The Ricochet Podcast - Government Don't Work Good

Episode Date: October 2, 2014

This week, we’re fortunate to have two giants of America political punditry: the Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone and Hillsdale College professor (and Ricochet contributor) Paul Rahe. They opine on the current state of races across the country, and an early line on 2016. But before that, a deep dive on the current state of the Secret Service, take on Ricochet member TeamAmerica’s query Foreign... Source

Looking for reliable IT solutions for your business? At Innovate, we are the IT solutions people for businesses across Ireland. From network security to cloud productivity, we handle it all. Installing, managing, supporting and reporting on your entire IT and telecoms environment so you can focus on what really matters. Growing your business. Whether it's communications or security, Innovate has you covered. Visit Innovate today.

Innovate. The IT solutions people. 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! I'm the king of the world! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson and Rob Long. I'm James Lylex and our guests today are Michael Barone and Paul Ray. Together, a tag team match. Who wins? You do. Let's have ourselves a podcast. There you go again. Yes, welcome everybody to this, the Ricochet Podcast.

Now numbering in the 230s or something. It's brought to you by Harry's Shave. If you're follicly inclined, this is where you got to go. Harry's.com. Use the coupon code Ricochet podcast. Now numbering in the 230s or something. It's brought to you by Harry's Shave. If you're follically inclined, this is where you gotta go. Harry's.com. Use the coupon code Ricochet for checkout. Tell you a little bit more about that in a bit. Also brought to you by Encounter Books for 15% off any title. Go to EncounterBooks.com

and use the coupon code Ricochet at your checkout. Now this week's featured title is How David Became... No, it's not. No, it's a new one. It's a broadside. It's Freedom From speech by Greg Lukianoff. More about that a little bit later, too. And, of course, tautological as it may sound,

Ricochet is brought to you by Ricochet. And here to tell you about Ricochet is Ricochet founder Rob Long. Rob? James, how are you? You know, for a year, for 230-plus podcasts, I've been giving a member pitch. If you're listening to this podcast and you're a member of Ricochet, we thank you and we are honored to be members of Ricochet alongside you. Ricochet is the fastest growing, best, most interesting, cleverest and most civil conversation between and among the center right on the left.

We like to have our members mix it up with each other and our contributors. But, of course, at a certain point, my pitches fell on deaf left. We like to have our members mix it up with each other and our contributors. But of course, at a certain point, my pitches fell on deaf ears. So we went to the experts, Ricochet members, to tell you why you should become a Ricochet member. And this week, there's a very short one from Weezer in Arlington, Virginia. Hi, this is Weezer from deepest, bluest Arlington, Virginia. I just want to say that people should join Ricochet because in a world that's too, too left and too right, Ricochet is just right. Thanks.

That's great. Well, we could use this for the movie version of Ricochet. In a world that was too left. We'd like to thank Fighting in Philly and, of course, thank Weezer in Arlington, Virginia. And we'd also like to thank our newest Mrs. Thatcher-level members, Dave L., Sir Toby, Coffee 2, Instigator, and there were a few more. Thank you, thank you, thank you. What are you waiting for? Join Ricochet today. Okay, pitch is over. And now Peter Robinson to tell you why he is not surprised at all that Julia Pearson resigned.

Hello, Peter. And I have to ask you, are you happy that somebody finally fell on their sword and looks like they actually took responsibility? Yes. Well, I'm happy about it. I'm happy that she finally got shoved out. I'm unhappy that she had to – she clearly resisted it. She waited a day and there's something about this that is – goes far beyond the Secret Service that has me puzzled and a little shaken. I was speaking – in fact, I didn't – I shot an an Uncommon Knowledge interview on Monday with Peter Thiel. And one point Peter was making, libertarian that he is, is the comprehensive breakdown in the ability of the government to get anything done. And he was using the example.

He was contrasting today's federal government with the government of John F. Kennedy. John Kennedy said, we'll put a man on the moon by the end of this decade. And by 1968, under Richard Nixon, we had done so. Go back a couple of decades earlier, the federal government was able to organize an invasion of Normandy, a huge endeavor. And under Barack Obama, it can't even design a website. And now we know that it cannot even secure the executive mansion. It is just staggering that what has happened to the federal government somehow or other, some combination of bloat and ideology has made it incapable of fulfilling even the simplest of its functions.

And our schools are so bad that kids grow up thinking the moon landing happened in 1968. I know what you mean, exactly. When did it happen? 69. Was it 69? 69. Or they think the moon landing happened at all, James, instead of happening in itself. I know.

I know. So, Rob, extrapolate and find out what's wrong about this for you. Here's what's wrong. I feel sorry for Julia Pearson. I really do. interpretation for her to be leading a federal agency that is in disarray and has failed and to not think that she was supposed to resign. There is no evidence that anyone in this administration ever resigns or takes responsibility for anything. The head of the IRS was put on a paid vacation. The attorney general decided when he was going to quit. Nobody takes responsibility for anything over there.

So why we've just picked off this poor woman and suddenly decided the head of the Secret Service has to go. I mean, I don't blame her. I'll tell you why we might blame her. It could be that she said from the top the culture that resulted in one of the most extraordinary statements I've ever heard, which was praising the Secret Service for demonstrating restraint. Restraint as a man is running towards the door of the White House over the fence. Restraint as though you can tell by looking at him through your sniper scope whether or not he's got some C4 tucked between his butt cheeks. Restraint when what we want is a hail of lead to reduce him

to ground chuck there on the steps of the White House because you don't know. Now, if you've gotten a memo from the boss, then I think you might stay your trigger hand. But if there's a culture set from the top, then restraint being

praised is not the sort of thing that you want from the Secret Service. But no, but I guarantee you she got her message from the top. They criticized the Capitol Police when they shot that woman

in front of the Capitol. And she kept her job. All they do at the Obama White House is criticize police action. That's all they do. Right. And when she was told that don't do that again, she kept her job. She didn't walk out. She didn't call a press conference and say, I can't live under these circumstances.

She stayed there and took the money and kept her mouth shut. Right. And when it all falls apart, where is the precedent in this White House that when it all falls apart and you are guilty of stunning incompetence, you have to go? I'm sorry. The secretary of HHS is still there. She also had a stunning statement if you like your health plan you get to keep it she's still there everyone's still there this poor woman this poor former head of the secret service is like oh i'm the one who has to go

i kind of i don't know we should all send her a basket of muffins i think she got a raw deal uh kathleen sabelius isn't there, but as long as we're being correct about when the moon landed, but she did not resign in disgrace. She resigned because she was done with the job. Anyway. No one has resigned from this house because they have screwed up. And there have been dozens of resignation worthy screw ups in this White House. That's what's so weird. I'm sure if you're Julia Pearson, you're thinking, wait, when did we change the rules? I thought I could screw up and stay. No, no, the old rules. Yeah, that's an interesting way of putting it, though,

Rob. The old rules, the new rules. What are the rules in Washington, D.C. these days? Is it set by the top? Is that what you're telling me here, that she's now looking around and saying everybody else was peeled off? No. Enough of us just blathering. Let's talk to some people who really know what they're talking about. Two in the same segment. My gosh, the head almost explodes with what's about to come.

Michael Barone and Paul Ray together again at last. Michael, of course, is Paul Ray together again at last. Michael, of course, is the Dean of American Political Journalists, a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner and co-author of the Almanac of American Politics and a contributor to Fox News. And Paul Ray, you know, holds the Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in Western Heritage at Hillsdale College, where he's a professor of history. And we invite them both here happily back to the Ricochet podcast. Welcome, gentlemen.

Hey, good to be with you. Pleasure. May I go first? Absolutely. Michael and Paul, Rob and James and I were just talking about this resignation of Julia Pearson, the head of the Secret Service. Michael and Paul, you both take a long view of these things. What has happened? I'm not even talking about ideology.

I'm just talking about competence. I'm talking about the ability to get things done. What happened between 50 years ago when we were able – John Kennedy was able to announce a moon program and we were able to get it done within seven years. And today, when the federal government is incapable of designing a website for Obamacare, and incapable, we now know, of keeping an intruder carrying a knife from entering the White House and making it all the way into the East Room. What does this mean, Michael? Well, government don't work good. To use the refined language of university campuses. You know, we're out of the industrial age and into the information age.

The industrial age favored the creation of large bureaucratic organizations with tailor-right worker discipline. And for some time, Americans were able to summon up a lot of enthusiasm and pride working as small cogs in large machines. We were proud of what we could get done. We had the Pentagon, still the world's largest office building. It was built in 18 months. Recently, they rebuilt a little bridge over the Potomac Inlet near there. It took them 42 months to do that. You can see the Pentagon from there.

It was 42 months from Pearl Harbor to VE Day. Think of what America accomplished during that period. It was 42 months from the passage of Obamacare until the opening of the healthcare.gov website. Clearly, this is a failure. It's a failure of organization. You can say it's a failure of leadership of certain individuals. I think there's merit in that. But it's also a sense that we've lost something of esprit. They put a woman in charge of the Secret Service because they were upset with what some of the

Secret Service men were doing on off hours. I think it's more important what they do in their on hours and uh... they didn't perform very well here so i'm with michelle obama she said that uh... she reported to have been furious that the secret service uh... didn't detect for four days that six shots have been shot at the white house the maid discovered the evidence uh... i think michelle ob Obama is dead on right here. And I want to see her and the president and their family protected. And the government's not doing a good job of it. Exactly. That woman is raising two children in that house,

and they didn't detect bullets being fired at it. Of course, it's just amazing. So where is the anger? Where is the president of the United States to say, I've had it? He's playing golf. You know, one of the other things we've recently learned is he complains that he wasn't getting good intelligence on ISIS, but 60% of the time, he wasn't going to the intelligence briefings. He spent more time playing golf than he spent at the intelligence briefings. And so another side of this is we have a president now. He's certainly not responsible for all of this or even probably most of it because the federal government is just a god-awful mess and has been for a long time. But when you have a president who is on vacation all the time and who really is not a manager of things,

in theory, he is supposed to have learned about the troubles with the Obamacare website only from the newspapers. Now, leave aside whether you can believe anything he says. It is certainly the case that he's not a hands-on executive. We've had micromanagers. That's a real problem. We've got a guy now who doesn't manage at all and does not regard himself as responsible for what goes wrong lower down. So that's one part of it.

Another part of it that struck me, I've been trying to sign up for Social Security. I'm 65. I'll be 66 in December. And it's a little bit complicated because I have four children under the age of 17. Now, you would think this would be easy, that you could do the whole thing online and it would go bingo-bongo. And the federal government would then check to see whether you really had these children because they've been issued social security cards. And there's a record of their birth, which the federal government has. But no, the Social Security Administration is only sort of half-hearted about using computer technology.

So I've had to go to Jackson to the actual office. And it's not impossible. It's not idiotic. But they're back in the 1950s in many regards. And I think if you look at the Veterans Administration, to take another example, where things are not going well. They're trying to fix this business about waiting lists. Looking for reliable IT solutions for your business? At Innovate, we are the IT solutions people for businesses across Ireland. From network security to cloud productivity, we handle it all. Installing, managing, supporting and reporting

on your entire IT and telecoms environment so you can focus on what really matters. Growing your business. Whether it's communications or security, Innovate has you covered. Visit Innovate today. Innovate. The IT solutions people. I want to put in a new computer operation for it. Well, we now know it will take them to 2020 in order to implement this.

Something is badly amiss. One part of the problem, and Michael might want to respond to this, is that when the government does more and more and more, it does less well what it does. And I think we can see this on the state level. As government becomes more complex, the roads get worse. I think that Paul's just made an excellent point. It's as government does more, it does things less well. You know, the Secret Service has been given a variety of different missions as well as protecting the president. Clearly, it's doing a less well thing. I think looking back in history, you know, the history of American political history that still has a grip on the minds of such people in America as

who know anything about it is the history of the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt. Big government saved America from the Depression. I think there's a lot of things wrong with that narrative. There are some things that are right, and my book, Our Country, The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan, I go into that. But one of the things that struck me about Roosevelt is he was very good at picking very good people for jobs that he thought were important, and we see this in his role as commander-in-chief in World War II. He didn't have to go through a whole bunch of inferior generals as President Lincoln did

before finding ones that did the jobs he wanted to do. He had an uncanny gift for that. He made big government look easier than it is for almost anybody else, and we're faced with that right now. The other thing is, where's the culture of accountability? The director of the Secret Service resigned yesterday. Why didn't she resign immediately when those Washington Post stories ran about the six or seven bullets fired in the White House that nobody discerned.

Instead, you had the president off the golf course for once saying that he had full confidence in her. Why are the Secret Service agents who were on duty when the president was allowed to go into an elevator in Atlanta with an ex-convict armed with a gun, why do any of them still have jobs left? Why were they not fired immediately? Why were the Secret Service agents from those six or seven gunshots were fired and said, well, you know, it's a backfiring car as if cars backfired six or seven times in a row. Why do they still have jobs? Why weren't they fired immediately? There's an old tradition, I believe, in the Navy that if a captain loses his ship, he loses his career. I think that in the case of the Secret Service, these lapses that they've had,

including the one where the intruder got in there on September 19th, why do any of those Secret Service agents still have jobs? And also, how about the White House usher who said that he pressed – muted the alarm because it irritated him? Why does he still have a job? You know, there's a parallel also. Think about the Benghazi story. We still don't know exactly what happened. We still don't know who was responsible.

No one has been fired. You've got an ambassador in a really rough situation who's been sent into a situation that everybody knows is a really rough situation. He is profoundly concerned about security, and he's right. He's pressing the issue all the time, somebody at the State Department wasn't paying attention or was deliberately saying, no, we can't afford this. This would cause too much trouble. It would highlight things. Nobody is responsible for anything.

Hey, guys, it's Rob Long just jumping in here. We were talking just before you got on about that. Is the head of the former – I should say the former head of the Secret Service, Julia Pearson, the first person in this administration to resign for reasons of failure? I mean she's not the first person to fail. We know that. But is this the first failure under – a first resignation under fire? Golly, it might be. I mean, isn't that indictment enough?

I mean, I was saying Eric Holder. Well, he's facing some deadlines and some lawsuit disclosures, which are not likely to produce results that are, you know, very good for him. Is he heading out one step ahead of the sheriff? I think that's a possibility. But what I mean is there's nobody jumping. Nobody's nobody. She's the first person to fall on the sword. She's the first person to fall on the sword.

And my my sense of it, just looking at the timeline, is that after her disastrous day on Capitol Hill, where the Republicans in particular just peppered her with questions because they were concerned about the safety of our president, she had a meeting with Jay Johnson, the Homeland Security Secretary, and then she decided to resign. My read of Mr. Johnson is that he's one of the perhaps competent adults in this administration from what I've read about his record, and I think that he probably laid down the law to her and said, look, you're out. But, you know, just as a hypothetical question, how would things have been different for Barack Obama politically if he had had a similar conversation with Kathleen Sebelius a week or two after it was clear that the website was a failure and it was going to be a disaster?

I think he'd look better. He'd look like an executive. When people make a hash of things you boot them and you look strong yeah president truman after he brought in secretary of defense lewis johnson in his second term cut the pentagon spending a whole lot and then we found we were shorthanded in korea lewis johnson was out the door uh and uh he was uh president truman got rid of him. So there are precedents for this sort of thing, but the fact is that I think Paul earlier made a correct point, which is that this president has proved to be less interested than most,

if interested at all, in how things actually work out on the ground. He doesn't seem to have too good a sense of this. I recall that his career as a community organizer, he never successfully got the asbestos out of the Altgeld housing project in Chicago. That might have been a tip-off that somebody who was making good speeches about the oppression of having asbestos in a housing project. If you can't get your asbestos out, you may not be able to do other things. Here's another issue that might be worth considering.

There's a long history in American politics of officeholders, appointee of officeholders, who go out on a limb, and if the president doesn't back them up, they resign. And that's another thing that hasn't happened in this administration. John Kerry should have resigned over the question of Syria when he went out on a limb, and Samantha Powers did the same thing and should have resigned, when they went out on a limb on the question of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and suddenly Barack Obama cut the ground out from under them. In other words, if you're a high federal official and you're pursuing a policy and the president clearly shows that he has no confidence in you because he doesn't follow through and back you up, you quit. It's an honorable thing to do, but there doesn't seem to be much of a sense of shame or a sense of honor either. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance resigned under Jimmy Carter for exactly that reason. He felt the president had made decisions that meant the policy he was pursuing

was no longer being pursued, and he stepped down honorably. Pearson quitting must establish a very frightening precedent in modern-day Washington because she had said previous to that, I take full responsibility. And in the world of Obama's Washington, the statement, I take full responsibility,

is the end of it right there. You're assuming some... It's all well and responsibility. The words, I take full responsibility, translated to English, mean I take no responsibility. Right. Exactly. Exactly. And now something actually happened to her.

Well, can I take full responsibility right now and just see if we can... I know we only have you guys for a few more minutes, but I'd like to switch quickly to midterms. We have two brilliant political minds there. And we could talk briefly about the horse race for the midterms, but I want to ask a couple questions and name two people. Let's start 50,000 feet first. I'm in New York, and I had a nice chat at the National Review office with Jay Nordlinger, a very fine writer, a journalist. And he has just come back from New Mexico where he spent some time with the governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez. She is phenomenally popular.

She's cruising to reelection. He said her statewide popularity is huge. She is in many ways a very Reaganite conservative, first-generation American. But when we talk about her, we always talk about her and Nikki Haley too, who right now is open to a big lead in her home state. We talk about them as vice presidents. Do you think either one of those is going to run for president? My answer is no. I don't see either one running for president.

I mean, Nikki Haley has had a down-and-down career as governor of South Carolina. It looks like she'll be reelected to a second term. Susana Martinez, let me put it this way. When you put on a ticket somebody to run for president or vice president, you invite, particularly if you're on the Republican side, adversarial scrutiny of every jot and tittle of what's happened to them in the state capitol, and it will often come from their political opponents. It may not be fully justified, but you're going to hear about it.

I mean, you had the same reporters that were not interested in Barack Obama's college transcripts, his work as a community organizer on the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago, were sending dozens of reporters in to check out the library records in La Silla, Alaska. And I don't think there's, after the experience of Barack Obama, I'm not sure there's as big a premium to voters in presenting a candidate where you say, she will be the first, fill in the blank, to run on a national ticket, or he will be the first, fill in a blank, to run on the national ticket. There may be, and I haven't seen polling on this, I'm not sure I could frame the polling

questions. There may be a Ben there did that attitude on the part of American voters as we approach the end of the Obama presidency. Paul, you called the 2010 wave election for Republicans earlier than anyone I know. And that may only be because I didn't happen to ask Michael about it at the same time. I admit, I thought you were at least half crazy at that point. What do you see for this midterm? I am at least half crazy, consider how far I went with Mitt Romney. So I think it's going to be a mixed result. And the reason is the party has run away from the Tea Party. They've tried to crush them in various places, Kansas, Mississippi, and they're having trouble raising money. And they're having trouble raising money because

they're not running on anything as a party. A couple of weeks ago, Karl Rove had a piece in the Wall Street Journal pointing to the shortage of money. And today he had a piece in the Wall Street Journal talking about what Republicans stand for. But it's pretty thin. What they stand for is they are not Barack Obama. They don't like Obamacare, but they don't seem to have an alternative. And they've not pulled themselves together and run the kind of campaign that Newt Gingrich ran in 1994 with the Contract with America, or John Boehner ran in 2010 with his sort of revised version of the Contract with America. There has not been a systematic attempt to nationalize these senatorial elections. And so the consequence is each one of the senatorial candidates is running on his or her own. And look, here in Michigan, where I live,

it looks as if Carrie Lynn Land isn't going to make it. If there were a national wave, if she were running as part of a team, not as an individual, if they had a program that they were behind, then she might pull through even though she's a pretty weak candidate, unwilling to debate Gary Peters and so forth. That having been said, things are so bad for Barack Obama, it seems to me that the Republicans will squeak through and get anywhere from six to eight seats.

What does Michael think? Well, I half agree and half disagree. I think Paul is right in saying that the Republicans haven't presented a coherent program. They do have this excuse that even if they win majority, significant majority in the Senate, maintain and build their majority in the House, they won't be able to enact legislation over a presidential veto. So, you know, there is time until 2016 to present more specifics. And I think they're going to be called on to do that in the Congress as well as in presidential

campaigns. I think, though, that whether you determine there's a waiver or not depends to some extent on your benchmark. And in this case, it's generally agreed that the Republicans are going to gain seats in the House of Representatives. If so, they will have won the second highest number of seats, or if they gain more than eight, the highest number of seats Republicans have won since 1946. That's significant. In the Senate races, I went through my Washington Examiner column today. I tried to go back in history. Looking for reliable IT solutions for your business? At Innovate, we are the IT solutions people for businesses across

Ireland. From network security to cloud productivity, we handle it all. Installing, managing, supporting and reporting on your entire IT and telecoms environment so you can focus on what really matters, growing your business. Whether it's communications or security, Innovate has you covered. Visit Innovate today. Innovate, the IT solutions people. And look back at previous years that are generally acknowledged to be wave years, 1974, 1980, 1994, 2006. And I can't remember a time when you had the leading and most followed election experts predicting that there was a majority chance,

greater than 50% chance, that one party was going to get a net gain of six Senate seats. I know that in the 1980 cycle, when Republicans gained 12 seats, I was then a Democratic pollster, and I sat down with my boss, Peter Hart, the Thursday before the election. And he said, okay, let's go through the Senate races and see if the Republicans have a chance to win a majority. We went through the races one by one. And we had a lot of inside knowledge because many of the Democratic candidates were our clients. And we both agreed that, A, it was possible for the Republicans to win a majority in the Senate, but B, it wasn't going to happen because they'd have to win almost all the close seats, and we didn't think that was going to happen.

That was in line with majority consensus at the time. So Republicans are, by historic standards, getting a wave, and I think it represents a repudiation of the big government policies of the Obama administration. It does not, as Paul say, represent an endorsement of alternative policies because the Republicans mostly haven't presented them. The Democrats, when they passed the stimulus package, thought it would be popular. When they passed Obamacare, they thought it would be popular. When they passed higher taxes on high earners, they thought it would be popular. When they passed Obamacare, they thought it would be popular. When they passed higher taxes on high earners, they thought it would be popular. You don't see them campaigning on those themes. The only ones to add on any of those issues coming

out are coming from Republicans. Americans don't like the big government policies. It's up to Republicans to try to present some workable alternatives and presidential candidates to find policies that work in the primaries, work in the general election, and most important, work governing. Gentlemen, a final question then. When all is said and done and written about the Obama administration and its myriad failures, foreign policy and domestic, do you think that the left, the Democratic Party is going to do what they tell the right to do, which is to have a

good sit down, think, and move to the center like those great Bob Packwood types, or is the narrative on the left going to be that the failure was due to an insufficient application of these ideas? Or I always told them that they'd work if we just did more. That the problem was that Obama wasn't leftist enough.

Will that be their conclusion? That's already their conclusion, and they're pushing it very, very hard. But the Democratic Party is still a fairly large tent, and there are individuals in the Democratic Party who will speak up and will talk about these questions from a different angle. One person to watch who Michael knows as well as I do is William Galston who writes a column for the Wall Street Journal who was the domestic policy advisor for Bill Clinton and was – if you remember, there was a kind of earlier organization going back to the late 1980s of democratic governors and so forth that was centrist in orientation. They were trying to rethink all sorts of questions. I think there will be some rethinking, but you're not going to get it from de Blasio.

You're not going to get it from the left of the party. I don't think you're going to get it from Hillary Clinton because I think she's past rethinking. You know, one of the things we haven't touched on is the Democratic Party has become the Republican Party. They are on the verge of nominating as their presidential nominee a candidate whose time it is and whose time passed a long time ago. I mean Hillary Clinton is their Bob Dole and their John McCain. She's a corpse. Wow. The Republican Party is wide open.

Who knows who the Republican nominee is going to be? Does she draw a primary challenger, Michael? Well, I've been developing a political scientist type theory that one thing that tends to happen in the second terms of presidents is that his, or ultimately perhaps hers, party's wingers get upset. They are disappointed that the president didn't go far enough on this, that, or the other thing, that they botched this. If he's unpopular, they're afraid the other party is going to take over. And they have rebellions. So you saw why were 2.5% of voters voting for Ralph Nader in 2000? Clinton administration, in which Bill Galston, who is indeed a friend and someone I admire, has played a part. The Tea Party movement, listen to what they say.

Many of their complaints are about the Bush administration, the party's wingers. And Paul is absolutely right. We're already hearing from the left wing of the Democratic Party. It's almost a natural process in our situation where parties, if they're going to win elections, have to be broad because they've got to win 50 percent of the vote among a diverse and geographically dispersed electorate. So, yes, we're hearing some discontent on the left, and it may be discontent with Hillary Clinton. We're getting candidates like Bernie Sanders, the self-styled socialist senator from Vermont, talking about running for president.

We're getting Jim Webb, the former senator from Virginia, Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, talking about running for president. The Clinton theme song in their first presidential campaign was Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. It was young, future-oriented. Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow was released by Fleetwood Mac in 1977. That's 37 years ago. Put on your bell-b bell bottoms and campaign for Hillary. Well, I do know this, that if the Democrats do nominate, say, Elizabeth Warren and she wins,

there will be those on the right who will say, that's because we didn't put up somebody who was to the right of Ron Paul. If we'd really put up a serious conservative, the country wouldn't have gone for Elizabeth Warren. We have to recognize sometimes that the electorate has shifted since the Reagan days. That doesn't mean we have to change our ideas and give up what we feel and believe, but it does mean recognizing new realities, and that's

that'll be the test of 2014 and 2016. Gentlemen, thank you so much for showing up today. We could do another 90 minutes to five hours just sitting back and letting you guys go, but we're going to have to save that for another podcast. Thanks so much for showing up. Okay We could do another 90 minutes to five hours, just sitting back and letting you guys go. But we're going to have to save that for another podcast. Thanks so much for showing up. Okay.

Take care, Michael, Paul. Thank you. That's typical. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow. Right. Exactly.

You know, I would like for them to stop just a little bit and stop thinking about tomorrow and consider the present and also consider the past. Perhaps there's a little information and some wisdom back there. We might want to pay attention to. But, you know, something that Paul Ray said when he was signing up for Social Security, he used the phrase that he expected it to be fast, bingo, bongo. And I thought, you know, that is a that that if I remember my African geography is next to bongo Congo,

which probably does have a better computer system than the United States because they put it in in the 90s and weren't having to deal with 40-year-old legacy system of IBM Big Iron in the basement. It makes you wonder, you know, that's right. That's right. But the, you know, we have these legacy systems embedded in Washington technology and you have computers that don't talk to each other. You've got mainframes with interfaces from the punch card era. And it's just – you've got to rip it up and start all over again, just like Harry's shave did. When they realized that the shaving industry was locked into all of these models

where they're trying to sell you all the blades and five or six blades. It's sort of like what Harry's shave did. You could say that. One could. I was a little behind, but I could see the connection now between that kind of technological disruption and Harry Shave. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. One might say that.

And as a matter of fact, one might say that one already did. Oh, yes, of course. And if one had been paying attention, they would know that obviously it's the time where we talk about Harry's. We really like to talk about Harry's as much as possible for good reason, because it is the best shave you're going to get. And because you're a Ricochet listener, and you ought to be a Ricochet subscriber, that means that to you we bestow a coupon code, Ricochet. What it'll do, it'll save you $5 off your first purchase. Why do you want to do that? Because Harry's is focused on providing guys the greatest shaving experience for just a fraction of the price of the competitors, half the price of other razor blades like Schick,

like Gillette, okay? They liked the blades they got from Germany so much, they bought the factory and keep their eye on them to make sure that quality and sharpness and strength are the hallmarks for them and the hallmark of your great shave. Convenience and ease of ordering online. If they worry about going to the store and groaning over the prices. They come to your door. They come to your door, right? And when you pick it up

and you feel the way that razor is balanced, you know you're looking at some good industrial design as well. Aesthetics, of course, don't really count if it doesn't give you a good close shave, and that's what Harry's does. So go to harrys.com, use the coupon code RICOCHET, and you get five bucks off your first purchase.

And because we know you love it so much, we're going to give you two, two, two spots in one. That's right, with added Retsin because the Ricochet podcast isn't just brought to you by the fine folks at Harry's. Encounter Books as well is one of our sponsors. And this week's feature title is A Broadside. And that means it's not, you know, a big commitment where you've got to sit down for a couple of days and read it. You can get it fast, learn, and be forearmed. The topic is Freedom from Speech. It's by Greg Lukianoff, and let me read you the preces. The past year has been a surreal time for freedom of speech. While the legal protections of the First Amendment remain strong, the larger culture is increasingly

obsessed with punishing both public and private individuals for allegedly offensive utterances or often misunderstood jokes. Academia, already an institution where free speech is in decline, has grown still more intolerant with high-profile disinvitation efforts against certain speakers. Well, in Freedom from Speech, author Greg Lukianoff argues that the threats to free speech go well beyond political correctness or liberal groupthink. As global populations increasingly expect not just physical comfort in their lives, but intellectual comfort as a kind of right, threats to freedom of speech are only going to become more intense as time goes by. Lukianoff offers potential solutions to ensure freedom of speech survives in the long battle to come.

And if I pronounce his name three different times, that's because this is a cold read. But a hot read is this broadside, and it's yours for 15% off the list price. Encounterbooks.com, and you use the coupon code RICOSHET at the checkout. And we thank Encounterbooks for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. And we should say that Greg Lukianoff is a Ricochet contributor. I mean, he contributes regularly to our trust and is, in fact, a self-professed – I I mean he's kind of on the center left is what he is. But he's incredibly, incredibly sound I would say on the issue of free speech and what happens on college campuses and this kind of politically correct code. I mean he's really, really – it's always gratifying when someone who maybe differs from the rest of us on a lot of other things nonetheless argues strenuously for the right stuff when it comes time for it.

Exactly. It ought not to be an ideological matter. As a matter of fact, I remember years ago at the paper when I was doing a book review on campus speech codes and the editor at the paper who's now gone was going over the piece and she shook her head and she said effing Republicans about the authors. And I asked her what she meant. She said, well, sometimes they're right but sometimes what they do on campuses is necessary and these people really don't want free speech. They just don't want this kind. That was her presumption. And the authors of the piece, by the way, were both liberals, both Democrats. Bill Maher the other day came out and said, talking about the need to speak up

against the illiberal aspects of some Islamism, said, if you're a liberal, you support freedom of speech. And I thought, well, you know, in your world, Bill, that's great. I'm glad you think that. But the way it's coming down, progressivism is not about free speech. It is about certain speech that produces the desired outcome for the better of all. Right? Or am I wrong? Well, that's true. Also, the idea that, I mean,

we've talked about this before, but these trigger words. And I was listening to, I don't know, This American Life or something, the NPR show, which is stories about, you know, people tell stories. It's basically

apolitical, although every now and then it veers into leftist politics, but mostly it's apolitical. And they were telling a story of something and the host, Ira Glass, who's got the most annoying voice in radio, said, warning, there are some trigger words

good lord what are we we're all walking around like wounded birds like we need to be protected from the the sharp elbows of the world i mean i think even the hippies and the progressives of the 60s would look on the progressives of the 2014s and they come on, you know, hike up your skirt, let's get going. Because there is 0.001% of the audience that might hear a trigger word and have a traumatic flashback. Everything, 100% of public discourse has to be adjusted. Just as we're having a debate here in the, in, in Minneapolis and in Minnesota about how much of our school athletic

programs we have to change to accommodate transgendered youth, which compromise 0.00001% of the population, if that. Also in the paper today, this fascinates me. Something that I've noticed is that when you have somebody confronting Islamophobia, a term that they use, a term that I think is ridiculous because it implies that you're frightened somehow of the ideological tenets or the presence of another religion.

It also means that the opposite would be Islamophilia. I'm not exactly sure what Rosie O'Donnell would say are the things that she greatly admires and loves about it. But, you know, Islamophobia is a handy little cudgel to beat people with because they've either expressed an insufficiently liberal idea or have the audacity to say that there might be a hierarchy of cultural values and some are better than the others.

Well, we have a piece here in the paper today. What I meant to say was what fascinates me was using the terms and turning them around. We had a piece in the paper about the guys who went to uh to fight in the gaza war were jewish jihadists so they've taken the word jihadists and applied it to the jews which you know makes a tremendous amount of sense okay but i would we would be we should be so long okay i'm sorry okay i i just i have to continue here because i'm on hold that thought i will i will this is a piece talking about the fact that they flagged the guy for praying, the Muslim guy, the Kansas City player, for praying after he returned to touch – interception for touchdown. You've heard about this?

Yeah. All right. Here's the piece, how it begins. I usually don't watch football, let alone Monday night football. It involves too much hype and too much violence. It's too patriotic, too black and white, too territorial. Too American. Too American.

Too territorial? Too American. Too territorial. Too territorial. Too – but where it went? Too patriotic, too black and white, too territorial. In other words, too American. That's why the author of this piece doesn't like it.

Can we continue? But like millions around the world, I heard the news about the Muslim player who got penalized for praying on the field. And I heard lots of discussion and debate about the motives and the double standard and the National Football League's Islamophobic culture. You ready? All right. Now, I'm going to. No, no, no, no. National Football League's Islamophobic Culture. Ooh. You ready? All right. This is self-parody now. Come on. No, no, no, no, no.

I'm going to skip. Is this in the newspaper, James? This is an editorial in the newspaper. I'm skipping ahead here. I want you to pay close attention to the – This is an unsigned editorial? No, no, no, no, no, no. This is an opinion piece from the community with very nice play and very nice prominence in the paper. All right.

Muslim prayer as a post-score celebration has been common in the world of, quote, football, soccer, for years. That sport features players from all over the world and each celebrates his own ways and cultures, including Muslim players who score goals. But in our post-ISIL beheading era, we here in America live in a very different world where people on the street, politicians, and the media led by Fox News call for the beheading of Islam. Now, this is another term here. Just like saying Jewish jihadists to somehow blunt what the actual jihadists are doing we now have a culture an islamophobic culture mind you that wants to behead islam taking away your attention from people who are doing the actual beheading and now i have to read your now i mean you know can we just enjoy for a minute that we live in a post-aisl beheading era. Yes. We're in the post-beheading era.

Let me get you to the end of this piece because this really is, the last paragraph is this. For anyone wondering why angry Muslims join ISIL, this whole saga could easily make the list. Because some guy being paid $2 million a year minimum in the NFL gets a reprimand because he breaks the

rule against touching the ground after a touchdown and he's going to join ISIL and start beheading Americans. If this gentleman who didn't watch football because he didn't like it because it was too American had bothered just to bestir himself from his national public

radio or his Settlers of Catan or Magic the Gathering on one of those nights, Monday or Thursday, and watched football a couple of years ago. And when Tim Tebow was playing. Exactly. And had read and had followed the derision with which Tim Tebow is treated for celebrating and for ostentatiously praying to, for ostentatiously following his faith tradition, which is Christian, he would probably be singing a different tune. Oh, no, no, no, no. This piece says that Tim Tebow was given all kinds of accolades.

Don't you understand? No, he was given accolades by, by some Christians, but he was also breaking the rule. I don't know. He didn't break the, he didn't break the touchdown celebration rule, but he was actually attacked for it by the same attack for praying. The other guy, the Kansas city chiefs guy broke the rule. There was, as I understand it anyway.

All right. Well, let's have a new rule. And that new rule might be that United States planes ought not to fly to places where huge hideous gouts of blood are streaming out of every orifice from people and they haven't solved and checked yet. And that maybe we should do what Air France does and not go there. Yet – We're not. Why is that, guys? Why – is that an overreaction?

Is that giving in to panic? Well, the federal government I think has this situation well in hand. So I would – I think it's – well, I mean I guess they did the math in Texas. The thing about these contagions is that there are always these – the windows of contagion, the windows when you are contagious. Luckily for us with Ebola right now, you are contagious when you show symptoms. So when you are not showing symptoms, you are not contagious. That's what we know now. Although it's unclear whether one of these symptoms, whether included in the umbrella of symptoms that you might have when you're contagious is just a high fever. So when you look at the vector of the person,

of the victim of Ebola, the guy who's got it right now, and all the people he touched and who touched him and were around him during his contagious period, I think it's about 100. Yeah, it's 100 now. They said it was about 12 to 18 and now they're – well, they're cautiously looking at 100 people. Well, it just shows you – I mean that makes sense, right? I mean 12 or 13 is really – it's just not – that is just not realistic. It never could have been that small.

You just think about all the people – all the things you do in your day, and this guy was on an airplane. So I think the number 100 is too small, just looking at it just mathematically. The best, I think just to even understand the whole idea of contagions and how these things spread, one of the best books is called The Ghost Map, and it's by Stephen Johnson. It's about the cholera epidemic in London in 1850s something, something, something. And the way they sort of, the way the guy who sort of discovered the cause of cholera, the way he did it and

it sort of introduces you to this kind of really, really dark, it's kind of a dark hobby of mine, this sort of darkness that you discover about how people interact with each other and how they travel and how they, um, how they infect each other, uh, or how they can become infected. And, um, this is, uh, yeah, a hundred, it can't be a hundred. It's gotta be more than

that. It's got, here's what I know. I believe it was 10 days ago. I may be off by a day or two that the president of the United States informed us that an incident of Ebola in this country was – I believe the word he used was unlikely or very unlikely. Today, at this hour, on the front page of the New York Times online, quote, Texas says that up to 100 are at risk of Ebola exposure. I don't like the way this is going, especially since we know that the federal government is incapable of protecting the president and his two little daughters and his wife and mother-in-law in the White House. It's just unbelievable. I will say that in this New York Times story, the one item that gives me a little sense

of consolation is that apparently at the moment, it's Texas health officials who are handling the problem and not the federal and not the federales. Yeah. Well, I mean, that that is a that's an interesting question, right? I mean, I mean, just to go we try every week in this podcast to to to talk about something from the whatever caught our eye from the member feed and Team America asked this week, a foreign policy president needed. Are any republicans qualified? It went through a list of republicans. It's a really interesting conversation and I recommend everybody go to it.

But the premise of it, the foreign policy president needed – how you deal with Ebola right now is a really good example of both foreign and domestic policy, right? Domestic health policy, domestic contagion policy, and then foreign policy. Do we stop flights coming in from West Africa? Do we – we have boots on the ground, use that phrase in West Africa, I think, to combat the virus. Is that what he said? We're going to combat the virus that way. So the question is, when you said you feel confident about the Texas health officials, because you feel confident about the government of Texas, because you like their practicality, and you like their governor.

You bet I do. The governor has no foreign policy experience. And I know the answer to this, Peter, but I'm just raising it to hear your answer. Does that worry you? Go ahead. You provide my answer as well. I'm just tossing you this soft, soft, soft, soft ball. And you have this gigantic bat with Reagan's head on it.

And go right ahead. The governor of Texas, like Ronald Reagan before him, has a long border with Mexico. And the governor of Texas also – this is a little unlike Ronald Reagan because the economy has changed. The governor of Texas presides over a state that where there is expertise in financing and the actual work of drilling oil, there is a huge amount of high tech activity. So between dealing with Mexico and between dealing with a state that has a highly international economy. Let me put it this way. I would trust the governor of Texas to step up and do a better job in his first hour running the foreign affairs of the United States of America than I trust John Kerry or Barack

Obama to do. My answer is, does any Republican qualify? Any Republican man, woman, or child qualifies better than the current crew? I'd agree with that because I think that they're ideologically wired at some point to reject the notion of being a citizen of the world. They're a citizen of the United States. Beautifully put. Beautifully put. And if you are a citizen of the world, then it is a human rights violation to keep planes from flying to a place that's festering with Ebola.

If you're a human – if you're a citizen of the world, we're all in this together and it is – it's insulting in a way to say that the safety of the United States matters than the safety of some other country. So yeah, that's why Perry – would Rick Perry believe that he's a citizen of the world? No, I'll be happy if he believes he's a citizen of the United States as opposed to being just a citizen of Texas. You know, that being for a Texan to say that they're a citizen of the United States is their else we got going on in the world here? There's one little story out there that may seem incredibly small and meaningless to most people, but it is illustrative of a certain divide our old friend Molly Hemingway and others in that fine shop, that he kind of made up some quotes. And since he's the ultimate science guy, since he's the one that his quotes to be made up was extraordinary and was revealed, don't you know it, as proof that the right hates science and hates people who advocate science and that we're essentially, you know, we're two steps below alchemists. We're barely above the guys who are banging rocks together trying to make magic fire come out of this stuff.

And now it turns out that, son of a gun, he did actually just kind of make up some quotes and ascribe them to George Bush to prove what a monkey and idiot he was. If you guys have been following this, what does this tell you exactly about the credulity of some and, you know, the science-y nature of the right? Are we really the guys who are far more empirical and skeptical as scientists are supposed to be? You know, I'm not even going to pretend on this one. I hereby recuse myself. Rob, you answer the question. I never heard of Neil deGrasse, whatever his name is, Tyson, until all of this broke.

I am unqualified to comment. Well, you know, I saw a couple episodes of that show. I kind of liked it. But that's because I like kind of science-y stuff on PBS where they show the stars and there's some guy in front of a big telescope that shows you my highbrow attitude. I just find it hilarious and I do enjoy the pose of the progressives that they alone are science-based and they alone are fact-based and everyone else is kind of a nut. And I like that because I go – I live in Venice, California and I go to yoga class and everybody in the yoga class is chanting and trying to send each other these powerful vibes and energy fields and stuff. And I live in a part of town where everybody's terrified of vaccines and they

believe that there are toxins here and there and airborne toxins and all this stuff that is absolutely incontrovertibly not true. They sort of read these Deepak Chopra books that suggest that say that we are all connected. We're all sort of waves and particles and quantum. On a quantum level, we're all the same thing. And I can sort of read your thoughts and you can read my thoughts if I can achieve the right amount of stillness. And that, of course, is also unscientific nonsense. But one person says somewhere in Mississippi that he thinks the earth is 5,000 years old. And everyone, like Neil deGrasse Tyson,

they just go bananas with this stuff. They go bananas. And I have to say, I don't believe the Earth is 5,000 years old, but if I had to rank on the scale of cultural or societal or community danger, someone who believes the Earth is 5,000 years old versus someone who believes that their children should not get a whooping cough vaccine,

I would always choose the anti-vaxxer as the most dangerous. And they are almost all of them, or they're predominantly on the left. And why are those other guys anti-science and somehow these progressives in their yoga mats science-based? So Neil deGrasse Tyson made up some quotes about Bush. They weren't just quotes. He didn't just make them up. He actually subverted Bush's entire attitude after 9-11. He inverted it.

Right. Yes, and he did so by appropriating a quote from 2003 after the Challenger disaster. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I mean, he basically, the point he was trying to make was that Bush was such a right-wing Christian that he took, in the days after 9-11, he adopted the mantle of Christian primacy over Islam. And now nothing could be further from, Bush, in fact, did the opposite. Some criticized him for doing the opposite.

I know. The first thing he did was he went to a mosque and said Islam is peace. Islam is peace. These guys aren't Islam. And so he not only – Garras Tyson not only got it true and he did it all for his sort of simpering, progressive, smug audience of fellow travelers who all believe what he does irrespective of the facts. And the worst thing about them is it's not like they believe that they're cheering their leader. They believe that they are fact-based. And now that he's been shown to be wrong,

he's circling the wagons. And they're all circling the wagons. Right. In order to be a better person than your opposition, because they all know that they're better people, they just are always anxious to find the exact evidence that backs it up, you have to realize that the president of the United States

didn't go to a mosque. What he did actually was jam a crown of thorns on his forehead until he bled and then gave a speech in which he talked about the superiority of the Christian God over Allah. I mean that's – and then after he said that, there were nationwide pogroms and every mosque in the country was burned to the ground. That's kind of the narrative in the back of their head. Right. And even though they know he didn't say that and that didn't happen, still it could, it might,

it probably will because those other people are Christian maniacs. So, so in order to keep that from happening, we have to go through all of these contortions to believe that when somebody is sawing off somebody's head and as a Facebook page full of ISIL propaganda saying, yay, beheading, that actually it's just workplace violence. I believe that if the guy had – if the Gonzalez character, Oscar, whatever his name was who got through the White House,

I believe that if he actually had stabbed a Secret Service agent right there at the door, that that would have been workplace violence probably, even though you don't have to work there anymore. As long as somebody is drawing a paycheck in a place where a guy commits a terrorist act, it's workplace violence, probably, even though you don't have to work there anymore. As long as somebody's drawing a paycheck in a place where a guy commits a terrorist act, it's workplace violence now. Or had the Secret Service agent actually shot the guy, Eric Holder would have said, wait a minute, was he armed? Well, that's just it, right?

Disproportionate response. Hands up, don't shoot. Couldn't she have wounded him? Oh, the hands up, don't shoot. Don't get me started. I did one of my favorite, favorite, favorite things this week. Apparently in the history of people and protests ever, the idea of walking

with your hands up to show that you are not armed is a completely new idea that was coined at Ferguson. So you had, I believe it was Vox.com who came out with something that said that the Hong Kong democracy protesters are using the Ferguson gesture.

And, you know, the hands up, don't shoot gesture. They're using the – and so courts, which I believe is connected to Atlantic for reasons that I can't understand really why it's a separate thing at all. Actually, I had somebody ask them, Ferguson, what are you talking about? I had no idea. This is how we were trained to do it, so it looks like we don't have, this is what they told us to do. But still, Vox persisted in saying,

well, no matter how the gesture got to Hong Kong, it's heartening to see it. I mean, it didn't get there. That's just the point. You're trying to take this – I mean, the president himself had to magnify Ferguson when he went to the United Nations, when he went to the UN for criminy Joseph's sake because you can't just talk about ISIL and Iran without saying, we too are bad. Let me put on my hair shirt and rend my garments and tear my hair and wail just to make sure that we all understand we're not getting up on our high horse here.

But when you look at Hong Kong and you say, hmm, here are some people who want democracy and want a voice in their own government. And here you have China. It's not necessarily communist anymore, but totalitarian, collectivist, shall we say. Is there a difference between Hong Kong and China? Might it be the fact that Hong Kong was colonized and had this drilled into their DNA that they are free people by the English, by the Brits, by Western civilization?

Might you not see a hierarchy of values on display here, however imperfectly manifested at the time? Isn't there a lesson in Hong Kong versus China? Isn't there a lesson about the West? Isn't there a lesson in Rob saying, James, James, James, when he really wants to make a point so we can get out of here? What point was that, Rob?

Just that we live in a post-beheading era. That's all I was going to say. Just remember that. I wanted to say briefly, because I know we have to go, but about Hong Kong, what's interesting is the lesson of Hong Kong is that a lot of those people marching are young. And they don't remember the handover as well. But the handover was very popular when it happened. The Chinese, it was considered a national – returning to your national identity.

Your English overlords were leaving and you were returning to your national identity and the nation that was – you were being reabsorbed into was going to respect your democratic traditions as much as possible. And it was an extremely popular thing. There was a small protest movement in the LegCo, the legislative council there, led by a guy named Martin Lee. But it was small and it was not popular. But most of the people in – Chinese people in Hong Kong wanted to be part of China again. They felt that that was the right thing to do culturally. And now the hangover has started. So what's interesting about it is that these are people who were too young to remember being separated, a lot of them, or old enough to remember what it was like. But either way, the joy and the thrill of being reunited with their sort of Chinese homeland has now worn off and they've woken up and thought to themselves, we might have made a mistake.

So, I mean, they did it voluntarily and now they're having second thoughts. And that's what's interesting to me. And I think the danger for the Chinese is, you know, they're surrounded. They've got protests of the West and they protest down in the Far East. And they're all basically the same protest, which is, well, we got to want to go back to the way it was, which is not communism, but independence. And that's a danger sign. If you're sitting in Beijing in the Politburo, you're worried.

Two systems, one country. Oh, that'll work forever in perpetuity. Well, two founders, one podcast. Rob Long and Peter Robinson, as ever, a pleasure. Thanks to you folks in Ricochet who are listening to this, and thanks so much to those of you who are paying for it. That ensures that we're not just going to be in the 230s, but we'll be in the 300s and the 400s into infinity.

We also thank Harry's Shave, harrys.com, $5 off if you use the Ricochet coupon code. And on counterbooks.com as well, you'll find both these links in the Ricochet page, where you will go and listen and praise E.J. Hill for his inevitable podcast illustration and comment and rip us to shreds, tear us anew, tell us what you think. We love the comments. I always read them and if somebody really calls

me out by name and I feel compelled to apologize or explain, I will. In any case, we'll see you there at the counter. Call James out by name in the comments. Do it. Do it. He can't resist. I'm just a slave to it. Thanks everybody for listening and we'll see you at Ricochet 2.0. James, who's on next week? Oh, stupid me. The return,

the triumphal return of Pat Sajak. Tune in. Tune in. Tune in. Next week, fellas. Next week, fellas. Don't smile if it takes just a little while. Open your eyes, look at the day. You'll see things in a different way. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.

Don't stop. You'll see me here. It'll be better than before. Yesterday's gone. Ricochet. Join the conversation. I'll think about times to come And about the things that you've done If your life was bad to you Just think what tomorrow will do Don't stop thinking about tomorrow Don't stop, it'll soon be here

It'll be here It'll be. Better than before. Yesterday's gone.