Speaker 1: Welcome. Its verdict was Senator Ted Cruz ben Ferguson with you, Senator.
Speaker 1: The House has adjourned until Friday after an eleventh failed
Speaker 1: vote to come up with a speaker. Deals are being made,
Speaker 1: they're saying, or trying to get done behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: and then there's some people that are deciding to call
Speaker 1: people in their own party terrorists. Representative Dan Crnshaw said,
Speaker 1: this get another scalp and another scalp, whether it's whether
Speaker 1: it's Byner or Paul Ryan or then McCarthy. Scalise would
Speaker 1: just be next. And we all know it. We just
Speaker 1: can't allow that to happen. That's why those of us
Speaker 1: are saying, like, look, you push us into this corner.
Speaker 1: So now we're now we're saying we won't vote for
Speaker 1: anyone but McCarthy. That's why we're saying it because we
Speaker 1: cannot let the terrorists win. That's basically what's happening. Since
Speaker 1: you and I talked last time, Senator, I didn't think
Speaker 1: any of this could actually happen. I didn't think we'd
Speaker 1: get to vote eleven. Here we are, we're going into Friday,
Speaker 1: it could be into the weekend. There are people now
Speaker 1: claiming that this is an embarrassment. I'm still not there yet.
Speaker 1: I'd love to know what you think. I think that's
Speaker 1: just part of the great process. Yeah, Look, my view
Speaker 1: is settled down. This will work out and it'll be fine.
Speaker 1: That that kind of overheated rhetoric calling people terrorists is
Speaker 1: not terribly conducive to anything resembling Republican unity. It's it's
Speaker 1: not conducive to having a strong leadership for the next
Speaker 1: two years in the House. Engaging in vitriol and personal attacks. Listen,
Speaker 1: I think a lot of the catterwalling we're hearing is
Speaker 1: from the media, and it's from the Democrats. And to
Speaker 1: be honest, the media and the Democrats are one and
Speaker 1: the same, and they have an agenda. Their agenda is
Speaker 1: to say the Republicans are a failure, the Republicans are terrible,
Speaker 1: the Republicans are disaster. That's what they're going to say,
Speaker 1: no matter what, no matter what is happening, that's going
Speaker 1: to be their talking points. And so all of the
Speaker 1: screaming of the media, I think is is overwrought. This
Speaker 1: is the democratic process, and it is true that we
Speaker 1: haven't had a contested speaker race like this in a
Speaker 1: hundred years, but it's also part of the way the
Speaker 1: process operates. We've had at this point eleven different votes,
Speaker 1: and it's just it's run a couple of days. The
Speaker 1: votes there's been some movement. So for the first round,
Speaker 1: all the Democrats voted together. First round, Hakim Jeffries, who's
Speaker 1: the new Democrat leader, got two hundred and twelve votes.
Speaker 1: It takes two eighteen to be speaker. Hakim Jeffries is
Speaker 1: not going to be speaker. It's going to be a
Speaker 1: Republican speaker. Kevin McCarthy got two hundred and three, and
Speaker 1: there were a collection of people. Ten Republicans voted for
Speaker 1: Andy Biggs from Arizona, six for Jim Jordan, one for
Speaker 1: Jim Banks from Indiana, one for former Representative Lee's Eldon,
Speaker 1: and one for Byron Donald. So there were initially nineteen
Speaker 1: that was the first round. The second round, the numbers
Speaker 1: didn't change, but they shifted who they voted for. In
Speaker 1: the second round again, McCarthy got two oh three, but
Speaker 1: the second round, Jim Jordan got all nineteen of the defectors,
Speaker 1: and so the votes for Bigs, the votes for Banks, Zelden's,
Speaker 1: Byron Donalds, all of them went behind Jim Jordan, he
Speaker 1: got nineteen. How about the third round, Well, the third round,
Speaker 1: McCarthy lost a vote. McCarthy dropped to two o two
Speaker 1: and Jim Jordan got twenty votes. And then the vote
Speaker 1: that shifted was Byron Donalds, who had committed to McCarthy
Speaker 1: that he would vote for him for two rounds but
Speaker 1: not the third. And what he publicly said as he
Speaker 1: shifted his vote because he thought he thought Kevin was
Speaker 1: not going to get to eighteen. I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's right or not. The fourth round it continues, but
Speaker 1: that but then we had, as just a little bit
Speaker 1: more of a complication, we had one more Republican victorious Sparts,
Speaker 1: who voted present. So McCarthy lost a vote, he went
Speaker 1: down from from two o two to two oh one.
Speaker 1: And in the fourth round, also Byron Donalds is who
Speaker 1: the dissenters voted for. So Donald's got twenty. So Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan had gotten twenty votes. Then Byron Donald's got twenty votes,
Speaker 1: and then you had the fifth round. The numbers are
Speaker 1: the same. Sixth round the numbers are the same. Seventh
Speaker 1: round the numbers are the same except for one tweak,
Speaker 1: which is that Matt Gates voted for Donald Trump. Can
Speaker 1: we just pause there for a second to talk about Sure,
Speaker 1: that was a funny moment. And I say this because
Speaker 1: Donald Trump had been tweeting out on his our true
Speaker 1: socially on his platform, I'm supporting Kevin McCarthy. Let's move on,
Speaker 1: let's make him the guy, and then Matt Gates, who
Speaker 1: it was one and the same with Donald Trump hit
Speaker 1: through is basically the entire time I means in the
Speaker 1: White House nominates him and he's saying no, no, like
Speaker 1: that's I don't want this job. Obviously, I'm telling you
Speaker 1: to go Kevin McCarthy. That was one if you just
Speaker 1: want to sit back and pop some popcorn and eat it,
Speaker 1: that was one of those moments for me, like, wait,
Speaker 1: what is happening right now? Well, and to be fair,
Speaker 1: that's the same thing that happened with Jim Jordan. You know,
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan was nominated. The first time Jim Jordan was
Speaker 1: nominated was immediately after he had nominated Kevin McCarthy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so he's likewise said that he doesn't want the job,
Speaker 1: but they're nominating and voting for him anyway. Look, the
Speaker 1: speaker of the House does not have to be a
Speaker 1: member of the House, so theoretically Donald Trump could be
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House. Now that's not gonna happen. Don't
Speaker 1: hold your breath. There was one vote cast for that,
Speaker 1: and that was You're not gonna see two hundred eighteen
Speaker 1: votes cast for Trump as speaker. It's gets going to
Speaker 1: be a House member. What played out in the ninth
Speaker 1: rounds we had Kevin hearn from Oklahoma who got three
Speaker 1: votes initially and then got seven votes, and then on
Speaker 1: the eleventh round got seven votes. And so where we
Speaker 1: are right now is McCarthy is at two hundred, so
Speaker 1: he's eighteen votes short. The last round of balloting, mckeem
Speaker 1: Jeffreys had two twelve. He's had it the whole time,
Speaker 1: so all the Democrats are just voting for him. McCarthy's
Speaker 1: down to two hundred. Byron Donalds got twelve, Kevin Hearne
Speaker 1: from Oklahoma got seven. Former President Trump the last round
Speaker 1: again got one vote and then and then there was
Speaker 1: a present vote. So that's where the votes are now.
Speaker 1: You know, my reaction to all the histrionics is this
Speaker 1: is gonna shake out, and it's gonna shake out. One
Speaker 1: of two ways. One and this may well be the
Speaker 1: most likely outcome, which is they negotiate an agreement. Where
Speaker 1: McCarthy has been making concessions to the dissenters, making concessions
Speaker 1: based on rules, making concessions based on how the House operates,
Speaker 1: making concessions making it easier for members to offer amendments,
Speaker 1: easier for amendment for members to fight for conservative principles.
Speaker 1: It may be that that McCarthy makes enough concessions that
Speaker 1: he gets the votes he needs. He needs to pick
Speaker 1: up eighteen more votes. But if he does that, then
Speaker 1: we could have an agreement. And I will say so
Speaker 1: probably the ringleader of the dissenters has been Chip Roy
Speaker 1: from Texas, who, by the way, if you if you're
Speaker 1: teaching a master class on speaker votes and bringing people
Speaker 1: together or at least making people understand where you're coming from.
Speaker 1: Chip Roy I think has played this perfectly, and I
Speaker 1: mean that sincerely in the fact that he let people
Speaker 1: understand why he was not voting for McCarthy, and he
Speaker 1: also explained very clearly what it would take for him
Speaker 1: to vote for Kevin McCarthy and the rules changes that
Speaker 1: he wanted. I think there are so many Americans that go, Okay,
Speaker 1: this is a guy I understand, I respect him. And
Speaker 1: if you're teaching a masterclass, if there's anything to learn
Speaker 1: from this, don't keep moving the goalposts when you're objecting
Speaker 1: to someone. And if it's as simple as I just
Speaker 1: don't like him, then stick with that, but don't keep
Speaker 1: changing it. I think he has done the best job
Speaker 1: of articulating some of the concerns and the things that
Speaker 1: he wanted to change. I would give him an a
Speaker 1: plus in class. Well, look, there's no doubt Chip has
Speaker 1: been effective, and he's been articulate, and he's been focused
Speaker 1: on substance. I mean part of you know what makes
Speaker 1: us complicated as you've got twenty players and the twenty
Speaker 1: folks who have been the dissenters, many of them are
Speaker 1: operating from for different reasons. Chip at least has not
Speaker 1: focused his opposition on a personal animosity to Kevin McCarthy.
Speaker 1: He hasn't been focused on demonizing or attacking him personally. Rather,
Speaker 1: he's been focused on the rules. He's been focused on
Speaker 1: the procedures. He's been focused on how the house operates.
Speaker 1: One very significant concession that that McCarthy made on Wednesday
Speaker 1: night is that Kevin made a public commitment that going
Speaker 1: forward he would not engage in Republican primaries. There were
Speaker 1: a number of primaries this past cycle where Kevin McCarthy's
Speaker 1: pack supported the much more moderate Republican An attacked the
Speaker 1: more conservative Republican even in bright red seats where whoever
Speaker 1: wins was going to be the nominee, and quite a
Speaker 1: few of the House Conservatives were unhappy that Kevin was
Speaker 1: raising significant amounts of money and spending it that money
Speaker 1: against conservatives and primaries. Well, McCarthy made a public commitment,
Speaker 1: and interestingly enough, he made a commitment in the Club
Speaker 1: for Growth, which often fights against at least in past
Speaker 1: cycles McCarthy, and these primaries in turn express their willingness
Speaker 1: to support McCarthy if he would stay out of primaries.
Speaker 1: That's a big deal, that commitment. When you said that's
Speaker 1: a big deal, explain scenarios where this could have changed
Speaker 1: outcome of House races, because I don't think people understand
Speaker 1: how much the money can really decide who's going to
Speaker 1: win these things. In money plays a massive role in
Speaker 1: a lot of elections, it doesn't necessarily decide them. But
Speaker 1: that there were mull to pull elections across the country.
Speaker 1: Where where McCarthy's pack got involved in the primary, not
Speaker 1: in the general, not trying to support the Republican against
Speaker 1: the Democrat. Now they did that, to be clear, Kevin's
Speaker 1: pack spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting Republicans in
Speaker 1: the general. So I don't want to diminish he worked
Speaker 1: very hard trying to elect Republicans across the country. But
Speaker 1: they're a number of House Conservatives who were angry that
Speaker 1: he was he was playing in primaries. And by the way,
Speaker 1: that's reprising a battle that happened in the Senate over
Speaker 1: a decade ago. You know, if you remember back to
Speaker 1: the twenty ten cycle, Yeah, where Senate leadership engaged at
Speaker 1: a bunch of primaries. And so for example, Senate leadership
Speaker 1: came in the primary against Rand Paul in Kentucky. They
Speaker 1: came in the primary against Mike Lee in Utah, They
Speaker 1: came in the primary against Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, they
Speaker 1: came in the primary again it's Marco Rubio in Florida,
Speaker 1: and and Senate leadership just screwed it up. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean all four of those they got clawberd and
Speaker 1: they got a black eye. And I will say, actually,
Speaker 1: as a bit of interesting trivia, I may have been
Speaker 1: a beneficiary because twenty ten Senate leadership got such a
Speaker 1: black eye for making the wrong call in race after
Speaker 1: race after race and losing that. In twenty twelve, which
Speaker 1: is that with the year I got elected to the Senate,
Speaker 1: Senate leadership stayed out of primaries, and look, I got
Speaker 1: to say in hindsight that that that probably is a
Speaker 1: good thing for me, because that they would not have
Speaker 1: been supporting me in that primary, No, no way at
Speaker 1: all they would. They would have definitely been supporting your opponent,
Speaker 1: who was the safe Republican establishment candidate that you were
Speaker 1: clearly up against. And he had tons of funding as
Speaker 1: well well, and he had as he had a every
Speaker 1: lobbyist in the state of Texas was with him because
Speaker 1: he was sitting lieutenant governor, and b he was worth
Speaker 1: over two hundred million dollars, so he wrote a thirty
Speaker 1: five million dollar check. But the point was, Senate Republican
Speaker 1: leadership kind of stepped in it in twenty ten and
Speaker 1: has been much more wary of getting in primaries since then.
Speaker 1: This last cycle, McCarthy was pretty vocal engaging in primaries,
Speaker 1: and I think that's one of the concerns that is
Speaker 1: animating these dissenters. Let me ask you this, one of
Speaker 1: the things. You look at these twenty and I think
Speaker 1: it's clear that some of the twenty it's just personal.
Speaker 1: And I know there has to be moments in your
Speaker 1: career center where there's certain people in the Senate on
Speaker 1: your side that you just don't click with, You just
Speaker 1: don't like. Maybe they they flat out lied to your face,
Speaker 1: maybe they've lied to you about something they were going
Speaker 1: to work with you on or support or a bill.
Speaker 1: But you do have to remind yourself, I'm this isn't
Speaker 1: me personally. I'm here to represent the interests of the
Speaker 1: people of the state or the community right where you
Speaker 1: are from, if you're a congressman, for example, how much
Speaker 1: how many blunders could be happening here because people are
Speaker 1: making this too much about them personally, not enough about
Speaker 1: maybe their constituents. Look, emotions matter, and and people have
Speaker 1: personal sentiments and hurt feelings. And I certainly don't know
Speaker 1: what went on behind closed doors. But what makes this
Speaker 1: complicated to to reach a negotiated settlement is each of
Speaker 1: these twenty are operating on their own. So if if,
Speaker 1: for example, if Chip Roy had the authority to commit
Speaker 1: for all twenty of them, if they all essentially gave
Speaker 1: gave him their proxy and said, if you cut a deal,
Speaker 1: we'll stick with you, I think the odds are pretty
Speaker 1: good that Chip and McCarthy could reach a deal, because
Speaker 1: I do think Chip has done a good job of
Speaker 1: focusing on procedural issues to expand debate, expand the ability
Speaker 1: to offer amendments, expand leverage conservatives would have in the House,
Speaker 1: and I think they could probably get to the same page.
Speaker 1: What may make it impossible is I don't know how
Speaker 1: many of these players are just emotional and have hurt feelings.
Speaker 1: I don't know for how many of them it's personal
Speaker 1: with Kevin or not. Look yet, you know when you've
Speaker 1: got when you've got folks using rhetoric like calling them terrorists.
Speaker 1: You know, if you call someone a terrorist, that's not
Speaker 1: terribly conducive to getting them to come along and play nice. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean that goes back to us saying earlier about
Speaker 1: if you're teaching a master class here the dues and
Speaker 1: don't are don't go and make it even more personal
Speaker 1: and think oh, well, that's going to get the twenty
Speaker 1: to really come around. When that type of rhetorics being
Speaker 1: used while you desperately need their votes to give yourself
Speaker 1: and and some of your guys are going out there
Speaker 1: as surrogance and saying things like that, that's not going
Speaker 1: to help you get the twenty to come over. It's
Speaker 1: not like that's going to get them to see the
Speaker 1: light of day. That's gonna make them, I would assume,
Speaker 1: just by human nature dig in, you know, as a
Speaker 1: general matter, relying on insults to try to bludge in
Speaker 1: your opposition is it's a perilous path unless you have
Speaker 1: all the leverage, and at this point, with just a
Speaker 1: four vote majority, I'm not sure anyone has all the leverage.
Speaker 1: That is a very perilous path. And so I think
Speaker 1: we will either see some negotiated settlement that involves procedural
Speaker 1: concessions from McCarthy, or at some point if if the
Speaker 1: votes don't move, and the votes don't move, and the
Speaker 1: votes don't move, presumably there will be some other candidate
Speaker 1: who becomes a consensus candidate. Now, I don't think that
Speaker 1: would happen unless McCarthy decided okay, the votes aren't here
Speaker 1: for me, because Kevin would certainly have the votes to
Speaker 1: stop anybody else, so so it would take it would
Speaker 1: take Kevin making the decision. This isn't gonna happen. And
Speaker 1: I think I have not spoken. I haven't spoken to
Speaker 1: any of the players actually during this, so I haven't
Speaker 1: I haven't spoken to Kevin during this. I haven't spoken
Speaker 1: to Chip, I haven't spoken any of the folks there.
Speaker 1: So I'm I'm watching it on TV. I'm watching it
Speaker 1: on Twitter like everybody else. And I know most of
Speaker 1: the players quite well. I mean, these members of Congress,
Speaker 1: almost all of them are close friends of mine, so
Speaker 1: I mean, I know know who they are as people,
Speaker 1: and you know, these folks are principles and they believe
Speaker 1: in what they're trying to do. But you'll either see
Speaker 1: a negotiated settlement. I don't know what the terms are
Speaker 1: if there is one, or presumably at some point someone
Speaker 1: else becomes a consensus candidate, and I don't know who
Speaker 1: that would be. And I suspected an enormous amount of
Speaker 1: that would depend on Kevin McCarthy in the decision making. Hemdell,
Speaker 1: Let's talk about another aspect of this, and that is
Speaker 1: the media. Obviously they're trying to grab on and fine
Speaker 1: headlines to fearmonger people. Earlier today, they had a big,
Speaker 1: long discussion I think it was on CNN where they
Speaker 1: were saying, Wow, this could become a national security issue
Speaker 1: because they can't get briefings and there's people that aren't
Speaker 1: even elected that they're going to get better briefings than
Speaker 1: the people that haven't been torn in yet with this
Speaker 1: new Congress on the House side, and this is going
Speaker 1: to be an issue. I mean, they're trying to give
Speaker 1: us a doomsday scenario here. How long can this go?
Speaker 1: And everything really is just fine. Oh look, I think
Speaker 1: the national security argument is just gobbledygook. This is going
Speaker 1: to get resolved, and I think it'll get resolved fairly quickly.
Speaker 1: It could get resolved today, It could get resolved in
Speaker 1: a few days. I imagine there are scenarios where it
Speaker 1: could take a couple of weeks. I don't envision any
Speaker 1: world where it takes longer than that. And I don't
Speaker 1: even think it'll take a couple of weeks. I think
Speaker 1: it it's gonna end up one way or the other.
Speaker 1: This is going to be resolved. So the idea that
Speaker 1: it is this horrible affront to the Republic for the
Speaker 1: House to spend a couple of days debating their leadership.
Speaker 1: That's just a weird idea. As as as we talked
Speaker 1: about in the last podcast, there's a reason I led
Speaker 1: the fight in the Senate for us to have several
Speaker 1: weeks of debate on Senate leadership. And we had that
Speaker 1: debate at least the beginnings of the debate, which we
Speaker 1: haven't had in a long time now, because the Senate
Speaker 1: doesn't have a procedure like this where where the leader
Speaker 1: is elected on the floor. It wasn't done on c Span. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't done in a context that holds up
Speaker 1: the House for a period of time. It was. It
Speaker 1: was done behind closed door with the Senate. But I
Speaker 1: think in both houses having a debate about what leadership
Speaker 1: is going to do, how they're going to approach it,
Speaker 1: what their priorities are, what fights they're willing to fight. Look,
Speaker 1: the question that I asked Mitch McConnell repeatedly, what are
Speaker 1: you willing to fight for? Give me one thing, anything,
Speaker 1: And tragically it appeared the only thing that that so
Speaker 1: far Republican leadership was willing to fight for was the
Speaker 1: disaster of a one point seven trillion dollars omnibus bill,
Speaker 1: the Pelosi Schumer's spending bill. So the reason for the
Speaker 1: frustration that I think a lot of voters have is evident.
Speaker 1: But my overarching message also is, you know, folks need
Speaker 1: to relax a little bit. This will get resolved. We're
Speaker 1: going to have a House of Majority. We're gonna have
Speaker 1: a Republican speaker. We're gonna have Republican chairman in the committees.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have oversight hearings, we're gonna have subpoenas, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have legislation moving forward. All of that is going
Speaker 1: to happen. And at the end of the day, the
Speaker 1: cosmos is not dramatically different if it happens in a
Speaker 1: week or two days ago. Yeah. Well, and I laugh
Speaker 1: because Democrats it was like they were throwing jello at
Speaker 1: the wall on TV and the commentators because Jeffreys came
Speaker 1: out the first one. They basically tried early in the
Speaker 1: day on Thursday, Senator was, oh, this could become a
Speaker 1: national security issue. By mid afternoon they had switched from
Speaker 1: that and represented national security. Look, we've got a Senate
Speaker 1: in the Senate. We all have our security clearances and
Speaker 1: the ability to be read read into things, and you
Speaker 1: know we also have when it really comes to national security.
Speaker 1: What you know, you've got a president and a Secretary
Speaker 1: of State in the Secretary of Defense and a chairman
Speaker 1: of the Joint chiefs. Now, you and I aren't very
Speaker 1: happy with the job they're doing when you actually talk
Speaker 1: about national security. I think the people in the Biden
Speaker 1: administration are affirmatively harmful for that. But the idea that
Speaker 1: it would somehow impact national security to have a few
Speaker 1: days debate over leadership is a weird argument. Well, and
Speaker 1: I laugh because they went from that earlier the day
Speaker 1: and then it was like, all right, well, we need
Speaker 1: something else that through out there. And then Representative Jeffreys
Speaker 1: comes out and he says this national security vulnerabilities. This
Speaker 1: is a dangerous moment for Americans and for the world.
Speaker 1: It's one of the reasons why the Congress needs to organize.
Speaker 1: There are public health vulnerabilities. It's one of the reasons
Speaker 1: why the Congress needs to organize and Republicans need to
Speaker 1: get thereck together. So they threw that on there. It
Speaker 1: became well, now it's also it's not just now security now,
Speaker 1: it's probably health. I'm laughing because the Senate and recess
Speaker 1: right now. If if they had picked the speaker, wouldn't
Speaker 1: most of these people be home by now? That they'd
Speaker 1: all be home, right, every one of them? Would They
Speaker 1: would have changed right actually that they're in DC now.
Speaker 1: The irity is that the reason the House is there
Speaker 1: is because of this. If they'd picked the speaker, they
Speaker 1: would they would have gone home. Um. And look, I
Speaker 1: don't fall to keem Jeffreys for doing what he's doing.
Speaker 1: That's what you do. Look, if you're the opposing party
Speaker 1: and the other side is having an internal food fight,
Speaker 1: you stand there and laugh and eat popcorn and and
Speaker 1: you know, you throw rocks in the cheap seats. So
Speaker 1: of course that's what he's doing. Um. And to be clear,
Speaker 1: if if the shoe were on the other foot, we'd
Speaker 1: be Democrats. We're having If it was AOC challenging h
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, you and I'd be sitting there going, man,
Speaker 1: they can't get their act together, and we would be
Speaker 1: doing exactly what would Jefferies is doing. So I don't
Speaker 1: fault it for that. I'll tell you what I do
Speaker 1: fault though it is there are some who are engaged
Speaker 1: in nasty rhetoric on the Republican side, but also on
Speaker 1: the Democrats side. Corey Bush, That's That's what I was
Speaker 1: gonna say to you, was you just said the laughing
Speaker 1: and you'd sit back. How hard is it not to
Speaker 1: screw this moment? After you're a Democrat, you make you
Speaker 1: laugh at some of this, you say some of this.
Speaker 1: But if there's anything that the Democratic Party should have
Speaker 1: figured out was just kind of sit back, take a
Speaker 1: moment and let and don't steal a headline away by
Speaker 1: doing something stupid. Insert Corey Bush and where you're going
Speaker 1: with us right now? One of the biggest racist blunders
Speaker 1: that never had the even get close to where they
Speaker 1: took it. And all of a sudden the story changes.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure people when the Democrats that are like, really,
Speaker 1: you had to do this right now? Well, look, Corey
Speaker 1: Bush is one of the most radical members of the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party of the House. She is on the extreme left.
Speaker 1: She's one of the biggest advocates of abolishing the police. Ironically,
Speaker 1: she spends massive amounts on private security while arguing for
Speaker 1: abolishing the police. So it's rules for thee and not
Speaker 1: for me, And unfortunately she's been willing to really engage
Speaker 1: in in racist rhetorics. So she sent a tweet that reads,
Speaker 1: for what it's worth, Byron Donalds is not an historic
Speaker 1: candidate for speaker. He is a prop despite being black.
Speaker 1: He supports a policy agenda intent on upholding and perpetuating
Speaker 1: white supremacy. His name being in the mix is not progress.
Speaker 1: It's pathetic. And and I gotta say that is that
Speaker 1: is nasty. That is racist. By the way, it echoes. Uh,
Speaker 1: what what Dick Durban said in the Senate when Tim Scott,
Speaker 1: the Republican from South Carolina, African American, UH, was standing
Speaker 1: up and trying to lead legislation on police and and
Speaker 1: and both UH preventing UH, preventing violence to to to
Speaker 1: those who who are being arrested, but also protecting police
Speaker 1: at the same time. And and Durban ridiculed Tim Scott
Speaker 1: as a token um. And it's the same leftists have
Speaker 1: I retweeted Corey Bush and what I said, as I said,
Speaker 1: open racism is normalized on the radical left. Now the
Speaker 1: Dems are calling Byron Donalds, who a black man, who's
Speaker 1: who's a conservative, who's strong articulate. They're calling him effectively
Speaker 1: a white supremacist. That's just nuts. That's but look, whether
Speaker 1: it's Corey Bush or Dick Durbin, when they see a
Speaker 1: black Republican, there is a level of anger, of animus,
Speaker 1: of bile. That's why they come out with things like
Speaker 1: token and prop um, the same thing Clarence Thomas faces,
Speaker 1: because that they view them. And and and by the way,
Speaker 1: I'll say this as an Hispanic there is some of that.
Speaker 1: It's not nearly as nasty being an Hispanic Republican as
Speaker 1: it as it is how the left treats Black Republicans.
Speaker 1: But uh, but you know, I had Jorge Ramos on
Speaker 1: national television called be a traitor to my race because
Speaker 1: I believe in securing the border. I mean, it's there's
Speaker 1: a nastiness. And unfortunately when you have someone you know,
Speaker 1: when Byron Donalds was was not needed and actually Chip
Speaker 1: Roy was nominating him, he pointed out a Kim Jeffreys
Speaker 1: had been nominated. He said, this is the first time
Speaker 1: in the history of our cree that two black, black
Speaker 1: people African Americans have been nominated to be Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House. And there was significant applause in the House
Speaker 1: at that I mean, that is meaningful and positive, but
Speaker 1: it drives the Democrats crazy. They cannot acknowledge. To the
Speaker 1: leftists Byron Donalds is not black, Clarence Thomas is not black.
Speaker 1: Tim Scott is not black. I'm not hispanic. Markt Rubio
Speaker 1: is not Hispanic. You must be a leftist account in
Speaker 1: their in their bean counting world. How is it that
Speaker 1: not a single member of the media gets his tweet
Speaker 1: and immediately goes and demands a comment from the Democratic
Speaker 1: leadership because it is racist. It's very clearly racist, and
Speaker 1: they act like it doesn't even happen, I mean even
Speaker 1: and I would say the Washington, DC Capitol Hill Press
Speaker 1: Corps is a little bit more formal than maybe some
Speaker 1: of the other press members outside in the world, where
Speaker 1: there's a little bit more dignity in their group. And
Speaker 1: yet they just completely looked the other direction when a
Speaker 1: member of Congress says something this racist in this moment
Speaker 1: about an African American man who is who's been nominated
Speaker 1: in a historic way, in a moment that has one
Speaker 1: hundred push years of history involved in it, Well, look,
Speaker 1: part of it is the media agrees with those same
Speaker 1: radical senses you remember back when Larry Elder was running
Speaker 1: for governor of California and the Los Angeles Time published
Speaker 1: an op ed the title of which was, Larry Elder
Speaker 1: is the black face of white supremacy. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is nasty, and they do it over and over and
Speaker 1: over again. It is particularly the hard left. They they
Speaker 1: not only revel in racism, they know they won't get
Speaker 1: called out on it from the press because the press
Speaker 1: agrees with them, or too many of them do at least. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's total silence on this one. And it's
Speaker 1: one of those moments when you see the Democrats and
Speaker 1: it reminds you of what you're up against across the aisle.
Speaker 1: And they allowed this to fester within the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: Anytime a minority stands up that is a conservative, they
Speaker 1: immediately lose their race and their minority status and they
Speaker 1: do whatever they can to absolutely destroy them. Senator, it's
Speaker 1: this has been a fun moment. As I said earlier,
Speaker 1: master class, ask on all of this, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of history involved. I know people wanted to hear what
Speaker 1: you thought about this, and I think the big takeaway
Speaker 1: from you is this is okay, this is going to
Speaker 1: play out and things are going to end well for us.
Speaker 1: And don't take debate for the media implying this is
Speaker 1: a national security risk or a health crisis risk. This
Speaker 1: is totally fine. Look my message is simple, keep calm
Speaker 1: and carry on. This is debate, this is democracy. It
Speaker 1: will play out. It will resolve itself. I think it
Speaker 1: will resolve itself in a matter of days or at
Speaker 1: most weeks. And I don't know how it will resolve it.
Speaker 1: I have genuinely no idea what the resolution will be.
Speaker 1: But I do think the process of elected members debating
Speaker 1: amongst themselves their agenda, their rules, their policies, how they're
Speaker 1: going to conduct themselves. I think that debate is a
Speaker 1: healthy thing in either House of Congress. It's gonna be interesting,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be fun to watch crabs, some more popcorn.
Speaker 1: My friends. We will be back with you on Monday.
Speaker 1: There may be a chance if you get a speaker
Speaker 1: before then, you might get something else from us. So
Speaker 1: make sure you hit that subscribe button, auto download button
Speaker 1: wherever you're listening to this podcast, make sure you rise
Speaker 1: a five star review center. It's the Pleasures always, and
Speaker 1: we'll see all you guys back here on Monday