The Ricochet Podcast - The Limbaugh Lecture

Episode Date: September 18, 2013

Direct link to MP3 file This week, two giants grace us with their presence and wisdom. First the great Norman Podhoretz (or as we like to call him, “The Podfather”) stops by to talk about Syria and the Obama Administration’s fumbling toward a resolution. Then, our old friend, David Limbaugh, joins to school us on the fundamentals of the conservative movement. Bracing! Music from this week’s... Source

FBD doesn't stand for friendly business ducks. Or for the freelance beatbox department. FBD stands for support. We support businesses and communities across Ireland. Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD insurance team and see how we can support your business. FBD Insurance. Support. It's what we do. FBD Insurance Group Limited. Trading as FBD Insurance is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Activate program.

If you'll stand with me and fight by my side, I promise you this, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. Ah, this is nonsense. from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. This is nonsense. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson and Rob Long. I'm James Lilingston. The great thing about this country is you have your choice of Podhoruses and Limbas.

Today, we choose a Norman and a David. We are seconds away from fundamentally transforming the next hour of your life. Let's have a podcast. There you go again. We'll be back to Ricochet's podcast in just a minute. But first, folks, have you heard of the new modern technique for getting really good coffee flavor? They're letting coffee beans mature in the digestive tract of a civet. That's right, a mammal. And this new product is called Civet Duty.

I'd say it's your civic duty to buy some and support Ricochet for all the great work that we do, but they're not our sponsor. You know why they're not our sponsor? Because they found out that we believe in lower marginal tax rates and other center right things. And they would think that if they sponsor us, all their leftist friends, the tolerant sorts, will hate them and hate us. And that's what Ricochet is up against. And here's Rob Long and Peter Robinson to tell you exactly what they're up against and why it's important for you to stand four square behind it and give it your best. And by best, of course, we mean money. Rob, Peter, hello. this if you are a ricochet member uh this what james just said to you with his last little few words uh we're not a bizarre stream of consciousness uh from somewhere you know what we're talking about uh we're talking about ricochet sponsorships and ricochet in general uh if you are a member

of ricochet we thank you and we welcome you and we are happy to have you uh joining joining this podcast and with ricochet along with us. If you are listening to this and you are not a member of Ricochet, we ask you humbly but also rather firmly, please go to Ricochet.com and sign up and become a member. Ricochet is the fastest growing, most interesting, most civil conversation among and between contributors and members on the center right on the web. We are having an impact.

We're having an impact in Washington. People do follow Ricochet. They do read the comments. They do read the member feed. And that is part of our mission is to bring us all together, all of us on the right on various shades and colors on the right, get us together and give us a voice and win back the country. So join Ricochet and be part of that. And aside from the feeling that he's participating in something to save the country,

what does a member actually get, Rob? Well, that's a great thing. Aside from the deep feeling of knowing that they have flesh in the scrum, as Rob likes to put it. Yes, skin in the game, as we say. You get access to all the podcasts. You get to participate and start your own conversations on the member feed and the contributor feed uh you get to link up and network with other members we are having in uh october next month we're doing a lot of little uh live events and

special things we're going to be ricochet meetup in las vegas that our members are putting together which is going to be a lot of fun um And we're, of course, going to – We will begin the moral transformation of America from Las Vegas. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant the actual stuff. Yeah, that's right. The transformation of Ricochet. And you also get – The golden nuggets.

You also get, as a Ricochet member, a little email the day before the podcast start that says you can skip ahead two minutes and 47 seconds. That's when they stop with the sales pitches. I mean it's just – there's no end to the stuff that you get. But it's important. And also, you'll be helping to fund Ricochet 2.0. I've seen mock-ups of what's to come. And believe me, it's going to be a gorgeous thing.

You'll be proud to put on your mobile. You'll be proud to put on your iPad and walk around town, if you're that sort of person. Well, it's been an interesting week. Has it not? What's the biggest story? Is it the collapse of the American presidency or the collapse of the American prestige or both wrapped together like bacon and shrimp and fried over the barbie? Peter?

Good question. Has American prestige collapsed or has simply the prestige of Barack Obama collapsed and did he want it to collapse? I don't know the answers to those questions yet. We're going to have to wait 40 months, which is a long time. But I do know the answer. I do know that a mid-level thug from the KGB, Vladimir Putin, is now the dominant figure in the Middle East and that Barack Obama all but invited him to become the dominant figure in the Middle East. It is simply astounding. Rob, prestige or presidency or both?

Well, I never really quite understand. Americans are obsessed with American prestige. But if you're on the other side of it, it's sort of – it's hard to see how your prestige is diminished when you have the world's largest military and it's sprawled all over the place. So I'm not sure that the country's prestige has been – has failed. But it certainly has increased Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin is not only I think the most dominant political figure in the Middle East but probably – certainly Central Asia and probably Eastern Europe more so than ever before.

So that's part of what he wants to do is he wants to sort of rebuild the old Russian empire, at least the empire of influence and he's doing a very, very, very good job of it. I would never – I don't think that – I think we're making a mistake when we talk to – when Peter says, oh, he's a mid-level KGB agent. I mean this guy is probably the savviest, most effective politician, fascist politician, I'll say. And I mean that in the actual, the literal definition of fascist. I'm not really trying to make it invective here. You're not calling names.

No, I think he probably is that since Hitler, right? Well, I don't think you have to be that good to take on Barack Obama, but he's smart and he's wild and he's shrewd and he's tough and he's willing to use what resources he has, which we are unwilling to do. He's held together a very fractious empire and he's done a pretty good job of it. I was going to mention that the old Soviet empire was something that Richard Pipes was always warning us about. And that reminds me, of course, of Sally Pipes, whose book, The Cure for Obamacare, is this week's featured broadside from Encounter Books, which is sponsoring us this week. And I forgot to mention that.

But I will mention it more at the bottom of the hour after we talk to Norm. Anyway, continue on, guys. You're right. Putin, not a third-level thug. If he is, I'd like to see what the top guys were doing. He's also the richest man in the world. Am I correct? Even more than the Sultan of Brunei or some other Indonesian kleptomaniac.

He's got more money than anybody else because of what he skims off the energy. The question is, is his influence and prestige going to diminish in the future when the energy sector starts to be dominated by America and they really can't yank as many strings in Western and Eastern Europe with their pipeline politics as they can now. Continue on amongst yourselves. I'm going to get – Well, no.

I mean I think Europe has an insatiable thirst for natural gas. I mean the Mideast is – Hello? I just lost Rob. We didn't. Well, so we get him back. Let's talk about how natural gas is actually a dead old technology. According to one of the Clinton – or the Obama administration's new appointees, natural gas is – that's old.

That's 20th century talking right there when what we should be doing. But there's still a lot of thirst for it in Europe. And he's obsessed with the pipeline that goes from Baku through Tbilisi and terminates in Turkey. He bombed it or tried to tattoo the lines around it during the last Russian-Georgian war. He is obsessed with having the monopolistic concession to oil and natural gas into Europe, which he'll get if he doesn't deal with the Azerbaijanis who are fast eclipsing Russia in terms of their control of the oil pipelines. So anything that increases his strength and his ability to be the big gangster on the

block is good for him and bad for us. He's a strong president. Consider two positions. A little mental experiment here. Imagine you were in the Israeli cabinet, and if you've learned anything in the last week or two weeks, what you've learned is that if Barack Obama is not going to take concerted action against Syria after promising to do so, he's certainly not going to do anything about Iran. Israel is now on its own and has to make a decision whether

it wishes to act on its own to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That is a very big deal. And also, I hadn't thought of it quite this way, Rob, until you mentioned the natural gas. But also imagine that you were, let's say, the foreign minister of Poland. Radik Sikorski, who was during the 1980s was writing for National Review living in this country. He's an American conservative who's now the foreign minister of Poland. And you see your allies within the Western, within the European Union. France is on its back.

Italy is worse than on its back. Spain is undergoing a kind of national catastrophe. Greece is – and so you're now facing a rejuvenated Russia and you can't rely – you certainly can't rely on France to help you. You're stuck relying on the Germans and that's about the best you can do? This is – within two weeks, two great countries, Israel and Poland, have found themselves in a much worse place. Well, remember, Poland was double-crossed by the Obama administration when they wanted to put in anti-missile defense.

Right. And the deal was done and then the Obama administration went back on it. Right. So not only can you not rely on us, we're actively – You've already – yes. We're actively standing in the way of your defense because putin wanted us to and that's what people keep forgetting that that that the brock obama hit the reset button on this relationship that's what he said those are his words and and he did he he succeeded in doing that we now no longer they no longer fear us which is the same thing he's no

longer respect us. This is the world that Putin – that Obama brought. This is supposed to be better. It is amazing how quickly it happened as well. I want to ask this – Norman Pat Horace about this. But the old argument – I have to say in my own mind, I was never totally convinced of it. But the old argument that during the Cold War, the United States had to get into Vietnam, even if to fight a losing war, because if we didn't, if we seemed to be weak,

even a little bit, then the Soviets would leap to fill any power vacuum that we created anywhere in the world. And it turns out something like that is still true in international affairs today. What was it? Something like 72 hours after it became very clear that Barack Obama simply did not know what he was doing, that the Soviet foreign minister took an offhand casual remark by John Kerry. Well, maybe if they – maybe if the Syrians agreed to place their chemical weapons under international control, he said, as if to say that will never happen. And immediately the Soviets said, oh, yes, yes, we have a new initiative. We take the Secretary of State. It took hours. Just astonishing. It's amazing, really, that five years of the election and the ascension of Barack Obama have not fundamentally transformed human character. The Soviets tried it. The Soviets had

a good run at trying to completely reshape and remake a human character and they failed. The French prior to them in the revolution of the late 18th century attempted to fundamentally transform the human nature and the character of mankind and they failed as well. But let's give Barack Obama at least another two or

three years to see if he can reform human nature. However, one thing that is a little bit more malleable than human nature is the character of nations. And when Barack Obama ran and promised, promised, mind you, to fundamentally transform America, maybe he actually meant it. And I love running that quote past my friends who say, well, he just meant that he wanted to make it a better place. Saying you want to make America a better place is a little bit different than saying you want to fundamentally transform it, which suggests that its very premises and precepts are in error and need to be adjusted by the wise hand, the brilliant hand, the lawyerly hand of Barack Obama. One man who actually heard this quote and thought the same thing

and has been suspicious of the efforts to fundamentally transform America for years is Norman Putthorst, and we're just delighted to have him back on the podcast. Good morning, or good day, wherever it happens to be where you are. Yeah, it's morning here. All right, it's morning. It's morning in America, and I'm glad to hear it. So your great Wall Street Journal piece says, you may look incompetent in Syria, but there's actually a method, a plan here.

Tell us what you meant. Well, I meant that when he said that he was five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States, he, of course, meant what he said, and where foreign affairs was concerned, that meant diminishing the power and influence of this country, which, like all left-wing radicals of his generation, considered to be a force not for good, but retrograde and destructive, especially to the hopes of the poorer peoples of what we used to call the Third World. Now, when I look at what he has actually accomplished, I see what I call a brilliant success. He has managed in a relatively short time, especially since the Syria issue came up, to diminish the power and influence of this country to a point where Conrad Black,

a pretty astute foreign observer, could say there's been nothing like it since the fall of France or the disintegration of the Soviet Union. I think that may be going a little far, but I basically agree with what Black says, and I think it's in measure. FBD doesn't stand for friendly business, ducks. Or for the freelance beatbox department. FBD stands for support.

We support businesses and communities across Ireland. Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD stands for support. We support businesses and communities across Ireland. Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD insurance team and see how we can support your business. FBD Insurance. Support. It's what we do. FBD Insurance Group Limited, trading as FBD Insurance, is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. ...of Obama's success. In pursuing this goal,

he had to be careful not to make it too obvious or explicit, and he used rhetorical tricks all along to conceal what he was after. But it's important to recognize that in achieving the goal, he has displayed and continues to display an indifference to what the loss of power and influence of the United States would lead to. In other words, he seems not to care at all that he has managed to bring the Soviet Union back into the Middle East, something that Kissinger and Nixon managed back in whatever it was, 73.

73. Norman, Peter Robinson here. Question about what Barack Obama is thinking. Conservatives are always saying – this was a vacuum and the other side will leap into it immediately. And the leftist position was always, as I understood it, and I put this to you in the form of a question because as a former leftist and a man who's been studying these people all his life, you know. I'm speculating. You know. But the leftist position was no. International affairs just doesn't work that way. If the United States simply scales back its huge, overweening presence in the world, small countries will simply be free to be small countries to pursue their own legacy.

So the question is, did Barack Obama expect Vladimir Putin to leap into this vacuum, this power vacuum in the Middle East? Or do you suppose this caught him by surprise? Did he think simply that Syria would be free to work out its own troubles within its own borders, that if we stepped out, we wouldn't be creating a vacuum, that things would be fine? What was in his head? Well, I think what he expected was an eventual takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood, which was fine with him. That would be the contemporary version or mutation of the leftist hopes that you just described. This, I think, was also his expectation in Egypt, and I think that eventually it may turn out to be what happens. But I don't think he gives a damn about the reentry of Russia into the Middle East.

I don't think he expected it. It must have come as a surprise but it's okay with him i mean the main thing he wants is to uh... withdraw united states uh... answer you know to to write to the extent possible i mean it's not just the question withdrawal it's a question of cutting us down to size.

In the title of a book someone wrote some years ago, they're going to call it Tying Gulliver Down. That's the objective. And what happens afterward is, in a certain sense, not his concern. American weakness represents an end in itself to him. Exactly. Okay. Now, Norman, if you were a member of the Israeli cabinet right now, the loss of Mubarak means that the once fairly secure, that long border across the Sinai Desert, now you have to worry about that. The Syrians, the Iranians are backing Hezbollah through Syria. You have to suppose, I think, that Hezbollah in Lebanon is going to be emboldened. And is it also the case that if you're a member of the Israeli cabinet observing the last couple of weeks, you have to

say to yourself, if these events were a proxy for anything, they were a proxy for the American lack of willingness to act in Iran. We are on our own. Is that what you'd have to be thinking? I think that's exactly what they are thinking. And the question remains whether they think they have the capability to attack Iran successfully, that is to say to delay its progress to nuclear weapons for a fairly substantial length of time. I don't know, and nobody knows, whether they believe they have the capability i think they probably do have the capability for a successful first day

now the question comes in this is where the american factor played an enormous part what happens on day two when they need to be resupply as they did in the old people war uh... nixon came Nixon came through at that time. Would Obama come through? I mean, that's a terrible question. That's why there's been all this debate

about whether he's giving them a red light or a yellow light or a green light. If they're on their own, they have to take the chance that he might not come to their help in the form of resupply of weapons. Now, I think he would be unable to resist the political pressure to do so. I think the Israeli strike on Iran would be very popular in this country,

just as the Israeli strike on the Osiris reactor in 1982 was enormously popular. And I think because it would be popular, there would be a lot of pressure on Obama to help them out, not by putting American boots on the ground, but by making up the losses they would inevitably incur in a first strike. Who's in charge of American foreign policy now, John Forbes Carey or Barack Obama? Barack Obama, no question. You have no doubt about that? Well, I'm thinking I would resign.

Oh, really? He's been so humiliated. Well, yeah, look, he got Carey out there making the hawkish speech and then cut the ground from under him. He reportedly never even consulted with Kerry when he decided to go to start the delusional peace process between Israel and Palestinians just to get him out of the way in a futile enterprise. So I'm absolutely flabbergasted to hear Jane Harman, who I used to think wasn't bad, say he's been a magnificent Secretary of State.

I can't, I simply can't imagine what she could have meant by that. But he has been humiliated, so it seems to me, and I think it's fairly clear. If you don't know he's been humiliated, he's even dumber than I thought he was. We've talked about Syria, we've talked about Syria. We've talked about Israel. Let me shift. Rob Long makes the point that a bold Putin, an empowered Putin is also a danger to Eastern Europe. the Polish foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, who was in, you know, Radek Sikorski well. So he is, as best I can tell, viscerally, the most viscerally pro-American and the Poles generally in all of Europe. And I imagine he's saying to himself something along the lines of the French, the Italians, the European Union as a whole is useless. And now I can't rely on Barack Obama. Can it possibly be the case that these years after the Second World War, my only option is to go cozying up to the Germans. Is he, the point being, is he,

is Poland, we know about Israel, but is Poland in a worse place today than it was, say, two weeks ago as well? Oh, absolutely. I mean, the only caveat I would enter is that, you know, my favorite analysis of Putin, my own, I have to say, violently disagreed with by Henry Kissinger, among others, is that Putin is trying to be the de Gaulle, the Notre-Dame. In other words, he's trying to do what de Gaulle very successfully did, namely act like a great power when he has no power. Right, right. And I think that his entire foreign policy has been to frustrate America at every turn and to play the role of great power when, in fact, the country is very weak and uh... this this uh... you know this but the kids this invitation into the uh... into the middle east must have uh... come to him as a

an enormous not only surprised but uh... present you know uh... uh... when uh... when jimmy carter who has a lot in common with whom Obama has a lot in common, when Jimmy Carter tried to bring the Soviet Union into the Middle East in an international conference, this so alarmed Sadat that he ran to Jerusalem to make peace with Israel, to keep them out. Right.

It had a negative effect on Soviet intentions. And nothing like that seems to be in the cards now. And so you've got Putin with an unearned increase in power that will inevitably reflect on his relations with what they used to call the near abroad, and Poland certainly. Norman, I have one more question. I'm indulging myself. Rob and James Lilacs are both on the line, and I know they'd like to ask a question or two as well. But you began by talking about the decline in American influence. Question. Is it, strictly speaking, American influence? Or at the end of 39 more months, when Barack Obama finally leaves office,

and at the end of which we'll presumably retain the strongest military in the world, will we be able, if we elect a reasonable president, will the United States be able to reassert its influence pretty quickly? Or will we find ourselves in a permanently weaker position because of this one man's actions? Well, I wrote a book, a little book back then, and toward the end of the Carter administration, which had the subtitle, Do We Have the Will to Reverse the of american power and uh... god was good to the united states and uh... gave us ronald reagan i don't see anybody comparable to reagan waiting in the wings but unless

unless we are lucky enough to get uh... a president and a congress and that understands the calamity into which Obama has driven us, it will be American decline and not just the Obama decline. And there's no question that we can recover. Well, I shouldn't say no question. A lot has happened since 1980 to the American people, apparently. But I would imagine that with the right kind of leadership, the decline can be reversed as it was reversed after 1980. Hey, Norman, it's Rob Long in Los Angeles.

How are you? It's very strange for me because I also do a podcast with John Padora. It's your son. So I feel like I have father and son team – tag team here. He's a lot wittier than I am. Well, he thinks he is anyway. He's watched a lot more TV. He thinks he is.

I like that. Not taking anything away from the almost biblical incompetence of the Obama administration and John Kerry especially, it does also seem that foreign policy for the past three weeks, at least as regards Syria, he did it so publicly and so broadly that it sort of excited all sorts of pushback in polls from his own supporters and from people on the right. And it collapsed. Have we ever seen anything quite like this where it isn't even so much just a bumbling of the Keystone Cops, the Obama administration, but also kind of opinion polls. And then to top it all off with Vladimir Putin writing an op-ed in the New York Times that I suspect a lot of Americans agree with. Has this ever happened before? Yeah, well, not really, but there was the – to use the old cliche, the post-Vietnam syndrome, and throughout the 70s something like this was happening. That is, there was no appetite for keeping the defense budget in sync with the Soviet buildup.

There was no appetite for confrontation. The idea that the Soviet Union was going to last forever and that we had to make our accommodation or detente with it was very popular. Now, it's much worse now, I think, than it was then because something, my deepest fear, terror really, is that something, there's been a radical transformation of the American people, not just under Obama, but building. FBD doesn't stand for friendly business, Dux.

Or for the freelance beatbox department. FBD stands for support. We support businesses and communities across Ireland. Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD insurance team and see how we can support your business. FBD Insurance. Support. It's what we do. FBD Insurance Group Limited. trading as FBD Insurance, is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. You know, I was absolutely

certain that somebody as far left as Obama could never be elected and certainly not re-elected because the America I thought I knew would not tolerate this. And, of course, I was magnificently wrong.

And I don't know, I haven't made up my mind whether this was a temporary glitch based on the fact that Obama was black or whether it signified some some real change in the american character i mean obama was even to the left of mcgovern and the guy who you know one i think one states in nineteen seventy two against an unpopular president and that would be america i still existed then

uh... if it does it uh... you know it's a sleeping giant, and one can only pray that it will awaken in time to make a difference. Does that answer your question? Unfortunately, it does. It does it exactly right. I sort of agree with you. I was speaking to a Tea Party group last night in Los Angeles, and one of the things we were talking about was just how left-wing – I mean how inconceivably left-wing this administration is. It really is the – it is what George McGovern could not have dreamed of. And all the solutions are the same.

I mean it's not as if they've upgraded the solutions to the social problems. They simply have said that McGovern was right, we're going to try all that stuff. And people come around with their heads, I mean, it was an older group. I don't think McGovern envisaged a social democratic socioeconomic system. I think he thought of himself, he thought he would, you know, just complete the work of the New Deal and the Johnson Grace. I think that's right.

It is always to be remembered about George McGovern that he was, after all, a war hero in the Second World War. He didn't have anything against American power per se. Norman, Peter here. One last question. Actually, I have a plea for you, and then a question. And the plea

is, this question about whether the character of the American people has changed. I'm begging you to think that through. I want to know what conclusion you reach and write a piece in commentary or the Wall Street Journal. That's really important. And you're the man to address it. And the question is... Well, I will certainly give it a lot of thought and try if I can make up my mind about what to say. That was a direct

order, Norman. I may sort of camp out in front of your building until you publish a piece somewhere. Are you making a demographic point? We know that the difference between – You're not.

Okay. So – I don't think – I don't have much respect for that particular argument. Oh, you don't? Anyway, demographic projections are always wrong. No, I don't think it has to do with the racial composition or changing racial composition. I think something deeper than that is that work uh... has been at work and uh...

on the question i have not yet been able to settle in my own mind is it's how it's how father robert gone uh... that's what uh... that that's that's what but that wasn't really i i find it hard to believe uh... but i also find it hard to

uncovered too much evidence that uh... that it's still uh... uh... reversible i'd be certainly hope so and i don't know how i i i love america i think i fell in love with americans where i was in the Army a hundred years ago, or 60 years ago, to be exact.

And when I first time I got to know Americans from all over. And I truly fell in love with the people of this country. And that remained with me and has been a driving force in all my thinking about foreign policy. So if I were to conclude that the American people I fell in love with no longer exist, it would be a real tragedy for me personally. That's the difference. You love America. A lot of the people who voted for President Obama love an idea of America that will be achieved

after all of the things that are wrong with it are swept away. If you look at the generation that elected Reagan... I'm sorry, go ahead. It would be a fundamental transformation. I mean, it would no longer be the America I love if they succeeded. Precisely. You have a generation that's been marinating in the soft, lazy, intellectually lazy. It's socialism of the educational institutions, and they come out, and they don't grasp the, well, the exceptional nature of the country, the spirit of it, what makes it different.

And hence, that's why we get President Obama telling us that this fundamental transformation is devoutly to be wished. Grand. Yeah. Well, we look forward to what you write about this subject. We look forward to what you write about everything, and we thank you so much for being on the podcast with us today, sir. Well, thank you.

I say in all sincerity that my guess is that my son is a far better performer. No, not at all. I have to tell you. I'm about to tweet. I'm not fishing. I actually mean that. Well, that's very sweet of you to say. I'm sure it'll mean a lot to him.

But, you know, there's plenty of room for two pedoraces. There is indeed. Actually, there's plenty of room for two pedoraces. There is indeed. Actually, there's plenty of room for three, which brings me to my final point, which is say hi to Midge. I will indeed. And I'm sure she would reciprocate. I mean, I've reached the point where I have trouble finding words. Well, I'm 83 and a half. We don't count the half.

Okay. Thanks. Have a fine day. Good to talk to you. Bye. Rob, there's a – man, there's a sitcom there, isn't there? I mean, really? Well, I would – you know, John is such a great sitcom student. I would hate to be – I would never jump in.

I would only encourage him. In fact, maybe I'll send him a tweet right now. I mean John Podoritz is a magnificent – probably one of the finest users of Twitter there is. I mean his tweets are very, very funny. He's very good. Half political, half funny, always great. And so it is funny to think of that incredibly intellectual household. Yeah. Oh.

You had Norm Fedoritz, Mitch Dechter, the people in that house, the people around the dinner table, and how smart John is. John and all – actually all the children were very, very smart. I've seen that family around the dinner table and it is a sight to behold. And somehow John Penoritz managed to have time during all of that to watch every single television show ever on. Yes. And listen to every Broadway cast album and the rest of it. Yeah. I know, et cetera.

Well, good for him. And I'm trying to think here. No, nothing's coming to me. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. I'm not all here this morning. I got to say, I woke up.

And you ever have those mornings where you're pitched from some incredible dream? It's just the most amazing movie you've never seen. And you find yourself on the hard concrete steps of the morning and it takes you a long time to shift realities, right? I mean, it's...

I spent the first hour this morning just sort of in a fog walking around. There's nothing about this, however, that I would take to my doctor. Because the doctor is going to say, well, that's... I was wondering about the segue, but go ahead. Yes, exactly. I was really wondering.

I thought you were – I didn't know if this was a segue or not, but now I know it's a segue. So I feel compelled to interrupt it. Once upon a time, it was. Go right ahead. Encounter Books brings you The Cure from Obamacare by Sally Pipes. That's right. It's a broadside. And what is it about?

It will look at the changes that can be made, that actually can be made to halt the full implementation over the next few years. Now, you've been hearing everything. Congress has been delaying the funding, this, all the stuff that they're threatening about the shutdown. Apparently, there's just not an on-off switch with this thing. It's going to be a gradual disintegration of it, if at all. So how do you do that? How do you cure Obamacare? That's what the broadside is about. It's the medical device tax, the ALPAB. Do you even know

what the ALPAB is? Well, it's in there. The new 3.8% tax on unearned income, all this stuff. What can be done to chip away and cure Obamacare is the subject of the broadside by Sally Pipes. So go to encounterbooks.com to get this broadside for a special price for listeners of Ricochet. And if you enter the code Ricochet, gee, I don't know why I came up with that, at the checkout, you'll get an additional 10% off this and any other broadside title. And if you look at the broadside – or the Encounter catalog, it's magnificent. So go there. All right, gentlemen.

I believe – Before we – can we just – before we go on, because I know we're talking about a sponsor. We haven't had Encounter Books as a sponsor for a while. All right, gentlemen. I believe – Please do actually – this is an opportunity not only to support one of our very loyal and very dedicated sponsors but also this is – the Encounter broadsides are fantastic. They really are great and they are – they're very concise but they're nice to read. They're well put together. They're really – it's really a high-end product and good for us. But I would like to say that they went away for a while and I think they went away for their own budgetary issues and they're back and we're happy to have them. And I'm referring elliptically to our controversy of last week. We also want to make sure that you know that we are actively attracting new sponsors.

It really wasn't too much of a giant emergency last week. But it was interesting that one of the things that we took from it, and I know James, you and I sort of exchanged a bunch of texts about it, is that it is OK in the culture to be far left wing and that won't cause you any trouble. It is not OK to be center right. I mean we are in fact center right. I mean these podcasts are very, very tame and very clean. Too tame.

Well, that's – go ahead. My presence alone should make it rhino – it's rhino approved. Far too tame. That's right. Yeah, exactly right. Folks, let me tell you. That's right. A ricochet member isn't something that you

talk to your urologist about hey yo hello uh but that that was my segue into our next guest who i i'm sorry i'm just gonna shave them for a while i deserve that i'm not i'm not i deserve, you know what the secret of – do you know what the secret of comedy is? I do. You do. Okay. All right. Go ahead.

I give up. I give up. What's the secret of comedy? Timing. Got it? Yeah. It's a thinker. Anyway, you were getting around to David.

Yeah, I was getting around to David just because one of our members said, you got to talk to David Limbaugh about this. And then as some weird kind of twist, a total coincidence really, David Limbaugh shows up today. So it's kind of weird. So it's great. So the only takeaway was I was going to say – He shows up. Please, please, if you're at all interested in this subject, which I think everyone should be on Obamacare because it affects us all, account of broadsides are fantastic, and supporting them is supporting the cause and supporting a sponsor at the same time.

In addition to becoming a member of Ricochet. And we will never, ever – there will be sponsors out there for us, and we will find them, and we will be sponsored. But it's just sort of interesting along the way how hard it is just to talk about these issues and to talk about them in the free market. David knows a guy who's got a radio show who occasionally has a problem with people who sponsor his show and then everybody decides that they have to boycott them because God knows we can't have commerce unless everybody toes a particular ideological line. And Mr. Limbaugh himself, I imagine, has had askance looks in town perhaps as he walks around and people say, I'm not going to use you for legal services. Why? You are related by blood

to somebody whose opinions I disagree with. Eh, no, there's only one way to think in this country. No, there's two, and one of the proponents of the other is David Limbaugh. He's a columnist, author, and a practicing attorney in Cape Girardeau Moe. His latest book is Crimes Against Liberty. And we call him the El Rush Bro.

Welcome back to the podcast, David. Okay. Now, first, I got to correct you. I like that. Rush Bro. That is excellent. No, I don't need to be substitutionally hated anymore because I have these columns that appear in the local paper and people hate me all on my own merit when I'm in Cape Girardeau. Well, 70% support. Uh, but,

but the 30%, uh, they don't, they don't say much. I can just smell it though. By the way, I didn't know Rob that elliptically was an adverb. Yeah. I heard you use it. I make it all up. I make it up. I believe it's a living language, David, like the Constitution. And also you all need to know that right now as we speak, my hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, is the venue for the filming of Gone Girl, that movie that's being filmed with liberal Ben Affleck. And I have not seen him, although he has been cited in my hometown. Well, that's practically Hollywood. That was my effort to simulate and emulate the cultural maven John Podhoretz.

That's all I know about culture. I just tweeted him, by the way, and told him, Rob, that you were slamming him mercilessly to his father. And he didn't respond. But I then said that you guys came around and complimented him. It was important because I love that his dad took up for him, too. I did. I thought that was very sweet. I thought that was really sweet.

Oh, and how much other trouble have you caused? I know. I'm just telling you, you guys, that was a great podcast. What a comedown now to come to me. That's why I'm trying to stall and distract before you get into anything substantive and the contrast becomes apparent. Okay. So, David, recent column, you attack David Brooks for attacking Ted Cruz. And now I'm just going to play devil's advocate here.

I mean, the Senate is a place with 100 different members. If you want to get anything done, you've got to be collegial. You've got to watch what you say. You've got to make friends with the Lindsey Grahams and the John McCains of the world. And there we have this very junior, junior senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, only 18 months in the Senate, out it harder, not easier, for the minority leader Mitch McConnell, senator from Kentucky, to get anything done. Right? Yeah, and that's a good thing. If you block the establishment, you are making progress. That's why part of the one of the points in the column was that it is not anti-progressive to obstruct bad progress. I mean, it's a good thing. And so I just

think, David Brooks, you may be friends with him. It wasn't intended to be personal, by the way. I just think that he's not conservative. David was personal. David did get personal here. He quoted him saying, Ted Cruz, the senator from Canada through Texas. That's nothing but snide. I'm sorry. That's an excuse. Gratuitous snide. And the point is he masks his criticism over process and Cruz and all that. But the truth is it's ideologically based.

Brooks is not a conservative, and so he finds ways to even maybe convince himself that Cruz is objectionable. But the bottom line is so many people in the conservative punditry, in the establishment thinking, reject people like Cruz as extremists, and I reject the notion that people that are Reagan conservatives are extreme. I just think the country has become so liberal that those of us who still adhere to the Republican Party platform, the conservative platform, are cast as extremists. And I just want to make one other related, I think it's a related comment. Mr. Pithoritz made the point that in response to one of your questions, that Obama was far more radical.

And it might have been you, James, than anybody thought and that America would ever elect. I don't think that's true in the sense that some of us, including, I think, Mr. Pithoritz, did realize what Obama was early on, and my frustration has been the last three or four years that so many people on our side, on the establishment, refuse to call him out for what he is. They're always apologizing for him. They're always saying, take the gloves off. They're always saying, not even too long ago, I heard it within the last few months, some conservative commentator saying, no, what's everybody all in an uproar about?

He's just a European socialist, by the way, as if that isn't pretty terrible and scary. But he's way worse than a European socialist in terms of what these conservative commentators mean. He is a radical. He is Reverend Wright. He is all these things with racial baggage and hate America. And by the way, one of you, I can't remember, talked about how a lot of the people in America no longer love America. I would challenge you, do you think Obama does? Obama, I don't think, loves the America that I love. Otherwise, he wouldn't want to fundamentally change it. I will quit this monologue.

Well, a lot of us had his number early on, and it was 666. And you know who else was a European socialist? A little guy named Adolf. Yeah, I know. That's the kind of stuff that makes it sound like we're absolutely crazy. But no, if you are on the left, and if you believe that the basic tenets of leftism are the things that are going to enlighten and improve humanity, then no, he's not a radical. He's a

very normal, sensible kind of guy. And I agree with what David just said there, and I think it expands on what I was saying before. He likes a concept of America. He certainly likes the part of America that elected him, which shows that there's some hope for us yet. But do you think that he understands the pith and the gist of what goes, what is in the marrow and the blood of this country?

No, I don't think he does. He's been outside of that experience his entire life. Whether or not that shaped his politics or whether or not his politics shaped that attitude, I don't think he does. He's been outside of that experience his entire life. Whether or not that shaped his politics or whether or not his politics shaped that attitude, I don't care. The a gas station on the planes and waited for people to come by and give you money. I mean I think he got that. So whether or not – so who comes along next who's able to – to go back to what Norman says. If we do have another Ronald Reagan character, is somebody like that who wants to put forth again that idea of American exceptionalism and American character? If we have another Ronald Reagan, is he going to be responded to by people who regard him as a retro throwback or another Romney clone who's just talking about a bygone, leave it to beaver fifties world that never existed and shouldn't be brought back

anyway? I mean, here's the thing. We've moved so far even from the Carter definition of what's enlightenment. When I read the other day that it is necessary for the president to waive some laws, which of course he loves to do, pertaining to the arming of people who are opposed to us, arming of terrorist groups. In order to give stuff to the Syrian rebels, we've got to sort of waive a couple of these little laws that say you can't give – so I'm waiting now for the president to say it is time for us to get over our inordinate fear of Islamic terrorists. Well, he's essentially said that. Yeah, he has. He's essentially said that. That's what the Muslim Brotherhood really is. No, I think, James, you're absolutely right.

But I would suggest the weird thing to me anyway, the weird thing about this particular president is how old-fashioned it seems. It really does seem like he is arguing from the faculty lounge in 1974 that America is on this inexorable – it's slowing down, but it needs to be sped up as we catch up with our European counterparts, which is why I think the European socialism thing is interesting. I take your point, David, but I still think it's interesting because all over Europe, they seem to be rejecting that as unaffordable. Not all of it, but the basic tenets of it, they're rejecting. They're trimming back their welfare state. They're not doing much to stand up to radical Islam, though. So call them former European socialists. Right, but it's still the same it's still the same problem we are just sort of belatedly coming to a party that is just

ending uh and i'm such a shock that brock obama doesn't realize that or actually none of his acolytes do it's not as if there aren't it's not as if there's not a new a 21st century progressivism they could they could latch on to what scares me about these guys is they're so fixed, such fixed ideologues, that even in the face of the manifest failure of their policies, they cannot digest it. They can't accept it. They can't process it. And they really don't believe it's their policies. I mean, there is a part of Obama that I think wants – there's no question he wants to

put America in decline. There's no question he doesn't care about our debt and he wants to redistribute more than he cares about the economy growing. But there's also a part of him that believes this Keynesian stuff, that it is going to cause economic growth. He doesn't really care about it. But when it doesn't, and when none of his stimuli work, he doesn't accept it. He just thinks it wasn't enough and all that stuff. Hey, David, you and I both have a bunch of kids and we both have kids in college. Yes. It's hopeless because the new generation embraced Barack Obama. They still, by and large, I think polls indicate, love him. And Rob just said there's something old-fashioned about barack obama he's it's as

if he's in the faculty lounge in 1973 instead of 2013 the sad part is that american universities they're still saying that in faculty lounges so this generation which is going through college the kids they've lost touch with with conservatism um they're less so it's over right well no i think i think it was very poignant the way mr pothoritz phrased this a minute ago when he said the america that i thought i knew that was almost goosebump yes it was because you know here here we all, all four of us lament and we worry. And I think that is really the question. That is the fundamental question. Has the character of America already fundamentally changed?

And I choose to reject that because I think part of the problem is, again, Obama's unique. He's got the race thing going. He's got, Rush always talks about the Limbaugh theorem, and I'm not being cute here, how Obama, and a lot of us have said it, how Obama is not accountable for the results of his own policies. He always pretends to fight against the establishment when he is the establishment. And so he's not really held accountable. And again, I go back to blaming feckless Republicans and conservatives for not holding him to account and for letting him off easy. I think the question is, if we really had a referendum, which I don't think the last election was, Romney took his gloves off and didn't fight, and he was milquetoast. And I defended him, by the way, after having supported Santorum.

I was completely in his corner, and I still totally respect him. But we didn't have a real contest. He let him go on Benghazi. He let him go after he turned the tide in that first debate. I don't know that we've had a real test. We haven't had real articulation of conservatism. And even when we do with people like Cruz and, to some extent, Ron Paul on most issues, We have our side dubbing them as extreme. We are not united.

If our side could get united and articulate Reagan conservatism and offer an alternative set of policy solutions, I think the public would rally around it. We seem to get caught in the mire of whether we're going to be hated by the public with this continuing resolution or debt-ceiling battle. And we seem to forfeit the battle before we even enter into it, which is why I say, and this is all related, by the way, even though it may just seem an unrelated stream of consciousness. Do the polls really say we would lose with standing up to a budget shutdown, defunding Obamacare, funding the rest? Or is it because we tell the public that we don't have any fight in us, that we're going to lose this debate, and that we really don't believe in what we say we believe in? If we did, I think those polls may show something different, assuming they weren't rigged in the first place or kind of slanted.

And I think we might be able to do better at the ballot box, and I definitely think we can in 2014. You're going to see, and I was thinking about this, and I'm thinking about writing a column about this tomorrow. Obama, ironically, it's his policies that are hated. And so I thought, 2010, he's completely rejected Obamacare. That was all about a referendum on him. Therefore, 2012, we're all reasonable sitting around anticipating these pollsters being wrong. He's going to get shellacked because we knew that he was shellacked in 2010. And yet, the Limbaugh theorem entered in, and he wasn't held accountable in 2012.

Here we're going to have it again. 2014 will be a fundamental rejection of Obama, even though if he were running, he may still triumph. So 2016, he can't run. 2014, we're going to kick some butt. 2016, Obama won't be running. It may be a complete chain. Now, that assumes we don't go bankrupt in the meantime and the rest of it, I can't help but talk and not shut up. Well, I like it. I like it, David. I love it, David. Yeah, I just. I think you might be right. I think you might be wrong. And here's – that's a very milky toasty way to say it.

But then again, I'm a squishy rhino. David, you see what we live with. You see what we live with. Because I'm not sure that there's this – I don't see any evidence that there's this yearning for conservative economic politics. I don't see there's any yearning in the country right now. I think we lost the thread of the conversation for the solutions that a conservative economic president would suggest.

Just to speak, just to carve that one area out because I know we don't have, there's not even enough bandwidth for stuff about the social issues. Just that one issue. I mean, I wish that were true. I think there's a huge appetite for cost cutting and I think there's a big appetite for small government in general. But it always seems to me, even under the sainted Reagan, we didn't get a smaller government.

We didn't change the fundamental desire of the American people for more services from their government. Yeah, well, it's hard when they're increasingly on it and more people on food stamps than ever before. And it's also hard when we constantly, as conservatives, have to apologize for what we believe in and say that, no, we really are compassionate, but we want to cut government services. It's a hard case to make because the benefits of capitalism to people are indirect, and you can't prove them. In fact, they're made fun of by Clinton, and the rest is trickledown, when in fact we all know that capitalism leads to the greatest good and the greatest prosperity for the most and therefore is more compassionate. But on the surface, we're vulnerable to these demagogic attacks. And so it's tough, and I don't think we stand up and we haven't made

enough of a moral case for capitalism, or maybe it's hard to make. I mean, there's a total case, but is it hard to articulate those kind of theories in the public square and have them do any good? I do think there's a strong economic case on our side. It's just that we're not unified. You know, the Tea Party's all over the place out there doing it. But again, they are marginalized as extremists. Hey, David, here's a test. Peter here. If you lived in South Carolina, would you be supporting the Tea Party candidate against Lindsey Graham in the primary?

And if you lived in Kentucky, would you be supporting the Tea Party candidate in the primary against Mitch McConnell? I probably would, but I am not one of these people that want to take my ball and go home, and I don't want to undercut our power structure, if that's what you're getting at. But I just think that all bets are off anymore. We are at a crisis point in our history, and we can't worry so much about those kind of things. Power, when there's a vacuum, as you so much about those kind of things. Power, when there's a vacuum, as you guys talked about in the connection with foreign policy, is going to be filled and it's going to be filled with people who can rise to the level of

leadership. A lot of people are hitting the ground running. Cruz is incredibly precocious as a legislator. I think there's a myth that suggests you've got to be some seasoned legislator in order to be effective. We have a lot of people that we've groomed in a hyper-political atmosphere. People are more educated. The people that are involved in politics and government are more informed. And I'm not worried about it. If these guys continue to undercut American conservative principles, then I think they ought to be undercut. And Lindsey Graham, sometimes he does some great stuff, but other times it's just bizarre, I mean, what he does. By the way, I need another, inject another pahoritz culturalism in. Rob, wasn't it you,

didn't you just say, I may be right, I may be wrong. Isn't that a nightingale sings and sang in Barclay Square? That's exactly right. That's popular culture, David, but I would say you're foul. David Limbaugh dropping references to songs from the First World War. That was like Harry Connick and Frank Sinatra. Yeah, there you go. That's pretty hip. Okay, alright.

I think that the next guy who comes along, if you're tired, if you're done with popular culture, I mean really seriously, guys, the next guy is going to have a great case to make by looking at all the young people and saying, you there, you're living in your folks' basement, aren't you? You know why? Because you can't get a job. Why is that? Because no one wants to hire you because you'd be employee number 40. And the minute the guy down at the coffee shop hires employer number 40, he's got to pay for a whole lot of stuff. And you are the guy that he doesn't want to pay it for.

And that's why you don't have a job. Everybody here, raise your hands. How many part-timers do we have here? It's a part-timer nation now. You know why? Because you're all employee number 40. I mean, you don't have to make that case according to classical economic theories. You can make it by showing people what's going on and pointing to the reason that it's happening.

And it's not some theoretical thing. My French brother-in-law is looking around here for a job and I'm saying, buddy, you're – the last one which turned out they just put everybody on contract basis. Why do you think that is? It wasn't because Francois Hollande came over and said, I would like the top tax rate of millionaires to be 100%. Do you use the fake accent with your brother-in-law? No, I don't. I get it out here because it would be crude.

It would be cruel. Do you know if James Lilacs had nothing substantive to offer, you would have to retain him on the uniqueness of his segues alone. No, that's not true. Oh, don't do that. Don't do that. I mean, they're unbelievable. I knew the last one was a segue while you guys were sitting around dumbfounded, and you work with him every day. I don't know what you guys are talking about. I actually never tell her that her husband has had a small stroke.

I thought I had no idea where that was going. Peter Robinson, I know I'm talking out of turn, but I have a question for you, and I know you're probably short on time, but you and I had these mini-debates on Ricochet at one point about whether Republicans should stand up on the continuing resolutions and all that. I don't expect we have time to deal with this now, but some future podcast or something, can you guys explain to me why there's a big difference between standing up on the continuing resolution or defunding and delaying Obamacare there and

making your argument there versus on the debt ceiling. What's the difference? I mean, all these wonks get all in a snit about how we're going to do this. We're going to be clever and the smartest guy in the room. What's the difference between a debt ceiling battle and a continuing resolution when they both end up shutting down the government? And what's the difference between a delay and a defunding when, in effect, they'll both do the same thing in terms of how

how it will reflect on Republicans there's a big difference otherwise in other words I think a lot of this stuff is just punditry and and and smartest guy in the room thing and I don't see the big the big nuanced differences in all these things I have to admit I thought that I had a case the last time you and I went at this. This time around, I'm with you. There's – for sure there's no substantive difference. As best I can tell, the Republicans are just looking at polling indicating that people are opposed to raising the debt ceiling. But at the same time, they're opposed to shutting off funding for the federal government.

So they sort of think what that means is they ought to make their stand on the debt. Who knows? Well, you know, Peter, your argument – and I'm not saying I was right and you were wrong because I really don't know because none of us have a crystal ball, which is the election. And if we do these things, we're going to bring ourselves into ill repute among the electorate, and we end up losing anyway. And so what I'm saying is, if we fought and show the people that we have something to fight about, and we care about, and we believe in, if we can do that deftly and not look like we're just fighting to be spiteful against Obama, we might be able to win the public's approval. I just don't know.

It's really a tough case. That's the point. That's the point. See, that's the difference. I mean, in my humble opinion, that's the difference between David Brooks and David Limbaugh. David Brooks is – I'm sorry because David is or at least was an old friend. He may – if he listens to this podcast, he may be hesitant to speak to me again. But the snideness, the sneering attitude toward Ted Cruz is just, to me, it's just flatly unacceptable.

David says, I'm with Ted Cruz, but I understand the position of Mitch McConnell. I understand what they're trying to do, and I recognize that these are very tight, tough, difficult political calls. There's a generosity on our side that is just totally absent from the other side. Yeah, and I also don't think our guys, our establishment guys are corrupt. I mean a lot of people that think like I do believe that Boehner sold out and it's crooked. Now, I do. Boehner is an anomaly, though. I can't figure him out on the Syria thing and why he defended it. But I don't think they're crooked or corrupt in any way. And that's what I think that's what detracts from our credibility.

If we can just if we can get it away from that personal stuff, Boehner's corrupt and therefore he's in their pocket or whatever. No, it's just that he disagrees with us in how we should approach things. And maybe even ideologically and substantively, I think there's some of that. But I don't think these guys are corrupt. Well, note to Ted Cruz, get your pants pressed so you can have one of those impressive creases. In Washington, that goes a long way to getting some people on your side. David, we have to let you go because we have been podcasting for the majority of the morning, and people eventually just look at the little progress bar and say,

are they ever going to shut up? Whereas we could go another hour. It's so much fun, so we're going to have to have you back. In the meantime, tell everybody to look for you. Where can they read your columns that you do for the local paper that 30% of the population can't stand? That's pretty good, by the way.

I prefer they didn't read it here. I'd rather the local paper not take it so people wouldn't hate me locally. But I'm just syndicated in the various places. Town Hall, Jewish World Review, World Net Daily, Newsmax, all these places. I can't. Oh, human events. Oh, my gosh. And newsbusters.

So, yeah, well, more on Ricochet, please. That's what I was. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I need to get back there. You guys are great. And you are. I'll tell you one thing about Ricochet. It provides seriously intellectual commentary and and pretty balanced, which I don't like. Not to mention great podcast, this one excluded, of course. We'll try to shape it into an ideologically consistent, unvarying mode for your delectation next week, David.

Thank you. Thank you. Doc, see you later. Thank you. Thank you very much, you guys. I know what David means about having your piece appear in the local paper. I used to wince when my national column would show up in the Star Tribune because people would look at it and say, oh, no, he's one of those. And I used to like him. I used to like him. Now I've got to hate him.

So there you have it. Well, yeah, interesting week. And now we've got the pivot to the economy, of course. The whole Syria thing is fixed. And Bill Clinton even came out and said that, you know, really, what difference does it make how this was done, which I just find stunning. Either Bill is just simply saying what needs to be said in order to set his wife up for a nice run so we can get back to the White House and the plane. Or he's I mean, that's going to be my exit question for you guys. What do you think – when Bill Clinton goes out there and defends the administration, do you think that this is because he actually believes that this is the right thing to do or that he regards this team with absolute contempt? Oh, I don't know. That's a good question.

I've heard just enough inside gossip at two or three removes. I wouldn't repeat this if you hadn't asked. But there's just so much gossip in the political world that Bill Clinton – oh, I just got off the phone with Bill Clinton. Oh, I just talked to somebody who just got off the phone with Bill Clinton. And if any of this is true, then he does regard the current team with total and utter contempt. But he views the right thing to do for himself, who comes first, and his wife, who comes second. He views the right thing to do to retain his influence, his standing within the Democratic Party, his standing in Manhattan. Let us not forget

that whereas Hillary Clinton has been jetting around the world for the past few years, Bill Clinton has been going into the office in Manhattan. Well, at least he's been having lunch at the Four Seasons. He views the right thing to do is supporting Barack Obama. It's just one of those things where the liberals end up standing together. That's my reading. Yeah, I think that's probably true. Also, I mean what – it's a delicate game he's playing and I suspect that depending on how popular Barack Obama is – I mean Joe Biden is in Iowa, right?

That means only one thing. He's delusional. But he's in Iowa. That means two things. One, he's ready for president. Two, he's delusional. But he's in Iowa. So if you're Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton is the smartest politician on the Democratic side, he's thinking, OK, well, maybe Bill – maybe we can make Joe Biden carry the Barack Obama water and maybe my wife – we can position my wife as more of a – she was a dissenter.

She was the grown-up. She was cast out, all sorts of things. The timeline will be rewritten to everything went south the minute Hillary left. And if I were Bill Clinton right now, I'd be manufacturing – I'd be fueling the rumors that there's a feud between the Hillary Clinton camp and the Barack Obama camp because that only helps raise her stature and kind of cut the cord. So I don't know. I mean, I would I suspect there'll be more that the third party scurrilous gossip that Peter's hearing, we'll be hearing more and more and more and more and more of it orchestrated, of course, by Bill Clinton. That'd be my guess. And while Joe Biden is in Iowa, of course, nobody's ever going to ask him, Joe, just a couple of weeks ago, you were telling there's a YouTube video of you telling people to defend themselves by going out and getting themselves a shotgun, which apparently is what a crazy man did in D.C.

And a lot of people are dead. Do you feel any personal responsibility for that? And of course, the answer will be from the Lickspittle media as Rob calls them and everybody else. No, because Sarah Palin wants to ban abortion. And there you go. So Joe will get a pass on that and never once ever be questioned about it. But I want him to run so badly. I want a Joe Biden bid in all of its wonderful glory. You're getting it. You're getting it. Oh, it's just – oh, it's going to be priceless.

And it will be fun to read people's – what they have to say about that. Ben Dominick, Molly Hemingway. Oh, yeah. We should mention that. Why don't you go ahead? Ben Dominick and Molly Hemingway you know Ben Dominick and Molly Hemingway and what else I forgot I've launched a new site today called The Federalist

The Federalist yeah and it sounds great I have not seen it yet I know it'll look great because they worked very hard on it and Molly is on the pages of Ricochet sending you there right now come back to ricochet don't uh don't tarry too long in the in um uh over there but uh we wish you well of course

she's going to stick around um uh ricochet a lot uh so we're we're we're it's it's a it's not a farewell it's just a simply uh it's a season. And with X-John joining the staff of the editorial system. Absolutely. I'm sorry. I forgot. That should have been the lead. And so taking over sort of Molly's morning duties all the way

from Arizona, which is kind of nice. It's just, it's nice to have somebody in D.C. We still need sort of to address that now that we don't have Molly the day-to-day. But it's just having somebody from nice to have somebody in DC. We still need sort of to address that now that we don't have Molly day to day. But it's just having somebody from – who's not from DC and not from on the coast is nice too in addition to, of course, our own James Lilacs. John Gabriel, who started I think on Tuesday, Monday, Tuesday, kind of doing the morning editing stuff. He's been great so far. So we're thrilled to have him too.

Absolutely. I love his avatar. I always look at it where he's got the coffee cup holding, covering his face so you can't identify him in public and yell at him. Anyway, there you go. And of course, there's what Peter does and there's what Rob does. There's all kinds of things

for you to see and or read and hear and you'll find them at Ricochet, your nexus for all things of the center right. And while you're there, you might consider of course, joining. It helps. And you also might want to go over to EncounterBooks.com. We thank them for sponsoring the podcast.

The coupon code RICOSHET will get you 10% off this week's title, which is the cure for Obamacare, or anything else you want to buy for that matter. And, of course, sign up for Audible, too. AudiblePodcast.com, they're a good friend of the podcast. AudiblePodcast.com slash RICOSHET. Lots of free stuff for you there as well. See you on RICOSHudible, too. Audiblepodcast.com. They're a good friend of the podcast. Audiblepodcast.com slash Ricochet. Lots of free stuff for you there as well. See you on Ricochet, everybody.

See you down the road. Rob, Peter, it's been great. Next week. Next week. See you, fellas. The road is long With a many a winding tongue That leads us to who knows where

Who knows where But I'm strong Strong enough to carry him He ain't heavy He's my brother So on we go He's a warrior in life Join the conversation No burden is he

To bear No burden is here to bear. We'll get there. For I know he would not encumber me He ain't heavy He's my brother If I'm leaning

at all I'm a leanin' And I'm I'm a leanin' With sadness That everyone's heart Isn't filled with the gladness Of love with the gladness of love