The Ricochet Podcast - Mike Lee and Limbaugh

Episode Date: October 29, 2015

Got a post-debate hangover? We’ve got the cure with this week’s installment of the world-famous Ricochet Podcast. On deck for today’s installment: Ricochet Editor-In-Chief Jon Gabriel sits in for James Lileks and we welcome two powerhouse guests — Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) who recaps the debate, the House, Iran, and yes, mayonnaise. And then, our old pal David Limbaugh checks in with another... Source

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. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

It's the Ricochet Podcast with Rob Long and Peter Robinson. I'm James Lilacs and I'm not here, but who cares? You've got Representative Mike Lee and Rush Bro David Limbaugh. Let's have ourselves a podcast. There you go again. And on the line with me, as usual, is my co-founder, co-co-founder, Peter Robinson of Palo Alto. Peter, how are you? Actually, I'm getting over a rotten cold, so I may have to mute myself to cough from time to time. Aside from that, I'm very, very well. Where are you right now?

Are you in New York? I am in New York City, Peter. I am in glamorous, busy New York City in my little recording booth here where I record these things. And we are lucky because it's not just you and me, just not me and a sick guy. Busy New York City in my little recording booth here where I record these things. And we are lucky because it's not just you and me, just not me and a sick guy. It's me and Ricochet editor-in-chief John Gabriel from – are you in Scottsdale, John? I am in beautiful Mesa, Arizona, gateway to Apache Junction. Where is Mesa, Arizona?

The media hub of Mesa's uh just east of phoenix uh and right actually at borders uh scottsdale and uh tempe home of the harvard of the west arizona state where i graduated of course and uh yeah it's uh actually the third largest city in Arizona, but nobody has heard of it because it's a suburb. You're still in Mariposa County though, right? Yes. OK. So still – Maricopa. Yeah.

Got it. OK. Maricopa. Sorry. Notice Peter Robinson shutting off his knowledge of counties. Michael Barone is not today. Yeah, right. He just told me who I voted for in 1992.

He just sent me a message on Twitter. He knows. He knows. He knows Saul. This is the Ricochet Podcast. It is brought to you by Ricochet.com, and Ricochet.com is a great website where the smart, civil, center-right hash things out. If you have not been there, please go. If you are a member, we welcome you, and we are thrilled to have you as a member along with us. We are also brought to you by SaneBox. Is your email inbox out of control?

Get it back in control with SaneBox. I'm a SaneBox customer. I think so are you, Peter. It is a great product. More about that later. We are also brought to you by The Great Courses. The Great Courses are celebrating their 25th anniversary. They offer a lecture series over 500 subjects, including history, science, art, music, and

more. I hope one of those lectures is in truth and accuracy in debate moderation. We'll get to that in a minute. They are available on DVD, CD, streaming, digital downloads, or with The Great Courses apps. I personally like the digital downloads, but everybody has their own.

Go to thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet for your limited introductory price. We have another sponsor. We're lucky here. We've got some great sponsors. Casper Premium Mattresses. Premium mattresses for a fraction of the price delivered to your door. Casper's revolutionized the mattress industry by cutting the cost of dealing with resellers and showrooms and passing the savings directly on to the consumer.

We are also Casper customers. And you know who's a satisfied Casper customer? Kevin Williamson. He stopped me once uh in the middle of a thing at national review to tell me he loves his casper mattress so there you go um i'm now exhausted from all those pitches but i do have to tell you that if you were if you were not a member of ricochet.com go to ricochet.com membership use the coupon code member you get a free 30 days and um and you can try us out risk-free sign up for the daily

shot. Um, uh, and that's free too. And it helps you win any and all arguments with any left wingers you're going to encounter and you are going to encounter a bunch. That's the way the world works. Rob, before we leave the, before we depart from the pitches completely, may I tell you the only good thing about having to spend the last couple of days in bed? I don't even know how to answer that, but go ahead. My Casper mattress, of course. Seriously? Oh, wow. Seriously.

Seriously. All right, continue. No, I'm done. That's great. Oh, so you see, all I do is very politely add a little footnote and it throws you off. Can you imagine what you do to James? I don't want to hear that. All right.

Right. I don't think that's fair at this point because you are a passive participant. And for now to take James aside I think is wrong. And also we get stuff to talk about like the debate – you can't call it a debate really. Can you? No. What would you call what happened last night? The death of televised news perhaps.

CNBC was appalling. That was – it actually – it's kind of strange because it was the worst run debate. But the way that the Republican candidates were able to basically join together and gang up on the media made it the best debate. So it was highly entertaining. But it was highly entertaining. I also think in the end that it was really quite informative. What are we in the business of doing right now? We're in the business of trying to narrow the field to see who has strengths and where

the weaknesses lie and so forth. And although we will come to this for sure, the moderators were out of control. They were not – they were worse than out of control. They were amateurish. I know CNBC isn't the biggest – I know it's not Fox News. Let's put it that way. But can't they pay enough to attract real talent? They had their facts wrong.

They had – their timing was off. Their pacing was off. They did not have the rules down. It was just – all that aside, there were winners and losers last night. The winnowing of the field continues. I believe the winners were winners not on specious grounds but because they demonstrated actual characteristics that are useful in the presidency, the ability to think on their feet, the ability to push back when improper or undue arguments are being made.

I'll go ahead and name them. You'll have yours. Marco Rubio and my – the people who did best last night, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, they helped themselves. In my judgment, Donald Trump and Ben Carson treaded water. They were good enough. They didn't do any harm. Carly Fiorina, I believe, had yet another good night, but it wasn't quite as good a night as she had had in previous debates. And if in previous debates she was unable to break out and break deep into double digits in the polls, I doubt she'll be able to this time. crystallize what is already happening, which is we've got a field of about six. We started with 17 and we have about six real candidates now. That field does not include Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee or Rand Paul.

Who else am I leaving out here? Or John Kasich. John Kasich had his – John Kasich's moment was last night and he just didn't – I found him irritating. I agree. last night and he just didn't and i found this yeah i found him irritating i agree this is not the election cycle for uh um every if they can't begin every answer this is how i how i did it in washington um this is it was a very strange choice for him um i agree with that i i also i start to think two things one one i i uh maybe it's internalized stockholm syndrome or what but one of the gratifying things that happened last night was the general, general acceptance from traditional liberal media that the debate was ridiculous and CNBC covered themselves in shame. Just to read New York Times reporters say that, I think – I mean I know that doesn't validate it and it shouldn't validate it. But in a sense, I know it must hurt CNBC more that they can't ghettoize that opinion.

So I was really pleased to see – I woke up and slipped to Twitter. I saw all these sort of lefties saying, yeah, yeah, crappy, crappy debate. I thought, well, they don't care that the right-wing thinks that. But they do care that certain opinion makers on their side think that. And I know it's hurting them deeply and I'm glad of that. I revel in their hurt. I have two things I want to hear from John.

One was I feel like this is now when Republican primary voters are shopping for an electable candidate. All the speed dating is kind of coming to a close and people are starting to pick an electable candidate. They've – all the speed dating is kind of coming to a close and people are starting to pick an electable candidate and I think the two – I would look for two things. One, I would look for a Marco Rubio spike and two, I would look for – I don't know what's going to happen to Ted Cruz but I would look – I think that – whatever happens to Ted Cruz is going to be a sign of whether Republican primary voters believe he's electable or not. And I kind of feel like that's going to be the – I mean I'm not sure what's going to happen

because I think he did pretty well last night. But Republican primary voters, despite all their weirdness this year and despite everything, they tend to get super serious fast and get very pragmatic quickly. So I was just about... John, what do you think? Yeah, it's... I actually agree with both your assessments. I think Rubio had the best performance,

crews have the best soundbite since in our culture, that's what gets passed around YouTube. Bush was bad. It wasn't just, you know, in past debates, he's like, I didn't do himself any favors. I guess he was fine, but he didn't do much. He was objectively bad last night, and I don't know. The calls coming from his big donors must be blistering this morning going on because once again, kind of like he did with Donald Trump, saying, Donald Trump, you insulted my wife. You need to apologize. Donald Trump said no. Bush went, eh, okay, whatever. Gives him a high five later in that debate. This time, he tried to

take on Rubio with this planned canned attack complaining about French work weeks and things like that. And what was so strange about it is the audience was already on Rubio's side because Rubio had smacked down the moderators. And then Jeb jumps in on the moderator's side. Hey, John. Yes. I should interrupt you one second. I want to come back to this, but we're lucky enough that we have a guest.

Oh, great. And the guest is coming in, and he's been on the floor of the Senate. We are lucky to have Mike Lee, senator from Utah here. who's often the scourge of the GOP establishment, evil establishment, currently stands at 100%, and that's probably only because they can't give him 110%. And unlike every other member of the House and Senate leadership, he's a genuine foe of comprehensive immigration reform. He is a true agitator in the great sense of the word. We are pleased and honored to have him, Senator Mike Lee from Utah. Hello.

Senator, Peter Robinson here. You're on with Rob Long and John Gabriel. Senator, first question for you. This is the obvious question, and it's a strange way to put the question, but please don't spend too much time answering it because we want to get to the Senate. But it's mandatory. What did you think of the debate last night? It was a good debate. It was interesting.

I thought the moderators were horrible. They were beyond horrible. It's actually an insult to the word horrible to use that word to describe them. They were the worst moderators I've ever seen. That said, I thought many of our candidates really shined, two of them in particular. Senators Cruz and Rubio both really did amazing work. Uh,

Senator Cruz, when he pushed back on the moderators and Senator, uh, Rubio, when he pushed back on Jeb Bush, I thought that, uh, those moments, um, uh, really, uh, enabled them to shine. And I think you'll see, uh, senators Cruz and Rubio, uh, spiking in the polls in the next couple of weeks as a result. Senator, so let's ask about that, the charge that Jeb Bush tried to make stick on Senator Rubio. Let's ask you. You've got one, two, three members of the United States Senate, all members of the Republican caucus, Senator Paul, Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz out running for president. And it is no secret that they cannot campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire and across the South while attending to votes in the chamber. Now, you're a working senator.

You may have pure Tea Party and conservative credentials, but as I read your record, you made a decision early on in your Senate career to be one of the workhorses of that chamber. Is their absence making work harder for the rest of you? Is it something that the rest of you resent? Is it something that voters ought to pay attention to? It's certainly nothing new, and I wouldn't put it in terms of making it harder for the rest of us who are here. We miss having it around. put it in terms of making it harder for the rest of us who are here.

We miss having them around. We like it when they are here, but we all understand that they're out doing important things. They're out there because they care about the country. They're trying to make a difference. And so we've got those three. We've also got Lindsey Graham, and we've also got Bernie Sanders. Everyone understands.

We've got five presidential candidates in the Senate. That is not unusual to have presidential candidates in the senate and that it's not unusual to have presidential candidates in the senate what is unusual if they have somebody with the audacity that jeb bush demonstrated by attacking marco rubio over that last night his marco rubio pointed out the jeb bush it's it's not like jeb bush was doing that uh... when john mccain was running when he supported john mccain for that matter it's also not like uh... jeb bush was pushing back on Jeb Bush's own brother

when he was the governor of the state of Texas and traveling the country campaigning for president. This is what happens. It's what many governors and many senators do. They run for president, and they do the best job they can to take care of their campaigns at the same time that they take care of their official responsibilities. Senator Peter Robinson, I'm going to ask one more question before John Gabriel and Rob Long get in here. But here's the question. And in my judgment, you are all but uniquely situated to answer this question.

For those of us on the outside, for those of us who are with you on the issues, call us Tea Partiers, call us Reform Conservatives, you know who we are. It is very hard to know how to evaluate in a just and useful manner the leadership in the House and in the Senate. Now, Ross Douthat, Rob just quoted his writing about you, Ross Douthat suggested you should be elected Speaker of the House because, and this is why you're so well-situated to answer this question, you're both a reformer and a member of the Tea Party who's in that chamber to get things done. How are we to evaluate Leader McConnell? Is he, Ted Cruz seems constantly to be running against him. Mike Lee, who the distance between you and Ted Cruz on the issues is zero, seems often to be working with him. What is the just and useful way to evaluate Leader McConnell and

John Cornyn, his assistant? Well, look, my focus is on what we can get done, not on what we're doing wrong. It gets depressing around here if you're always focusing on the negative points, and I prefer to focus on what we can do rather than what isn't getting done. The Senate is different than the House in a number of respects. Among other things, leadership in the Senate doesn't mold and shape and force the members of this body in the same way that the Speaker mold and shapes and forces the course in the House of Representatives. Over here, the actions of Republican leadership in the Senate tend to reflect where the center of gravity is, politically speaking, among Senate Republicans generally. And so if you'd like to see more conservative activism, if you'd like to see a more proactive conservative stance in the Senate, the best way to handle that is to

get more conservatives elected to the Senate generally. So it's more about the rank and file members and where they line up, how they shake out as far as their own political convictions than it is about any one person in the Senate. Hi, Senator. This is John Gabriel. Speaking of getting things done, there's a House bill that would partially repeal Obamacare, essentially. And you came out with, Senator Cruz and Senator Rubio as well in a joint statement, just saying that it isn't good enough. It's only going to repeal parts of Obamacare. This isn't good enough.

We're going to oppose it. What do you view your strategy is on this? A lot of people would say trying to repeal all of Obamacare right now with Barack Obama in office would be a waste of time. How can this help get rid of Obamacare once and for all, instead of doing it on a piecemeal basis like the House bill proposes? Well, first of all, if that's true, if the statement you just made is true, then all of it's a waste of time anyway. So we know the president's going to veto this legislation. So the only point of this exercise, if we're going to undertake it at all, is to get an Obamacare repeal bill on the president's desk so that the president is forced to make a choice.

And if he wants to veto it, as he's widely expected to do, then he's got to look the American people in the eyes and explain to them why this law that has never enjoyed the support of a majority of the American people, that he's making health care less affordable and less accessible to the American people should stand. So as long as we're going to go through that exercise, we ought to demonstrate how it is that we would govern, and we ought to repeal as much of this bill as is possible on raw rules using the reconciliation process. My big complaint with what the House passed was that this was not as much of the bill as we could have repealed using the reconciliation process. I think we need to get more aggressive, and I intend to support amendments to expand

the scope of the repeal when the legislation reaches the Senate floor. Hey, Senator, it's Rob Long back again. Paul Ryan has just been elected Speaker of the House. I know that's like a far, kind of a weird, distant, crazy chamber on the other side of the building. But if you had two minutes to spare to give him advice, what advice would you give him? I hope that he'll focus on the process within the House of Representatives. You know, the message that we've received in the last few days, overwhelmingly from Republicans on both sides of the Capitol, has been that we don't want any more pre-cooked deals that are negotiated in secret by just a couple of people. We don't want those brought to the floor of the House or the Senate at the last minute,

right before some financial catastrophe would otherwise await us. And that's one of the reasons why I wrote a piece recently on TheFederalist.com explaining that Congress needs uber-level innovation, meaning that we need to recognize that the power in our economy is being decentralized as a result of technological innovation. And as the forces that have previously dominated various markets in the United States are becoming decentralized as a result of that kind of innovation, we also see that our voters are understandably properly expecting and demanding more innovation when it comes to public policy. And they're expecting and appropriately demanding that power be decentralized in Washington. Not just that we push power that's currently in Washington back to the states, which we should also be doing, but that also we restore legislative power to Congress and that within Congress,

we put more and more power in the hands of rank and file elected members rather than just in the hands of a few legislative leaders. Well, can I follow up on that? I mean we're looking at a general election coming up, and we have – we have some good candidates on our side, but they have a very strong campaigner on their side too. And Barack Obama won two pretty decisive popular vote victories. It is true that people seem to be living in an Uber world with Facebook and smartphones and an iPhone kind of economy. But when they vote, they tend to vote these days, at least for president, for the post office party. How do you talk to the people who aren't already on our side but who are persuadable? I mean that's really the trick, isn't it? Yeah, and I think the trick there is to explain to people the truth, which is that when we harness conservative principles properly, we benefit the poor and the middle class.

We see today a real crisis of economic opportunity. This has always been a country in which you could be born into poverty and have the reasonable expectation that if you work hard and play by the rules, one day you can retire comfortably, and in some cases, wealthy. That notion is being challenged these days as we endure an increasing economic opportunity crisis where you see the poor being held in poverty by bad government policy, sometimes for years or decades at a time, sometimes for generations at a time. You see the middle class being squeezed by oppressive taxes and a regulatory system that makes everything they buy more expensive. And at the top of the economy, you see those who have climbed to the highest rungs of the

economic ladder enlisting the overwhelming, powerful force of government to pull up the ladder from behind them using the all-powerful and nasty tool of crony capitalism. It's conservative principles that hold the answers to all these challenges, and it's conservative principles that will help the poor get out of poverty and will help expand our middle class. Senator Peter Robinson here. I beg your pardon. What can you accomplish? What can the Republican caucus accomplish in the Senate during these last months of the Obama administration? Can you actually get anything done? The most important thing that we can do is to prevent any further growth of the big government mentality that this president has seemed to bring along with him. And there are a lot of

things that we can do to stop the growth of what he's doing. One of the reasons why I'm frustrated by this budget deal is that I feel that it could tie our hands by giving up some of the leverage that we might have otherwise had in resisting the president. There's still some other ways that we can resist the president. I hope that we will in every way that we can. In the meantime, there are a number of issues as to which there is fairly broad-based bipartisan consensus that we need reform. Part of an effort to achieve reform in the area of criminal justice, I'm the author of a bill in the Senate that would reform our criminal justice system by making modest but necessary adjustments to our minimum mandatory sentencing laws. I'm also a co-sponsor of legislation designed to reform our patent litigation system. There are a number of reforms like these that, while they're not as interesting

or widely reported as other issues, are nonetheless important. And I think there are good things we can accomplish in some of these areas. Senator Paul said last night that we could expect to see him on the floor of the Senate today opposing the budget deal. If he filibusters, will you support that filibuster? Or is that just taking things too far? Well, of course, look, I'm going to support Senator Paul in anything that he wants to do in resisting this. Our options are limited in terms of how far we can push this. Just by operation of the Senate rules, there's only so much time that we can take up once this hits the floor, given the procedural posture in which we're taking up this legislation. But I admire Senator Paul.

I really enjoy working with him. I think he's getting back to Washington even as we speak and look forward to seeing how he plans to attack this. Last couple of questions. Barack Obama, we know, has appealed to the kids. As you know, along with your dad, I served in the Reagan administration. And one of the glories of those days was that Ronald Reagan was most popular among the youngest cohort of voters. Now it's flipped. Barack Obama has the kids. When you go home, when you go to the University of Utah or you speak at BYU, do you sense an openness to our side? You're one of this new rising generation, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Barrasso,

Marco Rubio. Is there an openness among the kids, the rising generation, or is this just an uphill fight? I do sense a lot of openness among younger Americans and among millennials who see that the promise of big government is often a false promise. It's often a promise that delivers something that exactly is opposite of what it promises. And they see that as we consolidate more and more power within the federal government, the American people suffer. They see that the amount of money that this government is borrowing is going to prove oppressive to younger generations of Americans. And they're seeing that they're becoming the victim of a really nasty form of taxation without representation. What I mean by that is that for a lot of these people, particularly college freshmen, those who have recently come of age, they've turned 18

at a time that our federal government, by the time they've reached their 18th birthday, has acquired more than $18 trillion of debt. That was accumulated before they were even old enough to vote, and some of it was accumulated before they were even born. That's not fair. They're going to have to pay that back, and that's a form of taxation without representation, and they tend to resent that. I think that's one of the many ways that we can reach out to millennials with the message of conservatism. Last question for me, Senator, and thank you so much for giving us your time. We know that a majority of the Senate opposes the Iran deal.

Unfortunately, it's not quite two-thirds of the Senate, so that there's a problem in dealing with the executive. Is there anything left that the Senate can do either to stop outright or to modify the Iran deal? I wish there were. The problem is that we can't go for a presidential veto. The president, for reasons that frustrate me, is determined to see this thing through. And in the absence of a two-thirds supermajority veto override, I don't think there's anything we can

do at this point. I think it's very unfortunate. I wish we could go back in time, and I wish we could avoid ever giving the president the authority that he had, the authority that's been given to presidents historically, to suspend the sanctions on Iran. But given the fact that he's got that discretion, that made it all too easy for him to get his way, as bad as this deal is. It is awful. And I hope and expect that as soon as we get someone else in the White House, that we'll find a way to roll back that deal any way we can. And Senator, this is John Gabriel again. We have the world in flames. We have Iran trying to get nukes. We have 18-plus trillion in debt. And what the Beltway is focused on is stopping a company called Hampton Creek, which has created their own vegan mayonnaise called Just Mayo.

And I know that you have sent a letter to the agricultural secretary. Tell us about that and why is the government – I know I've looked up regulations of the USDA before. I think they have 17 pages on pickle regulations. What are they trying to do by trying to attack this organization, just trying to make a buck and please their vegan customers? Yeah, so we have these boards. In this instance, the American Egg Board, created during the 1930s, a very different time, trying to rescue the country from the grips of the Great Depression,

that have just remained intact over the years. And so the American Egg Board decided that it was just too much, that there was a company selling a product called Just Mayo that did not have eggs in it. And they started bullying Just Mayo, using their money that comes from essentially a tax that they levy on their products and on their members. This is a big problem. And so that's why I sent a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture when I learned about this mess, inquiring into why it is that we need an American

egg board anymore. What useful purpose does it serve, especially when it appears to be engaging in predatory and arguably anti-competitive behavior. I think we need to re-examine a lot of policies and a lot of government programs, a lot of offices that were created during the Great Depression, because many of those entities, to the extent they once served a noble purpose, have far outlived that purpose and today are being used for nefarious purposes. Hey, Senator, did you ever think that you'd be getting involved in the definition of mayonnaise when you took office? No, because I didn't even realize that that was a federal prerogative. But apparently these days everything is a federal prerogative.

And so I find myself in the middle of this very interesting fight. But we've got a robust economy. What's made America great is that we've had free market forces, and that has encouraged an environment of entrepreneurial capitalism in which anyone with a good idea can start a business and can do well. And I've heard great things about Just Mayo, by the way. One of my colleagues, Cory Booker, came up to me on the floor, and he had heard about this story, heard I had been involved with it, and I told him,

yeah, I haven't tried the product yet. Is it good? And he said, oh, is it good? Have I heard of it? He said, I eat it every day. It's fantastic. Well, it doesn't sound great. I like eggs in my mayonnaise, but I appreciate his point. I've got some in my office. I'm going to try it. I'll let you know how it is. But Cory Booker tells me it's fantastic. Senator, we really appreciate your time. We know you're busy. We know the Senate's in session, and we couldn't be more honored that you spent some time with us. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thanks.

Thank you. Take care. Bye-bye. Well, boys, we just heard how it's done. Yeah. You build bipartisan consensus by starting with mayonnaise and taking it from there. Yeah, but it's funny. I can see the frustration with, I think, the more activist wing of the party when you have leaders like Mike Lee who's articulate and smart and strategic and has principles and wants to fight. And you get – everybody has been ready to put some scores, some points on the board, and it hasn't happened. And you think to yourself, well, we got Mike Lee. How could this not happen?

Yeah, I have to say to me Mike Lee is the hope of the Senate. And here's what I mean by that. As you know, I love Ted Cruz and I love Marco Rubio. I'm still trying to make up my mind a little bit about Rand Paul. But those are men who essentially don't seem to enjoy the Senate. And Mike Lee is with them on the issues. He Lee is with them on the issues. He is completely with them on the issues. You cannot find an instance in which Mike Lee on the record has done anything to suggest

that he's cozying up to the establishment or getting used to the idea of big government or selling his votes for lobbyists. None of that. And yet you can tell that he actually – he respects the institution. He understands the way the house works. He actually has advice for Paul Ryan. He's from Utah. He's conservative, from a conservative state.

As best I can tell, Mike Lee gets to stay in the Senate as long as he wants. I just hope – I hope over time he shapes the institution. He's a kind of perfect senator. He really does want to get things done for two conservative ends. Well, this is the perfect time for a segue. So I'm going to do a segue right now. The segue is now a time – Something about segue.

Now is when we do the great courses spot. That's my segue. For many of us, our love of learning doesn't stop after you finish school. That's why we here at Ricochet are big fans of the great courses, which are engaging audio and video lectures from top professors and experts in their fields around the country. We recommend you watch the great courses collection of lecture series geared towards professionals. I mean there's a whole professional thing there, aside from the sort of more liberal artsy stuff. Scientific Secrets for a Powerful Memory, How Conversation Works, The Art of Public Speaking, Influence, Mastering Life's Most Powerful Skill. Those are like – I mean they actually – these are sort of practical classes.

These courses offer valuable tools and insights to help strengthen presentation skills, become a better negotiator or sharpen your memory. I actually did hear the memory one and it works, but you have to put some effort into it, which is kind of the part of the problem for me because I, you know, I get excited about something and then I'm, but it's worth it. So right now the the Great Courses are celebrating their 25th anniversary, and they offer a lecture series over 500 subjects, history, science, art, music, and more. You can get them on DVDs or CDs or streaming, which is what I do use. But they also have digital downloads or they have an app, which makes life much more simple. And we cannot wait to have our own Ricochet app too.

So just think about that. For a limited time, the Great Courses has a special offer for Ricochet listeners. You order any of these four business and presentation courses for just $9.95. This special price of $9.95 is only available for a limited time, so you've got to order today. You go to thegreatcourses.com. That's all one word, thegreatcourses.com, slash Ricochet, and you'll get your

special price of $9.95 for those great courses. We thank them. We thank great courses. They've been with us for a while. It's a great product and especially like road trips. It's fantastic and we're thrilled to have them. May I pile in here very briefly? The great courses, the $9.95 offer on making business presentations, if you, like me, have a couple of recent college graduates who are getting started in the working world, just don't even hesitate. For $10, buy it. Kids have to learn how to present themselves and their products in business. That's one of the first things that employers are looking at.

Can this kid talk? Can he or she present us to customers? It's just terrific. So unsolicited, but I'm hounding on to Rob and shooting a target. They are soliciting. No, no. They're sponsors. They solicited that.

So that's fair. You could say it was solicited. Listen, we, as you know, here where I sit in Rhino Central in appeasement, the headquarters of the Ricochet appeasement is Rhino Wing, the go-along, get-along, pseudo-conservative wing. Every now and then we need a dose of medicine and we – and I – every now and then I need a dose of medicine and I'm about to get it. We are lucky and thrilled to have David Limbaugh back. David Limbaugh is brother of a kind of an obscure radio talk show host who – I don't even know what it is. He is also an expert on law and politics. He's written a bunch of books.

The one on the Bible, by the way, is Jesus on Trial, A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospels, a beautiful book. But we're not going to talk about highfalutin stuff here. We're going to get down and dirty, and david's gonna slap me around a little bit david i think clearly last night jeb bush and cnbc won that debate okay think um how many times have you ever experienced speechlessness from me i don't think i'm experiencing it now, by the way. No, in a word, no. It was pretty sad. You know, it's sad. Jeb Bush is such a good guy, but he is not. I think we saw early on in this campaign that Donald Trump kind of neutered him. He took his manliness away from him, and he has not been the same ever since. He has really been kind of timid, and maybe he always

was, and I just didn't know him like I thought I did. But it's kind of sad to watch because he is such a decent guy, but this is not his year. If it ever could be his year, this is certainly not his year. Not just because of his style, but because people are furious at the establishment, which is why you have Trump and Carson doing so well, among other reasons. Bush will always be associated with the establishment because the Bush family is seen as establishment. I know that's a mixed bag, but it doesn't matter what I think. But the perception is they are quintessentially establishment.

So Jeb is toast, even if he had been performing better. By the way, David, I want you to know that Rob is in New York. He's broadcasting right now from Manhattan. And because he knew that we were going to have you on, he went out last – he is now wearing a pinstripe Brooks Brothers suit just to talk to you. Just to talk establishment. Just to talk establishment. I love Rob. He's one of the most cheerful establishment guys. He might even be a flagrant liberal for all I know.

Notice we're talking about him in the third person. Yeah, that's right. I'm dead or something. So, David, we've got to trot you through these guys because we have to understand your thinking. Donald Trump, you with him? No, but I admire that he has established a template to fighting back and not taking crap, since crap is now an acceptable word, I'm going to use it, since he has now paved the way for giving these people medicine, their own medicine, I love him for that, and for highlighting the gravity of the issue of immigration. But no, I don't think he's a reliable conservative.

He may be a conservative. He may have converted. But I don't – I'm certainly not comfortable with that. I mean he's had some things even in the last few weeks that make you wonder if he's a conservative at all. Trevor Burrus That right there is a huge tribute. You are saying that he transformed the entire tenor of the campaign by showing how to push back against the press and against political correctness and by dragging immigration, an uncomfortable issue for

many people on our side, from the periphery of the campaign right to the middle. Those are huge accomplishments. And that is why I think so many people have refused to slam him because they so appreciate that he's taken on the establishment. And those of us who have been railing against the establishment for so long don't seem to get any traction, especially with the punditry in the conservative media. The Fox guys, so many of whom I respect, will always think that those of us who are arguing that we ought to stand up to Obama in the budget battles and not throw in the towel in advance, as you and I have debated back and forth in the past, we're always treated as screaming banshees

and that we are short-sighted and quixotic and have no clue of the pragmatics. And what I would say is they don't have any clue of the long-term fight. Democrats, I know you didn't ask me this question, but if you ask me on, you know that I never respond to just one question because I can't help it because I'm my mother's tangential stream of consciousness son. And so I'm saying these guys don't realize what the Democrats do. Barack Obama just three years ago, it would have been unthinkable that we would have same-sex marriage now, mainstream. They never take no for an answer. They don't look at one battle as the end game. They look at us chipping away one by one by one, and finally now it's here overnight. We can't even fight Barack Obama on an unconscionable budget deal. We're growing this budget at a time when it's already 18 trillion plus. It's going to be

19, and John Boehner's up there bragging about it, and Paul Ryan acquiesces. I'm sorry. That's actually a very, very important point. What you're saying is the other side knows how to play the long game. And here we are. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is just arguing vote to vote. Don't. No, no. Don't try to shut down the government because we can't get this through. We can't.

That's your argument. That's part of your argument. Right, David? Yeah. Why don't we. So what about Ben Carson? Oh, man. You got to let me come back to this.

OK. I will. No no we'll we love you you don't understand the ricochet podcast is your foretaste of heaven you know theologically speaking in heaven we can do no wrong because we will have lost the impulse to sin on this podcast you can do no wrong whenever you are, we love just watching it happen. But also be careful with the blood pressure. We want to make sure we want to get around for a while. No, but Ben Carson, because I know you take your religion very seriously. You've written this beautiful book, Jesus on Trial, which Rob mentioned. And one of the aspects of Ben Carson that I myself find appealing, but I want to hear what you think of it, is that he is not afraid to say that he's a Christian and that he brings

his Christian belief to bear on the issues of the day. Okay, what do you make of Ben Carson? He's not afraid to say anything, as a matter of fact, which I really love, and which sometimes reveals his naivete about politics. Now, when I say naivete about politics, I don't say that in an arrogant way about him or in a way that's disqualifying. But I do recognize that because he's not seasoned in this game, like some of us lesser intellects compared to him are, he doesn't understand that you can't say, for example, we're going to stop the liberal education machine propaganda

by having some board who will decide what is and isn't propaganda. That's the kind of thinking that liberals engage in. They are going to be the final arbiters of what is acceptable speech. Now, Ben Carson is not a totalitarian or tyrannical thinking kind of guy, and he just hasn't thought through that issue. Maybe he's already corrected himself. But it's because he's a neophyte in politics that he hasn't fully thought through some of these things. So we are seeing him.

We are experiencing his growing pains as we go. Most of these guys, these seasoned politicians, they've made most of their blunders in the past and have corrected them. We're seeing Ben in the womb in some of these guys, these seasoned politicians, they've made most of their blunders in the past and have corrected them. We're seeing Ben in the womb in some of these things. And that's why he's so brilliant, and yet he can still make naive statements. So, no, they're not disqualifying, but they bother me because somebody needs to mentor him on politics, on some of these issues. And when I say mentor, I mean I say that humbly because he's my superior intellectually. You don't understand. He just doesn't have the experience in constitutional

thinking, in my view, and that type of thing. But his heart's in the right place. His worldview is in the right place. I love that he wears his Christianity on his sleeve. I love that he attacks the establishment and refuses to buckle under to political correctness. I'm not sure for sure where he is on all the issues on foreign policy and all that and on taxes. I'm not sure. You know, again, the 10% thing, he said it was more of an analogy than a specific tax plan. I just think he's a little rough around the edges. He's a good man. I would be well satisfied if he ends up being the nominee, but it's not going to be without difficulty if he is. And, David, this is John Gabriel.

We chat on Twitter quite a bit. How are you doing? Good. How are you? Fantastic. Who do you think helped themselves the most in the debate last night? There's a lot of good performances, a couple of real clunkers. Who do you think helped themselves the most? Who hurt themselves the most?

Other than, as I was watching your Twitter feed last night, who hurt themselves the most? CNBC and the moderators. Well, first, I think I came out ahead because I live tweeted. And I'm good at Twitter, but I was really stellar last night. Okay, just kidding. Everyone's talking about it. No, no. I think, and I just wrote a column on this, I think the Republican Party, first,

first, I know you're talking about individuals, Ted Cruz won first, Rubio was a close second, and I think Donald Trump did well, he behaved, I think Huckabee was great in some of his things, not great in some others, but they were all wonderful. The only guy that lost, I even, I was not even repulsed by Chris Christie last night. John Kasich, I'm not a big fan of his politics. He seems like a nice guy in real life. I met him on the Hannity stage the other day, but I don't like his preening and constantly wagging his finger at true conservatives and then claiming he's truer than we are. Not going to fly. So I think, but let me tell you the big winner. The big winner is conservatism because we showed last night Ted Cruz setting the stage and the rest of them following and some of them arguably led.

Trump might have hit the first blow, showed what we can do when we work together. You know, a lot of times the establishment guys on our side will say, you know, you guys need to show you can work together with these Democrats. Get these budgets. Don't be quixotic. Don't take your ball and go home. No, no, no. We showed what we can do when we work together against liberals last night.

We made so much headway. CNBC had the best ratings of its history last night, and so many people were able to see that flagrant bias last night, and then they saw what true, substantive, conservative leaders can do in affirmatively and aggressively and articulately and eloquently

combating that bias, as Ted Cruz did, and I got goosebumps to the point you couldn't, I was so excited I was in atrial fibrillation. And then you had Rubio was so good. So Rubio, why do you have to be so screwed up on immigration? I love you otherwise. Oh, gosh, I love you.

Why do you have to be so flawed? And then Ted Cruz was wonderful. Trump, did not Trump act like an adult, a magnanimous adult last night? That is the whole problem. He's starting to believe he can actually become president, so he's muting the whole act that carried him to the top of the polls in the first place. The more he thinks he can become president, the more he's going to lose ground. That's his problem.

That's an interesting paradox because I tweeted one time. I cheated. I cheat tweeted. I cheated tweeted because I took a screenshot of a little piece that I wrote on the fly, like a 500 word thing, and then tweeted it as if it were. So I snuck in 500 words and 140 characters. And boy, I was brilliant to do that. I think I was the first guy in all of Twitter to realize that. But it was what I said was, quoting myself, one of the few times I was brilliant, was that Trump is his own worst enemy. If he learns how to tame himself, he could survive. So contrary to what you're suggesting, Peter, also my intellectual superior, is that if Trump loses himself and quits being bombastic, he'll go down.

I don't think so. I think if he continues, I don't think his bombast in form is what gets him where he is. That was good enough to get attention. He's got to stay bombastic in substance. That is, I mean, I don't mean bombastic. He's got to be rebellious and don't knuckle under, don't apologize unless he truly does something wrong. But he's got to restrain his impulses. Okay, so this is a very – by the way, if the next time you call me your intellectual superior, I'm going to just come through the microphone and pop you a good one because it's ridiculous. OK. Look. This is a very interesting – I think you're right.

I think I was on to something crud substance, this guy could go all the way. This is why you wrote, take down that wall, you SOB. That was in the first draft. That's exactly what it says in the first draft, David. Okay. But anyway, that was brilliant. Thank you. Yes, that's what I mean. But he's got to resist his impulses to go after people on petty grounds.

And by the way, when I saw him the other day, heard him, this isn't phony. You can tell he's so self-absorbed. And I hope this doesn't get quoted by Trump people because I like Trump. You guys who always attack Rush and then derivatively me because you think he's propping up Trump, get over it. Get a life. Realize Rush doesn't see himself as a kingmaker. That's another subject. And he just appreciates what Trump's done.

He's not supporting Trump's campaign. But anyway, Trump has got to resist this impulse toward defending himself every time somebody does better in a poll. And then he starts attacking and says childish stuff. That's not what got him where he is, being childish. It's the substance thing. But anyway, let's go. Sorry. David. This is Rob being presidential. Yeah, this is Rob. I totally agree. But just before we continue, I have to say one thing, which is that some of the best conversations happen through email. You know the kind. A friend or colleague reaches out to share a few thoughts. You write back with a few of your own.

Before you know it, you've secured a loyal fan, friend, or customer, and maybe even some new ideas to share. But very quickly, 10 emails become 100, then 500, then 1,000. It was not long before you all had thousands of messages and no time to sift out the conversations worth having. Does this sound like your inbox? Sounds like mine. Sounded like mine. If so, this is your cure. SaneBox does the sifting for you it diverts the

trivial stuff in a separate folder so all that's left are the emails that matter with features like one click unsubscribe and the ability to snooze non-urgent emails you'll save countless hours and increase your email productivity by 25 or more if you're me that's more time that you can spend engaging with your audience or the people that matter try it yourself for two free weeks of sane box visit sanebox.com slash Ricochet to start your trial. No credit card needed after that. Ricochet listeners get $25 off a membership. That's the deepest discount you'll find anywhere.

Again, it's SaneBox, S-A-N-E-B-O-X slash Ricochet. I use the product. I know that Peter uses it. It's a great product. Thank you, David, for sticking through the spot. Who would have – that was so seamless. Who would have ever suspected it was a spot? Exactly.

I'm a media professional. Can we just – can we talk – can we – now that I know that we got your blood pressure going, I have to get something off my chest here. I understand we had a debate. We talked about the debate, all that stuff. What are we going to do about Hillary Clinton? That I think – one thing I think that she can't wiggle out of, which is that she lied to the American people about the reasons for the attack in Benghazi. She lied to the parents of the slain Americans to their face at the corpse side, casket side. She lied to them and she's getting away with it. Yeah, I hate to sound cynical, but for the large segments of their base, Democratic voters,

sad to say they don't care. Lying is all part of the deal. The end justifies the means for liberalism. What they do care about is that their policies are advanced. So I think, and I wrote a column, my last column before the one today was about that very thing. And I've been really adamant about the obviousness of the video line, the video lie, the brazenness of it, and the undeniability of it. But now we have the smoking gun. And of course, the media is ignoring it, which is to be expected. So do you go over their heads, and if you do, does it even work anyway if the people believe it?

I think so many people are on government dependency, and so many people are in the tank for ideological liberalism, and those are overlapping groups, obviously, that I think we'd be better off trying to point out in this campaign that liberal policies truly don't work, that we never seem to get down to that final thing where we're just as compassionate as they are because you ultimately have to look at results and not good intentions. And this is so cliche that I shouldn't even say it, but I think ultimately that's what we're going to have to get to, that people, you're going to be better off the government roles. America's going to prosper. You can demean us with such terms as trickle down.

But the truth is a rising tide does lift all boats. And it's also a positive message. Now that Paul Ryan is in that position, although I don't like some of the idea that he's going to some of his gestures toward bipartisanship, because I think that's the wrong place to win this thing. I at least he's a positive guy. We need to present our message, our ideological message. Enough of this take the high road stuff. Yeah. Here's – let me put it to you this way. Following up on Rob's question. Yeah. I would insist that Rob is on to something really important. I know –

I would insist that too, but I'd say rarely. Her husband – yeah, I mean I guess what I'm saying is, David, you and I usually sort of discount what Rob is – but this time he's really saying something. We know her husband defined deviance down, right? He lied and did worse in the Oval Office and everybody gave him – got it. OK, fine. Still, she lied to people who had just lost their children in the service of the United States to their faces. Character still counts. Would you object? Would you think

it would do our side harm if some wealthy Republicans got together and put together a pack and cut a 30-second ad and put it out in social media and even bought some airtime? You'd be in favor of that, right? Or do you think that would be dangerous? Thanks for allowing me to clarify because, no, I am totally with you. I am not afraid of going negative on her and believe it's essential. I was just trying in the interest of economy of time to say that I think it will not be the only prong of our attack. And I don't mean not to do it. No, do it. And I like your video thing.

Oh, perfect. But don't mean not to do it. No, do it. And I like your video thing. Oh, perfect. But don't forget. Don't forget that her husband who committed felony perjury is now a celebrated hero in that party. That's the kind of values those people have. Those people, the entire half of America, no, no, no. But a lot of them, they're leaders and they dupe their followers, their rank and file, into believing that that's all that matters. We just have to make... Oh, and I don't want to be positive. I don't mean positive that way, like let's all get along, kumbaya, bipartisanship. No, I'm against bipartisanship. They're the enemy.

They treat us as the enemy. We've got to recognize our enemy in order to fight the battle and the war and win the war. And so, no, we go balls out. We go after her on the negativity, and we then present, I mean, substantively positive message. The Jack Kempian rising, not the Jack Kemp when it says, I'm the only guy in the room that's a non-racist, but the Jack Kempian says a rising tide lifts all boats because it does. would be i just your the people you'd feel totally comfortable with would be donald trump ben carson marco rubio and ted cruz not not not donald trump i wouldn't feel totally comfortable with him at all okay so in your mind the field is three right or would you include car i'm i'm for ted cruz he's my main guy oh he's your guy that's it yeah but i mean i'm not gonna endorse him because i endorsed fred thompson he lost the next day i am who else did i endorse that went down you were saying nice things about

rick perry as i recall yeah but yeah i used to say nice things about i still would he's a great guy he's a great guy yeah yeah no this is great this is good this is all positive i think we could turn this around i don't see hillary winning but we've got to go all out against her. Can you take out can you delete that balls out thing in your editing? I have another. Could we also delete? Rob, Rob said we don't want this is something that Hillary Clinton can't wiggle out of. I'd rather not. Well, you know, that's on you there, Peter. Hey, John, you've been trying to jump in. Jump in. Oh, yeah. We had mentioned newly

minted speaker Paul Ryan. Interesting thing with the Freedom Caucus, by kind of removing their support of Boehner with the intervention of Pope Francis, too, and Boehner's weeping constantly. Freedom Caucus, in a way, is responsible for getting Boehner out andeping constantly. Freedom Caucus, in a way, is responsible for getting

Boehner out and Paul Ryan in, even though they didn't officially endorse Paul Ryan. What do you think of Paul Ryan? You've mentioned him a bit, but what can he positively do? We've had this policy under Boehner of, eh, Obama's going to veto anything we send up anyway. Let's just sit tight until we get a better president. What do you think Paul Ryan can do? And do you expect him to start sending bills to the Senate, which can be approved, hopefully, and sent to the veto desk, if it'll at least clarify the differences between Obama and the Republicans? I'm not optimistic at the outset. I used to be. I was so ecstatic when Mitt Romney chose him. I practically eulogized him in my book, The Great Destroyer, because he made the case. He finally brought entitlements to the national stage and had a plan,

even though some don't think it was conservative enough and it was too long term. But nevertheless, he brought it up, and I thought this was going to bring some sobriety to the issue in the campaign. But then when he allowed Joe Biden to walk all over him in the debate, that bothered me. He strikes me as a little bit naive when it comes to the fight. And I think we need a fighter. But also today I heard a soundbite. He says, Congress is not working. We've got chaos. We need to work together. No, no, no. The problem with Congress is not chaos. The problem is drunken advancing liberalism. And I just think we can do better to stand up to them and to make a national case.

How much better could we make our case if three-fourths of Republicans didn't act like whipped puppies in advance and telegraph our defeat against Obama, we can't even stand up to him on the murdering of babies and selling of their body parts in the womb. So many people think that Ted Cruz is doing this all for show and that all these guys are opportunistic wags. I just don't think so. I think they're trying to stand on principle. But if we all stood together like we did last night, it would be amazing what we could do. I think Ryan is a very decent guy.

I'm going to choose to be optimistic that he will try to bring to light these major differences between us and Obama and the Democrats and showcase them at least so that we can take them into 2016. But it is not a very good sign when they allowed Boehner to make a deal going into over a year now where they fear a budget battle more than they fear the advancement of liberalism. And why do we automatically assume we have to lose every fight just because historically we've lost most of them in their perception? Why do we have to? That is just pathetic that we have that defeatist attitude and that we can't fight.

And yet so we agree to these budget gimmicks. By the way, people are talking about the things that they agreed to in this budget have double counting like the Obamacare double counting. So the Republican establishment is now, if these reports are true, are deceiving the people and acting like they're cutting. And I'm not talking about just the baseline thing. I'm saying double counting. If they're really doing that, shame on them. They don't understand. They're furious. The establishment on our side is furious at Donald Trump, and then they browbeat him more. What they don't realize is they are the ones who gave birth to him because they don't stand up against Democrats. So they brought on their own hell. That's what's happened here.

I agree. I mean I find myself in a bizarre position of total agreement with David Limbaugh. David, you've won the rhino faction at Ricochet. I don't know if you like that or not. By the way, I think I'm the only guy in the entirety of the conservative movement. Now, I'm going to come off as a real egomaniac. You have to take what I'm saying tongue in cheek. But it seems like I'm the only guy that sees both sides. I'm never – I'm so black. You know what? I think you may be on to something there. I think that's true actually. I really do think you have – maybe it's your lawyer's training. Well, the thing is, I don't think Brit Hume is a jerk. I don't think Charles Krauthammer is a jerk. I don't agree with them,

but they think we're, I don't mean me. I get along with Brit. They think Brit obviously can't stand Ted Cruz personally. He's always going after him. And, And our side says the establishment might as well be Benedict Arnold. I don't think establishment are just wrong in how they calculate this. But by the way, I'm not even sure that they're not right on some of these things, that some of these things aren't quixotic. I don't know. I think it's a case by case thing. But I just wish we would quit the hate throwing among each other. When it comes to kumbaya, I want that on our side, not vis-a-vis us, I mean, not kumbaya between us and the Democrats,

which is an impossible and that truly quixotic task. David, that's a perfect summation, I think. I mean, I actually agree with that. That's the, especially the part about if you don't have respect on both sides within one party, you're poisoning the world. Well, here's the problem. It's not respect or showing respect for the show. People were attacking Rush on Twitter. I've got so many good friends on Twitter that they're attacking Rush saying he has sold out for ratings. And that infuriates me.

They can disagree with what he's saying about Donald Trump and that he props up Trump and he doesn't go after him enough. I said he doesn't support Trump. Why do you guys keep – they say he sold out for ratings. That is so outrageously, outrageously outrageous because that's not what he's doing. That's not what Mark Levin's doing. That's not what Sean Hannity's doing. They are standing up for the republic they love and the fact that they disagree with you, that they ought to take Trump down.

By the way, if they all got together and tried to take Trump down, he'd go third party and we'd be guaranteed to have Hillary elected. So these people ought to be a little more complex in their thinking. I know that they all think they're more sophisticated than us rubes out here who advocate fighting. But we are not take our ball and go home. And we are not blindly supporting Trump. I'm definitely not. And Rush is not. But he's amused by Trump. He appreciates what Trump has done to set the establishment and PC on their ears. But they think he's sold out. And when I say I challenge, they still say, you can't convince me. He's disgraced himself. And this isn't, by the way,

just about Rush. That's just an example. Our guys say it about them too, that we know each other's motives. I know firsthand, Rush, Mark, and Sean have not sold out. They're doing what they believe in their heart, in their conscience. You don't have three bigger patriots in the world. Of course, they want to conduct entertainment shows and get as large on it, but don't be confused by that and saying they would sell their principles. None of those guys will. They can speak for themselves. These guys won't. And I'm not just saying that out of emotion and loyalty.

No, I get it. I'm saying that out of understanding knowledge. But our side does it to them, too. Let's just quit impugning other people's motives on our side and agree to disagree or agree to continue the debate so we can resolve some of these things. But let's get over some of this smugness. Only smugness. I am the only person should be allowed to exhibit smugness. Right, right. David, there's one reason we let you go that long, and that was to help us with our ratings. And also, you're going to cut it anyway. No, we're not. That's good stuff.

Hey, David, thank you for joining us. And we ought to talk to you in a month or so when more stuff happens. I mean, there's going to be more news and there's going to be another Fox Business Channel debate and we've got to hear your analysis. Thank you. Hey, by the way, I have another. It's too early to plug it. A new

Christian book coming out next week, a week from Monday, The Emmaus Code, Finding Jesus in the Old Testament. So I'm just telling you guys, just letting you know. Well, I'd love to talk about that, just that. Yeah. No, I mean, not now. It was a special thing for that. Yeah, I just wanted to say that.

David, you write faster than I can read. Oh, man. It's been a tough two years, but it's fun. Good. Hey, thanks for joining us. Thank you so much. Thanks, David. Take care. Thank you, man. It's been a tough two years, but it's fun. Good. Hey, thanks for joining us. Thank you so much. Thanks, David. Take care.

Thank you, David. I love you, man. Okay. Wait a minute. Take a little breath. We need to – I want to make sure – you know what we had to send David? We had to send David a Casper mattress. Casper is an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price.

The mattress industry has inherently forced customers, the mattress establishment, we should say, has inherently forced customers into paying notoriously high markups. Casper is revolutionizing the mattress industry by cutting the cost of dealing with resellers and showrooms and passing that savings directly onto the computer. Buying a Casper mattress is completely risk-free. Casper offers free delivery and returns within 100-day period. It's that simple. Statistically, lying on a bed for four

minutes in a showroom has no correlation to whether it's the right bed for you. That's why Casper has turned the buying process into a risk-free experience. Casper understands the importance of truly trying out a mattress that in all reality you spend a third of your life on. So why should you buy a Casper mattress? They are obsessively engineered at shockingly fair price. Just the right sink, just the right bounce. Did you find that, Peter? Just the right sink, just the right bounce? Just the right sink and just the right bounce. I do find that. And I love the idea that Casper is the tea party mattress taking on the mattress establishment. Establishment. Two technologies, latex foam and memory foam, they come together for better nights and brighter days. It, again, is risk-free trial and return policy to sleep on a Casper for 100 days.

Free delivery, painless returns, and they are made in America. It's $500 for a twin, $950 for a king. Compare that to industry averages, and that's an outstanding price. So for $50 off your first purchase, go to casper.com slash Ricochet and use the coupon code Ricochet at checkout. We'll sleep better knowing you did. And I know Peter Robinson sleeps well every night. We thank Casper and Atris for sponsoring this Ricochet podcast. Okay.

How are we doing? We kind of caught our breath after David. Yes, we did. Pulse returning to normal. Yes. The thing about David is like what I like about David is that he actually – like he's exactly the firebrand you want. I mean he's not – and I think probably it's true. I don't get a chance to listen to Rush as much. But there's like this idea that you can cherry pick one thing he says and say, oh, he's pro-Trump.

That's not true. He's sort of his own guy. The Limbaugh brothers – I used to be in the car more often when Rush was on. I haven't listened to him in a while but still revere him. So David is – and of course I know David better. But the thing is, what David leads with, what's obvious about him is his passion. He feels this very, very deeply. But you listen to David two or three times, you get to – he has a very sophisticated intellect. He's really smart and

extremely well-read. So he's – they're a subset of two. There's nobody else quite like them. Really sophisticated brains riding on top of huge hearts, real passion. I love those guys. Now, I don't mean to suggest that you, Rob, or you, John, or certainly not I or anything less. But they're in a subset by themselves. That's true. That's true. Hey, John, do you see that?

You're on Twitter all the time. Do you see that kind of like – it does seem like there's this constant battle of insult between the – anyways, it's a good word about Trump and – go ahead. Oh, you're into dubstep? Sorry, man. I'm into paleo dubstep. Oh, no. That stinks. It's like everybody wants to brand themselves as something a little more hip and insider. And if anybody disagrees with any part of their beliefs, they just want to blow them off. And David has been just fantastic. He's been suffering a lot of slings and arrows because people are attacking him because they don't like something Rush said, which is ridiculous on its face. But yeah, he has been showing all sides and saying, hey, let's – why don't we focus on the enemy, the liberals, for a change instead of beating up each other constantly about who's more pure. As long as everybody has a non-Rhino Casper mattress, I agree. That's right.

That's right. Hey, we got a couple of things from the member feed we want to talk about. One, Idaho-Clahoman posted, Peter Robinson should moderate the next Republican debate. Nobody's invited? I'd be happy to. Nobody's invited me though. What would be your first question? What would be my first question? Oh, that's a trick question, Rob. What do you think you work for, CNBC? Right. My first question well we know that your last question though because there'll be 20 20 yeah 27 of them you know what i would if of course all of these debates have formats you're supposed to stick mainly to economics or the other debate

that's mainly foreign policy something i would say something like as best we can tell in the last week, ISIS has beheaded X number of people. Do you consider the violence taking place in the Middle East a responsibility of addressing the violence taking place in the Middle East a responsibility of the United States or not? Just right there. That's a hard question for Rand Paul and Ted Cruz to answer. But of course, they're both bright. They'd answer it. I think they, I think in fundamentally, they'd both say only if what is taking place over there as horrible as it is affects our own security.

But I think I might, I mean, who knows? You're getting me right now. I'm still recovering from the flu. Who knows? But something like that might be. The world is a mess. There are horrible things happening. And as Chris Christie pointed out, CNBC was asking about fantasy football last night. Yeah, it was crazy.

What would be your first question? Actually, we'd be a pretty good team, I think. We three right here. What would be your first question, Rob? Representing the Rhino wing of the party. The rhino wing of the party. I would probably ask if you could wave a magic wand. If it didn't matter, you didn't have to politic. You could just do it. What's the first thing you would do upon taking office?

Big stuff. It didn't matter. You have one get-out-of-jail-free pass. You get to do whatever you want. With Wave Magic Wand, what's the first thing you do? What are your real priorities, basically? Yeah. Yes.

Well, my first question would be about fantasy football, so I better rethink that. I think the first thing I would do is just to find out if they're actually serious about cutting government rather than slowing the growth, and this is something that tripped up Perry, of course, famously in 2012. What are the three first executive departments you would abolish? And that would be a good start is the way I look at it. When you have people uh pickle size and what should constitute mayonnaise um even if it's vegan uh you know it's just out of control and that was

the amazing thing too about the cnbc anchors basically every question the premise of every question was here is a problem what should government do to fix it right right that was underlying fantasy football did it. It was just like everything. And we've already showed that with the essential things like national defense, they can't seem to accomplish that very well. The world is in flames. Can we focus on the basics for a while and not worry about microaggressions in our mayo section of the grocery store? Well, a member of MalWords posted something called Doomed to Lose.

And I feel like this kind of goes to what David Limbaugh was saying. I contend that at their – he writes, Malward writes. I contend that at their core, more conservatives would rather lose unnecessarily for their, quote, principles, end quote, than compromise and win, see Romney win, those who support the Freedom Caucus and the Speaker debacle. I have sympathy for the purists, much more so than accommodationist rhinos. And there's great merit to their positions, but there is in fact less chance for Republicans to win elections because the party is fractured. Do you buy that, John?

Every other day I buy that. And then every other day opposite that, I say, oh no, we're going to win. Hillary can't win. Liberalism is doomed. So I'm very schizophrenic on being the glass half empty, the glass half full on this. There's definitely a problem with us being fractured in fighting. But I think a lot of these same fractures are occurring on the left. You have Black Lives Matter shutting down socialist candidates. Everybody throughout the country is pretty frustrated. And Obama, who was elected on hope and change and optimism, the country – it's like everybody is at each other's throats right now. Nobody is terribly happy.

And I don't think the Republicans are in a worse position than the Democrats. I don't know if republicans are in a worse position than the democrats. I don't know if that's a good thing. I think we should be a little more united but all is not lost. Well, the democrats seem to be – have had a good run being in disunity constantly and backbiting and all the fighting they've done over the years has not – certainly has not hurt their agenda at all. Yeah, exactly, and that's the thing. As messed up as the Republicans seem to be, and that's what we're usually focused on being on the right. We're usually focused on, oh my gosh, what a nightmare is going on in the house. Just cruise through Daily Kos for a while if you want to see real dysfunction.

Or maybe I'll just take your word for it. Hey, fellas, before we go go we have to say one thing that we are now so we are ricochet celebrating a birthday the first uh birthday of the daily shot yes daily shot is our daily email inbox blast we send to you if you sign up for it it's free go to ricochet.com sign up for it it's sort of a funny witty riposte on the day's events. Prepares you to meet any liberal you might encounter and to win any argument armed with facts and maybe

even a few twisted witticisms to sort of silence them. Been doing it for a year. It's been very successful. Really thrilled with it. But here's what I would say. If you listen, if you get the Daily Shot and you like it and you're not a member of Ricochet, please come to Ricochet.

Sign up for a month. Just try us out for a month. No, absolutely no risk to you. Ricochet.com slash use the coupon code JOIN. And you will, I think we get you for a month. We're going to get you for the rest of your life. I shouldn't tell you that. But The Daily Shot and the podcast, they're gateway drugs to the great Ricochet membership.

We want you to join the club. We want to hear your voice. So this podcast was brought to you by TheGreatCourses.com, Casper Mattresses, SaneBox, and of course Ricochet. We are thrilled that they are supporting us. We are thrilled that you heard us. We are happy to have you as members. We'd like you to sign up and become a member. John and Peter, this was a lot of fun.

A no segue podcast. I know James will listen to this. Hello, James. I know you're listening to this and we'll freak out. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. He will. He'll we'll be hearing from James.

He'll be. We'll get the critiques. We'll get. Listen, so what are you doing in Manhattan? I know we have to wrap, but I need to know what you're doing in New York, Rob. I'm just sitting around writing. I've got a couple scripts I've got to write, and I'm just trying to get those things done. So you could write a script in Mesa, Arizona, to name one place that would be less expensive to be sitting in than Manhattan. Yes. And yet you choose to go to the most expensive place. Why do you do that? Does the sense of energy somehow –

You can't swan around Mesa, Arizona. That's right. I hate to be wrong about my people, the rhinos. And by the way, just for your information, Peter, the Bay Area is more expensive than New York City. It is? No. Okay.

But I'm talking about Manhattan. I'm not including Queens and the Bronx here. Well, actually, Brooklyn is more expensive. I think maybe Brooklyn and San Francisco are the highest rents, I think, apparently. Really? Yeah. Wow.

Okay, well, give my love to Manhattan, you chips. I will do that. I will do that. Okay. John, how are things at the site? Everything good? It is going fantastic. We just want some people to sign up for that free month membership.

But yeah, a lot of great posts from our contributors, from our members. It's been a lot of fun and a lot of different opinions. That's kind of the good thing. It's not like we have an editorial policy where, ah, here's our candidate. This is our guy that we're going to push. It's just great to hear the discussion between people trying to sort out who's best, what's their best strategy going forward, and how Republicans can capitalize on this moment. Couldn't agree more. Hey, fellas, next week.

Next week. Thank you, gents. I lost my sugar in Salt Lake City. Oh, why did I go there? I should have stayed down in New Orleans and never gone nowhere. A man with sweet talk from Kansas City. His words were sweet like wine.

He gave her diamonds and limousines and stole that gal of mine When night comes creeping For me there ain't no sleeping What she sowed she'll be reaping For she done me wrong

I cried my heart out in Salt Lake City The day I heard the news She left me deep in my solitude With the Salt Lake City blues Ricochet! Join the conversation. Salt Lake City is renowned for its beauty. The snow-capped Wasatch Mountains are nearby.

In 1929, the factory output was $43 million. The wholesale trade proper amounted to $71,510,573. Retail trade,, 92 million. There's salt beds and farmland producing principally alfalfa, green sugar, beets and vegetables in the vicinity. But as far as I'm concerned,