The Daily Signal - #383: What's Next in Venezuela

Episode Date: January 24, 2019

Venezuela’s socialist dictator, Nicolas Maduro, is facing heavy pressure to resign after having destroyed the economy and rigging an election for himself. His opponent, backed by the United States, is now declaring himself to be president. Ana Quintana, The Heritage Foundation’s Latin America expert, discusses the unfolding situation. Plus: We debate over Tom Brady, the oldest NFL quarterback, and whether any good American can be a Patriots fan. We also cover these stories:•A Senate bill that would fund the border wall and reopen the government fails. •The State of the Union is TBD. President Trump announced he'll wait until after the shutdown to deliver the annual address.•A Tennessee lawmaker is looking to tighten up the dress code on public school campuses -- for parents. The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, January 25th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. Venezuela's socialist dictator, Nicholas Maduro, is facing heavy pressure to resign after having destroyed the economy and rigged an election for himself. His opponent, backed by the United States, is now declaring himself to be president. Today will be joined by Anikintana, the Heritage Foundation's Latin America expert, to discuss the unfolding situation.

Plus, the Super Bowl is set, Rams versus Patriots. We'll have ourselves a debate over Tom Brady, the oldest NFL quarterback, and whether the Pats will redeem themselves. But first, we'll cover a few of the top headlines. Well, it's a no-go for the Senate on reopening the government and funding the border wall, a package that included the $5.7 billion in funding President Trump has asked for for the border wall, as well as temporary legal status for some illegal immigrants, was voted on Thursday. But the vote fell short of the 60 votes it needed to.

pass with only one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voting for it. Two Republicans, Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Tom Codden of Arkansas voted against the legislation. Well, as the Senate tries to break the stalemate, the House seems frozen in opposition to any wall funding. But some Republicans in the House are trying to pass a bill to pay federal workers amid the shutdown. In fact, House Republicans have voted twice on the bill, losing both times to the Democrats. Congressman Mike Johnson, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, said, quote, it is disingenuous to express outrage over the approximately 800,000 workers missing paychecks, but then continue to vote in favor of withholding their pay.

That is precisely what the majority of Democrats are doing. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a CNBC interview Thursday that government employees should be able to get loans during the shutdown since they will eventually get back pay. Mr. Secretary, there are reports that there are some federal workers. who are going to homeless shelters to get food. Well, I know they are, and I don't really quite understand why, because as I mentioned before,

the obligations that they would undertake, say, borrowing from a bank or a credit union, are in effect federally guaranteed. So the 30 days of pay that some people will be out, there's no real reason why they shouldn't be able to get a loan, loan against it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quickly critical of Ross's comments. Wilbur Ross saying he doesn't understand why. When he was asked about people are going to food lines and pantries and the rest, he says he doesn't understand why they have to do that.

I don't know, is this the let-the-me-cake kind of attitude or call your father for money or this is character-building for you. It's all going to end up very well. just as long as you don't get your paychecks, I don't quite understand why, as hundreds of thousands of men and women are about to miss a second paycheck tomorrow. Well, Nancy Pelosi withdrew her invitation Wednesday to President Trump to deliver his State of the Union address in the House chamber. Now the president is relenting. He announced on Twitter Thursday that he would be postponing his address

until after the government is reopened. He said, quote, I'm not looking for an alternative venue for the state. State of the Union address because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition, and importance of the House Chamber. I look forward to giving a great state of the union address in the near future. Actress Kate Hudson recently had a baby girl, and in an interview with AOL, she suggested that she wanted to raise her daughter, genderless. Asked, does having a baby girl make you do anything differently or change your approach at all? Hudson has two sons or had two sons previously. Hudson responded,

It doesn't really change my approach, but there's definitely a difference. I think you just raise your kids individually regardless, like a genderless approach. We still don't know what she's going to identify as. I will say that right now, she is incredibly feminine in her energy, her sounds, and her way. Well, a Tennessee lawmaker is looking to tighten up the dress code on public school campuses for parents. Antonio Parkinson, a Democrat from Memphis, is putting together a bill that would block parents from entering campus if they're intoxicated and if they're wearing clothes deemed inappropriate. So what provoked this?

Parkinson told USA Today, quote, I was talking to my principals when I got the real story. There are parents who are showing up at schools in the office with lingerie on, end quote. Well, the reaction to his bill has been overwhelmingly positive. If it passes a full vote this summer, it could go into effect as early as 2020. Now, I'm just curious what the name of the bill will be called. What do you think, Kate? I have no idea, but...

I think cover that up act. I wonder what percentage of parents drop off their kids when they're wearing pajamas. Like, I wonder if that's going to be affected. Maybe. I don't know. I know there has been some concern that some parents, you know, may not have decent enough clothing, but this is really just about not being inappropriate. Maybe it's just an argument for homeschooling.

You can dress however you want when you homeschool. No one wants to see that act. Let's see how that passes. All right. Next up, we're going to talk to Anna Quintana about the situation in Venezuela. Want to get up to speed about the Supreme Court? Then subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a podcast about everything that's happening at the Supreme Court and what the justices are up to. The time for debate is done.

The regime of former President Nicolas Maduro is illegitimate. His regime is morally bankrupt. It's economically incompetent and it is profoundly corrupt. It is undemocratic to the core. I repeat, the regime of former President Nicholas Maduro is illegitimate. We therefore consider all of its declarations and actions illegitimate and invalid. That was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaking Thursday at the Organization of American States. Joining us today to discuss the situation in Venezuela and the Trump administration's response to it is Anna Quintana, a senior policy analyst who focuses

on Latin America at the Heritage Foundation. Anna, let's start from the beginning. How did we get to this situation where the United States thinks that Nicholas Maduro isn't the real leader of Venezuela? All right, so the quick 30-second wrap-up on that. We'll give you a minute even.

A minute? Amazing. That's even better. All right, so Hugo Chavez came into power. It was elected about 20 years ago, right? Chavez was elected, subsequent elections, heavy authoritarian-handed, blah, blah, blah, blah. I rewrote the Constitution, just made everything for himself. Chavez dies 2013.

He appoints Maduro as his handpick successor. They have fraudulent elections to reelect Maduro. And then Maduro was reelected again last year in another series of fraudulent elections. I mean, when you have the Socialist Party essentially controlling all levers

of power within the government, you cannot expect there to be free and fair elections where the opposition actually has a real chance at any sort of opportunity. I mean, it just It did not happen. So in January, the United States and 50 other countries said that they did not accept Nicholas Maduro as a legitimate leader. And now we saw the actions of yesterday and today where the United States has now recognized the head of the National Assembly, Juan Guaido, as the interim president of Venezuela.

Yeah, so tell us about him. He's a leader of the National Assembly in Venezuela. What's his basis for stepping in and claiming the presidency? The basis is the Venezuelan Constitution. So the Venezuelan Constitution, specifically Article 232, states that if the office of the presidency is vacant, that the line of succession, in terms of the line of succession, the head of the National Assembly, is to be the president. And that's exactly what we're seeing right now. I mean, over 50 countries have said that Nicholas Maduro is not president. The elections were incredibly fraudulent.

They didn't have international observers. I mean, it was comical. It was an incredibly comical situation last year to the process that they called an election. So there's been clips floating around on Twitter of, you know, huge street protests in Venezuela. Are these, is this really happening? Does this show that there's actually going to be a change? Or I think, you know, we've seen so many times in international stuff, you know, the Arab Spring, et cetera. The protests don't necessarily translate into change. What do you think is going to happen? So I have been following Venezuela literally since Hugo Chavez was elected. And I can promise you the size, the scope and the wide variety of actors that are now part of the opposition, that's something that's unprecedented.

That's something that we've never seen before. I mean, it just, you've just, you've never seen people just take to the streets in Venezuela. I mean, you've seen, you know, you've seen protests before and you've seen people kind of, you know, anti-government demonstrations. But right now, this is a situation in which. The country's in the midst of a humanitarian crisis. People are literally starving to death. People know that the government is willing to shoot and kill protesters because that's what they've done and that's what they're doing right now. But people do not care.

They know that they have no other option. They know their children's, their children have lost a generation. They know they themselves are part of a lost generation as well. And the only option they have right now is to create that internal pressure within their country to push for change. So the military has been backing the Maduro regime largely because they've just been bought off essentially given us. sets, do you think they'll hold out through these protests or do you think there's some point at which it's in their interest to turn on Maduro? So that's the part of the military that's essentially been bought off because they've been

given control of the national oil company, which is, you know, that's where Venezuela's wealth is, right, the national oil company. That's at the upper level, right? The rest of the rank and file soldiers, particularly within the Army, they are also experiencing the humanitarian catastrophe inside. of their country, right? Their families are starving. Their children do not have access to education, access to medical care. The problem is that the Venezuelans have had great teachers in the Cuban government in teaching them counterintelligence and like teaching them to make sure that there are no

subversive actions kind of at the lower rank and file levels. But what we're seeing right now with this growing international kind of pressure against the government, it's essentially forcing the military to choose. Are you going to side with the dictator who has only the only, the only, the only actors that recognize him internationally are Russia, China, Cuba, now Hezbollah. Hezbollah has now come out in support of Nicholas Maduro, the Palestinian Authority. I mean, or are you going to side? All the good guys. Exactly.

Or are you going to side with the United States, with Canada, with 11 other countries in Latin America, the European Union is putting together a statement. I mean, it's just the contrast are pretty significant. And this is, I think, forcing the military to really make a choice, right? Who are you going to support? So let's talk about Russia and China backing Maduro. Yeah. Obviously with the U.S. on the other side, do you have concerns that this could turn into a proxy fight over other issues?

What exactly are Russia and China doing here with this play? So China is owed a significant amount of money by the Venezuelans. I mean, China is essentially the only country that continues providing the Venezuelans loans because, I mean, Venezuela is a deadbeat economy, right? They've bled the Chavistas and Maduro and his cronies have bled that economy dry. And, you know, and so the Chinese right now are interested because they're like, all right, we need Venezuela's oil wealth. The same thing with the Russians, right? You know, it's funny because you're going to hear a lot of leftists talk about the United States is only interested in Venezuela for oil. That is not even a remote interest in this whatsoever, but it's an interest for China and for Russia.

Like they care about the oil. They care about Venezuela's oil wealth because it's the most oil rich nation in the entire world. And so Russia and China want to be power brokers. in the Venezuela crisis, right? They want to be able to have an opportunity to kind of check the United States and say, well, you know what? In exchange for you guys giving up this, this is what we're going to allow the Venezuelan government to do. And also you have to understand who is Russia's closest allies and closest friends in the Western Hemisphere? It's Cuba and it's Venezuela. Cuba's another country that's a deadbeat economy. Venezuela at least has oil wealth, right? I mean,

they lose Venezuela. They lose a significant amount of oil. They can always find some other little random proxy like Nicaragua or whatever, but I mean, none of them will have the oil wealth that Venezuela has. So assume for a moment that Guaido actually becomes the official recognized President Maduro is, you know, exiled or something. Sure. Like, is there a viable path forward to economic recovery and political stability? Oh, my God.

Yeah, the opposition has been working on economic recovery plans, I mean, for decades. I mean, folks, opposition has been working on at the I. the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development, I mean, there's just so much that's there because it's the level of what's been broken is obviously known, and it's going to take an incredibly long time. I mean, this is not going to be a five, 10, 20-year project. This is going to be, it took them 20 years to break Venezuela. It's probably going to take twice as long to fix the country, right? But the price and the consequence of not doing so, I mean, there are 32 million lives at stake. And also, we have to consider 32 million people who are going to potentially

turn into refugees in neighboring countries as well. That's a lot of people. So, I mean, it's, you know, in terms of like economic recovery plans, like that's something that's pretty viable. You mentioned, of course, Venezuela used to be prosperous. Conservatives in the U.S., particularly in the last two years, have talked a lot about Venezuela's socialist turns. How much of a role has socialism played in leading us up to this current crisis? So the best way to describe socialism in the context of Venezuela is to, socialism was used as like a Trojan horse by the Chavez and by Hugo Chavez and his supporters to come into power. But these guys are just thugs, right? These guys are just criminals. And these guys are just, you know, these corrupt officials.

And that's essentially what how all socialists are, right? I mean, they claim that they want socialism and they claim that socialism is all about inequality and it's all about goodness. it's all about bringing equity, but that's not what it's about, right? It's all about the end result is always human misery and it's always about enriching themselves at the expense of others. I mean, every single country that has ever implemented socialist economic or even socialist social policies always winds up with corruption because it requires a heavy-handed authoritarian and it requires a lack of checks and balances. I mean, the evidence is there. So we've seen the Trump administration of the last couple of years take a really hard line against

Venezuela, how much of a break is that from the Obama years? And to what extent would you credit the Trump administration for playing a role in this? I mean, it's literally, it's like night and day, right? I mean, I remember back in 2014 when there were these huge anti-government protests, and the government was literally on the streets with tanks shooting and running over student protesters. I'm telling you, there were videos of tanks running protesters over, and the Obama administration did not want to implement targeted human rights-based sanctions against Venezuelan government officials. This is not even against a Venezuelan like full economy. The government, this is against certain government officials, meaning that they were not even allowed to travel to

the United States. The Obama administration was perfectly fine with not moving through on that. You know, in comparison, looking at the Trump administration, in less than two years, they have sanctioned on those human rights and corruption-based sanctions over sanctions. Over 100 Venezuelan officials, right? Over 100. They have designated the vice president of Venezuela as a drug trafficking kingpin. I mean, that's information that the Obama administration had. They did not act on. That was Secretary Mnuchin's first act in office.

I mean, they have done a lot. And they've also rallied a region that has been really reluctant to be forward-leaning on Venezuela, which is, I mean, they never did that for Cuba, right? I mean, the United States and Latin America never had the capacity or the political will to do that for Cuba. And the Castro regime has been in power for over 60 years. So I think it just says a lot that within the last two years, You have an administration that's criticized for not caring about human rights. It's not criticized for not caring about partnerships or, you know,

or regional allies or caring about the Western Hemisphere when it's actually the polar opposite. All right. Well, Anna, thanks so much for coming and explaining. We'll see how things go in Venezuela. All right, thanks, guys. Next up, we bring in Daily Signal football experts. Are you looking for quick conservative policy solutions to current issues? Sign up for Heritage's weekly newsletter, The Agenda.

Each Tuesday in the agenda, you will learn what issues Heritage Scholars on Capitol Hill are working on, what position conservatives are taking, and links to our in-depth research. The agenda also provides information on important events happening here at Heritage that you can watch online, as well as media interviews from our experts. Sign up for the agenda on heritage.org today. Okay. Well, as you folks know, I am not a sportsperson, but with this thing called the Super Bowl coming up, I did want to talk about the team called the Patriots, Overtime Brules, and Chick-fil-A. All of this was told to me to discuss by Lauren Evans, who is one of the people joining us today. She is a producer at the Heritage Foundation, and we have Heritage's John Cooper, a media relations guru.

So, Lauren and John, the first question I want to ask you about is, I understand the Patriots are back in the Super Bowl. I thought all good Americans hated the Patriots and didn't want them to be in the Super Bowl every time. Thoughts? You are correct. All good Americans hate the Patriots. John? I mean, if you boil it down that simple, then sure. There's going to be some hate blockers going up for the people who don't like good football.

But, you know, it's like James Franco said. They hate us because they ain't us. And it's kind of the worst case scenario because it's America's least like team. And then no real football fans like that the Rams went to L.A. So the fact that they went their first year after moving to L.A., it's just it's not a great Super Bowl. Okay. But seriously, John.

I understand your Patriots fan. But, I mean, they've been in like... A Patriots fan who is from South Carolina. Which is problematic. Get it right, Davis. Go to South. Anyway. But, I mean, the Patriots are in the Super Bowl.

It seems like every year. They keep winning. What's... I mean, come on. We root for the underdog. It's like the Yankees, man. Hey, at the end of the day, like Tom Brady said before the AFC championship game, everybody thinks that they're the underdog.

Because everyone was saying the chiefs that high-powered Patrick Mahomes' offense is going to knock them out. Philip Rivers, even in the divisional game, can go into Foxborough and beat the Patriots. None of that's happened. Brady's come through. They've actually been the underdog this year, and they've proven over and over again, they're still the team to beat, and the road to the Super Bowl goes through Foxborough. Can't argue with that. Brady's been a starter for 17 seasons.

He's been to the Super Bowl eight times with a ninth one coming up, and of course he's won five of those Super Bowls, and I think he's slightly favored to win this one as well. So can't argue with that. I do appreciate the fact that someone who's been a quarterback since I was in second grade is still a quarterback. It's pretty impressive. He was the 199th pick in the NFL draft. Sixth round.

So he's really shown like he's not only a great quarterback, but you have a great system with Bill Belichick. Year in, year out, guys like Josh McDaniels running the offense. But Brady has shown over and over again, not only is he great, not only is he in a great system, but he elevates the play of those people around him. Julian Edelman on any other team, eh, he's so-so. Okay, but isn't Brady, I mean, for my very limited understanding,

He has this extremely restrictive diet. It's like vegan, no peppers or other nightshades. They have a private chef in their home. Like, he seems very intense in a weird way. That's what all great athletes are at the end of the day. The ones that really excel and succeed at the highest levels, they really devote their lives to being able to achieve that level of success. Yeah, his diet is definitely something I could not stick to,

no matter how many Super Bowls were involved. But, you know, at the end of the day, that's what he wants to do, and it's worked out for him. So you can't argue with that. And Cooper mentioned it. He is old. Like, for the NFL, he is so old. He's the oldest non-punter-kicker in the whole NFL. He is seven years older than the second oldest person on the Patriots.

Jared Gough, he's the quarterback for the L.A. Rams. Kind of like Daniel. He was in the first grade when Tom Brady won his first Super Bowl, not even when Tom Brady was drafted. Oh, Daniel, you should have gone some different in life. Well, to even top that, the coach of the Rams, Sean McVeigh, is 32. Tom Brady is 41. He's nine years older than the coach of the team he'll be facing off against in the Super Bowl. So all of this helps me to respect the Patriots, but I don't understand how someone who's not from Boston or New England can be legitimately be a Pat's fan without just being a bandwagon.

Hey, at the end of the day, all I can say is loving watching football all my life, started watching Tom Brady. I was like, I like that guy. And over time, as years go by, it's fall in love with the player more. And as a result, you start rooting for the Patriots. If he retires, are you going to stop being a Pats fan? Not at all. I'll keep rooting for them. If they start losing real bad, having losing seasons, well, you start, you know, if your hometown gets an NFL team. Well, at this rate, Brady's going to play until he's 60, and, you know, they'll never stop losing.

So I don't even think that's a valid question. But at the end of the day, you know, always have a soft spot in my heart for them. Oh, my gosh. Okay. One other thing I wanted to bring up, you guys are going to have to provide the context because I don't understand this. But I understand most of America who follows football is really upset over something that happened regarding overtime this weekend. Can you guys share your thoughts? So in college football, when it goes into overtime, both teams get a shot of making either a field goal or a touchdown.

In the NFL, you do a coin toss, and the first person to score wins. So if you win the coin toss, you're much more likely to actually win the game. And that's actually what happened in both the NFC and the AFC championship this. weekend and it just kind of stinks because you're leaving the game to a coin toss and it went four quarters and was a tie. I mean, they decide who gets the ball first and who is going to lead off the, set the momentum and set the tempo for the game itself with the coin toss. I don't have a problem with deciding the overtime based on that as well because if you're

truly good enough to, you'll say you lose the coin toss, if you're truly good enough and deserve to beat the other team, then you will stop them when they have the ball and are driving on the field against you. Kansas City in this instance couldn't do that because Brady was just on fire. I think he was 2-0 in playoff overtimes before Sunday and of course it's now 3-0. So he's got a track record of just like once it gets to

overtime and the boards kind of reset, he just mows you down. The Chiefs didn't have a good defense all year. I think they were the 31st ranked scoring defense all year. They proved that they could not stop him. So yeah, I think there's some like sour grapes among the anti-patriots crowd because oh you know Brady got the

one the coin toss. But if Kansas City had won, that Patriots defense really showed in the fourth quarter, they were kind of falling apart and Holmes was kind of getting into a rhythm and was able to kind of pick them apart with Damien Williams underneath. So they very well could have won and I don't think we'd be having this conversation. So, you know, at the end of the day, I think it's a good, it's a good rule. It provides for a lot of drama because you really want to see who wins that coin toss, but then also can that team drive the entire length of the field. Can they score a touchdown? Because they have to score a touchdown. You know, that's the other thing here.

No, you can win on a field goal. You can win on a field goal, but only after your first possession. So if the Patriots had gone down and kicked a field goal on the opening possession, the overtime period would have kept going. And then Kansas City would have a chance to either score a touchdown or kick another field goal to tie it, send it to another overtime period. Basically, each team gets one shot to score a touchdown on their first possession. And if they don't, then the next score wins.

So, you know, play defense. If you play defense, you're alive. But the most exciting football game, college or professional, was the Texas A&M LSU game that went seven overtime. That was awesome. And that's what the fans deserve. So when we have these games. How late did that go?

It was a long one. It was past midnight. Yeah. But yeah. It reminds me of the 21 innings baseball game. That also sounds horrible. Well, and it's different too. The format's different because in college, each team, like Lauren said, you each get a shot regardless of what the other team does.

You start out at your opponent's 35-yard line. So the field is already artificially shortened. And let's say the first team that gets the ball, if they kick a field goal that changes the calculus for the other team a little bit because, okay, now they know, okay, I either have to tie the game or I have a chance to win the game. Or if they didn't score at all, then they have a chance to win outright, even if they just kick a field goal. So if you were to implement the college rule into the NFL, I think you'd be taking a ton of the drama out of the process because NFL teams are so good that if you start them out at the 35-yard line from the get-go, you're taking out a lot of the drama. You could start them out at the 20-R line. Yeah, well, I mean, that'd be even worse because you're short- You're getting closer.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. So I think having them basically have another quarter of action pretty close to it is really the best. Why not start them off? Why not start them off on the other team's like 30-R-line and give them four downs to score? Well, that's basically, well, the four-downs is, the idea is interesting. But even then you're kind of going the other direction and basically turning it into like Hail Mary or bust kind of situation. Which makes it interesting.

Just allow him a kick-off. kickoff instead of putting them on a certain yard line like they would on any other possession. Well, they already do that. So, I mean, if you win the coin toss, you elect to receive, you know, every team elects to receive it in overtime because they want to score first and end the game. But, you know, you get the kickoff and then you run your offense from there. But I think, you know, there is a certain element of, it's kind of a bummer when the other

team doesn't get a go at it. But then the unsympathetic part of me because I'm a terrible person is basically like, well, you should have stopped them on defense. Okay. Well, on that admission. Let's slightly switch the topic. I've come full circle. I want to discuss food, which Tom Brady won't eat.

Lauren, you said the stadium has amazing prices. And I'm also wondering, do either of you have Kelsey Harkner suggested? I asked this question. Favorite Super Bowl foods you like to eat? So last year, UCF, my favorite college football team talked about it on the podcast before. National champions last year. Last year's now. It was actually the national championship game for them.

was played at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome. And they do something called Fan First Pricing, and they do $5 bud lights, they do $2 hot dogs. And the idea is that people have already spent so much money to make it into the game that they deserve to have food that they can afford. You can bring a couple of your kids, and it doesn't break the bank to feed them. And I always thought that was really cool,

and they're keeping that for the Super Bowl. So if somebody's going, they can afford to get a beer and a hot dog, and it's less than $10. And the billionaire owner of the stadium has actually said it's worked out really well for them. They're making just as much money because they're selling more food than they would before. It's really genius. They actually, the Superdome has the cheapest concessions of any pro franchise across all the sports. They have the cheapest concessions of any venue across all those sports.

So it's really worked out pretty well for them. And of course you have Chick-fil-A there as well, which unfortunately won't be open on Sunday. The question is, how do you get in there without a ticket and buy all the cheap food? That's good question. You have to be that guy who, like, parachutes in at the beginning. Well, it's a dome stadium, so that might be tricky. Oh, well, there you go. That's not possible.

Wait, you guys both ignore. Do either of you have a snack that you make for the Super Bowl every year? Oh, that's a good call. I do. I make bomb buffalo chicken dip. Okay. Cream cheese, canned chicken, hot sauce, cheddar cheese. You mix it up.

You put it in the oven for like 10 minutes, 15 minutes. So simple. So delicious. Canned chicken. Can chicken. You think I'm crazy. You could boil your own. You could shred it.

I don't know why I'm acting like a lot. Oh, you use canned chicken? Actually, yeah, given the amount of microwave meals I eat, I should shut up. I might be bringing guac to your party. Yeah, you got to have chips and salsa. If you don't have chips and salsa at your Super Bowl party, you're doing it wrong. A really close second, you have to have pizza of some kind. It doesn't have to be like the main thing.

But you've got to have some pizza there as an option for sure. See, I like things that you can eat a little bit of. for four hours. Like pizza's too much of a commitment to sit down and eat. Like you'd almost have to cut it into little bites. Well, she also uses canned chicken. So I don't know. All right.

Well, thank you, John and Lauren. So many controversial topics to talk about. Hopefully you two are both still able to work together after this. The canned chicken incident. Don't let her hit me on the back of the head on the way out or anything like that. And that's going to do it for us today. Thanks so much for listening to the Daily Signal podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation.

Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or rating on iTunes to give us any feedback unless it's on football, we don't care. Rob and Jenny will be with you on Monday. You've been listening to the Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis, sound design by Michael Gooden,

Lauren Evans, and Thalia Ramprasad. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.