The Megyn Kelly Show - Haley vs. Vivek Fight Club, and More GOP Debate Highlights, with Michael Knowles, Emily Jashinsky, Michael Moynihan, and Charles C.W. Cooke | Ep. 666

Episode Date: November 9, 2023

Megyn Kelly begins the show by announcing she'll be one of the moderators of the next GOP debate on December 6, on SiriusXM and NewsNation.Then Megyn is joined by The Daily Wire's Michael Knowles, The Federalist's Emily Jashinsky, The Fifth Column's Michael Moynihan, and National Review's Charles C.W. Cooke to talk about the third GOP debate on NBC, and discuss Vivek Ramaswamy immediately attacking the NBC debate moderators, his criticism of the RNC, the pros and cons of attacking the media, Nikki Haley calling Vivek "scum" after he critiqued her daughter's use of TikTok, Haley's response to the "three-inch heels" insult, whether Vivek should have joked about DeSantis' heels, DeSantis' above average but non-viral night, Nikki Haley's excellent answer on the abortion question, her honesty and rationality on the topic, the straw man arguments about abortion in our political conversations, whether Vivek actually called Zelensky a "nazi," the substance of his Ukraine answer, whether he's "too online" for the electorate, Vivek's suggestion that we build a wall along the U.S.-Canada border, whether we should be allowing Canadian refugees into America, Israel and Iran answers, tough talk from the candidates about shooting and bombing people, Trump's recent Iran story, and more. And at the end, Knowles explains his new cigar line and love of cigars.Jashinsky: https://thefederalist.com/author/emilyjashinsky/Moynihan: https://wethefifth.substack.comCooke: https://charlescwcooke.comKnowles: https://www.michaeljknowles.com Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey, everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Oh, we've got a lot of thoughts on the latest battle between the Republican presidential candidates, minus one, which we'll get to in just a moment. But first, I wanted to share some big news with you. Save the date. December 6th is the next GOP presidential debate. And I'm happy to tell you that I will be returning to the debate moderator's chair that evening alongside News Nation's Elizabeth Vargas and a name you also know, the Washington Free Beacon's Eliana Johnson, our pal, who you know from the Free Beacon and hopefully from this show as well, where the three of us together will take on these candidates and try to shed some light on what differentiates them.

NewsNation is the host of the debate, and you can catch the debate live on NewsNation as well as here on Sirius XM. And Eliana, you know, is a great friend of this show. The big event will take place in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. So I'm very excited for this. As you know, it's been a frustration for me to watch some of the earlier debates this season because, you know, it's like I think it's the way a pitcher feels when he or she watches somebody else pitch. You know, like you can appreciate their style, but you might do it your own way. And your way is kind of how you want to see it done. Not to take anything away from all the debate moderators, but there certainly have been a couple who have been absolutely awful. That's the truth. So I'm excited to get back out there.

And I love Eliana and I don't know Elizabeth Vargas well, but I'm excited to spend time with her. She and I have children at a school together for a while, and I've always admired her. She's always been very cool, very fun to watch in her years on ABC, consummate pro. So we're already neck deep in it, all of us. And it's been fun so far, and it's going to be even more fun for you on 12.6. Don't forget. My big takeaway from last night, nothing changed. Absolutely nothing changed. And that means former President Trump won. He won by not participating. But it is becoming more and more clear that this has really become a two-person race for second place. The question is, can either of them, Nikki or DeSantis, defeat the 800-pound gorilla? And if so, how? Well, how exactly? We've got an all-star lineup

to discuss it all for you today. In just a bit, I'll be joined by Charles C.W. Cook and Michael Knowles. But we begin today with Eliana's partner in crime, one half of the duo we affectionately call the EJs here on The Megyn Kelly Show, Emily Jashinsky. She's culture editor at The Federalist and host of The Federalist Radio Hour. And Michael Moynihan is here as well. He's co-host of The Fifth Column. Back again today. Emily, Michael, great to have you. Thanks, Megan.

And I should say, if anyone is going to commit a crime, probably it's going to be Michael. Yes. I don't know why, but i think the answer is probably yes he's someone's partner in crime with like zero hesitation he signed on to that okay oh for sure for sure that's what he did yeah a very long criminal record um call me when you get pulled over by the police and we'll talk before before you talk to them ideally um okay so we we saw the debate i have to say i enjoyed watching last night's debate. I did not enjoy watching the first two.

And I'm just going to give it to you honestly. I thought that the first two baits were a hot mess shit show in many ways. It was hard to follow. The moderators didn't have control. There was too much talking over one another. The second debate wasted so much time. So did the first on nonsense questions with, you know, teeing up Richmond, north of Richmond by the singer and like stuff about UFOs and who's the last person on the survivor island. It was like,

would you ask relevant questions and just shrink, then shrink, toss them the ball, let them be the stars, let them mix it up with each other, keep control so we can follow the arguments. But it was a frustration. Last night, they didn't do those things. So I liked that. All the questions were substantive and on point. And I thought NBC, surprisingly, but most likely because it was under fire, did a good job of not sounding like they were working for MSNBC that night. You know, it was pretty much straight down the middle. However, here is a cardinal sin as a moderator. If I'm asking you two guys questions and you are the presidential candidates and Emily,

you say something and Michael disagrees with you and he jumps in like, no, actually, that's not what you said. I can say, stand by. I'll come to you next. But what happened last night was he would jump in and then he would stop and you would finish your point. And then they'd look at the third person over there and say, hey, you, Bob, here's a brand new topic. And there was fire waiting to be caught. You know, there was lightning in a bottle sitting right there. If you would just go to Michael Moynihan, but they wouldn't. They'd go to some third party who wasn't involved in the skirmish on a totally different topic.

And therefore, what was missing from last night's debate, for the most part, was debate. Debate. It was conducted much more like a long form interview, which for me as somebody who's moderated debates was a frustration. I want I don't want to see an exchange between Kristen Welker and the and the candidates. I want to see them fight with each other. And by fight, I mean, you know, spar. I want to see them point out each other's weaknesses and differences. So I walk away with, oh, I see. Yeah, they are different. That one. Yeah, it's nuanced. I see what he's saying. And they'll go places the moderators won't go, which is interesting. So it was missing that. Anyway, you know, overall, I give it the highest mark of the three so far,

but there's still a ways to go. Emily, what do you think? Yeah, no, I agree with that. I think also what helped a lot and I'd actually sort of forgotten about it because some of the candidates that weren't on the stage are so forgettable, but I do think NBC had this incredible benefit of only having five candidates to wrangle that helped a lot. Basically, I'm trying to not give too much credit to NBC because I think they learned from the first two debates, and then they had this benefit of having only five candidates. I agree with you. They should have actually allowed some of the contrast to come out. And I actually think that's why when Vivek Ramaswamy, as I think grading as he was for the rest of the debate, looked right at Kristen Welker and kind of tore into NBC News

at the beginning of the debate. I actually think that's why that was one of the better moments, because what you're doing by allowing NBC to host these debates is rewarding them for years of bad coverage. You're putting your candidates in a risky situation where for primary voters, for a Republican primary voter, they should be taking these candidates should be taking very tough questions. There's no there's no if, and, or but about that. They should be facing the toughest possible questions. But they should be questions that allow Republican voters to suss out the contrast from their point of interest. And Kristen Welker is not channeling the interests of the average Republican voter very well. And I think that's why this entire first hour dedicated to foreign policy, some of those questions were great. Do I think that matches the average voters? I mean, foreign policy right now is incredibly important. Again, no question about that.

But I think that's disproportionate to the average Republican voters concern. I don't think there was much contrast that was brought out about foreign policy in that first hour. I think it was long form interviews where they went on scripted sort of tangents about their own various degrees of experience on foreign policy. And if you had a better moderator, I was so glad to see the announcement this morning, Megan. If you had a better moderator, that would have been much more productive. Well, thank you for that. I will say I'm excited about the partnerships on this debate. We've all been working on it together. But News Nation is this up and coming,

you know, new cable news channel that is trying to be in the middle. And it's an ambitious undertaking. It's very hard in today's news environment to do that, but they're trying. And so you've got them, you know, they haven't planted a flag as righties or lefties. So it's interesting. And then you've got me and you've got Eliana. Both of us are in sort of outside, you know, this sort of legacy media lane. And that's exciting to me, too. Like I I when I left NBC, I did not anticipate I would be rejoining the ranks of presidential debate moderators, because historically these debates have always gone to Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS, and that's it. So for me, I'm excited because I wanted to get back in there. And I know to your

point, I can ask these questions from the angle that is most interesting to the people who are going to make the decisions about these guys. I was saying the other day, I don't know that I'd be the perfect moderator for a Democratic primary, but I know I can do a great job on a Republican presidential debate. And you're right. The way in and out of the question is the big tell. So let's spend a minute on that. The vague answer, which was like right out of the gate is the first thing he said. It was very interesting and it was went viral. Nothing had really been asked. You know, the moderators kind of opened it up with why are you better than Trump, who's the front runner? And DeSantis is like, well, because I am. He got us into debt and he didn't build the wall. Okay. And then they're like,

how about you, Mr. Ramaswamy? And bam, here it is, thought two. Why should you be the nominee and not the former president? I think there's something deeper going on in the Republican Party here. And I am upset about what happened last night. We've become a party of losers at the end of the day. We as a cancer in the Republican establishment. Let's speak the truth. I mean, since Ronald McDaniel took over as chairwoman of the RNC in 2017, we have lost 2018, 2020, 2022. No red wave that never came. We got trounced last night. This should be Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Elon Musk. We'd have 10 times the viewership asking questions that GOP primary voters actually care about and bringing more people into our party. You think the Democrats,

and we've got Kristen Welker here, you think the Democrats would actually hire Greg Gutfeld to host a Democratic debate? They wouldn't do it. And so the fact of the matter is, I mean, Chris, I'm going to use this time because it's actually about you in the media and the corrupt media establishment. Ask you the Trump Russia collusion hoax that you pushed on this network for years. Was that real or was that Hillary Clinton made up disinformation? Answer the question. Go. So what did you like so much about that, Emily? Well, I actually just like that if you're going to take the platform of NBC News, which I actually wish the candidates would have resisted it, you should use it as an opportunity to remind people about their failures. And it's just the big problem I have with NBC News is not that they lean left, it's that they're dishonest about it. And I actually think it's helpful to start a debate by attacking that pretense, because that pretense is the biggest

problem in the world. And the other thing is, you know, I actually wouldn't have focused on Lester Holt. And I think Lester Holt, I actually think Chris Walker is one of the better so-called mainstream journalists, but Lester Holt is on the record saying basically fairness is overrated. He's one of the biggest, I think, he's one of the biggest examples of how the media has reimagined its own duty to its audiences. And so I think that was actually kind of a missed opportunity. But I was glad that right out of the gate, we sort of had someone attack or shatter this illusion of neutrality, because that's one of the biggest problems in media. It's not that they aren't curious. It's not that they aren't asking tough questions. It's that

they're pretending that they aren't leftists doing all of that. He actually did say the exact quote you just said, a little color from the Kelly Brunt household. Last night we were watching it and my kids, who even when I was on NBC, didn't do a lot of watching of Lester Holt. So one of them said, his name is Molester? Who would name their child that? It's short for that. It's a very Brooklyn name these days. It's wild names that we have in Brooklyn.

You know, I love little children humor because it's my own, too. So I share the same sense. So Moynihan, how about you? Before I go to get to your top moment too, but let's stay on the Vivek answer for a minute. reasons. Number one, you haven't allowed the debate to take place and you're already impugning the moderators. I know they don't have the best history. Most people, as Emily said previously, want to know things about issues that are of concern to them. You know, replaying out of the gate, like the media thing. Look, it's he's doing the Trump cover band thing. Right. I mean, at the beginning, he says, you know, Rona, this is the problem. 2018, 2020, 2022, last night. Who's missing from that? Well, Donald Trump, I mean, obviously. And so Donald Trump is obviously a problem and very, very bad cover bands of Donald Trump, bad MAGA candidates, which is what destroyed the Republicans in 2022,

the Herschel Walkers of the world, the Mehmet Oz's of the world. And, you know, we've seen this in the past with Sharon Angle back in what, 2012. And, you know, I am not a witch, O'Donnell, but this kind of thing, when you come out of the gate and you say, oh, let's, let's do the media thing. Cause you are not Donald Trump. You cannot do Donald Trump. Do you know that people have been saying for, you know, 50 years, you know, Brent Bozell's organization has been around for a very long time saying the media is liberal. People know the media is liberal. The way Donald Trump did that was a very, very particular thing that he did. He did it very well. And, you know,

I didn't love the tone always, but I've been in press pens when entire stadiums of people turn around and boo you and i'm like this is actually pretty entertaining and working and then you leave the press pen and people are all nice to you it's kind of you know professional wrestling in a way but vivek is constantly trying to do the donald trump impression and you know that that was scripted this was not a. And every person who knows anything about Republican politics remembers Ronald Reagan saying, I paid for this microphone. What an amazing moment. Now in the social media age, you have Vivek and a team of people writing this stuff, the three inch heels comment to Nikki Haley. This, well, you know, whatever the question was going to be, he was going to land on NBC is bed. Yes, NBC has done absolutely ridiculous things, particularly on the Trump-Russia stuff. But you're just trying to get so many previous elections, but it was a very long

time. And even the moderates, I think it was one of the moderates who said, now let's get onto something more or less saying that means a lot to the American people, the economy. That was an hour and 10 minutes into it. So I think the order was a bit off. And Megan, to your point about the style of debate, I think that that is correct. I was sort of happy because the attempts to make people go at each other were so disastrous in the last two debates that it was kind of calm. And I was like, okay, I'm actually hearing the answers. You know why? Because they didn't control it. That's why, because the moderators ceded control in the fight and that's where they fell down. Debate is debate. Debate means both candidates go back and forth at each other. Maybe you bring in the third or fourth, whoever wants in and

is relevant, but you, as the moderators, your job to keep control so that the audience can hear and understand. And they would understand that, you know, taking you guys as an example, again, I would just say like, Mr. Shinsky, stand by, you're going to get your, your turn, go ahead, Mr. Moynihan, finish your point. Right? And so then you will be respectful. Then you're just going to hold it like she's going to come to you. Should I say something bad about Emily right now and test that? Because I... You might as well.

Should I just insult her right now? Scum? Is it scum? Because that one's already been tried. She, Emily, is scum. And everyone knows it. I should have prepared for this. And to those who didn't watch last night, I am not calling Emily scum.

That is what Nikki Haley said about Vivek. This will be contextualized very shortly. Yes, we'll contextualize, yes. So I had some thoughts on the Vivek moment. I love to see people bash NBC for very obvious and personal reasons. But I also find them disgusting and biased for all the same reasons everybody else does. I mean, the Russiagate thing is the perfect example. He chose the best example. But I think it would have been much more effective if he had done it in response to a biased question. And they weren't

hurling a lot of those at him last night, I think intentionally. They knew they had sinned and that any Republican up there would love to take advantage of their many, many sins. So it looked a little bit like, you know, in the courtroom, they always say, as a lawyer, you can go after a witness, but he has to earn it. Otherwise, the jury is going to be on his side instead of yours as the lawyer. So you have to wait until they earn it. And I think for some, you know, maybe people who aren't as obsessed with media as we are, maybe they know the media generally leans left. They don't really know Kristen Wilkers or Lester Holtz's media sins.

It might've seemed like, whoa, what's he doing? Like he showed up, they're giving him a big platform. He's in front of millions of people because of them. Why is he attacking them like that? So, you know, ideally for Vivek, he would have been attacked. And I think before he did that, I don't think he was trying to channel Trump so much as he was trying to channel Newt Gingrich, who had one of the most viral debate moments of all time. He got asked a very personal question at the top of a debate with CNN by John King and let him have it. And Republicans all over the nation went, yes, yes. Here it is. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?

No, but I will. I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that. The audience leapt to its feet. So he was looking for that. And I will say to me, it seemed performative. Newt Gingrich was authentic. He he's one of the sharpest minds we've had. I mean, truly, that guy is scary smart. He had it. He knew he got attacked. He flipped it on the moderator. It was super effective. His indignation was real. Vivek, I'm so mad about what happened last night in those votes. And I'm going to take it out on Ron. You know, Vivek Ramaswamy has only voted one time in his

life. He's 38 years old. He admits he never even went to the polls to ever vote for a single presidential race ever presidential. That's the one everybody manages to get done. You know, like most people don't do primaries, what have you, except the most. So suddenly he's like, I'm outraged about how the Republican Party is being run. You weren't even like really in politics until two minutes ago. And then he takes aim at Ronna McDaniel, which, OK, fine. A lot of people have problems with the RNC, but the RNC has its hands in federal elections, not state elections like the ones we were seeing everywhere last night. So I'm not sure how you blame that on Ronna. But OK, he called her out by name again. She was the reason he was there. The RNC and NBC provided the platform. Then he names Tucker, Elon and Joe Rogan. All right,

Tucker. Yes, I could see that. Elon Musk would never moderate a presidential debate. Obviously, he's way too busy and important for you, Vivek, or any of you people up there. Yes, I could see that. Elon Musk would never moderate a presidential debate. Obviously, he's way too busy and important for you, Vivek, or any of you people up there. Yes, you launched DeSantis. I think that was on his platform, Twitter X now, because it helps him. But this is absurd to picture. Sure, why don't we get Superman to do it the next time? And Joe Rogan is a Democrat. Joe Rogan would be coming at him from a farther leftist position than Kristen Welker or Lester Holt. Just because he's non-woke doesn't mean he's a Republican or understands the issues that are important to Republican voters. He was a Bernie Sanders supporter last time around.

So stop with the pander. That was an obvious pander. Oh, we'd have 10 times the rate. Okay. All right. Fine. Okay. And then I didn't like the landing answer it now it it looked obnoxious it was a sort of a bully way to he didn't stick the landing he's it seemed like an open middle

finger and it's just a bad dynamic don't don't look at the female moderator who's like smiley and so far hasn't done anything to upset anybody and be like, answer it now. She's not running for president. She's not running for chief media queen. She says like it just so that's why I didn't think net net that it worked, notwithstanding the fact that I agree with everything you said, Emily, about what was appealing about it. No, I agree with all of that. Yeah. And I hated the ending. I hated that line about who should be moderating the debate. It struck me as just insane, though, that Vivek was the only

person of all of the candidates so far in this cycle. Gallup had its survey out last month of its annual check-in about media trust. Actually, since 2016, when it hit a record low, they've been doing this since 1972, we are back at that record low. So if anything was going to fix the media, it would have been this realization that the host of Celebrity Apprentice became president. And, you know, to see the RNC and none of the candidates push back really hard on the corporate press's cooperation in these debates has been really disappointing. So for me, it was really great to just see, like it wasn't, it was so imperfect. And I think his whole shtick worked in the first debate.

He got that sugar high afterwards. I think everybody's sick of it now. I think it comes across as totally performative. But oh my gosh, I just wish so badly that other Republicans would give the media the respect it deserves. And that would be sort of tearing away that pretense. Well, to your point,

that's one thing people love about Vivek is he's ballsy. You know, like all the other candidates up there feel the same way about NBC, but nobody else really kind of had the stones to shove it down their throat. And so that's one thing you like about Vivek. He's getting kind of ballsy and, you know, sometimes it works. It was a little bit, you remember, I don't know if you guys are old enough, Moynihan, you are, Sybil. You remember Sybil was how he healed where she had the multiple... Good Lord! Yeah, how far

back do you want to go? I'm just saying, when you grow up in the 70s and 80s, you know these references. It was slightly before even that time. But she had multiple personality disorder so like in the first debate the vague was like i fucking hate all of you everybody's bought and paid for except for me everyone sucks except for me and i'm the only one with the confidence to

tell you the truth and then the second debate he's like he had some bad polls and some bad focus groups and um he came out and he was like oh i, I, you know, I just got a little excited. I kind of came across as a know-it-all, but I'm just a cheery, you know, soldier. I'm just here to help like here, let's do it. And then last night he actually gave an interview to NBC, to ABC saying, my goal is to be unhinged. That was his word. That's the most honest he is. I mean, he doesn't feel honest when, and you're right. I mean,

I don't want to make any Red Fox references or anything to give away my advanced age. Any other television shows you want to throw out there? So like the Beverly Hillbillies used to say, no, the thing about Newt Gingrich and why that is a good comparison, as Wheezy once said, but the good thing about that comparison is showing that clip is irrelevant because the best thing about Newt's answer there is when he says, do you want to answer this question?

He says, no. This is not something that they've been going over with Prompter. He says, no, but I will. And the answer is one to cut them down to size. Now, I have to give NBC, actually, weirdly, MSNBC, a tiny bit of credit here. My friend Steve Kornacki did an amazing podcast about Newt Gingrich that Newt Gingrich loved so much that he called him and said,

can I come on the last episode? Because he said no initially. And it goes over that Gingrich. And you watch Gingrich's development as a politician. And the one thing about him, you can love him, you can hate him, you can think the contract with America was terrible or anything he did was terrible. But you always get the sense of him that none of this is impromptu, that this is somebody who actually believes in conservative ideals, conservative principles, which he can enumerate very quickly on Mike. And he goes out and shows you that. Whereas, you know, Vivek and these guys, when he says, I'm trying to be this, that's not an answer that anyone ever gives. I'm trying to be something. Be yourself. Go and tell people you believe, and then you will be selected for that office or in the primary. But you keep on trying to be the weather vane and say, what do Republicans want right now? And I'm going to try to be it. And I find it endlessly frustrating. To me, it's very clear that Vivek has studied Tucker Carlson and wants to be just like him,

but lacks the charm and frankly, the savvy of Tucker. I mean, Tucker is completely sincere. He's read more books than anybody I've ever met. He immerses himself in news and policy and thoughts and has for his entire adult career. Um, every single book you see behind Tucker Carlson, he's read same with you, Moynihan. I know the truth. Um, but Emily, probably you too. I'm just saying, I know it's a thing. And, uh, and he's, he's immersed himself in politics and, and issues and culture and so on on his entire professional life. So you can't

fake that. Like you can try, you can watch his show and try to sound like him, but it's not going to work. We can tell what you're doing and that he would be much better served if he would just be himself like this really smart guy went to Harvard and went to Yale law. And he's got these, you know, interesting policy ideas and made a fortune in biotech and is sort of evolving on these issues and learning as he goes. That's fine. That's fine. We would understand that. But don't come out there like I'm pissed about all the Republican losses and Ron and McDaniel needs. It's like you don't know anything. We all know you don't know anything about politics. You've been in it for two minutes. Show some humility in that lane. OK, sorry. OK, let's

keep going. Who did you think won, Emily, overall? I think there's no question it was Nikki Haley. And as much as I personally don't like Nikki Haley, I think she needed that moment because now she is going to be super, super competitive in New Hampshire. She already is super competitive in New Hampshire. As you said earlier, Megan, the vying for second place to Trump, distant, distant second place for Trump, but second place to Trump. Distant, distant second place for Trump, but second place nonetheless. Nikki Haley is just about ready to overtake DeSantis. I know DeSantis is strong in Iowa, still not as strong as Trump. I know he thinks he's going to win Iowa. I know he staked his candidacy on winning Iowa. That's openly their strategy. But winning Iowa is not enough. Jeff Rowe, his big consultant, was picked for that role because he helped Ted Cruz win Iowa. Well, I don't remember the Ted Cruz presidency, actually. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's been president yet. So it doesn't that's not enough. think to a lot of people on the right who have been so sick of the Nikki Haley's of the Republican

Party for two decades, saw something different in Trump. I don't think Nikki Haley is ever going to work. But I do think for that average Republican voter who might be an educated suburban mom in a swing state, Nikki Haley is going to play pretty well. Again, I don't personally like her, but I do think that it's easy to lose sight in this kind of realignment conversation of the fact that that sort of normal educated suburban woman sees what Nikki Haley said. She had a very good answer, actually, shockingly good answer on abortion. They see what she said in response to that question. And they say, I'm with her. I think this is really, really interesting. So for her to actually, I think, outshine Ron DeSantis, I think she looked confident, especially for somebody who has been trailing in the race. She looked confident. Pence is gone. Tim Scott always in these debates fades

into the background despite his political prowess. He's fading into the background. Ron DeSantis was fine, but that is not good enough at this point so i think that's a big win for nikki haley the um the fights like desantis and haley went back and forth but the fights of the night that were memorable point of hand were vivek and nikki because it got personal they clearly don't like each other remember she said in the last debate i get i get dumber every time I listen to you. She doesn't like him and he doesn't like her. At the end of the night, actually we have videotape of it.

They avoided each other. Watch this video. When the debate was over, NBC kept the cameras rolling because they were doing like a post-debate show. Can we see VO1? And he went right past her. Look, Vivek walks right past her to shake Christie's hand, ignores her. It happened again in front of the lecterns. And in part, it was because of exchanges

like this one where he took a shot at her as sort of the new Dick Cheney, as like neocon. He's totally anti-neocon. Here it was in South Five. So what I would tell Bibi is that Israel has the right and the responsibility to defend itself. I would tell him to smoke those terrorists on his southern border. And then I'll tell him as president of the United States, I'll be smoking the terrorists on our southern border. Corrupt politicians in both parties spent trillions, killed millions, made billions for themselves in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. You have the likes of Nikki Haley, who stepped down from her time at the UN. Bankrupt or in debt was her family. Then she becomes a military contractor. She joins the board of Boeing and otherwise, and is now a multimillionaire. So I

think that that's wrong when Republicans do it or Democrats do it. That's the choice we face. Do you want a leader from a different generation who's going to put this country first, or do you want Dick Cheney in three inch heels? All right, Mr. Ron, we've got two of them on stage. OK, he added that bit at the end, in which case we've got two of them on stage tonight,

which clearly was a reference to DeSantis. And even though we here at the Megyn Kelly show have talked about whether DeSantis has lifts in those boots, we are a podcast allowed to do stupid ass things on the presidential debate

stage. That seemed lowbrow to me. He's doing shtick. Yeah. But his answer was, I mean, his attack on her seemed substantive and a fair place to go. And then she responded with the following. First, like to say they're five inch heels and i don't wear them unless you can run in them the second thing that i will say is i wear heels they're not for a fashion statement they're for ammunition she's gonna start sending all of the heels to zelinski what does that even mean i don't understand what she means i don't you have the entire time to think of a response and that's what she's like they're a weapon if you said they i could use them as a weapon okay i've seen single white female boom into the eye i got it ammunition i don't

it doesn't make any sense it didn't make sense no i mean I mean, here was the big, the big exchange between the two of them, where this will bring our scum reference together. Can we show that back and forth? I can't find the exact number. The team knows where it is. Go ahead. Well, I want to laugh at why Nikki Haley didn't answer your question, which is about looking at families in the eye. In the last debate, she made fun of me for actually joining TikTok while her own daughter was actually using the app for a long time. So you might want to take care of your family first. Leave my daughter out of your voice.

The next generation of Americans are using it. And that's actually the point. You have her supporters crapping her up. That's fine. Here's the truth. You're just scum. Don't. That's an honest answer, by the way that that's something not scripted out of the side

of her mouth you're just scum i mean that's totally a ripoff from will smith take my wife's name yes yeah but she said voice weirdly much like heels or ammunition she's a bit mumbly it was a glitch yeah it was. Yeah, it was very, very odd. I think that the point that he was making is so monumentally stupid that to say that, oh, should TikTok be banned? Your daughter uses it. It's like, I mean,

your daughter can be attacked, Vivek said after the debate, because she's an adult. It's like, yes, she can also decide whether or not to use TikTok and whether she thinks it's Chinese spyware. It seems to be a ludicrous debate to begin with, and probably not something that is deserved to be elevated to the debate

stage. But that said, the response to this is a chorus of boos. People thought, I mean, it's not even, it used to be like, don't attack Sasha and Malia. Don't attack Chelsea Clinton. They're too young, et cetera. It's not even about that. It's like sins of the father, sins of the family. Like, why is this even coming up? And I thought it was just a really low, not even a low blow, it was a very stupid blow.

But the previous thing, I mean, Vivek has got all of these things. He's just memorizing phrases and it just sounds so canned. It's so funny. Bibi has to attack his southern border. Has he ever looked at a map of Israel? Were they attacked by Egypt? What is he talking about?

So we can do our southern border. Oh, I see what you're doing. You're trying to make that connection. He's going to smoke them. He's going to smoke them. Yeah. And everyone, it's just like, good Lord, I can't stand watching this stuff. And Megan, I just want you to know, I do this for you.

Otherwise, I wouldn't have watched it. I watch The View for you because every time I come on, there'll be a conversation about The View. But this, watching this is like, you know what? It was better than most debates. But I just find this kind of desperate, and you know, you tell that he's a tiktok guy that it's of his generation because it's all soundbites he's just trying to get but he wasn't the only one in his defense like for sure for sure for sure like yeah yeah yeah sure you are and then it's just

says you know you shoot them cold dead stone cold dead at the border trying to be john wayne up there all these little harvard yale guys like yeah yeah dog face pony soldier next time no one's believing but that's a good one because it's a dog face pony soldier is so much better than anything they came up with and by the way the more that we get nick so the more the republican party insists on uh you know backing people like nicki haley and supporting the ideology of people like Nikki Haley, the more vivakes we're going to get. And this is why it's not the politics we need, but it is the politics we deserve. It's Nikki Haley coming back with the

my heels are ammo line from him calling her Dick Cheney in three inch heels. Like this is exactly what we deserve. It's so stupid. They're both bad. I will say I will say one thing, though. This is exactly what we deserve. It's so stupid. They're both bad. I will say one thing, though. This is very bad timing for him. He launched a website the other day that was like, sign the pledge not to be a neocon, which it was like getting in a time machine to 2008. But it's an interesting moment to do it because it's a very bad moment to do it. If you'd said this at any other time, after the attack in Israel, I'm talking to friends who are conservatives and Republicans, and I was like, oh my God, you guys are all sounding like Norman Podhurst. You're all sounding like neocons right now. This is kind of a neocon moment and it'll die out. But at this moment, when you're doing this neocon attack, it just seems kind of tone deaf to where

a lot of Republicans are at the moment. I didn't ask you, Michael, what your favorite moment was. What was your best moment for anybody last night? Who do you think won? my listeners at the conference saying this, I think that, you know, weirdly, Chris Christie sounds sensible when he's not performing. He has moments of like, oh, I understand why he was a popular politician for a brief period of time in New Jersey. So I think that, you know, overall, and I think Emily's right, Tim Scott just kind of vanishes into the background very quickly, and then tries to be bellicose about Iran and thing to get himself back up front. So overall, I think, you know, Haley and DeSantis, I think it's a sort of conventional opinion. Both did well. It doesn't matter at the end of the day because Donald Trump is going to be the nominee. And I think the best moment of the night,

totally shocking for me to say, because I have spewed nothing but hot contempt for Vivek Ramaswamy, but he was very good on this one moment where people talked about the disgusting antics from anti-Semitic and anti-Israel students on campus when he said, look, we have been talking about this sort of issue from a different perspective for a very long time, and the answer to this is not censorship. I believe that is true. And I believe it's very easy for people like us who have been talking about this stuff and talking about campus issues for a long time to lose sight of that. And we cannot lose sight of that, that Palestinian solidarity groups, whatever they might be, should not be banned from campus for being stupid. They should be debated

and shown to be fools because they are fools and they're easy to debate. Don't try to shut them down. And I think that when Rav Asami said that, it was actually an attack on DeSantis in a way. I think that really resonated with me. And I was impressed that he didn't take the easy path there. So I thought Vivek landed that very well because he and I had a spat on Twitter about him initially saying, oh, I don't want these students to be outed who are in these groups. He didn't agree with Bill Ackman, who was saying, I want the names of the people who signed these letters,

saying it's all Israel's fault, as the babies were not even in their graves yet. And I completely agree with Bill Ackman. I want their names, too. Not only will I not hire them, I will encourage my friends not to hire them. I want to know exactly. It's a public letter. Yeah. But what Ron DeSantis did is a different thing. And that's where Vivek saw the end and he was right to take it. Ron DeSantis banned Students for Justice in Palestine from Florida State campuses, saying it's basically Hamas. They've said that we're at what we're one with Hamas. And now you're in government. Now you're in the government working to stop a message that is controversial, which is next level. And he had a good in on it. And DeSantis didn't back down, but it made for a juicy exchange. that people always lose perspective and think that once you establish a precedent like this, that they're not going to do it to you, which is exactly what happens. I remember the rise in

executive power under George Bush. And I remember saying to a friend, what do you think Obama's going to do his first day in office? He's going to be an even bigger executive. And that's what happened. You think we'll use it for the good of our cause. But it's like you start those things going, and it's a very slippery slope, and other people will start doing it, and they'll do it to conservative groups next. Well, some of DeSantis' like DeSantis' has already, the Stop Woke Act has already been used to target Dave Ramsey books in Florida schools. Like what Michael is saying is a very real concern. Are you saying I should have been the debate moderator, Emily? Because if you are, I think you're correct. You're right. You're scum, Michael.

I mean, it's also true. These two things exist. But I mean, how did they not have that conversation? I don't know. No, it was. And you're right, because somebody who is coming at this from the right, who immerses themselves in right wing politics and culture issues and so on, would have known gold. Let it go like foster. Yes, this is exactly what the audience wants to hear more on. No, we moved right on. Frustrating. Hopefully, hopefully, you know, before the grace of God,

but hopefully we'll do better. I have every hope. And especially Eliana, it's so great to have the free beacon because they're like way outside sort of the legacy press. They're immersed in right-wing politics. It's going to be super fun.

She's not going to come at any of these issues from a Kristen Welker perspective. So anyway, it's all good. Thank you both so much for being here. Thank you. Okay, much, much more ahead. We got Charles C.W. Cook. We got Michael Knowles. We got stuff to do. Stand by. I think you have to be honest with the American people. This is a personal issue for every woman and every man. Let's find consensus. Let's agree on what, how we can ban late term abortions. Let's make sure we encourage adoptions and good quality adoptions.

Let's make sure we make contraception accessible. Let's make sure that none of these state laws put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty for getting an abortion. Let's focus on how to save as many babies as we can and support as many moms as we can and stop the judgment. We don't need to divide America over this issue anymore. Thank you, Ambassador. Senator Scott. Nikki Haley there on abortion. Welcome back to The Megyn Kelly Show. My guest now is Charles

C.W. Cook, senior writer at National Review and host of the Charles C.W. Cook podcast. Charles, welcome back to the show. I am told by the team that that you thought was the best moment of the debate. Was it the best moment, her best moment? Go on. It was both. It was the best moment of the debate and it was her best moment of the debate. I don't think you could improve on that as an answer if you're running for president of the United States and trying to convince people that you would be a good custodian of the whole country on this issue. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with everything that she said. My own view is that the federal government has no constitutional authority to

regulate abortion in either direction. But she, I think, did a whole bunch of things there that are really important for Republicans to do. The first one she did was to acknowledge that people do feel really strongly on both sides of this issue. Now, she is clear that she is a pro-lifer, as I am. But that doesn't mean you have to ignore the strength of the emotions it generates on the other side. And at every point, she acknowledged that. She then set the issue in its proper legal context, noting that it had been sent back to the states, that this is a good thing, that it shouldn't be decided by unelected judges. And she noted the unlikelihood of there being a federal resolution. And in a self-interested way, which is fine, she's running for president. She essentially said to the audience

and to the broader country, don't look at me, see the words pro-life and make assumptions that are divisive. Listen to what I'm actually saying. I think it was remarkably effective. And I think it does show that she would be really strong as a candidate on this issue. In the general election, she she looked pretty good in the wake of what happened to the Republicans on Tuesday night with this message. Right. Which is not as hard line as DeSantis and, you know, some of the others. Tim Scott was up there saying, I hope you'll all join

me in a 15 week ban. Well, that just failed in Virginia with a very popular red state or Republican governor. It's a blue state. Um, so, and the others are kind of looking at him. Ron DeSantis is already back to six week ban. Um, She's tried to find this sort of more middle ground of, sure, I'd love to have this, but the country's not behind it. And so let's be realistic. Though she continues to say, we shouldn't give the death penalty

to women who got abortions. I'm pretty sure that's a straw man. I might've missed some weird law in some state. I'm pretty sure we haven't been given the death penalty to women who have abortions. No, it is a straw man. But, you know, I actually think that it's quite a clever straw man in that she's also contending with a lot of straw men. If you ever debated abortion or discussed abortion, as I'm sure you have, people bring a lot of straw men to the table.

Republicans are going to have an issue with this. And I think just laying that out there preemptively and saying, of course, that's not the sort of thing that I'm interested in is actually important. Because, you know, it's politics. Whenever you get involved in politics, especially on an issue such as this one, people make all sorts of claims that aren't true. It was interesting because Vivek went on about when he was asked the abortion question about paternity tests. We need more paternity testing. And again, I was like, how does that affect an abortion, like a woman deciding whether to have an abortion? Is it like, well, I got to figure out whether it belongs to this guy or that guy. I mean, I suppose in like extramarital, I mean, we're now down to a very, very sliver,

a fine sliver of the abortion issue. I wasn't sure what that was. But again, it kind of struck me as yet another pander. Like he's leaning into sort of the toxically masculine group of, I don't know, perceived Republican voters who are like, that's not my kid. I don't know. Not sure what he was doing there. Not sure it's the answer to abortion policy, but that's not for me to decide. All right.

So who did you think was the big winner? Well, I think probably Nikki Haley, followed closely by Ron DeSantis. Those two stand out. They are the two competitors. I don't know how much of Trump's lead is real. I suspect a lot of it is. But if it's not, if we're talking here about people not being focused yet and high name recognition and maybe Trump being the first choice, but people are willing to look elsewhere, then I suspect that those people will go to either Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis because they have the command of the issues. They speak forthrightly.

I think it shows that they were both governors. There's something about governors. We've forgotten this as a country, but we used to really like governors in America, because it is the equivalent of the president at the state level. So those two, one, Nikki Haley probably slightly edged out the Santas. I didn't think anyone else needed to be there, frankly. You know my views on Vivek. I think Vivek is an absolute disaster. And then Tim Scott fades into the background, which is the last thing you want to do when you're president. And Chris Christie is just irredeemably out of kilter with where the Republican Party is at the moment. It is not going to happen. And isn't his spicy self. It's like he is, you know, we're looking at the numbers of

how you're going to make the next presidential debate, you know, the one in on December 6th. And it's only getting tougher. Like the requirements are only getting higher. Chris Christie needs a viral moment. He needed to get out there and come out swinging last night so that he could drive up his numbers. If he want to make if he wants to make the dance, it didn't happen now of all times to choose the I'm the sober, reserved, judicious one. I just I didn't get the strategy. I will say I thought Ron DeSantis, he's had the same approach in every debate. Like I'm likable, Madam Suburbia.

I'm likable and I'm trustworthy and I've got sound policies. But he never really has a viral moment. He, too, like Vivek, can sound rehearsed. You know, we've heard the stone cold dead thing a few times and we've heard the bit on Trump. He should be here. And it's like he'd be he needs to do some off the cuff arguing in order for people to really connect. So I don't know. Did you think DeSantis made any headway with voters who were not going to vote for him before? Well, I think DeSantis has much more space to grow into than Christie,

even at this later stage. You said that Christie hasn't had that sort of vibe that he used to have. I think the reason for that is that Christie's not suited to the moment. You hear that phrase, come at the hour, come at the moment. Christie was perfectly suited for what he did back in the 2010s, which was turn around a blue state, take on teachers unions, kick some ass. That's what he's good at. He's just so far out of kilter with the Republicans at the moment.

He's never going to do that. Now, DeSantis actually is quite close. Hold that thought on DeSantis because I teed it up and then I have to take a break. But I definitely want to hear what you think about DeSantis because I know you really like him. But did he do anything to change the game? That's the question. We'll pick that up when we come right back with Charles C.W. Cook. Don't go away. I would be telling Bibi, finish the job once and for all with these butchers, Hamas. They're terrorists. They're massacring innocent people. They would wipe every Jew off the globe if they could. He cannot live with that threat right by his country. Welcome back to The Megyn Kelly Show. My guest is Charles C.W. Cook, senior writer at National Review and host of the Charles C.W. Cook podcast. So that was a strong answer from Ron DeSantis. And I have to say, they all gave strong answers on Israel. Listening to them up there, I was thinking, my God, you know, I am sympathetic toward Israel and it's what's happened to it. But I think anybody, Democrat or Republican, watching those guys would say, yes, I would vote for any of them. Even Vivek, who's less hawkish,

but was saying the right things. But I agree with you overall. It was a pretty familiar performance from Republicans on a stage. My colleague, Noah Rothman, in National Review, said, that's the Republican Party I recognize. Noah and John Podoritz were like, single tier? Oh, the neocons. And I love that. They open it, they own it. But they were like, yes, this is the Republican Party we could have had had it not been for Trump. Well, you know, I would push back a little bit on that, Megan. I am less of a hawk than Noah is, certainly. But I think the vast majority of Americans are behind Israel. If you look at polling, I think I read 28% of Democrats, not just Americans, but just Democrats, think that

Joe Biden has given too much support to Israel. The rest think it's either been the exactly the right amount, or not enough. When you when you broaden that out to all Americans, I think the too much number drops to 20%. And so we do sometimes get a false impression of this in the media. And we listen to elite institutions, academia, corporate America, and the Democratic Party. And we think that there is this raging conversation in the United States about whether or not Israel should go in hard against Hamas, or whether or not Hamas is to blame for everything that's followed, whether or not Israel or Hamas is in the right, but there really isn't. And I think what you saw yesterday was a reflection

of that within the Republican Party that actually belies some of the claims that have been made about this supposed shift in what the GOP stands for. As you know, as I probably said on this show before, I don't think the basic political precepts undergirding the GOP have changed very much. I don't see it. If you look at the way that Donald Trump behaved when he was in office, if you look at the accomplishments that he's now selling to the public, if you look at the way big Republican states like Florida and Texas operate, if you look at where Republican voters say that they are, there are a few shifts. Some of those are contingent on change circumstances. Some are genuine ideological moves, but there aren't many. And what we saw last night

on the stage, really across the board with a little weakness from Vivek, was a reflection of the fact that the Republican Party is still a party that thinks America is a force for good in the world, that believes in order, and that sides with Israel, which is a free democracy and not with, and I'm not saying Palestinians, but not with Hamas. And I think that was encouraging and should serve as a reminder. But then when you broaden it out, it gets more complicated, right? So Nikki was much more hawkish on Ukraine. So was Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis. He's been kind of, forgive me about a little mealykish on Ukraine. So was Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis. He's been kind of, forgive me, a little mealy-mouthed on Ukraine.

He's kind of been trying to flirt with the Vivek Trump line of like, it's kind of somebody else's problem. And Vivek just owns that openly. So they're less hawkish, you know, part of the party on Ukraine. But they had an interesting discussion last night on Iran where those fault lines exposed themselves to. And I follow Ann Coulter and her sub stack. She's always interesting and provocative. And she was like three out of the five candidates up there want to bomb everybody. They want to bomb Iran and they want to bomb Syria. They, you know, like there's going to be a lot of bombing going on if the more hawkish three get their hands anywhere near power. I think she was accepting DeSantis and Vivek from all of that.

So what did you make of the discussion on Iran and just how far the U.S. is willing to go when it comes to fighting on behalf of Israel or supporting Israel? Well, it was the distinction that you draw, but I would remind everyone that this is often how politicians talk during debates. If you go back to 2016, it was always interesting to watch Trump because he would simultaneously criticize who he regarded on the stage as being warmongers or neocons or whatever other epithets you want to throw at them. He would say that they were responsible for the disaster in Iraq, or they would overextend America, or they'd want to bomb Iran or what you will.

But then he himself would sound incredibly belligerent. He would talk about, you know, the rubble bouncing and destroying people, which partly was an attempt to show that he would be a hard man as president without necessarily getting into wars. But partly it's what the audience wanted to hear. So there is a policy difference, as you outline, on Ukraine. That one is clear. There was a policy difference to some extent on Iran. But presidential candidates in the Republican Party do talk like that. They want to seem resolute. They probably talk like that at the moment more than ever, because they're trying to break through and distinguish themselves from or at least put themselves on the same pedestal as Donald Trump. So I think that explains some of it. I'm not totally convinced that there is a plan in Nikki Haley's heart to go and bomb Iran. I think she's just trying to seem resolute. Well, Iran came up because they've been bombing. They've been sending various munitions over at U.S. facilities overseas.

And some 40 U.S. service personnel have been hurt, though no one killed. But they're talking about some traumatic brain injuries to our troops. And more and more of the question is coming up, what are we going to do? I mean, we're the United States of America. You don't hurt U.S. troops, especially if you're Iran, and get away with it. And so that's why, you know, they were asking, what would you do? What will you do? DeSantis had a strong answer on it.

Here's how he sounded on that last night on SOT7. I would say you harm a hair on the head of an American service member, and you are going to have hell to pay. We are not just going to sit there and let our service members be sitting ducks. Okay, but I have to say, this goes back to the point I was making earlier in the show, Charles, which is all these guys like Vivek, I'm going to smoke them at the southern border. And Ron DeSantis, like you're going to be stone cold dead. They're all trying to have a little John Wayne moment. They want us to believe they're this guy. Watch. They want us to believe they're John Wayne. You and your brother stand clear.

I got no interest in you today. Stand clear and you won't get hurt. And you son of a bitch. i'm sorry but they're not and no one's buying it like it's great to be like you harm a hair on their head and a little lady and i'm gonna but like realistically what they're trying to get as is what are you going to do to Iran? Because no one wants World War III with them. Sure. But what is your objection there? Because I think it was about a week ago that Donald Trump said, if they spill a drop of our soldiers' blood, we spill a gallon of theirs,

which is a John Wayne-style thing to say. I mean, it's a great movie, by the way. I watched that a couple weeks ago. Trump can say what he wants because when in office, he did drop a bomb on Soleimani. Trump can say what he wants because when in office, he did drop a bomb on Soleimani. And it definitely was deterrence live in action. Right. But do you doubt, for example, that Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis, or Chris Christie for that matter, would have killed Soleimani?

Yes, I do. You do? See, I don't. I think that one of the reasons that they talk like that is because that's how Republican presidential candidates tend to talk. If you go back to the 1980 election, the stuff that Ronald Reagan used to say about the Soviet Union actually scared some voters because they thought he might start a hot war with the Soviet Union, but really did distinguish him from Jimmy Carter and was cowboyish in nature. I just see this as part of the dance that Republicans go through

when they're trying to convince the public that they are capable of being the commander-in-chief. Do you really believe that Ron DeSantis is going to start shooting people coming across the southern border, stone cold, dead? I mean, okay. Do you think Ruvik Ramasw separate question is gonna smoke him he's gonna

smoke the people at the southern like no but i but i think that if trump who ran as the relatively dovish candidate both in the republican primary and in the general election against hillary ended up lobbing bombs into was it libya syria um and then killing Soleimani and issuing all sorts of semi amusing threats. I really don't think it will be beyond the ken of a Ron DeSantis or a Nikki Haley to project strength, which is a separate question from starting wars. The reason I said that, and I get that they're hawkish and that they're strong, Republicans in general and national security are strong. But the reason I doubt it is because it was a bold move to take him out. And it was criticized by the right and the left at the time. And people really thought that Iran was going to respond in a way that was going to get us in

a lot of trouble that Republicans and Democrats wanted to avoid. And Trump has since only recently told the story about how even Netanyahu was like, I'm not in on this. I'll help you with some intel. But when push came to shove, he didn't help us actually take them out. And Bibi Netanyahu is as hawkish as they come. So I do have my doubts about whether somebody as less erratic than Donald Trump would have actually given the OK on that. And that's that's a compliment to Trump because he did have this unsteadying and does force about him, which can be used for evil or for good. And that's a compliment to Trump because he did have this unsteadying and does force about him, which can be used for evil or for good. And in that case, it was 100% for good, not for nothing. But Trump was talking recently about a couple of things. I'll only

play the one soundbite, but he talked about that moment where they bombed Soleimani, tried to claim that the prime minister of Pakistan told him he had to go into his home for a week and couldn't come out because he said, like reevaluate his life's choices. Like so bold was Trump and his inspo. And then all the fact checkers came out and said, actually, he was seen like the next day and the day after that and the day after that. And, and none of that, I don't, whatever. But he did talk about how Iran did something similar to what they're doing now after we took out Soleimani, like saber rattling and revealed, I think, for the first time that they had given us the heads up they were going to do it. We have the soundbite. It's interesting. When Iran shot down a drone, a metal drone, it was 14 years old, not very valuable, flying very near Iran. We had to hit them. So we hit them quite hard. We're going to launch 18 missiles

at your military base, but none of them will hit the base. Five of them blew up in the air, didn't make it, and the others hit outside the base area. So they told me that they were going to hit us, but they just had to do it. Now, I never told that story before, but you know what that story is about? Respect for our nation. What do you make of it? It's interesting to hear a former president giving details like that out

from the stump, number one. But respect for the nation and the deterrent effect of having a strong commander in chief is a fair point to be raising right now. Yeah. I mean, I think it highlights once again, though, that Trump is sort of incoherent on this because he wants to be the anti-war guy, but also he wants to be the strongest guy. And I think the foreign policy of the Trump administration was pretty good. Don't get me wrong. But I also think some of the categorizations you hear are odd. Some of the words we use. What do I make of that? I do think there is something to the idea that if you have a crazy president, people are worried about what they're going to do and behave accordingly. I think you can overstate that case. But I think some of that is true. I think it's probably not an accident

that we have seen much more turmoil in the world under Joe Biden than we have under Trump, because Trump was just so unpredictable and alarmed people. I wish he hadn't told that story. I don't think that's the role of presidents to reveal that sort of information. It doesn't make the current guy's job any easier. Yeah, it was kind of jarring. Like, I'm not sure we should be knowing this, but. No. Well, he hasn't exactly been been jealous of national security information.

As it turns out, that's not been an issue for him. While we're on foreign policy, let's stay with Ukraine because the vague came out with this sort of string. He's very, very hardcore anti-Ukraine, doesn't seem much like the government there, the way it's set up, why he doesn't want to help them anymore. And in it, he appears to have, though he's now denying that he did, called Zelensky a Nazi. Zelensky is Jewish and not a Nazi. And Vivek's trying to undo this now, but it's an interesting moment and he's catching some flack for it. Here's the sound bite. I'm actually enjoying watching the Ukraine hawks quietly, delicately tiptoe back from their position as this thing has unwound into a disaster. The first half of this race, I was the only person standing for it. Now they're actually quietly coming around to being more cautious as they should. Ukraine is not a paragon of democracy. This is a country that has banned 11 opposition

parties. It has consolidated all media into one state TV media arm. That's not democratic. It has threatened not to hold elections this year. It has celebrated a Nazi in its ranks, the comedian in cargo pants, a man called Zelensky, doing it in their own ranks. Those are the hard facts. And sort of frame this as some kind of battle between good versus evil, don't buy it. I am telling you, Putin and President Xi are salivating at the thought that someone like that could become president. They would love to. Okay, so now, because a lot of people were like, okay, Zelensky's a Nazi? So no, you can have legitimate criticisms of Ukraine and where's our money going and are they corrupt and all that. But Zelensky is not a Nazi. So now he's trying to say he wasn't referring to Zelensky, even though he said a comedian in cargo pants, Zelensky. Zelensky was a he is a former And some Canadian lawmaker chose to honor this guy after he

was like 98 years old. And they tried to give him, they did honor him. Zelensky had nothing to do with it. He was just there. Turned out the guy was a Nazi who actually served under Hitler. That Canadian politician resigned. He was embarrassed. They took back the honor. It wasn't a Zelensky thing, but now he's trying to say that somehow blame that on Ukraine in his explanation for why he said what he said. I'm not sure what's happening here. What do you think is happening here? Look, we've all misspoken. So I'll say this with some humility, but I've read the transcript of that moment and I've listened to him say it out loud five or six times now, and I just can't see it. The way that it immediately follows his use of the word Nazi,

the description of Zelensky, both in print and the inflection in his voice, seems to me as if he's suggesting that Zelensky is a Nazi, which it's worth saying is what Vladimir Putin says. That's his excuse. Either way, that is rendered in service of what is ultimately a straw man. I don't think that it matters enormously whether or not Ukraine is a wonderful place. This is one of the criticisms that I've had, in fact, of those on the left who have turned Ukraine into paradise. I think progressives really can't help but do this. They put the flag outside of their house and they have to believe that it's the best place in the world. You're actually seeing some of that weirdness at the moment with Gaza. The reason that the United States should not with a blank check, but should

support Ukraine, even if just morally, is that Ukraine was invaded. That's it. Ukraine was a sovereign state that was invaded by its neighbor in a war of conquest. For some reason, Vivek Ramaswamy seems to think that this is a matter of good and evil, that if you can criticize Ukraine, which we should in many ways, then that argument falls apart. And I don't think it does. And I just wonder if he got a little bit over exuberant. One of the criticisms of him that I think has the most merit is he's just too online. You know, at one point he said to the moderators, oh, well, this should be moderated by Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan. Okay, but that's the sort of thing you...

And Elon Musk. Look, that's fine. But that's the sort of thing that you actually don't hear from normal American voters. I've never... I take my kids to baseball practice. People do talk politics sometimes. I've never heard anyone say anything of the sort. They're all concerned with the price of food. They're concerned with the price of gas. They're concerned with this international situation. He's very online. And I wonder whether he got over-exuberant in his criticisms of Ukraine and he ranged beyond the reasonable point,

which is that it's not, you is that it's not some 19th century New England democracy. He ranged into this underworld idea that is actually the successor to Nazi Germany, and now he's trying to walk it back. By the way, is your son still batting 1,000? Yes. He actually finished the season batting 1,000. His team went out in the playoffs, but he finished the season batting a thousand. It's crazy. of last night. We went into it with Haley on an upward trajectory in the polls. Ron DeSantis had stuttered. Tim Scott, I predict, is going to be out of this thing within the next two weeks, certainly before the next debate. Chris Christie, if he doesn't make the next debate, he's effectively done. I mean, it's over. So we're left with Ramaswamy, Haley, DeSantis, and Vivek too has polls that have stalled out.

So maybe effectively only DeSantis and Haley, but all of that ignores the fact that they're almost 50 points behind the Republican front runner, Donald Trump, who might be faring poorly in these debates. If you were to show up. You know, who doesn't have the fastball that he had back in 16, something DeSantis has been pointing out, but we're never going to know because you could argue wisely he's chosen not to subject himself to that and the voters are not penalizing him for it. Has anything changed? So I'm going to give you a no and a yes, if I may, because I live in this weird Schrodinger's world with this primary season where I'm never quite sure what's going on. And I sometimes think two things are going on at once. So no, in the sense that nobody has broken out. It's difficult to do without Trump

on the stage or there. But nobody has had such a moment that the whole country has jumped out of bed in the morning and said, my goodness me, did you see what X or Y said last night in the debate? So in that sense, no. The inertia helps Donald Trump. He has this big polling advantage. It doesn't seem to be moving anywhere. Although people at the bottom of the polling list have shuffled around a little bit,

Trump has stayed constant at the top. That's the no. The yes is that both Haley and DeSantis have now fairly routinely, both in debates and in campaign events and other circumstances, kept themselves in it. And if Trump does turn out this time to be a paper tiger, or if it does turn out that people weren't paying attention, or if it does turn out that people weren't paying attention, or if it does turn out that the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and elsewhere are actually far more open to alternatives than it looks as if they are at the moment,

that's going to matter enormously. But in one sense, what we've seen is this mattering in terms of attrition. It matters because it is now, I think, fundamentally obvious that Tim Scott's just not going to make it. He's not going to be there. He's not going to be attractive to voters if Donald Trump stumbles or turns out to be Potemkin. I think Chris Christie never was, and Vivek has just revealed himself to be a troll. But DeSantis is viable. And Nikki Haley is viable. I do have some questions about her appeal across the board, although I think she'd be a really strong general election candidate. So I think the answer is no, in that nothing's changed. But it really depends on your theory of the race. If you think, I'm sort of 30% thinking this, 70% not. If you think that maybe

something has to give and that this will ultimately come down to a dogfight between two people, then yeah, DeSantis and Haley have done what they need to do. And it's more impressive from Haley because everyone thought six months ago that DeSantis was going to be the one standing with Trump at the end or challenging Trump. Nikki Haley was at the edges. And yet she's now put herself in a position where she could well be engaged in a real fight if the circumstances change, which I should say I don't think they're necessarily going to. Well, the interesting thing about them changing is today there was news out of Minnesota that one of those challenges to keep Trump off the ballot because he's an alleged insurrectionist got decided in Trump's favor. But the judge didn't decide it by interpreting the U.S. Constitution. The judge went off of some Michigan law. And therefore, as I understand it, the big challenge under the U.S. Constitution is preserved and could still be raised. There's a trial underway

right now in Colorado where they're examining this issue. Can he be kicked off the ballot because he allegedly engaged in an insurrection? I don't believe that this applies, but I'm not a judge. And this is like a very, very long shot. But there are those challenges in a few states. And what if what if they went against Trump? What if we had a ruling in three of the six swing states that Donald Trump cannot be on the ballot? I mean, at that point, Republicans really will have to say to themselves, my God, we're going to lose if we stick with him. There are ways in which what we're watching now could become really important, really fast. And Nikki and Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis may be vying for that top non-Trump spot.

I think Vivek is vying for the top, almost Trump spot. So, so where he can say, I know 45% of the party finds me obnoxious and unlikable, but some 35% that loves Trump loves me and I can get the remainder. I can do it. So I see his role and I see why he's still in it. And I see why he's still a valuable candidate up there offering different POVs from the MAGA angle on all these issues. In any event, it's a long shot. I haven't even talked about Trump's criminal trials and all that, but I'm talking about something that could soon lead voters to say he can't be on the ticket.

We'll see. We'll see, Charles. Well, and I'm bothered by this as an American citizen who really cares about policy and the future and the prospects for my five-year-old batting 1,000. This is not a game. And we're not in 1996, where things are looking up. And most Americans say they don't really care who wins. And only 48% of them turn out to vote. I mean, we really are in trouble. I'm optimistic, as you know. I tend to be the sunny, optimistic guy.

And I am still in the long run. But this isn't a good moment. I'm not going to indulge in all of that doom-mongering and say, this is the last election. This is the only election that matters. It's not true. But this election really does matter. I mean, we still have bad inflation prices are high, they're not coming down, we have highest interest rates we've had for a long, long time, 40 years, difficult to buy a house for most people. We've got the world on fire, we have this horrible progressive ideology that is striking at

the founding precepts that have made this country what it is. We're spending more money on the debt than we spend on the defense budget, or at least we will be in a couple of months. We have no plan to fix entitlements. We have no plan to fix our deficits. And we have crime on the up, and we have an open southern border. And I am surprised, I have to say, that there seems to be less concern off the ballot in enough states to make him unable to win the electoral college. That would worry me, even if I were a Donald Trump guy,

which I'm very much not. Just as a generic Republican problem, that seems absolutely enormous to me, given the scale of the challenge that the United States faces here, which, again, is great compared to where it has been in a whole bunch of elections of the past. Yeah, it's not exactly 1968, but it's not great. You're right. It's not 96 either. Charles, always a pleasure. Thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me. All right.

To be continued with Charles back soon, I hope. And up next, one of our other faves, Michael Knowles is here. Got some questions for him about America's evil top hat, also known as Canada. That came up last night. We'll get into it. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today.

You can catch The Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are. No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free.

That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. Joining me now, Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show over on The Daily Wire. Michael's got a very special announcement that he wants to bring to all of you that we will get to in one moment. But first, MK, from one MK to another, what'd you think last night? Megan, I watched that train wreck for one reason and one reason only, and it is that I love you. And I agreed to do it because I knew we would be talking about it today. That is the only reason. I had a very busy day yesterday. And crucially, I knew that even if it had been a good debate and it had been an exciting debate, not one thing that anyone

said would affect the race at all. I was trying to figure out what is going to be my hot take on the debate. And I think my hot take is that the guy who's 49 points behind the GOP front runner who didn't show up, he had a few good zingers and he had some interesting insights. But probably the guy who's only 44 points behind the GOP front runner, he probably won the debate because he had the most mainstream and impressive answers. And the people who are 54 points and 56 points respectively behind the GOP front runner, they did not do quite as well. And what's the upshot of all of it? Absolutely nothing. Yeah. Yes. I will say this, though. I I've been thinking a

lot about it because when I was, you know, deciding, do I do I want to moderate a debate right now without the front runner? We're like and I thought, you know, I do want to do it because I think it's good for America. I do. I think it's good to hear these issues discussed so publicly. I think it's good, frankly, for the Republican Party to have their take on these issues so so public and debated freely and openly and to see what they have to offer, even if it's not likely to be the ultimate guy. And so I do think it's a service to the voters, even if they don't wind up. And, you know, as we discussed with Charles C.W. Cook, it's not 100 percent that Trump is going to be able to do it for a bunch of different weird reasons, none of which are good reasons. But let's just be let's be honest. The Republicans better make sure they have settled on their first alternate at a minimum.

And there's one skinny path potential. Look, DeSantis got endorsed by Kim Reynolds, the Iowa governor. That could really help him. There's a there's a chance he could wind up winning. Iowa is always kind of weird. You goes its own way. That's the issue. I just mean it's different. And then New Hampshire, Nikki's doing well there. So I don't know. Keep going. I just fear that even if the DeSantis campaign is staking its whole game on Iowa, when was the last time Iowa picked the Republican nominee?

It was George W. Bush. Iowa didn't pick McCain in 2008, right? Didn't pick Romney in 2012, didn't pick Trump in 2016 even. So, you know, it's not a knock on DeSantis. I think he's doing a good job. I think he basically won the debate last night. I agree with you. The debates are important because if you have the liberal establishment trying to throw the GOP front runner into a gulag or ostracize him to St. Helena, there is a chance they'll succeed. They're very good at political machinations and political organizing, even as we saw in those awful election results just a couple nights ago. So it could happen. And that's why those candidates are all still on the stage there.

And they are representing different aspects of the Republican Party. You've got Vivek representing the more online, younger Republican views, probably. You've got Ron DeSantis representing a Trumpier and more traditionally conservative, yet still broadly mainstream Republican view. You've got Nikki Haley representing probably a Republican view that more of us are familiar with over the last 20 years. You've got Chris Christie representing the Democrat view. It's nice that he's on stage, I guess. And you've got Tim Scott.

Tim was probably the most interesting one last night, and this went totally unnoticed in most reactions to it, which is that he said that America is fundamentally and essentially a Christian nation. So Tim Scott, who some people think is milk toast and he's a really sweet, very nice man, he was articulating a pretty coherent vision of Christian nationalism last night, saying that the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln, of Ronald Reagan don't make any sense if America's not a Christian nation. The founding era doesn't make any sense if America's not a Christian nation. The founding era doesn't make any sense if America's not Christian. And if America really

does turn away from Christianity, then we'll become some other different country. Maybe we'll succeed, maybe we won't, but we won't be what America has been. So you actually did see an array of views come out last night. And frankly, the moderators were considerably better than we've seen at some of the earlier debates, even though they're NBC liberals. I'm just looking forward to a competent moderator finally taking over, which I think is happening at the very next debate. There will be three competent people out there that night. I'm excited for it. Let's talk about the last time you were on, you nicknamed Canada our evil top hat, which is just one of your best lines, and you've had many. Canada came up repeatedly last night.

Suddenly we're turning our eye around Canada, and not just because of Justin Trudeau. The vague Ramaswamy turned the debate about our southern border into a debate about the evil top hat. Listen to SOT 13. I'm the only candidate on the stage, as far as I'm aware, who has actually visited the northern border. There was enough fentanyl that was captured just on the northern border last year to kill 3 million Americans. So we gotta just skate to where the puck is going, not just where the puck is. Don't just build the wall, build both walls. Can't just complete the wall, use the military to seal the Swiss cheese for the tunnels that they're actually building underneath that wall. Okay. So he wants to build a wall along the northern border to all the walls. We're just,

we're going to do, we're going to box ourselves, let's do walls on the coasts, we'll do it north, we'll do it south, like all of it. And by the way, he's like, as far as I know, I'm the only one who's visited the northern border. But like none of them has ever gone to Canada. The dereliction. That's true. Think of all the delicious Tim Hortons the other GOP candidates have missed out on. I have to say, though you know that I have a great deal of disdain for the leadership of America's evil top hat, I actually think my friend Vivek is misguided here because one of the arguments for taking people in across the border is political asylum. And right now, through Mexico, there's really no need for political asylum. The argument from the left is that people fleeing Ecuador or people fleeing Guatemala

or Honduras, they're running away from cartels. They're running away from all sorts of terrible situations. And so we need to give them political asylum in the United States. But of course, if you're fleeing from a country in Southern or the Southern part of Central America, there are several countries that you pass along the way where they could seek political asylum. So the ones who keep going usually are just doing so for economic opportunity. They're economic migrants. The same cannot be said of those fleeing America's evil top hat. The Trudeau government, I'm not joking at all, has persecuted Christians and has persecuted conservatives and ordinary people, people who

just want to work and not have their industry shut down by radical environmentalists. And so I think if we're going to find middle ground with the left at all on political asylum, we should find middle ground with political asylum, not from the southern border, but from the northern border, where people who are just trying to live an ordinary, good, traditional, religious way of life sincerely are being persecuted. So we need to bring all of them over here. That's the only refugee and asylum move that I'm backing. And then we can follow Vivek's plan and erect a big, beautiful wall to keep Fidel Castro's son locked up there in Canada. I'm just so confused about how exactly we will pay for that wall up there

and cover the extremely mountainous terrain between us and them and exactly what problem we're trying to solve. I realize there are some who come across that we don't want, but we'll see whether walls all around, let's make America an open air prison catches on. One never knows. Um, Megan, the answer and Debbie, my executive producer, one of them, she's, um, she's from Canada. She lives there now. She's from Ohio, but she left me and moved to Canada along with Kelly McGuire to my top people living in Canada, Canada right now they're doing the show from Canada. And this is what they wanted to say to Vivek Ramaswamy reminded them of the following in Stop 14. We must stop dirty language from getting to our children's ears. We must go fight the source of it. But what is the source? Oh,

that's easy. Times have changed. Our kids are getting worse. They won't obey their parents. They just want to fight and curse. Should we blame the government or blame society? Or should we blame the images on TV? No, blame Canada. It seems that everything's gone wrong since Canada came along. Blame Canada. Blame Canada. They're not even a real country anyway.

One of the greatest South Park skits ever. Prescient as always, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. I've got an answer for your question though, Megan. You say, I don't know how we're going to pay for the wall on our northern border. And the answer is maple syrup tariffs. That's how. People don't understand how valuable that delicious syrup is. You institute a 7 or 8,000% tariff on maple syrup, you're going to pay for that whole border. Okay. Or we can start taxing cigars.

I don't know if Canada is known for its cigars. You're going to walk me through it. But this is the thing. I'm kind of interested in this, I have to say. They said Michael wants to promote a new cigar line that he's behind and the Daily Wire is behind. And I'm not into cigars, but reading like the write-up about how important they've been to you and what these supposedly taste like, I started to kind of get into it, my friend. And I want you to walk me through the joy of the cigar

and what you're doing. I'm really honored, Megan, that you would do that and maybe even consider having a cigar. This is my cigar, Mayflower Cigars. I wish I could tell people to go buy it right now at mayflowersigars.com. We sold out of a four-month supply in something like nine hours or something. It was certainly within 24 hours. It completely took off. And you mentioned that I had this little about section on the website that was uncharacteristically heartfelt for a product coming from The Daily Wire. But cigars have been very important to me. I started having cigars when I was 15,

which is actually old for Italian people. I was a little aged at that point. I wrote my college admissions essay about how much I love cigars. I got my job. I got my show at the Daily Wire by writing a cigar review column. One of my most cherished possessions is a box of cigars my mother gave me like 15 years ago or something. I still have it. This cigar is made at that factory, that very same factory that made that cherished box of cigars. It's a blend we've been working on for a year.

It is named Mayflower after some of my non-Italian ancestors who came over here on that ship fleeing religious persecution, as many are fleeing today. It is named Mayflower after some of my non-Italian ancestors who came over here on that ship, fleeing religious persecution, as many are fleeing today. And the argument for cigars is that the body is a temple. The temple needs incense. It's a wonderful way to relax. There's a health risk with anything. You have to be 21 years old or older to buy them and exclusions apply and all the rest of it. But I find that it's a way, especially for men, to relax a little bit, to be introspective, to have a conversation with one another.

It's a luxury that is accessible. You can get an extraordinarily high-quality cigar for like $12. The same cannot be said of scotches or wines or anything like that. So it's also the first product that we've ever released from The Daily Wire that wasn't just punching somebody in the face. You know, when we release a razor company. Jeremy's razors, Jeremy's chocolates, which I have somewhere around my studio too. This cigar, we didn't know if it was going to work because while I may lack expertise and hard skills in basically any area whatsoever, I do know a fair bit about cigars.

We have two blends here, the Mayflower Dusk and the Mayflower Dawn. But the rapid success, I mean, this might be the most successful consumer product we've ever put out. To me, what it says is that what people long for in our culture is an excellent quality product from people they trust to know what they're talking about the product at a competitive price. And if you had said that people would be longing for that 20 years ago, people would look at you like you had three heads. What are you talking about? That's just the free market. But today, we have companies, first of all, that hate us, who sell us products. And we've taken over this ethos of just shipping everything overseas, making everything as cheaply as possible, not taking a moment to smell the roses or smell the Mayflowers. You know, just constantly hustling and bustling and getting the cheapest good further and further away.

The little personal connection, to me, is really meaningful because it's a company that I'd been thinking of for 15 years. And the fact that now, as the libs want everybody to smoke the devil's lettuce and the sin spinach, that people are going to sit back with a nice traditional cigar and relax, I think is just delightful. There's so much in there. Wait, let's just be clear before we gloss over it. They're on back order, but if people want to try this, how do they do it exactly? So they go to MayflowerCigars.com. We launched with two cigar blends, the Dawn and the Dusk, which comes from a famous painting of the Mayflower. And there are different sizes in each, smaller ones, bigger ones.

They are all sold out right now. What I would recommend is if you want to try the cigar, we are working very hard to get these cigars restocked. We've got a new shipment coming up from Nicaragua, which produces probably the best cigars in the world today. We've got that coming up, but there is going to be a lag once we get this next shipment because the cigars take weeks if not months to age. So if you want to try any of these cigars, I would order just whatever pops up on the website in the restock. And then you can put your email address, assuming you're 21 years old or older, you can put your email address on the website. You'll get a notification

when it comes back up because- So you'll get them. You'll get them eventually. You'll get them eventually. It might take a little while, but you'll get them eventually. But can I ask you, I'm very interested in the fact that you wrote your, I mean, you went to Yale. So, and you were smoking cigars then when you were applying to Yale, which is young. I've never had a cigar. I've, I'm such, I was saying this to Jordan Belfort the other day. I'm such a goody two-shoes. I've never smoked a cigarette. I've never tried a drug. I've never had a cigar. I do drink. So that's something, but I got that. But what does it, is it gives you like a high? The way you're describing the way you feel when you smoke a cigar, could you expand on it? It doesn't give

you a high because you don't inhale it or you'll hack up a lung. You get a little touch of nicotine here and there. Some cigars are stronger than others. But it's something that seems like a vice. I actually don't think it is a vice. But it seems like a vice and gives you an opportunity to relax and not just be constantly glued to work or anxiety. I sometimes talk about the health benefits of cigars, which I'm only half joking about. Because it's the one time that I really get to relax during the day is at night with a book. Maybe I'll have a drink of something. And so people have said, well, Michael, your family must have been completely insane to

let you start smoking cigars at 15. And I thought, well, there are a lot of worse things that a 15-year-old boy can get up to. And the fact that I was, and this is true of a lot of cigar smokers, that I would channel that into something that is relatively quite moderate compared to other things, I think is helpful. Cigars spur the great conversations. You know, men, we can't just sit down and talk to each other. We feel that's kind of weird, you know. We can't just have a phone call.

So we sit, especially over a cigar, you know you're going to get about 45 minutes of just excellent conversation. You're not necessarily doing business. You're not doing anything utilitarian. It's an indulgence, and it's something that's accessible to everyone. Cigars are the great equalizer. You go to any cigar lounge. I've been to many, if not most of them in the country, and you'll sit down with a construction worker and a CEO and a politician and it doesn't matter. Everybody is equal. Everybody's engaging in the same delight and partaking in the conversation. I just love them.

And so I did speak to my admissions officer in college. She told me there was some question about whether they should admit a guy who wrote his admissions essay about a drug. But they let me in anyway. I started a club in school called the Society for Intellectual Growth and Reinvigoration, or CIGAR. That was a way to scam Yale into paying for my habit. And then wrote a column that got me this show. It's much deeper. There was an excellent essay, I think it was in First Things, that compared the three prominent types of tobacco to the tripartite soul. The pipe is for the logic, the philosopher sitting in this pipe.

The cigarettes are for the appetite. They're the appetitive part of the soul. It's just an addiction. But the cigars are for the thumos, the thumotic spirited part of the soul, for your magnanimity. It's outward. You think of Winston Churchill. You think of the chest puffing out the smoke. Have I gone too far down the rabbit hole, Megan? Have I convinced you to have a cigar? No, I love listening to you. Everything you say is always so fascinating. I only understand about 55% of it. It's mellifluous, just the way you speak about the things that you love or you judge. Either way, I'll take you on all of these things. Maybe tonight I will crack one open and then Doug's going to have to show me how to do that. But yes, I will. Doug will look over and I'll be,

I don't know, how do you even say it? Stoke and a hoagie? What is it? Stoke and a hoagie. I think that's going to be the new, I don't think I've ever heard that phrase before. That's what I'm now going to, I can't wait. Megan, next time we run into each other in person, I can't wait to stoke a hoagie with you. It's a miracle you keep coming on. Sorry you have to deal with this. Michael, thank you. Great to be with you, Megan. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good luck with it. And thanks to all of you for being with us today and all week. Tomorrow, Charlie Kirk is here. That's going to be fun. So we'll talk with him about what he thought about the debate too. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.