The Dispatch Podcast - Rob Portman on Risk of War in Ukraine

Episode Date: February 4, 2022

Ohio Sen. Rob Portman joined The Dispatch Podcast to talk about the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. What is Vladimir Putin doing? Why should Americans care? Plus, Steve and David ask Sen. Portman about efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act.   Show Notes: -Sen. Portman on Meet the Press -French Press: “Stop Screwing Around and Reform the Electoral Count Act” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm Steve Hayes here with senior writer David French and U.S. Senator Rob Portman, Republican from Ohio. We're happy to have Senator Portman here today to talk about Ukraine, an issue he's been involved in for years, the Electoral Count Act, and we'll probably get to a little bit of his Cincinnati Bengals and the Super Bowl as well. Senator Portman, thanks for joining us on the Dispatch podcast. I want to jump right in and ask you about what's happening right now in Ukraine. You recently went over. You had a series of high-level meetings, presumably heard, got the sense of the leaders of the Ukrainian government firsthand. I want you to explain to our. listeners, what is happening on the ground there? What is Vladimir Putin doing? And there's been a noticeable difference in the way that the Ukrainian government leadership has responded to it and talked

about it and the U.S. government, particularly the Biden administration. I'd love to get your thoughts on that. Yeah. Well, first, thanks for having me on, Steve. It's great to be with you guys and congratulations on your successes with the dispatch. What's going on today, is sort of a replay of what went on almost 80 years ago. In Europe, you have in this case authoritarian large countries saying, you know, we'd like to swallow up a smaller democratic country. And it's extraordinary that this is happening in the 21st century. And the outrage that so many free countries feel,

luckily is being channeled into something constructive, which is providing more arms and military assistance generally to Ukraine, which they're asking for to be able to defend themselves. And then the possibility of severe sanctions, which would have to be multilateral to be effective, against Russia, if they should make a terrible mistake and go into Ukraine. But for the viewers who don't follow this closely, I mean, they're really wondering, you know, why would Vladimir Putin want to do this? It just doesn't seem to make sense.

I think there are few reasons, one of which is that Ukraine is slipping away. So eight years ago, they made a conscious decision to move away from their rights. Russian-backed government threw it out, and so we want to have an elected government of the people. We want to be Democrats. We want to be like the EU and the United States and have a democracy and have a free market and, you know, have freedom of speech and freedom to gather and a free market economy. And it's worked for them. They've got a pretty prosperous economy and they're beginning, you know, to see the benefits of that.

And I think, frankly, Vladimir Putin sees that in the polling. He sees that in the investments in Ukraine. thinking, my gosh, if I don't move now, producing this country is going to be a Western country. Second, I do think he has concerns that they will join NATO at some point because of their progress and that that will put NATO on his border in a way that he finds, you know, to be problematic. NATO is a defensive organization. They're not interested in going on the offensive against Russia. They're just interested in countries want to join and they meet the criteria.

Then bringing them under the so-called Title V umbrella, which is a mutual defense. you know, saying we'll defend you if you defend us. In terms of how people are reacting in Ukraine versus the United States, which is your question about, you know, what President Zelensky is saying versus what President Biden might say, first, the obvious point they're together on the most important thing, which is what Russia is doing and the need for us to stand together to push back. Second, though, I do think Zelensky has a little different constituency. You know, his is his people in his economy.

He doesn't want to cause panic. He wants to keep the economy moving forward. He's worried that people will disinvest and some will leave the country. And so he's trying to find this balance where he wants to encourage countries to help him. He knows it's a serious threat, but he also doesn't want to put Ukraine in a worse position economically, particularly. And then finally, this is something that's hard for us to understand here in the States, but he's been at war for eight years. So, I mean, when he ran for office, it was the war was going on. His whole tenure there, it's been going on.

It's since 2014, when they decided to move, you know, toward freedom and democracy, there has been a constant fight. And I've been there to the line of contact where Russian troops and equipment is literally in Ukraine in the Dunbos region, in eastern Ukraine. And, you know, I had to duck because there was sniper fire. And they said, you know, keep your head down. And, you know, you have to wear a helmet. and a blackjacket and all that.

It's been a hot war. They later took over part of Ukraine called Crimea. And so it's, you know, for them, this is terrible what's happening in the buildup. But on the other hand, you know, it's a continuation, they think, in terms of this war that they've had with Russia now for eight years. They have lost, by the way, between 14,000 and 15,000 Ukrainians. that would be the equivalent of us losing about 120,000 Americans. Think if we had done that.

That's more people than died in Vietnam, in Korea, and Afghanistan, and Iraq combined in terms of American combat losses. That's in eight years. They have lost that many Ukrainians. So for the Ukrainians, they kind of look at us and we say, my God, Russia, there might be a war. Their reaction is in part, yeah, we've been living with it. And at some point, you have to kind of live your life, knowing that that threat is always out there. So, Senator, let's just presume most people understand, say, the balance of equities here.

In other words, that Ukraine is, Russia is the aggressor. Russia is trying to dominate Ukraine. If you're looking at this conflict from sort of a moral standpoint, the aggressor here is clearly in the wrong. Ukraine has a clear right to defend itself. But then there's this kind of argument that you've seen arising in the United States that says, who cares really about that? What we care about is American interests. And they can see Russian interests and dominating Ukraine.

They can understand why Vladimir Putin would want to dominate Ukraine and to dominate the near abroad of Russia. but they flat out don't understand why we would care, why Americans would care. So what's your, and why it's an American interest to care? So if you're talking to somebody that is very skeptical as to why we're even making that much of a fuss about it, why would we even go to this point of trying to impose punitive sanctions, much less send a few thousand extra troops into Eastern Europe, why should we care.

Yeah, thanks, David, for asking that, because I do think that that question is being raised by some. It's not a very large part of our country or our party, the Republican Party, but there are some asking, because most get it, that this is a fight for freedom, and America stands for freedom. But I guess a couple answers. One, it's not just about Ukraine. So even if you are willing to say that that's not important enough, which I'm not, but

some some would. If you talk to people from the Baltic states, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, or Poland, let's say, for example, or other countries in the region, they are scared to death because they think they are next. And, you know, the buildup in Belarus is particularly problematic for Poland and Lithuania because they're right there at the border. And there's a huge buildup on their borders as well. So it's a domino effect, I guess it was called at one time. they're worried that if it if this happens where will it stop and again that takes us back to 80 years ago you know world war two and when some people said uh to the then aggressor which was Hitler and the the Nazis well maybe we can appease them maybe we can we can give them what they

want here in this country and then they will they will stop and quickly it was it was determined that that was not where it was going to stop so I guess that's part of it to me the biggest one, though, is that the United States, again, in the post-World War II period, has been the guarantor in effect of the great peace that we've seen, relatively speaking. There's been conflicts, obviously, but nothing like our great world wars. And it wasn't so much as the world's policeman. We've been kind of like the sheriff. You know, we have a posse. And the posse is other freedom-loving countries in Europe, but also in Latin America and Asia, Africa. And they look to us to be the leader, partly because we are the largest economy and we have the most powerful military and we

have the means to do it. We have the ability to project force for peace. Ronald Reagan famously called it peace through strength. And people are beginning to wonder a little about that. Afghanistan being the most recent example of it, the chaotic and precipitous pullout from Afghanistan made a lot of people wonder, is America still there, you know, as the guarantor? John Kennedy wrote a speech that he never gave. He was supposed to be delivered in the afternoon that he was assassinated, which called us, I think, the watchguards on the walls of world freedom, not by choice, but by destiny.

And that's who we've been and who we are. So sometimes we'd like to kind of pull our horns in and go home and just everything's going to be fine. When you do that, what's going to happen with China and Taiwan? What's going to happen in the Middle East with Iran and their ambitions, you know, to have the, is it the Golden Crescent all the way? you know, pushing Israel into the sea and it's really taking over Lebanon, which they're in the process of doing, in effect, what's going to happen in places like Latin America and Africa

if sovereign nations' boundaries are not respected? And it begins to unravel pretty quickly. And U.S. interests are in all those places. So I think we have a role to play that most Americans acknowledge. It's not, again, to be the world's policeman. Trust me, we've made mistakes, including in Iraq and my view in Afghanistan and how we conducted it. it we're not good at nation building, but we're pretty good at keeping the peace. And so I think this is a bigger issue. It's about liberty and freedom and democracy and all that, but it's also about the post-World War to order and the rule of law being respected to keep that order. So I remember when President Bush 41 was in his cabinet room,

meeting with his cabinet, talking about what was going on then with regard to Saddam Hussein coming into Kuwait. And remember, like this situation, here's a bigger country, a neighboring country, authoritarian country, coming into Kuwait, taking over a smaller country. And, you know, some people say, well, why do we care? You know, this is sort of, you know, it's not really our fight. And this was not about the later Iraq war. This was a about whether Saddam Hussein should be permitted to take over another country. And it was just in his heart, you know, like as a World War II veteran and as a patriot and as a person who believed that America's role was to project power to be able to keep the

peace, he was outraged by it personally. And that's why we got into that conflict. And by the way, the Senate only approved it by, I think, two or three votes, the resolution to use force, which he, you know, he wanted to go to the Senate in the House to get, support, but even if he hadn't gotten that support, I think he would have done it because he felt like this cannot stand. And we had a very successful effort at that point, you know, with a couple hundred thousand troops and Colin Powell and pushing him out. You can argue about what happened next, which, as I said, was problematic in some senses. But I remember that sense from him.

Guy was a junior staffer than sitting in the back of the, you know, along the railing in the room, listening to him talking about this and thinking, okay, that's the American. that I want to identify with, that we have a role here, along with our allied nations, remember, 42 countries joined us in that effort. So how should we think of, sorry, how should we think of Joe Biden in this context? I mean, you pointed out what I think virtually everybody agrees was a calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, whether or not you agreed with the policy objectives that he was following the way that we did it was bad.

I worry about the message it sends after four years of a Trump, of a president in Trump, who we might call non-adventionists, maybe neo-isolationist, he made an argument. He said, look, America should focus on America. We should focus here. We're not, shouldn't be as worried about these things overseas. Joe Biden has a long history, as a senator who was interested in diplomacy, interested in foreign policy, made an argument about America's role in the world. And now we've seen him pull back from Afghanistan. And I would argue in the context of Ukraine when you and Senator Cotton and some others were raising

maybe not raising alarms, but raising the issue with the troop built up by Russia on the Ukrainian border in the spring, the White House was late and pretty quiet, I think. And then fast forward to the fall in the most recent round of rhetoric coming from the White House, they seem to have caught up and then kept going. Lots of discussion from the White House about an imminent attack from Russia. They've since decided that they don't want to be using the word imminent. But they are, they sound alarmed. What does that tell us about Joe Biden and the way that he sees America's role in the world? Yeah, well, first, let me say, I appreciate the fact that they have recently announced that we're going to send some troops to neighboring countries. You know,

this is a few thousand troops. So it's, it's symbolic in some respects, but it's important. So the Polans and the Lithuania's, the Latvias of the world are very happy to have some support. And these are troops that will be probably incorporated into a NATO force that is likely to be part of this effort. So I appreciate that. Having said that, you're right. They were slow to the game. And then once they were in the game, perhaps, you know, not quite as steady as you need to be. We talked about George H.W. Bush a moment ago, one of his strengths was his steadiness, including during the fall of the Berlin Wall and, you know, the way, as he said, he didn't dance on the wall, you know, it was steady. So the rhetoric needs to be tough and firm

and it needs to be backed up. So you don't draw a red line as President Obama did and others have done over the years and they're not back it up. You have to back it up. So I wish they had done more earlier. I think it would have helped, but they are catching up now. And I appreciate what they're doing. And I try to work with them because this is about America and our interests, in my view, very much so. And that requires bipartisanship in the legislative branch and the executive branch working together to create the strongest possible opposition to what Putin is doing, military assistance and sanctions and helping on the cyber attacks and the disinformation. that's all helpful to keep Vladimir Putin and Russia from making the big mistake

because it shows that if they do it, it will be a bloody, costly conflict and there will be consequences for the Russian economy that we've never seen before because the sanctions will be so tough and so broad. That's what this needs to be about, and it doesn't need to be about, you know, saber-rattling. It's just the opposite. Russia is the aggressor here, but firm and matter of fact. and resolute. So, Senator...

By the way, can I just make one other point that I hesitate to do this because, Steve, you're right, sometimes the America First agenda was viewed as, you know, not supportive of our allies. The fact is, it was Donald Trump who provided defensive but lethal weapons

to Ukraine for the first time. It was Donald Trump and his administration who expelled Russian diplomats in a significant way and let us send a very strong message. And there are other examples as well. It was, of course, the Trump administration that, you know, rebuild our military again. This sort of has to happen. Every time a Republican president comes in, you know, you've got to restore the ability to project force. He did that. So when some of the Trump supporters tell me, well, you know, what are we doing here? Why is this is not consistent with America? First, I remind them it was it was Donald Trump that provided that help to Ukraine when they needed it. And the Obama administration, despite my advocacy and, you know, attempts to get them to do otherwise,

would never provide that military assistance to Ukraine they were asking for it to defend themselves. Not never American boots on the ground, but just give us the ability through equipment and training to be able to defend herself. So a quick question because I also want to talk and I think we both want to talk about the Electoral Count Act. But are we comfortable where are, are we comfortable with NATO unity at this point? The chief of the German Navy, now former chief of the German Navy resigned after really going on the very odd giving a, going on a sort of a very odd tirade about Putin deserving some respect, Crimea, never coming back to Ukraine. Are we in cohort, are we in lockstep right now with the key members of the NATO alliance?

Well, David, it's a good question. And this is how I analyze it for what it's worth. I think Vladimir Putin has done more to help unify the alliance than anything in the past several years. So the transatlantic alliance, in particular, the NATO alliance, is stronger now than it was a month ago, stronger now than it was, you know, six months ago a year ago. So in a strange sort of way, what Vladimir Putin is done by taking these unwarranted aggressive actions is he's brought the NATO alliance much closer together. I mean, look what Denmark is doing or look what Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, are doing. what Poland is doing. Look what Canada is doing. Look what the UK is doing. You know, France is talking about putting a significant number of troops into this NATO force we talked about. So that's all good.

The outlier is Germany. And Steve heard me talk about this. But, you know, I did not know actually about this naval officer and what he said. But I do know that they are moving very slowly in providing the necessary approval for other countries to send weapons to Ukraine if those weapons were made in Germany originally and are subject to a license where it requires an approval from Germany. An example I used on Mithopresi the other day is an outrageous one to me, which is you have these howitzers that were built decades ago in East Germany. These are Soviet weapons.

This is artillery howitzers. Ukraine wants it. Stonia has it. Stony wants to help Ukraine all they can. They're getting newer artillery. They're happy to give Ukraine. He's how it's hers. But they can't because they're subject to a license agreement and Germany has refused thus far to provide approval. So you have Germany actually telling a small democracy, member of the EU, member of NATO, you can't help Ukraine because those weapons were built decades ago in East Germany. That makes no sense. What's the explanation from the German perspective? I mean, what is, if they're, you know, based on your experience in dealing with these issues, if I've got, say, the German ambassador here, what's he saying in response? Why are they so dilatory? Well, you should ask them, but I think it's two things. One, they say they have a process need to go through it.

So do we, by the way. When we were asked by some of these same countries, including Estonia, to provide some munitions as an example to Ukraine that required approval by us because of the license. We did it in less than a day. Normally that takes months. And I am told by some of the research we've done that Germany would have the ability to speed this up if the chance or thought it was important. But that's one thing.

They say they have a process. But two, I've heard the argument that Germany wants to stay out of hotspots around the world, and so they don't want to send arms to hotspots. I would remind my friends in Germany, and they are our friends, and they're great allies in so many ways. But I'm understanding that they had the largest export ever last year of military equipment abroad. They make a lot of stuff in Germany. They export it, and one thing is military equipment, munitions, military equipment. And they sent it to countries like Egypt.

So, you know, I mean, as you know, we have concerns about, Egypt and their human rights record and are hesitant to send military equipment there sometimes. Germany saw no problem with sending something to the most volatile part of the world, arguably in the Middle East. So I don't know what to say about it, except that I think when you're so dependent on Russia for your gas and, you know, we know about Nord Stream 1 and now Nord Stream 2, it makes it difficult to do the right thing. Yeah, it seems like that. the Germans want an economic partnership with Russia and a political partnership with NATO with everybody else. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss and it was a stark reminder

of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same-day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options

up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying through ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's ETHOS.com slash dispatch. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Let me jump. I know we're pushing up on time and I want to jump to a brief discussion about elections. You saw the statement that President Trump put out the the day about Vice President Pence, saying if the vice president had absolutely no right to change the presidential election results in the Senate, why are Democrats and Rhino Republicans working to pass legislation that will not allow the vice president to change the results

of the election? And he went on to say that Mike Pence, what you're doing tacitly acknowledges that Mike Pence did have the right. to change the outcome. What do you say to the president? Does he have an accurate understanding of that? And what kind of conversations are you having about making changes? Yeah, he might be right.

I think the statute is really confusing and it's ancient. It's one of these 1800. But wait, you think he might be right? You think President Trump might be right that Vice President Pence could possibly have the unilateral or return the election? Under the ECA, the electoral count act,

it's very confusing. It's very confusing. And it also is very confusing as to what the role is of individual members, you know, that one senator could require a vote, which happened, by the way, you call it in 2004, I believe it was in Ohio. Barbara Boxer was the one senator. And, you know, I think it's just, it's time to revisit the whole thing. But partly because he may be accurate about that.

So, by the way, to my Republican friends, I sometimes raise the point that this is not about Mike Vince. He's no longer vice president. Kamala Harris is now our vice president. And would they want her to have the decision, you know, in the next election, two and a half years from now, to say who won or who lost despite what ever state certify? So, I mean, it's just wrong for our country. It's constitutionally questionable in my view because that constitution clearly allows the states to me. make this decision, state legislatures in particular. So I think the whole thing may be unconstitutional, but at a minimum, let's clarify it and take out the ambiguity. And that's what we're trying to do. I think Republicans and Democrats alike should think that's a good idea.

So, Senator, we at the dispatch pride ourselves on very sober-minded headlines and not being click-bady and all of that. But Steve let me put out a newsletter that was entitled, stop screwing around and reform the electoral count act with a subtitle that said we're idiots if we don't. Okay, so that's just cards on the table where I'm coming from. What is in, in, I completely agree, it needs clarification. It's an ambiguous mess. It's an eight, it's a single eight hundred and nine word paragraph with one sentence that I think is 247 words or so with multiple semi-colons and dozens of commas. Can we, is this something that we can realistically expect to get done is electoral count act

reform? Is this something where folks are going to say, oh, yeah, we got it, we should do it, we should do it, and nothing's going to happen. How brass tacks, how realistic that we can get something concrete done on the electoral count act. I think it's likely we can get it done because I just like when people learn more about it, I think it makes no sense. And by the way, they're shocked by the fact that, you know, for instance, one member of the United States Senate could take the certification from a state like Ohio and say, you know, this doesn't count. Let's have a vote on it. It's just not fair. So I think we get it done. I mean, Republicans and Democrats alike would like to clarify after an election's over, you know, what the results mean. I think that's what this is about. So that's less controversial, frankly, than some of the other things Democrats want to do, which I disagree with, which is basically to take

away the power from states by preempting it with a federal standard. So in Ohio, as an example, we've had absentee voting for a long time. It's no fault. Absentee, meaning you don't have to have a reason. And, you know, we're careful about it. And we have had good luck with it. We've had good, safe, secure elections and good turnout. But, you know, for the federal government to step in and say, it's got to be done this way or that way. I think, again, it's inconsistent and with the Constitution, which vests that power in the state legislatures, but also we're a country of, you know, laboratories of democracy or states. Some come up with some pretty darn good ideas, and then the other states pick it up in terms of how elections are run. So that's really

the difference of philosophy. But Electoral Count Act is one way. I don't think there's any deep philosophical support for it. I think it's just a question of cleaning up a confusing, ambiguous his statute and making sure it's clear that, you know, an individual, whether it's Kamala Harris or Mike Pence, would not have the ability to overturn the results for an election. Senator, before we let you go, we have to ask you, of course, about your Cincinnati Bengals going to the Super Bowl. Super exciting. Is that a, would you have guessed that I could say that sentence at the beginning of

this season, your Cincinnati Bengals going to the Super Bowl? So I'll, I'll say, I thought the Bengals were going to be pretty good. this year. I think Jamar Chase is a great addition. I think the defense isn't great, but not bad. Joe Burrow is a superstar. Joe Mexins a good running back. The question was the offensive line. Are you surprised that the offensive line has overperformed the way that

happened? And to what do you attribute the success of the Bengals this year overall? Yeah. Well, first of all, I like you, was really optimistic and knew that we were going to have a good season, which for the Bengals means, you know, any season that ends with more wins and losses because we've had some tough times over the last few decades. We did go to the Super Bowl in 1989. I was there in 1981, the only other time we went, and those were exciting times. But in the 90s, I think we had the worst record of any professional sports team. We've had a tough, tough time. And we're small-marked team, and, you know,

we haven't maybe been able to do quite as well in recruiting, in part because of our record. And small market, but boy, that's all turned around now. I mean, it's really exciting. I've had colleagues come up to me all week. I've been wearing my orange tie every day this week. I've now run out of orange ties. And the Bengals, you know, gear. I wear my Bengals hat in the floor yesterday, and one of the sergeant-at-arms made me take it off

because I'm not allowed to wear hats on the floor, it turns out. But I put it right back on when I left the floor. But I think the O-line has overperformed a little bit. I do think people forget the fact that the Browns, this is the family that owns the Bengals, the majority owner, they invested some money in getting some free agents and walking up that line a little bit because they knew they had to protect Joe Bro better than they did last year. And remember, he had a serious knee injury last year. So the line isn't, you know, it isn't as good as the running back, quarterback, cornerbacks with great backfield.

I think the two keys to our success this year have been, one, the leadership of Joe Burrow, not just his arm, but his ability to really bring this young team together. Obviously, Mixon's good. Joe Mixon is a good running back, and Jamar Chase is awesome, and they've got a chemistry that goes back to their LSU days, he and Burrow, and that's been neat to watch. But the other part is the defensive backfield. I mean, our cornerbacks are safety are really top flight, and what that does is it gives or a defensive line the chance to take a shot at some of these these quarterbacks.

And when you saw Mahomes scrambling back there for, you know, what seemed like in eternity, it was probably 30 seconds, but it seems like for everyone you're watching it, it was because no one was open. And eventually, you know, a defensive end was able to track him down or a linebacker. And so it's partly our O line is better. But a lot of lot of it, I think, is our defensive backfield has been awesome this year. And Joe Burrow is a leader. You know, one of the stats you look for in a quarterback is how they do when they've got a really difficult throw to make. You know, they've got like inches on either side. That's his specialty. And, you know, it's Higgins and Zama and others. It's not just chase, but he's that

some, you know, some great receivers too. But he just, he's just got the ability to squeeze it in, particularly when he throws across the middle. What are you going to eat when you're watching the Super Bowl? Well, Skyline Chili, the real questions. Skyline Chili. So we've got this crazy dish in Cincinnati called Chili, Cincinnati, Chilly. Yeah, I have a chili party here in D.C. every year.

Half the people just can't get into it. You know, it's a acquired taste. But I'm in that half. I need spicy. I can't have sweet with cinnamon. My wife is from Ohio, and she loves Skyline. No, Skyline. Well, once you get into it, for most people anyway, it becomes an addiction, and my kids love it and Jane loves it. So we'll be doing a little Skyline chili. And maybe some

who day beer. There's a, uh, there were some beer made back in 81 or 88 called who day beer. And some people were bringing out their beer from the 1980s. And I think they're drinking it, which we'll probably have a lot of hospitalizations, uh, emergency room visits. That's true. But I knew there's going to be some new who day beer on the market in the next next five or six days and might have a little of that too. Well, Senator, it's been, you know, we really appreciate the time that you've given us. And I have to say, even though I grew up a Bengals fan, I was in, I've seen Ike shuffle, I've seen the Ike shuffle from Ike, grew up in northern Kentucky, but lived in Tennessee

for a long time now, decisively transferred my allegiance to the Titans. I haven't looked at the stat sheet. I think we sacked Borough 83 times. Yeah, it was nine times. you still beat us. I've forgiven you for that. I've forgiven Bingles Nation for that. And it's all go Bingles from here. But thank you very much, Senator. Really appreciate giving us a time. Appreciate it. Thanks, David. Great to see you. And Steve, always good to see you. Good luck, guys. Take care. With Amex Platinum, access to exclusive Amex pre-sale tickets can score you as a trackside.

So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Pre-sale tickets for future events subject to availability and varied by race. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at amex.ca.ca slash Yanex.