The Ricochet Podcast - Off The Record

Episode Date: October 9, 2013

This week on the podcast: strategies and secrets. Author and fellow at the Claremont Institute Charles Kesler stops by to discuss his book I Am The Change: Barack Obama and the Future of Liberalism. Then, National Review’s (and the co-host of the Beltway Buzz podcast) Robert Costa stops by discuss his off the record chat with the President. Should conservative journalists agree to such an... Source

They say you can't hurry love, but if you don't get to your post office by March 23rd, you'll miss your chance to save €2.50 on a book of 10 heart-shaped love stamps. Now, just €14. Down from €16.50. Perfect for all kinds of love messages like, We're getting hitched. You're still my favourite. Or,

Growl McCree. If you've a couple of fuckle. Buy yours now at your local post office or at onpust.com. Send joy. Show growl. Send love. Onpust. For your world. T's and C's apply. See onpust.com. So you want to go up this road here and get to the roundabout. You take a left and then you go past Murphy's house. Do you know the Murphys?

They're young lads, Sean. I think he's over in London now. Oh, yeah. FBD doesn't stand for frustratingly bad directions. FBD stands for support. We support van drivers in Ireland with up to 75% off new van policies. FBD Insurance.

Support. It's what we do. You can't miss it. Once you pass there, a little terrier will start to chase you. And once he gives up, you should be there. 75% off based on 5 years no claims discount. Terms and conditions apply. Underwritten by FBD Insurance PLC. FBD Insurance Group Limited.

Trading as FBD Insurance. Is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Activate program. Do you like green eggs and ham? I do not like them, Sam I am. I do not like green eggs and ham. Would you like them here or there? I would not like them here or there. I would not like them here or there.

I would not like them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. I do not like that Sam. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Rob Long. And sitting in for Peter Robinson today, Ricochet's own Troy Sinek. Guests, we've got Charles Kessler to talk about his new book. And fresh from an engagement at the White House, National Review's Bob Costa.

Let's have ourselves a podcast. Ladies and gentlemen, we expect to be shut down any time now since, well, the federal government has a national weather service. So we expect that we'll be forbidden actually to look at weather or experience weather. Cones are going to be put up around everybody. We can't do anything because, well, the shutdown has finally spread to absolutely every aspect of American life. We're going to get out here what we can in Ricochet Podcast number 184. It's brought to you by Audible.com by the way, which is a private enterprise so

far not controlled by the government and hence not subject to shutdown. It is the leading provider of spoken audio information and entertainment. You can listen to audiobooks wherever, whenever you want. Go to audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet. audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet, and get a free audiobook and a 30-day trial before it's nationalized and taken out of your hands. Rob? Well, we're also – I guess I should say and buy.

That's right, and buy. We're also sponsored and buy. Okay. You got that? Let's back that one up again here. Get a free audiobook and a 30-day trial. And by... Encounter Books, that's right.

Encounter Books is sponsoring the podcast, and our pick this week is a book, Terms of Engagement, How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution's Promise of Limited Government. What a preposterous idea. What am I thinking? Oh, read it and laugh.

It's by Clark Neely of the Libertarian Institute for Justice. You can go to encounterbooks.com slash ricochet. Enforce the Constitution. That's priceless. I've got Ricochet for 15% off the list price. And the other thing you've got to do, now that you've given all the free stuff here, and you've got a free podcast and all this other

bounty amount of stuff, is to cough up for this thing called Ricochet. Rob, do you want to fill in on all this other bounty as amount of stuff is a, is to cough up for this thing called ricochet. Rob, you want to fill them in on that? I would like to say this cause it's sort of an interesting thing to happen this week. There are a lot of people listening to this right now who are not members of ricochet.

And of course you can do that. Whether this is all of our podcasts are free. You can listen to any of them you want. However, it's not very honorable. You should join Ricochet. Go to ricochet.com. We're the ones who produced this podcast and many, many, many others.

But there's also a fantastic site called Ricochet. And it's a site where contributors and members mix it up and have conversations on the main feed and the member feed. It is the most civil, most interesting, witty, smart, fast-moving, crackling, fast-growing conversation on the web. And the best thing about it is that we are solving a problem that a lot of people are having on the web. The Huffington Post is having it. Everyone is having it. And one of the problems is just the horrible, swampy nastiness of internet comments and internet conversations, we have solved that problem in a free market system. If you become a member, you can mix it up with all of us.

Now, the other thing I want to say is this thing happened this week. The other reason to become a member of Ricochet, there are people in Washington and in New York and various other places who follow Ricochet and they follow our conversations on the member feed and on the main feed and they listen to these podcasts. If you join Ricochet, you have a voice.

This week, a very, very, very prominent... Wait a minute, Rob. People from Washington and New York, those are the bestest, specialist kind. Who are they? Well, no, no. I just want to let you know,

when you're a member of Ricochet, your voice is really heard. I think it's because people in D.C., Republican politicians especially, know or follow, know that the conversation they read in Ricochet is going to be sort of not nasty and horrible. It's going to be sort of thoughtful, spirited but thoughtful.

And so they read it. We – a Ricochet contributor received a handwritten note from a very, very prominent Republican thanking him for his comments on a Ricochet production on the site and also listening to a podcast. And it was an indication that we are being heard. Not just us, but you, if you're a member. So join the voice. Join the chorus. You don't have to – you can mix it up. You don't have to sort of agree with all the Republican talking points.

People are reading us and listening to us. And so it's – Well, you're right, Robin. It's great to be heard. But then again, let's look at exactly what we're saying. And that's a good opportunity to bring in Troy. Troy, welcome to the podcast here. You are sitting in for Peter Robinson who fell off a cliff, I believe.

And we're looking at what message is being sent exactly from Ricochet. And of course, the big thing is the shutdown. The big thing are the optics, to use a word that I've now come to hate. Yeah, me too. How does it look? Do you think that this is winning the hearts and minds of the country, reinforcing the love of the base for direct action? What's going on? Well, as probably a lot of people know at Ricochet, because I wrote about this fairly extensively at the time, I was nervous about it up front. I still of people know it, Ricochet, because I wrote about this fairly extensively at the time. I was nervous about it up front.

I still remain nervous about it just because primarily for me at the start, I couldn't see the exit strategy. I couldn't see how we got ourselves out of this. That being said, you should never underestimate the capacity House and democrats in congress gotten out of the way, they probably would have stood to benefit a lot more than through these games that they've played for the last couple of weeks where – as I wrote at the site, if the big takeaway from your position on the government shutdown is that you are offending World War II veterans and children with cancer. You are messaging it incorrectly. So I think that has been a big benefit for us just because they can't help but trip over their own feet. Now, if absent that, if this thing keeps going on, I think it maybe swings back a little bit more in a direction that could potentially be damaging for the GOP. But thankfully, I mean they've kind of thrown us a life preserver the last couple of weeks. Well, but Troy, what do you say – by the way, Troy, this is Rob. I'm in New York right now.

I'm podcasting from a hotel room, which when you do that, by the way, you have to hang a Do Not Disturb sign outside the door because every hotel room is the same. They all come in. They want to come in five times in the morning to check the minibar. Let me ask you something. Are you worried by the signs that the Republican brand – I mean the Republican brand is being hurt. There are polls that suggest that. Our side, we always turn to the polls and say that Barack Obama is now at some 12 percent approval rating. But the Republican brand is suffering. Back in the last shutdown, all of that negativity sort of coalesced around Newt Gingrich, right? He was the big bad guy.

But this time it seems to be spread evenly, and I'm not sure how that's going to play out. Yeah, I am worried about it. I'm worried about it especially because it seems to me like an unforced error, like something that we didn't have to go through. That being said, I mean the one thing that I think is always salient to keep in mind in a situation like this is that we're talking about October of a non-election year. And so the question is, are there fallouts from this that 13 months from now when people go to the polls, they're still going to be first and foremost in their minds? I mean because we always project these things forward incorrectly. If you remember 2006 or 2007, everybody thought the 2008 election was going to be about Iraq. And Iraq was pretty much off the table at that point. So I think the real question is do you get any takeaway from this that a year from now

is problematic? If it builds into an image of Republicans as so consistently obstructionist that they care more about taking down the White House and doing anything good on behalf of the country, and that sticks. Yeah, you got a problem. But as far as the immediate fallout from it, I'm not happy with it, but I'm not sure how much it sticks 13 months down the line. Well, there's a great piece right now, and I guess it's a column called The Monkey Cage, which is sort of a regular political column from The Washington Post. It was in this morning, written by John Seid. So we'll post this.

I guess it's a guest post by a political scientist named Peter Enns, who I don't know. I should probably know who that is, but I don't. But it's really about measuring the public's policy mood from 1950 to 2012. It's very interesting, and it shows just how conservative the American people still are. Ironically, of course, it shows that in the 60s, the middle 60s, the most liberal sort of big government part of the United States was the south, which I think is kind of interesting. But one of the things it says is you look at these polls, right? You see where people are about the size of government and whether you should work for

a living and all these kind of really simple bedrock, almost boilerplate Republican theories and policies. And the public is with us. It's just that we seem to – you said unforced errors. It seems to be a lot of unforced errors. Now, they're with us for most things. They're not with us on same-sex marriage. That's been – approval for that has been increasing across all states. They're not with us on some abortion specifics, right, partial birth and early term, that kind of thing. But in general, the American people put 65 percent conservative. But how – why are we having such a hard time translating that into 51 percent of the popular vote? I mean I don't know.

In this situation right now, I think the problem is and I think the reason that you're probably ideologically uncommitted voter, has a hard time stomaching this, is they don't see the upshot here. They don't see if republicans get their way, what do they get? Beyond – I mean the only thing that's been messaged clearly is defunding Obamacare and everybody – even it seems people who are not terribly engaged in the news realize that that's a nonstarter. I mean no president is going to preside over the evisceration of his signature domestic policy achievement. And now it seems to be predicated on a series of these kind of smaller things that we're talking about, try to get Keystone open, which people are very much in support of. You can have that fight on its own and probably win it pretty effectively. But when you mix all this stuff together, it just sort of dilutes the message and I think leaves you in a position where you're abandoning what would be pretty

good issues. I mean stuff that could work for you but you've mixed them all together and just sort of muddied the waters. Peter T. Leeson Yeah, that's my concern although I have to say I have to give it to Barack Obama. I think he was very smart. Maybe it was right before the 2012 campaign when there was a brief story, the idea that calling Obamacare Obamacare was somehow derisive and disrespectful and rude and the wrong thing to do. But he very – I think he was very smart at the end anyway with claiming it, putting his name on it because it's harder for people – because he personally is sort of popular. Whether they like his policies or not is a separate issue, and I think the idea of putting your name on it was pretty smart. It's harder – the idea now that he's going to repeal it or it's going to get defunded for real is just – it's not going to happen.

What could happen is the internals of it could be changed so radically that Obamacare in the future no longer resembles the Obamacare that was passed, the Affordable Care Act. Well, the Obamacare of the present doesn't resemble the Obamacare that was passed between the waivers and the – That's true. Well, the Obamacare of the present doesn't resemble the Obamacare that was passed between the waivers and the other little derivations. The Obamacare that was promised to us, that was actually promised to us in word, indeed in speeches by the president, does not resemble what we're eventually going to get. The point is making about why don't we get more of the people on our side if this is actually what they believe. I think it's two things. One, there's a fear of some people that they're going to be mocked by the people on Saturday Night Live if they actually cross over to the dark side. They don't want to identify with these things that are so manifestly uncool.

And two, it's the idea that perhaps in general these are great ideas, but what's it going to take away from me? It's like the flip side of the people who are saying, you know, I support affordable care for everybody, but look at my insurance premiums. I didn't know I was going to have to pay for it. I love – I adore hearing those complaints, the weeping, the lamentations of people who realize that there actually is a general – right. That's a direct dialogue. I posted on that and I did it a couple – maybe even a day or something after a member – a better – frankly, much better member post of it. And it was just so perfect. It was like I wanted affordable health care for everyone, but I didn't think I was going to have to pay for it.

And I just thought, wow, that's – could you be – that was almost written by – that's actually bad satire. But if you're actually writing it, you think, well, that's a little too on the nose. And the added bonus, the best part of the whole thing was that it came out of Silicon Valley. That's actually bad satire. But if you're actually writing it, you think, well, that's a little too on the nose. And the added bonus, the best part of the whole thing was that it came out of Silicon Valley. Yeah, exactly right. Exactly right. The San Jose Mercury news. Exactly.

Well, it's the sort of thing that were it to land in a novel, you would chuckle and move along. But for it to be reality is disheartening because it's what motivated so many millions of people to put this knife into office. Hey, before we get to our next guest, we're going to ask about the shutdown and other things, and then to Bob Costa. Big lineup here. I've got to tell you that I have absolutely no time whatsoever for a segue. So Audible.

Can I tell you about Audible before? Audible is one of our sponsors, and you can get a free audio book of your choice. I have to mention this now lest I forget. And a 30-day free trial. Book trial free. 150,000 titles in just about every single genre. And, dare I add,

the incredible WhisperSync technology will sync your Kindle to your audio device to everything so you can stop at one place and pick it up at the next. Has to be heard to be believed. TM, that's their official slogan. So we need some picks here. Troy, you have a book I imagine that's on your shelf or in your head or in your ears. What are you

reading at the moment? Actually, I'm not going to recommend something that's particularly au courant. I'm going to recommend something I think is sort of remedial that everybody should have if they haven't which is that they read the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin because I think this is sort of one of the essential

books to sort of understanding the American character, seeing it through the course of Franklin's life and also through the relentless sort of focus on self-improvement. That's actually in some ways the most interesting part of the book. So actually if you go to Audible, there's about – I think about a dozen versions of these. But interestingly enough, I didn't recognize any of the other narrators. But one of them is narrated by Adrian Kronauer, which if the name sounds familiar was the DJ that Robin Williams played in Good Morning Vietnam.

Wow, that's amazing. And if you click through, interestingly enough, this is sort of a cottage industry for him, these kinds of books. He's also done Common Sense by Tom Paine and there's an Adrian Cronauer version of Plato's Republic on Audible.com. Wow. That's extraordinary. That's my pick. That's fantastic. At any point – I mean when I read the autobiography about Benjamin Franklin, at a certain point you're like, shut up.

It's also like I arose 35 minutes before my competitors and therefore profited by 35 minutes more trade. It's just – you just kind of want to punch him really hard. That's just me. He also leaves it out of the deli with the French ladies. The idea that an old-style FM or AM radio disc jockey would be reading Frank and stuff, I can't imagine that he'd be. He must have done it in a staid voice because if he did it in the trademark AM 60s puking voice, I rose this morning at 6 o'clock in the morning and thereby brought it on my enemies.

A penny saved is a penny earned. And a penny is not what you have to spend at all if you go to audible.com, where you will find a free book and a free trial. We advise you to take it up before that offer is yanked out from beneath you. We move along briskly because we've got so much stuff here. We've got a great guest to bring in, Charles Kessler. Who is he? Well, you know, he's a professor of government and political science at Claremont McKenna College,

senior fellow of the conservative Claremont Institute, and he directs their Publius Fellows Program, a summer institute. And additionally, he's the editor of the Claremont Review of Books, which is no small thing. His new book is I Am the Change, Barack Obama and the Future of Liberalism. And we welcome him to the Ricochet Podcast. Hello. Hey, how are you?

Very kind of you to have me on. We're just great. You've got Rob Long and Troy Senec here with you. Let's go first to your book, of course. Is this the future of liberalism, liberalism over Alice? Is it the end of liberalism? Is it another muddy muddle for the next 20 or 30 years as America gets redefined some more? How do you see it? Well, I guess as a conservative, I'm a short-term pessimist, but a long-term optimist. I think liberalism has tremendous internal contradictions and fiscal

problems down the line, so much so that I don't think it's impossible that liberalism may go away or may collapse or may become something rather different from what it has been so far. But in the short term, I'm a bit of a pessimist because I think conservatives have consistently underestimated Barack Obama. And we still have, I think, not learned all the lessons we should have learned from the 2008 and 2012 elections. Hey, Charles, it's Rob Long in New York. How are you? Hey, Rob. Good to hear from you. How are you?

So you say short-term pessimist. How short? I mean I guess what I'm talking about is we are right now – I mean do I sell? Do I – are we talking about things we know our grandchildren will live in a conservative utopia or – I guess we're right in the middle of a – what is a political and public opinion game of chicken between a bunch of republicans in the House and Senate and the president. And the president's popularity is plummeting and the republicans' popularity is plummeting and everybody is sort of thinking, well, you're going to get hurt worse than me, and some people I talk to on our side are extremely optimistic, and some people I talk to think that we're committing ritual suicide. So how pessimistic are you in the near term? Well, I don't think we're committing ritual suicide, but I don't think we've shown ourselves very well in this latest controversy i mean it seems to me where

we you know they did the tactics that ted cruz and others followed uh... we're very poor very hard to understand and and even harder to explain uh... to the american people and if they all went against the basic character of the institutions. I mean, that you have a freshman senator who has only been there a couple of months holding forth in the Senate is nothing extraordinary, but dictating the path of not only the Republicans in the

Senate, but really dictating the path of the Republicans in the House where they have a majority is extraordinary and it's it's very difficult to try to control american politics from the legislature from the senate and uh... bad ending to that was not hard to predict uh... it seems to me that i mean pickers has done himself a little bit of good uh... he's done the anti obama care cause a little bit of good but he hasn't done't done the party and conservatism

a lot of good under the circumstances, and the only immediate thing he's accomplished, it seems to me, is to make Rand Paul look more moderate. Well, now, so, I mean, I hate to ask you for predictions. By the way, that is my phone ringing. I'm just ignoring it. But how do you think this is all going to tumble out? What we want is obviously is we want to get the Senate back. That's the nearest term milestone for our side. Is this going to help this? Is it going to hurt this? I mean I read a report yesterday which I think was bizarrely alarmist and not really credible but was interesting numbers suggesting that the House may be in play now because of this.

Does that make any sense at all? It depends on how it ends, but at this point I wouldn't be that concerned. I think the American people are really not that engaged in this so far. I mean, there are blips of interest that arise from issues that spin out from this, like today's concern about military families and the death benefits. But, you know, I think the pox on both their houses is probably the attitude that most Americans take. And also, it's just a very difficult issue to explain. I mean, it doesn't line up well with the overall message that the party and conservatism wants to sell about itself, it seems to me.

I mean, we get that we're against Obamacare, but I think the argument could be made better and sharper and uh... without bringing in the the crisis the debt crisis uh... but i think in the end it's that that feeling that one bring together some kind of uh... jury built uh... uh... jerry dot coalition to overcome

it'll be some kind of a compromise there have to be uh... and uh... the debt ceiling puts more pressure on Obama and the Dems. So that's probably the best lever we have to actually get out of this mess. Professor Kessler, this is Troy Sinek in Los Angeles. About a year now has gone by

since the original release of your book and the new paperback version's out. And I know that the new paperback version has a new preface to incorporate the 2012 election. So in the year between the two versions of the book, has anything happened that has in any way changed or augmented your reading of the president and the way he sees himself? No, I don't think so. I mean I was – I started following Obama very early.

Sometime in 2007, I read his books, and I began to read all of his speeches, or at least all of them that I could find. And for me, it's a great personal disappointment that he was reelected, because I now have to follow him and read his speeches for four more years. Whereas I hoped I was through with this subject. But alas, it continues. And it's going to be a long four years, as I like to say. But no, fundamentally, again, I think, I mean, everyone knows the problems with Romney as a candidate. But still, it was a fairly close election, and the result was divided government. It was a fairly close election, and the result

was divided government. It was not a repudiation of the Republicans up and down the ticket by any means. It was quite distant from that. And nor was it a complete embrace of Obama. I mean, he managed to get a lower percentage of the popular vote and a lower percentage of the electoral vote, which is almost unprecedented in his reelection in 2012 compared to his first election. So this was not a, I mean, he is a great, you know, he, the point of the book really was to show how serious and dangerous, as it were, a political character he was from the conservative point of view, a much more serious character

politically, much more ambitious than, say, Bill Clinton had been, much more of an academic liberal than Bill Clinton, who had been a southern governor and head of the Democratic Leadership Council, and was much more really of a centrist-style Democrat. style uh... democrat obama you know from the the left academy part of the of the liberal coalition and uh... you know that's he's a very liberal guy the most liberal uh... person to be an executive office

centenary wallace i think uh... and we sort of knew that but we didn't really i think understand how curious he was about trying to to destroy the republican party and the conservative coalition and to uh... and to restore liberalism to what he regarded as its natural situation namely the dominant political force in the country and he really uh... it set out to do that and you could see it in his speeches and in his books.

And all of the attention in 2008 about his centrism, his pragmatism, his moderation, his uniting, not dividing, was cosmetic. It was thrown off by the image that he was projecting, but if you actually looked at the substance, it was clear from the very beginning he was going to take his left and as far left as he could uh... without sacrificing his other major goal which was to uh... known with left but to move the left back into the into the centerpiece uh... of the american

uh... you know political uh... uh... uh... coalition or they're more than the dominant part of the american coalition as well given that he said the media headwinds it is to his face all the way just at the fact he's accomplished so much as even more astonishing it you know because that's right but i think our guys i think aren't are not

as strategic in their approach this as he has been and he had a kind of i I mean, it's very odd. I mean, when you look at his books, and especially at his second book, The Audacity of Hope, which was sort of his campaign book, he really did have a long, sort of serious discussion

about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and Franklin Roosevelt. And he really saw himself as the liberal who could revive liberalism and the sort of progressive who could revive the faith in progress of a large segment of the left that had been gradually turned off in the 90s and under Bush. I think he hasn't completely succeeded, but he has gone a long way toward restoring the kind of aggressive liberalism that we thought had been killed by Reagan in the 1980s. I mean, his liberalism, that is Obama's liberalism, is the liberalism of the 60s, of the Great Society, and in a way of the New Deal of the new deal so the liberalism that achieves breakthroughs uh... across the board and and social economic and political policy and he you know he had his moment

in the first term where he got obama care in the stimulus and bob frank uh... and nobody really thought he could do that but he pulled it off uh... and uh... he's hoping of, for a final two years in his second term to reprise that. Well, you know, the people are going to get it hard and fast and large what they thought they wanted. And there may be no greater cure for liberalism than as much as you can possibly stomach. But there's a point that you make in your book, I believe, and I'm going to leave it with this, is that you describe four waves of liberalism.

There's first Wilsonian liberalism, followed by FDR, and followed by LBJ. I mean, in each case, you have a different form, a different style, a different concentration of statism, but they accumulate atop one another. Now, if Barack Obama is the fourth wave, the 60s wave with a little added racial grievance and identity politics, when we talk about restoring America to the basic values, to Reaganite values, however back you want to go, the fact of the matter is that we're starting from a position of having, I mean, if we defeat

the ideology of Barack Obama, we're still left with the inheritance of LBJ. If we defeat the inheritance of LBJ and the Great Society, we're still left with the remnant ideas of FDR. So we've got a big job ahead of us, and I assume that your book, I Am the Change, Barack Obama and the Future of Liberalism, goes into these things and gives us a roadmap for the future. Tantalizingly, we will have to leave it at that until the next time. Thank you. It's something of a roadmap. I mean, what you say is true. The American people are, in some respects, more liberal than they've ever been. And the rules of the game of American politics have been written largely by liberals.

And so it's very difficult to roll that back, especially all at once. And that's why I'm a little bit suspicious uh... current republican leadership in that in the senate and the house because there selling uh... schemes you know that are shortcuts

to political success but really i think we have a long path ahead of us and we have to think strategically and we have to think strategically, and we have to think in a deeply political and statesman-like way. The more of that, the better. It's not a matter of going in the backyard and plucking a few dandelion heads. It's root, branch, and stump removal. We thank you very much for appearing on the podcast today, Professor Kessler, and we tell everybody to buy your book again, I Am the Change, Barack Obama and the Future of Liberalism. Thanks for being with us today. Thank you so much and thanks to Ricochet.

Fairly. Well, some of these things, I imagine that in the final years of Barack Obama's terms that he will attempt to get the Supreme Court up to about 14, 15 members or so. Right. 15 members or so. Because once that's the case, you'll have enough smart, sensible people with enough wise, whatever ethnic component box they happen to check who will counterbalance the strange and dark mind of people like Scalia who, according to my Twitter feeds and everything, believes that the devil stalks the byways of America, exerting his dark, sulfurous will on the people. And what kind of nut wad would you think? How do we save ourselves from scoliothypes? We've got to change the court, and once the court has changed, of course, then they will find the Constitution to be the living, breathing, aspirating document that it is, and anything will be possible.

And what a wonderful world that will be. Oh, gosh. Maybe not. Maybe if we get the courts back to where they ought to be ideologically, we can start to dismantle some of these things. And how our courts should enforce the Constitution's promise of limited government is the title – rather the subtitle of a book, Terms of Engagement by Clark Neely of the Libertarian Institute for Justice. It's our encounter spot pick of the week. Now, let me give you the praises of the book.

The new Supreme Court session begins, and this one is timely. They'll be considering cases on abortion, racial preferences, campaign financing, the EPA, stuff that really matters to all of us. This is a book that debunks the concerns about judicial activism or the so-called conservative majority in the Supreme Court. To the contrary, it says that the Supremes have been asleep at the bench. Think about this. Of the 15,817 laws passed by Congress between 1954 and 2002, the Supreme Court struck down just 103, two-thirds of one percent. The court struck down less than one-twentieth of one percent. Of the million-plus state laws passed during the same time, and it strikes down just three out of every 5,000 laws passed by the Congress and states in any given

year. Clark explains that the U.S. Supreme Court consistently protects government prerogatives at the expense of ordinary Americans. Does that sound like a surprising thesis to you? It doesn't to me. Well, go to EncounterBooks.com to get this book for a special price for listeners of Ricochet. Enter the coupon code Ricochet at the checkout for an additional 15% off any other title, frankly. And we thank Encounter, as ever, for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. Now then, you know Bob Costa, of course. He's over at NR. He's on the radio. He's everywhere.

He's got one of those steel trap minds that can apprehend the situation from 30,000 feet above or from on the ground itself. And he got in the White House. They let him in. We're not talking that he put on some sort of butler's uniform and snuck in and stood in the corner

with a tray of canapes and eavesdropped. He was invited to the White House and thus becomes one of those compromised journalists that we can now point at and say, oh, I'm off to play the grand piano I've been to the White House.

I can't tell you what they said. So we're going to grill him relentlessly here and figure out exactly what went down in this little session. Welcome back to the Ricochet Podcast, Bob Costa. I just heard that. Maybe I should sign off right now. The connection's pretty bad. Hey, Bob. It's Rob Long in New York. I got a question.

First of all, I know a lot of this is off the record. So what can we ask you? You can ask me nothing. No, I'm kidding. The thing came together. It's an off-the-record meeting. It came together quite quickly. I got the invitation on Tuesday, and I said, of course I'm going to go to the White House. It's a chance to – as a reporter to hear from the president, and I was surprised. He met with us for 90 minutes. It was very candid, friendly, interesting. So just for someone who covers conservative politics and the Republican Party every day, to get that perspective was different to say the least.

So where do you – where did you meet? The Roosevelt Room. The Roosevelt Room. And like is there coffee? Are there snacks? I mean I'm sure there's – there are more reports to ask, but I kind of wanted to set the stage. So what are the snacks? Sure, yeah. They didn't have any snacks.

It was very much a let's move atmosphere. It was coffee with the presidential seal. I got Krauthammer a cup of coffee. The president had tea, and there were some glasses of water, and that was about it. Are you sitting? Do you sit? Do you stand? I sit. I sat around the Roosevelt Room, and the president's chair is probably about three inches higher than the rest. And then – and he's – like does he look at you like, OK, the enemy is here? Does he – is there any sense of the – because I think of him, and I could be wrong. I think of him as a very small-minded, petty, partisan guy. Yeah, without betraying any of those off-the-record ground rules I signed off on, I can say he was very friendly, very much didn't enter into any kind of arguments. It was very much a – it was just a little surreal to have 90 minutes sitting five inches from the president to his right at the table talking politics.

A lot of times I felt like I was here with you guys talking politics. He was very engaging in terms of understanding what's happening day to day in the house and all that. Did he ask you – did he ask any questions? Did he, did he? Yeah, he did. He did. He asked a lot. Like what did,

what was the most surprising question that you can tell me? He asked, I can't say specifically, but I'll say he asked a lot of questions about our perspectives on what we cover, what we see. Bob, this is,

this is Troy. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

Hold on. I have to interrupt you. Okay. It's not about the snacks. So in other words, you, Hold on a second, Troy. I have to interrupt here. It's not about the snacks, is it, James? So in other words, you went in and gave the enemy all of the troop formation numbers, where the bunkers are, what we got stored here, and then you can't give anything back to us about the rest of us. All right, Troy. That is the situation. It is what it is. I don't know. OK. Was there any difference between the tone that he struck privately with you guys than what the rest of us are hearing publicly?

Or did it track pretty well and he was just a hell of a lot nicer because you all were in the room? I think he's much more conversationalist, not so much a preacher, a big speaker in private. I know that sounds obvious, but one thing is someone – I spend a lot of time interviewing politicians, and a lot of times in private, they sound just like they are in public. They give speech-like answers. Certain senators I think of who – they can never really engage in a real conversation. So regardless of Obama's politics and his policies, just in terms of hosting a 90-minute discussion, I found him refreshingly interesting as someone who is willing to ask questions, answer questions. Because sometimes I was hesitant not just because it was the president, but a lot of these off-the-records with politicians. National Review has done them with Republicans many, many times in the past. They often don't yield much, and this was just – it was more friendly and easygoing than I may have expected.

Oh my god. He turned you. He didn't turn me. I'm just trying to tell you what I experienced objectively. But isn't that always what people say about meeting the president? You're on the way there to the White House. You're like, I'm going to give that guy a piece of my mind. I'm going to be tough on that guy. And then you're ushered to the White House, the Roosevelt Room, and they get the presidential seal. I mean the no snacks probably – that would be a deal-breaker for me, but you're probably a cheaper date than I am.

And suddenly the guy comes in and you're like, oh. I mean it was weird. I mean so you walk into the West Wing lobby, and I can't think of when National Review with the sitting Democratic president – I know Lowry was at George Willis' house before Obama was inaugurated. But I can't tell you the last time I was thinking about it when National Review met a sitting Democratic president, certainly not Clinton. This was the first time with Obama, and I'm sure it wasn't with Carter or Johnson. So it's interesting because you go in there, and the thing that struck me about the West Wing was that it was so small. I mean the Roosevelt Room is right across from the press briefing room.

It's right across from the Oval Office, and so you see the Oval Office open. I see the president go to the press conference. I see him walk back. We're standing next to the Oval Office. Then we go into the Roosevelt Room, and then just like Joe Biden is there hanging out. He says hello to Dr. Krauthammer. But the thing about this meeting on a personal level was – Hold on a second here.

Joe Biden, if he had the opportunity, would play the guy – would play Richard Widmark from that movie and giggle as he pushed Krauthammer down the steps in his chair, OK? This used to drive me nuts when I worked in DC, and I had the same exact feeling. I would go to the place, and I would be overawed with the history and the proximity and the rest of it. And that sort of becomes the story. I mean it's – let me – I know I'm being hard on you here, Bob. And I wish you could tell us more than you can. But having you guys in is great and hearing what you said is great. But it's not as though the Republican position on these things and what people are saying about it is some mystery that has to be teased out of the individuals who contain them in some private way.

What we feel and what we know is manifest and ought to be manifest to the president. What was the point of this? I think the point was just outreach. I think it was – the thing for me was I'm sitting there with Krauthammer and Paul Gigo and Byron York, and I'm probably the youngest person there by 15, 20 years, so I didn't say much. I mean mostly listening to the president. Krauthammer had some sharp questions, and I think the point was this was – I don't know. Other than I think the president wanted to have some – he clearly enjoyed having an extended conversation with conservative journalists. It was not – unless he was really putting on a front, it was – he seemed to actually really enjoy the back and forth. So for what it's worth, he seemed to enjoy it.

He probably learned a couple things. We learned a few things. And it was just a surprise because you think during a shutdown, why would he be talking in Asher Review? But I think – I know it sounds like, oh, I've been turned by the president. But I do have to say I think it's pretty big of him to talk to conservative journalists. I know it's off the record, but hey, I mean I give him credit for at least reaching out. That's all. No, I think that's a good point. So let me ask you something.

I mean I know – if we could just like – we'll just take a little bit of a wide-angle view here. So you don't have to connect any dots for us to what was said off the record. But the fact that he invited conservative journalists in suggests that he understands there's a need to talk to that side of the country. And that suggests that he recognizes that there has to be a shift in his tone and his politics for the past six years. And so I would ask you now, do you think he – I mean this is completely hard to answer, I know. But do you think he invited you guys out of strength or do you think he invited you guys out of weakness? I think it was more out of interest. I just don't think he probably talks to enough conservatives, and so I don't think he was trying to make a weak play or a strong play.

Obviously, I think there's a lot of division right now on both sides with this shutdown, but I think he was very interested in just hearing us out and letting him kind of talk through his position about debt and other things. So what's the way out? I mean you're there. You just met with – now you've met with all the players. How do I get out of this? I think it's going to be a short-term debt limit increase next week, and you saw the president on Tuesday, and you saw Gene Sperling on Monday from the White House talk about a short-term debt limit increase, and the House is going to come around to that. So the question is if you get a short-term debt limit increase next week, that maybe enables both parties to come to the table, and that's when you look at Paul Ryan's op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal. You see some murmurs about budget talks and tax reform talks, but those things will only happen once the debt limit is extended. STEPHAN KINSELLA Bob, can you give us kind of the thumbnail sketch of what Ryan is proposing as to how to get out of this? saying we'll trade some changes there to refund some aspects of discretionary spending. And for those funds and for that new spending, we want some entitlement reform, probably chain CPI the way Social Security benefits are calculated.

So that's what Ryan is looking for, minor entitlement reform. To him at least, Democrats think it's major reform in exchange for sequester. So that's – you think that's what the exchange is going to be because up until now, every single deal or proposed deal with the White House and this White House has had as it – at its core for them some kind of revenue. That's true. And that's a deal breaker for republicans, right? So aren't we in one way just kind of replaying a conversation we've already had with them where we get really close to a deal, but then they demand revenue.

They demand taxes in some way, and we say absolutely not, and that's the end. I think that's a fair take, but here's why I don't think that's the case. Because democrats in 2013 right now compared to 2011 are not so much looking for revenue as part of any kind of bargain, but they want to fund these sequestration cuts. And the House Democrats especially are very unhappy with the president for agreeing to sequestration in 2011, and they want those spending programs back. So if those get reinstalled, that's something that will make Democrats happy. It will give Boehner some votes on the floor. But here's the – the whole question for Boehner is even if he makes some kind of sequestration for entitlement reform deal, do House conservatives come along? Because there's a lot of unhappiness already that Ryan's proposal has no mention of Obamacare. Bob, can you illuminate for a little bit because this has come up several times over the past couple of weeks. It seems like the level of control that the House GOP leadership

has over its caucus is next to none. And could you explain some of the factors behind that? I mean I've heard a couple of things. I've heard, one, they don't have earmarks to use as leverage anymore, and two, members are very concerned about outside PACs in a way that they didn't used to be. I mean what are some of the driving forces between this sort of widespread feeling of independence among the members of that caucus who don't seem to care what leadership thinks? They really don't care what leadership thinks. I think for me, it goes back to the fiscal cliff in January when Boehner had a real coup attempt and it failed, but it crippled his grip over the conference, and we've seen since January Boehner struggle with the Farm Bill, with the Violence Against Women Act to really kind of get things through to get a majority of the majority on any kind of legislation. And so there's a trust gap with Boehner among the right because they look back at 2011 and look at Bob Woodward's book, The Price of Politics. They're very suspicious that Boehner at one time put a lot of revenue on the table, and they pushed back at him earlier this year. They say, hey, no more one-on-one negotiations with the president.

Boehner agreed. That's how he started to move in March and April towards what we call regular order, no behind-the-scenes talks, doing everything on the floor. So that has limited Boehner's abilities to craft any kind of deal with the president on anything, and that trust gap still exists. And so you're seeing conservatives now – they also got very much enthusiastic in the summer about what Heritage Action was doing to defund Obamacare and Ted Cruz's efforts, and they've really kind of been marching in lockstep with that aspect of the conservative movement and thinking that the party's establishment, the leadership, just doesn't have a clear focus on how to get rid of Obamacare, and they're just going to keep fighting on that front. Do they realize that the reality of the world in which we live means that there's absolutely no way that they can get rid of Obamacare this year unless they change the composition of the government?

I mean here's the thing. I understand the position of saying we are going to take a maximalist stance. We want it gone. We want it defunded. And then when you eventually end up compromising, if there are those people who are willing to do so, you actually get something. You get the medical tax yanked. You get Keystone, whatever, as opposed to what the Republicans usually do, which is to start in the middle with a timorous position. We're sorry. We're disagreeing with you. Please don't hate us. And then end up getting something like the medical tax – device tax sunsets in 2027. But of course it doesn't.

So I mean I understand that position. But how many people are there actually in the house who think that there's a fighting – there's an actual chance in this plane of reality of getting rid of Obamacare in 2013, 2014? I mean I think most rational politicians know in divided government it's almost impossible to get that kind of thing to happen. But it's really consumed the party, especially in the House. And so I think there's not so much a belief that it can happen but a belief that it should happen and Republicans should fight to the end to try to make it happen even if they know in the back of their minds it's going to be an unsuccessful campaign. So all right. I'm asking you a question you can't answer, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Where is this all – where do you think the trajectories are going for midterms? I mean part of our problem as we say is like we only have a third of the thing – a

third of the pieces we need, tools we need to make some real change, and we're all hoping that in the midterms coming up that we get two-thirds, right? We get the Senate back. Does that look more or less likely in wake of what's going on now in Washington? I think Republicans are still in a pretty solid position to have a shot at winning back the Senate, and I think when you look at the House because of the way things were redrawn in 2010, Republicans are still in a pretty solid position to have a shot at winning back the Senate. And I think when you look at the House because of the way things were redrawn in 2010, they're going to be keeping the House majority. But the thing that when you talk to leadership sources and you talk to some of the older members, I think if this default happens, it could be not a disaster for the GOP because they expect it to be a short-term default. But it could cost some members in some of the purple seats, Charlie Dent in Pennsylvania, Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania. And so that number of two, three, three House Republicans could trickle down a bit in 2014.

But there's not a real fear that it's going to cost them the House. But there's a sense also if they just misplay their hand too much, their chances of getting the Senate and kind of sweeping sentiment up around the country towards Republicans will be diminished. On the default, Bob, what's the current thinking about whether or not Boehner would allow the debt scene to be increased without having a majority of Republicans? He keeps saying he needs to have – Boehner wants to avoid default, but he also doesn't want to lose conservative support. So he's trying to toe the line right now. I think Bainer, on October 16th, if it's 1155, he may bring something to the floor that's clean, debt-limit extension, especially now that the White House is signaling that it's willing to do talks after short-term extension. Bainer must be thinking to himself, the White House is trying to give me an out here. Maybe just take it up if I don't have the perfect amount of votes.

Is that a tipping point? At what point is the tipping point where Boehner maybe loses the support of the caucus to the point where he's maybe in danger of losing the speakership? I think Boehner has always had this – every time Boehner has broken the Hastert rule this year where he's gone against the majority of his conference, there's been all this talk that he's risking his gavel and that his speakership could be in trouble. But there's no real alternative out there. Kennedy is very much tied to Boehner. Kevin McCarthy is not a Boehner threat. Paul Ryan doesn't seem interested in the job and actually works closely with Boehner in most things. So Boehner's power is constantly threatened but his gavel is not just because there's – the conservative flank has so much influence but they don't have a real leader. There's no one that you can put on the cover of Time Magazine as the conservative leader in the

house, the Ted Cruz of the house. Right. Bob, last question here, which I just forgot. Oh, no, here it is. Is there anybody in the Republican leadership who is thinking that an issue to be made, a meta issue to take away from all of this, is just the broken budget policy process that we have now anyway? I mean, we're not talking about a budget. I remember in the old days a budget would be delivered, it would be declared dead on arrival,

they would pick through it, and then eventually something would get passed. Those days are long gone. It's just this rolling blur of CRs. Has anybody attempted to make a point about the White House attitude toward budgeting? I mean I think responsibility is really on both sides here because the whole point of the Republican budget this year and they passed the Republican budget and they finally forced the Senate to pass its own budget is when are these budgets going to go to conference?

And that's what Paul Ryan was talking about in his op-ed today. He wants to bring these two budgets together. Now, Senate conservatives have actually been resistant to having some kind of conference for a while for a variety of legislative minutia reasons. So the question is when can you reconcile the House budget with the Senate budget? And I'm just not sure that's going to happen, but maybe this debt limit deal could push forward that process. Well, we hope comedy and

peace rules at the end of this, and we all learn and move forward, but probably not. And when there's something happening... Wow, you actually said that with a straight face. And when there's something happening, you can go to Bob Costas' National Review because the stuff that he puts out, the on-the-ground reporting and the insight and

the grasp and the apprehension of what's going on in D.C. is just remarkable. And you should also follow him on Twitter too. And our Prince's Twitter feed stream. But you want to have this pop up in your little smartphone to figure out. It's like having somebody in the capital. So thanks for being with us on the podcast and we'll see you down the road, Robert. Sounds good. Thank you.

So stay strong. Don't turn Manchurian Candidate on us. Relax, guys. Relax. Thank you, Bob. It must be cool though, sort of walking in there. I was going to say, Rob, it sounded like from your initial line

of questioning, you would have flipped sides immediately had there been chocolate in the room. Had there been a cookie oh you could buy me for a cookie yeah to dip in my little a little presidential teacup absolutely this is what i like i said like i mentioned before this is what i couldn't stand about dc is as much as even i was a part of it and enjoying it and doing it you would look across the room at all of these these these geeky little nerds who were writing for newspapers and were in nerd heaven themselves, D.C.,

with proximity to the glory of power. I mean, here come the guys with the flags, here comes the stirring music, everybody, and they all hated Bush. You could stand them. Or if it was Clinton, it was their guy, they're all happy. The feeling that they are somehow englobed themselves with the reflected photons of wisdom and wonder coming.

It just curdled me. And it's – I mean you're sitting in a room waiting for some press conference. You're looking down at a famous desk in which the Treaty of 1847 or whatever was written. And you just – wow. It's all around me. The marble. Look at this. It's just – it's extraordinary.

And I'm part of it. Me, being a little. Me from North Dakota. Right. And I'm not it's all around me. The marble. Look at this. It's just – it's extraordinary. And I'm part of it. Me, being a little. Me from North Dakota. And I'm not saying at all that's what happened to Bob. I'm just saying there's something about this off-the-record stuff here that if there wasn't an advantage for the president, it wouldn't happen. And the idea that he would have to go out to the rooms to these interesting – I mean it's like – is he going to the intellectual zoo to stare at these striped creatures and figure out what their taxonomy is? No. If he isn't aware of what the arguments are on the other side, he doesn't deserve to be the ones making the arguments for his side. Well, this is the whole reason he was supposed to be keeping his BlackBerry, right? So that he could get this information.

I think you may be being a little too generous, James. No, I don't think it stuck to Bob, but I'm sure that the point of having them there was if not to roll them. I mean the whole point is to get at least marginally nicer things said about – and it sticks in some cases. You get the David Brooks crease pants stuff. But the other thing to note just for people who haven't had this experience is that when they do this and when they bring journalists in the room like that in DC, they always – regardless of what the president's schedule looks like, they always make him about 10 or 15 minutes late just so you can spend the time waiting and soaking in the room and building up the anxiety that's involved. The whole thing is a game. The whole thing is a game. The whole thing is a game. And they've all done it. And I mean who – the presidential yacht, they use it all the time and Johnson did it.

I mean it's a perfectly legitimate use of power. I think you'd like to wait a little bit because you kind of want to look around the room. You kind of want to like put one of those pens in your pocket. They used to have this – people used to loot Air Force One when they were guests on Air Force One because there's special little notepads, say Air Force One, little pens, say Air Force One and ashtrays, and they would loot it. And so I think – I forget who it was. It was Reagan. He decided, well, let's just give everybody a little gift bag. Just leave the – we're going to give you a bag with the pens in it, so just don't steal it. But I would like to think – I'd be looking at that coffee cup and thinking, how deep are my pockets? I have some champagne actually from – the Kennedy Center for the Arts has a standing booth that is reserved by the administration and they give it to dignitaries, people who come into town and whatnot. And when we were living in DC, my wife's aunt was in the Bush administration. And when grandma came to town, she gave us the booth to go see Phantom of the Opera,

which was extraordinary. But here we all are in the booth itself, and people are always looking up to see who's there. And, you know, it's me with my pockets full of matches. I didn't take an ashtray, but I did take a little bottle of bubbly. And at the end of it, the actors come out and do the little triple gesture bow. And they wave their hands up and point up to the booth so everyone can look. Because they do that every time because they don't know what dignitary is there. And all the heads in the place swivel. And there's my grandma with bunions and the rest of it, wondering why everyone's looking at her.

But still, even though we were just interchangeable little human cogs in this whole machine, we got a moment of that glory. And one of the reasons that I left the DC and came back to a sensible place was because where I live now is not infected in the least bit by these trappings, these manifestations, these emanations. There's the sucking up, the power, the rest of it. Well, that's why I live in Hollywood. I mean I live in Hollywood because I can't put up with that kind of pageantry and arrogance. I like to live a simple life. It's for money, sex and pharmaceuticals where you are, which is far more interesting on a human level than the petty machinations of politics.

I don't know. Of course, I would go too. Who could ever possibly turn down the opportunity to – Oh, you got to go. You're a citizen. You're American. He's the president and he won and he's the president and he sits in the White House. You got to go.

You got to go to meet him. But if he calls you, you are not obligated to go. You should. I mean you're an American. Yes, there's a respect of power, but he ain't the king. You can send him a note that says, I'm sorry. I'm getting my hair cut that afternoon. Yeah, I'm watching TV.

But here's what you can't refuse, James. You cannot refuse this. On October 15th at 7pm in New York City Ricochet Meetup I'll be there, John Podoritz will be there a bunch of other people will be there you gotta come, if you're in the area

on October 15th, that's Wednesday 7pm we're going to post about the location soon we don't have a location quite nailed down but we'll have one by the end of the day and we'll post about that and show up only for members. So if you're not a member, you're listening to this, you're not a member, become a member of Ricochet right now, ricochet.com. Go there. Become a member and show up, and it will be a lot of fun.

Have some drinks. We'll sit around and talk. I'm sure there will be some stuff to discuss about the news and whatever the CR turns out to be. We'll get to know each other a little bit and hang out. Really, this is for members. That's one of the perks of being a member, one of the reasons you'll be a member. We have these all over the country. We're having one

a week from today, right? A week from today in New York City. Be there. A member meetup. That's not a euphemism. I wish I could be there. It's been a while since I've been to New York. It really has. Listen, folks, it's been a great podcast. Wow. I think we could just

go on and on forever, but I hope by the next time we do one that the shutdown will be over and we'll have something we can go forward lurching on to the next crisis. Troy, thanks for sitting in for Peter today. Thank you very much. Rob, you're off, I know. You've got to run, but I'm sure that you're aware that EncounterBooks.com

has got a great selection, and Ricochet is the coupon code. And I'm sure, Rob, you also know that AudiblePodcast.com slash Ricochet is where people can get their free trial, and they should do so to thank them. And a seven-second pitch, if you will, for joining. Well, you know, I gave it, but I'll do it again. You join Ricochet.com,

you get to come to member meetups, you get to have your voice heard and read and listened to by very powerful people, I promise you. And you also get to meet and have great conversations among and between our contributors and members. It's the fastest growing, smartest, most civil conversation on the web, and we would love for you to join. We need for you to join. All right, folks. There you go. And join and so you can go to the comments. And in the comments you will find at the end of this thread a long speculation, I'm sure. And if not, I'm asking for it. Which politician in D.C. do you think is reading this one right now? Aside from the NSA.

Thank you for listening, folks. I'm James Lylek, here in Minneapolis, and we'll see you all in the comments at Ricochet.com. See you, fellas. Thank you for listening, folks. I'm James Lylex here in Minneapolis, and we'll see you all in the comments at Ricochet.com. See you, fellas. See you, guys. You'll never know how much I really love you You'll never know how much I really care Listen

Do you want to know a secret? Do you promise not to tell? Whoa, closer Let me whisper in your ear Say the words you long to hear I'm in love with you. Listen. Do you want to know a secret?

Do you promise not to tell? Closer. Let me whisper in your ear Say the words you long to hear Ricochet Join the conversation I've known a secret for a week or two Nobody knows, just we two Listen

Do you want to know a secret? Do you promise not to tell? Whoa, closer Let me whisper in your ear Say the words you love to hear I'm in love with you Ooh Ooh