The Ricochet Podcast - Borderline Crazy

Episode Date: July 10, 2014

This week, Ricochet member Fredösphere provides the intro (coffee mug incoming, Fred, and more of the entries at the end of the show) as Troy Senik sits in for Lileks. We’ve got a terrific line up of guests this week as Mark Levin and Larry Kudlow both enlighten us on immigration, Mississippi, the economy and a preview of the mid-terms, and why we might not be behind the 8-ball just yet. Source

Activate program. More than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. Well, I'm not a crook. I'll never tell a lie. But I am not a bully. I'm the king of the world! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with our very own pattering panjandrums of positivity, Peter Robinson and Rob Long.

I'm the oracular overlord of optimism and Ricochet member, Fred-O-Sphere, the man with the umlaut, filling in for James Lilacs. Our guests are Mark Levin and Larry Kudlow. Let's have ourselves a... There you go again. There you go again. Hello and welcome to the Ricochet podcast. This is number 222, which means we've been doing this for 222 weeks, which is longer, I think, than I've done anything. Hello, I'm Rob Long. I'm one of the co-founders of Ricochet.

I am coming to you from sunny Southern California. On the line with me, as always, is my co-founder, Peter Robinson, up in Palo Alto. Peter, how are you? I'm well. When you say 222, I immediately start picturing myself as Homer Simpson's dad. I'm well, Rob! That's right. That's right.

Hey, guys. There's an old person talking, and then all the children gather around. We are joined, we are missing James Lilacs again. He's away on something, on a fantastic voyage. And we are joined, luckily for us, by Troy Senec, editor-in-chief and major domo of Ricochet. Troy, how are you and where are you?

I'm doing as well as can be expected at the ungodly hour at which you guys record this show. This is – I do have to say the one thing I appreciate about the – well, not the one thing, but one of the things I appreciate about the Law Talk podcast, also available for download from Ricochet.com if you're so inclined, is that if I ever asked John Yoo to record anything at this hour, I would be at a CIA black site somewhere in Eastern Europe. And he would be totally within his rights to do that. And he's written the memo to prove it. Exactly, exactly. So I'm well. I'm well.

And I, like you, am in Southern California, although in my part of Southern California, we'd be stretching the term sunny to its breaking point. It's actually a little chilly here early morning here in early July. Yeah, you know, that's what it is. You live close to the ocean, right? Not too far, yeah. This podcast is brought to you by Audible.com, the internet's leading provider of audiobooks with more than 100,000 downloadable titles across all types of literature, including fiction, nonfiction, and periodicals. For a free audiobook of your choice, go to audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet. And by Encounter Books. This is a podcast 222, and Encounter Books has been sponsoring us since the very beginning. So they are great. They're great friends.

Encounter Books for 15% off any title. Go to EncounterBooks.com and use the coupon code Ricochet at checkout. This week's featured title is Faithless Execution, Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment by Andy McCarthy. It is also sponsored and produced and is here for you presented by Ricochet. It is also sponsored and produced and is here for you presented by Ricochet.com. Hey, Troy. Sir. This is an important part of the flagship podcast.

It's my pitch. Can I hand it over to you? You certainly can. Well, there's, you know, we talk all the time about different reasons that people should be members at Ricochet. You get access to the conversation. You get access to the meetups.

I was just at one recently. We had a couple of dozen people up on Mackinac Island in Michigan. It was fantastic. You get access to the conversations. You also get – and I think this is an important part of the site that we maybe don't talk about enough you know if somebody the kinds of people who sign up for ricochet membership we've got very smart very literate people from around the country and around the world and oftentimes we have people whose voices really deserve to be heard but aren't in other forms because you know it's hard if you're if you want to start off as a blogger you can throw up your your site on your own somewhere and kind of get lost in the cacophony.

You sign up for Ricochet and you've got a ready-made audience. And so you get things like – I will point our listeners to a post that just went up this morning called Tales from a Bomb Shelter by a woman, a recent member of ours. In fact, she had a – her very first post. This is rare. Her very first post went up on the main feed. Annika Hernroth Rothstein, and I apologize if I'm getting that wrong, but she lives in Sweden and is based on this post I think an the experience they had because they turned out, went to Israel and arrived within just a couple of days of when the rockets started raining down. And she actually explains – she had been giving speeches in defense of Israel, I guess in Europe prior to this, and said, you know, I thought I understood because I had seen it on YouTube and because I had talked to people who had been through it.

And then she actually walks you through in this post what she went through and taking her kids across the street to try to find them shelter when this actually happened. It's a very, very moving piece and it's the kind of thing that you could only get on Ricochet. That's – yeah, exactly right. It's the kind of piece you could only contribute to Ricochet. That's exactly right. It's the kind of piece you could only contribute to Ricochet. And it's also kind of our goal, which is to give a lot more people a lot louder voice. I have a little testimonial here.

I got an email just the other evening from Ricochet member Aaron Miller. This relates to the post that Troy just was talking about in that, what was it, a day and a half ago, two days ago now, I put up a series of questions. I was fascinated by this Iron Dome that's in use in Israel. They're calling it the Iron Dome and it's missiles inside Israel that intercept incoming missiles from the Gaza Strip from the West Bank and destroy them before they can land, which sounded to me something like the strategic defense initiative that Ronald Reagan proposed way back in 1983. So I put up a few questions.

Are they alike? Should we in the United States take any comfort from the development? How do they work? How do they work? And we ended up with 40 comments, 45 comments from people who actually know, who literally are rocket scientists. And I got a text just last evening from Aaron Miller. I have to hand it to you guys. to have a deep technical discussion about rocket science and yet maintain a thoroughly casual, fun atmosphere that feels more like a neighborhood barbecue than a professional conference. That's right.

That's ricochet. If you guys had the experience I have that when we started with the site and obviously you guys were there first. But you had the tendency to write like you write anywhere else. You make your case about whatever. And the more time goes by and the more you see these lofty disquisitions on something like missile defense, the more you just want to ask the questions. And just leave it open to the phenomenal array of talent that we usually on the second or third page of comments, the real experts start to argue about something very, very, very, very, very specific. And it's like a cocktail party. You kind of leave.

Okay, I got to go over and get some more food. Well, all right. So the point is if you're listening to this podcast and you're a member of Ricochet, we are so pleased and honored to have you as a member along with us. If you're listening and you are not a member, there are a lot of great reasons to join. We've heard a whole bunch of them. And joining is easy. Go to Ricochet.com. It's $5 a month, $39.95 a year for the Calvin Coolidge level. We also have Thatcher and Reagan tiers.

Each one of those has special goodies attached to that. Special thanks to our newest Reagan member, Gleeful Warrior, and newest Thatcher members, Amy Jones, Dances with Vowels, and Eric Jax, Gumby67. Thank you. What are you waiting for? Join Ricochet today. If you don't do it today, you'll put it off.

So don't put it off. Join. And thanks to all the members who entered the BR Don Pardo for Day contest, and we will – I think that's this. I think we'll find out at the end of the show or next show. All right. We've taken up all this chat, all this chit-chat and we are really honored. We should just jump into our – there's so much to talk about.

Let's just get to our first guest. We were going to have him last week and uh we had a little little uh little scheduling problem but he's here this week he's a friend of ours a friend of ricochet a friend of our a lot of our listeners and guests mark levin is one of america's preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers uh he's national radio show that we heard over 150 stations around the country what's amazing about this guy is he's a natural broadcaster, and there aren't that many of them around. It's quite a dazzling talent, and we are really lucky and honored to have him with us. Mark Levin, welcome to the Ricochet Podcast.

Well, thank you. That's a very nice introduction. I appreciate it. Well, that's what I do. That's what I do the best. Hey, Mark, you're on with Rob Long in L.A. and Troy Senec and Peter Robinson. Uh-oh. There's Rob.

Right? That's right. That's right. So let me just kick it off. I got one question. Mississippi. Yes. When the morning after the election, it seemed like, OK, well, the empire strikes back.

They got their guy in Mississippi. They got their old – their sort of elderly, elder statesman. The situation there has been deteriorating ever since. How do you think this is going to play out at the end? I don't know how it's going to play out in the end. I think with Mitch McConnell and Haley Barber and the invisible hand of Karl Rove and the rest did in that state, it's an abomination not to reach out to Democrats.

In an open primary, you reach out to Democrats. I don't much care. I don't like these open primaries. But obviously it's what they did and the way they did it. People are trying to track down how this money was funneled into these groups that didn't even register with the FEC. They just popped up. Some of the people behind it are very sleazy. Those robocalls, and we're getting more and more radio ads that we've been hearing and I've been playing on the air, are just outrageous. And they play into black stereotypes and so forth. And this money was spent by establishment Republican types

hell-bent on re-electing Thad Cochran, not because Thad Cochran is a great senator. Thad Cochran is barely even viable on the Senate floor. But because they wanted to hold that seat, hope they can take the Kentucky seat from McConnell. He'd be a sure vote for McConnell. And Haley Barber, you know, Haley Barber believes he owns that seat. And Haley Barber is one of the biggest lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

What happened in Mississippi is exactly what is disgusting so many conservatives and Reagan conservatives and Tea Party conservatives, call us, call them, whatever you want, who are fed up with this system. But it's strange though, isn't it, about Mississippi? Because that's probably a pretty safe Republican state. I mean there's always been the argument, and I think I would like to get Troy in here, that there's always been an argument that if you're in a – I mean in a blue state it might be different or a purple state. But in a red state, you kind of want to elect the most conservative guy you can find because he's the guy who – add him to the Senate or add him to the House or whatever it is because they seem like those are safe red states anyway. This seems like an unusual thing to have happened in Mississippi, don't you think?

You're asking Troy, right? No, no. I just want to bring Troy in because this is Troy's theory, but I was really going to ask you, I mean, this seems unusual for a state like Mississippi. You have to understand the Republican Party in Washington. And to understand the Republican Party in Washington is to understand it's not a conservative party. It is, this is what Reagan ran against. This is what he argued against. This is what he fought against. It's these forces that tried to prevent him from becoming the Republican nominee out of Mississippi, it becomes incredibly difficult to get them in any other state. And when you look at these races, it's very interesting, despite what the mainstream media and the pseudo conservative media are saying. Look at South Carolina. You had six unknown candidates underfunded and Lindsey Graham could only get 56% of the vote. That's not a great showing.

You look at Kentucky, you have the Republican leader who wants to be the majority leader. In the Republican primary, he gets 60% of the vote. That's not a great showing. You look in Texas, Cornyn. Cornyn, against no names who are underfunded, who are fighting with each other, gets 59% of the Republican vote. These are very, very poor showings. There's a weakness within the Republican Party. Even if there's a landslide in this midterm election, I think people are saying they want a strong, conservative, principled Republican Party that's going to engage a radical Democrat Party and president. But how do you do that? I mean, right now, every Republican I talk to, every sort of establishment Republican I talk to in D.C., New York and around, they have this – they're extremely confident.

I mean these guys are ready or already sort of as they say, they're measuring the floor for new rugs in the Senate. Everyone is convinced that it's going to be a powerful take back of the Senate in November. How do you get through to people who are already looking at poll numbers and saying, hey, listen, we've got this in the bag. We can kind of – now is the time to prepare to govern. I mean how do you do that to a party that's kind of already complacent? Well, they better not think they have it in the bag. They may or may not, but you run any campaign like you're behind, as most of us understand.

But if they're complacent, they're going to lose a few seats, if not lose the majority in the Senate, which is what they seek to get. My concern is not just short-term and mid-term, but long-term here. What does the Republican Party stand for? If I asked you right now, what is the Republican Party's formal position to replace Obamacare, you can't tell me. If I asked you right now, what exactly will the Republican Party do to address the dire fiscal situation, this massive debt, these unfunded liabilities, you can't tell me. If I were to ask you right now, what exactly is the plan of the Republican Party to secure the border, you can't tell me. And I could go down the line here. Republican Party, that's a drift. And yet they insist on holding on power. They like incumbency.

And this is a party that's going to die if it's not careful. Hey, Mark, Peter Robinson here. Hello, Peter. Hey, here's an argument, right? And it's, let me just see what you do with it. There are, I'm talking about in 2016 now, presidential candidates in the Republican Party. There are 18, I believe it's 18 states, maybe it's 19, 18 states, Northeast, Illinois, Pacific Coast, that people in Washington now refer to as the blue wall. These are states that have voted for the Democrat six times out of the last six presidential elections. They voted for the Democrat six times in a row. All of these are states,

every single last one of these is a state that Ronald Reagan carried at least once, and no Republican has carried them in the last six presidential elections. Among those 18 states, you've got 242 electoral votes. So the Democrats start with that blue wall, and they only need to go hunting for another 30 electoral votes, and they'll have plenty of time and plenty of money to find them. And the argument runs that the Republican Party should be asking only one question as it considers nominees for president in 2016, and that question is who can breach the blue wall? Which nominee can flip blue states to red? What do you make of that?

I make of that people sitting around in Washington playing with numbers, and I'm going to tell you what I think, Peter. I think that you've got to break into the blue-coll collar Democrats, what we call the Reagan Democrats. These are working people and you can break into them in states like Pennsylvania and other states. And we're not going to do it with Mitt Romney's and we're not going to do it with John McCain's and quite frankly, Jeb Bush's and so forth and so on. Chris Christie. We're not going to do it with Chris Christie. We're going to do it with conservatives who can reach out to these folks and reach out to the base and reach out to the American people with inspiring messages, with liberty arguments, with free market arguments. Look, you have to frame them in the context of everyday lives, but it can and should be done. Unleashing the economy, creating wealth, creating jobs, creating opportunity.

This is a message that really resonates if we can get it out there. Securing the border. We'll deal with everything else on immigration later. Secure the border. Now, Obama in a sick way has done us a favor. What's going on on the southern border makes it clear to 90% of everybody that you've got to secure that border before you come up with anything else. People are not happy with the direction of the company. They're not happy with either party. And now is the time for an outsider, the person doesn't physically have to be an outsider,

but to make the outsider argument, to make Reagan argument, not to make exactly the same arguments that Reagan made, but make the argument for liberty, for free enterprise, for national security, for border security. And the Republicans are not doing that. Boehner doesn't do it. McConnell doesn't do it. And all these would be a rhino Republican nominees don't make the case. They talk about we need bipartisanship. People don't care about bipartisanship. It has no effect on their lives or we need to get along or we need to govern. What people want to know is how are we going to turn this country around? I think this blue wall they talk about, we ought to go after this blue wall and we ought to break it to pieces. So on immigration, I'm just tossing out these arguments because it's so much fun pitching things to you, Mark. This is like watching Babe Ruth point over the right-field fence and say that's where it's going, baby. OK, so here's another totally establishment argument. But it's an argument that Hispanics are the largest growing subgroup in the country. Or take California. Ronald Reagan carried California both times he ran for president. George H.W. Bush carried California more narrowly, but he carried it in 1988.

And no Republican has come close in California ever since. What's happened? Well, the demographics have changed. Roughly 4 million non-Hispanic white people have left the state and the composition of the state is now Hispanic 39%, non-Hispanic white 38.7%. So either you appeal to, you find a way to appeal to Hispanics. Sorry. I'm listening. Oh, okay. I'm getting a little trouble with my mic here. Either you find a way to appeal to Hispanics or you write I'm listening. We need some kind of comprehensive immigration reform or we're dead. And how do you respond? Well, a couple of things.

Number one, isn't California the example of what you don't do? I mean, they nominate moderate Republicans. They nominate a billionaire who founded eBay or ran eBay and she couldn't buy her way in. Same with the Senate race against Boxer out there. So that doesn't work. In other words, moderating your message into mush where you really can't make a distinguish from others. And I don't know what it means to reach out to Hispanics or Latin. What does that mean? My attitude is let's reach out to everybody. Let us talk about the pocketbook of all the issues in ways that make sense. Let us talk about the pocketbook of wallet issues in ways that make sense.

Let us talk about how we want to secure our communities and make them safe. Let us talk about all these things, because I think we share all these beliefs. That said, you cannot tolerate the importation or the self-importation of people from all over the world who are literate in their own language, who have no intention of assimilating, who couldn't understand the Constitution, whether it's in English or Spanish. You have groups in this country who seek to balkanize. They do not seek to assimilate. So you have to deal with reality.

I mean, even Milton Friedman said you can't have a welfare state and open border. This is just common sense. But people have looked at these numbers, Peter, and what they've determined is if the Republicans would go for the Reagan Democrats in these industrial states, if the Republicans would talk about issues that matter to them, and in this sense, in this particular sense, Rick Santorum is on to something. If you go back and talk about things of this kind, because neither candidate did, which is why I believe millions stayed home in the last election. The Republicans can and will win. The Republicans have to find their way. They have to be more than, you know, I disagree with Obama. That's good, but they have to actually

explain to people what it is that they're going to do. I don't know how you pander to ethnic groups. What do you say to African Americans? What do you say to Latinos? What do you say to newly arriving Chinese? I mean, what is it that we're supposed to do? We'll provide you with more welfare benefits? No. We've got to explain. You came here for a reason. Many of you came here for a reason. And that reason is being destroyed by the other party, by the other philosophy. And we need to expand on that. You know what? The establishment, this Republican establishment, the ruling oligarchy, I call it, they benefit from big government. They are neo-statists. Many of these members of Congress, Hastert, Lott, and the rest, they become lobbyists. They never leave. Their staffers come in and out of government. They are consultants. They live, breathe big government. They're not opposed to big government. They are consultants. They live, breathe big government. They're not opposed to big government. They may be opposed to a particular policy. They may be opposed that

they don't run it. But that's, for instance, what this Mississippi race was all about. That wasn't a race over principle, as far as they were concerned. That was a race, you are challenging our incumbent. We own that seat, and we're going to continue to own that seat. I think somebody who comes in with a conservative, quasi-popululist argument the way Reagan did, and again, this isn't a cult thing, I'm just making the point. You have a president that won two landslides. You have a president who beat back the establishment to get the nomination. You learn from that the way the Democrats learned from FDR and LBJ. That game plan is out there and I think we should pursue it. Mark, Troy Sinek here. You made a reference earlier to the importance of Republicans

engaging with the fact that they're dealing with a radical president and a radical party. Talk about how do we properly constrain that? There's this argument going on right now where you've had in the last week Sarah Palin and Joni Ernst, I believe, the nominee in Iowa, both floating the idea of impeachment. At the same time, you've got Speaker Boehner who has rejected that idea but is going forward with this lawsuit against the executive branch. If Republicans are serious about trying to bring the president to heel, what's the best way to approach that? Well, we have a problem because Speaker Boehner has rejected the power of the purse to bring the president to quote unquote heel. And they undermined Ted Cruz and others who were trying to breathe life back into that. McConnell and the Republican establishment, the Senate just brutalized him. Boehner went along, while on the other hand,

he was leaking to the media that it wasn't really his idea and he didn't really like it. You can't fight battles like that. I mean, the government's been shut down 20 times in the last 30, 35 years. It's not like it's never happened before. So if you're going to give that up, and if you're going to give up the defunding mechanism for something like Obamacare, and you're not going to make the case to the American people, and they haven't, and you're going to have phony votes on repeal, which everybody knew were going nowhere, you're telling Obama that he has free reign. He has free reign to run because you're not using the power of the purse. You're not going to defund. So what's left? So people are talking about impeachment. Of course this president should be impeached. He's the most lawless president that I've ever seen, I think

potentially in history, certainly modern history, but they're not going to do it. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it as a perfectly legitimate constitutional action against an imperial president. They talked about it against Nixon endlessly. And I would argue, and I'm prepared to argue, that what Nixon did doesn't come close to the constitutional damage, the institutional damage that Obama is doing and intentionally doing and wants to do to our constitutional system. So what do we do now? I argue we have to sweep out the Republican leadership after the next midterm election, get some new voices in there, smart guys, people who know how to strategize, communicate, can speak in complete sentences, and have as their mission to reestablish a

constitutional system, to begin that process, to reestablish limited government, who have as their mission a strategy, a PR campaign, a legislative campaign, day in and day out with hearings and so forth, that make the case. We need smart men and women. We need strategic men and women. I view politics like military operations without the weapons, obviously. You've got to be smart about what you're doing. You have to be strategic about what you're doing. And victory has to be the goal, not, you know, not waiting in the pool and hoping we can get through to the next election. Let's take the Senate. And then what happens? Nothing happens because they're not going to do anything if they take the Senate. So my answer to you is there's no easy answer,

but we have to begin to build the case for a law-abiding president, for a constitutional system that's respected, and make the case to the American people. Get new Republican leadership in there because Obama doesn't fear this leadership. He needs leadership in there who he thinks and in fact knows will in fact trigger the power of the purse and other things to try and control him. One last quick question for me, Mark, and then I know Rob wants to ask you about the border before we let you go. But the phrase that conservatives always go back to, the fundamental transformation of the country, President Obama, is he going to get it? And what I mean by that is, do these problems go away January 20th, 2017?

Or has Obama been able to achieve a significant enough change that the trajectory of the country is fundamentally different even once he's gone? You know, I think we conservatives, in order to be honest with ourselves and have intellectual integrity and then build the fortitude and resolve to fight this, have to accept the fact that for the most part, the progressives have won. I mean, we have this group running around calling themselves reformicons or something or other, and they essentially embrace the New Deal, the Great Society. They speak in conservative phrases, but basically their proposals are timid. They're on the fringe. I don't mean fringe philosophically, but they'll have a minimal impact.

America has already been fundamentally transformed. Obamacare was really the last nail. Obamacare was a revolution. Obamacare was a change between the government and the individual. massive, ubiquitous law where a president, as you can see in Congress, if it wishes, and the bureaucracy at HHS and the IRS now have this overarching law through which they can pour their agenda, their regulations, their coercive powers, and so forth. And it undermines our constitutional system. We have a president changing it on a monthly basis and so forth. We have a Supreme Court that upheld this law

by changing the Constitution, changing the legislative history. So it's the most lawless act in the last 50 years, more than any other thing any president, any Congress, any Supreme Court has ever done. This has been a revolution. So I would argue that we do in many respects live in a post-constitutional period. The country has been transformed. It continues to be transforming. More the reason to have effective Republican conservative leadership will take this on. The American people sense this.

When you hear Obama speak, it's scary. It's like he's bringing out his inner Mussolini. I've got a pen. I've got a phone. I'm going to do this if Congress doesn't act. These are outrageous statements for a president to make and brag about. And so I would say to you that I think it's not a question of whether it's happened. It's happened. It's getting worse. And there needs to be effective leadership, effective arguments,

effective politics to confront it. Hey, Mark, one last question. This is Rob Longhand. So everybody here on this call, in this conversation, is watching what's happening at the border. This very strange kind of almost like it's almost impossible to believe that it's happening on American soil, that we have a refugee crisis basically in the United States. And this is clearly – if there was one job that the president constitutionally has, it's

to secure the borders of the United States. Did Obama just – Obama seems to me – if we can actually – if we can sort of follow what I call the Levin plan and actually make an argument to the American people, to most American people. Did he just doom his own welfare, his own immigration reform? It seems to me impossible to believe, and maybe I live in a little bubble here, but impossibly that the majority of Americans who were kind of not that interested in immigration or not that concerned about illegal immigration, this seems to have at least galvanized America to say,

what on earth are we doing? One of the interesting things about the left is they rule by the iron fist and dress it up as acting on behalf of and in the interest of the people. And so that's what he's doing. And has he doomed his reform? It's not reform, and he's instituting it right now. What's going on on the southern border, he could never have gotten Congress to pass. He met with scores of these radical left

groups, from unions to these ethnic front groups and so forth, on June 30th, and he told them what he's going to do. And come August, he's going to issue a whole bunch of executive orders to legalize, in one form or another, six to seven million illegal aliens. He's already to issue a whole bunch of executive orders to legalize in one form or another six to seven million illegal aliens. He's already done it for six hundred and seventy thousand so-called dreamers. I mean, we're going to have a relatively small percentage of people who are here illegally treated as illegal aliens. And he's helped in this regard by the Republicans who don't like the way he's doing it. That's a perfectly legitimate position, but don't mind really the fact that he's doing it because some of these proposals from the Republicans really are, whether it's the salami tactics

that will come out of the House or the more, you know, one Bill Fitzhall that came out of the Senate. The end is the same. The fact of the matter is, unless you secure the border, we Reaganites saw this, you know, in 1986. It's not just 1986. 1996, they passed an immigration bill. 2006, they passed a bill specifically to secure that border. They won't do it. Obama won't do it. The Republicans won't do it. Bush didn't do it. Jeb Bush won't do it. And there's time for all the other debate on what we do with

people who are here. But if you do not secure the border, then everything else is because you cannot stop the flow. To answer your question is, why does Obama care what Congress does? He doesn't care anymore. He doesn't even care, I think, ultimately, if the Republicans take the Senate, because he is going to ram through this stuff. His mentality is such that he will push the edges of the executive branch. He will do what he has to do to advance his agenda. He's done a hell of a good job of it. People praise the Supreme Court. Look, the Supreme Court stopped him on these recess appointments. The Supreme Court stopped him on these recess appointments. And then the Supreme Court went on by a five to four majority

to blow the recess appointments clause out of the water in ways that are really reprehensible. So Obama does enormous damage to the Constitution. And so I think he really doesn't care what the Congress does. He's going to do what he wants to do anyway. So let me ask you something. I think you're right about the people who wouldn't build a fence. Who would?

Yes, who would? Well, I think if the American people, if we had some kind of a referendum on this, I think the American people would vote for it because it's only common sense. I don't know. I can tell you the Republican establishment common sense. I don't know. I can tell you the Republican establishment won't. I don't know. But it's something we have to continue to argue for. I haven't thought that through. It's a good question.

I would, except I don't like physical labor that much. Yeah. I wouldn't trust a fence built by Mark Levin, Rob Long, Peter Robinson, and Troy Sinek. We'd have to get some experts in there. Very low fence, I'm afraid. Hey, Mark, it's been a real pleasure, and we're really honored that you came here. And we're all big fans, and we love listening to you, and we're just thrilled that you were here to talk with us. Well, it's my thrill.

I love your site, and you guys are terrific. I'm a big admirer. Really intelligent website. God bless you and thanks for having me thank you thanks very much thank you more thank you care yourselves i you know i said this before with the introduction that he really i mean i mean the politics aside the thoughts and the analysis are brilliant but i mean he really is a broadcaster in the old sense and there aren't that many of them.

And it's just too bad that there aren't. But when you get one and you get one to talk to, it's really kind of a thrill. You just wind them up and let them go. There are certain people, I get the same sensation listening to Mark than I do when I'm working with Richard Epstein, which is that I am exhausted thinking about

what it must be like to be them. Yeah, inside the brain. But there was a time in radio certainly where this was – you had these great big personalities across the country, a lot of them. Like every market had it. And now I think as an art or as a talent or whatever it is, as a gift, it's not really being brought out the way it used to be.

And it's too bad because there's something wonderful about radio. I mean, we do sort of a version of radio here. And then audio under band is coming back. But it'd be nice if broadcasting as a sort of talent was back. Certainly Mark Levin could teach great lessons in it. I'm, of course, as a sort of talent was back. Um, certainly, certainly Mark Levin could, could teach great lessons in it. Um, I'm of course not much of a broadcaster,

so, and I can't do segue, so I'll just go right into this. This podcast is brought to you by audible.com, the nation's leading provider of audio books for more than 100,000 downloadable titles across all types of literature and featuring audio versions of many New York Times bestsellers. For our listeners, Audible is offering a free audiobook to give you a chance to try out their service. I have an Audible pick that's not there yet but will soon be, and that is my books have been republished. And Audible wants to put them on Audible, and I'm just hoping they ask me to read it. According to Jonah Goldberg, it makes a big, big difference.

So I – soon, my book, my books will be unaudible. And if they don't ask you to read it, Rob, we will just devote about 12 podcasts in a row. Just subtly sliding in a chapter or two at a time. How does that work, Rob? If they don't ask you to read it, do you get any say-so whatsoever in who does read it? I don't know. I don't know how it works. Oh, that's a good point.

I found out last week. I'm excited. I have one that is up, that is on Audible, American Icon, Alan Mulally and the Fight to Save Ford Motor Company. I can't endorse the entire book because a friend just mentioned it to me yesterday evening. But it's about, of course, as the title suggests, Al Mulally, who was a Boeing executive who came into Ford and turned the company around. And what I can tell you is because I suffered enough insomnia to download the thing last night, it does a very good job of describing the trouble Ford was in. So a business book recommended by a business friend of mine, very, very highly, and I'm already engrossed having only downloaded – having only had the chance to listen to the first chapter,

American Icon by Bryce G. Hoffman. Well, we – since we're talking about business, let's talk about our next guest, Larry Kudlow. I don't – I mean again, I'm introducing somebody that everybody knows. He's a well-known economist, television personality, newspaper columnist, host of CNBC's Kudlow Report, syndicated columnist. His articles appear everywhere including his own blog, Kudlow's Money Politics, which I will post on the site. That's a great blog. That is indispensable to understand the economy and what's happening in business. You can follow him on Twitter at Larry underscore Kudlow.

I've known him for a long time from back in the NR days. I've always been a huge admirer of his. And again, this is sort of a red banner day to have two great guests. Please welcome to the podcast, Larry Kudlow. Hey, Larry, it's Rob Long in L.A. How are you? Hey, Rob, how are you? Nice to hear from you.

Great. You're on the line with Peter Robinson up in Palo Alto and Troy Sinek. Let me just throw out a first question. Everything's great, right? We had a great jobs report. Unemployment's down. Fantastic news. Economy's back.

Well, listen, the job story is improving. There's no question about that. The column I wrote on it, though, is to warn people that all is not perfect and there are a lot of glitches going on. And here's two of them that showed up again in that report. Number one, a lot of people are still dropping out of the labor force. Actually, more people left the labor force than took jobs in June when you use the broadest measure. So that issue of discouragement is still with us. And by the way, leaving the labor force could mean you're going on social security disability or you're collecting food stamps or some form of open-ended welfare.

So, you know, that's a problem here. We pay people not to work. The second issue is part-time versus full-time. A lot of people, and in fact, in the June report, more people took part-time jobs than full-time jobs. So that's probably the Obamacare effect. So we're a long way from solving our labor market, you know, employment job situation. Hey, Larry, Peter Robinson here. Two views of the economy. View number one, this is the new normal.

It's not just happening to us. We've watched Japan for the last almost two decades now try to restart its economy without any success. Germany is the great titan of Europe and that's because it's managed to produce growth only in the range of about 2 percent. But by European standards, that's been enough to make it the continent conqueror economically. So if we're producing 2 percent growth and part-time jobs. That's just the way it is. That's view number one. This is the new normal. View number two is that if we had the right policies, we could restart the economy within six months.

It would happen fast. We know what's holding it back. It's largely government regulation, taxation, uncertainty because of government policy. Which view do you subscribe to? Put me strongly in the second camp. Put me very strongly in the second camp. Look, Peter, you and I worked for Reagan. We watched a fabulous turnaround that occurred in the 1980s. George Will said at the speech last night here at Hoover, or somebody said it last night, how bad the 70s were.

We thought the country was on a hopelessly downward path, losing our influence abroad and our growth at home. We fixed it. We fixed it with good policies, with Ronald Reagan, slashing tax rates, limiting government, lightening up regulations, strengthening the dollar. My view is so strong on this. All we need to do is go back to those basic, almost timeless policy principles. Cut back on the welfare state. Stop paying people not to work. Promote growth incentives. Growth solves so many

problems. And I'll just say in a laundry list of items, there's two things that really stick out in my mind. Number one, we need to slash, even abolish, the U.S. corporate income tax. And the people who would benefit the most from that are workers and wage earners. Those are the people who would benefit including small businesses all our companies are moving offshore avoiding taxation we're not even competitive anymore and the second thing I'd say is we must completely rewrite Obamacare because Obamacare is essentially forcing companies to lose full-time jobs and increase part-time jobs. And by the way, if you should work and you do succeed,

you will lose your Obamacare subsidies and you will get a higher tax rate. So the marginal tax rate for working could be as high as 80%. The guy who did the great work on this is our friend Casey Mulligan from the University of Chicago. So reform Obamacare and reform the corporate tax rate. And let me just throw in one other thing. Make the dollar stronger. I call it king dollar. That will bring money back to the U.S. from all over the world.

Hey, Larry, Peter here. One follow-up question with that. Reagan turned things around very quickly in the 1980s following just the policies or versions of the policies that you've named. He also reduced the personal income tax rate, but that isn't as high now. There's not as much room to do that. Corporate tax rate, I once heard Reagan say in the middle of a speech he ad-libbed, he was talking about the need to cut the corporate tax rate and he ad-libbed, of course, if I had my my way there would be no corporate income tax the audience right okay but here's one thing that's different really different in the old days the cultural fabric social fabric of the country the old days meaning the Reagan days, was still strong enough to be counted

upon. And what I'm talking about now, above all, is the American family. And now we have the rate of out-of-wedlock birth among African Americans is over 70 percent, Hispanic Americans over 50 percent, white Americans over 40 percent for the country as a whole. What do you do? I mean, this is creating the single mothers need big government. It's good. The breakdown of the family, at least they think they need big government.

The breakdown of the family changes the political dynamic, creating an enormous constituency for an expansion of social programs, disability, food stamps, you name it. That's sort of a big fact that's different about politics now, isn't it? Well, I think it is, but I want to inject it. I don't think this is so much an economic problem, even though I acknowledge that we need to tighten up some eligibility on food stamps and welfare, the way we did, by the way, with the Republican Congress and Bill Clinton in the 90s. We need to tighten up some of the eligibility.

But I think the deeper point is, you're right, a cultural issue of family breakup, the value of marriage, the value of education, the value of work. I mean, you know, it's funny. To me, work is sanctified. Work is godly. Work is something that should be so deeply embedded in our souls. And if you look at the stuff that our friend Arthur Brooks has written from the American Enterprise Institute, people feel better and people feel happier when they're working, and they feel worse when they're on welfare. And I think that that is a very positive thing that has to be exploited, opened up. I think we need leaders to talk at great length about that issue. I mean, the Carvel prescription is so simple. You know what I mean? If you're a kid, finish school, whatever school it is, by the way, high school, community college, liberal arts, I don't care.

Finish your schooling, get a job, work on the job for a while, then get married, be married for a while with your job, and then have the children, okay? And then stay married. Now, that's a cultural issue. That's a spiritual issue. That may be a religious issue, but that's what has to be done. It's going to require leadership. I don't see it so much as economics as I do moral and spiritual leadership. Larry, Troy Sinek here. All these pro-growth policies that you've been referring to, do we have to basically be content with treading water for two and a half years and waiting for the Obama administration to be over to realize any of those? Or is there anything that you think could actually get done during the remainder of the president's term?

It seemed like, especially during the first term, they kind of played footsie with the idea of corporate tax reform. There's been talk about broader tax reform, and the House hasn't really gone anywhere. Is there anything that you think we could accomplish in the next couple of years that points in the direction you'd like us to go? Well, I think you could accomplish in the next couple of years that points in the direction you'd like us to go well i think you could look i think on the issue of corporate tax reform um i spoke to the senate republican senate steering committee lunch a couple weeks ago and i urged them to be bold on that obama claims he's willing to to work with you on corporate tax reform. There is a bipartisan majority in favor of it, although not the details, but nonetheless. And that includes repatriating money that's offshore. You could do that, especially if you get a Republican Senate. You could really create a bill just on the business tax side and get that done in 2015.

I believe that could be done. And if the president wants to veto it, then that's his problem. Okay. And the Democrats will take the rap for jobs, you know, stopping jobs in 2016. That's one thing. I also, against all odds, have not given up hope that you could get some, at least some pieces of immigration reform. And by that I mean more visas for the high-skilled, techie engineers, for the students that we help educate and then we kick them out of the country. You know, that kind of brainiac power would really be helpful for job creation. So I haven't given up hope on immigration reform,

and I haven't given up hope on corporate tax reform. But I'd like to see, just last point real quick, I'd like to see the GOP Senate leaders and House leaders put together a new contract with America. And I'd like to see them say to the country, look, if you elect us and give us a Republican Senate and House, here's our governing agenda. And hopefully it would be broad-based. Let people know what the GOP really stands for because President Obama is so divisive, you know, and he's always an attack dog. Let them know. Put together some kind of new contract with America. Yeah, the Republicans have not been very good about that, have they, of laying out a very

clear agenda and a very clear opposing set of goals. I mean, they're all over the place on this. You know, look, can I just tell you this? I'm watching people on TV and elsewhere talk about impeaching Obama, okay? Can I just tell you that's political garbage, okay? That's crap. That's the kind of thing that would turn half the country against the republicans

completely distract from the issues of you know of the stagnant economy and the obama care flaws and the overregulation and the incoherent uh... dangerous foreign policy within the i thought their palin how i Sarah Palin, but I'm watching her on some TV show talking about impeachment with a straight face, and I just sort of threw my hand at the side. Oh, Sarah, cut it out. I'm glad the Wall Street Journal came out against impeachment. I'm glad John Boehner came out against impeachment. GOP should be smart, okay? Stop looking for better radio ratings, and let's get down to some basic blocking and tackling and key issues to give more take-home pay to individuals, create more job opportunities, and solve some of these other healthcare-related problems.

Let's get serious, for Christ's sakes. Impeachment is not a serious thought. Hey, Larry, before we let you go, I know you've got to run. I have a question about actually putting more money in people's pockets. And it's an open-ended question because I really don't know the answer. Fed's given us cheap money,

unbelievably low interest rates for, I don't know, a huge, huge, huge series of years. They say there's no inflation. People feel like prices are rising. Who's right? Is there inflation or not? There really isn't much inflation. I know the Republicans,

some people wanted to impeach or even try Ben Bernanke for treason. I don't really like, I remember that in the 2012 campaign, one Republican candidate wanted him to be put up on treason charges. And I said to myself, you know, this is really one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Look, I don't happen to agree with the Fed's policy. I'm more or less in the camp of our good friend John Taylor, who wants clear monetary policy rules.

OK, so that's where I come out. Furthermore, I want a strong dollar as part of our monetary policy. By the way, if the dollar went up 10 or 15 percent, the price of oil would drop to $80 a barrel, and that would be fantastic for the U.S., and it would destroy a lot of near food. So having said all that, I don't see any real inflation. I'm going to say 2%. That's what the forward-looking indicators say. So I just don't see that as a big obstacle. Here's the deal. Here's the deal. Janet Yellen is a very smart woman. She's a Keynesian, okay? So she thinks the Fed can solve jobs. They cannot. Milton Friedman taught us 50 years ago at his presidential address to the American Economics Association, monetary policy has its limits. It has no lasting effect on

employment or the real economy. If you want more employment and you want a better economy, you need tax rate incentives, you need lower regulatory burdens on businesses, and you need a sound, confident currency. Those are the things. Of those, the currency is controlled by the Fed. The fiscal policy and regulatory policy is not controlled by the Fed. That's the mistake Yellen is making. Use John Taylor's monetary rule and we'll be just fine. Hey, Larry, thank you very much. I got one last yes or no question. And I think I know the answers. I've known you a long time. Are you an optimist or are you a pessimist? I am an optimist. This is the greatest country in the world. This is the greatest democracy in

the world. And the great thing about our country is the voters are smarter than the pundits think they are. And when the voters want change, they will vote in change. And let me just tell you, fellas, change is coming. Beard off the track. Time to get back on the highway. Let's get back on I-95 and let's start going in the right direction. And that's going to come in this coming election. Obama-ism, as I call it, is going to be voted out. All right. Well, listen, you heard it here first. That's an economic prediction that I will put my money on.

Thanks. I know you got to run. Thank you so much for joining us. It's really an honor and a thrill and love hearing you as always. Thanks very much. Thanks a lot. Bye-bye. Bye, Larry.

As long as I've known him, right? So that's probably – I think I met him – the first time I met him was 93, right? Yep. Okay. I've got you by one decade but still. Yeah. He's been infectiously optimistic and I don't recall what I thought to myself. Oh, Larry got that one wrong.

I think he's right a lot. Yeah. You know, the other thing, this is all totally public. Larry has been public about it himself. But you can't help – he's just as ebullient now as he's ever been and yet he went through a very difficult time in his life in the 90s. He's been very public about it. He had trouble with coke and booze and he had a real struggle to go straight and he's now – as he has now been – no booze, no coke for years now. But there is something somehow I've always felt or I knew him before the struggle and now

know him afterwards. There's something about his optimism. It's not just there's it's, it's a deep optimism. It's not superficial. And part of the depth is that he went through a very, very tough time in his own life and came out. And so what he understands is that through willpower, through, frankly, through faith, he would talk, he would tell you that his faith played a large role.

Things can really serious problems can be taken on that, that fundamentally reality is good. And if you work with it instead of against it, things are going to be okay. Larry, in some, some basic way, he understands the deep structure of reality because he's been through so much. Well, what he doesn't understand is how awkward it is to do this encounter spot right now after – That's a segue.

Yeah. That's a segue. There's no – I defy even a James Lilacs to do this segue after what Larry said about impeachment. But this Ricochet podcast is brought to you by Encounter Books. This week's featured title is Faithless Execution, Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment by Andy McCarthy. It couldn't be more timely. I would love to have them both on actually. As Faithful Execution will demonstrate, it is a straightforward matter to plead articles of impeachment derived from these episodes to establish high crimes and misdemeanors, which is a term of art borrowed from English law, signifying maladministration and abuses of power by holders of high public trust.

Well, that's definitely a check. To focus on the individual episodes, though, is to miss the overarching offense, which is the president's willful violation of his solemn constitutional oath to faithfully execute the laws, protect the border for one. The modus operandi for the transformation he promised is to concentrate power into his own hands by flouting the law, the constitution, statutes, judicial rulings, and essentially daring the coordinate branches of government to stop him. That sounds like pretty provocative stuff. It also sounds like Andy McCarthy's on to something.

The good news is we have Andy on next week. So we'll be able to talk about it. So to get Andy's book for 15% off the list price and if you get it from Encounter Books and read it and post some questions based on the book, we'll be sure to ask Andy. So if you're listening and you want to get in on this conversation with Andy next week, let us know. Do you get his book? Yes? I've already got the first question for Andy next week. Andy, thank you very much for joining us.

Larry Kudlow, quote, this talk of impeachment is garbage, close quote. Andy? Andy? And then we can go get a cup of coffee. We can come and wait. Andy's a smart dude too. Oh, absolutely. But wait.

Let me finish though. To get the book off for 15% off list price, go to EncounterBooks.com. Use the coupon code Ricochet at checkout. We thank EncounterBooks for sponsoring the Ricochet price. Go to EncounterBooks.com. Use the coupon code RICOSHET at checkout. We thank EncounterBooks for sponsoring the RICOSHET podcast. We're excited to have Andy there. If you get the book now and read it, you'll get some good questions for him, and we will put him through his paces. Although, again, I don't know. I don't think I'd want to be in between Mark Levin, Andy McCarthy, and Larry Kudlow.

It's just too much brain power for me. Well, question on this, fellas. Yeah. Because I've been mulling this over over the course of the last week or so. Is it possible that they're all to some degree right? And what I mean by that is the following. The case that Andy McCarthy is making in his book – and I know sort of the pricey of it. I haven't gone through the entire book yet. But the case that Andy's making strikes me as substantively correct, which is that the

provisions that we have in the Constitution for impeachment are probably much more for the kinds of things that President Obama has done than the kind of things that President Clinton did. It's really sort of maladministration of the office. That being said, the political reality, which Larry mentioned, I completely agree with Larry on this point, is that it's a non-starter and that the real problem there is maybe at some level a civic problem, which is to say that a president who conducted himself the way that Barack Obama has in regards to discharging his duties, had he done so in the late 19th century, for instance, I think that the sentiment throughout the country and the sentiment throughout both parties would be different. And you would actually have a movement that would be serious about removing a point where that's just – that's not on the table anymore because we expect a lot less or maybe in a sense we expect a lot more in terms of what the president is doing.

I mean I don't recall whether it was actually with you guys or on the show that I was hosting last week with Richard Epstein where Richard said you cannot – impeachment is never viable unless the party of the president has turned against him. And that's not going to happen here. Well, that point – right. I agree with almost everything you said. OK. Tell me where I'm wrong, Peter. No, no. I do agree with everything you said. But in a certain sense, I think you're almost too timid in making your point. You wouldn't have to wait until – you wouldn't have to go all the way back in my judgment to the 19th century to find people in the Senate who said impeach that man if a president behaved the way Barack Obama has behaved.

This president would already have been impeached. We would be now spending a long, grueling summer of a trial in the Senate right now if Barack Obama were a Republican. That's the point that it's not – Were he a Republican today? Today? A modern Republican? Today, absolutely so. Oh, I don't know about that.

If a Republican president, if George W. Bush had unilaterally on a major piece of legislation, changed the legislation more than 30 times, if he had failed in as obvious and clear a way to enforce the law as Barack Obama has failed on the border, you can be sure, I feel deeply, the press would be against him. You would have liberal Republicans, the ladies from Maine would be standing, the lady, there's only one from Maine now, would be standing up. What's going on now is that Barack Obama – everybody does understand that Barack But his own party says that the constitution is not the ultimate standard. The ultimate standard is our political health, what we are doing to change the character of the country. And so they're giving him cover. Likewise, the press, if he were a Republican, if he were taking these actions in pursuit of a conservative agenda, if he were

unilaterally rewriting the tax code, they'd have impeached him already. I feel – that seems clear to me. I don't know about that. I don't know about that. I mean everyone really hated George W. Bush and they all thought he lied. No one died when Clinton lied. They all thought – No, nobody thought he lied.

No serious person – Oh, I don't know. Of course they – I think that he – No, nobody thought he lied. No serious person should ever believe the record. Oh, I don't know. Of course they – I think they did. No, no, no, no. They accused him of it over and over again because it tested so well. If they thought he lied, they would have put out some – they would have demonstrated a lie. There was no place in the public record where George W. Bush told a lie.

I just don't think that the reason we're not – I don't think that it would be – if the parties would be reversed and a republican had done these kind of extra constitutional things, there would be – I just don't think that – I don't think there's a stomach for impeachment. I don't think this – in the country and I think also there's this movement. There's this idea that that's what the – I think a lot of people think that what – I mean ordinary Americans think that that's the – what Obama has done is put the job of the executive. They don't mind that so much. Because the press and his own party so thoroughly back him up. But there's no way to litigate. That's just my feeling. I'm not going to – we could arm wrestle over it, but that's all we could do.

You can't prove something like this. But isn't part of the problem though, just to return to Roy's central part about that they may all be right. Isn't the problem that you can't beat something with nothing and that with a fractured Republican Party – a fractured message from the Republican Party, it's the guy with a consistent and clear message kind of wins and that person happens to be Barack Obama? I don't really know. I mean Mark Levin is correct. What are the policies? And Larry Kudlow kind of echoed that. They're two very different Republicans, Mark Levin and Larry Kudlow. But they both did the same thing, which is we need a manifesto, a statement of what you're going to do. And without that, it's awfully hard

to run in opposition. Yeah. And for that, we have to wait until the primaries, 2016. We have to wait until these guys step forward and start telling us what they're going to do but don't you think a contract with america would work peter for november oh i see what you're okay i see what you're talking about trying to come up with something with a coherent agenda between now and november would it work i don't yeah the answer is yes it would would work. And yes, I'm with Larry. It would be good if we had such a thing. Will John Boehner and his members in the House attempt to come up with a contract with America? No, because there's so much dissension between the Tea Party caucus in his house and John Boehner and the leadership.

They couldn't agree on a contract with America. And furthermore, they think they're going to win anyway. So there's just no political incentive for them. That's more it. But there are five things they can agree on. I mean you can find five things you agree that the Tea Party wing and the Boehner wing and the establishment wing and the more ultra-conservative wing. You can find five things.

Which is by the way exactly the way that the first one, the 94 contract was structured. I mean I learned this when working with Newt that Newt will not take on anything. I mean he won't plan to take on anything. Then he'll pop off at a press conference. But he won't take on anything for a sustained campaign unless he can find 70%, 75% polling on it. That was the whole idea. But isn't that weird? Don't you think it's strange what's the reason for that you have this this tactic in 94 and for everybody

who's under a certain age um uh a congressman from georgia newt gingrich uh sort of galvanized the house and um and took back the house for the first time in 50 years for the republicans uh using a contract with america which was sort of 10 principles, 10 things they're going to do. A lot of them were just reform agenda, like reform Congress, right? So a lot of it was just obey our own laws. And swept into the House. And that tactic has not been used.

That successful tactic, even more successful now in an era of social media where you can get it in front of more people. He had to buy e-bought ads in Reader's Digest and TV Guide. That's where The Contractor of America was. I remember those publications.

Why haven't we done it again? Didn't we a couple years ago? I mean this tells you how effective it was and I have to ask the question. But 2012, 2010, there was some sort of vague aping of this that never went anywhere. I mean part of it might be the difference in the personalities involved. I mean you're going to know when Newt is trying to sell something like that. But I'm inclined to agree with what Peter said, and I think this has got to be the way that they're thinking in the Republican caucuses, that it's probably not worth the hassle of going through the process. I love the idea in the abstract, and I specifically love the fact that it's formatted as a contract because that was the whole point is that it's an obligation that the actual process of getting that out of this caucus at this point would be so divisive and so fractious that it would probably be counterproductive.

And I don't think they have to do it. I mean more than anything, that's what it comes down to. You correctly – you made – I would agree entirely with Troy that there are two factors. One is there's no Newt on the scene. John Boehner is just not Newt Gingrich. For which on balance perhaps we should give thanks. But he's not Newt on the scene. John Boehner is just not Newt Gingrich, for which on balance perhaps we should give thanks. But he's not Newt Gingrich. And the second point is when they developed – when Newt and Bob Walker of Pennsylvania and others developed the contract with America, the republicans in the house had been in the minority for four zero years. They had nothing to lose, literally nothing to lose in that Newt and Bob Walker and the

leaders on the Republican side who developed the contract with America came from safe seats. Now you have a situation in which they have a majority to lose. They really feel there's something at stake. John Boehner is not the kind of reformer provocateur that Newt Gingrich was. And they these fellows, whoa whoa all the polls are fine let's just not start a fight i that's my my impulse about what the way it's i think that's right and that although i think that that majority in the house i think is safe either way and i i don't know about you guys i feel pretty confident on the on the senate side i mean if we need six

seats and seven of those alone are in states that Romney won. I think things are looking pretty up. Well, pretty up. But Arkansas and Louisiana, Louisiana, I thought our guy would be up by this point. And he's only dead even, according to the last poll I've seen. And Landrieu, that turns out to be quite an operation down there. Well, it's Louisiana. Exactly. Roy Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans at the time of Katrina, has just been sent to prison for 10 years for corruption, which may be a little clue into what actually was going on during Katrina. In any event, our guy is only dead even in Louisiana. And the polls in the Tom Cotton versus prior race in Arkansas are bouncing around all over the place. But Tom Cotton, to my disappointment, has not established a clear and consistent lead.

There's a very good chance. I suppose I'd put a little bit of money on it that they'd both win, our guy in Louisiana and Tom Cotton in Arkansas. I say our guy in Louisiana because I can't remember his name. What's the name? Cassidy. Thank you very much. Cassidy in Louisiana.

But those two, I kind of hope for those two to swing into line. Yeah. Well, I mean there was a recent – the recent Arkansas post shows Tom Cotton moving up fast. Oh, good. He's got momentum I guess. Good. Good. But it is strange. I mean isn't it strange that Newt Gingrich was so fearless in taking on the most – probably one of the most adroit and sophisticated politicians of the past 50 years in the White House, Bill Clinton.

And Boehner and the Republicans seem so timid taking on this guy. It seems strange, don't you think? I mean, if anything, they should be emboldened by it. But there is some kind of aura thing about this president that makes him just harder to, I guess, to scrap with. Well, and then the action has shifted over to the Senate to a large extent. Newt was just such a figure that all the energy seemed to be taking place on the Republican side in the House. And now you've got Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and Rand Paul. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul don't agree on a lot of issues, but they're both doing a pretty interesting job. And if you – I do think that you'd have to say John Boehner.

I'm not sure I'd say that John Boehner is timid particularly. I've been a fan of his. I'm less a fan now the more longer I watch him. I don't think it's timidity so much as, check me on this, Troy pays attention to these things and knows the house. John Boehner actually wants to do a deal. He's the one who came very close to doing the grand bargain with Obama and it was Cantor. In fact, the two of those, we now know that Boehner didn't even inform Cantor of the

negotiations with the White House because he knew Cantor would oppose it. John Boehner just sort of wants to be an insider in Washington and do a deal and he views this Tea Party caucus in – the Tea Party portion of his own caucus in the house. They're the crazy – not Obama. I could deal with Obama. It's my friends I can't deal with. That seems to me to be the way he views it. I tend to think that's right. I think he wants to be the speaker of a different house of representatives than he's got.

I mean he kind of fits an old model of speaker that doesn't really apply to the caucus he's got right now. And I don't know that I would say that they're timid either, although I do feel like they've probably pulled their punches on some issues. I think maybe it's gotten to a point where Republicans in Congress just look at the president and say, look, this guy defied gravity for so long

and we chipped away and we chipped away and we chipped away. And finally, everything seems to be coming home to roost. I mean, it's hard for it not to when you've got sort of seven scandals simultaneously knocking each other off the front pages. That's been what's most remarkable the last couple of months is that you can't keep up with Ukraine because it gets knocked off for the VA, which gets knocked off for Bo Bergdahl, which gets knocked off for Iraq. I mean you just can't keep up with it. And then it cycles through again. Yeah. These things actually don't stop happening.

We just stop talking about them. Right. I mean the border became the top story in the news this week after we had kind of pushed it to the back burner with John Hickenlooper, governor of Colorado, while there was a border crisis not that far away from where he was, and after he said he can't make it. I'm busy. I can't get down there. And when you start losing Andrea Mitchell and you start losing the acolytes in the press, that's a problem, right? The outplaying pool thing is weird, is it not? I mean just the complete telegraphing of the fact that he just doesn't give a damn at this point.

I actually – I've got to repeat because I loved it so much. We had on a post that I put up yesterday a member whose handle is Old Bathos wrote – I love this phrase. The pending constitutional issue is whether the taxpayer must cover postage if the president just mails it in for most of the rest of his term. I think that's right. I think that's right. Yeah, that's right. There was another question yesterday. I was out yesterday, so I didn't get to it, but I got a little flag, so I'm going to get to it today.

Member Stad asks, Hollywood question maybe Rob Long can answer. My wife and I noticed that in lots of movies and TV shows, characters will enter their homes or apartments through the front door, then leave the door wide open as they go about their business. Is there a reason for doing this? My short answer is yes. The reason is so the villain and the serial killer can come in. But the other reason is we call it the car keys problem, which is that no one wants to see you look for your car keys. You just get in the car and go.

Or you cut to the guy driving the car. But you never want to do any shoe leather or car keys because it's just – your audience is kind of their eyes glaze over. But I'm not going to ask – I'm going to answer that in the actual – in the comments, but I just wanted to make sure that everybody knew I saw it. Can we – if I may, I know we've got to go, but I have one quick question sort of on behalf of a member because I saw it show up. I think it was in the thread for Glop Culture, and there was a reference, Rob, to your planned New York sabbatical. And somebody asked the question as to why you would trade one coastal enclave for another. I thought that was interesting. Why not – why can't you do the Teddy Roosevelt – I realize you have a wife. You don't have a wife that has just died, but go out to North Dakota for a year, buy yourself a ranch, cut some brush.

I mean that's a book. It sounds like hard work. Build a fence with Mark Levin. Yeah, I don't know about that. Can you get Chinese delivered in North Dakota? I don't know. I'm sure you can. Of course you can.

Chinese are everywhere. That may have been the operative question. I think that may have been an extremely insightful point, Peter. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I haven't gotten through all those comments yet. I got to get into that. New York's a fun place. New York's a fun place. I don't understand it. I truly I don't understand. New York is a fun place. Venice beach is a fun place. The man already leads the most glamorous life of anyone I know, but here's what I really don't understand. Like Troy, I had people say, not just on ricochet. I had people texting me on Facebook and sending me personal emails. People went to the trouble of discovering my email account to say, what's up

with Rob? Is he all right? Is he sick? Does he have only months to live? What's happening? Please, Rob, just reassure everyone that you're healthy. Mentally, you may be – but tell people you're still going to be around the planet for a while. Oh, yeah. Listen, you'll know I'm – you'll know that the end times are near when I disappear and I go someplace really exotic. Then you'll know that the situation is dire.

Well, somewhere without an extradition treaty, right? Exactly. I got a list of those. I did once actually want to just take two years and go to – pick five or six places in the world and just sort of camp out there for a few months and sort of see the see the places around it well if you could post on ricochet from that world tour i would encourage it because as you know i've told you this over and over again in fact i'm slightly miffed that you haven't done such a world tour because it means you're disregarding my i think extremely perceptive advice it wasn't good which advice. Whenever you write about travel, you are a really gifted observer.

You are really wonderful. But politics not so much. Yeah, I was going to say, you notice the implicit qualifier there. No, no, no. I mean, look, all of us, we can all talk about politics, but only a few people can really write,

really do travel writing. Translation, Peter likes to be better when I'm far away. I'm trying to be a nice guy and all I'm getting is pushback. Well, listen, if you are listening to this and you're a Ricochet member, we've just talked about other Ricochet members. This is a community of thoughtful, smart people. And we always say that we always try to tell our members that, listen, you know, if you write something and it gets there and it gets some attention and people read it, people around the country read it, people – national broadcasters read it as we found out today.

Those are nice things that Mark Levin said about Ricochet and of course he's right. So if you've heard this podcast and you're not a member, now is the perfect time. Go to Ricochet.com and become a member. We have three tiers of membership. You could join a lot of great people. This podcast was also brought to you by Audible.com, our friends at Audible, and EncounterBooks.com. And I'm just getting one note here. Should we talk a little bit about Ricochet was not fished two nights ago?

Yeah, Troy. Tell us why it didn't fish. No, there was a comment that came up that people thought that there was solicitations going on from Ricochet that were not. It was actually, believe it or not, six months after the fact, it was a malfunction that we've now addressed. Everybody should be taken care of. It was a malfunction based out of Ricochet 1.0. Rose from the grave momentarily.

Perhaps coincidentally just after the Germans got their big victory in the World Cup. There was a German association with Ricochet 1.0 and all of a sudden they were feeling their oats and it came back that same night. But no, there's a thread on the member feed where you can check out and find information about this. But we think everybody that has had problems has been made whole. And if not, you can write us at support at Ricochet.com. Everybody's been made whole except that our own beloved Blue Yeti must certainly still be suffering from a sleep deficit. I had insomnia that night myself and I checked my email. Couldn't sleep at 430 in the morning.

And there was a note from the Yeti saying there's a malfunction. I'm going to be up all night. And he was up all night fixing it. Blue Yeti, this is a call out to you. Now, after recording this podcast, go home and get some sleep. Yeah, well, I think we're too easy on him. I want to change the site again. Hey, fellas, this was a lot of fun. Too easy on him. I want to change the site again. To a different system.

Hey, fellas, this was a lot of fun. Thank you, guys. It was a pleasure. Next week? Next week. Bye, fellas. Crucé el río grande nadando sin importarme dos reales, me echó la migra pa' afuera y fui a caer a Nogales, entré por Laredo Me disfracé de gabacho y me pinté el pelo güero Y como no hablaba inglés que me retachan de nuevo La migra a mí me agarró

Trescientas veces, digamos Pero jamás me domó A mí me hizo los mandados Los golpes que a mí me dio Se los cobré a sus paisanos Ricochet. Join the conversation. This is the Ricochet Podcast, episode 222 with Peter Robinson and Rob Long.

We're off on the road to utopia with our guests Mark Levin and Larry Kudlow. James Nylux is away again this week, so we're making our own segues. I'm Andrew Miller. Let's have ourselves a podcast. Welcome to the Ricochet Podcast, episode 222. Our hosts are Peter Robinson and Rob Lahl. Today's guests are fearless radio host and scholar Mark Levin and the inconquerably optimistic Larry Kudlow, learned economist. Let's get this shindig started. Welcome to the Ricochet Podcast. Our guests, Larry Kudlow, probably here to terrify us about our impending financial collapse and the

great one Mark Levin but being Eeyore I fear hearing get off the phone you big dope so I'll leave the interviews to our professionals Rob Long and Peter Robinson let's have ourselves a podcast