The Dispatch Podcast - All Sizzle and No Steak

Episode Date: July 23, 2020

During Tuesday’s press briefing, a reporter asked the president about Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and confidante of Jeffrey Epstein who is facing charges for grooming and sexually abusing minors. When pressed on whether Maxwell will turn in other powerful people, the president said, “I just wish her well, frankly.” This took many by surprise, but as Steve reminds us in today’s episode, “it’s not as if this is the first time he has had kind words or well wishes for a moral bottom-dweller.” Tuesday also saw a fiery showdown in the Republican House Freedom Caucus, when members bullied Liz Cheney for being insufficiently loyal to Donald Trump. In today’s episode, Sarah, Steve, Jonah, and David talk about how the biggest fault line in the conservative movement ultimately boils down to unswerving fealty to the president. Tune in to hear our podcast hosts also discuss the long-term relevance of the Lincoln Project, the Chinese government’s human rights abuses against the Uighur people, and end with a lighthearted discussion on their favorite concert memories. Show Notes: -Trump’s comments on Ghislaine Maxwell. -Steve's reporting on the Liz Cheney attacks. -Washington Post interview with Greg Sargent and John Weaver about the Lincoln Project. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm your host, Sarah Isker, joined as always by Steve Hayes, David French, and Jonah Goldberg. This podcast is brought to you by The Dispatch. Visit the dispatch.com to see our full slate of newsletters and podcasts, and make sure to subscribe to this podcast so you never miss an episode. Later on, we'll hear from our sponsor for today, ExpressVPN. Okay, today we're going to try something a little different. Each of us have come with a topic. So we'll hit the return of the President's coronavirus press conference, the crackup of the House Republicans, never Trump campaigning, and what to do about China's human rights abuses. But each of those will be

introduced by one of us, and we'll sort of go from there. At the very end, we were supposed to talk about rock concerts, but instead we got some very weird vignettes into David Frenchism, I'm going to call it. Also, make sure to join us Thursday night for another dispatch live, 30 p.m. Eastern. This is for members only. So join, become a member. Come to Dispatch live. It's video. We take questions from the audience. It gets weird. It gets serious. It gets fun. Uh, the guys bring drinks. And I get to bring a drink, I guess, this week. That's exciting. let's dive right in jona you're up first what do you want to talk about today well i would like to air a lot of grievances but that would be unprofessional um i'm going to go with being on

the news that'd be a real change it would be it would be um i want to go on the news since uh president Trump has, after a hiatus of X number of weeks or months, he has come back with the coronavirus task force pressers, although the task force really wasn't present, including any medical professionals. And I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand, it is better for America that he now recognizes to one extent or another. The corona pandemic is It's in his political interests to deal responsibly, or do he perceived as dealing responsibly, with the pandemic. So, and it is, it is, so I'm glad that he, that he is doing it in the sense of calling balls and strikes and whatnot.

On the flip side, one got the sense that the same problems that bedeviled the previous press conferences, which, remember, basically got wound down after he said, suggested that maybe we should look into exposing our internal organs with light or applying disinfectant in some way that most doctors thought was ill-advised. But he got into himself into trouble with those things long before that by doing these rambling sort of Castro without his riddle in lengthy speeches and rally kind of things. And you could just see that that is where he wants to go with these things. And so I think it is not going to be the political benefit for them that otherwise could be if he stayed disciplined.

And I think the real sort of moment when at least several staffers had to have dropped their lattes on their shoes and gone, oh, crap. is when he had said he wishes nothing but the best for Jazeen Maxwell. I can never figure out. I was supposed to pronounce her first name. The jail bait wrangler for Jeffrey Epstein, who is in jail. And I think that this just portends the same problems that he held at bay yesterday for the most part. You can tell are going to come back into this. And so he's not going to get the political boost out of it.

And the country's not going to get the boost out of it that it otherwise would. That's my take on last yesterday's press conference. Do you think, though, that by him sort of endorsing mask wearing in a more forceful way, that we're going to see a shift then in behavior slash polling among Republicans in his base? You know, that's a good question. And again, that's a good example of the plus side of him doing that, right? This, I mean, this is, when he says that about masks, someone has gotten to him and explained to him that you can't actually start doing the economy roaring back stuff

until you take care of the pandemic. Masks are essential to the pandemic. And so that was a positive thing. I'm curious to see whether it has that much trickle down. People, if you're bought in at this point, the idea that you are, you know, somewhere between a cuck and a castradi and a fool for wearing a mask,

the idea that Trump sort of saying, look, they have an impact to be better if you wore them, whether that's going to change those attitudes at this point. But it's better that he did it than he didn't. So we'll see. Yeah, I mean, that to me was, we've seen all of this before. How many times did we say in phase one of the response to the coronavirus with the daily briefings that, oh, this one's better? you know the oh yeah no now he understands this one's better and then you would have maybe two maybe three maybe four that were within a range of something that would resemble something you'd see in a normal

a more normal administration and then we'd go right back to the political riff or the fight with the press or whatever it was but i do think there is at least a good takeaway on the mask i think that the mask culture war, which y'all know drives me insane, has a spectrum of participants. And the people, I think Jonah's completely right, the people who have a lot of sunk costs into anti-mask advocacy, this isn't going to do anything. I mean, this would just be, for example,

evidence of like Fauci's nefarious influence on Trump. But there are a lot of people who they don't really have sunk costs into it. they're still, believe it or not, they just don't really understand the purpose of the mask. I mean, I run into this all the time. You still run into people who don't know that you should wear it to protect other people. They still think it's primarily for self-protection and they don't want to seem scared. And so I do think there is a slice of America that is going to be positively influenced by that. And that's, you know, a takeaway if he can stick with it, if he can be consistent with it. But as far as the rest of it, I mean, we all know what's next. I mean, just, let's just wait a few

days and we're going to have them. We're going to have an outburst or we're going to have a nonsensical word salad. And it's going to feel like deja vu all over again. So can I ask, do any of you have a theory about why he said that about Maxwell? And it wasn't even, it wasn't even just the Maxwell thing. I mean, remember, in the press conference itself, where he mostly stuck to reading prepared taxed, he said both, I don't like to say this, but the situation is going to get worse before it gets better. And then he said, it's just going to disappear. Again, like, this is one of his favorite lines. Right. He can't even, you know, the second he gets off script, he starts mixing his messages. So I guess I have a slightly different view. I don't think

the briefings matter at all. I mean, I hope they have some effect on the mask wearing along with Joan and David. I just don't think they matter at all. I think what matters is how the government, how the United States does against the pandemic and whether Donald Trump and his administration are seen as playing a constructive role in helping beat it back. And I think for many people, maybe most, if you look at some of the polling, that question has been answered. And the answer is, no, the administration hasn't handled this well at all. I think it's hard to turn that around. When you look at, we had an overnight death total of more than a thousand. Again, we have seen this increase in cases. You've seen these many outbreaks. You're talking about 70,000 new cases a day,

65,000 new cases a day. This was poorly handled. The results are in. And I think what's actually going to matter far more than the briefings is just how those results continue. Yeah, the only point where I might disagree with that is that Trump still had people to lose.

This thing was only now spiking in red states and in Sunbelt and he was only just recently starting to hemorrhage seniors. If you start having seniors go in red states, you could see even bigger chunks of his coalition going, so, like, I was just going to say, like, from a political standpoint,

the, like, if you were making strategic decisions and we're like, hey, we're bleeding seniors and we're bleeding suburban moms, like just to pick two, for instance. Like, what did this press conference do to help staunch that bleeding? And in part, because he was on message, I'm not sure it did a lot, right?

Because it didn't make, news in the same way except like Trump changes his tone. Like the mass thing didn't make a ton of news. If you're not a like minute to minute news follower or watched a press conference that was at 5 p.m. I don't think you saw it. And so what's weird and has always been kind of a weird part about the Trump candidacy and the Trump presidency is he gets into low likelihood voters by making controversial statements in the most news. So for this press conference to work and the things that has problems with. He kind of has to say something controversial, but that also resonates with the groups he's bleeding out with. Okay. So again, I'm going to die on this hill. I want an

answer for people. Why did he say this thing about Maxwell? If you listen to Morning Joe this morning where they're really starting to just spiral and completely unhinged, they're convinced it's that she has something to hide. And this was like his messages to Roger Stone and all these the people. I'm not sure I see it. But it, politically, you're talking about getting, you know, is there a constituency of low propensity voters out there that really wanted him to wish this woman well? That was the thing that was like that made the most news to the media obsessed. But he doesn't really ever attack people unless they've attacked him. Like if they've done something bad, but it doesn't involve him. Like, and plus he doesn't know what pictures are out there with him

and her. That's part of it, I bet. But I don't think, I don't buy into some conspiracy theory. Yeah, there's a bunch of pictures with him and her. And I think it, I mean, boils down to what you're saying, Sarah. One, she's never attacked him. Two, he's, they've been friendly, you know, and in his mind, if you're friendly with me and you've never attacked me, he'll throw out a good word. He'll throw out a good word here or there. I mean, also, if he says something negative about her, then they have to say well yeah but you hung out with her did you know she was you know helping a pedophile rape children so you get that next question and if you just say like I wish her well the next question is what the hell instead of did you that that is a fair answer

I'll take that it's not it's not it's not as if this is the first time he's had had kind words or well wishes for a moral bottom dweller I mean he he he He's praised Kim Jong-un. He, according to John Bolton's book, encouraged Chinese President Xi Jinping to build more concentration camps. I mean, the Zane Maxwell comment was sort of surprising, and obviously it's the kind of thing that if it were uttered by any other president, it would be much bigger news. But I think it's sort of of a piece with what we've seen from him.

in other circumstances. Well, let's move on to our next topic. Next person, Steve, you're up. You want to talk about the fractures in the GOP conference that, you know, there were some tectonic plate shifts yesterday. Yeah, this was really interesting. I mean, I think we got at this a little bit in the morning dispatch today.

I think we're watching... Not a little. It was pretty long. It was pretty long. That's true. Probably could have been long. actually. There was something we left out, believe it or not. I think we're watching the Republican Party have sort of a nervous breakdown. If you look at what happened in the House of Representatives

Republican conference meeting yesterday where House Freedom Caucus members, one after another after another, lined up, grabbed the microphone and teed off on Liz Cheney for being insufficiently loyal to Donald Trump. That's sort of moment number one. Moment number two is this back and forth inside the Senate launch where Tom Cotton, in effect, gives a speech saying, hey, we really ought to take into consideration the wishes of our most vulnerable Senate members, the people who are up for re-election as we craft this second stimulus, this trillion-dollar aid. package, coronavirus aid package. And then Ted Cruz, some 15, 20 minutes later, says, you know, this is crazy, we shouldn't be spending this kind of money. And then all of that, you have,

you have against the backdrop of these continuing ongoing fights from disaffected Republicans in the Lincoln Project who are, you know, taking shots at National Review, are, you have John Weaver, prominent Lincoln Project spokesman and strategist, former strategist for... Don't step on the next topic. John McCain. I'm not going to step on it. This is a preview. This is what, you know, leading into that.

You're just kicking it in the shins. Yeah, one man's preview is another man's stomp. You know, and he's teeing off. You have basically all of these things happening on the same day. I do think that the fight or the sort of ambush of Liz Cheney in the House GOP conference meeting is the most interesting of these because it seems to have been pretty well coordinated. I did a bunch of reporting on this. I couldn't get anybody to acknowledge that it was coordinated, but it was one after another

after another and they were all hitting her for the same thing. This is interesting for a couple reasons. One, the House Freedom Caucus being the party unity enforcers, you couldn't make irony any greater than that. If you told the 2015 me that Jim Jordan was going to be the one who was enforcing party loyalty, we would have laughed. We would have thought that was crazy. The House Freedom Caucus made its bones by aggressively confronting Republican Party leadership

to try to pull the party further to the right, mostly on debt and deficit issues. Now you have the House Freedom Caucus enforcing party loyalty. on behalf of Donald Trump, who pretty plainly cares not a wit about these debt and deficit issues, spending issues, that drove the creation of the House Freedom Caucus. So I think you have that. There's something else, I think, that's happening, too. I think people are already looking well beyond November politicians. And I think you look at November if Republicans have the kind of November 3rd that,

polls increasingly suggest they will, which would be loss of the presidency, losses of seats in the House of Representatives, and loss of the Senate. People are going to be looking for folks to blame and to be seeing what they can do next. I think Jim Jordan, who was probably most aggressive, along with Matt Gates and his attacks on Liz Cheney, is looking at her as a potential rival to be minority leader. If Kevin McCarthy is gone and Steve Scalise is gone. So he's teeing up an attack that he hopes to pick up post-election. Okay, but if you're the rest of the caucus, you know, you're not Freedom Caucus and you're

not in leadership. You're that happy in-between backbench member. Did this win anyone over? On either side. Yeah, I don't think so. I mean, it was very interesting. I mean, having Matt Gates lead it off, if there was some strategic play, having Matt Gates do it was probably not the best move because he's known as a stunt guy. He did the

stunt, the storming out of the, the storming into the skiff, the intelligence facility during the impeachment hearings. He was a guy who wore the gas mask to the floor for the coronavirus vote. I mean, he's not a terribly serious guy. So having him do this, I think, is not likely to to bring a lot of people on, but if you wanted it to just be something that sort of takes a, you know, a chunk out of Liz Cheney, maybe it was effective. Interestingly, Gates on his podcast, which he calls Hot Takes with Matt Gates. So it's literally the opposite of the dispatch, just to be like his branding and every word is doing some work there.

Yeah, I mean, you got, you really have to, you have to listen to it too because he, he, he, He, to transition between segments. Do I have to listen to it? Do I really? I mean, it's, it's pretty entertaining for, for a couple of reasons. In between segments, he cuts to a sizzle sound effect. So he finishes the segment and then it goes, Okay, Caleb, maybe, Caleb, we might need to do that, to be honest.

I mean, it is, it is some pretty amazing middle school level. What would our sound effect be between segments? You know that that rolling creek of a rocking chair? And then like a vague like in the distance you hear get off my lawn.

That can work or there's a specific sound that if you haven't owned a basset hound you may not know but it's the when they lift their head slightly to see what's going on yawn in response to it

and then drop their head down with a thud back on the floor that's probably a little unfair to us but anyway So, Steve, is this going to keep happening, or was this a one-off? Yeah, no, I think this is a preview of things to come. You know, we've talked about it on this podcast a number of times. There is considerable lack of enthusiasm for Donald Trump among elected Republicans,

particularly in Congress, in the House and the Senate. And I think you're starting to see some of them more willing to try. challenge him, particularly as his position looks weaker and weaker heading into November. And interestingly, Matt Gates on his Hot Takes podcast acknowledged this. Not something I would have expected to hear from Matt Gates, but as he was talking about the likely outcome of what happened yesterday, his attack on Liz Cheney and call for her to be removed from her post, he said, I do suspect that Liz still has substantial respect within the Republican conference, because we got a lot of people in the Republican conference

who aren't the biggest supporters of the president. Pretty interesting comment from somebody who is one of the president's biggest supporters in Congress to sort of acknowledge that there are a lot of people who aren't. And I don't think he means on a relative basis just because he's so enthusiastic. I think he's describing the situation accurately. By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but this wasn't a leak. Like, this actually was met, like, this, this whole scenario of what happened at the conference thing, like, they put it out there themselves that they attacked her. Yeah, I mean, there was a leak. Politico had a series of tweets, a reporter for Politico had a series of tweets as it was happening, like in real time. So somebody was leaking. But then Gates,

these meetings are usually leaked. You have members who are willing to talk about them on background. They find their way into the public. But interestingly, Gates, on his podcast just gave an on the record blow by blow of what happened behind closed doors. I think that's interesting because I think that means they wanted the president to see it. They wanted, you know, this was a signal. So I don't want anyone to confuse me for Matt Gates. And since I don't look like a playmobile action figure, that's usually not a problem. But I have a hot take here.

Sizzles noise. So this is something David and I have discussed a little bit off air. As some people might know, David and I are several of the leading villains in this book about the never-trumper's that's out by this crazy person. And no need to get in the weeds on that. But one of the interesting things that's coming more and more clear is that for certain segments of the right, the new fault line isn't big government conservatism versus small government conservatism, nationalism versus patriotism, classical liberalism versus robust post-liberal integralism and all this kind of stuff. That's for the faculty lounge kind of argument. In the sort of back alleys

of the Twitter sphere and social media, it's whether or not you were a brave, you were a brave, warrior against the quote-unquote Russia hoax or whether you were in league with the media and the deep state in trying to set up the president. And there's an enormous amount of bad faith in all of this stuff. But I do think that like, I know, so for the other, David probably remembers this the other day, Connor Feeder's door from the Atlantic. He had this list of conservatives to follow. Me and David were on it. For all I know, the rest of you guys were too. George Will whatever, and a bunch of those real maga types got really mad about it and said, this is ridiculous. None of these people are conservatives.

They were all in on the Russia hoax, which factually is not true, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I think the transformation of the House Freedom Caucus into the Trump Loyalist Caucus is part and parcel of this story. And if you look at the way, you know, Jim Jordan and some of these. guys acted, it, it, it, they've become, I mean, there was a time when people like Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan hated each other, because Nunes was a John Boehner defender and Jordan was a tormentor of John Boehner. That fault line about debt and taxes and all that kind of stuff, that's gone.

And it's really, whether you're on the side of the own the libs quasi or wholly conspiratorial MAGA stuff, or you're not. And those fault lines, I think, There's still time. They need to sort of, you know, as Matt Gates might put it, they need to sizzle a bit more. But it's not a coherent ideological divide. It's like whether or not OANN News thinks you're a hero or not is like one of these fault lines now. And I think there's some sort of feedback mechanisms that are infecting the way this is playing out in the house.

and across the broader world of sort of conservative media. Am I crazy about that? I don't know, but that's how I see it. David, is he crazy? I don't, no, I don't think this crazy. I mean, I think there's a temperamental, I don't know if you would call it temperamental divide or a dispositional divide between people who are otherwise,

sort of, you know, generally supports the president in public. but are they willing to be a warrior or not willing to be a warrior? Are they willing to define themselves around owning the libs or they have an actual coherent governing platform? As I hear Steve talk, it seems to me that maybe there is some hope if the current polling trends continue and if there is further losses in, if there are further losses in the House, if the Senate is lost, if the presidency is lost, I mean, one concern is that what you're left with is a smaller, redder, meaning in today's parlance, trumpier party, which then would say in many ways that the problem is in charge of the solution. And what I'm hearing is maybe that's not entirely the case that a chunk of that red base is still. not fully on board with the Trump project, at least behind closed doors. And perhaps they will be emboldened if Trump doesn't, if the present trends continue and Trump does in fact lose.

But I think if you're looking for the long-term health of the Republican Party, and there's something, somewhat of a kind of the rump, Trump-yest part of the party is the party after the election, in one sense that that would mean that there isn't necessarily a course correction coming, that much more of a, you know, a narrative would emerge of we were done in by those nefarious never-trumper's. We were done in by the nefarious media. And what we need to do is just fight all those people harder. But, you know, interestingly, hearing that from Gates actually gives me some hope that once, if the spell of Trump dissipates, that there can be some really,

robust debate here, even within a rump GOP that exists afterwards. And maybe that's wildly optimistic. Yeah, Sarah, let me get your thoughts. And before we jump to the next thing, and then I want to, I want to add a drop in a little poll that sort of points to, that underlines David's point. All right, but we're moving on after this. Okay. Go for your thoughts. Oh, my thoughts? Um, uh, you know, I think that there's going to be such a unknown, yet civil war that will, I think the Russia thing is actually a really, really good point because I think that will be a very easy touchstone for the different factions to use. But I just don't think we know yet.

I don't think that the Freedom Caucus guys as of now have their organizational skills together yet to make a real run for it. But they're going to be the inheritors of the base, if they do, and the Liz Cheney's are at a disadvantage in that sense. So we shall, I mean, that's, that does segue into our next topic. Wait. I'm waiting. You didn't hear the sizzle noise yet.

The sizzle noise is how you'll know. I will, let me disagree. I disagree to a certain extent. I think that the analysis on the Russia hoax as a source of enthusiasm for sort of the hardcore MAGA base is correct. I don't think if you're looking at elected officials, though, there are many people who performed that warrior role that Jonah's talking about. I mean, it was a pretty small group. We saw them at the press conferences every day. It was, you know, Elise Stefonic and Lee Zeldon and Matt Gates and Jordan and a handful of others. But it's more like the opposite, Steve. It's more like the ones that they, that some group can point to an outside group and say you didn't support the person.

president during that. But that's a big group. That's what I'm saying. That's a huge, that's the, that's the vast majority of the Republican conference in the House. We're not outspoken defenders. What defines the House Freedom Caucus right now other than a mix of providing soundbites for primetime Fox and being a Trump loyalist? I mean, it's, those things. Yeah, that's it, right? I mean, so that's sort of my point. Yeah, well, that's my point is that the Russia thing, the Russia hoax, the deep state, Trump is awesome, these are the ideologian. It used to be the House Freedom Caucus, as you write, was an ideological enforcer, and it is now, it's sort of like a mob enforcer now.

This is our godfather. This is how we roll. We hate that other family, and the rest is, and so there's no intellectual coherence to it. I agree with that. My point is a narrow one, which is I just don't think it's a very big group. I mean, if you look at the Freedom Caucus, there's, you know, nobody knows exactly how many members, but the estimates are 35 to 40. It's just not that big a group. And I think if you look at the Republican Conference and how they behave during the impeachment, didn't have a lot of people other than that sort of core Freedom Caucus plus group rushing to the microphone to defend the president.

I think most people thought what the president did was wrong and just didn't want to say it. So quickly before we move on, I'll give you one last, one last poll that I think bolsters my president. point. Really interesting poll that NBC did and included in the NBC morning newsletter called First Read, where NBC asked Republican, self-identified Republicans, whether they are basically first supporters of Donald Trump or first supporters of the Republican Party. And you would expect in this moment with Donald Trump still as the incumbent president, at least I would have expected. Massive numbers for Trump and relatively smaller numbers for the party. In this case, it was 53% of the party says that they are sort of Trump first Republicans and 39% says they are

sort of traditional Republicans, Republican first Republicans. I just thought that was an interesting window into where the Republican Party is right now. And while Donald Trump, is constantly tweeting, I think usually falsely, about his support among Republicans being at 95%. You're seeing a fair amount of erosion in those numbers. And I think this poll points to that sort of maybe quieter, but nonetheless still prominent group. You know, he's doing an interesting job with that since we were talking about the House Freedom Caucus. I'll just highlight Chip Roy from Texas, someone who came out yesterday to talk about the Liz. Cheney situation for sure and has defended the president on a lot of stuff is in a very tight

race against Wendy Davis, who ran for governor in Texas, but has also come after the president when he has, you know, said he's going to use executive orders for crazy stuff that he can't that's unconstitutional. And even today said that his comments about Jislane Maxwell were unacceptably obtuse, I think were his words. And that could be an interesting in between for those people in that poll, for instance. That's like what that speaks to me. It's like, Chip Roy saying like, ah, I think I can actually combine those two groups. Like, you're Trump first, but you're like, eh, there's some things here that I still like about the Republican party as well. Okay, we're moving on to the next topic, which is related, Jonah. I like the,

I like the phrase unacceptably obtuse because it implies a certain level of tolerance for obtuseness that this one case exceeded the normal levels of uptuces that we have to tolerate every day. I'm sorry. Look, he's a member of Congress. I think that he tolerates obtuseness on the regular. I'm sure. Get off my lawn. Okay.

Next topic. There was an interview with John Weaver in the Washington Post with a guy named Greg Sargent, who's an opinion columnist. John Weaver is heading up the Lincoln Project. This is the anti-Trump. They define their mission as defeating Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box and includes a pledge to elect Democrats over Republicans who, like Trump, do not, quote, support the Constitution. Okay, fair enough.

They've raised about $16.8 million this past quarter. This is like John Weaver, George Conway. It's like this one group of never-Trumpers. But there were like some interesting parts of the interview. So I just want to read this section. Weaver insisted that the group would actively work against Republicans who obstruct a Biden presidency, which would face a deeper crisis than in 2009 when Republicans tried to obstruct Obama in hopes of profiting off continuing economic misery. That was just straight reporting there. He will have a mandate to clean up the mess that

Trump has created with the help of his enablers, Weaver said of a Biden presidency. That shouldn't be held up. We intend to do all we can to make sure that doesn't happen. I asked Weaver what the Lincoln Project would do if a Biden, if a President Biden and a Democratic Congress tried to raise taxes on the rich to help fund a multi-trillion dollar rescue effort. Weaver said he couldn't directly address this until he saw specifics, but said, quote, will generally be supportive of trying to get this country moving forward. There's other groups like this, the Republican voters against Trump, They've committed to $10 million. This is Bill Crystal, Tim Miller from the Jeb campaign, Sarah Longwell.

Here's my question to y'all. Is the Biden campaign, is the Democratic Party going to embrace these folks? Is this just the new alignment? And they're now going to be on the right of the Democratic Party? Or is somehow this going to be the Republican part of the Republican Party? who's supporting a Biden agenda? So I think the short answer to the question is every single one of these groups

will not matter at all one second after the election is called. To either side. No, I mean, just as the group. Like, I'm not talking about the individuals involved because the individuals will make different choices. But I think these groups, they have different strategic,

they have different strategic, They have different strategies for accomplishing the goal. They have different goals in some ways. I think Republican voters against Trump, if you hear Sarah talk about it, what she is saying is, look. Not me, Sarah. Yeah, Sarah Longwell talk about it.

Or Tim Miller talk about it. They're not saying we're supporting, it's just Republican voters against Trump. We're not asking people to support Joe Biden. We have people who send in videos who say, I'm going to be voting Republican straight ticket except for president. The goal here is to remove Trump from office, period. It is not any agenda beyond that.

We're not asking people to become Democrats. We're not asking people to purge the Senate of Republicans. So that's a distinct thing from the Lincoln Project, which seems to be sort of a scorched earth approach. But I think the reality is that the Lincoln Project is kind of a troll in a way. I mean, it's very intentionally trying to get into the president's head and has succeeded to some extent in doing that. It now seems to be trying to get into the head of the GOP

and the broader conservative media. It's succeeded in doing that in spades. I mean, it's talked about in Fox Prime Time. It feels to me like what they're running is essentially a disruption operation. But I think the minute that a Joe Biden wins, again, if these trends hold, we always caveat, nobody's going to be saying,

we need to get John Weaver on the phone for the Biden agenda. You know, we need to get George Conway on the phone about judicial nominations. I mean, the Democratic Party establishment will run the House. It will run the Senate. If they win the Senate, it'll run the Biden presidency. And John Weaver's not going to be chief strategist at the DNC. And he's certainly not going to be the chief strategist at the RNC in formulating a response to the Biden agenda.

So it just seems to me like this is a movement that, ends the instant a Trump presidency ends. Is this an evolutionary dead end? I think, I think there's, look, there's some good people. I think Jennifer Horn, former Republican Party chairwoman in New Hampshire, a good person. I think there's some good people involved with the Lincoln Project, but they've jumped the shark.

Are you about to say good people on both sides? No, I'm not going to say good people on both sides. I think they've jumped the shark. I mean, look, I think if you're somebody who's in favor of Limbaugh, government, as Lincoln Project folks claim to be, what's the purpose of targeting vulnerable Republicans like a Cory Gardner who, you know, from their perspective, hasn't spoken off loudly enough, hasn't aggressively challenged Donald Trump loudly enough. I think, you know, I would say that's true of a lot of Republicans in the Senate, a lot of Republicans in the House.

But if you're in favor of limited government, getting them out does what exactly? Like, actively campaigning for Democrats against these vulnerable Republicans, does what exactly? I think the effect is it gives Joe Biden a much greater, if he's elected, a much greater hand in pushing an agenda that is not going to be for limited government. So I guess I don't understand. I can understand their frustration with Trump. I can get all that. I guess if you actually are for limited government

and you think limited government is what's best for the country, going after these senators in the way that they're doing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Yeah, so I agree with that. I think the issue, there are two things to say about this. One is, I think the Lincoln Project undercuts the effort of the Republican voters against Trump because they get clumped together. I mean, I know people who follow politics closely and lump them together.

Yeah. You know, David's right. When you hear Tim Miller talk about it, he says, look, you know, we just, we're not pro-Biden. We're anti-Trump and we want to get them out of there and we don't care what your reasons are. and all that. And for a bunch of people who feel guilty who are on the bubble about not voting for the Republican president, being told that if you don't also vote against Republican senators and Burlington, that's just to bridge too far for them psychologically and as a matter of marketing. And to be coaxed, to have this sort of brand confusion between Republican voters against Trump

and the Lincoln Project is bad. for the what is presumably the ultimate goal of both groups, which is to get Trump out of office because it's going to make a lot of people hard, those voters on the bubble or on the margins harden their positions because they're, I don't want to be part of that. I don't want to, you know, like get rid of Corey Gardner too?

What's that about? We want to give, let Joe Biden get rid of the filibuster and have, you know, unchecked, you know, control in Washington. I know a lot of conservatives who don't like Trump but really don't want to lose the Senate. And the Lincoln Project seems to be eager to lose the Senate. And I just think that's nuts as a matter of strategy. The other thing is, you know, so my first job in Washington,

I worked for this guy Ben Wattenberg, who was the founder, one of the founders of the coalition for a Democratic majority, which was the precursor to the Democratic Leadership Council. And what those guys did was they thought that the Democratic Party had gone way too far left, starting with McGovern, and they wanted to pull it back to the center

A lot of sort of democratic neocon types in there, foreign policy hawks, that kind of thing. People who liked the Great Society, but maybe thought it went too far. And what they did was not target existing Democrats, is they funneled money and resources and arguments to Democratic candidates that reflected their views. And I would much rather see some sort of effort like, I would at least have more respect for an effort that was less about monetizing Steve Schmidt's Morning Joe appearances and bombing John Weaver's Messiah complex and actually trying to influence the party through a debate

and through arguments and by putting forward candidates who represent their views more, whether I agree with them or not, that's how you affect change within a party. But just seeming like the guy swinging a cudgel at the bar and breaking all the bottles, it's just not attractive to anybody who isn't already on their side. All right, David, I want to leave

enough time for your topic, too. Okay, well, real fast. I think there's a difference, and you all tell me if I'm crazy. Crazy. Between a Trump defeat and a Democratic victory. So what I mean by this is,

what is a Trump repudiation actually look like? Is it sweeping aside, more House Republicans, sweeping aside Senate and sweeping in Biden in a powerful, in the power in the poll position to implement his agenda? Or what if you swept out Trump and you retained a Republican Senate majority that then sent in that that action sent a message that says, wait a minute, there is a market for non-Trump

ideas. There is a market for a non-Trump Republican Party. There exists a viable non-Trump Republican party. Trump is the problem. And that seems to be like the laser focus of Republican voters against Trump that strikes me as far more sound than, hey, let's do this thing that it seems like there's this small, the entire constituency for it exists on Twitter of scorched earth against the GOP entirely. And that will be interpreted not as a mandate for Biden, but as a repudiation for Trump. I think those are different things. So a lot of this conversation, by the way, a piece that Declan Garvey is working on and reporting out today. And Declan, who definitely listens to this podcast and I had a bet on some of your answers. And all I can say is,

Declan, you owe me. I think it was a quadrillion dollars. So I'll take it in small bills, please. Thank you. You're not going to tell us what the bet was? No, I'm not. Will you tell us on dispatch line? Yeah, I'll tell you on dispatch live. All right. Now people have to tune in. All right. Let's take a quick break and hear from our sponsor today, ExpressVPN. I know most of you are probably thinking, why don't you just use incognito mode? Well, let me tell you something. Incognito mode does not hide your activity. It doesn't matter what mode you use or how many times you clear your browsing history. Your internet service provider can still see every single website you've ever visited. That's why there's ExpressVPN. It doesn't matter if you get your

internet from Verizon or Comcast. ISPs in the U.S. can legally sell your information to ad company. ExpressVPN is an app that reroutes your internet connection through their secure servers so your ISP can't see the sites you visit. ExpressVPN also keeps all of your information secure by encrypting 100% of your data with the most powerful encryption available. Most of the time, you won't even know you have ExpressVPN on. It runs seamlessly in the background and is so easy to use. All you have to do is tap one button and you're protected. ExpressVPN is available on all your devices, phones, computers, even your smart TV. So there's no no excuse not to be using it. Protect your online activity today with the VPN rated number one

by CNET and Wired. Visit my exclusive link, expressvPN.com slash freedom, and you can get an extra three months free on a one-year package. That's EXPR-E-S-V-PN.com slash freedom. ExpressVPN.com slash freedom to learn more. David, your last go. Yeah. So this is really going to bring the mood down. So the question is going to be, what if the pledge of never again of genocidal, of genocidal actions from a nation state is being violated by a nuclear power? And... Yeah, that is a downer. Yeah. Isn't that a downer? More and more evidence is emerging. Some of it through the daily mail, so we have to sort of take, we have to take it with a grain of salt. But if not outright genocide,

very genocide-like activities undertaken by China against the Uyghur minority in China, including some really vivid footage, incredibly vivid stories. I mean, everything from people lined up with shaved heads, getting ready to get on trains to head to concentration camps, claims that people are being, you know, enforced atheism, enforced violations of Muslim teaching, forced, you know, pork being forced down them, et cetera, et cetera, mass, just essentially a mass atrocity. You know, I don't think we have enough evidence of genocide, but a mass atrocity being undertaken by a nuclear armed, economic, and increasingly military superpower. And, you know, I think that this is going to be the central, in addition to the challenge

from Russia, which in many ways feels more conventional, this is going to be one of the central challenges of the next 10, 15, 20 years. And it strikes me that we don't, we, I have not seen either at the Trump administration, I think there is, there was a speech from Bill Ball, that I thought was actually quite good about what China's intentions are and how China is exploiting American companies. In fact, I think one of his good lines was they're not actually trying to cooperate with you. They're ultimately trying to replace you. They will work with you until you can be replaced by a domestic corporation or a domestic industry. At the same time, we have a president right now who will praise the Chinese premier. He will, he will,

allegedly endorse concentration camps. And we have a U.S. Pacific Fleet. You know, this is like item number 50 on the headlines list in this crazy year. But what's happening in the U.S. Pacific Fleet should be a national scandal. We just had an amphibious assault ship, the USS Bonhomme Richard,

believe this is how you pronounce it, that caught fire and is now one of only four amphibious assault ships that can carry the F-35 is now out of commission indefinitely. and we have a real problem on how to respond. And my question is, who in the U.S. government do you think is speaking intelligently about it, and what are they saying that you think

it can be productive in responding to China? That's got to be a Steve question. It's a good question. I know the bars... By the way, while Steve answers this very serious, question, an important question. I just want to point out that there's a cardboard box robot over his shoulder that I can see. And it kind of undermines this discussion a little bit, Steve. Sorry, we've got little kids all over the place here. It's great. I know the Bill Barr speech

that David mentioned, I agree that it was a good one. I think Mike Pompeo has been pretty strong on these things and pointed to the Senate, I would say Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Ben Sass have, I guess they've talked more about the threats. Sass has spoken about the human rights abuses. So I point to those folks as people who are kind of trying to raise alarms about the growing threat and the growing challenge that is China. And as to the other question, I mean, at the very least, I mean, it would be great to have a president of the United States who we could count on to give a speech calling the Chinese out on this.

You know, there have been credible reports before this video that reemerged on social media this past week of these Uyghurs that David subscribed. There have been credible reports. of these work, labor, concentration camps. There's been interesting UN reporting on them. We certainly know enough to know what's happening. It's not an excuse at this point to say that we don't understand what's happening. And it would be wonderful for the president of the United States to get up and, you know,

like Ronald Reagan would have, call the Chinese on. on their abuses and suggest that as he takes on China on trade and intellectual property in these other areas, that this is part of that case. So I'm going to jump in. I don't have any disagreement with the people who are talking about this. Some are doing it fine. Some are doing it a little bit. I thought when we had talked about this before, you were going to ask the question

slightly differently. Because this is something that I've thought about a lot. I've written columns about how never again is meaningless. Yeah. Quite a few times, particularly about, forget a nuclear power, China, which I agree makes it more difficult. North Korea. Yeah.

You know, if the North Korean, the people in the North Korean gulag, never mind the hundreds of thousands who were, who starved to death in the 1990s, simply wore those Auschwitz pajamas. you would say oh my god it's the holocaust again right and or if you just didn't care that you know it wasn't jews but but north koreans who were being systemically brutalized and murdered and all of these kinds of things um and we did nothing about that either really um and so my own view on this is because i think about this quite often and um and so i want to kind of change it my not answer the question because at the end of the day I kind of think the politicians matter less. And the only way you're really going to affect the kind of change that you want is if basically American citizens, specifically consumers, can get outraged.

I mean, people... And are willing to act against their economic interest. South Africa changed in large part because of boycotts around the world. Yeah. Yeah, but our, like, South Africa didn't make my, you know, whatever thing in my head. house 50 cents. Yeah, no, I agree with that. David's holding up his iPhone. I agree it.

It makes it harder. But at the same time, you know, we spent a lot of time in the last three months talking about systemic racism and the legacy of Jim Crow. China has Jim Crow right now. If you are not Han Chinese, you are a second class citizen at best in China. You can't go to the best schools. You can't travel internally. They have outright Han supremacy in China. Everything, they actually have a lot of slavery in China. And, and, And it says something about what people are really talking about when they complain about racism and bigotry here at home and then just truly don't care about what's going on in China. And I think the only way to sort of change the global climate on this, because that's what you'd have to do, is you have to just have people saying, look, I don't want, you know, it's like a set of blood diamonds as blood iPhones. And I think that's sort of a, that's a generational argument that you have to make.

You're not going to make that argument in the next six months and win. You know, it took a long time with South Africa. It takes a long time with these kinds of things. But that puts the political pressure on politicians to cater to a constituency, which is the only way to pick politicians to do anything meaningful. David, did you finish the Splendid and the Viol yet? The book on Churchill by Eric Larson. No, I'm not going to be yet. Yeah.

You know, one of the things that strikes me to Jonah's point is I think we have, and this is true for a lot of history that I find fascinating. Because we know how the story ends, we put the end of the story also at the beginning as an inevitability kind of. And what's really interesting about this book is it's really telling the story of World War II before the United States gets into it. And, but it talks about the United States a lot. We didn't really care at all. And America's living its best life. And you have Roosevelt sort of like, look, politically, I can't do a thing. about this, you have the Lend-Lease Act that was sort of the most you could possibly do. All the while, you know, the Hitler's telling the Japanese, like, you know, it would be awesome

is if you could distract them to their left so that that way we're good on the right here. And I wonder whether we have the wrong sense about never again, that really there wasn't a never again until it had already happened. We already knew about the concentration camps in such graphic, photographic detail that had never been shown before. And, you know, this video that you're talking about, David, is not been widely seen. It's grainy. It's difficult to see what's really going on. I don't think we have the World War II style photos of the concentration camps. Perhaps Vietnam, the closest thing is those very graphic pictures that, you know, came back in Vietnam, like, there's nothing to land it at home yet, Jonah.

No one's going to give up their iPhone for discussion over Han supremacy. They're going to give it up when it strikes them and they see their own children or just outright abuse that they cannot tolerate. And I don't think that's, we're even remotely in the vicinity of that happening. Yeah, I just push back on that a little bit. The footage out of China about them destroying mosques and in cemeteries, even the train car stuff, is that footage really that much less compelling than what people saw from South Africa about townships and whatnot? I mean, I think you have to make an argument, and I agree with you, it would take a while.

That's why I called it a generational thing, but basically people don't want to know. That's my place. You know, and it's not that they don't know. It's that they don't want to know. They don't want to factor it in. It's sort of a Herman Khan thing. It's too terrible to contemplate, so they don't. And again, our economic entanglement with China is a hell of a lot different than it was with Germany and with South Africa.

I don't think we've experienced something like this. And to David's initial question, add in the nuclear power part and you've got a real mess. You've got huge American industries that have a lot of their future business planning tied up in People's Republic of China. You have an American public that there has a strong sort of America first pullback instinct at the very same time. that if we're actually going to want to do anything serious about China, we might arguably have to push forward more. We might have to reinforce some of these alliances that we're calling into question when the first things that the Trump administration did was kill TPP,

Trans-Pacific Partnership, which had provisions in there that were designed specifically to address trade problems with China. I mean, there's nobody who is cleanly on the field of play here where the dealing with China fits neatly within all of the priors. And so that's one of the reasons why everything feels to me to be so confused. But I also agree with Jonah, I think there's a very powerful argument to be made right back into the face of woke capitalism in the United States that says, essentially, I'm not going to listen to you. about old tweets at all, unless you're at least beginning to talk about disentangling yourself from this Jim Crow, a mass atrocity empire overseas. And just shut up about the old tweets and all of the stuff that, all of this stuff that woke capitalism is inflicting upon the

United States, boycotting states because of religious liberty and this and that, until you get your house in order. Yeah, but David, there's the other part of this, which is look at what's happened with Huawei. The United States, I mean, that's a boycott, if you will, of Huawei. I'm not saying China doesn't wish that Huawei was operating the United States. Of course they do. But they've got plenty of other markets. Oh, yeah. No, I know. I mean, there's no, that's one of the problems we have here is that when you're talking about a nuclear-armed economic superpower, there are not great options. But I also think that you can still make them pay a price. You can still impose

consequences. And some of those consequences have to come culturally from the United States. I think that Joan is right about that. I think that those who are critiquing woke capitalism for its enormous blind spot around China, like the, you guys know how much I love the NBA, but the idea that you can't put free Hong Kong among the, you know, on the back of a jersey or purchase free Hong Kong from the, you know, social justice messaging from the NBA store. I mean, come on, y'all. Like, seriously? And that's, that's, that's a layup. That's a layup. And you won't even do that. All right. And with that, listeners, I hope you enjoyed the new format. Let us know if you did or didn't. Feedback would be nice. And final question, starting with Jonah. So we ended up,

as we were discussing the pod in advance yesterday, we got in a conversation about MC Hammer and Jonah, what is your, I don't know, like concert that we don't think you will have been to? Ah, okay. You don't think I would have been to. I was going to talk about... Britney Spears. Yeah, first of all, I am not a big concert goer because I just don't like large crowds full of enthusiasm that are enjoyed themselves. But I don't know.

I went to an Indigo Girls concert once. I love the Indigo Girls. Well, and not only did I go to an Indigo Girls concert once, I performed on stage with the Indigo Girls as part of the Spitfire Tour, along with Jello by Offer from the Dead Kennedys and Ralph Nader and, you know, and Jonah Goldberg. I mean these names just sort of flow together. But I'll have to tell that story another time.

What do you mean you performed? I did not sing. They sang. You juggled? When I first got into public... More cowbell. When I first started doing like campus speaking stuff in the late 90s, early 2000s, I was the Washington generals of this thing called the Spitfire Tour, which was this peripatetic sort of political

minstrel show kind of thing. And it had all of these like famous left wing people. And then I was the guy who was supposed to say, fulfill the view that conservators are bad people. And, you know, and like the Washington generals against the Harlem. Globetrotters lose entertainingly. And we went from campus to campus around the country. I must

have done that. A dozen of them. The lead singer from Everclear was part of it. This guy, Michael Fronte, from I can't remember the name of his band. Oh, man, high school me is flipping out. Rosie Perez, I did a couple of events with her. I did a lot with Kennedy, who's now

with Fox, but back then she was MTV. And the big one we did with Ralph Nader and and the indigo girls was at the university of southern illinois or something like that and everyone was shocked to know that i actually liked the indigo girls and knew a lot of their songs because i wasn't supposed to be that i was supposed to be more evil than i was i'm definitely going to be doing a uh spotify ever clear soundtrack with dinner tonight thank you go uh all right uh david you're up so you know

So I've been to a few concerts, but I think the craziest, oddest one was I was, I met this girl on a meeting, preliminary meeting to go on a mission trip to Honduras, and she immediately asked me to go to a Leonard Skinnered concert with her, which I was happy to go. And it turned into one of the most memorable concert experiences of my life because it was at a place called Starwood Amphitheater. which was this big outdoor amphitheater, very cloudy night, which will become important in a second. Because about halfway through the concert, all of a sudden, all of the lights go out. And when I say all of the lights go out, I mean every light in the amphitheater. The concert stops everything. It's as if an EMP went off and all of the electricity in the United States was just destroyed. It was completely pitch black. I mean, no lights at all. 15,000 Skinnered fans about, you know, the concert had been going on about an hour, but we'd been

there about two and a half hours because, you know, the band doesn't actually come on for an hour and a half. And what ended up happening was one of the most surreal things I've ever seen in my life. It turned out that a drunk driver had hit a power transformer and had knocked out just all power, an entire area of Nashville. But what happened next was people to light the way began to pile their clothes in giant piles, pour like PGA, pure grain alcohol on the clothes, and light them on fire. This is a terrible idea. Yes. Yes. And then began dancing around the flames. So you had Burning Man, but inside? Burning Man in an amphitheater. That's a terrible, terrible idea. And the problem was that my date wanted to leave because it was kind of a scary scene,

but I was fascinated by what was happening. Like, I had never seen anything like it in my life. It was like, you know, returning to the redneck state of nature. And this literally went on for about 15, 20, 30, 40 minutes, and then we finally realized the concert wasn't coming back. By that time, the lawn was full of blazing clothes. It was really one of the most remarkable experiences I've ever had. And that's was born, the first Darwin Award. I don't know of any, I don't know of any injuries, but how would I know? There was no internet or Twitter or anything like that back then. So for all I know, there's like some, you know, granddad right now saying, yeah, I got this third-degree burn at Skinnerd in 1991.

Yikes. Yeah. All right, Steve. So I feel like we should just not go, right? Sarah, I mean, there's no beating that story as far as weird concert. That was the weirdest. Was not expecting that. Yeah.

So, so my, my, I mean, I had one that weird concert. It was also my, Best concert I've ever been to is by a guy named Kelly Joe Phelps. We drove four hours to Dayton, saw him in a basement of a little bar. He's this extraordinary talent, plays Dobro guitar, sings, incredible. And there were like 15 people there in this venue. I mean, it didn't seat more than a few hundred, but nobody was there. And that was great, weird in a great way.

the other weird concert experience I had was going to see MC Hammer, which led us to this point. MC Hammer was performing on the main stage at Summerfest. Did you wear your puppy pants to the concert? In Milwaukee. I did not

wear my puffy pants. What would you have worn to an MC Hammer concert, Steve? I'm just curious. I probably shorts and a t-shirt and flip-flops of some kind. That's not cool at all. My shirt matters in a minute. So I went to the concert with a bunch of friends. Summerfest, by the way, is this extraordinary music festival in Milwaukee

has like 10 stages, and you have sort of A-list bands playing on half of them at any given time. It's amazing. So MC Hammer was at the main stage. I went there with a bunch of friends. This was the summer before I turned to 21. I was not yet 21. I was drinking beer with a bunch of people who were 21. But when it came time to buy the next round of beers, I volunteered, walked up to the bar,

presented the bartender with my fake ID, and he grabbed it, snatched it, called over the manager, called over security, showed the manager, came back to me, flashed my fake ID to me, and said, this is a fake ID. I know this is a fake ID because somebody else presented one just like it right before you came up here. And not really thinking clearly, I was so excited to catch him in a lie that I said, that's impossible. We made those fake IDs on a huge board in my fraternity. Then it occurred to me what I had said. so I took off on a dead sprint through the concert venue, took my shirt off because I knew

that that's how they would describe me if they had, we're trying to catch me. And I could see the security folks running behind me. I made it to safety, watched the entire MC Hammer concert without my shirt on. This is the most like teenage guy story ever because if you, if they had gotten you, like the amount of trouble you would have been in for that is just so much greater than standing there. They weren't going to arrest you probably. Like you were going to be just fine. They were going to take your ID,

but instead you took off at a sprint. Yeah, well, it worked out, right? I mean, I was a lot faster back then. A lot faster back then. I probably wouldn't repeat the performance. The concert still lives in my head as one of the best concerts I've ever been to. And it was an extraordinary show,

just exceptional show. All the better without a shirt. It may be that I like they did a little bit more because I had just escaped the adrenaline arms of justice. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Wow. I have nothing. So I, like I'm a big Austin City Limits. I went to jazz fest. I've gone. I've traveled around going to Brandy Carlisle concerts and Dave Matthews concerts. Some Pat Green all around Texas.

So that gives you like a flavor for like my. musical taste, which I think is pretty great, all in all. But I also am very cheap. So I have terrible tickets, like always lawn tickets for everything, like really back back tickets. You know, like the Dave Matthews, like, I'm in the pot section. Like, it's, it reeks of pot every time. Isn't that the whole crowd? Fair. But like, I'm in the way back where like the pot isn't very good either, I guess. I don't know. I haven't smoked pot. So this will then come as a surprise when you know all of that about me, which is not that long ago. I was in the fourth row for the Miley Cyrus concert here in D.C. Nice. Nice. And how was it? You know what? The concerts that I

was going to were like about the music because you love the sound. That is not I realized why you go to a Miley Cyrus concert. It's a show. It's like a live. show like Cirque de Soleil but with Miley Cyrus gyrating and in that sense like the production value is incredibly high compared to Dave Matthews which is just like

four hours of Dave sort of doing that like weird thing with his feet you know bopping so yeah and you you know she doesn't disappoint as a performer there's a lot of

tight leather Or rather, not a lot of tight leather, as it were. I can one up the Miley Cyrus encounter. Okay. I was an extra in the Hannah Montana movie. Yes, indeed. What? Yes, indeed.

No. Yes. Do we save this for Dispatch Live? I almost. I don't even know. I was indeed. Yeah. I, you know, I'm a true Renaissance man, really.

I mean, you know. You're something. If I watched it tonight, could I see you? Unfortunately, you would have to freeze frame it because they cut the parts where I would have been close up, but I was in the crowd in the final scene of the movie where she, yeah, yeah, I was in the crowd. This was a, so, and it actually happened when I was on leave from Iraq. So I came home from leave, on leave, from in mid-tour leave, and she was. filming her movie in our town.

Well, according to this, you know, her song, she does like Nashville, yeah. Yeah, yeah. No, I mean, in Columbia, Tennessee, where I lived at the time, like in the new capital of the world. And my kids were huge Miley Cyrus fans and to Hannah Montana fans and to cushion the blow of me leaving again, we decided to have a special day of going to the building and being an extra. And it was quite an experience. That is a great way to end this podcast. Listeners, I will be thinking about that, I guess, for the rest of the day.

I don't know. I'm going to listen to some ever clear and see if I can get it out of my head. Again, send us your feedback on this episode. Tell us what you think. Tune in to Dispatch Live Thursday night, 8.30 Eastern. And we will look very much forward to talking to you again next week. You know, Thank you.