The Ricochet Podcast - Green Eggs and Sajak

Episode Date: September 25, 2013

Direct link to MP3 file This week, we self-adminster the Ricochet RINO Litmus Test® to determine exactly who is a coastal media elitist and who isn’t. Naaah…just kidding. We’ve got a terrific line-up with the great Pat Sajak and newly minted Ricochet editor Jon Gabriel. We cover all things Cruz, Pat’s Twitter war with some dude on Fox, how Conservatives can win the media battle, and much more. Source

Do you like green eggs and ham? I do not like them, Sam. I am. I do not like green eggs and ham. Would you like them here or there? I would not like them here or there. I would not like them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham.

That's Sam. I am. That's Sam. I am. I do not like that sam i am it's the ricochet podcast with rob long and peter robinson i'm james lilacs and our guests today are pat sajak and john gabriel neither of whom is a spokesman for a line of walk-in showers. Yet. Hey,

let's have ourselves a podcast. Welcome, everybody, to the Ricochet Podcast number 183-something-like-that. Yeehaw! It's a rhino roundup with Pat Sajak and all your other friends who are just willing to jump over the cliff lemon style and assist the destruction of the Republican Party. We'll talk about that in just a second. First, we have to remind you this podcast is brought to you by Encounter Books. Not just books. No, they've got broadsides, too. And this week's feature title is, indeed, A Broad, Philanthropy Under Fire by Howard Husok.

We'll talk about that a little bit later, but right now you can go to encounterbooks.com slash ricochet for 15% off that list price. There are those who believe in philanthropy and those who also believe in business, and ricochet is a business. And here to tell you about it is our friend Rob Long. Rob? Well, I would like to say welcome back to our listeners from last week we also want to say to our members ricochet members who are listening thank you we are happy to have you and we are glad to be members of ricochet with you and we'll have to say to people who are listening to this podcast who are not members of ricochet what what are you thinking go over to ricochet.com and join. It is the smartest, fastest, most interesting, most civil conversation between and among the center-right on the web.

Our contributors and our members all mix it up. It is a fair argument and a civil debate, and we are having one and having a couple of great ones on the front page right now. Pretty amazing stuff. It's great. A really interesting Ted Cruz conversation. You have to join in order to participate. You have to join to hear and to read the good stuff on the member feed. My other piece of advice would be as you're enjoying this and listening to this,

you have to join for two reasons. One, Ricochet 2.0 is coming. It's going to be bold and different and great and look better and be more stable and just in general be a better site. But the price will go up. And the second reason is because this is a business and we are trying to knit together people who are in broad agreement politically across the country. You know, we had an – there was a – on the main feed – I'll just say this. I got to be a little elliptical because I don't want to betray any confidences. But on the main feed yesterday, we had a lot of different Ted Cruz conversations.

We included one from the Wall Street Journal, which was great and really interesting and got a great – incredible response from people. One of the things people keep saying is people in dc need to listen people in the sort of little elite uh corridors of power certainly for republican power conservative power need to listen and i assure you they are reading ricochet yeah by no one is yeah no one is reading the comments on any other political website with any seriousness. I guarantee you they are reading the conversations on Ricochet. You are being heard. That's the great thing about it. There's a story today that YouTube is actually going to do something about their comments and Google Plus is enlisted to help.

That's because they're a cesspool. And most places that you go, they're a cesspool. Popular science has decided to yank their comments because people are arguing about things that are settled, like, you know, global warming. Yeah, so Ricochet is now a better vehicle for discussion than any of these venerable institutions and will continue to get so. But the point of it is,

this is where we bring Peter Robinson in. Peter, hello. Hello, I'm here. At the start of this, though, and Rob just referenced this, I said, we got a rhino roundup here. Let me read this comment, which may summarize everything that we're talking about. And it's from Karen, member Karen. And she says, for a while now, I've noted an increasing ideological divide between our podcasters, us, and members. I like to think we're all part of the same family, but we continue.

As usual, I both enjoyed and agreed with the points made on glop. But I think the cruise marathon appeals to the GOP electorate as political theater in a good way, like a tent revival. Come the Jesus moment. It resonates with Republicans in the South and Heartland and may not with coastal wonks like our guys. Now,

by coastal wonks, she's referring to the glop batch. That's Rob. That's Rob. I am sitting here surrounded by acres of lush, rich prairie and oil. So it's not me. But well, let's ask them. Peter, we'll give you a chance to leap in here. You're on the California side. If you're not on board with this attempt to defund, are you indeed relinquishing your conservative bona fides?

Go. No, I'm not relinquishing your conservative bona fides? Go. No, I'm not relinquishing my conservative bona fides. I loved Rand Paul. That struck me as a very – excuse me, Rand Paul's filibuster. That struck me as a very important moment. I am torn. I have to admit I'm only just now reading Rob's post that he put up I guess late last night. I got stuck working late last night. I'm torn about Ted Cruz and part of that is because I had friends – I had already moved to California but I had friends in Washington. I knew people who were involved in the House takeover under Newt Gingrich in the middle

of the 1990s and you will recall that Newt Gingrich decided that he could run the country from Congress. And he shut down the government. And although I believe that any just reading of the situation would say that it was Bill Clinton's fault, Bill Clinton was the aggressor. Bill Clinton was the one who was being irresponsible with the budget. The country blamed the Republicans even so. and it cost them, didn't quite cost them the majority, but it cost them seats in the next election. That is a serious political argument. The way we can repeal Obamacare is by retaining the House and capturing the Senate, and then two years after that, winning the White House. We need

to win elections. Why do I want to win elections? Because I so detest Obamacare. I enjoy Ted Cruz. I am on his side, but I'm not sure that what he's doing is, and I'm not saying that I'm sure he isn't. I'm saying I'm just not sure. I find it a very, very hard political call to know whether what he is doing is effective, whether giving this filibuster is actually going to

help us first contain and then quash Obamacare or do us harm. Rob, we know, everybody in Ricochet knows, that you are composed mostly not of water, but of go-along, get-along goo. So naturally we assume you're – Here's the thing.

It's like I actually feel like this term needs to be defined. I mean I call myself a rhino as a joke, right? I am a political moderate in a lot of things, certainly in all of the social issues. I mean exactly what Peter despises, right? But in this case, I mean my argument about Cruz is just the strategy and the strategy that Cruz was following, I think, until last night, until he – I think until he made a Hail Mary pass and I think got out of it. And I'm not – I don't mean that as a pejorative.

I really think that shows – he's got amazing political instincts. But until then, people were talking about a government shutdown. And that's why I have a problem with it because it's muddled now. I can say to then, people were talking about a government shutdown. Right. And that's why I have a problem with it because it's muddled now. I can say to Peter, it's not about a government shutdown. It's about defunding Obamacare. And Peter can say, well, no, no. It's literally about – here's how the mechanisms would work. And any kind of message like that that's muddled, that allows two very intelligent people to take something else away, is not really going to be that effective in galvanizing the American

public, which is really all it can do at this point. And Ted Cruz is no fool. He – people said, oh, well, he may not have known how it was going to work. He's a very smart – you listen to him on the Senate floor. He's a very smart guy, was a very smart student at law school, argued in front of the Supreme Court. I don't know how – six times, five times, multiple times. He's a smart guy.

So he knew that at some point he was going to have to frame this debate for what it really is, which is about Obamacare, and he did it last night and I think he did it really eloquently. And that's kind of why I have thought maybe this could work if we no longer think that the goal is to defund Obamacare and we all know as grownups that we are not going to – they're going to vote to raise the debt ceiling. The government is not going to get shut down. If we accept that that's really – that's what's going to happen, then in all in all, what Ted Cruz did was do something pretty big and grab the microphone and it might work. That might work. And I'm sure he bugged a lot of people in DC who are policy wonks ultimately

and just were like, well, wait a minute. You said you want to accomplish A. So to accomplish A, you have to do these 10 things. But Ted Cruz kind of did something different last night and I really enjoyed listening to him. And that may make me shallow, but I have to say that I enjoyed that. So what you approve of Ted Cruz – excuse me. I know you approve of Ted Cruz, but you approve of what Ted Cruz has been doing over the last couple of weeks and what he did last night so long as he was just making a point one last time and it's over.

Is that really what your argument comes down to? No, but I think – no, I think – kind of. Yeah, OK. I guess kind of because look, at no point was he going to – we're going to defund Obamacare. You cannot do that when you have Democrats controlling the Senate. It's just not possible. Right. So Ted Cruz is not a moron.

I mean he can add. He understands why the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is a Democrat. It's because the Democrats control the Senate. Right. chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is a Democrat. It's because the Democrats control the Senate. So yeah, he must have known at some point this was a quixotic mission. But at the same time, and my quibble with it is that it still is kind of murky, like what on earth

was supposed to happen here. And I think that's what the Republicans feel like, what on earth is supposed to happen here. But on the other hand, I think people liked hearing the microphone being taken and seized by a man who could talk. I mean I think Republicans especially and I think a lot of Ricochet members's one of the reasons I like about it. He's not – he took it. He stood up there. He made his case. He could speak extemporaneously really well. He is passionately articulate and spoke eloquently against Obamacare. The path he got to the Senate floor I thought was zigzaggy and murky and muddled, and I'm not sure that's a good strategy in the long term. But on the other hand, he showed Republican leadership. I actually feel like his – it's not a filibuster, whatever it was.

His delaying tactic I guess is the phrase was – could end up being – we don't know obviously. It's 8 o'clock in the morning here. But it could end up being as effective as Rand Paul's. He did throw the left into a bit of a tizzy though because there are two takes that they have on individuals on the right. They're either scary or they're stupid, right? So when Cruz got up – and previously, Cruz has been scary. He's good and articulate.

But he got up and I missed it. He made some green eggs and ham reference I I guess, which was immediately seized upon, I think, and will probably be fodder for at least two weeks or a fortnight on Rachel Maddow's show as evidence of stupidity. So they may be happy that they found a new dimension of Ted Cruz to mock. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed hearing what he had to say. I liked what he said. I don't think it penetrated a centimeter into the general awareness of people out there

who have absolutely no idea what Obamacare is going to do until it smacks them straight in the brain pan. And speaking of smacking people straight in the brain pan... If you're listening to this Ricochet podcast and you're not a member of Ricochet, you should go to the main feed and you should join and go to the main feed and And I have a post called Thoughts on Cruise,

but I'm sure there's a million of them. And one of the things people said, I'm just scrolling through it now, a bunch of Ricochet members, one of them, the Mugwump, said essentially the same thing and rather eloquently said, my employee inbox is crammed with emails from my HR department. I'm loathe to read them because I know it's all bad news. And that may be a very powerful – probably the most powerful direct mail solicitation for the Republican Party anyone could ever conceive of. But on the other hand, no one can be – we are – the Republican Party is unambiguously against Obamacare, and Ted Cruz is unambiguously against Obamacare. And as of this morning, he is the most prominent Republican in America. On your post, Rob – sorry, James. Back to you in ten seconds.

On your post, George Savage, our friend George Savage – Why do I bother? Why do you bother? I know. Even I agree with you. Yeah, go ahead. George Savage posts on Rob's thread. Republicans can never win the argument if they avoid making the argument.

Ted Cruz is making the argument. That sums up what there is to be said on behalf of Ted Cruz and it's a lot. Yeah, that's kind of where I landed up and I think I landed it up when I started hearing him talk because before that it was a lot of nonsense and I think before that he didn't really, I really honestly don't think he knew exactly what was going to happen, how this was going to unfold, but I admire

his guts and I think he's really articulate and I would hate to be the guy walking out on stage to debate him politically. Go right ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead, James. I'm just going to whistle game show themes until you get the idea here. That was the Jeopardy theme, which is a guy from Canada, and we don't need

no stinking Canadian game show host here. We're going to have the best example of the American genre with us today, and that, of course, is our old friend from Ricochet, Pat Sajak. Pat, welcome. We know that you actually did away with Greg Goodfield this week and have his body in the trunk of your car. We're just wondering if you're going south or going north to escape the authorities.

I'm actually getting accolades from people for the public service. Then we have this strange thing that sort of developed out of thin air. We've had a lot of fun with it. I don't want to ruin the image and say we're just having fun. It's the Bob Hope, Fred Allen spat of our time.

It is. Jack Benny. I'm sorry, the Jack Benny. I'm sorry. I accept that with Pat, but I think that may be promoting Gutfeld let's not give him a great American

humorist tag yet not many people remember Fred Allen so if you want to put Gutfeld in that category he's a little man in a very tight suit let's put it that way I may lay out of this for a while you know it's funny I will say since no one's, I can say this just between us, among us, that – I'm just kidding.

I'm starting with you guys now. See, I'm hostile. I'm in a hostile – You're looking for trouble. It's the edge to this guy. Actually, I got an email from Greg. We're acquaintances. I wouldn't call us fast friends, but I know him and

we've communicated several times. Anyway, he said we had a little thing happen on Wheel that was apparently a little controversy. People didn't like the way a rule was applied. So apparently he did something on one of his eight or ten shows he has on Fox and

tongue-in-cheek just went after me and he wrote to me saying, you know, I did this thing tonight and it really would be helpful if you responded to me. I'd look like a real journalist and maybe we could work up a feud. So we did and it's fun. I really like insulting someone in public. I'm enjoying it. It's a new side of me coming out.

Well, now you haven't done his horrible little low-rent show on Fox, have you? I mean, you're a very classy guy. I know for a fact, Pat, that you would never do low-rent television. No, unless unless

it's a I might consider a low-rent sitcom. Are you referring to anything in particular? Well, I was going to say if you're just joining us, you're listening, you've been living under a rock. Pat Sajak appeared on my little show called Sullivan and Son earlier this summer and was hilarious. And everybody loved him. He impressed everybody.

And speaking of Jack Benny, that's who he reminded most people of. Sort of a great Jack Benny kind of dry wit. And if I have a breath left at some point, Pat and I, we've already talked about this. I'd love to do a show with you. Yeah, it was great fun. It is – listen, I'm not a young man, and when I started in broadcasting well into my career, I mean you could be fired if the word damn slipped out of your mouth. So I'm trying to adjust to – so we go in for the reading for the script. And I, and I, I hadn't done a sitcom and I didn't for a long time and I didn't, I didn't realize the process and I didn't realize all the rewriting that

went in. And I didn't realize that the kitchen sink was being thrown in at the initial, initial reading, but I'm hearing stuff going around the table that I was, you know, I'm in a room full of grown men and I'm, you know,

I'm, I'm blushing. Uh, but well, you was, you sure pitched in, I got to say, well,

you're a high-minded fellow. Don't think of it as working blue. Think of it as working cerulean. Thank you. I feel better. You know, really, it was a great group and a lot of fun. And once I get into it, now I spew dirty expressions all day long. I feud with other hosts.

You changed my life, Rob. I'm so proud. Russians all day long. I feud with other hosts. You changed my life, Rob. So proud. Pat, before you came on, we were talking about the GOP's curious, curious, curious, either one, inability to get their message out. And we've got to ask you, you know, you're a media savvy fellow. Are the Republicans horrible at messaging or really horrible at messaging? Well, I think I think they have the worst of all worlds, and that is they're not especially good at it. But even when they're good at it, they're afraid of it. They're afraid of their own message. As perhaps some of you have,

there are groups of congressmen who have sort of informal meetings on the Hill every week or so to have a breakfast. And I'll invite an outsider in to kind of get some perspective from the rest of the country. And I get invited to those things occasionally. I sit in a room with 10 or 12 or 15 representatives. And the questions are always the same. And they're a little pitiful. It's kind of whiny. What do we do? We're being characterized as nasty people and we're not. And what's wrong with our message? How could we make our message better? And I want to say, you guys ran and you got elected. You should be answering this question, not me. I don't know the answer to this.

It's not just whether the message is good or bad. It's having the courage of their convictions and saying what they believe and standing up for what they believe and not backing away from what they believe, not being worried about what they believe and how it's going to be perceived. There's a lot of that. It's kind of this please like us and I don't know why they don't, and we're not mean, and how do we fix this? So it's an odd conglomeration. They're not great at it. Their communication skills as a group are not the best.

But even those who can communicate well are not necessarily strong backboned about it. And that's why on some level I'm – while I have mixed feelings about what's going on with Cruz right now and the rest of the group there, there is a refreshing side of it that someone is standing up and there's more holding their suit up than the starch in their – from their dry cleaner. You know, that's probably the most articulate way to describe how I feel. So thank you for that. I kind of feel – I was – I didn't really understand what was going on. I thought it was like a lot of grandstanding, which I think there's partly to that obviously. I mean no US senator is exempt from my general view that all US senators are terrible. Just being a US senator I think just diminishes you in some way.

There's such an egomaniac. I know all about egomaniacs. I've worked with Pat Sajak. But there is something kind of refreshing about a guy who stands up in front of people and extemporaneously talks. It makes sense. And I don't – it never looks like a deer in the headlights in front of the cameras. It's almost like there's something great about that. He's pretty good at that.

With this whole thing going on, again, I have mixed feelings. I don't know how effective it is. I like the fact that it's drawing some attention to some of the more egregious parts of the bill. But I do think it's most effective when they are talking about things that people can really, really relate to, getting away from the arcane matters in the bill. For example, the fact that it may not apply to congressional folks. I think on some level that eats at people. That worked. This morning, David Vitter spent a long time on that.

I think that was some of the most effective moments in this whole procedure. Hey, Peter here, Pat. Could I ask a question for you and for Rob? Well, James does some video work as well. But for television professionals, what would be your advice to Ted Cruz? Change nothing? Well, change your tie. Yeah, and change your underwear, of course.

Change your tie. Well, you do wonder what's going on there. What would be his likability quotient? What is it called? There's something called a Q quotient? Q, yeah. Does that lie within a performer's control? Can a performer warm himself up, or is it just what it is for each prospect you're thinking about casting? They say it kind of is what it is.

I mean, Pat's Q is, I think, 17 bajillion zillion. Right, right. In round numbers. Yeah. But I remember years ago there was a sitcom on with, of all people, Faye Dunaway. Wow. And she just was sort of super unlikable. And they didn't figure out how to make her – and every time they tested it, it tested her.

The dials were way down. And so they did an episode once where one of her co-stars bought a box of puppies, had a box of puppies. So they had, every frame had Faye Dunaway in a frame with a box of puppies, right? Everybody loves puppies. And they tested it and audiences decided they didn't really even like puppies anymore. They didn't like her so much

they didn't like puppies. That's a Q problem. Yeah, you know, part of the problem now is that for better or worse, we're a pretty polarized country right now and the feelings are running strong on both sides. And I think people are in sort of Q rating sense stuck where they are. You can move it marginally. But if you think Ted Cruz is the devil incarnate, no matter how he carries himself, that view is not going to change. When a liberal Democrat gets up and speaks in the Senate and you're not of that mind, it would take something superhuman for you to change your view on that. So I don't know how

movable the dial is in a political sense. Well, there is that likability faction, though. I mean, we have Al Franken here in Minnesota, who I find strenuously unlikable, and he could get up and say that he's for the complete and total deregulation of the oil industry, and I still wouldn't like him. Amy Klobuchar has a lot of opinions I don't like,

but I like Amy. She's very likable. Ted Cruz strikes a lot of people who don't pay attention to politics as the Alan Baldwin character in Glen Ross, you know, saying that food stamps are for closers. But he doesn't even have that sort of magnetic animal charisma of that movie. They just see him as a

dark malevolent force. And I don't know any way that he can overcome that on a general national level. There's a background to my question, which is that he came up in debate from actually elementary school on. At Princeton, he won the national championship in debate. The first time I happened to see him was sitting in for the first time, only time in my life on oral arguments in the Supreme Court. I had a friend who got me a seat so I could see a case. And it just happened to be the Texas

redistricting case. This would be what, five years or so ago. I'd never even heard of Ted Cruz, but there was one lawyer, all lawyers in the Supreme Court bar. So they're all very good lawyers. One lawyer just stood out and it was Ted Cruz. But when you're in court, you're on the attack. And so the question in the back of my mind is debate format, in court, these are adversarial settings, But in politics, it helps if you can turn on some charm from time to time. And I recall Barry Goldwater saying, ages and ages ago, Barry Goldwater's been dead, and he was talking about an event that occurred when he was a young man. But he and John Kennedy entered Congress the same year. And Goldwater made the point that although he disagreed with Kennedy on this, that, and the other issue, he gave him credit.

Because when he first entered Congress, he was a bad public speaker. But he worked at it and worked at it and worked at it. And of course, Kennedy's inaugural address, everyone, whatever you think of John Kennedy, that rings in our ears as Americans. So I'm sort of just asking, just probing as a professional. Can you say to Ted, look, you've got to turn on some charm here. You're not in court this time. I'm not sure. Rob, would you agree that maybe one way to test sort of test likability is put someone on like Cruz standing there talking, any politician, put him on the air and turn the sound down and tell me what you think of that man.

Yeah, people do that. I think that's a very good way to do it. You can – or at least to understand how that message is being translated to people who are paying about 10 percent attention, which is what most Americans are paying. But I kind of don't – I mean I don't know. I mean look, I am probably the most rhino squishy person on the call definitely, and I have to tell – I don't – I'm not sure that Cruz is uncharming. I think this is his best moment. Look, I think Cruz just won the media primary, right? That's what this is.

Who when they grab the microphone isn't going to look weird or strange but look passionate and articulate? And Ted Cruz just won it. And so there probably are a lot of Republicans right now, some in the Senate, some across the country, who really don't like him now because he's done this thing that's really hard to do. He's won the media primary. Who all of a sudden is really, really interested in having a 2016 presidential debate primary between Ted Cruz and Chris Christie? Yeah, me. I mean up against Biden, love it. But just imagine that all of a sudden their side is full of the stumble-tongued, numb wits, and we've got sharp, good debaters on our side. And look, I mean, Peter, just to answer the answer the first question. I mean, I've met him.

You've met him. I've met him a couple times and heard him speak, and there's a great profile on him by Andy Ferguson. It's really brilliant. It's really great. It's tough. It's extremely positive about a lot of stuff, but it ultimately

is tough, and the rap on Cruz is, I said this in the post last night. The rap on Cruise is that he's too canned, and that's the nice way to put it. Some people are saying that it's eerie. You should read Andy Ferguson's piece. Andy Ferguson is a very, very good writer, brilliant writer, very funny writer, a very, very conservative dude, does not need to prove his bona fides to anybody. And he's impressed and dazzled and enthralled in many ways by Ted Cruz's ability to communicate and reach out and talk to audiences. But there's also something about it that's a little disturbing. That said, I said in my post last night, look, Ted Cruz maybe – if Ted Cruz is too canned, please send a can of whatever he's got to every Republican senator and congressman because he has framed a debate in a way that I didn't think he was going to be able to do 24 hours ago. And I think he knows that it doesn't really matter how he got there to the floor of the Senate.

That's over now. He's like a little bit more nimble than I – certainly I gave him credit for because now it's all about Obamacare and his speech. Well, there is an appetite I think for people to hear people who actually believe what they're saying, and he does give that impression. And I don't know that a lot of people do. I mean, you know, Harry Reid may give a fiery speech about this or that, but you're in the back of your mind, you know, who he's beholden to and what this is all about. Does he really believe it? I don't know.

And you say that about a lot of people. As you're watching Cruise, I didn't have that impression. It seemed to come from the heart, and just acknowledging that a Republican might have one is a good thing. Well, Rob's right. If you can bottle that and put it in a can, give it to a lot of these other people or sell it to them. There's nothing wrong with making a profit off that. But if you give it to them, the question is whether or not you could take a tax deduction for having given them a can of charisma. What do we have the government doing anyway, sticking its fingers in philanthropy?

Shouldn't it be a thing on its own that stands apart without the withering force of government harming it? Well, you know, if philanthropy is under fire, it's something you should know. And philanthropy under fire is the title of a broadside that Encounter Books wants you to pick up. And we want you to pick it up because they, of course, are sponsors of the podcast. Philanthropy Under Fire by Howard Hussack. He defends the American tradition of independent philanthropy from a significant political and intellectual challenges which threaten it today. The U.S., you know, continues to be the most charitable nation in the world, but serious efforts seek to discourage traditional personal charitable giving by changing the tax code and directing philanthropy toward causes chosen by government.

There's a surprise for you. So go to encounter books.com to get the broadside for a special price for listeners of ricochet. And if you enter the code ricochet at checkout for an additional 15% off all other titles, you'll get more books cheaper and we'll be happier. You'll be happier. Encounter will be happier. Everyone will be happier.

That was my little commercial pitch there. Sorry, Pat. I had to know it was, it was, it was seamless. I had no idea you were doing a commercial. I thought that was coming from the heart. Well, as a guest and frequent podcast listener, I expected you to elbow in with the jaws of life, which is usually Rob's job. Yeah, I know. I did it last week because I – but this week, frankly, I knew where you're

going and I know that you're trying to get this – trying to pay some bills. What am I supposed to do? These are ricochet.com bills that need to get paid. Again, if you're listening and you're not a member – actually, I should say this. If you're listening and you're not a member, join for all the reasons we mentioned. You get to participate in the best, most interesting civil conversation on the web among and between our contributors and members. But you also will help put James Lilacs out of his misery every podcast for having to do – having to try to get through a decent spot for a wonderful sponsor whilst being interrupted. It's a great – and it will help for guys like Pat Sajak who just – who don't come cheap frankly.

No, no, no. And by the way, I'm not pushing but for the last few times I've done this, I haven't gotten the checks yet. Oh, well, that's – you have to talk to accounting, Pat. That's not us. That's a business affairs accounting question. Are you sure you're looking for the right thing because there's been a barter system going on here for some time. Crates of animals have been the preferred method of coin that we've been using to pay people. The Ricochet accounting offices are a little like the internet.

They're just sort of there theoretically. Exactly. You've been in show business long enough to know that. Yeah, yeah. May I return to Cruz for a moment because there is one thing that interests me, and that is how vocal the bile has been on the other side about this guy. I mean he's a newbie in the Senate, and they're after him quickly. So that tells me something. That excites me. If they're that angry with this guy already, he may be someone we ought to be looking at because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. There's something to that, I think.

And, Peter, as you remember, we touched on this on a post I did some time ago about maybe it's time to nominate someone a little more – I use the term wild-eyed. That's not quite what I mean. It'll do. But when – John McCain was every Democrat's favorite Republican before he was nominated. He was a maverick because he stuck at the Bush. Here's a guy we can work with. He's reasonable. He's this.

He's that. The moment he's nominated, he's Bush too. So if they're going to do that anyway and if that's the perception that's going to be propagated in the press, why not just nominate one and be done with that and have someone we can line up behind and feel strongly about? For what it's worth, a couple of friends of mine in Texas, I put up a post, oh, it must be a month or so now, that saying that in my judgment, Rick Perry is being undervalued. He can raise money.

He's very conservative so that he should have a good chance the way the primaries are likely to stack up, could win in Iowa, come in a strong second in New Hampshire, and then could go on. He'll certainly, would certainly win in South Carolina, could go on and win Florida. That would be, and a couple of my friends in Texas got in touch and said I agree with every word except it's not Rick Perry, it's Ted Cruz. And I have to confess

it hadn't even occurred to me at that point that Ted Cruz, who'd been in the Senate at that stage for six months, seven months, now he's been in for about nine months, would run for president. No, no, my friends tell me he is dead serious. You No, no, my friends tell me. He is dead serious. You know, Peter, you and I were at a small gathering,

and Ted came by and said hello and made a few comments. And the first time I met him, he was a charming guy, and I liked him very much and very nice. But I have to say that when he made his sort of informal comments, it felt a little canned to me. And he was scheduled shortly thereafter to speak at the commencement exercises, the graduation exercise at Hillsdale College. And I called Larry Arndt, the head of Hillsdale, and said, you know, I just met the guy. And I don't know what he's going to speak about. But I was concerned that that little bit that I saw might be off-putting in a major address like that. And I said, you might want to talk to him.

See, I felt like he needed to hold his hand a little bit. Well, it turned out Ted Cruz was going to have none of that. He was going to say what he was going to say. And so I managed to get Larry a little nervous about it. In fact, he was terrific, standing ovation from the kids, genuine, warm, funny, and was received by all these young people in a very enthusiastic way. So I suspect like all politicians, he carries a certain canned message with him for moments when you have to bring that stuff out. And I understand that because there are a lot of those moments. But he is capable, apparently, of moving a crowd and not sounding canned. And

to me on this for the last 24 hours, I think he's been pretty terrific overall. I mean I think he staged, organized, ran his own primary, and he won it. I would just like to say though, Peter, it's inconceivable that he would ever win election for president, certainly at this point. I mean think about it. He held statewide office. He has only been a senator for a couple of years. And he went to Harvard Law School. I mean, he's disqualified. There's no way the American people would vote for him.

Well, there's no, if there were some community organizing in his resume, perhaps. Right. So, Pat, I mean, I'm torn here. On the one hand, I want to ask you some more questions about politics. I was in South Carolina last weekend, and I was talking to a bunch of people, and they just had – they had a governor's conference there, a Republican governor's conference, and Nikki Haley was there and Bobby Jindal and a lot of Republican governors, Scott Walker, people like that are good – are ricochet members too. And they were – they came away feeling really kind of impressed and buoyed by the crop of Republican leaders across the country. We have a really good bench. I'll take ours over the other side. I think there's some really terrific people, certainly at the state level. And I mean, those, you know, that group you named, I mean, any one of them, they're terrific. So I, yeah,

I can understand that. I can understand coming away, feeling better about that group. I mean, on the other side, you know, you're, it's to me, it's pretty thin what they have. And I think the future looks bright in that sense. And also, the other nice thing that kind of ties what we've been talking about, I think from a communication standpoint, I think we are getting better. And I think the newbies have learned a bit. And I think this next generation is going to do a much better job. Well, yes, if they can come up with candidates who the other side doesn't immediately tag with Darth Vader's theme every time they show up, that's great. Oh, that was a segue, and Pat interrupted. Go on, Pat.

No, no, no, no. It's a holy moment for me. No, what I said was, oh, here comes a segue. Yes, well, the Darth Vader theme may be used for some of the candidates on the Republican side. A man who always comes with trumpets a-blaring is Gabriel.

John Gabriel. Oh, wow. Yeah, I know. Sorry. You know John. Of course, he's been hanging around the site. He's a great writer. He's very witty. He's hilarious on Twitter. We love to find him. He's a man of mystery because his Twitter avatar has a cup of coffee strategically placed to hide his mug in public. Anyway, John is the newly minted editor here at Ricochet, and we welcome him to the podcast. Hey, John. Hello.

How are you guys doing? Or ex-John as I keep wanting to say. Yes. Explain that for people. Well, ex-John, kind of a roundabout story there. I started a blog with a good friend of mine about probably six years ago now, and it had the unwieldy name of Exurban League because we all lived out in the exurbs, living and hanging out around the barbecue and golfing and with our families. And Exurban John was not very helpful either, and it got shortened to ex-John since you want as few characters as possible on Twitter. And I thought of changing it several times after I stopped writing for that blog, but people got mad and it just stuck. Same as when I've tried to change my avatar from the coffee cup avatar.

I always – people get mad. They say, I don't recognize you when you show your whole face, so I cover it back up again. I do it the public wants. John, I don't know if you've been listening. We're here with Pat Sajak, and Pat has been advocating for the total and utter destruction of the American system as we understand it today and replacing it with anarcho-syndicalism. How would you respond to Pat? I've never trusted that guy. That's all i can say um you know john john you have have helped me with something because i my tweets have to be so short because i think my name is too long pat say jack iconic

host of the world famous wheel of fortune i have six characters left that's why they're all so cryptic it's like horse and books right you could shorten it by changing it to the very, very humble Pat Sajak. That might help. Thank you so much. Hey, John, you're in Arizona, right? Yes, I am. God's country. God's country. Okay.

So how do you – I mean how do you think – we were talking about Ted Cruz earlier, and obviously there's 20 layers of questions here, whether it's good beltway politics, whether it's good national politics, whether anyone is really going to understand what the strategy was, whether it matters that there was a different strategy to start with, whether the government shutdown really is part of the – one of the things on TV in Arizona. How do you think it's playing now? What do you think people are taking away from it? And what do you think its impact is going to be in three months? Answer that now. Sorry. All right. Let me start. I think one thing that's interesting is the D.C. versus rest of the country debate.

Something that I'm really seeing develop is when he started saying make D.C. listen, I think that's a very resonant message to those of us in the hinterlands because we just feel, and I think you see this all the time on the left as well, we feel underrepresented. The counties all around D.C. are richer. I think seven of the ten richest counties in the nation all surround D surround DC. So we feel like we aren't being listened to. As far as Ted Cruz, there's been a lot of talk about tactics and strategy. My head says maybe this wasn't the best strategy if you mapped it out on a flow chart. But my heart, how could you not love the Mr. Smith goes to Washington point that he's making? I think the average person being busy, working perhaps more hours just to make ends meet, maybe working two part-time jobs instead of one full-time job.

I think they're looking at it and saying if nothing else, this man stands for something, and it's very important to him. And it's making people cover the flaws of Obamacare, which the media never likes to do. They'd rather just – I checked into Yahoo this morning, huge smiling, beaming picture of Obama and the headline saying something about Obamacare will reduce your premiums. And then you get into the article, and it's basically Obama claimed it would reduce your premiums, but that's the kind of low-engagement media environment we're in. I think Rand Paul, for instance, got – and that was an actual filibuster. But I think people just respect somebody going there passionately displaying their beliefs instead of just merely sniping from the sidelines. But in the end, it's going to be not so much what's happened the last 24 hours or however long this goes on. It's going to be because most people we know are engaged in this.

Most people aren't. They're going about their lives. And it's going to be how it's characterized rather than what actually happened. And we always have a disadvantage where that's concerned because the people doing the characterization are not necessarily on his side to begin with. Definitely. Bernie Sanders did something similar to this in I think it was 2007, and somebody was comparing old headlines from that, the same people who are calling this a faux-labuster because that's so clever, and mocking this enterprise completely were the same people who are raving about Bernie Sanders, fighting the power and

standing against empire. And so yeah, you're always going to have that messaging problem. Our media environment is so fractured now though. And something I try to do is really try to pay attention to people who don't agree with me. I come from a family where we range from the far right, that's me, to all the way to the far left. And we would have around the dinner table knock down, drag out arguments. But by the end of the meal, we were usually buckled in laughter because we just cracked each other up. There wasn't that ugly, negative feeling. So as much as possible, I try to hang out with hippies, touch them, learn their ways.

But just so I can understand the perspective they're coming from. By the way, John had mentioned a Yahoo piece. Now, if you go to Yahoo, you will find the story. It's Reuters. Let me just read the first paragraph here so everybody knows how the media frames this. This is a Reuters tale. Americans will pay an average premium of $328 monthly for a mid-tier health insurance plan when Obamacare health exchanges open for enrollment next

week, and most will qualify for government subsidies to lower that price, the Obama administration said on Wednesday. If the low-information voters, or the liberals, I'm trying to get that term into general circulation, don't read anything more than the headline, that's what they're going to get.

On the other hand, the top story at Yahoo! right now is whatever happened to Tabitha from Bewitched. So that is of more importance. One of the things that's always fascinated me about journalism, and you hear about the prejudice one way or another, it's

so much of it is so subtle. For example, that quote that you just gave, if it came, if it were the other way, that it's going to raise your premium or you're going to lose your coverage, the first line would have been so-and-so, GOP senator so-and-so claimed. And that would be the lead. It's just a matter of flipping a phrase from the beginning of a paragraph to the end. It's that a matter of flipping a phrase from the beginning of a paragraph to the end. It's that subtle. Pat and John, Peter here. Are there newspapers, old-fashioned newspapers you read every day, Pat?

Do you mean in my hand? Actually, I do mean in your hand. But what publications do you look at? I don't think we want to know what Pat has in his hand. Stop. You're not writing for sullivan and sons this is not the writers room so so pat what are there are there newspapers that you read every day but what's generally speaking what is your reading on public affairs um i i go online and i look

through i i look i look at the new york times i look at the los angeles times uh usually the Washington Examiner's site now, and the Post occasionally. If there's a story that, you know, my newspaper menu is filled with virtually every paper in the country, and if there's a story that is a little more regional, I try to do that once a day, and that is look at some regional stuff because it's real tempting to just treat newspapers the way we treat the rest of the country. You fly over those newspapers, and there's some good papers out there and some good points of view. And then the stuff that we all – what John was talking about is becoming a rarity, and

that is where you look at what the other people are saying. We're becoming more insulated, and there is a bit of an echo chamber on both sides, I'm afraid. I try to do that, and I try to go to more liberal sites and see what they're saying. I don't just mean – I just don't mean the sort of liberal comments in the comments section when looking at a conservative publication. But I think it's important to know what they're saying and where they're coming from. So this is what – I've always suspected this and now you're confirming it. One reason you and Rob so love each other is that you, Pat, have a rhino squish lurking deep within you. I do.

Yeah. I guess I do. It's – and part of it may be because of the business we're in. It's sort of the mass audience business. Yeah, sure. And I think there's – I think that's probably part of what it is. Or we're just squishy. Yeah, we just go along, get along kind of guy.

So, John, are there any indispensable newspapers for you or publications? Let's put it that way. Not really anymore. I was going to say my manservant irons one for me each morning with my morning coffee. But it's strange because I actually got my degree after high school. I went in the Navy. Then I got a degree in journalism, the wave of the future or so I thought. But by the time I was about to graduate, I was having more and more arguments with my professors about this new thing called the internet. And they were all – it was print journalism, and they were all insisting, no, everybody wants a hard copy of the news in their driveway. That way they can clip stories and read them later. And they were just insisting upon it. And I ended up veering into graphic design and marketing once

I got out into the real world, just because I said, journalism is going to have a tough go of it for a few years. And they're still struggling with it. I really bounce around a lot. One that I will check to kind of, since I'm so far outside the Beltway, is the Washington Post, just to kind of, since I'm so far outside the Beltway, is the Washington Post just to kind of know what's going on. I check several of my favorite blogs as well just to see what stories are percolating beneath the surface. And by reading those, I always find out about the news a day before it's reported anywhere in the media, which is kind of interesting.

If you're reading the Washington Post today, you'd have to turn to the inside section to find anything about Ted Cruz. Oh, yeah, exactly. He's been a madman on the front page of Washington Post for weeks, but the minute he starts talking, it's very bad. And like when we were talking about the coverage too, what I always noticed is if Bush proposes a bill, it's the controversial bill. If Obama promotes it, it's the historic bill.

And there's just – that's just – they just drop that in there to frame the narrative. Just a simple adjective, a conservative senator so-and-so. You rarely see liberal senators so-and-so unless you're – the of stories being framed around philosophies uh it just it just becomes the way their people are labeled so it is um you don't have to look you don't have to look far to find uh prejudice in the press but you have to look carefully definitely and it just uh really seeps in everywhere. The wonderful surveys which confirm that everybody agrees with the liberal mindset that once you get into the data and find out how many people they talk to, who they talk to, you find out it's more of a press release from an action group. So – Sure. Senator X said something. Senator Y admitted something.

Right. So, boys, one more question, semi-serious question here, semi anyway, from Peter. On Obamacare, there's a kind of premise – excuse me. A lot of people have been saying this is our last chance to stop it. Ted Cruz said as much in remarks two or three days ago. If once this thing rolls out, people will get used to it. Interest groups will rise up that depend upon it just like any other government entitlement program. We need to stop it now or it's over. The other view, James Toronto of the Wall Street Journal wrote about this the other day and James Toronto said, no, actually, we won't know for sure, of course, until the thing does roll out, which is going to happen in a matter of weeks. But I, James Toronto, think we can all relax a little bit because people are actually going to hate this thing.

It will smack them in the face. Just let reality take its course. That will help Republicans and the – Obamacare itself will represent an argument for repealing Obamacare. What do you think? Pat? Well, I mean I think it's an interesting argument and probably some truth to it. The problem – one of the things that we have to be careful of is presenting the notion that we really want this to fail. We really want – we're really rooting for people to be hurting over this. Not that we think they're going to, but that's what we want to happen. And maybe the way to get around that is let's see what happens the – Democrats used to accuse Republicans of suggesting that they, the Democrats, wanted a certain foreign policy to fail so that they could say we're right.

And we have to be careful about that. Yeah, and I completely agree with that, something – actually, I've done a lot of work in the high health information technology sector with kind of rolling out all these complicated Obamacare initiatives and things like that. And when you meet the real people behind them and the scared doctors and the scared patients who really don't know what's going on, but my family doctor recently retired a couple years early because he was so overwhelmed by it. And he knew that I had worked in it and I'm no techie. I'm no government agent. So I didn't know all the ins and outs. But after he would do a brief checkup on me when I'd come in or come in with one of my kids, he would start asking me a whole bunch of questions about, so what kind of health record systems do I need to do? How often will I be audited? And just the nervousness, and this was a very accomplished doctor, really nice guy, which is kind of rare to find, very impressive individual, but just the fear that was going on really

concerns me. And that's the thing. There are so many single parents out there that they're just worried and they're fearful. And a lot of those people will just say, please, government, come up with a big fix because I'm scared. And yeah, so we have to be careful for what we wish for. I think it will fail just because the way it's built, it's built so poorly. Most of these government programs just end up to be quite a bureaucratic mess. But yeah, we need to be sure that we are emphasizing solutions that will help families and not, ha ha, told you so. Yeah, but I also think we're over – I mean I think that we're overestimating how easy it's going to be to repeal it. I mean I read the Torrenta piece and

I think it makes a lot of sense in many ways. But the legitimate fear on the other side is once it's implemented, it's never, ever going to be repealed certainly. How about all those other big programs that have been repealed though? You're forgetting those, Rob. Yeah, that's right. That's right. Like sugar subsidies. The Tennessee Valley Authority.

Yeah, exactly. So these are legitimate concerns. Like Kill It Now, Smother It in its crib and figure it out later. Look, all these things are easier when you don't have – when you have the Senate too, right? Oh, much. And that's what makes this hard is that there's – the Republicans have zero leverage really. They have the House and they don't have the Senate. And maybe the midterms look optimistic to reclaim the Senate, but certainly it's not a done deal. And without the Senate, without at least one of the three things you need or two of the three things you

need, it's really hard. I've been sitting here listening for the last 10 minutes with interest because A, I have a job at a print newspaper and B, my wife is chief compliance officer for the last 10 minutes with interest because a i have a job at a print newspaper and b my wife is chief compliance officer for the university of minnesota physicians group where these regulations are shall we say the the the the the very the very atmosphere that she breathes uh her entire day even if you dynamite this thing completely and remove every single little tendril of Obamacare that's working its way into the system, you will still have left behind an edifice of regulations, the likes of which is baffling at the very best and absolutely incomprehensible at the worst. So I mean, that's the thing is that even if we get back to the point before Obamacare,

we're still at the point where government has got its fingers in so deeply in all of these things. I mean practically if you show up in an emergency room and there's not a code for what you have, you're in trouble. It would be nice if just everybody knew the code for their disease so they could come in limping and point to their bloody leg and say, I got a 337 here. So that some little data tech enter who's working remotely in Kansas can then type that into the system. And the right money can be flowed in from the right spot. By the way, if you could ask your wife about this, my 216 is acting up. Oh, I feel so bad. Oh, you got to get your 216 out. You can't have a 216 at your age.

Left one or the right one or should I? Well, OK. Actually, I can't ask my wife anything. The reason is that the privacy laws are as such that we just don't talk about her work. As far as I know, she actually is a Valerie Plame-type special covert agent, and this is just her cover because she can't say a thing about what she does. You can't say, hey, send me a Snapchat of Pat Sajak's 216. No. Oh, Lord, believe me, there are seminars on it. No, I'm serious, Rob. There are actually seminars on things like Snapchat, because if you use Snapchat in a room where there happens to be

an EKG monitor, and even though the patient's name is blurred out, is that a confidential piece of information that's being transferred? So what I'm saying is that the days when the kindly physician, the white-haired guy with his little black Gladstone would show up and he'd send you a bill, or the day where on the way out, like my mom checks out of the hospital with me in her arms and they give her a little bill with a couple of itemized things, aspirin, 15 cents, basic, pulling the baby out for 45, and my dad writes out a check and that's it. That's what we really want to get back to where people are actually involved personally with spending the money so that it doesn't just seem like it's coming out of the great

cloud of cash in the sky. But we're never going to get back to that point, are we? The state is too firmly entrenched in this business. We're never going to get back to the point where we have that kind of freedom. Or should that be what we're trying? I think this is John here. I think one amazing example to me is when the stimulus was passed. So this was obviously pre-Obamacare.

And there was a lot of money available, that free government money, for people who would buy these electronic health record systems. I was working for a company that sold them at the time. The left-leaning bosses were thrilled at this possibility, but then they noticed in the fine print it said that these electronic health records had to be meaningfully used for the government to fund them. So many manufacturers said, so meaningfully used, what does that mean exactly? And the government said, we'll get back to you on that.

And my bosses are waiting until maybe two weeks, end of the month. Fifteen months later, they came up with a definition. This was the interim working definition that was promulgated by some sub-sub-subgroup in the HHS and the CMS and the DMV. Who knows who else was involved? 650 pages. Unbelievable. Yeah, and then the manufacturers read it and they found out all sorts of errors. You had – they were requiring, say, dentists to ask about people's sexual history and growth charts for people who are in their 50s that should only be used by pediatricians. So they said, okay, we'll fix these. And I think it was about three months after that, 90 days after that, the grand total was about a lot of the Muslim Brotherhood types blamed it on the deep state is what they called it. And it was just all these cogs and gears that kept society running. They didn't like the Muslim Brotherhood, so all the bureaucrats slowed down a bit and things didn't work and police didn't get to where they needed to go. And then once they were removed and the people they liked were in – big concern. All these people deep in the bowels of government.

Well, that's what modern progressives want, get government out of my bedroom but by all means invite it into my urethra. John, we have to let you go. We will see you back at Ricochet as usual, where you are one of the new editors and sprightly contributors. See you there, buddy. Thank you. See you there. Take care, John. By the way, I've just taken a selfie of my 216. I'll post it later. Well, if that's the case, then your face is invisible, so we don't have to worry. Well, who knows? You know, John mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood, which now, incidentally, after being banned by the Egyptian government, has renamed itself the Muslim Brotherhood, sort of as a – going with the whole cloth thing that Egypt is famous for. What's that for a count? We got about four minutes here for Pat to explain whether or not we have a consistent, coherent foreign policy in the Middle East.

How is that striking you? Yeah, let us know about that, would you? It seems very clear to me. No, it doesn't. I have no idea. It is – I think back to that – you remember – you have to read your history books. This is back a long, long time. But there was this red line in Syria.

Some of you may have read about this. I did read about that. Where did that go? I don't know. We're sort of in a – remember the magic – what was it called? The magic slate where you would write on it and then you lift the the the paper up and it would go away um the toy i'm not sure i'm yes yes whatever that was called i can't remember yes yeah that's sort of that's sort of how our policy seems to be we we write something out and we look and this is it and this is where we are and then we lift it up and tomorrow

we're on to something else or another way another approach uh. It seems incoherent to me and I know it's a complicated world and there are things going on that we're probably not privy to and maybe don't want to be. But I don't know. Foreign policy is what – Mideast policy is what the press releases that day, I think. But we're talking to Iran now, aren't we? Isn't that good? Well, we were going to shake hands, I thought, and we didn't get to shake hands.

So I'm not sure what the lack of a handshake means and how that's being couched. But yeah, I don't know. Tomorrow will be something new. Well, okay. That's my clarification. We should say that as I think it was – I don't know. Was it 10 minutes ago?

Ted Cruz ended his speech. Oh. Yeah. Did he end it thunderously? Did he end it with – or did he do what I'm doing now, which is just sort of run out of things to say and fall over? I cannot imagine he did that. But of course I was here, so I don't know. But I think it's over and now they have to vote on the budget resolution.

So again, it's a little confusing, but it seems to be over. I don't know. It would be interesting to see how this is portrayed, how – if there's any lasting value to it, either him personally as a politician or in terms of policy or in terms of any voting. These things take a life of their – take on a life of their own and then kind of like Mitty's policy, they're gone the next day. So it will be interesting to see whether there's any really lasting residual effect from this thing. I almost see that, imagine it, when they get back to regular business after the filibuster's concluded, like the scene in Singing in the Rain

when Broadway Melody has concluded and they go back to real life and the movie executive says, no, I can't see it. Anyway, guys, here's what I want you to do. Wonderful production completely forgotten. I should also note that when Rob said that Cruise did not p Peter out, I think

that phrase should now be Peter Robinson's sign-off statement on all of these podcasts. Peter out! Before we're sort of winding down, I want to make the announcement that we are having a Ricochet meetup in New York City, Tuesday, October 15th. I'll be there, and so Tuesday night,

Ricochet meetup. We already have some people signed up. We don't have a location yet, but it's 7 o'clock Tuesday, October 15th. I would love there. And so Tuesday night, Ricochet meetup. We already have some people signed up. We don't have a location yet, but it's 7 o'clock Tuesday, October 15th. Would love to have you come out. I'll be there. Try to get some of the people who are in town to come out. But you've got to be a member. There will be a location.

It won't just be meandering around. No, there will be a location. We're not going to wander around the city. Although, maybe we'll get one of those giant party vans and just kind of drive around. I don't know. One of those double-decker tour buses. Actually, why don't you get what we have here in Minneapolis, which is the Brew Bicycle, Brew Pub Bicycle. Oh, we have that here. Yeah.

Yeah, it's wonderful. People get on and drink beer. It's a bar that you move by pedaling. People are pedaling as they drink. And I took a corner and one of them spilled the other day and fell over. They're not very much loved by the local bars, of course, because they'll go outside, everyone will go inside, use the facilities, and then leave without tipping.

So when one of them finally fell over, somebody said, well, great, finally one of them tips. It sounds like fun. I think you should meet at the Algonquin Room so you can have as much attention as possible. Because we are, as you know, part of a very elite circle here. I think it was E.J. Hill responding to that little piece by Karen. When Karen noted an ideological divide, I think it was E.J. who said, you mean there's a ricochet establishment caucus of Ivy grads, National Review writers, and former White House speech writers. He was shocked. He was. And to that we can also add, of course, the best and most charismatic and beloved game show host in American history. I think that will be my new Twitter handle.

I think so. I think that's 139 characters, so you'll just be able to say just question mark. Yeah, exactly. There you go. You'll have to meet the Chuck Woolery standard for getting it out there, though. Chuck, I don't know if there's a home where you guys go and hang out. He's a tweet machine. Oh, he absolutely is. And he's also doing radio spots, and he's a great pitchman.

And so I just find it amusing. The one that I'm sort of curious about, and I don't know if you guys listen to the same radio stations as I do, but Alan Thicke, who had a TV show in the... What was it? Growing Pains? Was that it? One of those, yeah. There were actually several sitcoms that turned

out to be the same sitcom. Right, exactly. Complete with the same script, and he comes like, I'm Alan Thicke. I played a TV sitcom dad on Growing Pains, and like all TV sitcom dads, I had to teach the kids about money. He gives a pitch for these guys who will help you with your taxes. And I'm thinking,

right. You know, reading the lines about in, in a scene communicating to some child actors, it's not the same actually as teaching somebody about money. You know, it is depressed. It is depressing to watch.

I'll be, I'll be watching early morning television, some old rerun of something. And you see these guys come on and we're all getting older. I'm not making fun of them. But you see Henry Winkler, the Fonz, coming on selling reverse mortgages. It's just odd. It's a little jolting. Or they do sometimes have football stars or sports celebrities coming and saying, let's talk to you about erectile dysfunction.

Well, you know what? I'd like for you not to talk to me about that. That's right. I don't care who you are. I just want to watch the Andy Griffith show. Exactly. It's those reruns, those daytime reruns that get you. A lot of erectile dysfunction and lawsuits if you want to sue someone over the fact that you had your toenail removed and now it turned yellow.

There's a law firm that can help you. Now, that's my story on – That's right. Proud of you. Boy, I really did a number on you, Pat. I brought you down. Never. Sorry, for a bit of that, I thought we had gone dead.

No, no, no, no. It happens. I actually was approached by a – I get approached now as I'm getting older and game shows tend to have a little bit older audience. I get a lot of chances to do reverse mortgages and $3.95 a month insurance and all that. So far, I've stayed away, but I'm waiting for a really tempting offer. Okay. Well, that's the headline of the podcast. All right. There you are.

Pat Sajak can be bought. We'll see you advertising those little scooters that get people around the house. That would be great. Oh, I like that. Oh, I know. The last one I got was for a the last series offer was for the walk-in shower where you

Oh, yeah. I'm so tired of clambering over obstacles to get into mine. Yes. And they're important for people who are not terribly mobile. I understand that. But I'm not quite ready to sell that. Besides, Pat Boone is also doing one of those, and I don't want to compete with another Pat.

Too many Pats in the shower business. You know, now that Buttram has passed, Pat Boone and I are the two most famous Pats in the world. And you can just say, I'm Pat Sajak squandering my goodwill and credibility to bring you this special offer on a walk-in shower. And I hope that we've assembled and banked a lot of credibility and goodwill here with the Ricochet Podcast. We advise people to go to Ricochet, sign up, and join now in advance of the 2.0 price hike, which will be, you know, I think they're going to charge something like $700 a week for this thing.

You want to get in now and lock in your price. Also, we got to thank Audible because audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet is where you can go and get your free, free 30-day offer and get a book of any kind you want to listen to. Encounterbooks.com,

they got the broadside this week. Go to Encounterbooks and enter the coupon code ricochet, that's seven R's, and you'll get 15% off this or any other title. All the information, of course,

encoded right in the post you are looking at as you read this and listen. And we thank you for doing so. Thanks to John Gabriel. And thanks of course to Pat Sajak for gracing us this hour. An honor to be with you gentlemen as always. And try not to wait so long next time. Right. Peter,

say your, say your, say your new phrase. Now is you Peter out. Peter go. He Peter doubt now. Peter out. Did we lose Peter? He petered out. He literally did. Rob, so long.

And I'm James Lyle. We'll see you in the comments at Ricochet.com. Thanks. See you, fellas. away from here don't be confused the way is clear and if you want it you got it forever this is not a one night stand, baby.

So let the music take your mind. Just release and you will find. You're gonna fly away Glad you're going my way I love it when we're cruising together The music is played for love Cruising is made for love I love it when we're cruising together

Ricochet! Join the conversation. Everything right belongs to us. Everything right, do what you must And inch by inch we get closer and closer To every little part of each other Ooh baby, yes Let the music take your mind

Just release and you will find Let the music take your mind. Just release and you will find. You won't fly away. Glad you're going my way. I love it when we're frozen together. Music is played for love. Music is made for love.