The Ricochet Podcast - Hello, Cleveland

Episode Date: August 7, 2015

This week, a full recap of last night’s debate, Who lost, who won, who got trumped, who’s campaign is probably over, whose campaign got a big boost. Also, is Senator Shumer’s opposition to the Iran deal sincere or just politics? All answers lie within, so tune in. Music from this week’s episode: Cracklin’ Rosie by Neil Diamond The opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced... Source

When it comes to seeking fertility treatment, time can be of the essence. At Beacon Care Fertility, we are proud to offer prompt access to affordable fertility care. With over 60,000 babies born across our fertility clinic network, we have both the science and the expertise to deliver. We offer convenient payment plans and are partnered with VHI and Leia. Beacon Care Fertility, where science meets life. Hello, everyone. I'm not going to get, I don't know what's going to happen here.

I don't have any information on that. They don't understand what you're talking about. And that's going to prove to be disastrous. What it means is that the people don't want socialism they want more conservatism mr dorbachev tear down this wall it's the ricochet podcast with rob long and peter rob Robinson. I'm James Lilacs and our guests today are James Lilacs, Rob Long and Peter Robinson to discuss, of course, the debates. Let's have ourselves a podcast.

There you go again. Yes, welcome everybody to this, the Ricochet Podcast number 270. That's almost as many episodes as there are presidential candidates on the GOP side. And we're going to talk about every single one of them. But we couldn't do this without sponsors. And we are brought to you happily and proudly by The Great Courses. For a limited time, The Great Courses has a special offer for you, the Ricochet listener. You can get The Philosopher's Toolkit, how to be the most rational person in any room, for up to 80% off.

So go to thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. Philosopher's Toolkit, how to be the most rational person in any room for up to 80% off. So go to thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. And we're brought to you again by Casper's Premium Mattresses, a premium mattress for a fraction of the price delivered right to your door. Casper is revolutionizing the mattress industry by cutting the cost of dealing with resellers and showrooms and passing that savings directly on to you. And it goes without saying that we are brought to you by the entity that is Ricochet itself and here is the entity who is Rob Long to tell you all about it.

Rob? I'm the entity that identifies as Rob Long. Listen, we had a great – I do this every week and we're always trying to turn the dials and try to figure out what it is that we can say to people who are listening to this podcast or have been listening for weeks or months or even years and are not members of Ricochet. Listen, if you're a member of Ricochet, we thank you. We're thrilled to have you as members along with us and we'd love to see you in the comments and on the pages. And in the chat room, we have a chat room going right now. We have one going all the time now, which you can just drop in, say hey. It's part of the fun of being a member of this great, cool club. If you are a listener, podcast listener, and you're not a member of Ricochet,

you missed kind of a fun chat last night, which we participated in while watching the debate. That's the kind of thing we do here. That's the kind of thing that the members do. A lot of different perspectives on the debate last night in the chat room, but it was all great and good fun. That's what we're trying to bring back to American society, is the idea that you can actually be civil about this kind of thing.

So I don't want to belabor the point. I think a lot of people listen to the podcast and keep meaning to join. Stop. Keep meaning to, we need you to join. Please do it this week. We're trying to get to 10,000 members at 10,000 members. This entire business and enterprise is sustainable unto the future and beyond.

So please join. It's important. And that's that. We have a bunch of deals you can join. 60 days, basically free. If you hate it, you can just cancel it. But we know that 60 days after you join, you'll be hooked. So just use the coupon code JOIN and you get, I guess you get 30 free

days, but basically you get two months free if you use the coupon code REJOIN. It's all the same. Take your 60 days free and become a member. And I know that you'll stay a member like everybody else. So that's that. Well, do so because it's going to be an interesting election cycle as we winnow down everybody from the great field that we have right now. We're joined, of course, as ever, as usual, by co-founder Peter Robinson. And Peter, I'm going to ask you something to just start the debate on the debate. Is it time to start talking about Carly for president and not for Veep? It's certainly time to start talking about Carly for the next debate, the big table at the next debate. She distinguished herself, I thought, a lot.

And so what does that mean? That means that a lot of people got the chance. She's had a small campaign because she hasn't raised much money. The press hasn't been – hasn't made much – she doesn't seem to be a story to the press. She's a story now. The money will start to come in. She got exposure yesterday. Lots of people will have seen her.

And what that means is that her poll numbers will go up, up, up, and she'll be in the top tier. Well, we can get to this, I suppose. But to me, it's amazing how quickly things happen in politics. We've only had one debate. And don't we really know that it's over for half of them already half of the 17 don't we really think that i do well what do you mean by over peter i mean you mean over i mean that james james gilmore and george pataki should not bother to get out of bed this morning let alone to campaign or show up at the next debate.

They're gone. Bobby Jindal will not be the next president of the United States. We know that. It's over. Goodbye. Go away. That sort of thing. In reality, that's true.

But right now, you could live a long time in a campaign, a presidential campaign, the way the campaign is set up these days. I mean you have six months before – or five months anyway where you really need any serious money. You can run a better one campaign on a shoestring for the next four or five months. And yeah, you can keep telling yourself you're going to catch fire. All you need is a Carly moment. All you need is a I paid for this microphone moment. All you need is this.

All you need is that. You're correct in reality, but a lot of these – I mean for George Pataki to run for president in the first place – What was he saying? It suggests he's not really functionally conversant with reality. Where is the joy in that exactly? In showing up to one empty room after the other, one unattended meeting after the other with a plate of stale donuts and some watered down coffee and a couple of people milling around because they want to connect the hand of somebody who was famous once for doing that thing. I don't I don't get that. And Graham, too. I mean, I you appreciate the fact that the man is focused. And then if you asked him what he had for breakfast this morning, he says a good hot steaming bowl of invade the Middle East. But he wouldn't even say that with any particular passion based on his performance last night. You're right, Peter.

You're right. Why even show up there? The Walking Dead. But of course, you know, AMC got five seasons out of that. So. Well, but all these guys have this image of who they are. Right. So if you're Lindsey Graham, you're sort of this practical foreign policy maven. If you're George Pataki, George Pataki's been convinced he's the future moderate of the Republican, future moderate hero of the Republican Party since 2000. I mean, this is a guy who's been thinking he should be president for 15 years and that it's just – that America has been waiting for him. I mean the level of – to be a – even to be a successful candidate, you have to be slightly – you have to be a delusional neurotic mess. So to be an unsuccessful one, you really just have to be an unsuccessful delusional neurotic mess.

But your relationship to reality is still very tenuous. I guess I can't that so let's so of the candidates we feel pretty sure let's see is the chat room talking back at us maybe maybe they'll the chat room as usual these things is talking about something completely different because they're they're listening to us with one ear and then having another conversation as far as i know horticulture and the other so but do go on talking about grocery shopping strangely enough they're exchanging grocery. All right. So I'm going to ignore the chat room.

There are no help whatsoever at this point. So of the candidates that we, we, we really know, we really know are not going to be president. What do they think they're doing now? Lindsey Graham, we know what he's doing in his own mind. He's saying, and, and, and he may be right about this. He may actually have some connection with reality. He's in the race to make sure that a certain point of view about American foreign policy gets represented. He's in the race in his mind to make the entire debate among all the candidates better.

Because he's there, they're going to have to be serious about foreign policy in a way that they might not have been otherwise. I get it. What is Bobby Jindal doing? Anybody have a thought? What is James Gilmore? What was Gilmore's – you know, I have to – this is terrible. But when George Pataki and then when Gilmore announced, the first thought in my head was, good grief, I didn't know he was still alive. I thought he was a Democrat.

I got mixed up with somebody else. It's possible Jindal is setting himself up for a role in the next administration, the Bush administration, perhaps as Secretary of Education or some high-profile national event like that. I mean, who doesn't want to be a cabinet member in Washington? Ron? No, Jindal, look, I think we're overthinking it. Bobby Jindal wants to be president of the United States. He thinks he's going to be the first Indian American president of the United States.

He thinks he's got a compelling story to tell about Louisiana. You know, he took it from the, you know, number 49 and number 47 or something. He believes that he is a political success story. These people believe that – I mean I don't think they all do. I don't think Lindsey Graham thinks that there's Graham momentum or Lindseymentum or something. But Bobby Jindal certainly believes that he's the future of the Republican Party. Is there anybody in this race this time around who is saying to himself, well, the presidency is – it's a high mountain. And as a matter of historical record, people who achieve the presidency ordinarily have to make at least two and quite often three runs at it. I'm here to get the seasoning, get my name out, to see how it's done, to begin to make for the next time or maybe even for the time after that.

Is there anyone who's realistic enough to be thinking such thoughts? I believe probably 24 hours ago that person could have been Marco Rubio. Yeah. But he did too well. He did too well. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, look, I mean, he really won last night's debate. I mean,

to the extent that anyone could win that mess last night. Well, hold on. Back up there a little bit, Rob. Do you think that that's the majority opinion? Has anybody seen any polls out of people who viewed it? But let's also look at, and I know I hate to say this because flames are going to come out of your ears, but how has the media been shaping the results for people who didn't watch it? Everything in our newspaper, everything in the other headlines I've seen elsewhere focused on how Trump did.

Not whether he won or whether he was good, but Trump takes competitive stance. Trump blows – I mean because that's the rodeo clown that everybody is looking at to see if he was gored or if he got out of the way of the ball. Well, yeah, that's interesting. The only person I saw do anything for Republican primary voters where it really counts was this sort of Frank Luntz focus group, which is kind of silly. And the Frank Luntz focus group which is kind of yes um and the frank luntz focus group said said three interesting things one giant implosion for trump you know cratering for trump people just did not like they did not like it um they did not like him they didn't like his meanness they didn't like his pettiness they didn't like it when he went after Megyn Kelly. The second thing is they were surprised and they liked Huckabee a whole lot, which he found surprising, but I didn't.

Huckabee is good in these debates and did really well last time around in these debates. I mean people forget how H uh you know how could be one um uh iowa and then the third thing um i think is uh was the surprise what surprised me based on his performance last night which i didn't think was that great uh was that that ted cruz did pretty well right i was i watched exactly the same focus group and had exactly the same impression that in my own mind i must have been too hard on ted cruz because people seem to like him. In that focus group, people seem to like him. I think I might amend the view.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you, Rob. I would say that Rubio won the debate in the terms of the debate. As it took place on television, he had the best answers. He was compelling. He was even technically very good. Whereas Ted Cruz, giving his final comment, was looking down at the questioners. Ted Cruz – I beg your pardon. Marco Rubio knew where the camera was. He knew how to use gestures economically and he was really good, really good.

He won in my opinion. The person who may be winning in days two and three and four as a result of the debate could be Ted Cruz because it could be that as Trump's support sinks, a lot of that goes to Cruz. If that occurs, OK, if that is what exactly what happens, then that is a huge, huge win for Ted Cruz. Huge. Because – and I think also a huge win for Huckabee, frankly, the way these things play out outside of – I mean Iowa – outside of Iowa. The actual numbers in Iowa are not that great for Trump, the way – just from the numbers I saw yesterday before the debate, which makes sense because he's just not an Iowa – he doesn't really appeal to the Iowa values voter. But he is sucking all the air out of the protest vote that Cruz would get, the outsider vote that Huckabee would get.

That's who he's hurting. He's hurting the kind of down – the undercard really, not the people like Bush or even Walker who have $100 million, certainly really – and Trump went down, then they did – then really how Walker or Rubio or Bush did last night is irrelevant because the only thing that really mattered was for those guys to get some oxygen back and to teach the Trump supporters to hold their fire, right, or hold their loyalty, to stop making up their mind because there's another protest vote they could have. Notice, for instance, why Cruz went, very cannily went and reminded everybody how much he's gone up against the Republican establishment. That wasn't to take votes away from Jeb or from Rubio. That was to take the support away from Trump. Well, the great thing about Trump is that Cruz had the reputation as the guy who would walk up and stick a lighted Roman candle down your trousers. He was the big, brash guy. And now that Trump is brash and dumb,

it makes Cruz look an awful lot more statesmanlike. Now, some people are saying that Trump acquitted himself well with answers like the bankruptcy response, which essentially was, yeah, the system's rigged and I took advantage of it. Aren't I smart? And two,

the people I took to the cleaners were not nice people they were bankers which to me was just one of those shameless moments of of complete revelation of utter lack of ethics uh that's supposed to resonate with people say i got screwed by my bank too they overcharged me on my checking account on an overdraft you you you give it to him i i i mean he he he may be trying to channel some populist anger, but he's not doing it in that sort of cheerful, winsome, kingfish way that makes somebody a hero to little people.

He just comes off as small and peevish and mean and petty. And all the other guys who were supposedly the bomb throwers are elevated to statesman-like postures by result. So they're probably thinking, stay in a little bit longer, Donald. You're making me look good. Yeah, I get – fine. I still think that of all the candidates – And I get the – yeah, from Peter, which is a very kind way of saying whatever.

No, to me, Donald Trump just is not going to win the nomination. He just isn't going to win the nomination. He just isn't going to win the nomination. So Ted Cruz positioned himself just beautifully. And you're quite right. I hadn't thought of it this way before. But Donald Trump, the problem with Cruz used to be that he's too aggressive. He's too much of a loud mouth. He's too sharp elbowed.

And Donald Trump comes along and makes Ted Cruz look perfectly presidential. If Donald Trump is a gift to any of these candidates, he's a gift to Ted Cruz, I think. Well, right now he's a gift to sort of the top guys, the guys who have enough money to last all the way through the primary season, who he's really helping. Because all he's doing is stirring it up down um you know down below um but but what i guess what's going to happen is i think i think the more people see trump not you know trump set by by trump's own you know star power trump starring in the trump the trump show but trump as one more person on that dais, the more they see him in that presidential setting, in a presidential debate, and the more they see him kind of weirdly, you know, just kind of small-minded, going after the, saying, oh, maybe I won't be nice to you anymore.

And then saying after the debate that he thought the questions were harder for him, which wasn't true, and just kind of being kind of a baby about the whole process, I think that they're going to turn off of him, and then they're going to like people. They're going to like more of the – I suspect what will happen, you'll see in the next three, four weeks, there will be a lot more anti-Washington rhetoric. Ben Carson got a good line off last night.

A lot more people saying things like, hey, people in Washington are morons. You know, that was a sort of a dials up moment. And if any from anybody but Trump, that'll be good. Like, you know, the weird thing about Trump was Trump's argument about the bankruptcies has value. I was waiting for someone on that. Some Republican on that platform should have said, you know, Trump can't articulate this. He may not even know it because he's such an egomaniac. But here's a guy who builds buildings and puts people to work and not just bankers and lawyers but, you know, skill trades people, people who do drywall and riveting and stuff like that. And, you know, I don't know how many buildings this guy's built, but he's built thousands and thousands of buildings probably. And, yeah, so four went broke.

Four of his building projects went broke. Well, in America and certainly in the Republican Party, we should not be dwelling on that. We should be encouraging Donald Trump to do more stuff, to risk more things. We should be rewarding him and thanking him for the risk and the risk capital that he does rather than nitpicky on the fact that four of his things didn't turn out okay. That's a pretty good ratio. We should be celebrating that ratio. But nobody said that because they were enjoying watching Donald Trump kind of twist in the wind there. Well, perhaps not.

I mean it's – right. But the thing is, is that while Donald Trump portrays himself as this great economic engine with such ingenuity and such business acumen, the fact of the matter is, is that he slaps his name on various things and hopes that that gives them a vestige of prestige that will make other suckers pony up. I mean, yes, he sure he builds things, but he used to be a builder. Now he's a licensor. Right. We have a failed line of steaks. We have a failed line of vodka. We have the ties, the garish shirts, and all the rest of it. I mean, as an American success story, great. You got a nice bunch of properties from your dad, and you spun it all into a big public persona. Congrats. It does not make you presidential material at all.

The question, however, notice we're not talking an awful lot about Scott Walker, who was restrained, as his persona usually has. Didn't smile enough, which is, I think, the problem. He came across very sensible and very ordinary. You almost might say he seemed, he was almost going for the idea of being the most rational guy in the room.

And if you'd like to be the most rational guy in the room, you can get 80% off a course that'll teach you just to do that. It's the great courses, of course. And as you'd like to be the most rational guy in the room, you can get 80% off a course that'll teach you just to do that. It's the Great Courses, of course. And as you know, here we're big fans of these guys. And they offer these engaging audio and video courses from top professors and experts for people like us who love to learn.

We recently watched Great Courses series, The Conservative Tradition. That's where Professor Patrick Allitt traces the development of conservatism from the early stages to today. How the roots of early English conservatives influenced later generations of American politicians, the rise of Reagan within this tradition and so forth. You can develop talking points that you can use to have great conversations with people who know what they're talking about. Or you can just build a framework that helps you build on what you already know to know more and strengthen your ability to think rationally. Now, the Great Thoughts, or the Great Courses, I'm sorry,

are celebrating their 25th anniversary this year, and they've got over 500 courses in many subjects, philosophy, history, religion. They're available in DVDs, CDs, streaming, digital downloads, or with the Great Courses app. Now, for a limited time, only the Great Courses has a special officer. Yes, a special officer for Ricochet listeners. He'll come to your door in uniform and give you the course. No, a special offer. Eight of their best-selling courses. Order from eight of them, including the conservative tradition,

at up to 80% off the original price. But offer is only available for a limited time, as they say, so make haste. Now, order today. Go to thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. That's thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. That's thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. Don't forget, go to thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. But if Scott Walker had read one of those great courses on conservatism, how would he have placed himself in the long tradition?

Would he say he was the heir of Reagan? Don't all of them sort of want to say that one way or the other? Even Donald Trump said that. He did? Did he mention Reagan last night? Oh, yeah. Reagan changed his mind. Reagan –

Oh, yes. That's right. You're right. You're right. Reagan evolved. Reagan evolved, right. He did. How did Reagan evolve exactly?

Because here's a point that The Atlantic made today. And The Atlantic magazine had a lot of – You've done reading today, James? Oh, it's later where you are, of course. All right. I'm afraid I am. Seems unfair somehow, but go ahead. All right.

I imagine so. I'm trying to find the exact quote here. I had somebody complaining about the foreign policy aspect of the debate. Ah, here we are. This is from one of The Atlantic's bloggers. It's hard to listen to the GOP rivals on foreign policy without becoming profoundly depressed. They paint a bleak picture of a world full of ruthless foes and a United States that lacks the will and perhaps the weaponry to oppose them effectively. They might defend this as a bracing dose of realism, but

their answers are sprinkled with reverent references to Ronald Reagan. There is little of his optimism in their answers. Okay, I don't remember taking away from that an awful lot of stuff about foreign policy, period. But are these guys going – what are they saying when they try to be the heir to Ronald Reagan? Are they simply saying I can connect with the people and get elected? Or are they trying to resurrect the spirit of American strength and optimism and forward-looking? Now that we've been through Carter version two, we've got to find the spirit of American strength and optimism and forward-looking, you know, now that we've been through Carter version two, we got to find the spirit of Ronnie to elevate us again. Reagan was such a big figure.

They seem to be able to take bits and pieces from him. So when Donald Trump said, I've evolved and guess who else evolved? Ronald Reagan. Perfectly true. In 1948, Ronald Reagan called himself a liberal Democrat and he headed an organization in Hollywood called Democrats for Truman. 1948, 1964, only 16 years later, he is a fully formed, very thoroughly conservative figure who gives the speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater. And Reagan moved across the political spectrum from left to right pretty dramatically.

That's true. Now, who else was it? Somebody said – oh, Huckabee quoted trust but verify. Somebody else said peace through strength. They all had that Reagan foreign policy stuff. Hmm, all interesting. The Atlantic is wrong. Ronald Reagan was very optimistic about

what could happen here at home in the United States. And he was optimistic over the long haul about the Soviet Union. In 1982, was it when he spoke in London at the Westminster Palace of Westminster? There and then, of course, all the press derided him. They thought he was losing his mind, blah, blah, blah. But he said that even now, Marxism, Leninism is a sad, tragic chapter in human, whose last chapter is even now being written. And it will end up on the ash heap of history, doing a twist of Trotsky's famous line. But at the same time, the things that he said about what was happening in the world were really the focus of evil, an evil empire. We were up against an evil empire. There was nothing cheery about that. He was really very chastening on the world situation that we faced.

I'm done. Yeah. I mean Reagan is – for Republican primary candidates, Reagan is going to be like – it's basically your get out of jail free card. You find something Reagan did that you're doing that everybody is complaining that you're doing and you say, well, Reagan did it too. So did you hate Reagan? That's – it gets you out of jail. So Trump uses Reagan to get him out of jail. Everyone is eventually going to use Reagan to get them out of jail because Reagan is this really big figure.

And everyone wants – every leader wants to be – I mean every leader wants to be the next Reagan. Obama wanted to be Reagan. Ted Cruz is actually – Ted Cruz has actually – I wonder whether any of them has ever – has actually sat down and studied Reagan, read about him. Ted Cruz has. We know that Ted Cruz has in his office a mural of Reagan giving a speech. I've talked to Ted Cruz about Reagan. He's read the books. He knows the history. He's watched Reagan on every bit of video that he could find. I don't know if any other candidate has actually done that. I wonder, but, you know, we are looking at a generation, Peter, of candidates, and I hate to say this because – Who can't remember him.

Well, no, no, quite the opposite I think. The generation of candidates who – for whom Reagan is a powerful historical figure because he was – he's their idea of what a president is. I mean some of us are old and are – Whom would you have in mind? Yes. But there are young people like Ted Cruz is not that old. Scott Walker said he remembered – I remember as a kid tying a yellow ribbon for those who are waiting. I remember thinking to myself, well, you've lost my vote, you little creep.

I was kind of a kid but I wasn't that much of a kid. I think I was, you know, 15 or 14 or 13. In a way, that was the beginning of the mawkishness of America that would flower later into the endless heaps of teddy bears wherever there's a tragedy somewhere. You know, I understand where that came from, but the idea that a Tony Orlando and Dawn song would somehow spark a national trend toward memorialization of people. But, you know, when you don't want to talk about people taking the mantle of Reagan, President Obama said so the other day. He's been touting his Iran deal by saying that, you know, Ronald Reagan went and dealt with the Soviets, which is, you know, that's true.

It kind of ignores the differences between the two societies and geopolitics and what Iran wants and all the rest of it. But I was surprised this didn't come up more in the last debate, especially since during the debate, I believe they had the news that Schumer has said that he would oppose the Iran deal. And I'll throw this out to you guys. Is this a big thing? Is this a turning point? Is this going to pong on people, ping on people's radars and say, wait a minute, there might be something other than that Republican caucus aligned with the Republican guards. Could this mean something? Oh, I think it's huge, just huge. It could be the moment when the whole country begins the long, slow, hard work of rejecting what Barack Obama has done to us over this last

six and a half years. Maybe I'm overstating it. Maybe they'll be able to round up enough Democrats in the Senate to go ahead and vote through the Iran deal even so. But Chuck Schumer is a senior Democrat. He represents New York, which means he represents a lot of the donors who give money to candidates from other states. Everybody who knows Chuck – as best I can tell, he's not universally liked. He's certainly better liked than Harry Reid, but he's not universally liked. He can be haughty. He can be sharp. But everybody says Chuck Schumer is a highly intelligent man.

And I took the time last night to read his statement. He wrote, it must be 1,200 words on his reasoning about the – there was your pardon, 24-day warning notification before inspections, he had three or four points that were just devastating. In other words, he hasn't just said, well, my constituents want me to do it this way and I'm sure there are many constituents who do want to oppose the Iran deal. He represents a – the city of New York has a dense concentration of Jews and particularly of orthodox Jews who are very conservative with regard to Israel. But he hasn't said – he hasn't sort of winked and said, I'm doing this because I have to. He has a statement saying, I thought this through. And on this point, and on this point, and on this point, I find this deal more dangerous than not.

That is just breathtaking for him to stand up to the president on what the president views as his signature foreign policy accomplishment. Wow, I think it's big. We'll see how many Democrats follow suit. But for sure, it gives a lot of Democrats, Ben Cardin of Maryland, for example, a number of Democrats over in the House of Representatives cover to vote against the president and vote against the deal, and then go home to their constituents and say, look, I'm not alone here. No less a figure than Chuck Schumer is going to be voting against.

He gives cover to a lot of people who could use it. Yeah, I hope. I mean, I suspect, though, that the reason that he can vote against it is because he's already pre-cleared it with the White House and they know they have the votes. And so they're allowing Chuck Schumer, who's been a very good ally for them and has sort of carried water for them in the Senate and represents a very, very, very, very staunchly pro-Israel money center in New York City and in New York State. They're allowing him to do this because he needs to do this and also because they have very little leverage over him because we're talking about an administration in its very sunset and a senator, senators by definition are sort of pompous and incredibly arrogant. And Chuck Schumer is going to be there forever as far as he's concerned. And Barack Obama should be starting to pack his

bags right around now. So I hope Peter's right, though I suspect that the truth is that the White House knows it has the votes anyway, and they're letting Chuck Schumer out of jail just to be nice. But what's interesting about the Reagan – Well, see, they only have – 12 Democrats have come out in favor of the deal. Chuck Schumer, as far as I can recall, as far as I know, is the first Democrat to come out and oppose it. So they only have 12 in favor now. You're quite right. Schumer, the White House, Harry Reid, somebody may have counted noses and feel, OK, you three guys, you're allowed to vote against it. We can still get this thing through.

You're quite right. I just can't imagine they don't know the numbers. The numbers aren't written on a chalkboard. But maybe – Well, I think the clearest sign that Joe Biden actually is considering a run is that he came out against the deal this morning. Kidding. Yeah. Go on. No, Joe Biden is going to run if Hillary comes out against the deal. That's the issue. The interesting thing about the Reagan analogy is that the signature treaty that Reagan – of the Reagan administration that brought about in many ways advanced world peace in the most significant way was the one he walked away from.

Yes. Correct. Correct. You got it in one. Exactly right. was the one he walked away from yes record rekt correct you've got it in one exactly right that walking away from uh... process walking away from a peace treaty that's bad

is often the best move to achieve world peace that's what did the president's statement that way it's really inconsistent contradictory to say that we had this great pressure that put to put on them brought them to the table and other day at the end so now let's get rid of it yeah but which now i'm not sure i'm following you rob are you talking about reykjavik or the inf treaty reykjavik yeah oh well the iron okay reykjavik we had a summit meeting they went they brought um nuclear uh disarmament talks to the brink, to zero. And Reagan was perfectly willing to sign or at least to sign an outline to basically agree to the most radical disarmament talks in the history of Earth really.

Let's be honest. I mean no two countries had ever done this before, and he was willing to do it. But he wasn't willing to give away anything. He wasn't willing to just do it because, well, here we are in Reykjavik. We willing to do it um but he wasn't willing to give away anything he wasn't willing to just to do it because well here we are in reykjavik we have to do this and oh there are protests in the streets and there's world pressure uh and i will ver and we'll trust but verify he was willing to do it um only if we were going to be able to defend ourselves against missile attack and that was the one thing that's the sdi and the one thing that gorbachev would let him do and so he said well wanted right yeah so he said well and we don't have a deal he walked away

yeah and and at the time and at the time even if you look even the former soviets all say they all pinpoint that moment as the moment that the russians knew they simply could not compete. Now, I add to that. In 1982, the president threw out Jimmy Carter's negotiating position on INF missiles. Remember, late 60s, but particularly during the 70s, the Soviets had put hundreds, some 600 intermediate range missiles in Eastern Europe that could hit targets in Western Europe. And NATO requested, there was a formal NATO request from our allies in NATO for the United States to put short-range, intermediate-range missiles in Western Europe that could pop the Soviet Union if necessary. Western Europe, in other words, felt exposed. And the question was, the worry was the United States when it came right down to it would only be willing to defend itself.

It would only fire on the Soviets if the Soviets hit us. When it came to it, we'd let them hit West Germany or we'd let them hit Britain. Fine. the American negotiating position immensely to the point that there was the famous zero option where our position became if they remove all of their INF missiles, we won't put a single one in place. And there's this famous moment when Paul Nitze, very distinguished diplomat who was our negotiator at that point, said to the president in the Roosevelt Room, 1982. I'm almost sure I have the year right, Mr. President, you're asking me to tell my Soviet counterpart that if the Soviets rip up an investment that costs them hundreds of millions of rubles, we'll agree not to spend $1 on a counter-deployment. I don't even know how to tell that to my Soviet counterpart. And Ronald Reagan said, well, Paul, you just tell the Soviets you work for one tough son of a bitch.

And that became the zero-zero option. And what happened was that the Soviets walked away from it. and continued the military buildup and put the intermediate range missiles in place in western, in West Germany and in Britain in 1983. And in December of 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev visited the United States and in the East Room of the White House, he signed the INF Treaty. Reagan waited five years. And in those five years, he put the Soviets under more and more and more pressure and they came back to the table and signed almost exactly the agreement

that Reagan had wanted five years before but what's important is none of that happened in a vacuum and the environment that all that happened in was incredible protests in western europe absolutely and incredible anti-reagan anti-missile anti-thatcher um and what was it it was cold time anti-coal uh oh and the coal yes anti-coal movement in in europe uh america there was a huge

a nuclear freeze movement all over the world. It wasn't as if he was popular. These were not popular things to do. They were not the well thought of in the United States. The nuclear freeze movement here. Bruce Springsteen performed at a nuclear freeze concert in Central Park, which I believe still holds the record for the largest outdoor political gathering in American history. The protests in this country were enormous. And so you have to ask yourself, who did more Ronald Reagan who built more nuclear weapons than almost any other president and deployed more nuclear weapons than almost any other president.

And also dismantled more nuclear weapons than any president and basically stared down and dismantled the Soviet Union. Yeah, well, I'll tell you how it goes. Because there was the nuclear freeze movement, because everybody had a worn copy of Fate of the Earth by Jean-Michel, which of course was read about as much as Stephen Hawking's book, because the day after on ABC got great ratings and everybody had a great consciousness about the horrors of nuclear weapons, because of all those things, and then dot, dot, dot, then the Soviet Union fell apart. It was sort of kind of, it was, they can't say it was Reagan, so nobody really talks about how we got to that point.

They can't say that any of their efforts, pallid, theatrical, hypocritical, and posturing as they were, did anything. So we don't talk about how we got rid of the Soviet Union. It's just one of those things that just sort of – But here's what's interesting is that it used to be – and maybe Peter can correct me on that. It used to be – I understand sort of the general academic nonsense of that and the general sort of even cultural liberals or knee-jerk Democrats. But when it came down to US foreign policy, for about 50, 60, 70, 80,

the really important years where we had a blood enemy across the way, liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, when I get right down to it, they kind of – they may have disagreed on tactics or something. But they were kind of the same guys. Very important point. Very, very important point. Yes, they were. They didn't misunderstand how Hitler was smashed. They didn't misunderstand how Emperor Hirohito was brought to heel. They didn't misunderstand how any of these things happened.

Though they may disagree with this or that. They may have little tactical issues. But they weren't fundamentally different. And now I think you're right, James, but I think what's worse is I think the people who have that attitude are conducting U.S. foreign policy. Yes, exactly. I was in college at the time, and I saw the rise of the progressives driving out the liberals. It was possible to be an anti-communist liberal, which indeed I was in college.

But then that became Nikulturni. That became the sign of a really stunted mind. What we had to realize was the advantages of the Soviet system, the perils of global conflict, and we had to move toward a greater statism here at home. And so anti-communism became like anti-Islamophobia, something you would tar somebody with today to show how undeveloped their mind was. What you had to do was to demonize not just American society and American culture,

but every single one of our leaders because they were evil people who were bent on destruction, not people who had another idea about how to achieve a good example, a good future for America, but people who themselves were black of heart. Casper Weinberger, somebody, for example, who wanted to eliminate half the population of the world. I just like Casper, the mattress company would like to eliminate the middleman and pass the savings on to you. But what?

Unbelievable. Well, I had to get it in here somewhere. Now that elimination part here in the Casper part, if you've been listening to the podcast, you know about these guys. And if you're one of the lucky people like myself who sleeps on a Casper and wakes every morning without a crick in his back or a care in the world, then you will know that Casper is the thing for people to try.

And if you haven't tried, listen to this. Now, Casper is an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. The mattress industry is, they love to force customers into paying high markups. But Casper is revolutionizing the mattress industry by cutting the cost of dealing with resellers and showrooms and passing that savings directly on to you. Now, a mattress by Casper provides resilience and long-lasting supportive comfort. It's one of a kind. It's a new hybrid

mattress that combines premium latex foam with memory foam. So why should you buy one? Well, it's obsessively engineered for a shockingly fair price. It's got just the right sink, just the right bounce. It's got those two technologies, latex foam and memory foam, to come together for a better night's sleep and brighter days, too. Risk-free trial and return policy.

That's right. Just try sleeping on a Casper for, oh, I don't know, 100 days with free delivery and painless returns. They're made in America, too. It's $500 for a twin. It's $950 for a king. Compare that to industry averages, and that's an outstanding price. The place to go, www.casper.com slash ricochet.

What will that get you? $50 off any mattress. www.com. I'm sorry. No, that's not right. www.casper.com slash ricochet. And the coupon code is ricochet. And that's where you get your 50 bucks off.

Terms and conditions apply, of course. Read it all. But send for one. Sleep on one. 100 days. You'll never send it back. All right, folks. You know who we haven't spoken about today much?

Somebody who struck me yesterday as being sort of a wet sack of sawdust, more or less. And that was Jeb Bush. Gentlemen a wet sack of sawdust more or less and that was Jeb Bush. Gentlemen? Wet sack of sawdust. Well, I kept thinking to myself there are a lot of very rich people in Miami and New York who are wondering why they gave him a million dollars. Just – well, let's see. The first couple of questions, I can almost remember it. He got a question on common core and he just spent the whole question digging himself out

from under his own position. And then he got a question on what was it? Oh yes. Then the question on immigration and yes, it's an act of love, but at the same time, I'm going to be tough. You can't believe how tough I am on these people who do nothing but love us. It just made no sense. And he was on the defensive through much of the debate, not crisp, not to the point, buried under his own former positions or current positions until I felt the very end, not quite the very end, the next to last question that he received was on his

membership on some sort of Bloomberg committee, which it turned out gave money to Planned Parenthood. And he disavowed that, said he didn't know anything about it, and then went into his record as a pro-life governor. And I thought to myself, at last, something he cares about. He's had enough. There was a little bit of anger, a little bit of – and by the way, it is true. Jeb Bush must by – I think by any standard, you'd have to count him among the most pro-life governors of the last quarter century in any state.

He enacted law after law after law. And there was a little bit of Jeb Bush really – there was some steel there. There was some heat and I found it impressive. But it only lasted a moment and then his closing statement was better than he had been earlier in the debate. So what am I saying here? Unimpressive, uninspiring, on the defensive. But there was one question which showed what he could do if only he can somehow connect consistently with the depth of his feeling about this country and about his own stance on the policies. He is a conviction politician. It's the strange – it's his curse.

I don't know whether there's people who – he seems to me to be doing a reverse Romney. Mitt Romney really was nothing like a conservative. He wasn't a severe conservative. He wasn't a conservative as we know, he denounced Ronald Reagan. And then he came along and tried to present himself as what his term, severe conservative and Ronald Reagan, the greatest blah, blah. Jeb Bush really was a very conservative, reformist, conservative governor of Florida. He was a spectacularly effective governor. And now he seems to be determined to present himself as a moderate. It's the mirror image of what Romney did, but I think people are feeling the same kind of cognitive dissonance. He's not being himself. I don't know why, but somewhere under all of this, there's a very good candidate. We just glimpsed it for a moment last night, and either that good candidate steps forward. Of course he will be in the race for a long time because he's got endless money.

But either that good candidate steps forward consistently or he will not be the nominee. Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment. I mean it was not his debate but I don't think it was supposed to be his debate. I think he wisely sort of didn't showboat here. I think the important thing with this debate was for the little guys to sort of pop up and out-Trump Trump, which I think was accomplished. The weird thing about Jeb Bush is that he has this sort of – Peter says he's got this sort of rhino mantle when he is in fact an extremely conservative guy and a very conservative governor, a practical conservative governor. I mean to me the problem – his ultimate problem is that his conservatism and his conservative record as a governor of Florida, it's just a little bit dated. So it is true. There is – he was the only governor in America who has a practical, real conservative school choice program. It is true. His pro-life positions, all those things

are true. And his common core support or amended support comes out of his school choice belief. And he hasn't – he didn't articulate it very well last night, but he has a logical argument for it, which when you hear it, you think, OK, well, I see where he's coming from. And even in immigration, when he lays it out as a governor of Florida, it has a – he is a very staunch law and order governor. He called out the National Guard. Staunch law and order governor. He has a the National Guard. Staunch law and order governor. He has a state with no income tax in the first place.

He cut taxes every single year for eight years. He reduced the state workforce. I mean the government was smaller, cheaper. It was just amazing. He's a conservative guy. Yeah. He's the most conservative Bush there is. By far. So he's going to have to figure that out.

But I don't really think there are any stakes for him in any of these early debates for a while. I don't think the Jeb Bush campaign – he's not getting – his negatives are not high. I don't think he hurt himself last night. I don't think he helped himself. Maybe he looked kind of – he looked OK right there. I think he's probably doing it the smart way, which is just slowly reintroducing himself to the American people and to the primary voters as not his brother and not his dad. Would there be so much pushback if his name was Johnson? So much pushback.

Sorry. I mean from people who say an establishment candidate is being shoved down our throat and he's a rhinos. If his name was Johnson, he'd have raised about $12 by now. He owes $100 million to his name. Yeah, but who knows? I mean, he's a – it's hard to say because if it was Johnson, he wouldn't be running. He wouldn't have been elected governor. But if it was Johnson, he would have run in 2000 and he probably would have won. He would have already run if he was Johnson or 2004 or 2008.

It's hard to – those counterfact people who are open to liking him. I mean there's a whole bunch of Republican primary voters who are like, OK, well, OK, sell me on him. I like the record, but sell me – you do a little work on this and I'm open to him. So there's a huge number of Republican primary voters who are very, very open to Jeb Bush. They're also open to Kasich and open to Scott Walker and open to Marco Rubio and open to a bunch of candidates. But Jeb Bush is still a very open – they're very open to that. The problem with it is that you end up – and when you describe a governor with his record and you describe a person with his beliefs, you end up with a very, very attractive candidate.

And then you say it's a Bush and then they say, oh, I don't feel that comfortable with this kind of dynastic thing. I just don't think an American needs brothers and sons and husbands and wives of former presidents running. And that's hard to overcome that if your supporters are uncomfortable with it. And in a year where there are plenty of other good candidates, that just becomes difficult, right? I mean in a year where the candidates are lousy, well, then you hold your nose and you vote for the guy and you say, OK, well, we'll just get over this banana republic quality this one time because we got nobody else on the bench.

But when you have all these other choices, you're like, well, I love Jeb. He's a great guy. I would think he'd be terrific. But you know what? I don't like being in a country where everybody – there's a certain class of person who gets to be president and a certain class of person who doesn't. And I like Scott Walker. I like Marco Rubio or I like Rick Perry or somebody like that. And those guys will do a good job, too. Those guys were, you know, Scott Walker and Rick Perry,

good governors, John Kasich, they're good governors, too. And I think that's a structural problem that won't be ideological. It won't be positions and it won't be immigration. It'll just be, you know, not not right, not the right fit, not the right time, not the right – I don't feel good about the outlines of this candidacy and I feel like that might be the end for him. But not because he's not great or not because he's not conservative, just because people who like him still have this thing that he can't change no matter how much money he raises. I'm waiting for Peter to collect his thoughts and magisterially. No, I guess that sounds like an argument for Jeb. Just sit back, wait it out. You have nothing at stake in these early debates. Just wait.

Don't risk anything because you have nothing to gain and you really don't have all that much to lose. But that's just never good advice in politics. Well, no. It's great advice in August of 2000. I don't think so. No, I don't think so. You need to be working on your message the whole – now, you can say you don't – you have no need to be aggressive. You have no need to go after Donald Trump.

But you ought to be able to answer questions. You ought to be able to explain your positions. He could do that. He did that last night. Not terribly well. Not terribly well. I think you're being too hard on him. I took away nothing from him. What I remember are things like Rubio, for example, when asked by somebody, the person that they chose for some reason to ask a question, asked about small businesses.

And Rubio had a point there about the effects of regulation on dampening the economy to create – we never see the jobs that aren't created because regulations forestall them. And I'm waiting for somebody to – there's a wide, wide road available for somebody to make the case well that when a GOP candidate says he is against the recent EPA regulations, for example, laws handed down by regulators that affect the price of electricity, that we're really not against clean air. We're really not in favor of kids getting asthma. What we are is against a regulatory regime that imposes things without real regard to cost, despite what the Supreme Court decision said, and is doing these things for specious reasons. Because that's how they're always portrayed, right? In our newspaper, the cartoon had the GOP ready to deny climate change in order to oppose the new EPA regulations. And to explain to people that posture, I mean, maybe I'm having a hard time doing it myself.

But nobody, aside from Rubio, nobody seems to be willing to step up and say those things. They all come down on the side of the regulatory state's existence. Maybe Cruz. Maybe Cruz is the kind of guy who will – I mean, you know you'll get Cruz in the debate and they ask him about global warming and he's going to say that it doesn't exist. Is that a danger? That's one of the things the Atlantic people were worried about, that climate change didn't come up and that's going to come up in the general, you know. We had 77,000 people on stage stage the thing lasted a couple hours uh no one really got a chance to say much in in in depth and yeah we missed a lot of topics this is

the sort of classic uh thing happens after these debates is everybody's little pet topic didn't work and people you know tend to focus on one or two moments yeah and of course then the atlantic says the liberals of the atlantic complained that this or that topic it wasn't and it's going to tend to focus on one or two moments. And of course, then the Atlantic says, the liberals of the Atlantic complained that this or that topic wasn't, and it's going to hurt them in the general. Everyone wants to prove that, usually the other side wants to prove that the other side has failed so miserably,

why are we even going to have this election? Let's just call it now. Well, one of the things also that was noted was the tone of the questioners, particularly in the first debate. And I can't remember who it was in the Fox side who started a question about Planned Parenthood defunding by saying, you know, this goes to the war on women. Not the supposed war on women, not what your adversaries call a war on women, but just stating the war on women as though it is an actual fact and something that these guys have got to disavow. And then twisting the question into something about Planned Parenthood funding being about women's health. Jeb did not help himself this week using the term women's health when, you know, why do we have to fund women's health? I think it's not an exact quote, but it wasn't the mark of a seasoned campaigner.

But that is going to come up. And again, it's like I want the guys to explain. Listen, the way all of these predicates are being put to the American people, the questions are being phrased in a way that naturally reinforces the positions and perceptions and preconceptions of statists. We have to – we've got to redefine the question before we answer it. Boys, a point of personal privilege here. We haven't talked about three candidates who were on the big stage last night and I just want to know what you thought of them. Chris Christie, Paul Rand and John Kasich. Well, I like Rand Paul. I wasn't sure about him.

Rand Paul. Oh, Lord. Rand Paul. You know, I didn't sleep well last night. There are various things going on here at home. OK. Rand. What's his name again?

Yeah. The guy with the curly hair. Go ahead. I'm not – I don't think Rand Paul did himself any favors. I don't think Rand Paul broke out last night. The thing about all these guys is that when you list all the names, you always forget one or two. Right. And then the one or two you forget, you're like, oh, yeah, that guy. I forgot about that guy.

When I'm listing the names, I, for some reason, forget Chris Christie. I'm like, oh, yeah, Chris Christie. And you think, oh, yeah. I mean, and he was a big star for a long time. He was going to save the Republican Party. And he did OK. I think for a lot of a lot of Republican primary voters, he was just they were just being reintroduced to Chris Christie. Right.

As a candidate. I mean, he was, we were watching him on YouTube three, four years ago, five years ago and loving him. And now we see him again and it's sort of like, oh yeah, that guy. You know, look, I think, I think, I think this was a very, very specific, you know, beauty pageant that was then, was seeing who looks crazy and who doesn't. And then it became subsumed by the Trump show. And so it's hard to say.

I think Rand Paul has a ceiling that I don't think he's going to get any more votes than he got last time around, probably fewer. I don't think that there's a particular interest in his – a broadening interest in his mission. I don't know where Chris Christie fits, right, what market it is he's going for. and he certainly didn't make a compelling he didn't argue the record the governors on stage argue, you ask them about what do you think about the weather

and they tell you, well one thing I think about the weather, the weather's good in my state I took the unemployment from this to that and I have this many more jobs Jeb Bush did it, John Kasich did it Scott Walker did it, doesn't matter what the question is. The answer is my side. Here's what I did in my state. He didn't really do that, mostly because the state's not in such great shape, but he didn't really do that. So I'm not sure that was necessarily the best, the best performance from him. No. And again, with Trump on stage,

Christie comes off as less bombastic, which is probably good for him. But yeah, I didn't think one way or the other. Here's a character who would dominate the stage in a smaller field, but with a lot of smart people on the stage, no. the most devastating thing that can be said that this huge figure whom we watched on YouTube over and over and love thrilling, the loudest, the brashest, the one you wanted to see get in Hillary's fit. And as of last night, man,

yeah. Yeah. Rand Paul comes, it comes off as that guy that you always knew in college sitting around the break room who was smarter than everybody else and not particularly interested in, you know, doing anything about it. It just, there there's there's a sort of and he's not a stupid guy he's a smart guy but there's a sense of of of he's just not particularly interested

in changing the minds of people who aren't smart enough to think what he thinks and a little bit of whininess there as well too that i just didn't like. Of all the guys on the stage last night, with whom would you most like to have a beer? That's a good question. Well, Donald Trump because it would be the finest, classiest, most expensive beer you could possibly imagine in the 50-story of a building that looked like a bar of gold stuck on it in Las Vegas. No. My answer is Ben Carson. He was just – he just came across as such a sweet, likable, admirable human – I'm not sure I want him to be my president. But boy, if I have anything wrong with my head, I want him to be my doctor. I'd like to get to know that man. That's – he's the one who as a candidate left me wanting more.

I'd like to know more about him. I'd like to have a cup of – I'd like to have a drink with Mike Huckabee because then I could have two. And you could go dancing by yourself. Okay, rap. We can't do better than that, rap. Well, there you go, folks. That is what we think at the moment. And I want everybody to print this out.

First of all, at home, transcribe our words. Print them out because we'll stand by them completely a year from now when all of our predictions here have been cast asunder. And we're talking about the meteoric rise of Rudy Giuliani versus whoever goes up against Hillary. I just got to ask, yes or no, do you guys think that Hillary is going to be the candidate? Peter? No. Rob? Wait. You don't think that she's going to be the candidate, Peter? No. Rob? Wait.

You don't think that she's going to be the nominee, Peter? It's a podcast for goodness sake. It's not to be accurate. It's to be interesting. It's provocative. No, no. She's running a lousy campaign. Her negatives are up.

Support is down. Joe Biden of all people is thinking about getting into the race. She will be the nominee yeah they don't they don't have the they don't have the strength of that party to say no to the first woman that's they're all about that you're correct i'm sorry to say you're correct and the good news is the good news is is that she may be under indictment. It'll be a beautiful thing. I hope she's the candidate because with the FBI in the case, that story continuing to burn like a coal seam and her negatives going down and the unlikeability of the person herself becoming more and more, more apparent as people are reintroduced to the magical sparkle that is Hillary Clinton,

that charismatic voice that you could just listen to forever. Can't wait. Who we put up? Well, that's another issue and we'll talk about that next week and the week and the week after that. And we'll talk about it, of course, at Ricochet.com, obviously, which is where you should go and contribute and, dare I say, join so that you can add your voice to the teeming multitude of sensible, sane people. A community, and I don't use that word often because on the internet it usually isn't.

But a Ricochet, it really is. We're also brought to you by TheGreatCourses.com. Use that coupon code Ricochet. And Casper Mattresses, also by some strange quirk of fate. Coupon code Ricochet. You can get great deals and great information and knowledge and great night's sleep if you go to those places. And of course, visit the Ricochet store

with lots of tremendous Ricochet swag in there for you to swan about town wearing the shirts or sip your beverage of choice in one of the Ricochet branded cups. Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Rob. Thank you, everybody who's listening. Thanks to everybody in the chat room who periodically, as far as I can tell, were actually listening to us.

That's a start. Don, Don, chat room, Don Tillman. I think we can close on this. Don Tillman just put up, maybe someone should encourage Rosie O'Donnell to us. That's a start. Don, chat room, Don Tillman, I think we can close on this. Don Tillman just put up, maybe someone should encourage Rosie O'Donnell to run. They're also encouraging Tom Cotton, and as much as I love Tom Cotton, I have the bad feeling that the nation

will cry out for Tom Cotton at a time when something really, really bad has happened, and we're going to need a military before then, and I hope we get it. But that's just me, the old warmonger. See you in the comments, everybody, at Ricochet 2.0. Next week, boys. no more ago taking it slow and love don't you

know I'll have my time with a poor man's lady hitching on a twilight

train ain't nothing here that I care to take along maybe a song to sing when I want.

Don't need to say please to no man for a happy tune. Oh, I love my... Ricochet. You got the way... Join the conversation. You and me, we're going stuck. Crackling rose, you're a store-bought woman. Join the conversation. Play it now, play it now, play it now My baby, crackling rose and make me smile

Girl, if it lasts for an hour, well, that's all right Cause we got all night To set the world right Find us a dream that don't ask no questions. Yeah. Oh, I love my rosy child.