker 1: the party, like I said, I think it's a coalition
Speaker 1: that's in the midst of fract because it doesn't have
Speaker 1: an ideological glue. Right, He's supposedly for non interventions, and
Speaker 1: yet we're about to go on an escapade in Venezuela
Speaker 1: where he's getting involved in the Honduran presidential election. He's
Speaker 1: inserted it. You know, it's as whatever you think of
Speaker 1: Marjorie Taylor Green, I think I take her at her
Speaker 1: word that she looks at this and said, hey, I
Speaker 1: actually voted for ideology here. And I think Trump's got
Speaker 1: a problem. I think there's some true believers in his
Speaker 1: movement that are like, wait a minute, we didn't vote
Speaker 1: for this. We didn't vote for Ukraine, or Israel or Venezuela.
Speaker 1: And we know that Trump's a transactionalist. He jumped in
Speaker 1: front of that parade because he saw it as the
Speaker 1: fastest way to get the nomination. And now he's like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I can get paid helping out the Hondurans here, and
Speaker 1: you know, I'll dabble in this over there, and the
Speaker 1: Middle East Royalty loves me and so and it's actually
Speaker 1: counter to what he promised his constituents.
Speaker 2: But it hasn't broken our position, our position in our
Speaker 2: Republican legacy, which is our effort to keep the ember
Speaker 2: of traditional conservatism burning. Our position is that none of
Speaker 2: this is conservative. None of it. It's not. I mean,
Speaker 2: we used to think of ourselves we're the conservative party. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's say, let's ask the Republicans that question, do you
Speaker 2: view yourself as conservative or not? But please don't let
Speaker 2: the conservative label be appropriated by the MAGA people, because
Speaker 2: they are not. Jack.
Speaker 1: I think the words lost its meaning to most. If
Speaker 1: you ask my son, who's eight in college studying, he
Speaker 1: thinks whatever Trump supporter is a conservative And I'm like, well,
Speaker 1: that's it's an ideological label that doesn't fit what the
Speaker 1: definition used to be. And I was trying to walk
Speaker 1: them through this, and you know, right now, it's just
Speaker 1: a label that's a fixed on anything Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know that's true, But I mean we've got
Speaker 2: to reclaim it. And that's what our group of ours,
Speaker 2: our Republican legacy, is attempting to do. I mean pointing
Speaker 2: out there's nothing conservative about blowing out up the National
Speaker 2: death that's not conservative. There's nothing conservative about deep Washington
Speaker 2: involvement in the economy, which was high protective caress Ronald
Speaker 2: Reagan rolling over in his grave?
Speaker 1: Can you believe how many pieces of companies the US
Speaker 1: government now has.
Speaker 2: An owning company? That is what's conservative about government owning companies?
Speaker 2: What's conservative about government? The Washington and the President trying
Speaker 2: to tell universities what they should teach, or law firms
Speaker 2: about whom they should represent, or late night comedians about
Speaker 2: who they should not. What's conservative about that? That's not conservative?
Speaker 2: What's conservative about cottoning up to Vladimir Putin? How does
Speaker 2: that square with the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower and
Speaker 2: Ronald Reagan? It does not. So it's not that this
Speaker 2: is just a different part of conservatism. It's it's the
Speaker 2: opposite of what our party was, has been, and what
Speaker 2: I think if faced with it. But that's why I
Speaker 2: think it's important to field candidates and hopefully in the
Speaker 2: presidential election. Also maybe the person would lose, so he loses,
Speaker 2: she loses, whatever, but at least present it to Republican voters.
Speaker 2: How do you feel about huge deficits that are growing?
Speaker 2: You feel about the Trump administration in its first term
Speaker 2: that increased the national debt in four years by more
Speaker 2: than almost forty percent, and that's going to increase it
Speaker 2: by another three trillion over the next decade. How do
Speaker 2: you feel about that? Do you think government should own businesses?
Speaker 2: Do you favor high protective tariffs? Do you feel favor
Speaker 2: pulling the plug on Ukraine? Put those questions to Republican voters.
Speaker 2: Do you talk about fracturing of the Republican Party. I
Speaker 2: don't think it would be fracturing over little stuff. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is fundamental stuff that is defined the Republican Party
Speaker 2: historically as the conservative party, which it isn't anymore.
Speaker 1: Look, one of Missouri's US Senators, Josh Holly, I think
Speaker 1: is smarter about understanding that the voter, the voter that
Speaker 1: elects Republicans now, doesn't necessarily agree with that definition of
Speaker 1: doesn't rejected that version of the Republican Party and prefers
Speaker 1: one that is I always say, this is not a
Speaker 1: small government Republican party. This is a strong government.
Speaker 2: Republican You bet. It's really remarkable as a matter of
Speaker 2: fact that I remember when I was a kid, somebody
Speaker 2: said this to me. There they're really it is like
Speaker 2: a convergence in a circle of the extreme right of
Speaker 2: the extreme life right.
Speaker 1: Eventually they touched.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's it's that, that's right. But here's the thing.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're trying to do this in our group,
Speaker 2: our Republican legacy, we're trying to do this. We're trying
Speaker 2: to to plant the flag for a principle. But not
Speaker 2: enough people are doing it. Not enough people are really
Speaker 2: putting the issue. So that's what I think we should
Speaker 2: do it. Maybe maybe Hally's right. We are the party
Speaker 2: of big government and writing two thousand dollars checks to
Speaker 2: people and all of that. Maybe we've become a maybe
Speaker 2: that's the way to be popular. A lot of people
Speaker 2: historically in politics think this is the way to become popular,
Speaker 2: way to win elections is to give it away.
Speaker 1: Checking in every pot.
Speaker 2: Right, remember that that's right. That comfrequent Hubert Humphrey used
Speaker 2: to call it the politics of joy, just give it away.
Speaker 2: Government intervenes and everything government should be big. Government isn't
Speaker 2: big enough now. Government doesn't spend enough now, It isn't
Speaker 2: powerful enough now, and it doesn't abuse your enemies the
Speaker 2: way it should and it should do more of that.
Speaker 2: So that yeah, So that's that, that has been I
Speaker 2: guess the formula that they're relying on. But what if
Speaker 2: you put the opposite to people. I mean, what if
Speaker 2: somebody were to run for president, not caring whether this
Speaker 2: person necessarily had to win for his or her ego,
Speaker 2: but just put the question to people, who are we
Speaker 2: as a people and what are we as a party?
Speaker 2: What do we stand for? Do we stand for anything anymore? Anything?
Speaker 1: So should we have more? I mean, do you think
Speaker 1: you know this is?
Speaker 2: This is?
Speaker 1: Well, let me start with this. I'm obsessed with having
Speaker 1: a constitutional convention. I think we need one, and I
Speaker 1: think if you look at every period, every period in
Speaker 1: our history where we've been at the brink, okay, where
Speaker 1: we we hit a low Civil War being the lowest
Speaker 1: we've we've actually that's always the moment we've actually amended
Speaker 1: our Constitution. We created more equal protect Essentially, the equal
Speaker 1: protection clause comes in after the Civil War.
Speaker 2: We have mead the Constitution. We didn't have any convention
Speaker 2: to do it.
Speaker 1: No, that's true, but I don't trust this Congress actually
Speaker 1: allow that to happen. But let's say, but either way,
Speaker 1: we can do it in any which way. After the
Speaker 1: debacle of the early twentieth century, when arguably the worst
Speaker 1: scandal we ever had, teapot Dome. Well, we get the
Speaker 1: direct election of senators, and then we get the amendment
Speaker 1: to allow the income tax, which actually creates the property
Speaker 1: tax structure that funds local governments to this day. And
Speaker 1: of course we gave women the right to vote. So
Speaker 1: I just think that we will have an opportunity in
Speaker 1: the next ten to fifteen years to do some reforms,
Speaker 1: because I do think there's enough shell shocked Americans like
Speaker 1: WHOA the last ten years, right, whether it's amending the
Speaker 1: constitution to take away the power of the part to
Speaker 1: an individual. I mean, this is the abuse of the
Speaker 1: pardon processes is clearly I think turned out to be
Speaker 1: a problem. Maybe we do term limits, maybe we do this.
Speaker 1: What do you do? You think we need a moment
Speaker 1: here where? And if the reason, I like a constitutional
Speaker 1: convention because I want to bring liberals and conservatives. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about the balanced budget amendment, Let's talk about term limits,
Speaker 1: let's talk about the pardon power, let's talk about age limits. Right,
Speaker 1: all of that would have to be constitutional amendments, but
Speaker 1: the process itself could be restorative for civics.
Speaker 2: Terrible idea.
Speaker 1: Oh, you don't want it. You think it's okay, tell
Speaker 1: me why?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: No, okay?
Speaker 2: Because I think that our constitution is a work of genius.
Speaker 2: I do too, and I think that our guiding principle
Speaker 2: is a principle of genius. And the principle is it's
Speaker 2: the famous what five words and the declaration of independence.
Speaker 2: All men are created equal. Did we depart from that
Speaker 2: right from the beginning. Yeah, But is that our basic standard? Yes?
Speaker 2: And we believed that we are capable, we the people,
Speaker 2: are capable of governing ourselves. We don't have to be
Speaker 2: governed by the powers that be. We take responsibility for
Speaker 2: governing ourselves. And that was Jefferson's principle, and that was
Speaker 2: what the Constitution was designed to do. No more big
Speaker 2: deal king, no more big deal aristocracy, no more big
Speaker 2: concentrated power in one person's hands or a few people.
Speaker 2: We do this. That is our republican form of government.
Speaker 2: That is what we are responsible for. And I think
Speaker 2: we just have to insist on that. And that's it's
Speaker 2: not a new principle, it's our principle.
Speaker 1: It's the I don't think we disagree here. I think
Speaker 1: we may disagree in the vehicle to amend the Constitution.
Speaker 1: But I do think we need to freshen it up.
Speaker 1: We need to add some amendments, do you.
Speaker 2: Know, Well maybe yeah, amendments, But that's not counc usual convention.
Speaker 2: What I mean the first Constitution.
Speaker 1: I'm not interested in rewriting. I see what you're saying.
Speaker 1: I'm not interested in rewriting it. That's what you're Okay,
Speaker 1: the first Constitutional Convention was presided over by George Washington.
Speaker 1: What if then another countutional convention was provided side by
Speaker 1: Donald Trump?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't.
Speaker 1: I've heard that. I get that. I don't want to
Speaker 1: fear the voter. Sometimes I do think we make certain
Speaker 1: decisions like we fear, we fear the voter.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: The electoral College arguably was a creation because ultimately they
Speaker 1: feared the voters and they were like, we better have
Speaker 1: one more check on the voters. And you know, look
Speaker 1: at jerrymandering. Right, I would argue they fear the voter
Speaker 1: and we need to we need to get rid of
Speaker 1: that principle of fearing the voter and instead realizing, no,
Speaker 1: the voter is in charge.
Speaker 2: Okay, should please do it by months?
Speaker 1: And now, well I what I So that's what I
Speaker 1: I But what I could see us having is gathering
Speaker 1: for to debate these amendments, and I think that we
Speaker 1: should have a form for it. And I think it's
Speaker 1: pretty clear we've got some problems, whether it's money in politics.
Speaker 1: The courts are going to rule one way. So if
Speaker 1: you want to have any limitation, you're going to have
Speaker 1: to create a constitutional amendment jerry mandering, you know. I
Speaker 1: think I happen to think the House is too small.
Speaker 1: I actually think we don't have enough representatives in Washington
Speaker 1: given the size of our population. I know, more politicians
Speaker 1: doesn't sound like a reform to many people. But that's
Speaker 1: if you if I, if I go back, I look
Speaker 1: at it as founder's intent and the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: is no longer the people's house, and that's a problem.
Speaker 1: And how do you bring that mindset back to it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I think the point is is that it
Speaker 1: does feel as if we need, you know, like any house,
Speaker 1: it needs updating, and the American House needs some updating.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, no, I understand what you're saying, and
Speaker 2: I think they're you know, discrete areas which would be
Speaker 2: worth addressing. I mean, my own view is in the
Speaker 2: same of the money in politics. I don't think that
Speaker 2: money is the same as speech, which is basically with
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court decided. I think that there's a right
Speaker 2: to speak, of course, into assembly. There's not a right
Speaker 2: to bring a bull horned into a political meeting. And
Speaker 2: that's essentially what we have now. So now I understand
Speaker 2: that I haven't thought about a constitutional amendment on the
Speaker 2: germandering or increasing the sides of the House. I just
Speaker 2: don't have any.
Speaker 1: And I get that those are my hobby horses.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I mean, maybe they're good ideas, maybe they're not,
Speaker 2: but I don't I'm not for scrapping what we have.
Speaker 2: I'm for restoring what we have. I think that the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court's decision in this tariff case is really going
Speaker 2: to be important.
Speaker 1: How badly. Let me say, let's say this, what if
Speaker 1: they uphold the president's authority? What does that do to
Speaker 1: the checks and balances.
Speaker 2: Of our It removes them, Yeah, it really removes them.
Speaker 2: But it basically says that the president has absolute power
Speaker 2: to do anything. He can do anything he wants if
Speaker 2: he wants. He could paint the White House orange, and
Speaker 2: by the way, he might decide to do that, you know, Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's I mean, if Congress doesn't retain the power to
Speaker 2: tax right, which is you know, an express power an
Speaker 2: article one of the Constitutions, the power to attacks that
Speaker 2: that can be given away.
Speaker 1: There's a reason results matter more than promises, just like
Speaker 1: there's a reason Morgan and Morgan is America's largest injury
Speaker 1: law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered
Speaker 1: twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients.
Speaker 1: It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing,
Speaker 1: just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.
Speaker 1: Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact,
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded twenty six million dollars,
Speaker 1: which was a staggering forty times the amount that the
Speaker 1: insurance company originally offered. That original offer six hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. So with more than one thousand lawyers across
Speaker 1: the country, they know how to deliver for everyday people.
Speaker 1: If you're injured, you need a lawyer, you need somebody
Speaker 1: to get your back. Check out for the people dot
Speaker 1: Com slash podcast or Dow Pound law Pound five two
Speaker 1: nine law on your cell phone. And remember all law
Speaker 1: firms are not the same. So check out Morgan and Morgan.
Speaker 1: Their fee is free unless they win. Why do you
Speaker 1: think it's been so hard to get Congress to flexits?
Speaker 1: I mean, I've had a theory that Congress doesn't want
Speaker 1: the responsibility that the laws that they pass that could
Speaker 1: come with it, so they intentionally allow the ambiguity in
Speaker 1: the laws they pass, especially if they think the first
Speaker 1: administration that will execute those laws is one that they
Speaker 1: agree with. And that's how the ambiguity gets into the
Speaker 1: lawmaking process in the first place, and then puts us
Speaker 1: where essentially an administrative state interprets the law, and then
Speaker 1: we end up in the courts, and then we have
Speaker 1: this sort of over time it is essentially accumulated to
Speaker 1: the executive's advantage.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think even back in ancient history,
Speaker 2: namely when I was around, the way to bridge what
Speaker 2: seemed to be a reconcilable differences in the writing of
Speaker 2: legislation is to bridge it with fuzz. So ambiguity is
Speaker 2: sort of the default in how to finally pass legislation.
Speaker 2: So I think there's that, but I think now it's
Speaker 2: more than that. I think that Congress, now it really
Speaker 2: would be an interesting question to put two members in Congress.
Speaker 2: What are you doing? Well? What is it? Please? What
Speaker 2: is your job?
Speaker 1: Tell me?
Speaker 2: Tell me what you've done other than say get on
Speaker 2: Fox News or put something on social media? What what?
Speaker 2: What have you done other than take many many vacations?
Speaker 2: I mean the vacation done. I mean now Thanksgiving, Christmas
Speaker 2: is coming, then we've got the first of the year,
Speaker 2: and then we've got whatever comes after that. But I
Speaker 2: mean they just they go on vacation all the time. Well,
Speaker 2: I was joking.
Speaker 1: A three day weekend, a three day weekend for the
Speaker 1: rest of us is always a two week.
Speaker 2: Recess, unbelievable. And the work so called work week is
Speaker 2: three days. Yeah, And it's what are they they're drawing
Speaker 2: paychecks for what? I mean what they're not legislating because
Speaker 2: legislating is controversial, So to avoid controversy, and legislating is
Speaker 2: producing something other than what Donald Trump wants you to produce,
Speaker 2: So don't do it.
Speaker 1: Well, take take health Care's where's the legislators trying to
Speaker 1: come up with a plan to deal with the expiring
Speaker 1: healthcare subsidies. Where's there a health and if your publican
Speaker 1: party is an alternative plan, show me the process.
Speaker 2: What are you doing about the pending and solvency of
Speaker 2: the Social Security Trust Fund? When it comes, which is
Speaker 2: scheduled to become in eight years, social security benefits will
Speaker 2: drop by sixty six hundred dollars.
Speaker 1: And Senator, I'm a well aware being a member of
Speaker 1: Gen X and not a baby boomer, that I'm going
Speaker 1: to be the first generation Okay, because that eight years
Speaker 1: it's about I'm getting close to when I'm going to
Speaker 1: be eligible and my generation is going to be the
Speaker 1: one that gets the first haircut and we didn't make
Speaker 1: the mess.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the nice thing about being my age is
Speaker 2: it's your problem. So no, that's right, But I mean
Speaker 2: you think about so what do you like take major
Speaker 2: pending issues okay, the national debt and then related issues
Speaker 2: the pending and solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund,
Speaker 2: which will result in major reduction of benefits, and then
Speaker 2: the pending and solvency in the same year. I think
Speaker 2: it's twenty thirty three of the Health Insurance Trust Fund
Speaker 2: in medicare you think we're all hospitals have suffered because
Speaker 2: of Medicaid cuts. Wait till the Medicare cuts come. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, these are are huge problems that are going
Speaker 2: to affect people. And is Congress doing anything about this?
Speaker 2: The answer is nothing, punt. You know what they'll end
Speaker 2: up doing. They will end up appointing a condition. Now,
Speaker 2: I was Bob carry from Nebraska and I were the
Speaker 2: co chairs of something called the Carrie Danforth Commission in
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety four to deal with these problems?
Speaker 1: Was this a successor to the old wasn't there a
Speaker 1: Moni Han Commission before that? Wasn't this yours was a
Speaker 1: successor to what moynihan was a part of, right during Reagan?
Speaker 1: But there was wondering Reaganimpson bowls. I remember Simpson balls
Speaker 1: after that?
Speaker 2: So and what happened to those?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: So, Tanaschel, So we have now we we have a
Speaker 2: we have it's been created. The name of it is Congress.
Speaker 2: It's not named carried in for their Simpson bulls. It's
Speaker 2: called Congress. So here's my idea. What would happen if
Speaker 2: Congress would cancel just one of its vacation times, just one,
Speaker 2: it could keep the other eight or nine or whatever
Speaker 2: of them. Yeah, cancel one and just deal with these problems.
Speaker 1: Just legislate, show us and by the way, let us watch, yes,
Speaker 1: let's watch the process. I remember one of my favorite
Speaker 1: moments was when Obama hosted Republican senators and they debated
Speaker 1: Obamacare in front of the American people, and everybody learned
Speaker 1: something about that process. You didn't have to agree with
Speaker 1: the idea or not, but it was so healthy to
Speaker 1: see Lamar Alexander and Barack Obama going back and forth
Speaker 1: about it. You're like, Okay, this is kind of what
Speaker 1: our founders hoped would happen.
Speaker 2: Or or the alternative and the alternative. Why not just
Speaker 2: have a little back room politics among real politicians and decide, okay,
Speaker 2: we'll come out of this with something.
Speaker 1: Right, as you the way it worked. When people want
Speaker 1: something to pass, you find reasons to support legislation. When
Speaker 1: you wanted not to pass, you can find reasons not
Speaker 1: to support.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I'm sure every vote you cast in the affirmative you
Speaker 1: could have made the case to go against your go
Speaker 1: against that vote if that's what you wanted.
Speaker 2: To do, right, Yeah, I guess I don't know.
Speaker 1: The point is, everything's a compromise everything. How often did
Speaker 1: you vote for a perfect bill?
Speaker 2: Okay, No, that is exactly right. And that's how it
Speaker 2: was designed. I mean that is how the frame that
Speaker 2: the Constitution designed it. They designed it, They designed the
Speaker 2: legislative process. It's a place of.
Speaker 1: Compromise, and it was supposed to be incrementalism.
Speaker 2: They designed it as they designed it as sausage making. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and I happen to think sausage making is a good
Speaker 2: thing to do.
Speaker 1: Yes, And you don't want to worry.
Speaker 2: And hopefully it's going to be relatively good sausage. But
Speaker 2: it's not going to be it's not going to be,
Speaker 2: you know, a prim rib. It's going to be sausage.
Speaker 1: Let me get you out of here. On two questions
Speaker 1: that always befuddle the Senate these days. One is judicial
Speaker 1: nominations and the other is the filibuster. Yeah, I'm a
Speaker 1: I've obsessively read Federalist seventy eight, which is Hamilton's defense
Speaker 1: of the of the judiciary, and most importantly, of what
Speaker 1: he thinks will make a good judiciary. He's essentially outlining
Speaker 1: heap he comes. He comes out against the election of judges.
Speaker 1: He says, you can't have these as elections. So why
Speaker 1: state some states do this is beyond me, but I'm
Speaker 1: going to set that aside. But the goal was as
Speaker 1: neutral of arbiters as you can get, and now they don't.
Speaker 1: He doesn't say how it should be done right. He
Speaker 1: doesn't expressly say it should be two thirds of the Senate,
Speaker 1: three quarters of the Senate, whatever. He just says the
Speaker 1: goal should be that we're a long way away from
Speaker 1: that goal. I would argue that, unfortunately, these black robes
Speaker 1: are red and blue. Right. I'm not saying every liberal
Speaker 1: justice it only thinks about being a liberal before being
Speaker 1: a justice, and vice versa. But that's what the public sees,
Speaker 1: and it feels as if the judiciary is just another
Speaker 1: political game. How would you? And look, I can make
Speaker 1: the case that Harry Reid did this, or Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: I think they collectively broke this. Personally, I think everybody's
Speaker 1: got dirty hands here. But what would you what would
Speaker 1: be a better way to create our judiciary. I don't
Speaker 1: like fifty votes. I don't. I think it's made the
Speaker 1: judiciary more partisan than it needs to be. But I
Speaker 1: also respect the fact that the founders, when they wanted
Speaker 1: two thirds or three quarters. They actually said two thirds
Speaker 1: or three quarters if they wanted super majority, they wrote
Speaker 1: it in there, and this one they were trusting us
Speaker 1: not to worry about a supermajority. I kind of think
Speaker 1: it turns out we're wrong, But but what say you?
Speaker 2: So? I think that we publicly have thought of the
Speaker 2: judiciary is yet another policy making branch of government, and
Speaker 2: I think that that's that goes back away. I thought that,
Speaker 2: you know, when I was around, like Supreme Court nomination,
Speaker 2: it was all about, Okay, what's going to be the
Speaker 2: policy result of this judge, particularly on the issue of
Speaker 2: abortion is there? Are they going to stick with roversus way?
Speaker 2: Are they an row versus way? It was viewed as
Speaker 2: a policy making branch of government. It was not created
Speaker 2: to be that. It was crazy an arbiter right. It
Speaker 2: was yes, And the meaning of judicial conservatism as opposed
Speaker 2: to political conservatism is judicial restraint. It's judges saying, wait
Speaker 2: a second, if we're going to get into deciding a case,
Speaker 2: it has to be based on the clear understanding of
Speaker 2: the meaning of the Constitution and not broadening the constitution
Speaker 2: to the point where I've got a freehand to come
Speaker 2: out with policy results. That's what's happened. I'm not sure
Speaker 2: now they've got rid of the pillarbous fear for judges.
Speaker 2: I know that. You know, I was very much supportive
Speaker 2: of Clarence Thomas in his nomination. There's no way he
Speaker 2: could have been. I think we ended up with fifty
Speaker 2: one votes.
Speaker 1: In a Democratic Senate. I mean, I always have to
Speaker 1: remind people Clarence Thomas got confirmed by a Democratic Senate.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that nomination even gets accepted today
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 2: It was you know, he used to work for me. Yes,
Speaker 2: that was my involvement. He I gave him this first
Speaker 2: job out of law school, and he worked for me,
Speaker 2: and when I was state Attorney general, and he worked
Speaker 2: for me when I was a senator, and I just
Speaker 2: saw the suffering of the human being at that time.
Speaker 2: I can say that that process was you want a
Speaker 2: good weight loss program? Yeah? That did it? That Thamas? Yeah?
Speaker 1: So yeah, do you did that process scar him? Do
Speaker 1: you think it changed his views?
Speaker 2: No? I you know, amazingly, No, I don't. I think
Speaker 2: he is. I think the sort of the presentation of
Speaker 2: him was sort of this scowling he's the opposite he is.
Speaker 1: I've heard this from people who know him, his friends,
Speaker 1: that he's a jolly guy.
Speaker 2: He's really a good guy, the jokester guy. From people
Speaker 2: who have clerked, from other Supreme Court justices, that Clarence
Speaker 2: is the most popular justice among all the clerks in
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court building. He's he's just a good guy,
Speaker 2: and he's a very caring person. That's what he is.
Speaker 2: That's what was so brutal about that whole yeah episode,
Speaker 2: restoring the filibuster for justices. I don't know anybody he
Speaker 2: confirmed anymore.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, and I don't know. But instead of restoring
Speaker 1: the number with it, here's what I had a friend
Speaker 1: at the Bush who was part of Bush's Bush forty
Speaker 1: three's White House Council's office and said, you know, when
Speaker 1: he was making nominations, when they were finding nominees, betting
Speaker 1: nominees for the for the federal and circuit level, you know,
Speaker 1: he said, when you know you have to get sixty votes,
Speaker 1: you find a certain type of person. When you know
Speaker 1: you only need fifty votes, you can go with a
Speaker 1: different type of person. So it has changed, whatever we think.
Speaker 1: It has changed the makeup, right, we have more more
Speaker 1: ideological legal thinkers now, maybe that's healthy over time, but
Speaker 1: that can be damaging.
Speaker 2: In the Yeah, because in different moments understand that. I
Speaker 2: think that's right. I think, you know, necessity maybe the
Speaker 2: mother of invention here is, how are we going to
Speaker 2: confirm anybody? No, there are people, there are people in
Speaker 2: the Senate now who simply vote against nominees for the
Speaker 2: other party. They just automatic quotes against them. Right. You know,
Speaker 2: I counted up the number of times when I was
Speaker 2: in the Senate that I voted against any nominee for anything,
Speaker 2: and this would be all of uh Carter and the
Speaker 2: first part of Clinton.
Speaker 1: And all of Reagan, so basically years of twelve years
Speaker 1: of another right one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but all of these, including like six years of
Speaker 2: nominees for the person of the other party, only twice
Speaker 2: I ever voted against the nominee. I mean, I just said, okay,
Speaker 2: this is the president's now. These people just automatically, yeah,
Speaker 2: vote against them.
Speaker 1: So let me ask about the filibuster in general. Would
Speaker 1: you I'm going to guess you think it's this process
Speaker 1: is overused, Yes, which is created because what I think
Speaker 1: the real problem with governing these days is the reconciliation process.
Speaker 1: What was created as sort of a as you you
Speaker 1: just use the phrase great necessities. The mother of all invention,
Speaker 1: the reconciliation invention by Bob BYRD was essentially a mother
Speaker 1: of you know, one of those moments where they were like, hey,
Speaker 1: we can't ever get a budget passed if we if
Speaker 1: we try to keep doing this with the with sixty votes.
Speaker 1: And yet you know, I was, I certainly was raised
Speaker 1: a part of the generation. I'm going to guess you
Speaker 1: were too, of the mister Smith myth. And I say
Speaker 1: that it's a myth, but there is this idea that hey,
Speaker 1: one person can make a difference, one person can stand up.
Speaker 1: So what should the rilibuster rule be if in your
Speaker 1: in your vision of it, regardless of what it is, now,
Speaker 1: what would well, how.
Speaker 2: Would you like to see it. I do think it's
Speaker 2: I do think it's overused. I mean, now it's commonly
Speaker 2: said that it takes sixty votes to pass anything. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but I do think it's overused. I think we never
Speaker 2: thought that way. But I do think that it's important
Speaker 2: to retain the filibuster. I do believe that because otherwise
Speaker 2: that you just have these wild gyrations. Right, who's in
Speaker 2: the majority at a given time, and the filibuster at
Speaker 2: least forces some degree of bipartisanship that otherwise wouldn't exist
Speaker 2: at all.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, what's the goal in twenty twenty six of
Speaker 1: restore Republican legacy? What would be a good year as
Speaker 1: far as your concern.
Speaker 2: Well, we're so, we're working on it. We're that our
Speaker 2: Republican legacy is really two couple of things that it's doing. One,
Speaker 2: we're messaging. We're trying to articulate in as many forms
Speaker 2: as we can, the basic conservative principles that define the
Speaker 2: Republican Party. We're organizing at the statewide level, We're recruiting
Speaker 2: state chairs, and then increasingly we're going to get in
Speaker 2: the business of trying to influence and support conservative basic Republicans,
Speaker 2: fundamental Republicans, traditional Republicans in elections, both for party positions,
Speaker 2: party organizational positions, and for elections themselves. So I hope
Speaker 2: that we will, you know, have a team on the field,
Speaker 2: and I hope that I hope that there will be
Speaker 2: some candidates. I just heard of one yesterday and Nebraska,
Speaker 2: and mostly I don't know these people themselves, but that's
Speaker 2: what we're looking for. People who are good, responsible conservatives,
Speaker 2: which is not what mega is today.
Speaker 1: And by conservative you mean less government, not more government, right,
Speaker 1: I mean government not involved in business. I mean what
Speaker 1: what what you know any other principles you would add
Speaker 1: into that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, well, I mean, uh, certainly fiscal hawks right.
Speaker 2: Certainly limited role for government and its intervention with the
Speaker 2: private sector and the economy, and universities at law firms
Speaker 2: and all of that. Certainly, respect for the rule of law,
Speaker 2: which means not weaponizing government against political enemies. Certainly, respect
Speaker 2: for the constitutional order, which means not the extreme concentration
Speaker 2: of power in the president. Certainly a national defense second
Speaker 2: to none. And also a foreign policy that supports our
Speaker 2: our friends and our allies that would include Ukraine. All
Speaker 2: of that comprises the Republican Party as it has existed
Speaker 2: for decades and decades and decades. All of that has
Speaker 2: been scrapped, not modified, but I mean thrown in the
Speaker 2: trash heap by Donald Trump, all of it. So we're
Speaker 2: just standing for principle, and we're looking for people who
Speaker 2: will make that stand in elections.
Speaker 1: Well, I hope this conversation provides some hope to some
Speaker 1: of my I would say demoralized conservative friends who just
Speaker 1: look at this and the character doesn't count anymore morals
Speaker 1: and ethics.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: Look, I can tell you this, Senator dan Forth. I
Speaker 1: always tell you as a as a high character person,
Speaker 1: and I thought that was an asset in American politics,
Speaker 1: and the high character people are there doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: be room for them anymore. I hope you're I admire
Speaker 1: that this is what you're trying to leave as a legacy.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Anyway, good luck, enjoy the rest of the holiday season,
Speaker 1: and I'll check back in closer we get to the election.
Speaker 2: Good thanks, Jech.
Speaker 1: Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out
Speaker 1: of Office gives you the social buzz without the next
Speaker 1: day regret. Their best selling out of Office gummies were
Speaker 1: designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood,
Speaker 1: and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you
Speaker 1: can tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a
Speaker 1: gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their newest
Speaker 1: fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC
Speaker 1: beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a
Speaker 1: glass of wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this,
Speaker 1: I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I
Speaker 1: prefer the gummy experience. Soul is a wellness brand that
Speaker 1: believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes
Speaker 1: in delicious hemp derived THHC and CBD products, all designed
Speaker 1: to boost your mood and simply help you unwine. So
Speaker 1: if you struggle to switch off at night, Soul also
Speaker 1: has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply
Speaker 1: help you get a better night's sleep, including their top
Speaker 1: selling sleepy gummies and favorite for deep restorative sleep. So
Speaker 1: bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today.
Speaker 1: Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off
Speaker 1: your entire order, So go to gitsold dot com use
Speaker 1: the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code that's getsold
Speaker 1: dot Com promo code podcast for thirty percent off