The Ricochet Podcast - Judging The Judge

Episode Date: September 22, 2018

We’ve reached peak news cycle. So much going on. And when that happens, we reach out to people who make it their business to cover the news: that’s the WSJ’s Bill McGurn and the Washington Post���s Bob Costa. They help us sort through the Kavanaugh controversy, the scandals in the Catholic Church, trade wars with China, and some predictions about the upcoming mid-terms. Also... Source

At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race.

Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie We have special news for you. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Are you going to send me or anybody that I know to a camp? We have people that are stupid.

It's tremendously big and tremendously wet. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Rob Long and Peter Robinson. I'm James Lotnix, and today we talk to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal and Bob Costa about Washington. Let's have ourselves a podcast. Welcome to the Ricochet Podcast number 417. It's brought to you by the fine people at ButcherBox. ButcherBox delivers healthy 100% grass-fed and grass-finished beef, free-range organic chicken, and

heritage-brand pork directly to your door. For $20 off your first box, two pounds of free ground beef in every box, go to ButcherBox.com slash Ricochet and enter the promo code Ricochet. Tell me a little bit more about that later. Also brought to you by Casper. It's a sleep

brand that makes expertly designed products to help you get your best rest one night at a time. Ah, Casper, there's nothing like it. $50 towards select mattresses by visiting Casper.com slash Ricochet and using the promo code Ricochet at the checkout. And we're brought to you by Fleur. Fleur creates expertly crafted, sustainably produced perfumes without all that bad stuff, and it's sold at an honest price. It's a revolutionary idea. It's a great way of discovering and experiencing fragrance. Go to Fleur.com today and use the promo code RICO

to get 20% off your custom Fleur sample set. And we're brought to you by Ricochet itself. So you're still not a member? Well, the drip, drip, drip water torture is continuing today with Rob doing what he's been doing for 416 podcasts, and that's telling you to ante up, right? Yeah. James, actually, on our little show notes here, the member pitch was written by Ricochet's director of technical operations, Max Ledoux. He insists that today's pitch be read by you. What?

But I think you're you're you've got enough on your plate uh i will just say this wait a minute are you telling me they're show notes yeah well you know with this are you telling me this thing is planned hold on a second why does max want me to to read it i don't know but as as the co-founder i'm going to overrule that because here's the thing uh we've said it nice and we've said it cutesy. This is sort of a cutesy thing. We think it's kind of funny, and I don't know if it's funny or not. It always seems irritating to me, but I do it.

But here's the deal. If you're listening to this podcast and you're a member of Ricochet, we thank you. If you're listening to this podcast and you've been meaning to become a member, you've been putting it off. I know I say this every week, but it actually really does matter because we have a payroll to make. It's not a big one, but we have to make it, and we're not making it. So I'm just going to leave it there. These podcasts, Ricochet is a site. Ricochet is an enterprise. It does actually require your support. I know I've said that

in probably more, I don't know, sanguine tones, but I'm trying to keep the thin wine of desperation out of my voice. But if you could imagine the thin wine of desperation is there, then you'll be imagining our current financial situation. So please join. What are the levels, though? $2.50 a month if you just want to support the podcast. $5 a month if you write your own posts. Fantastic. Join today at Ricochet.com, and once you go there and spend a lot of time there,

you'll realize why you wanted to be around forever. Lifetime appointments, so to speak. Yeah. Like a Supreme Court justice nomination. Once you get those, you're set. Peter, so to speak. Yeah. Like a Supreme Court justice nomination. Once you get those, you're set. Peter, welcome to the podcast. Thank you, James. I have to confess something to you.

After the last week, I have to say I believe the woman. I believe that women don't lie about these things. I believe that given the party's treatment of women in the past, there's no other way that I can look at this except to completely and utterly withdraw my support for Keith Ellison. Oh, James, nicely done. Nicely done. Obviously. But it's an obvious thing, isn't it?

Why doesn't that matter? Well, she's not believable. And besides, Keith Ellison can be counted upon to do the right thing, which is ensure that there are at least as many abortions next year as there are this year and to massage the laws to get the right proper social justice outcome. Anyway, go ahead. Go on. Yeah, no, I mean, I spent a few minutes. I am in Hanover, New Hampshire, where I just visited my youngest son, who's a senior here and where Jim Mattis spoke the day before yesterday. So I am actually I'm going to try to speak as little as possible because I have this hinky dink set up in the hotel room with my laptop and Wi-Fi that isn't that good. However, Brett Kavanaugh. Yesterday, I was probably as worked up as anybody. Today, I myself am calm, not that my state of mind matters, but because it seems to me to have resolved itself into a very simple matter involving only two points.

One is the point you just made beautifully. The hypocrisy is just obvious. Juanita Broderick texted a couple of days ago, wait a moment, they want the FBI to investigate a thin charge dating back 36 years for which the only other eyewitness says it never happened. What about my charges against Bill Clinton? All right, the hypocrisy is obvious. And then the second point seems to me it's gotten really pretty simple how it will play out next week, what Senator Grassley will do. I don't know, but it actually seems pretty simple. The entire jurisprudential system in this country is based on the presumption of innocence. I know the Senate is not a court, but the presumption of innocence represents an ideal in and of itself. I know the Senate is not a court, but the presumption of innocence represents an

ideal in and of itself. The charge comes from one person. There are two people that she said were eyewitnesses or participants, Brett Kavanaugh himself and a third party, who, according to her own account, were involved. Both deny it. You could say Brett Kavanaugh would. The other witness says, his words are effectively, this is crazy. 36 years ago, absolutely unprovable. She can't remember the time. She can't remember the place. You simply cannot permit, we as a nation simply cannot permit the nation's business to be held up by a mere accusation that is untestable,

unprovable, unverifiable, uninvestigatable, particularly when the accuser, given every chance to come forward to elucidate her charges, is so far playing this kind of cagey game. You just can't let the nation's business be held up in this way. So as I say, it just seems pretty simple. Talking about somebody who just doesn't get it, Peter, this is the nation's business. Ensuring that this sort of thing leaps over every previous standard that we have for justice and adjudication and nomination, that's our nation's business. Rob, surely you agree.

I mean, are you going to say also you're all about the law and the Constitution? There is no law here. There's no law. I mean, that is why we're in the fix we're in. I mean, there are no facts to be found. There are no tests to be run. There's no blue dress. There's none of that. There is no search for truth because there's going to be no truth. It's 36 years ago. And everybody knows that, which is why it's absolutely perfect if what your goal is, is to delay this entire enterprise. And as Peter said, hold up the people's business. It is a perfect situation because there is nothing that can happen. What this is, is show business, and it's actually pretty smart.

I got to say, considering just how low we have sunk in our political life, and I believe that the left and the right have a lot to answer for that, it's a smart move for the Democrats. They have a losing hand in the Senate. The best thing they can do is put on a big slap-bang show that covers everybody in mess. That's the idea. They've learned this from the president of the United States, right? You make a big enough mess. You make a big enough noise. You're disruptive enough.

Something – we can. Something good will happen. All of these arguments that she's making now, this woman – and by the way, I believe her. I believe something happened to her. I don't think you just make this up. I don't believe that Brett Kavanaugh was involved, but I think – you don't write this out of thin air. I think something happened. And so I'm tempering my sympathy with her.

In any other context, I would find her the world's – one of the world's most irritating people because of this insistence that she be styled Dr. Ford. She's not a doctor. She is a psychologist. I hate it when people. Ford. She's not a doctor. She is a psychologist. I hate it when people with PhDs insist on becoming a doctor. That is actually a – for me, that is a red flag that there's something wrong with that person. But anyway, all right. So she's – what is she arguing? What is she demanding from the Senate?

She's demanding everything that a star of a movie demands. I get to talk as long as I like. I get to come last. I get final cut and I get my billing. That's what she's demanding. And the reason why these things are – I'm putting them in Hollywood terms is because this is a show.

They're going to put on a show and they're going to hope at the end of the show we're all so sick of it. We're happy to say, just Brett Kavanaugh, stop fighting, just go away. Everything just go away. And then they'll have delayed enough that the next person who's going to be more conservative at the Senate that the president nominates, by definition, he's going to nominate the most conservative judge you can find. They're going to try to do that again and they're going to try to do that again and again and again until they have enough scalps to make up for merrick garland or until they win the senate back but that's what this is this is a show this is a soap opera no one's looking for the truth

here there isn't any truth right by the way let's stipulate i think all three of us agree with this but we should probably say it out loud if there were any facts that could be investigated if she named a time and a place and that were possible to figure out, to work out whether that time and place were of the site of a party 36 years. There's just nothing that the FBI or anybody else can investigate. Therefore, the only way to adjudicate this is the constitutional process of the Senate of the United States. And the only way for them to proceed is to have her testify and use their own judgment. And Senator Grassley has said we will do this in closed session or open session. Your choice.

We will do it in Washington over the telephone. Your choice. But we must do it soon. They've been even more accommodating, right? They could not have been. They have said in person, over the phone, open or private. They've even said, which to me felt like the minute she rejected this, I knew they were doing a TV. I knew they were trying to do a show.

They said, why don't we do this? We'll find counsel. You could be questioned by the committee counsel. We don't have to talk to any senators at all. So there's no Cory Booker. Nobody's making any speeches. You can just answer the questions from counsel. And she rejected that. She wants a show or whoever's advising her wants a show. They want it to be riveting and

smearing and utterly exhausting. And I suspect that as horrible as that is, this is a smart strategy in America in 2018. Oh, it's very smart. It's very smart. The fun part of it is, though, is to see exactly how many norms are going to get shredded over the last of the next two years. I mean, between civility, law, process, the rest of it, everything's being put into the mangle, as the British say. And what comes out at the end of it is, well, we'll see.

Two years from now, we'll be having this podcast. We'll be lamenting the good old days of 2018 when everything seemed so secure and traditional, right? Hey, listen, we want to tell you about something that's good to eat, and that's meat. Butcher Box, they're the place. They deliver healthy, 100% grass-fed and grass-finished beef, free-ranged organic chicken, and heritage-breed pork directly right to your door. And the incredible quality of Butcher Box, well, the meat starts with its commitment to raising animals humanely, free of antibiotics and hormones. Each box comes with at least 8 to 11 pounds of meat, which is enough for 24 individual-sized meals.

Now, here's how they work. First, choose your curated box from ButcherBlock, including a mix of high-quality beef, chicken, or pork, or you can just customize your own box. The meat's frozen at the peak of freshness in individual vacuum-packed biodegradable packaging, and each box is shipped to you with a carefully calculated amount of dry ice to ensure it remains frozen after it reaches you. So if it sits on the door for a while before you get home, it'll still be frozen when you get there. All the meat delivered right to your doorstep for free. ButcherBox delivers grass-fed and grass-finished beef, as I noted, free-range organic chicken, heritage Greek pork, and all of the meats are antibiotic and hormone-free. ButcherBox believes in a healthier food system where everyone has access to meat the way nature intended, free of those antibiotics and hormones and humanely raised.

So you can cook with peace of mind, knowing you're feeding your family healthy, high-quality meat. Now, ButcherBox carefully curates the finest selections and cuts and makes it a breeze to customize your own delivery. Build your own box. Choose exactly what you want, when you want it, and your family will love it. In fact, think of ButcherBox as your neighborhood butcher with their quality beef, chicken, and pork delivered right to your door. And you can choose your delivery frequency, by the way. It's up to you. Each box includes recipe cards, tips, tricks to help create quality meals.

What a bargain. And remember, the ButcherBox difference. ButcherBox meats come from humanely raised animals and are never fed antibiotics, hormones, or fatty fillers. As I've said before, when I have these steaks, usually I have this little trick where I leave the steak out, I rub it with butter and garlic and the rest of it. I just take a

ButcherBox steak, put it right on the grill without doing anything to it, and it's fantastic. So join us, those of us who've experienced this $20 off your first box, two pounds of free ground beef in every box for the life of your subscription. Did you hear me? Two pounds free ground beef, every box for the life of your subscription. Go to butcherbox.com slash ricochet and enter the promo code ricochet. That's butcherbox.com ricochet promo code ricochet. And for ButcherBox.com, Ricochet, promo code Ricochet.

And for people who are already ButcherBox subscribers, you'll have a specialty on Ground Beef where you can take... At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you.

That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to 10 euro if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing cheltenham with live score bet this is total betting sign up by 2 p.m 14th of march bet within 48 hours of race main market excluding specials and place bets terms apply bet responsibly 18 plus gambling care.e advantage just log into your account and take a look and there you go thanks to butcher box sponsoring this the ricochet podcast now we welcome to the podcast Bill McGurn.

He's the member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, writes the weekly Main Street column for the journal every Tuesday. Previously, he served as chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Welcome. Thank you. You had a tweet a while ago, first rule of Washington was to never bet against Ed Whelan. Well, what exactly happened there? Well, it blew up. I think Ed oversold the information he had. And now, unfortunately, I think, you know, Ed is under siege from this. Hold on, boy. Somebody just needs to do the basic blocking and tackling. Who's Ed Whelan and what did he do on Twitter?

Ed Whelan runs the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He's a Harvard lawyer. He's generally been involved in the judicial nominations. And what he did is actually take Dr. Ford's testimony seriously. And he tried to locate a home that was owned by a classmate of Brett Kavanaugh's whose floor plan fit the description. But no one supported this. And I'm not going to name the person here.

But he named the person that was there. And now he's being savaged for it. So, Ed, just to sum it up, Bill, before Rob comes in, Ed Whelan, who's a friend of, I think think everybody here, was certainly a friend of Brett Kavanaugh, suggested on Twitter that there was someone who looked like Kavanaugh, who was a classmate of Kavanaugh. And I think Senator Hatch mentioned that. And I think Brett might have. I'm not sure about this. I don't want to. But I think he might have held. Maybe she's confusing me with someone else.

But again, we're talking about stuff so many years ago. Right. You know, and Ed is being savage now. And he's a decent man. And the glee with which he is being savaged really I find disturbing. Hey, Bill. It's Rob Long. So here's my question. Because I read those series of Ed's tweets, and I hit refresh and refresh on my phone so I could follow it.

It was very gripping. And it's exactly what you would do, exactly what you would do, maybe save for naming the owner of the house, if you were a defense counsel. That's exactly what you would do. You're exactly right. No one is interested in the truth or falsity of this. He may have done better for himself.

Look, what you say, put it this way, if you're the FBI, you have no leads to go on except the names of the people that Dr. Ford says were in the room. She says it's Brett Kavanaugh, herself, and Mark Judge. And that's all you have, plus that this was near a country club. And he did, as you say, what an investigator would do. First of all, he looked at all the people, the names, and they're between four and seven miles away, I think. So it's hard to reconcile that with being near the country club. And then I think they looked at other people. There's also a lot of, remember there's a lot of human testimony. We don't know about other classmates and so forth. I don't know it. I'm not privy to that. Um, and, um, uh,

of who might've been at a party and so forth. And then you found, find a house that lo and behold is in the vicinity where she describes in the floor plan seems to match. I mean, at this point, I think no one cares about, you know, whether it's true. It's just, it's just been a disaster. So, um, and I, again, um, Ed is being savage and he's a very decent man. Um, he oversold this. I mean, I, I, I, uh, sort of bought before he released it what he was saying, just because he's generally a very sober guy that wouldn't do this. Also, the idea that Ed Whalen did this on his own is just insane. You know, I think what happened is that some of the people found this information and they were trying to get the press interested.

The press was not interested or they couldn't be bothered to do any investigation. So Ed said, I'll put it out there in my name. And now he's fallen on his sword because he doesn't want himself to become the excuse for Brett Kavanaugh not to take his seat on the Supreme Court. But isn't that exactly what, as you said, an investigator – first of all, the FBI is no jurisdiction here. They wouldn't investigate this even if people believe the crime had taken place i mean isn't it amazing to you that of all of the actors in this play including pretty much all the senators um dr ford herself her counsel her advisors the only person who actually has made an attempt to find out what happened that night is Ed Whalen. I couldn't agree with you more, Rob.

And unfortunately, no one's interested in – as we see from this process, it's a political process, and no one's interested in the truth or something. Yeah, so I know Peter wants to jump in, but could you just walk me through a possible – two possible scenarios. One is because it's over the weekend now. We don't know what's going to happen. We don't know if there's going to have a vote. We don't know if she's going to come in and talk. We don't know what's going to happen, right? But he gets – he squeaks in, and people keep saying, oh, but he has a cloud over his head, which is sort of a meaningless thing to say about a lifetime appointment at the Supreme Court.

How bad is this in general for the business and civility of America? That's my first question. Second, he gets – it's tarnished. It's horrible. It's a giant mudfest. It's exactly what the Democrats want, which is a huge dramatic soap opera in which he's portrayed as the villain. He withdraws. How many senators take a stand, yay or nay, which is what their job is supposed to be, and then filling other seats as they come up. I think if the Republicans surrender on this, the fury of the Republican voter, the Republican voters, I don't think, will blame the Democrats. I mean, they won't like Dianne Feinstein and all these other people, but they will see it as another Republican cave-in. And to one extent, they're right.

The Democrats cannot defeat Brett Kavanaugh. They don't have the votes. Only the Republicans, by which I mean an errant Republican or two, can defeat Brett Kavanaugh. So I think also some of the people are criticizing Chuck Grassley for giving another extension, you know, for these, I don't know how many he's given, five or something, extensions. I don't think he's trying to appease Dr. Ford. I think he's trying to shore up whatever wobbly senators he may have on his committee. They need, you know, the 11 votes in the committee, and they need 50 votes in the Senate, you know, and Pence can break a tie. So that's what they're

aiming. Everything else is sort of beside the point. But to the first point you opened up about this cloud, I think one of the skunky things about this is, I mean, Peter will remember the Clarence Thomas nomination, right? If I'm right, remember the Clarence Thomas nomination right I if I'm right I I believed Clarence Thomas was never accused of actual harassment sexual abuse or any kind of unwanted touching or anything I think it was nothing having scrapped graphic conversations and and things like that in the atmosphere and I just read it the other day. The two FBI agents who interviewed Anita Hill issued an affidavit at the time

saying that what she said in her testimony was at odds with what she had said in their interview with her. The reason Clarence Thomas was installed and seated is partly he gave a great speech saying, I'm not going to answer any more questions. You vote how you want. But because no one believed Anita Hill. The polls at the time show it. And now we have all these people sort of suggesting Anita Hill was right, you know,

because people don't remember what's going on. My wife pointed out, we were watching, Rob appreciated, we were watching Jerry Maguire again, you know, the Tom Cruise movie about the sports agent. And in the middle of that, there's a nasty little aside about Clarence Thomas being some kind of pervert or sicko. So it doesn't matter what the truth is. And I fear that that's what's in store for Brett, even if he gets put on the court. I think someone, I also think someone this week described Thomas as a predator. I mean, even if you believe everything Anita Hill said, that is not a word that you would apply to Clarence Thomas.

Oh, no, it delegitimizes everything that he does, and it also means that they can point to him and Thomas in saying the Republicans have put two sexual predators on the court to deal with women's issues. And Roe. Which is the holy grail. I mean, someday, you know, anthropologists studying us are going to wonder about Roe.

I mean, Supreme Court nominees, Republican nominees are never asked, like, are you going to uphold the law and the Constitution? They go from Democrat to Democrat and have to kneel at the altar of Roe, that Roe is somehow sacrosanct. I mean, everything is about Roe. It's incredible. And I don't think Brett Kavanaugh is a radical who would heave it over in one swoop. He may chip away at it because it's such a bad decision along with Planned Parenthood.

But that's what they believe. It's the one thing that Democrats believe in. Well, it's not just that, I think. I think there's more to that. I think that they would give up the entire Constitution in a guarantee for sustained abortion, income redistribution, and a couple of the – because the Constitution – I think they've already given up the Constitution. Oh, for sure. Well, it stands in the way of the good things, and therefore –

Exactly. Peter, speaking of doctrine, I think you had some questions, did you not, about how the Catholic Church scandal is sitting in middle America and whether there's parallel with the Kavanaugh case? Bill, we plan to have you on. I'm sorry, about the sex scandals. Yeah, I think – In the church. We plan to have you on to talk about the pope and the church, but the Kavanaugh thing is so swamp things. So let me just ask you this.

You're a devout Catholic. You've been paying it. There's a synod coming up. We have a scandal taking place. Can you sort of describe for the rest of us? I'm Catholic, but I don't follow this as closely as you do. Can you describe the current state of play for the rest of us and what you think the American bishops ought to do

and what they will do? Three little assignments for you, Bill. Okay. Well, the first overarching thing is I think the American bishops need to tell the truth. You know, you said I'm a devout Catholic. That means I'm a sinner like my fellow people at the altar out there, right? I don't claim to be perfect. But we can't do anything.

We can't have dialogues until we have truth. And there's a lot of confusion out there. I think the bishops in 2002, when they reached this new protocol in Dallas about how to deal with priestly abuse, they largely fixed that problem. I mean, if you look at the cases, my understanding is that, for example, the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, that I think it names close to 700 victims, right? And it spans 70 years. But my understanding is that under two dozen of those victims have occurred since 2002. And now they're referred to both discipline within the church and with the law, if that's appropriate. So I think this isn't about priestly abuse. The priestly abuse is old, at least in the United States. In other countries, it's more current.

The priestly abuse is really the old story. What's new is that the lies continue. What the Pennsylvania report on earth is how the bishops didn't tell us the truth. We're learning about all these secret settlements. I mean, Cardinal McCarrick rose to a cardinal's hat, the Archbishop of Washington, and entry into the highest circles with all the stuff that people knew, both in abuse of a minor that he baptized, which is really monstrous. Some young boy that he started, the accusation is that he started molesting him around 11. And seminarians, whom Uncle Teddy used to call to his bed. So I think people want answers. It's very distressing to see the Pope not only not give answers, but say that the people who want the truth are allied with Satan,

the father of lies. It's really extraordinary. So I think people, I'm not going to speak for other, like, speak for me. I'm very demoralized. I don't think, we're supposed to be the people who believe the truth shall set you free. And a lot of people are not behaving that way. So, Bill, one more question. Now, Cardinal DiNardo, who is the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,

I have my doubts about whether such a conference should exist, but it exists. They elected him. He's the president. He's the Cardinal Archbishop of Houston, I believe. In any event, he's a Texan. And, oh, within the first week or so after this news about Cardinal McCarrick broke and then Archbishop Vigano wrote a long letter accusing a number of people, including Francis himself, of having known about McCarrick and dealt with him anyway. Cardinal DiNardo issued a statement calling for answers based on evidence and requested an audience with the Pope. The Pope delayed and delayed and delayed, but finally he granted DiNardo an audience, but there has been no word from the Vatican or from Cardinal DiNardo

of any investigation that's actually going to examine evidence. So what's going on there? The Cardinal would like, the Vatican has some powers. I'm not as au courant on what the Vatican can do under canon law, but I know they can send a visitation. They have a lot more powers than the bishops have as a collective. As you say, the Conference of Bishops is really,

it's almost useless. It doesn't have any power. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting.

Sign up by 2pm, 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie What people forget is that the Catholic Church is not structured, you know, like IBM. We have the central office, global office in Rome,

and, you know, offices around the world where these guys are head of operations for America or something. It's not that way. The truth is that bishops are really popes in their own diocese. A bishop is a very powerful position, and they're each responsible for their own diocese, and they have almost unlimited authority, which is why Rome very seldom intervenes unless it's a really egregious breach. You know, a lot of traditional Catholics, you know, when there's an abuse,

they see it and they wonder why Rome doesn't come in. Well, the local bishop has a lot of power and a lot of responsibility. Unfortunately, they haven't exercised it. So I think there'll be some sort of investigation in the United States. It would have a lot more effect if the Pope would direct one from Rome, for example, ordering all the bishops to comply when people want evidence. But it doesn't look like we're going to get that. You know, the other thing is that there are a lot of pious Catholics who don't like this because of questioning of the Pope. And, you know, there's sort of a common but erroneous belief among ordinary Catholics that when a Pope is selected, it's the Holy Spirit's choice and he's the best pick.

And, you know, Benedict wrote about this when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. I mean, that's kind of ridiculous if you look at some of the bad popes we've had over history. If you're a Catholic, the Holy Spirit's promise is even if you pick a dud, the gates of hell won't prevail, right? And that seems like a far easier proposition to defend.

And I personally feel there's no reason to believe that bad popes stopped in the 16th century. Well, no one believes he's a borgia but maybe they're wondering whether or not he's a i don't know uh you know a red over here in the lutheran side of things we just think you know popes are popes but within the catholic church from what i'm reading i read rod dreher on this uh there's a lot of push back to what they regard as francis's agenda and they're circling the wagons around him because just as in America,

as in everywhere in the West, you have a leftist idea that is corrupting the institution and leading to the diminution of standards in favor of this egalitarian, wonderful future. I mean, how much of Francis's theology, his ideology circulates as an issue of concern among the Catholics that you know, or do they just think, hey, it's great, he's the Pope? No, I haven't met many in the it's great category. And I think you're right to draw a connection between theological confusion and some of the other things going on. For example, this disastrous zeal with Beijing. Look, the Pope's job, if there is a job for the Pope, is to be the final voice of clarity. Here's what we teach, right? That's what Catholics believe. Here's what we teach, and the Holy Father has spoken. And he won't clarify. You know, the

scandal of his teaching on marriage, changing the teaching of the Eucharist at the heart of the Church. I mean, it's in a footnote, and cardinals are asking him, can you please tell us, be specific, what this means? Does it mean what the Argentine bishops are saying, the Bishop of Malta is saying, or does it mean what other people are saying? And he won't do it. He won't even meet with these people, yet he finds time to meet with Bono about global capitalism.

Exactly. Well, speaking of global capitalism, we'll continue to read the Wall Street Journal and your column in it. And thank you for joining us today for the Ricochet podcast. We'll see you later, Bill. Okay, thank you.

Bill, thank you. You know, he was talking about that disastrous deal with China, meaning that China now gets to pick the bishops. Hey, that's great. Let's give a totalitarian regime the control of a religion. And Google. Google is doing the same thing, right? I mean, Google was working with China to develop a search engine that would automatically tell the government the phone number of the people who were dialing up things like Google Freedom.

Wonderful. But Google, of course, tells us that they're not evil. And they have to just – the spinal contortions necessary to believe these things. You could never fall asleep. No, you couldn't. The spinal contortions would be so uncomfortable. Absolutely couldn't. But then again, you can't really sleep very well anyway because mattresses just stink.

A little behind the scenes here for folks. This is the fifth – because of technical difficulties. This is the fifth because of technical difficulties. This is the fifth time we've done that. So Rob knew exactly where I was going and had ample time to ruin it before I got there, but he's right. You do want a mattress that's going to help you sleep at night, and I do sleep well. Good conscience,

good bed. Casper, that's why. Casper is a sleep brand. Well, Casper is the sleep brand that makes expertly designed products designed to give you your best rest one night at a time. Now, the experts at Casper, they work tirelessly to make a quality sleep surface that cradles your natural geometry in all the right places. After all, you spend one-third of your life sleeping, if you're lucky, so you should be comfortable, right? The original Casper mattress combines multiple supportive memory foams for a quality sleep surface with the right amounts of both sink and bounce. It's got a breathable design that helps you sleep cool. It regulates your body temperature throughout the night. Well,

Casper, in addition to all these wonderful things I've just described, now gives you two other mattress options, the Wave and the Essential. The Wave features a patent-pending premium support system that helps mirror the natural shape of your body. And the Essential has a streamlined design at a price that won't keep you up at night. All Casper products are designed, developed, and assembled in the United States. Prices are affordable because Casper cuts out the middleman and sells directly to you, the consumer. And every Casper mattress is delivered right to your door in a small, how do they do that, box that contains the future of your sleep. There's free shipping. There's hassle-free returns in the US and Canada. And there's even more. You can be sure of your purchase with Casper's 100-night risk-free

sleep on it trial. So however many years Caspers have existed, I've been sleeping on a Casper. And I have to tell you, everybody I talk to, sort of contorting the back of their spine at work and trying to knuckle in that spot that just never gets enough i ask them if they have a casper and none of them do and i tell them they had to get one because they'd sleep better and be happier and i should also have told them the coupon code right it's ricochet $50 off select mattresses by visiting casper.com slash ricochet. Using the promo code ricochet at your checkout gets you $50 off. That's casper.com slash ricochet. Promo code ricochet for $50 off select mattresses.

Terms and conditions, of course, apply. Our thanks to Casper for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. And now we welcome back to the podcast Bob Cost, a national political reporter covering the White House, Congress, and campaigns, and a host of other places for the Washington Week in Review on PBS. Follow him at Twitter, at Costa Reports. Bob, you tweeted this week about China. We're all looking at the Kavanaugh situation, but it turns out that the trade war is not just on. It's escalating, and there are repercussions for the relationship and for American consumers.

Give us a little bit more information, could you? It is the major global story, this trade war. I mean, I cover Kavanaugh, that confirmation process, and covering the tensions between the Department of Justice and President Trump. All of those are huge stories. But you've got President Xi Jinping over in China dealing with a communist party that has wavering popularity with a lot of the Chinese people. They're trying to compete with this

president who's so outside of the norm in President Trump. And they're doing their retaliation with their tariffs about the president's policies, but it's not always been easy for China for every point in this battle to really compete with the United States. And it's led to this collapse in the trade talks, which could have real economic consequences for all involved. Are the economic consequences worse for them or for us? I mean, after all, they need access to our markets. They have tariffs on our goods that people say are simply ridiculous. I

mean, what is the tariff on American cars going into China? 25%. And it's what coming out the other way to us, it's 2.5. And there are people who say that China for a long time has gamed the rules and tried to take advantage of the WTO in order to be a big power. But why should we subsidize them anymore? In other words, I'm not asking you to make a judgment on that, but are we going to have a conversation in which these are actually the issues, or are we just going to have a conversation about how Trump is wrecking everything with his wild tariff scheme? How is it playing out in the Washington media so far? Well, that's a provocative point because you have a lot of assumptions in Washington, in both parties, really, that the president's trade war with China is going to have a political cost.

And that is the voters in the Midwest and in Maine and all these different farming areas are going to revolt against President Trump because when they see the retaliation from China, they're going to say too much. Let's end it, this trade war. But we're seeing some of that, but we're not seeing an overwhelming majority, at least in our anecdotal reporting of a turn on Trump on trade. Your point about how all this has been building over the years, frustration with China, that there's actually an acceptance, even support on elements of the right and left for the Trump administration as they do these expansive tariffs. And they're levying billions of dollars on Chinese products. And you see the president determined to hold the line. He doesn't have a core ideology, but if he had a core

ideology, trade would be right there. I mean, trade is an instinct for him. It's a piston of his presidency. And yeah, Peter Robinson, let me ask about that very point. You've got Larry Kudlow, on the one hand, who all his life has been a free trader. He's a member of the administration. And his argument seems to be tariffs are okay as if we're using them to negotiate to get to freer, fairer trade. He's won. On the other hand, you've got the economist Peter Navarro, also in the White House, and he clearly believes in tariffs and protectionism as a good in and of itself. So trade talks break down. You've got one element in the White House led by Larry that thinks that's bad. We need to restart those talks.

We've got to get to freer trade. And then you've got another element led by Navarro that says, fine, let them break down. We're happy to impose protectionism. What is the mind of the president whom you know better than any journalist and have known longer? That's kind of you, Peter. I mean, I think back to our conversation at Stanford, great conversation. The interesting thing about the trade dynamics you just laid out there, Peter, is that we talked back then when Trump was just coming into office about the fault lines in the White House between the so-called globalists and the Bannonites. And that was stylistically and politically a division that really animated this administration early on. But on trade, when you talk about Kudlow and Navarro being on opposite sides, it's more murky because Larry Kudlow to me is so indicative of where this administration really is. You have Larry Kudlow saying the president is right to be tough, that China must lower its tariff and non-tariff barriers, stop stealing

American intellectual property. You have Kudlow, free market to his core. I mean, we all know him. This is who he is. But he believes that President Trump is using these tariffs as a negotiating tactic and in a backward kind of sideways way is protecting American business. And to have Kudlow come along, Mr. CNBC host and Wall Street, to have him kind of in lockstep with the president, he doesn't sound like Peter Navarro, but in essence, they're all kind of together. Hey, Bob, it's Rob Long in New York. Thank you for joining us. So here's my real question. Who wrote that op-ed in The New York Times? The reason I'm asking is because that doesn't that seem like 20,000 million billion years ago? And so how do you do your job? I mean I really mean that.

Like how do you keep all these plates in the air? It seems to me like right now it's all about Kavanaugh. It's 24-7 Kavanaugh. You're trying to talk about what will I think in many ways be a more meaningful or certainly have more impact on people's wallets, crisis in trade, international trade. Do you feel like people are saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, China, China, forget, forget. Brett Kavanaugh, I mean, is that what's happening now? Is it kind of like we've become this ADD culture? Or is it just a specific Trump-related kind of neurosis right now that we can't focus on anything for more than five days?

It is the question. I mean, I raise that question to myself every day as a reporter. I mean, Washington is now obsessed with Kavanaugh and who was involved in this mistaken identity theory, who was involved, who's involved in PrEP. is dr ford going to testify or not but other people in my family have followed nothing about this and are watching notre dame play way forward right i got friends on in the business world all they want to talk to me about is trade and they think cavanaugh is interesting but they say whether it's cavanaugh or somebody else there'll be a conservative judge in the Supreme Court. So it's not that big of a thing for them.

You're right. And it's in the New York Times anonymous op-ed. I mean, it's not that long ago. It's within this month. You had Bob Woodward's fear, the New York Times op-ed. And now you have the Rod Rosenstein story in the New York Times, whether Rosenstein was joking or not, we can debate. But Rosenstein was talking about maybe even calling up the 25th Amendment or wearing a wire during meetings with President Trump. So he had this, as Woodward put

it in his book, this kind of a thought of an administrative coup d'etat around president Trump, all of everything else is coming. It's a, it's a deluge of information. Uh, I think we're all swimming in it in a way. And one of the things I always tell my colleagues at the post is I debate with them. Are we kind of forgetting how historically interesting Trump is that for all of his scandal, controversy, political problems, right? Right. Kind of seeing the rupturing of a major American party and the Republican Party. He is, in a way, our first independent president.

Issues like traitor at the forefront in a way they never have. It's kind of a fascinating, if wild, political time. But we're so, you're right, I think, mired up in these kind of day-to-day dramas. It's true. I mean, if you look at the Trump political profile, he kind of represents this synthesis of Dick Gephardt's early runs for president and the Perot platform. He is in many ways the first independent president. But I guess what I'm confused with, just to talk about politics for a minute, just the straight politics of it.

If Brett Kavanaugh goes down, the next one up is probably going to be even more conservative, which won't suit the Democrats much. If he sticks around, then basically the Republicans get to sort of really reconstruct the court. They're probably going to get one more. I mean they could get one more um what's the just take take aside for a minute the the idea that there's any any human story here that there's any interest in the truth that there's anything about people's character and and uh and whatever the troubles they've suffered or the way men and women in the 80s 90s and today interact just all the all the moral stuff, take a side. Just let's look at it as pure politics. Who's winning here?

I mean, it depends. I mean, right now Republicans are going to – they've been winning because they have the congressional majorities. They have the congressional majorities they have the white house uh the party is more in step with themselves than we've seen in any major political party for a long time i mean every poll after poll shows republicans united behind president trump and the way he's taking the party but the democrats are about if they win the house they have subpoena power could even win the senate Senate. I don't rule that out. It's possible. And I feel like we're on the edge of this total reckoning, whereas the Democrats take over the House. President Trump is, knowing him and covering him over the years, this could be a real turning point because you'll have the Democrats on Capitol Hill with real power,

and you'll have a Mueller report from the special counsel investigation likely coming out at some point right after the elections. I mean, talk about injecting real controversy and chaos into our political system. It's hard to say how that plays out and who's winning. But for now, Republicans have mostly ticked off a lot of things on their checklist. So, Bob, Peter here, just to sum this up, it's just amazing. I think what you're telling us is the ride has been unprecedentedly wild and rough, and it's about to get wilder and rougher. Democrats recapturing the House, more likely than not right now? More likely than not. Okay. Republicans making no gains in the Senate,

more likely, is that the way it's looking right now? Whatever the outcome is. Go ahead. It could be a 50-50 Senate. Maybe Republicans hold on. I think Republicans could keep their majority in the Senate, but it's up for grabs. I mean, a guy like Joe Donnelly, I think, is probably in a tough spot, but could come back in the final few weeks. There are a few candidates out there that Democrats have that are pretty good. I think Bill Nelson may be in real trouble in Florida. So I think the Senate's narrowly divided, whichever way it goes. Narrowly divided, but possible that the Democrats take the Senate.

And then we've got the Mueller report coming down. Okay. So does anybody in the White House, does the president, this is just the craziest question. I'm about to ask basically whether the president understands the Constitution. Do they know what Don McGahn, out the door, the White House counsel after this Kavanaugh, whoever it ends up being, if it's not Kavanaugh, is done. You have Emmett Flood, the new White House associate counsel, who is familiar with impeachment issues, worked on the Clinton stuff in the 90s, but he's kind of a lone wolf right now just trying to think ahead to how to deal with executive privilege and protecting the presidency in the White House should the Democrats have subpoena power. But politically, you have Bill Shine, a former Fox News producer and executive,

trying to help out, do these little videos that the president posts on Twitter of him talking in the Rose Garden every few days. And that's kind of what Shine's doing, and he's setting the president up with some friendly interviews here or there. But there's no real cohesive strategy. I mean, the real political strategy is inside this White House. It's Kellyanne Conway who ran the Trump campaign. But there's also the president himself, and his whole mentality, based on people who have spoken to him, and that he's so relentless and willing to take on any comer that it will just be total political war.

But he's being pulled back for now from firing Mueller, from firing Rosenstein. But that's like the target this weekend. We're always on the brink of something. I mean, this New York Times story, does it trigger the president to fire Rosenstein, who runs the Russia probe? And we really don't know. And the president, having covered him, he really is liable to make decisions on a moment's notice, on a gut instinct, without much planning. And to think the Democrats running Capitol Hill, think about Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, all being yanked up with subpoenas to testify under oath about the Russia investigation, about the agencies, about spending, about their father's conduct,

the president's conduct. If you think this has been a wild year and a half, two years, just wait. Just wait. Bob, while this stuff is fascinating to those of us who follow politics and love D.C. and hate D.C. and have been watching this stuff all of our lives, to most people out there, there are turning against the president and the Republicans because of some perceived thing about them that is Trumpy. Have you ever seen a cycle in which the economy doesn't matter the way it seems to be not mattering this time? Well, I think it may matter, though. I think, James, that if the Democrats only end up winning, let's say, a 10 to 15 or 20 seat majority, they may cheer, but that will be highly disappointing for Democrats in a traditional midterm year to only pick up a few seats. kind of like the Republican disappointment in 1998 when Clinton bounced back. The Democrats have a worry when you talk to their consultants, the party's moving in the Democratic socialist

direction in some of these races, the party's so defined as anti-Trump, and the economy is strong, that if the wave's not that great, if it's more of a soft wave, then you're not going to have a huge mandate to go after Trump aggressively to have an impeachment process. That's why the economy does matter. I mean, I think it protects and insulates the president who, objectively speaking, steps on himself constantly. I mean, he's not out there talking about the economy day in, day out. He's fighting with a lot of his enemies day in, day out. And some of his supporters say he has to, has to defend himself.

It's the media who distracts from the economy. I know those arguments are made, but I think the economy actually has been much more of a boost for him in his poll numbers than he gets a lot of credit for. Interesting. Hadn't thought of that,

but that's why we listen to you and follow you on Twitter and read you and watch you on television and all the rest of it. Thanks, Bob, for joining us today. We'll have you on after the election, perhaps, and and all the rest of it. Thanks, Bob, for joining us today. We'll have you on after the election, perhaps, and get your take on it then.

Thanks, Bob. We're going to leave Peter behind here because apparently he has to run off to Logan's Run or something like that. I've got to get myself from Hanover, New Hampshire to Logan Airport in Boston to catch a plane back to California.

Thank you, boys. Okay. Well, goodbye. I see. I'll join you next week. Next week, Peter. Bye-bye. But you can stick around, folks, because Rob and I have something to say, which I'm going to tell you right after this.

I hope when Peter gets on the plane that he is seated next to somebody who hasn't doused themselves in Axe cologne before they got on because that's a lot to ask of somebody. When you walk around drenched in some fragrance that you bought off the shelf and everyone has to deal with it. No. I've always thought that wearing a fragrance was a very personal thing, which it is. So why would you want to go to something you can buy at the drugstore? This brings us to Fleur. And if you've been listening to the podcast, you know that we've been talking about this for a little while. And you know that maybe if you're a guy, you heard it,

then you didn't pay any attention to it because you don't spend a lot of time thinking about fragrance. You know, maybe you got your go-to stuff. It works for you. You got a little old spice there in the stick. But here's the thing, though. Women think about fragrance much more than men. And, in fact, they often report that what drew them to the man in the first place was how he smells. So it's time to ditch the body spray from college or that designer cologne that you picked up at the mall five years ago. Up your game. Now there's a fragrance company that will help you do exactly that, and that's Fleur. Instead of testing a strip of paper, you know, they do it at the mall,

they wave it at you and the rest of it, they ambush you in a busy department store. No, you get to know each of Fleur's scents through pictures, words, and music on their site. If you like what you hear and you like what you see, odds are you're going to like the scent. And then you actually try them on your own skin at home at your own place and pace and see how they develop over the course of the day. Each Fleur scent, it's created by world-class perfumers, inspired by real moments for your real life. And it's not some silly idea that a celebrity or clothing designer thinks up that you ought to live up to. No. All that matters is what you like. So you don't have to decode any fancy fragrance jargon to find something that's right for you.

The best part, Fleur is a completely transparent fragrance company. They tell you every ingredient in their product and why it's there. No secrets, no nasty chemicals, and no BS. I got the little kit that has the three flavors. Well, you know, that's almost it because they almost are that delicious. And I interchangeably go between the three of them because every one of them is different. Every one is different after a couple of hours, and I can't decide which of them that I like the best, so I just circle between the three, and you can do the same thing because these are award-winning,

sustainably crafted fragrances delivered with transparency at an honest price, and when you get these fragrances and try them on at home, the money you spend toward that little sample kit down the road, you can apply it to the perfume that you eventually choose. So go to Fleur.com today. Use the promo code RICO, R-I-C-O, to get 20% off your custom Fleur sample set. You pick three cents to try, and you get credit towards a full-size bottle of your favorite. Promo code RICO at Fleur.com to try three Fleur fragrances of your choice. And by the way, these are little tiny little half ounce, quarter ounce, millimeter things.

I've been using these for weeks, and I still have some left. 20% off. P-H-L-U-R.com. Fluor.com. And our thanks to Fluor for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. Well, Rob, you are in New York. This is how we always wanted it, without Peter. Now we can go blue. We can go blue, without Peter. Now we can go blue.

We can go blue, right? We can work blue. So I was going to ask you about – it had to do with – was there a Hollywood scandal this week? I can't keep straight. Well, there's a Hollywood scandal every week. There's like – Hollywood is a place where there are scandals. But the biggest scandals in Hollywood are always just the getting it all wrong and somehow squeaking by. Here's my new insight into Hollywood.

People here – people there. I'm in New York, but people in Hollywood who work in the entertainment business are always talking about how the audience – I think there's an audience moment for this or an audience moment for that, meaning there's an audience for this or that. The audience has changed. The audience is now more receptive to x or y and i always it always drives me insane and i got in a very very loud not even an argument because he was agreeing with me but a conversation with my agent of all people about this because i just i just if i hear this one more time in a meeting or even when i'm trying to pitch a show, my head will explode. The audience has not changed. The audiences don't change any more than people change.

People are pretty much the same. One of the things I was doing the last couple of weeks is rereading The Odyssey, which is a bazillion years old. And it is recognizable human desires, recognizable human failings, recognizable human courage. These are recognizable human beings and they went – an ancient Greek epic poem. People do not change. They like to laugh. They like to watch people on TV interact in a way that resembles real life, have conversation that resembles real life and there's something deeply hilarious about the so-called experts and the millionaires and the grandees in Hollywood trying to figure out what the audiences want when the audiences have been wanting the same thing for a thousand years. That's interesting.

I mean there are human basics. Yes, we want drama. We want conflict. We want heroism. We want all of these things. But there are all kinds of ways to massage the characters, literally not the character of it, but the characters themselves. I mean, you could say that 7, 10, 14 years ago, there suddenly was an audience for, what was that show, Will and Grace or something? Was that the first gay show? Kind of. What I'm talking about. The first one where they acknowledged it, yeah.

Right, yeah, okay. Because there have been others before, right. But, I mean, there was, you have changes in society that say, okay, now we're going to move the transgender show off of premium onto network. I mean, there has to be an evolution or the idea that people want to evolve. I'm using the term evolve with air of cold fingers here. I don't necessarily say that

everything that dissolves a previously established societal structure is an evolution. But that's what they think. I mean, so I get what you're saying, and I guess in my time-honored, mealy-mouthed, commit-to-nothing Minnesota way, I get what they're saying. But I think that there are things that signal changes in public attitudes or what people believe the attitude should be. Because I think a lot of people give lip service to things just simply people off their back so they don't right well will and grace is a good example because will and grace was essentially the most basic uh buddy comedy um you know the the the specifics of the

subject matter were were i mean maybe more modern in the sense that also now we can show single women um going on dates you know mary tyler moore Mary Tyler Moore. The reason – if you remember the Mary Tyler Moore set, it was a one-bedroom. It was a studio. And the reason it was a studio and she had a pull-out sofa was so that – because even in the early 70s, they wanted to make sure the audience knew she wasn't a tramp. Like there was nobody in her bedroom. Like if anybody was in her bedroom, you'd know it because she'd have her sofa pulled out. And that was the most – that was a really important thing to telegraph the show yeah the specifics i guess are the same but the actual formats i mean what you know will and grace is a very very popular buddy comedy um and now and then it came back and had a very very

very big uh couple of uh uh episodes in his premiere and now it's settled down to sort of ho-hum you know people think oh, just a buddy comedy. I got it. I guess what I mean is that in Hollywood, people say things – has said things in the 70s and 80s like, well, Americans don't want to watch comic books. They don't want any kind of comic books. They don't like it. Well, but you didn't put any on.

Put on something that's funny. People said for 15 years, oh, Americans, they don't want to watch multicam comedy, the sitcom, the traditional sitcom like Mary Tyler Moore or Cheers. They don't want to watch that. But you don't want any on. Put one on. Put one on that's good and see what happens. And when you do, guess what? You have an audience for it.

You have an audience for everything. People like variety. That's what they like. And unfortunately, that means that you'd have to take a lot of risk. And so usually what I, my general theory about the world comes through the prism of Hollywood. But one of the things that I'm sort of looking at and trying to think about since we're talking about what I'm thinking about these days is how many lies we tell ourselves and how many lazy ways out do we look for Because we can't accept the risk inherent in our business and our lives, right?

So in our business, in my business, there's no other way to get a hit TV show or hit movie than to risk. You've got to roll the with formulas and algorithms and automated ways of making big decisions, usually it's because they're afraid of the truth, which is that, hey, you just got to stick your neck out. Well, there's so much there for me to respond to. Yeah. Part of it is to say, are you saying then that by season four and season five, America was ready to believe that Mary Tyler Moore slept around because she moved to a place where we didn't see the bedroom? Yeah. Yeah. Yes.

I mean, the case can be made that we were comfortable that enough had changed between 69, 70 and 73, 74 that we were saying, all right, okay, fine. She probably had the guy over. The second thing is that I just think my – cast my mind back to the days when I hear what's in the background of your house. And the word tweeting doesn't mean descending into the cesspool, this cistern of acid and bobbing rotten vegetables that somehow yet is necessary because of the amount of information that it contains. And so what did we do before 2006, 2007? We wouldn't have dreamed that we'd be here now stabbing away at our little glass devices to get the latest hit. But I am trying to get away from it because, my gosh, I realize that I'm not happy when I'm there except when I'm reading. So once or twice a day, when I go in and I look and I see what some friends are saying and you know what you say

about change and risk and all the rest of it, you're, you're absolutely right. I over the course of the last two or three months or so have been stunned to find out that certain changes that were made against my will, just a course of life happening, have left me unaccountably liberated in ways that I didn't expect, possibly because I just thought the world was going to end and that would be over and I would just sit in a dark room and stare at a guttering flame. But that's not so. And so now I find myself enthused in ways that I didn't before.

But in a way, that almost makes me more risk averse because I don't want to upset what's going on here. It's great. So I can understand why people in your business don't want to risk because what's the point to it? You are going to simply open yourself up to failure and there's a lot of money and careers involved. And you end up like Chevy Chase with the Washington Post saying, why doesn't anybody want to work with him? Because he's a jerk. But the final thing, the final point is that you said that it's the variety. And nobody wants comic books.

Nobody wants a three-camera sitcom, et cetera. Apparently now we're in the age where no one wants variety because I grew up in the shows where there'd be a comedy skit and then there'd be the Hudson Brothers singing and then there'd be a tap dance. it was all ghastly and over lit and polyester and airsats and insincere but i'm waiting for that to come back as well the old variety show sure i think it should i mean also we don't know that people don't want it it's not on right do a good one find out well here's the thing we're told what people don't want because there are certain things that people shouldn't want we're in a great age of moral scolds more than i more than anybody is more than the 50s more than the pushback to the supposed 16 liberty the 60s libertinism we're in an age where we have moral moral scolds and disapproving pinch-faced blue noses than ever before and they're on the left that's the thing they're on the left they're the ones who believe that the right can't wait to corral everybody into a handmaid's tale dystopian future but they're the ones who

bitch and or moan when somebody comes up with sexy handmaid's tale costume for halloween because that's not funny because nothing's funny because everything has to be calculated against this outrage and a pro and an opposition and all the collision of their intersectional victimization rights. Anyway, that's what I say. And I take the opposite view, which is that everything's funny. I mean, it may be dark funny, but it can be funny. I agree, too. That's why BoJack Horseman is the finest piece of television on the air today.

And I say that because I know that Rob doesn't have a show on at this moment, so that's possibly it. Hey, one more thing to tell you, and I'm going to tell you in just a second. But first, I am going to remind you that this podcast was brought to you by ButcherBox, Fleur, and Casper. Support them, if you would, and support us by doing so. It's mutually beneficial to all. If you enjoyed the show, take a minute or three or ten, however long it takes, to write a review on iTunes. Because the reviews help new listeners discover us, which keeps the show going. Why we had a five-star review from George Bach, who said the following, this podcast provides a thoughtful counter to the general media

newscast one finds from CNN, WAPO, and the New York Times. While the journalists are of a conservative persuasion, they don't give the right-wing pablum served up by Fox commentators. The Ricochet hosts are deeply read, witty, and seek to provide insights into whatever topic is under discussion. Listen to it. Wow. Couldn't have written it better myself and I wouldn't have done so because natural, you know, Lutheran

modesty would prevent me from doing so. But Rob would have written that, right? I think I did write that. So, what's the next thing to hit Hollywood? What's the next – we're going to leave them with this. No idea. No idea.

If you could make – if you could walk in one of these things and convince them by waving a magic wand to do something that they're now currently afraid to do, what would it be? I'd just do a standard ensemble sitcom i just did the thing that has made uh has always worked since 2000 years um a little bit of everybody hanging out in the place um you know just that that's what i would do just i i don't think things don't have to be new they have to just be fresh why don't you set it in northern minnesota where the cheers or the photographs and the opening of cheers uh many of them were taken. That would be great. You could have it as a self-referential bar where they actually know that their stuff was used on the show Cheers. That's right.

They're mad about it. That would be perfect. Mad about it. There's a sitcom title, which we'll get Helen Hunt to be the bartender at this place. She'll be witty, but yet she'll be caustic and have a heart of gold, et cetera. All right, Rob, we've got to run. We've got to roll. Thank you for everything. Without Peter here to

say something decent and sweater and the rest of it. It's up to us. We should just end in a typical newspaper blunt Hollywood way. Screw you! Well, next week.

All right, bye-bye. There ain't nothing I can do or nothing I can say that folks don't criticize me. But I'm going to do Just as I want to anyway And don't care Just what people say

If I should take the notion To jump into the ocean Ain't nobody's business If I do If I go to church on Sunday Then cabaret all day Monday Ain't nobody's business if I do If my man ain't got no money

And I say take all of mine honey Ain't nobody's business If I do If I give him my last nickel And it leaves me in a pickle Ain't nobody's business If I do Well, I'd rather my man would hit me

Than for him to jump up and quit me Ain't nobody's business if I do I swear I won't call no copper if I'm beat up by my papa. Ain't nobody's business if I do. Nobody's business. Ain't nobody's business. Nobody's business if I do. Ricochet. Join the conversation.