The Ricochet Podcast - State of The Union?

Episode Date: January 22, 2015

This week, Jon Gabriel sits in for Peter Robinson (he’ll be back next week –promise!) as we’re joined by two of the sharpest observers in politics. Matthew Continetti is the Editor-In-Chief of the Washington Free Beacon. We chat with him about this week’s State of The Union address, thin skinned liberals, American Sniper’s cultural impact, and the romantic genius of John Milius. Then... 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 or at OnPost.com. Send joy. Show grow. Send love. OnPost. For your world.

Decencies apply. See OnPost.com. Activate program. More than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. Well, I'm not a crook. I'll never tell a lie. But I am not a bully. I'm the king of the world!

Wow! I'm the king of the world! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Rob Long and John Gabriel sitting in Peter Robinson. I'm James Lylex and our guests are Matt Cononetti and Mickey Kaus. The state of the podcast is strong. No! There you go again. Yes, indeed, this is the Ricochet Podcast, number 246, and it's brought to you in part by Acculturated.com,

where pop culture matters, and you should check that out. Why? Well, you might find interesting essays about pop culture matters. And you should check that out. Why? Well, you might find interesting essays about pop culture from people you know and trust and like. You don't have to go to sites like Medium.com, for example. Medium just lets anybody write for them. The other day I found a piece there about pop culture by some guy named Rob Long.

That's right, Rob Long doesn't confine himself just to Ricochet. Some of the stuff he offloads onto other sites and I'll grill him about that piece in a second. But of course, the apple of his eye, the star of his life is as ever Ricochet. And he's here to tell you why you should reach for your wallet right now and start banging numbers into the computer so that you may have Ricochet for all the days to come. Rob? Well, you know, James, thank you. It's good to talk to you this morning. I actually am not going to try to pitch you to become a member of Ricochet because that's a separate thing.

Here's what I want. We get hundreds of thousands of downloads of Ricochet podcasts. We do not have hundreds of thousands of members. I understand that. People like to pay. Just go to the site. Go to Ricochet.com. See the fastest, funniest, most civil conversation on the web between and among our contributors and editors and members. We are honored if you are a member to be members with you.

If you are not a member, we would love for you to have the chance to get a membership for a 30-day free trial that's coming up. Check it out. You can join the member feed, post, comment, add your thoughts. You can lurk if you want. You get all the podcasts. You get to come to the meetups. All of that is great. But just do one thing for me today for yourself.

It's free. Go to Ricochet.com. Sign up for the daily shot. It's our daily email blast. Very, very funny, witty, kind of concise digest of the kind of things, some of the stuff that happened yesterday, some of the stuff that's going to happen today

and tomorrow, some of the stuff you didn't even know was going to happen. It's hugely popular. John Podoritz loves it. Matt Continenti, who's going to be a guest here, loves it. It's read by insiders. It's hugely popular. John Podoritz loves it. Matt Continenti is going to be a guest here, loves it. It's read by insiders. It's also read by me. I just read mine this morning and it's funny and great and it's free and it's a great way for you to get – become part of Ricochet without having to reach for your wallet quite yet.

Because here's what I know. Every drug dealer I know that I can get you hooked if I just get you to come to the site. So Ricochet.com and eventually you'll become a member like you and me and our co-host, John Gabriel. Welcome, John. Great to be here, gentlemen. John's in Arizona. I believe Peter is traveling back from a family matter. And, John, I have to ask you a question that I've been burning to ask you specifically all week long.

Did you read Rob Long's piece in Medium? Yes, I did. After I got over the feeling of betrayal. What? That's precisely how I felt. Yeah, I read it. What are you talking about? It's like finding – well, go on, John.

Well, yeah, next I expect to find some lipstick on his collar and him calling me by the wrong name. Calling me Peter, for instance. I do have a sweater tied around my neck at a jaunty angle, fellas. That's good. I'm doing my best. You are doing a really good job. I can kind of hear the sweater actually. I don't know how I could do that, but I can hear it.

The gentle rustling of Fortrell or nylon. Well, listen, James, just to head this off of the past, which I recognize, what I do on the medium is I sort of repurpose and republish sort of the text version of some of the radio commentaries I've done. A friend of mine was putting the – was sort of part of the medium team early. It's kind of a cool interface actually. It is. It's got some problems with it I think as you contribute. It's got some problems with it, I think, as you contribute. It's not like something where they call you up. It's really anybody can do it.

It's sort of interesting. I don't really know why I'm doing it. I just did it. Well, I thought it was typical, Rob, that it starts out cynically, tells you a little Hollywood insider lore, and then ends up wrapping that cynicism actually in a good moral lesson that you walk away from feeling good.

You figured out my formula. Everybody's got to have one. Now the question is if you're a speechwriter for the President of the United States and you're sitting down to write his State of the Union, do you look back at all of his previous rhetorical triumphs and attempt to build

a bridge between the iconic lines of his previous rhetorical triumphs and attempt to build a bridge between the iconic lines of his administration, which aren't exactly coming to mind? Or do you try to craft something? What do you do? Let's take a look at this from a writer's perspective. Do you think it was a good speech? Do you think it was a successful speech? And why are we still talking about it because nobody bloody cares, do they? Yeah, it's really interesting. It felt like – I wrote a piece on it yesterday. It feels like a dance remix of his five previous states of the union. I don't quite understand what he's trying to get at because it's just all the same line. It's the top 1%.

Let's all work together. Let's veto everything the Republicans propose. It's just this mashup of everything he said. The only thing that I was wondering about writing-wise, because it just feels like a bunch of, at this point, he's fired his speech writers. It's just a bunch of Microsoft Word macros. It's just all these buzz phrases that he uses repeatedly. The one line that kind of paused the speech is when he said that I don't need to run for election again. I can't run for election again, and some Republicans applauded. And then I thought that was something the speechwriters put in purposely to give him the good zinger line of I won both times. But it came off as very petty.

He seemed kind of angry and churlish when some people applauded that he wouldn't run for election again. Well, hold on a second. Go ahead. No, that's the line that people are taking away from it. Let me ask Rob. If Bush had said that, would we be applauding him for his swagger and his – No, no.

Or would it strike us as a classless, graceless, arrogant, petty thing to say? Well, everything he did struck people that way. Well, that's the problem. There are two problems with that. One, which I was so stunning when he said it, was that he's in a room with a guy, Harry Reid, who used to be Senate majority leader, who isn't anymore, entirely because of Barack Obama, with Nancy Pelosi, who used to be Speaker of the House of Representatives, who's not anymore, entirely because of Barack Obama's failures. There's all there are a whole bunch of hapless Democrats home in their sad little district

districts, probably sending out LinkedIn requests looking for a job who don't have jobs anymore because of Barack Obama's failures as a president. I mean, to claim this mantle of huge success when he's standing in the very room that he lost because of his failures just seemed to me to be sort of nuts. It's like It's a fantastically clinical narcissism. But the second thing I would say is that this is a president who is running to be president of MSNBC. This speech was designed for MSNBC. He doesn't care anymore whether any of these things are real policy, whether he's going to get them, whether they're going to be even part of the national political debate in any meaningful sense. All he cares about is watching MSNBC, which we now know he does, and going to some of these progressive blogs and seeing himself be praised.

This was the tiniest State of the Union ever given by the tiniest president ever, which seems to be so – such an odd choice, a choice that – I know I'm naive. I'm continually surprised by this president's ability to shrink himself and to become irrelevant. It just – it's stunning. End rant. John, do you agree or is he still a force that can veto and issue executive orders as he pleases? He's still a factor. Because he's back, you know. Oh, yeah.

He's back. Yeah, he's back. Yeah, and you know that everybody on CNN basically following the speech was just so eager. He's back. He's back. Before he even stopped speaking, they were just shouting that. But, yeah, he definitely is small when you think of all the power he has at his disposal. And he's only playing to the people he thinks he's the president of, which is 20 to 40 percent of the electorate who might actually stop at MSNBC and not laugh.

And that's his main concern all the time. He's still relevant for the next two years, like it or not. We don't like it. But it seems like he doesn't really want to be relevant. He wants to pose. He wants to be a commentator on the outside. He wants to be Van Jones or Jay Carney on CNN commenting about what a great speech he did rather than the guy giving that speech. Yeah, it's weird.

I think presidents have like the choice at this point in their term, right, at the end, right? It's a legacy choice. So the legacy is, okay, how am I going to set this up? What's the future historical sort of digest of my presidency? And I think – and at some point, a lot of presidents at this point in their term, Bill Clinton certainly was this one, thought to himself, OK, I'd better be – I've got to get some big things done and I don't really care. I don't really care about politics anymore because I just – I care only about history. I think in a lot of ways, Reagan did the same thing.

It's sort of natural. This guy is thinking to himself, I'm going to write the first draft of my presidential history and it's going to be Barack Obama, brilliant, genius, progressive leader, thwarted all the time by petty republicans. He's already writing – this guy is so political. He's already writing his political history, which is bizarre for a man who's president of the United States. Even though, however, he was thwarted at every turn by these Lilliputians, he still managed to save the economy, end two wars simultaneously, and leave America stronger than it was when he found it. In his mind, okay? Now, there wasn't very much about the war on terror in the speech last night because the shadow of danger has passed, as you heard. The shadow of the penumbra of the emanations of the danger has passed, the state of the union is strong etc etc etc but there were some things in there that i found interesting it's you can't make the case anymore as was often made that when he came

into the office he was this this cool spock-like intelligent guy who could almost too smart for our own good who could sift through all of the data and evidence and come up with the right course, which had nothing to do with partisanship or petty politics, but was the right thing for the country, right? That was sort of the thing we were sold. Here comes the smart guy who was above all that. And it turns out, of course, that he's an incredibly petty partisan character who isn't that smart to begin with. But we get down to what he was saying last night. He betrays a progressive's absolute fundamental ignorance of economics when he starts to talk about, for example,

we want to close the loopholes that the rich have, of course, because they abound, the rich themselves who paid nothing whatsoever in taxes. We want to close those loopholes so that we can give the middle class child care and a leg up. Words to that effect. As though the money directly flows from the bank account of the rich into the pockets of somebody who's struggling out there in the hinterlands. And then he followed that up by saying that we want to make community college cost zero. Cost zero. That's impossible. I mean, it can't cost zero. Cost zero. That's impossible.

I mean, it can't cost nothing. What he means is we're not going to charge you for it. Uncle Sugar will just pay for you. On and on it went, this litany of progressive ideas. And you're right, Rob. He's trying to appeal to the MSNBC crowd. But I just find it extraordinary

really that at this point, he shows no interest in having learned a GD thing. Well, no. Of course he didn't learn anything. But I just – I'm surprised that a president facing what he's facing of any side doesn't really matter. You look at a congress that's arrayed against you and you're in – this is the second to last State of the Union. State of the Unions are stupid anyway but – the second to last State of the Union. I mean I was just – I'm not just expecting something better. I was just expecting

or hoping in a weird way that this president would kind of figure out near the end of his presidency how the presidency really works and it doesn't really work at that point. Face what he's faced with, re-litigating old stuff, re-litigating or suggesting small little pieces of candy to give to the voters. What it really needed was a president with a sort of a bolder vision of reconciliation and one or two surprising things that Republicans would have to stroke their chins and say, well, he's got a point there. And he just didn't do that. And I just find that so weird.

It's just a weird – here's what I really think is sad about this president. He is a smart guy. He is an intelligent person. He has an intellect. He has zero curiosity about the job he's in. There's zero evidence that Barack Obama, unlike really, I think, any other president, unlike Bill Clinton, who was voraciously interested in the presidency itself, read histories and biographies and accounts of past presidents to figure out how to do this job. There's no evidence this guy has any interest in it at all. It's as if he thinks, oh, all the other presidents before me were idiots.

Now I'm here and he's flailed and flailed and flailed like a spoiled and coddled child. And all he really has to do is spend a few hours listening to the Lyndon Johnson tapes or reading a couple of biographies of effective legislative presidents. That's all he's got to do. But he won't do it because he's the best. He's LeBron, baby. He's not. Everybody else is like way, way down there. FDR doesn't count.

Eisenhower is no good. Reagan was an idiot. George W. Bush was a cretin. Bill Clinton was a lightweight. I mean you could just see him like listing all these other presidents. Oh, God. Those people had nothing on me. And yet they all got big pieces of legislation.

They all had signature things that they did that were remarkable across the aisle, right? They were effective legislators. Whether we like their policies or not, they were effective. This guy is insane. It just blew his second-to-last shot. To use a Barack Obama metaphor, he's at the free-throw line and he just blew his second-to- you know to use a barack obama metaphor he's at the free throw line and he just blew his second to last fleet free throw and he's not he's not here to learn from anybody he's here to teach the rest of us i know i know i'm too bad well i don't i'm not telling

he doesn't learn from me but he should at least read lbj's biography what does he got to learn from some some big ear jug you know cracker te Texan down there picking up pickles by their ears and pointing out his scars? He's managed to do a lot of amazing stuff. Precisely. Well, anybody who's ever worked in Washington knows that the SOTU is a big deal. It's one of those tentpole events that gets everybody talking. And you have to leave the country, you have to leave D.C. and go out in the rest of the Hinters

to find out that nobody really particularly cares. So why are we talking about it? Well, you can't not find interesting telling bits in there. And for those people in Washington, well, the Washington Free Beacon would be the place that you would go. And Matt Cononetti is one of the people you'd want to read, of course, editor-in-, the Washington Free Beacon would be the place that you would go.

And Matt Cononetti is one of the people you'd want to read, of course, editor-in-chief of the Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, Matt was opinion editor of the Weekly Standard, where he remains a contributing editor. And we're happy to have him back on the podcast. Good day, sir. How does that – those masterful rhetorical hammer blows, are they still resonating and rolling up and down the corridors of power in Washington? Oh, absolutely. I mean they knock me off my feet. I woke up the next morning after President Obama's State of the Union and questioned my conservatism.

Sure. How could you have been so blind? To be an editor. Yeah. I mean my whole life kind of crumbled before my eyes after Obama's speech. Hey, Matt. In fact, I would say this State of the Union is almost completely overtaken by events already. Hey, Matt. It's Rob Long in LA. Good to hear from you. So like how – on a scale of one to, I don't know, most insignificant ever, and the State of the Union, we were just saying before you got on, I actually find it – it's kind of a pointless event, right?

But I mean I want a president who just sends it in at some point. But how squandered was this for him? Well, I'd say Obama – the Obama White House would make the case that it wasn't squandered at all. And they have somewhat of a strong case there from a purely analytical point of view, which is that the president's approval ratings have been rebounding thanks to economic developments with which he had nothing to do. Nonetheless, if you're the president, you get either credit or blame for the economy. And so his approval rating has been on the rise,

mainly because he's solidifying his base around him once again. And so this speech was red meat for the left-wing base of the Democratic Party. And to that extent, I think it could probably help him a little bit. But we know as well that there were record record low tune in right ratings for this for the State of the Union the agenda even the New York Times the next day the the Peter Baker headline in the New York Times is basically like lots of talk but for an agenda that will is going nowhere and then I'd say really what I was shocked by was even the mainstream media questioned Obama's picture of the world that he presented in that, you know,

that like 30 seconds he discussed foreign policy. And so overall, was the speech good for him? I'd say maybe, but of course it's just – it's completely irrelevant already. Why did he do that about the – why was that foreign policy section so disconnected to reality? Was there nobody there to sort of circle that section and say, what? No, I think that's what the White House believes. I believe that the White House and the president believe their foreign policy is a success. And they judge it by one metric, which is not getting America involved. And by that metric, it is remarkably successful. America is not involved in the world. And of course, what that means for the world and what it means for the stability in the Middle

East and what it means in the long run for american security and prosperity is very grim that all obama cares about and he even made some reference to it in the speech where he said something well you know i'm stopping us from getting into another ground war in the middle east okay well good for you isis is expanding uh literally on the day he gave his he was saying how his foreign policy was a success. Right. The Iranian backed Hezbollah like militia had taken the capital of Yemen. You're releasing all these terrorists back to the Middle East. I love it.

They're releasing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to Oman, which is near Yemen. And when you say, well, it's convenient for them to prevent them literally going to this, you say, well, what's to prevent them literally going to this land that's governed by either Hezbollah or al-Qaeda basically, they say, well, don't worry. There's a desert in between. Well, I think the terrorists can navigate the desert. I mean I don't think it's that difficult to get from one place to the next.

I don't – so. Yeah, there are cars that go across the desert. Yeah, it is – There are cars, right? Yeah, they do work. I think they have fuel over there. I think that's their thing. So you have written – just while we're on this little train of thought, can we just follow it up just because – because you wrote that the central front of the war on terror is no longer Iraq.

It's the West. So if you're Barack Obama, then it is a police action that we have to – across Europe, there have been terror raids since Charlie Hebdo. There will continue to be terror raids. Basically everyone is – it's a general roundup of the usual suspects or some people that have been under observation that are now – they're not going to wait. Is that what we're looking at now, sort of a front here in the West that's sort of constant terror raids? Well, I don't think it's going to be working when you've also slashed your ability to survey terrorists, you've weakened your ability to interrogate terrorists, and you're also doing your best to release the terrorists that we already have detained. The law enforcement approach probably won't do much because you're weakening the counterterrorism tools that were created. Matt, I have to interrupt you.

This is James Lylex in Minneapolis. You are ignoring the president's greatest tool, his ability to convince us in the future that the settlements in Jerusalem will be curtailed because that's the animating thing that is driving all of this. Don't you know, right? Right, right.

Amazingly, yeah. It was amazing to me that the targets in Paris were Charlie Hebdo, which had been under threat for years. And then there wasn't – there was not a smidgen of difference in the jihadist's mind between Charlie Hebdo and a bunch of Jews shopping at a kosher grocery in Paris. I mean, it's all one thing. Jews are always the target worldwide, and this is something that the president clearly

doesn't understand. Hi Matt, this is John Gabriel. Yeah, kosher food is just provocative. How can you really blame them, frankly? It insults them all. I thought it was interesting too, as Rob mentioned, your piece on the central front of the war moving from the Middle East to the West. Not only Charlie Hebdo, we had the recent attack in Ottawa. The Lint Store in Sydney, which I basically totally forgot about, and it was only a month ago. So how do you think Western leaders can react? We've seen a few raids in Europe, but it has the feel of round up the usual suspects. And in a week, when the pain isn't there, we'll complain about wrongly incarcerating people. So how do you think the various Western powers will react? I

have quite a bit more faith in the leadership of Australia and Canada than I do our own country, sadly. Well, I have seen some headlines that France is mobilizing its navy, I think, for strikes against one of the al-Qaeda groups proliferating in the greater Middle East. Look, I don't see the battlefield shifting back to where it belongs, which is the Middle East, anytime soon, just because of the current array of political forces in our world. But to me, there's no doubt that the rise of ISIS, has created a home base for Western jihadis and Middle Eastern jihadis who go to Syria to fight whomever, but also pick up training, they pick up connections, and they probably pick up financing and arms

as well, to then go return to the West, Europe in particular, but all these other locations you mentioned, and the United States of America, to launch attacks. And it's also, so that's like the, that's the empirical point, which is that there's now a base in the Middle East for these jihadists to plot and train. But then there's also this larger theoretical point, which is that right now, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, if you watch what they're doing on social media, if you look at their propaganda, they think they're winning. They think that they're on top. They're solidifying

their positions and growing in Syria, even as the president says that somehow the United States has stopped the momentum. It's divorced from reality. So they are now what Osama bin Laden called the strong horse. And what that does is it inspires other people who may not have gone to Syria, but they wanted to be kind of alienated people, losers or whoever, who want to join a winning movement. And all of a sudden they turn to that inspiration. What's necessary is a crushing defeat like Al Qaeda suffered actually in 2007 in Iraq in order to kind of quiet things down. But,

but I just don't see that coming. Well, even if we dropped a lot of fuel, our explosives on ISIS and decimated their numbers and turned the majority of them into jam, it still wouldn't do it because of course there's large state actors that we have to worry about as well. In Argentina, we are seeing a fascinating case of a guy who was attempting to expose what he said was a deal between the Argentinian government and Iran for oil to cover up their

complicity in the murder of the people of the Jewish center, which is a fascinating story. And so here we have an example of a state, Iran, which is obviously acting in its own interests, hates the West, will do what it can to bring it down. And we're trusting these guys. And we have a president who got up in the State of the Union and threatened, you know, waved his little veto pen at anybody who would have the audacity to put sanctions on Iran, our future partner in peace for the region. Matt, let me ask you, from your lofty perch in Washington, how much does Congress really care about the Iranian situation?

Is bringing Netanyahu here just window dressing and an interesting little power ploy? Or is this something that the Republicans feel actually has resonance with America, that we're still worried about these guys, that we don't believe that the shadow of the number of the danger has passed? Oh, I think there's no doubt that America is worried about Iran and that there's a real difference between the congressional branch and the executive branch on Iran. There is, in fact, kind of almost probably an inflated expectation or hope that a sanctions bill of some sort could actually gain veto-proof majorities. I mean, support for the state of Israel is very deep and very broad in the U.S. Congress. And I think a recognition that the approach to Iran, that the Obama administration has been pursuing now for all these years, it's clearly not working.

I mean, President Obama basically lied when he said that in the state of the union that he said we'd halted their nuclear program, but at the time they just, they just signed a deal for two more nuclear plants the other week. So I think there's a broad disagreement. The question is, how much does the president's ability to lobby Congress, specifically members of his own party, into avoiding what would be an embarrassment for their president, how much does his ability to do

that translate into votes against the sanctions bill? And, you know, there I'm a little bit less optimistic because I think the president still tends to win most of the fights just because he's the president. He has strong ties to his party. And even though he doesn't have any personal relationships, he still can sit, you know, if you're a Democrat in Congress, you're inclined to support the president. So I think right now you're seeing a full-court press from not only the White House, but also now David Cameron is involved.

British MPs contacting U.S. senators saying, don't vote for a sanctions bill. And, of course, now we just saw today, as we're talking, a story that Mossad has come out against Netanyahu and is also telling U.S. lawmakers that a vote for sanctions would upend the negotiations process. But isn't that – hey, Matt, it's Rob again. Isn't that a sign of his weakening power, Obama's weakening power that now we need – in order for effective lobbying, he needs to enlist the British foreign – the British prime minister, members of parliament, and then Mossad. I mean Mossad carries for a lot of senators and a lot of US lawmakers the idea of Mossad, the Israeli secret service, the Israeli internal and external security service. That carries a great deal of weight, more so than anyone.

You're right. He has to rely on these. He can't really – it's not enough. He doesn't have the connection to make the case himself. On the other hand, his White House is still savvy enough to say, well, we need to bring these guys in. So I guess what I'm saying is like – so the hourglass has turned on him. I mean as any president at this point in his second term, we're watching the sand drip out of the top and into the bottom. And as the sand drips, so does the power and the mojo and the influence. So what do we look for? What's going to come up ahead? If we're looking for that moment where we really feel like the seesaw is tilted to confuse all these metaphors when when will we know that barack obama's kind of lost the leverage is there something coming up

that will tell you something but it's assuming he wins this sanctions fight i yeah i mean i i think it's up in the air i mean i like i said i think if you just i'm just talking about this with a colleague in the fat fact for me is a conservative is if you look at the fight we've had with president obama over the last six years that we have lost most of them rather than truth because he gets most he gets usually get his way he's the president united states uh... and

so i i'm doubtful that that the republicans will be able to conjure up a veto-proof majority on the sanctions bill. Now, when will we know? I mean, really, the people who can most embarrass Barack Obama and really show the limits of his power are actually the Iranians, because from what I've seen and from my reading and study of this issue I mean the leadership the Iranian leadership that the dictator of Iran Khomeini he doesn't actually want a deal with the United States he's calling he's calling senators and lobbying for the other side can you imagine yeah yeah yeah we need sanctions I sanctions. We are going to lie to you.

And so the Obama administration's attitude toward this has been, well, okay, well, we'll just continue the process for as long as we can. It would be something if they get to this latest deadline in a couple months now and they decide, well, we have to extend it again. I mean then I think the president would really be shown to be just a loon. Hey, can we talk about just domestic politics for two minutes? One, you – just to remind our listeners, Matt Continetti, he is the editor impresario of the Washington Free Beacon, which is a famously anti-Clinton website. Someone asked Joe Biden yesterday or the day before, is he running for president? And he said, I'm thinking about it. As an anti-Clinton website owner, does that make you nervous or happy? Well, we're both anti-Clinton and pro-Biden.

Well, of course. Enemy by enemy, of course. We know that. Yeah, I mean, I'm happy to have Biden run. I think the chances of him running are unlikely. However, you know, if Hillary continues to just underperform on the stump, then perhaps there might be an opening. I mean, it's still so far away is the truth, the 2016 race. You know, something about Joe Biden, I was speaking just recently with a congressional leader, actually,

who was telling me that whenever the House or the Senate needs something done, they cannot work with the White House. They work with the vice president's office. That Biden still retains a kind of classic idea of politics as horse trading and as bonhomie and kind of, you know, we're all friends at the end of the day, that this president completely lacks in every way. The truth is, the president does not want to negotiate. He wants to lecture. And so Biden still has that ability to, you know, I know the cliche is reach across the aisle or whatever, but at least to listen to the other side and say, OK, well, if you give me that, then if you give me this, I'll give you

that, which Obama does not have. So for that reason – and of course his immense comic potential. Okay. Second item in the news. Department of Justice under Eric Holder – still under Eric Holder weirdly even though everybody knows he's gone – is not going to prosecute Officer Wilson in Ferguson. After investigation, I guess, they looked at everything. They could convene their own – impanel their own private professional grand jury of sorts, and they have decided not to indict. Now, what happens now? Do we reopen this? Reopen the wound? I mean is it OK for us now to claim that Eric Holder is a racist?

What does that mean that does anyone ever say, well, I guess all those riots were sort of misplaced. What how do you say if you're if you're the Department of Justice and Eric Holder right now, how do you say face? Do you put the entire police department of Ferguson under, I guess, whatever they call it, under court order? You don't do anything. You move on to the next Ferguson. I'm sure the administration will find one eventually. That seems dark. This is – surprise, surprise, there was no case here. You know, I mean, that was clear from the moment they released the security video, to which Eric Holder strenuously objected last summer. So, I mean, this is just – it's so hilarious that after the riots, after all this chaos, after the attempt to somehow mobilize the black vote for the midterm elections, the Justice Department quietly releases that there's no case against Officer Wilson. And then the world moves on until the next controversy in an attempt to inflame our politics. So there won't be, I mean, if I'm Eric Holder, I'm plotting my post, my vacation after I leave my job

and then before I go back to some extremely lucrative consulting gig. But at least we're having a conversation about police violence. That's the most important thing. Regardless of whether the original episode was real or justified, now we're having the conversation. We're having a national conversation. It's led to people interrupting the brunch of liberal white Manhattanites, and I couldn't be happier about that. Yeah, and shutting down Route 93 in Boston. One last – I guess it's happening here.

I'm in Los Angeles, and Los Angeles is gripped by Oscar fever. This is our Christmas and our prom all put together here. And what people are talking about is uh best picture selma versus american sniper american sniper is a is somehow um became a 100 million dollar picture 120 million dollar picture um over a weekend no one no one really expected that uh no one really expected that clint eastwood had it. The guy is 84, 85 years old. What do you make of American Sniper? What do you make of that as sort of a cultural moment for Americans?

And then what do you make if you're following it of the controversy surrounding Selma? Well, I have to stipulate, I haven't seen either film. Well, that makes you an expert. I have a 10 month old, so we don't really go out to the movies all that often at the Contemporary Household. I've really discovered the joys of video on demand. Yeah, exactly. So I have to wait a while before I'm going to see either one.

However, I would say this. At the headlines, I'm sure you've read these headlines too. I saw them in the Journal headline on Tuesday in particular. It said, Hollywood shocked at American Sniper box office. The story went into say that the box office for American Sniper was really confined or really extremely overperforming in places in the South, places in the Midwest, smaller communities, smaller cities. And it just reminded me the cultural power of the presidency, which is that we've had Obama as president for six years.

And so our entire culture has kind of been obsessed with the questions that President Barack Obama is obsessed with. And so we're talking about gay marriage. We're talking about race. We're talking about gender normativity. The truth is red America is still there. It's still there this entire six years. And so you take something like American Sniper to remind me, of all people, wow, the people who voted for George Bush, the people who voted to go and fight our wars, the so-called silent majority or

whatever, they're still there. They didn't go anywhere. And when they're presented with something that they like, they go out and show and they vote with their pocketbooks. And so to me, at least, it was somewhat heartening for the American future that the culture war is not totally lost. I don't know, Matt. You ought to read Salon more. You really should read The New Republic because according to them, American sniper means nothing.

The midterms mean nothing. We're still on course for the grand progressive utopia, which should be around in about 14 months or so, 15. All right, two years. And when that day comes, we'll have you report on it and tell us what it's like. Thank you, Matt Connetti from the Washington Free Beacon. Read him there. Read him also with the Weekly Standard where he's still a contributing editor. And we thank you for being on this, the Ricochet Podcast, today.

Thank you. Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Matt. One of the things that we're going to get to him about was a recent piece that he wrote about John Milius, the great director, the Walter Sobchak of directing, and the like. Milius, who wrote some of the most, they're not hard boiled lines, they're red meat lines, they're manly lines, and the rest

of it. And you would think perhaps that somebody of his track record would be celebrated in Hollywood instead of being something of an exile. That's what Matt's piece is about. And if you think, well, why does that matter? Well, look what Rob just said. I mean it's interesting, isn't it, Rob, that the –

Whenever you say that, it sounds like I'm about – it's interesting, isn't it, Rob, that you're about to accuse me. Go ahead. Well, no, but yes, but no. That the Oscars, which are your industry's big, wonderful moment, come at the same time roughly around this time, Oscar speculation, as the State of the Union, which are these two flanking events both on their side of the country, neither of which transfixes the rest of the country as it does you guys. I mean that's just the thing. I mean nobody in Topeka is checking the mailbox for their screeners. Let's just put it that way. But they are going they are going to see American sniper. They are going to see

movies like that. They are looking for the television shows that have something to do with the lives that they lead because culture to them matters. They may not get up every morning and say, I need to consume culture now to reinforce and or challenge my preexisting biases. But they, everyone is marinated in American culture and it affects how we think, what messages are being transmitted and what segues are being made to get to the sponsor. So acculturated.com. Oh, Oh God.

I really did not know. You did not see that. I was about to answer the question. No, I didn't see that. I, I, you know,

um, um, um, I was trying to read our, our Slack stuff and, and then I heard it. I was going to check. Well, you're breaking up and going into robot voice.

But I won't share the thought now because you're in the middle of a segue. I don't want to stir the segue. So continue with your segue. Well, the segue has happened. It's already done. It's the cats in the bag bags in the river. We are now in the spot itself. Don't interrupt it.

Go right for it. I am. There I be. Original posts every day about the culture features like the Daily Scene, which is the best from the Internet, on hot pop culture topics, which, you know, you may not care about, but it's fun to read what intelligent people say about them. They cover topics like books and comics, which reminds me, the last time I went there, they had a review of this compendium of 75 years of Marvel from the Silver Age to the Silver Screen, $200 book that I just found for $115 on Amazon, and I'm about to pop for it because it looks like all the comics of my youth and all the stuff that I loved.

So you get that culture, fashion, movies, games, games. There's so many interesting games out there. I was just reading about why the games these days are so bleak and what they say about our culture when here in the midst of incredible material abundance, we are playing these games of deprivation and destruction. It's not a good time. Sports, of course, tech and TV. You've got writers that you've seen before

or ones that you just should meet. R.J. Molnar, Mark Judge, Emily F... I can never pronounce her name. Emily Smith, the middle part is the S... You know her from Ricochet. Sfahani. Thank you is the S. You know her from Ricochet. Thank you. Thank you. You know her from Ricochet. Anyway, Ricochet readers, if you like the show, if you like Ricochet and our forays into pop culture,

then check out Occulturator.com and read what young conservative writers have to say about the necessary facts of pop culture. Well, let's see. What else is going on? I was going to say, could I just pick up what you said about the culture and something that Matt said too about the fact that Americans are still there and they still want to see movies. And what the Oscars have become in a way is a way for – it's a giant marketing arm.

I mean that's why the Oscars in the State of the Union are very different. The State of the Union really, even for a popular president, has a very small hit rate. I mean someone actually did the math to figure out of all the proposals that all the presidents proposed during their menu, their laundry list of things in their state of the union they demand and every president says, this speech will not be a laundry list and then they go into the laundry list. Of all of those – yeah, they always do it. But the hit rate is actually quite low. Like they don't really get much. But for the Oscars, the Oscars can really make a hit movie. I mean a movie that no one has heard of then gets re-released when it's even a Best Picture nominee and does OK at the box office, does better. Oh, the Oscars, yes.

I mean when it comes to the – when it comes down to the ones that they nominate. Right. And it comes down to the ones that they nominate. But you know and I know that right now in your part of the – in your industry, as they say, that everything is for your consideration, a term which means nothing to anybody else. But that's all the ads. I mean when you go to a restaurant, the back of the bill has got an ad on it for a movie for your consideration and it's some obscure little Spanish language thing. Well, now it's over, of course, because it's nominated. The seats are in now that's over, of course, because Dominique – the peace are in, so now that's over. There's truly Selma versus – versus Grand Budapest Hotel. And one question that I had, seeing some of the backlash to American Sniper, I'm wondering how much of this is the anti-military sentiment among some

quarters of Washington or Hollywood, excuse me. I get them confused at times. But how much is just normal, we don't like conservatives type of backlash and how much is perhaps an undercurrent of people trying to get voters not to support American Sniper and to support Selma or some other movie. Oh, I thought you were asking that question of Rob. You're asking that actually of me? Why ask me anything? I'm sitting here in the middle of the country.

I'm sitting here in the actual throbbing, beating heart of the heartland. Why not go to somebody who in California has his pulse not only on the film industry but on the culture itself? And that would be our old friend M-I-C-K-E-Y-K-A-U-S. He is here to tell us about his grand idea for Mitt Romney repositioning himself as the common man. Mickey, welcome back to the podcast. Thank you. But you should know Harvey Weinstein paid me for everything I say. Yeah, we understand that. Yeah, I just keep the receipts. So you have an idea that Mitt Romney, who has a problem with the 47 – well, with about, let's say, 95 percent of the people have got some objection to Mitt Romney, fairly or unfairly. But you think you've got a way that he can be remade in the eyes of the public. What's that?

Well, that's right. There's one gimmick, a trick that can solve his image and substance problem, which is all these movie stars that for a week they live on food stamps. Well, what if Romney lived on the median income of Massachusetts, which is about $67,000? It's hard for him to live on that, but a lot of Americans do live on that. And he would pinch. You could pick one of his smaller homes, slow-baking homes. I think he has four of them, live in it, go out shopping at Trader Joe's, mingle with

the common people. And I think people appreciate a good stunt. They know that it would be fake, but they also know that it would really cause some sort of downsizing of consumption in his family. And he would also run into people in the course of this downsizing. And he, as Ralph Douthat pointed out, he has to run into it inside. Now The establishment has abandoned him. And it seems to me this is like a standard comeback story. I wrote that there must be Hollywood movies with this plot where the hero gets thrown from the heights

and has to claw his way back against Jeb the Usurper. Although I couldn't think of what they were, but I'm sure they're there. I think Mel Brooks' life stinks. Well, here's the thing. The Republicans are being criticized by the left for suddenly discovering the plight of the middle class, as though the Republican platform for the last 10, 15, 20 years has been,

let's keep this great plutocracy going and even more stratified. Wouldn't Romney then be slapped around for a little stunt that really just showed how little out of touch the Republican Party was because it just consists of rich white guys who can get down in the trenches and get their cuffs dirty for a year and then clamber back up to their castles? Is there any way that the Republicans. No, I'm just saying, given that income inequality seems to be the theme that we're going to be force fed for the next 18 months or so, is there any way that the Republicans can can speak to this without without the left and the the media beating them up for hypocrisy or Johnny Comes Late

Lays or what? Well, there is this tendency in the Republican Party called reform conservatism where they provide various tax credits and picture with this and that to help the working poor. But the obvious thing they could do to help other working poor you know that the everybody agree the solution at least economists on the left and some on the right agree that it the solution is pipe labor markets we want a situation like the end of the twenty century when basically everybody could get a job employers at the bit of wages

the easy way to do that it's reduced the supply of labor by regulating immigration i mean after a public party or you want to do that it's reduced the supply of labor by regulating immigration i mean after a public party or you want to do that the democrats don't want to that though it's a totally legitimate which issue they have against democratic politicians the problem is that the republic party really does serve plutocrats

and the plutocrats like cheap labor and they don't like uh... they don't like regulating immigration and they like they want this immigration reform that would provide them with millions and millions of new workers that are they pick up better workers in the lazy american flops today that i would have to hire so uh... it would split the republican party but the totally legitimate

issue a republican could raise against the democrats i got a solid inequality but it's the one easy thing to do that would help. Well, hey, Mickey, it's Rob Long. How are you? I'm sorry. I was on Skype and I got kicked off. Internet issues.

So now I'm talking on the cell. Not so great. But you can still, you know, accept that. About that, you were right about the late 90s. The late 90s was a period, especially, you know, where you and I lived, incredibly tight labor markets. I mean, they were advertising $10, $11 an hour jobs at the In-N-Out Burger because they couldn't find anybody to do it.

But that also became a magnet for people to come stream across the border from the South. So immigration, a tight labor market only works if you control the border, if you actually build a fence and build a wall and enforce it, right? I mean, isn't this kind of a circular problem? Because while there's an appetite among some for that kind of thing, there's also kind of a feeling that's a scary thing to do. Do you feel like building a wall and enforcing the border is a winnable wedge issue? Is that the Prop 13 of our time? Well, I think they're winnable wedge issues, but there is one thing that doesn't involve building a fence,

which is this e-verify system. You just require all employers to do a computerized check of Social Security numbers. It's not foolproof, but it works pretty well, and it would dramatically restrict the ability of people who are in the country illegally to get regular work, so the regular work would have a tighter labor market. We just have to control it enough to keep the market tight. The market stayed tight throughout the late 20th century until the economy crashed. Even with that leakage across the border, it was still tight. But controlling the supply to the extent we can, and I think we can, we just haven't tried it,

would help. Would it help if Mitt Romney went and snuck across the border and then started working in the garment factory in downtown Los Angeles. Is that what you're suggesting, Mickey? Well, that would be an even better stunt. But you obviously have a futuristic campaign consultant that I don't. But I would – you know, he's from Mexico, so you could say he was migrating to his homeland. But I would just stick with the I'm living like an average American

I was forced to buy Charles Shaw wine at Trader Joe's and you know I can live on that there was this documentary myth that humanized him right well this would be a reality show this would be like Paris Hilton's Simple Life

Mitt Romney's Simple Life if you let cameras in so much the better it would be a reality show. This would be like Paris Hilton's Simple Life, Mitt Romney's Simple Life. If you let cameras in so much, the better. I mean, it would be great TV. So can I ask you just a straight question? On a scale of 1 to 10, how serious are you about this? Just so I know. A 5. I know. Um, a five. He's got to lose.

He's got to lose and be humiliated. Nobody wants him in the Republican Party. This would be one way to redeem himself. In part, it's penance for having screwed up the 2012 campaign. Well, you could say that if Mitt Romney has shown Coif and three-buck Chuck, I think the Mormon issue is off the table. John? Yes, hi, Mickey.

Hi, Mickey, this is John Gabriel. One thing he could do when he crosses the border, I think he's got a perfect face for the telenovela character. Maybe grow a big bushy mustache and ride across a horse. That could bring in some votes. Yeah, I was wondering too, not even looking to 2016,

a lot of people worked hard on the Republican side to get this Republican majority in Congress. We have control of the Senate and the House. I believe a lot of pro or anti-amnesty Democrats also voted because they're tired of what they're seeing, especially if you look at the Northeast. When you talk to people, working class folks, they aren't thrilled about this open border as well. What do you think the chances are the Republicans just say, you know what?

We want to get this issue off the table. We want to look like the nice guys. Let's pass something on immigration now. Do you think it has a chance or do you think it's dead until at least 2016? I think it has a 40-45% chance. It's probably, they're not going to pass an amnesty, but they sure are trying. They're moving very rapidly. They have this, their strategy is to buy off the base by passing something called a border security bill, and then they can declare that the border is secure just because they passed the bill and say, okay, we've secured the border first, now we're on to legalizing people.

And this bill is being voted on, was voted on yesterday. It's going to go to the floor next week. So they're trying very fast to sneak this thing through, despite the fact that they're supposed to be angry with President Obama over the executive amnesty. They're still moving rapidly to try to get this done before Ted Cruz runs for president and raises a stink about it, and it really damages them. I think that Cruz is probably going to beat them to it, but they're definitely trying

to. There's this incredible pent-up demand among business lobbyists at the GOP. They say, well, we gave you the money that elected you guys. Now we're calling in our chits, and they're calling them in right now. Well, do you think we heard recently that one of our favorite politicians at Ricochet, Barbara Boxer, has decided to step down, which she announced in one of the most awkward YouTube videos I've ever seen. But is this the Kaus moment that we've all been waiting for? Is this when you ride back into battle and just basically walk to the Democratic nomination and get elected? Well, I've done awkward YouTube videos, so I'm really good at that.

I've been huddling with my advisors. I have no announcements to make. It does seem like, you know, I had 5% of the vote, so I start with that base. Yeah, I mean, we should be just as sure as we had with anybody else. I don't want to interrupt here, but I want to make sure people who are listening, excuse me, who do not know the history, Mickey Kaus, you ran a credible Senate primary campaign against Barbara Boxer. And you got 5% of the vote.

Yeah, I discovered in 2010 that you only needed 65 signatures to get on the ballot. So I said, I can do that. And I went and got 65 signatures. And it was sort of half campaign, half performance art. I would do it much better. Again, if I did make another run, I would get 6% of the vote instead of 5% of the vote. But, Rob, you participated. I believe you acted and produced some of my ads.

I was your media advisor. Ran it twice in the Bay Area. And it was designed to do two things. bay area and uh... you give you give you would it would be with the body to change the to show that uh... it would be one of the debate the baby with the show that uh... that there were democrats who supported uh... the troop main point of the platform which is skeptical about unions and skeptical about amnesty

i think i failed to show that because there wasn't a lot of Democratic support. I did get support from people who were not Democrats and therefore couldn't vote in the primary. Well, just run one more time. We don't want you to become the Harold Stassen of California politics ever, ever, ever. If I only have one more shot, I'm not sure this is it. It probably is. It's weird this time because there's this jungle primary,

which means that everybody, Democrat and Republican, is on the same ballot. And it is useful for a candidate who, unlike me, had decent funding and was a Schwarzenegegger not conventional republican type fish to push up the middle uh... if they're still of the middle of california and win uh... so somebody who who who who is it who is a very conservative democrat or very liberal

republican does great in theory have an opportunity here my record my pitch to you the key is for the next, you know, just to declare, I mean, it's campaign stuff, but some stuff can work. You know, for the next three months, nine months, ten months, you're going to live like a rich person. Yeah, no, I've been living

at $67,000 a year, and it's time for me and Rami to switch places that day. We can chip in and dole your car. He should have to move into your apartment and you can pick one of his homes. Mickey, one last question before we let you go and it has to do with immigration.

A lot of the base doesn't give a chit what the business community thinks and what they're calling in to get their requests for cheap labor made. And the pundit class won't complain about it because there aren't cheap Mexican pundits coming over the border yet. But when you mentioned that there's a bill and there is border security, what exactly does the bill do for the border? Are they talking about going to Home Depot

and picking up a lot of guys in the parking lot and driving them to the border and having them build a fence with plywood? What's in that border security bill? You know, it would be one thing if bill you know that the everyone if they tried to buy off the right with it with a real bill that had like you know offense uh... either apply an accident report that the most of the three big thing this bill does not have that it takes that vietnam general westmoreland approach which is declare a goal of a hundred percent operational control of the border, provide

a billion more dollars a year, set metrics, and if they don't meet the goal of 100% operational control, damn it, the homeland security officials can no longer fly. We're going to restrict their flight. That's, I mean, it's this ridiculous command and control without necessarily producing any results other than bureaucratic committee reports saying why they didn't meet their goal of 100 percent operational control. There's some good things in it. It allows the border patrol to access the park lands, which are where a lot of the illegal smuggling routes are. So that's good. It tries to figure out the measures of

uh... how many people are speaking across the border we have no good measures now the the the basic rule now is anybody who really wants to get across will eventually get across so and and also it doesn't address the problem the biggest problem which is obama has abandoned enforcement in the interior so everybody in latin america now knows

that if you make it to the interior your home free about you are under no threat of deportation under obama's new you know executive regime so uh... it it it it you know it's probably not that much worse than the status quo

it does probably not that much worse than the status quo. It does require them to rip down some fences and replace them with vehicle bollards, because the Border Patrol likes to see what's going on across the border rather than have it blocked by a fence. But that's probably a step in the wrong direction. But it's merely just a placebo to try to fool the Republican base into thinking that something has happened to secure the border. So then, hey, you know, we can go ahead. It's sort of a lobbyist pipe dream strategy. But Boehner has a big enough majority.

You can always get Democratic votes and he might try to do it. Well, when the pipe dream is built, they'll be crawling through that to get to America. You almost make me feel cynical about politics. Mickey, I hate that. But no, no, no. Run, Mickey, run. We need you there in California. And write, Mickey, write.

I need to take my cynical message to the people, I think. That's right. A cynical nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Talk to you later, Mickey. Thank you for being back on this, the Ricochet Podcast. Thanks, Mickey. See you soon. Of course, you can read him at KausFiles.com.

Follow him on Twitter at KausMickey, where his name is inverted slightly. We didn't get around to talking about Jeb and Mitt. Apparently, they had some sort of meeting. I don't know what took place there. But we had a Mitt boomlet, and there was this initial sort of happy that he was coming back because people remembered that we'd probably be in better shape if he had been president. But then there seemed to be a lot of backpedaling. I mentioned before that 95 percent of the people in the Republican Party have trouble with Mitt. That's not true.

But everybody has got some little objection to the fellow that I think cumulates in a desire this year that he maybe not do this, that this isn't the right idea for him. Or is most of that base doubt aimed at Jeb? Is Jeb inevitable? I'll let you guys chew that one over and get around to this idea. Hugh Hewitt believes we're going to have a brokered convention, or at least he hopes we're going to have a brokered convention. Do you think that's likely with all of the people piling into the race? Oh, no.

I mean, you know, I agree with you that it'd be great, that I like those conventions. I like the politics of it. People always say it. They always say it around now, maybe a brokered convention. And it's never a brokered convention. You know, the Republican Party in the primary, so the primary schedule is designed to find a candidate. And I think that we're going to find one.

I don't think it's necessarily going to be Jeb. I don't think it's going to be Mitt, but we're going to find one, and we're going to find a good one. I think the weird thing about Republicans is they complain when all the candidates are losers, and now we have a bunch of winners, people who are actual winners who are running, and we're complaining that there are too many winners in the race. You know, never just right. I think we're going to be okay. I don't think – I think we're going to have really good debates. So I'm not – but I agree with Hugh. It would be nice to have a real convention, but I think the politics of those days are over.

And I think for the past, I would say at least eight years, the party grassroots have been at war with the establishment in quotes. And I think a brokered convention would raise so many hackles I can't even imagine if they made some decision in a cigar-filled – cigar smoke-filled back room without anybody's input. I would be all in favor of a brokered convention if it ends up with a Scott Walker, Susana Martinez ticket because that's my preference. Other than that, I will be completely outraged at the anti-democratic nature of the bigwigs of the party forcing a candidate down my throats um regarding the um bush romney meeting in utah that should be a reality show it'd be a little slow i think but i think jeb's main problem is his last name even fans of george w and the original george bush are just concerned about that name, and it kind of feels like we're stepping back. So I think the purpose of that meeting in my theory is that Jeb was asking to adopt Romney's surname so he could just run as Jeb Romney.

You'd kind of get the both. Jeb Romney. Yeah, yeah, and that way he wouldn't have that sting. You'd have a lot of merchandise he could reuse. Yeah, it makes sense. I mean, look, I mean, in a time when you don't have great candidates, when you're the, when the, you know, the bench is empty,

you got to go to the older names. I can see the logic of that, but we just don't, we're not in that position now. By any respect, you've got a couple of really great senators and a couple of really great governors

and some real things to talk about and some real governors with real accomplishments to talk about and they can battle with real accomplishments to talk about, and they can battle it out the way they're supposed to. I don't really see... Look, if you're the Democratic Party, I feel if you're in trouble, you really do only have Hillary Clinton.

But if you're the Republican Party, you don't need it. I think that's one of Jeff's big problems. One of Jeff's big problems is that he hasn't been in office since 2007. He's kind of a figure from yesteryear. I mean, look, I like him. I admire him a lot. But this is a very competitive year with a lot of really good choices. I mean, thank God.

You know, this is – when we say it in Hollywood, these are high-class problems to have. Right. These are the problems you want to have in your political party. Too many good candidates. That's good. That's a good thing. We don't need the old guys. And we have so many governors running, which I love.

Just the executive experience, somebody who has a proven track record and sort of giving lovely speeches. That's another wonderful problem to have. I think you guys are underestimating the populist appeal, the charismatic dynamism, and the managerial strengths of Elizabeth Warren, who I believe – who I cannot wait to pull the entire party to the left. And I wouldn't be kicking and screaming. Hey, when that happens, it will pop up in your email box every day if you're subscribed to the RealShade Daily Shot email newsletter. It's been praised far and wide. Rob mentioned it before as one of the smartest, most informative, and dare I say amusing. A little compilation will land in your inbox.

And it's free. It's absolutely free. Ricochet.com slash TDS. Sign up today. Ricochet.com slash TDS. And might I mention also that if you're in the mood to throw some shekels in our direction, the Ricochet store is new and improved. Yeah.

New products, new designs, and all your favorite podcasters are made fun of there, I understand, which reminds me to check it, which I haven't done in a couple of weeks. Yeah, you should just move down to the game and just see what's going on. Oh, I can't wait. So go to Ricochet.com

and click on one of the store links in the sidebar, and there are great gifts for Valentine's Day. Of course, nothing says love like a big blue logo with an R in the middle. We thank Acculturator.com, as usual, for sponsoring us. Go to Acculturator.com for a daily informational download of pop culture, why it matters, and sometimes it doesn't, and it's still fun to read about. Hope to have Peter with us next week, but in the meantime, John, it's been great to have you here as well. Rob, I understand that you're broadcasting from Antarctica today, given the

sound difficulties. Close. Okay. Alright, so give our regards to the penguins and the cascading ice shelves. And to everybody else, thanks for listening, and we'll see you at the comments at Ricochet 2.0. Hello, who's that speaking, please? I'm on a party line Wondering all the time

Who's on the other end? Is she big, is she small? Is she a she at all? Who's on my party line? Wish I had a more direct connection. This party line is here when I arrive. And I'm not voting in the next election. If they don't do something about filing out the person who is on my party line.

I'm on a party line. I'm on a party line. I can't speak without an interception. This is private, please get off my line. Please tell me when I can have my privacy. I'd like to meet the girl who's always talking when I'm speaking on my party line. Ricochet. Join the conversation. connection this body line was here when I arrived and I'm not voting

in the next election if they don't do something about finding out the person who is on my party line I'm on a party line wondering all the time who's on the other end

is she big is she small Outro Music