Speaker 1: Start reading your Violins infrastructure proposal, and I'm trying to
Speaker 1: be fair, but one thing that stands out. They propose
Speaker 1: a hundred billion dollars for clean drinking water, a hundred
Speaker 1: billions for the electrical grid, a hundred billion in high
Speaker 1: speed broadband, a hundred billion of workforce development. I mean,
Speaker 1: that is remarkable. What are the odds that in each
Speaker 1: of these categories the number we need, the investment we
Speaker 1: need would be identical, and then in each category that
Speaker 1: would be a nice round number, like a hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1: That's Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher making the obvious point that
Speaker 1: if it's a hundred billion, if they're all a hundred billion,
Speaker 1: obviously you're just picking a number out of thin air.
Speaker 1: I have a new favorite congressman. That is great and obvious,
Speaker 1: but I hadn't anybody else say it. That's terrific. I
Speaker 1: want to ask about that with our guests, but I
Speaker 1: got another question first, and I'm very hot to tront
Speaker 1: about excellent our guests, the most wonderful longhe chan sounds
Speaker 1: like I want to date them. It's respect, professional respect.
Speaker 1: He is the David and Diane and Stephy fellow in
Speaker 1: American Public Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution, Director of
Speaker 1: Domestic Policy Studies at Stanford University Lon He how are you, sir?
Speaker 1: I am doing well this morning. How are you? Guys?
Speaker 1: You actually have Dodgers fan on your Twitter like handily,
Speaker 1: that's how that's how you do. And I saw in
Speaker 1: the cover of one of your baseball magazines that the
Speaker 1: Dodgers might be the best team in the history of baseball.
Speaker 1: I mean, how much hyperbole yesterday? It looks awful. Noh,
Speaker 1: that happens. I got a hundred and sixty one left
Speaker 1: to right this ship, so I gotta burn my saddle,
Speaker 1: and that's literally through our road to borrow to work.
Speaker 1: But this, this story has got me very, very angry,
Speaker 1: and I feel like we've crossed yet another line. So
Speaker 1: this whole Georgia voting rules thing President Biden got four
Speaker 1: pinocchios from the Washington Post, among others they could have
Speaker 1: given out for his various whoppers about this makes Jim
Speaker 1: Crow look like you megal, there are you cutting off
Speaker 1: voting at five? Complete lie? Nobody is allowed to have
Speaker 1: a drink of water? Complete lie? All these kind of things.
Speaker 1: Is this does? Does Joe Biden know what he's doing.
Speaker 1: Have we have we crossed some sort of line now
Speaker 1: where politicians have figured out, Look, there's too many news sources.
Speaker 1: Most people are only getting their news from our side.
Speaker 1: We no longer need to even attempt to be truthful.
Speaker 1: What is going on? Here's a policy guy explain it
Speaker 1: to me. Well, it's a great question, and it speaks
Speaker 1: to how politicized we are that we look at something
Speaker 1: like this, that we should be able to sort of
Speaker 1: sit down and say, Okay, what are the elements of
Speaker 1: this uh and what does it do and have a
Speaker 1: reasonable discussion about it. But that's not what we're looking
Speaker 1: at the fact, end of this morning, I was just
Speaker 1: looking at a descriptions of the law and what it
Speaker 1: would actually do, and looking at one outlet that is
Speaker 1: considered to be more conservative and then looking at another
Speaker 1: outlet that's considered to be more liberal. I thought they
Speaker 1: were talking about two different pieces of letislation. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's remarkable how differently urnalists, supposed journalists can describe
Speaker 1: and shade and write based on what their political views are.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's even worse than politicians to pick
Speaker 1: up on it. I mean, this notion, for example, that
Speaker 1: the that the Georgia law. You know, you mentioned the
Speaker 1: drink of water thing. You know, they say, oh gosh,
Speaker 1: you can't you know, you can't even give someone a
Speaker 1: drink of water. Uh, that's actually not true. The law
Speaker 1: specifically says that you can make self service water receptacles
Speaker 1: available to voters waiting a law. What you can't do
Speaker 1: is give money, gifts, food, or drinks to voters within
Speaker 1: a hundred and fifty feet of a polling place where
Speaker 1: twenty five ft of voters that are waiting to vote.
Speaker 1: In law, which you know, I mean, that kind of
Speaker 1: makes sense, right. We have the electioneering anti electioneering laws
Speaker 1: in California to every state has them, so we just
Speaker 1: gotta be a little careful about how torqud we get
Speaker 1: and unfortunately, think our politicians don't help with that. Do
Speaker 1: you think this is a moment we're passing through in
Speaker 1: terms of the relationship of the people, the media and
Speaker 1: the government or is it just going to keep going
Speaker 1: in this way in this same direction. I realize you
Speaker 1: don't have a crystal ball, but um, you know, I
Speaker 1: think it's gonna continue to get worse before it gets better. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: because politicians. The incentives they have in many cases are
Speaker 1: to appeal to two extreams or to appeal to these
Speaker 1: sort of very hard edged critiques. And we're in an
Speaker 1: era now where there's a benefit for politicians to double
Speaker 1: down on on stuff even if they're wrong. They double
Speaker 1: down right. And we've seen this over and over and
Speaker 1: over and I don't care what the situation is, right
Speaker 1: or left. You know, people are wrong, they just kind
Speaker 1: of double down and say, no, I'm not wrong, you're wrong,
Speaker 1: back and forth. Is that's what results in the kind
Speaker 1: of caustic, difficult environment we have. How would you not
Speaker 1: be cynical? I mean, I don't want to beat this
Speaker 1: into the ground. But Jen Saki was asked about it yesterday.
Speaker 1: So the Washington Post gave President Biden for pinocchios. If
Speaker 1: you don't know what that means, that means it's a
Speaker 1: complete lie. When Joe Biden said they're not voting at
Speaker 1: five o'clock, you get off work, you can, it's just
Speaker 1: not true. So they asked Jim Sake about it yesterday,
Speaker 1: said are you going to back off that or double down?
Speaker 1: She said, We're not backing off anything. What you know,
Speaker 1: what lan here we're getting into the weeds of philosophy
Speaker 1: here a little bit. But I think conservatism is handicapped
Speaker 1: by the fact that we want to conserve what is
Speaker 1: good and what has worked in the past, and that
Speaker 1: is not served by outright lying, outright slander. Whereas the
Speaker 1: revolutionary left, they they believe that they're ordained by God
Speaker 1: or Karl Marx or somebody or to do whatever is necessary.
Speaker 1: Maybe Abram X Kennedy has given them there they're you know,
Speaker 1: has annointed them um and so they are willing to
Speaker 1: slip throats, as it were, and often the guy who
Speaker 1: fights dirty winds that troubles me as a conservative. He
Speaker 1: raised a really good point, which is, even if you
Speaker 1: think about the word that many liberals used to describe
Speaker 1: themselves now, which is progressive, you know, sort of hidden,
Speaker 1: not even hidden. I mean in that word directly is
Speaker 1: the word progress. And the implication, of course, is that
Speaker 1: there are some who want to progress and some who
Speaker 1: don't want to progress, when in fact, I think that
Speaker 1: contrast is obviously imatic, it's false. But I do think
Speaker 1: that there is something about even how we talk about
Speaker 1: the two sides that's become somewhat loaded. Uh. In our society. Look,
Speaker 1: I think conservatives the challenge that conservatives have, in my view,
Speaker 1: is that too often they haven't been willing to stand
Speaker 1: up and say, this is what we actually stand for.
Speaker 1: And what troubles me is too often it's here's what
Speaker 1: we stand against. And I think it's important that conservatives
Speaker 1: are willing and able to articulate, like, hey, what is
Speaker 1: it that you actually want to do, and and look
Speaker 1: to stand by it. And not everything is going to
Speaker 1: be popular. Certainly we know how a lot of the
Speaker 1: mainstream media will respond to it. But by and large,
Speaker 1: I think you're going to get farther along. You actually
Speaker 1: stayed affirmatively there's the things we want to do, rather
Speaker 1: than just standing there and saying, well, we don't like that,
Speaker 1: we don't like that. So that is one thing I
Speaker 1: wish conservatives as a whole would be better. Progressives aren't
Speaker 1: ashamed of saying they want to have government takeovers of
Speaker 1: health care or completely uh you know, with the case
Speaker 1: of the infrastructure bill, you guys were talking about essentially
Speaker 1: completely push out private sector involvement with a large amount
Speaker 1: of public sector spending. They have no hesitation to arguing
Speaker 1: that's what they want to do so. I do think
Speaker 1: having at a point of view and being able to
Speaker 1: stay in affirmatively and strongly is good. Here here we
Speaker 1: do need to talk about that big infrastructure using my
Speaker 1: finger quotes here, Um, is that going to pass? Do
Speaker 1: you think? Well? You know, look, they're they're gonna do
Speaker 1: the same thing at the end of the day that
Speaker 1: they did with that huge two trillion dollar spending package
Speaker 1: we've already passed, which is they have one more bide
Speaker 1: the apple using a process called recasciliation, which is Democrats only,
Speaker 1: So if they wanted to go in that direction, they
Speaker 1: could again later this year. Um. Not everything that has
Speaker 1: been proposed by the President will make it into the
Speaker 1: final package, but they do have the opportunity to do
Speaker 1: it if they want. And what's so interesting is it's
Speaker 1: you can't you can't call this an infrastructure package right
Speaker 1: because it's it's got so much more stuff in it.
Speaker 1: But every ride up I see refers to it still
Speaker 1: as an infrastructure package, spending package. That's what it is. Well,
Speaker 1: it's just like everybody referred to the COVID Relief Bill
Speaker 1: as the COVID relief Bill, even though it including Fox News,
Speaker 1: which just made me crazy. You. Uh, do you ever
Speaker 1: eat meet any of Matt Gates's girlfriends? Uh? Fortunately I
Speaker 1: have not, and at the playground about it on TV,
Speaker 1: nor have I've been asked about it on TV. In
Speaker 1: a somewhat awkward moment for Tucker Carlson, it was as
Speaker 1: as Tucker said, that was one of the weirdest interviews
Speaker 1: he's done. It's one of the weirdest interviews I've scene.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, how about how about Gates trying to rope
Speaker 1: it in? You remember, Tucker, that girl well went out
Speaker 1: and I don't know what you're talking about. Dude, so uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: Lon Eachen, David and Diane Stay if you fellow in
Speaker 1: American Public Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution, Lan He's
Speaker 1: there's so much we could talk about. We don't want
Speaker 1: to take too much of your time, but we sure
Speaker 1: look forward to the next time. Thanks. Hollywood for ugly people.
Speaker 1: Isn't that what they call Washington d C? Although now
Speaker 1: now it's just Hollywood East because it's more and more
Speaker 1: pretty people. They're performers, they're not legislators. They're just Instagram
Speaker 1: stars or or YouTube sensations are