The Ricochet Podcast - The Speechwriters

Episode Date: July 23, 2015

Long and Lileks are away, but that’s OK — we’re in extremely capable hands with guest hosts Troy Senik and Need To Know’s Mona Charen. This week, we’re joined by Senator Tom Cotton to discuss the Iran deal (or lack thereof). Then, the Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson stops by to discuss Hillary, Trump, and Buster (his dog). Andy’s participation makes it an official quorum of White House... Source

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

Terms apply. Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie Hello, everyone. I'm not going to get... I don't know what's going to happen here. I don't have any information on that. They don't understand what you're talking about.

And that's going to prove to be disastrous. And what it means is that the people don't want socialism. They want more conservatism. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson. Rob Long and James Lilacs are away this week, so we're joined by Mona Charon and me, Troy Sinek, sitting in for James Lilacs. Our guest today on the program, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton and the Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson. Let's have ourselves a podcast. There you go again. I'm Troy Sinek, the editor-in-chief of Ricochet. Where is James? Well, he is in Alaska on the National Review Cruise where I feel relatively confident that he is bewildering Inuits with esoteric references to movies from 1953 as we speak.

So he is not here to tell you that the Ricochet podcast is brought to you by The Great Courses and that for a limited time, The Great Courses has a special offer for Ricochet listeners. Get their course, The Philosopher's Toolkit, how to be the most rational person in any room, assuming I guess you're not in the room with somebody else who's purchased the course, in which case one of you will have to shiv the other, for up to 80% off. You go to thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. He's also not here to tell you that we are brought to you by Casper Premium Mattresses, premium mattresses for a fraction of the price delivered to your door. Casper is revolutionizing the mattress industry by cutting the cost of dealing with resellers and showrooms and passing those savings directly to the consumer.

And finally, boy, James is really falling down on the job here. He's not here to tell you about the virtues of our mothership, RickShea.com, but you know who is, one of our co-founders, the sole member of the usual triumvirate who is present this week, the sainted Peter Robinson. Now, Peter, you have been tasked with filling Rob's usual role of pitching the site. And after years of assisting Richard Epstein on the Law Talk podcast, I've learned that one of my gifts of the spirit is sharpening – sharpening, I'm sorry, some of our best minds, which you are undoubtedly one. So let me suggest this. Let's stick with sharpening. About half of the time, people who read your posts on Ricochet will see your analysis of whatever is going on in American politics at the time.

The other half of the time, they will see you essentially posing open questions to Ricochet members and awaiting responses, which would seem to suggest that Ricochet, distinguishing itself from virtually every other site on the internet, is actually a place where the comments are worth reading. Why is that, Peter? Because Ricochet readers are – two reasons. The first and obvious reason is that Ricochet readers are pretty darn smart. I have yet to put up a post in which – even a post in which I think I know what I'm talking about and I'm putting it up simply to share my opinion with everyone. And people will add comments. I have not once in the several years that we've been doing this now read Ricochet comments and failed to learn something, failed to be struck, failed to see an insight that simply hadn't occurred to me. And then the second reason is that Ricochet readers come from all walks of life and from everywhere in the country.

And you know what? A perspective here in Northern California, even if I am a conservative in Northern California, is not quite going to be the same as the perspective in Colorado or in Texas or someplace in New England, or the perspective of somebody who works at a think tank, which I do, if working at a think tank is the right way to put it, is not going to be the same perspective as Dave Carter, who drives trucks for a living, or we have a number of engineers. I've learned a huge amount posting what seem to me technical questions, and all the engineers find them laughably easy and answerable. In any event, we have just people from – good people, intelligent people, people who agree on first things, who come from all walks of life and enjoy in a certain, helping each other. Very seldom do you read a comment on Ricochet in which the implicit message is, I'm smarter than you and I'm contemptuous of you.

And that's the implicit message on comments in almost every other site you can find anywhere on the internet. That just isn't the case at Ricochet. People help each other think things through. So this week, you've got me, net loss, Peter, always a plus, and then we're classing up the joint because Mona Charon is joining us this week. Mona, welcome. Thank you, Troy, and thanks for that. Now I have a huge grin on my face.

There'll be no living with me. Well, and we're taking it up even a notch beyond that because we are now joined by our first guest who is one of those people whose biography will really make you take stock of what you've done with your life. Because at 38 years of age, he's the junior senator from the state of Arkansas, former member of the House of Representatives, a graduate of both Harvard and Harvard Law, and a former captain in the US Army. He's also probably the only guy with that resume who can give you pointers on cattle ranching too. He is, of course, Senator Tom Cotton. Senator, welcome to the program. You're talking with Troy Sinek. I've got Peter Robinson and Mona Charan here with me. Let me ask you one thing before I turn you over to them on the murder board. We heard your name in the news yesterday regarding these revelations that you've discovered that there are unpublicized side deals attached to the Vienna agreement with Iran.

And according to the reports I was hearing, that even Secretary of State Kerry hasn't seen the text of them. What's going on here? What do we know right now? Well, first off, thanks for having me on. And if Mona is classing up the show, I'm unfortunately going to more than offset her and class it down a little bit. But I appreciate you having me on. So late last week, Congressman Mike Pompeo and I traveled to Vienna in part to meet with the International Atomic Energy Agency, specifically to discuss the Iran nuclear agreement. And the officials there were very forthright, frank, and helpful in saying that, yes, there are, in fact, two secret side deals between Iran and the IAEA related to Iran disclosing the past military work

it's done in its nuclear program and access to the Parchin site, the military site where we believe they tested nuclear detonators. This came as a big surprise to us because the State Department and the U.S. government as a whole had not provided those documents to the Congress by the time we returned. They represented that those were all the documents they had. After 24 hours of back and forth, the administration seems to have settled on the explanation that they have been briefed on the agreements, but they don't have the agreements. Well, that's not enough. U.S. law requires that the administration obtain and provide those agreements to the Congress. And this is not some minor point of administration or some point of process. Parchin and the past military dimensions

of Iran's nuclear program are two of the most controversial issues, two most fundamental questions about the feasibility of this deal. It was funded to the IEA at the very last minute. I just want to make sure that I understand what I'm hearing because it is – even at this stage in the Obama administration when we've all gotten numb to things that would have seemed unthinkable a few years before the administration began, what you're saying sounds almost incredible. dramatically so, on critical points of the agreement now before Congress from the International Atomic Energy Agency than they did from the United States State Department. Is that correct? Yes, Peter, absolutely. There's two questions of secrecy here.

One is the secrecy of the existence of the agreements, and the other is the content. The IAEA did not and represents that they will not reveal the content of the agreements, but they very forthrightly revealed that the agreements did in fact exist. These were agreements that made it the final hours of the negotiating process to show just how critical and sensitive these questions were. Yet we had to fly all the way to Vienna to learn of the existence of these documents rather than the administration forthrightly telling us that these side agreements exist. And the big question, as I understand – of course, this is one of the questions I'd like to hear you discuss in the few minutes we've got you. But the question, of course, is how many Democrats are going to vote in favor of this deal?

Why isn't Chuck Schumer, who represents New York, Senator Schumer, who wants to succeed Harry Reid as Senate – we hope he remains minority leader, but leader of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. Why isn't Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who is the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Why are not these leaders of the United States Senate on the Democratic side saying, stop there? We do not discuss this agreement until we understand what it entails. Well, it's a bit mysterious to me, Peter, because this is not a partisan issue. When the supposedly moderate president of Iran, Sadr Hani, was in the streets a couple of weeks ago, he was not chanting death to Republicans or death to Democrats. He was chanting death to America. And I know that many Democrats have real reservations about the

president's decision to go to the U.N. Security Council first. And I've privately heard several Democrats have reservations that they are not being provided these documents, which, again, are not a matter of pure process or administration. These go to the heart of our ability to verify Iran's compliance with this agreement. And I just can't imagine that any member of the United States Senate or House will vote for a deal, even permit a vote to go forward, without having access to these fundamental documents. Secretary of State John Kerry, this is according to CNN. I apologize for that. I can't seem to find the report on Fox at the moment. CNN reports that just a couple of hours ago, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Kerry said, let me underscore that the alternative to the deal we have reached is not a better deal.

There is no unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation. That is a fantasy, plain and simple, and our intelligence community will tell you that, close quote. So Senator, the administration's point is this is the best we can do. How do you answer that? We could actually do much better, Peter. We should have done much better all along. We shouldn't have started down this path by lifting the sanctions in exchange for negotiations in 2013. We should have imposed new sanctions and driven Iran further down to the mat until they sued for peace. All that said, we are where we are. We have an agreement. We have to decide whether

this is a good deal or a bad deal. It is a very bad deal. Iran will become a nuclear power, whether they follow the deal or whether they cheat on the deal, which is probably more likely, given their history. What's the alternative? The American people are going to repudiate this deal the more they learn about it, in my opinion, and therefore their elected representatives will kill the deal. At that point, U.S. sanctions will still be in place. And it's important for all your listeners to know that U.S. sanctions are the most critical sanctions. That's what was hurting the Iranian economy so badly in 2012 and 2013. And ultimately, we have the ability, we have the economic leverage in the global economy

to insist that people make a choice between trading with the U.S. and trading with Iran. To give you a sense of scale or perspective, Iran's economy is somewhere between the size of the economy of Maryland and Washington State. I don't think that's going to be a very hard decision for most companies and Washington State. I don't think that's going to be a very hard decision for most companies and most countries. Senator Cotton, Mona Charan here.

Some of the details that have leaked so far are really alarming insofar as they suggest that even if you are successful, and God knows we wish you Godspeed in being successful in defeating this, what really is a treaty, but it's being called an agreement. votes, will be grandfathered so that if European countries and companies and Russian and Chinese and even ours go ahead and make deals with the Islamic Republic, that will all be unvoidable and that it'll be permanent. What's the reality about that? Well, that's correct, Mona. And that's one reason why the so-called

snapback sanctions will not work. In fact, if anything, they will deter the United States and the West from calling Iran out for cheating. They won't deter Iran from cheating. Here's the reason why. When this deal goes forward, Iran is going to get tens of billions of dollars of unfrozen assets almost immediately. If we catch Iran cheating and putting aside all the problems with the inspection regime, all the problems with the bureaucratic commission that's created to establish violations, let's say that Iran cheats. There's no doubt about it. The U.S. says it.

A majority of our allies say it as well. The only punishment possible, the only punishment possible is snapback sanctions. That's like saying the death penalty, whether it's jaywalking or capital murder. But snapback sanctions do not snap back against the tens of billions of dollars they get a signing bonus. As you point out, they don't snap back against the contracts that are signed in the interim. They will be snapping back against what is presumably going to be a stronger, healthier, more resilient Iranian economy. And Iran, if snapback sanctions go into effect, has the right to walk away from all of its commitments under the agreement. So they can kick out inspectors. They can start doing, they start enriching more uranium. They can enrich it

up to weapons grade. And there'll be no, under no international obligations not to do so. That's why I say that in the end, I think that that's that back sanction. At LiveScoreBet, we love Cheltenham just as much as we love football. The excitement, the roar, and the chance to reward you. That's why every day of the festival, we're giving new members money back as a free sports bet up to €10 if your horse loses on a selected race. That's how we celebrate the biggest week in racing. Cheltenham with LiveScoreBet. This is total betting. Sign up by 2pm 14th of March. Bet within 48 hours of race. Main market excluding specials and place bets. Terms apply.

Bet responsibly. 18plusgamblingcare.ie The election mechanism is more likely to deter the United States and the West from identifying any violations rather than as Iran from committing those violations. So, Senator, could I just ask one more for me, Peter, if you don't mind? Oh, absolutely, Mona. Thanks. So I'd like to ask you for the sort of insider's view. You're a senator.

You've talked to your colleagues. You have a feel for the atmospherics. Realistically, what do you think are the chances that we will get, certainly in the Senate, and if you have a guess about the House, I'd love to hear it too, that we would have enough votes to override a presidential veto? Well, unfortunately, we are going to have to override a veto because the president, in an almost unprecedented action, has decided not to submit this as a treaty. But I do believe that the votes are there to override a veto. I strongly believe that a majority of both the House and the Senate will reject this deal. I believe that we'll have 60 votes in the Senate to send a disapproval resolution to the president, who will, of course, veto it. I do believe that there's a real chance we will have two-thirds of both the Senate and the House to override that veto, especially over

the coming month as senators and congressmen are at home with the people they serve. They're out at town halls and they're hearing from those people, much like they did on Obamacare in August of 2009, that the American people are going to repudiate this deal because it's so dangerous to the United States and to our allies and to the world. Now, many Democrats are still on the fence. I suspect they may stay on the fence until the very end. But when it comes time to vote, I believe they, like I, like so many other senators and congressmen, will recognize that this is a bad deal and that there's a better course to follow. Last question, Senator Peter here once again. I can't resist this.

As of not quite three months ago, you've become a father for the first time. Congratulations on the birth of your son Gabriel. Congratulations. Here we are talking about nuclear weapons. How has becoming a father changed your perspective? Well, Peter, it's made it more personal for me in a way because I look at my soon-to-be three-month-old baby and think that even if Iran follows this deal to the letter, they could get nuclear weapons before he even finishes third grade, certainly before he gets into high school.

And if Iran gets nuclear weapons or even approaches nuclear weapons capability, it'll develop a cascade throughout the Middle East with the world's most volatile region ringed with nuclear tripwires. That's not the kind of world in which I want to raise my son. That's not the kind of world in which our fathers and our mothers fought to raise us, and that's not the kind of world in which I'm going to accept if there's anything I can do about it. Senator, I think that all three of us would love to have the whole hour with you, but I think all three of us would also recognize that it is a much better use of your time to be back on the senate floor fighting this fight for the rest of us so good luck with that and senator tom cotton

thank you very much for joining us on the ricochet podcast thank you very much thank you thank you so much isn't it isn't it remarkable let's just pause for a minute i mean it occurred to me when you listen to tom cotton this is a guy who as I mentioned in the introduction, he is 38 years old. The Democratic Party is, Ben Sasse, Ron Johnson, Joni Ernst, Marco Rubio, this list goes on and on. Regardless of whether you agree with these people all the time, these are forces to be reckoned with. And it's the best farm team in the world and the contrast couldn't be more striking with the Democratic Party. They don't have anything comparable. I couldn't be more striking with the Democratic Party. They don't have anything comparable. I couldn't agree – just for people who love American history as well, it's very – this may be the first time since the 1840s where the Senate of the United States is the

cockpit. The Senate of the United States is where the action is. It is where the action is and it's because of, well, we need to name a few additional. Mitch McConnell, I think, is much underestimated even by people on our side. He is a shrewd. Especially. Especially by people on our side. That's in a certain sense, that's exactly right. He will look at the reality of any political situation and twist it and manipulate it in an extremely skillful way to get the most conservative possible outcome. And of course, we're disappointed. We have been disappointed in the

past when that outcome isn't as conservative as we'd like. But boy, is he intelligent and boy, is he hardworking. He's an old-fashioned master of the Senate and he's one of ours. All those old-fashioned masters of the Senate like Lynd Lyndon Johnson, used to be on the liberal side. We have one ourselves. Rob Portman of Ohio, John Hoeven of North Dakota, and then the new blood that you've mentioned. Just astonishing. Great stuff. There are, it leads to a certain cognitive dissonance, for me at least. You have this tremendous flowering of talent in the Senate and also many governors. So we have some fantastic governors as well who are Republicans. And, of course, nobody fails to mention, and properly so, that some of them are Hispanic and some of them are Indian American.

And they run the gamut, which is nice and new. And yet we see the country steadily marching in a leftward direction. The Democratic Party is now so left that you really cannot get traction unless you're an out-and-out socialist. And so there's a little bit of cognitive dissonance. This tremendous talent and really not only are they politically talented, but they're very substantive and they're knowledgeable and articulate. People whose names Troy mentioned and Peter, you mentioned. Fine. So that's great.

And yet you could say, well, no, they come from states with not very many people. The bulk of the electorate is still focused in a few big places and still disproportionately in the big cities where they have a huge amount of influence over presidential races. And as we have seen, when you elect a president of the United States who chooses not to follow the law or the Constitution, there isn't that much that all these talented people can do to stop him. And to that point, I think it bears mentioning Senator Cotton was modest enough not to bring this up when the topic came across the transom. He was the only vote in the United States Senate. If you want to know what a US senator really cares about, look what they're willing to be a minority of one or two on. He was the only vote in the Senate against the Corker bill that created this review process for the Iran deal, which upends the traditional treaty process. Now, granted, I don't want to take too sharp of an attack against the people who voted in the other direction because they had a – they legitimately were in a tough set of circumstances because they were up against the question of, well, if you don't do this, you don't have any congressional input.

But it does make a difference to have guys like that man the barricades and stand there and say, no, we can't do – I mean they have upended the treaty process entirely. This is upside down from the way that it normally works. I know, and you're absolutely right. And yet, realistically speaking, right, you know exactly how the argument would have played out. There would have been the voices on the left and I very much include in this the press and the commentariat, almost all of it. They would have been saying, oh, you know, there have been something like 4,000 executive agreements since World War II. Treaties are the exception, not the rule, which, of course, is true. And so then you would be forced into the position of saying,

well, yes, other presidents made executive agreements, but we don't want this president to. And then you would have been accused of being a racist. And off we go to the racist. Yeah. By the way, Tom Cotton is, I think he's too young, really, to have mastered the art of dissembling. So when Mona said, do we have the votes to stop this thing, I listened pretty closely to that.

And I get the feeling – so of course his answer was yes, we have enough votes and I think we might even have enough votes to get to two-thirds in the House to overturn a veto. He seems to believe that. He served in the House for – what was it? Three terms before becoming a senator. He's in the Senate now. Good lord. That would be – I think it was actually just one term.

One term. Excuse me. Of course it was. I'm sorry. No, no. That's exactly right. He was only one term in the House. Nevertheless, he knows both chambers better than I do.

Let's put it that way. All of us. And so this could be a moment. That would be just – so what we've established in our little conversation so far is there's really nothing wrong with the United States of America except the president. And if we could – No, no, Peter. No. Because look at his party.

Well, yes, but they're – I mean look at his party. Look at Hillary. Look at the two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination who have between them, what, roughly three centuries of experience in public life. These people are fossils. Oh, my goodness. Bernie Sanders walks to the podium like a brontosaurus bending down to munch on some palm for the last time before the meteor strikes. You just have the feeling they can't keep this up that much longer. So in any event, if the veto is overridden, that would be the repudiate – that would be the beginning of the comeback, I think.

Even as – what was it? 1979, when was the Steiger? When did the Capitol – in any event, it was just before Ronald Reagan was elected, the year before that the turn took place. You know, you can sort of – often you can see the political turn taking place even before it's fulfilled in the election of a new administration typically is the way it works. Oh, well, I'm hopeful anyway. I think that would be right, but boy, I have a hard time seeing it happen.

I mean the way that they've constructed this, you basically – the president has got to win over a third, right? You get 34 senators and what would that be? 145 house members to go along with the president? He's got it. So let me ask – It's such a low threshold. So, Mona, here's a question. also tend to be centers of Jewish population in this country. And for obvious reasons, Jewish Americans tend to be very concerned with Israel. You know a huge amount.

Well, okay, Martha, you're already starting to answer the question. You have all your life paid attention to Israel, to the interplay between the United States and Israel, and to politics concerning our support for Israel. The president of the United States says we have to have this deal. The prime minister of Israel called it, quote, a historic mistake, close quote. Chuck Schumer, who is himself Jewish, represents New York. Ben Cardin of Maryland, large Jewish population in Baltimore. How will the politics of this play at Dianne Feinstein, who's from San Francisco?

I'm naming three liberal Democrats, reliably liberal on every issue, at the same time, pretty good on defense spending and serious about their support for Israel. So how do they, how do the politics of this play out in the heads of these great, by great I mean major, these important democratic figures? Well, Peter, you are closer to what's going on in California politics than I am. But didn't Dianne Feinstein already make some noises on behalf of this deal saying that she was going to support it? I thought I heard that. Maybe I'm wrong. Schumer has been very quiet.

Ben Cardin was on the chat shows on Sunday and was, I would say, adequate in the sense that he said, well, we're going to take a close look. We're going to go through it line by line, that sort of thing. Regarding your larger question, sorry, I don't want to depress you too much, but I have been watching the Jewish vote and the Jewish community now for several decades, and I have come to the conclusion that the Jewish community does not vote on what is best at all, does not at all take into account Israel's interests when voting. A lot of people think they do. Maybe some Jewish donors do, that's for sure, some do. And in fact, if you talk to

political types, they will tell you the Jewish vote is meaningless, utterly meaningless. It's so small that it doesn't change anything. Maybe there's a county in Florida, but it's pretty doubtful, right? It's the Jewish money that people are concerned about because Jews are donors to the Democratic Party. Will they abandon the Democrats because of this? A small number may, but I find it hard to believe that most will. They have over the last number of years, as

they have assimilated more and more into American society and ceased to think of themselves as newcomers and immigrants and at all endangered, they have become just doctrinaire liberals. People say, why would Jews vote liberal when they're successful and they're entrepreneurs

and all that? They're natural Republicans. And I think that if you look at Jewish voters and take away the religion side, because the fact is Jewish people in America, with the exception of the about 10% of the Jewish population that's Orthodox or that is fairly observant conservative. That's only about 10%? Only about 10%. It's growing.

It's growing, and that's encouraging. Something like 60% or 70% of the children in New York, by the way, are Orthodox, which is interesting, of the Jewish children. So it is growing. But in the meantime, the majority of Jews are the following things. Highly educated, highly secular, highly urban. If you knew nothing else about them and you just knew those three things, that would be enough to say democratic column. So, of course, when you look at religious Jews, they tend to vote Republican in much larger numbers. So that's really all you need to know to understand that what motivates Jewish voters. Are they concerned about Israel? Sort of, but that's

not really where they are. And if everything that's happened already wasn't enough to make them to jump, I mean, this is maybe the biggest example of it. But if you weren't already moved off the dime by the past six years of the Obama administration, why start now? Exactly. And by the said, which is code language, right? I mean, it's so ugly. And if any, it goes without saying that if any Republican ever did anything remotely

like that, you know, the Anti-Defamation League would be jumping out of their skin to denounce it, but no, he gets away with it. And Hillary Clinton has been, I have to say, has she said anything in the last 48 hours about the deal?

She is not within the last 48 hours. She came out right away and endorsed it. Oh, she did endorse it. Oh, I thought she gave herself some wiggle room, but no. Well, she was, yeah, apparently there was a little bit of lawyerly language, but she did formally endorse it. And I think her problem, of course, is that she desperately needs Barack Obama's support with the black community. And if he threatens her at all, if he says, I will be a little bit less enthusiastic about recommending you to my black followers, she's sunk and she knows it. So she cannot afford to alienate him at all. And if she doesn't get 90% of the black vote,

she's toast. Mona, what does Hillary Clinton want? What does she want? What are her demands, Mona? She's not going to get a new husband. That's done. I'm sorry. Well, I suppose she could retire, divorce him and start late in life. I mean that's a possibility, but it would require a return to prime.

She's already rich. She's been famous for 20 years. Does she believe anything? Are there any core principles? Is there anything that she stands for? Here she is, Elizabeth Warren, she moves to the left. Along comes Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton moves to the left. She's tweaking her rhetoric to sound farther and farther, more and more to the left. Whereas her husband's entire legacy, if Clinton stands for anything, if he made any real contribution

to the Democratic Party and to the Republic, it was moving the Democratic Party back to the center, making it more centrist. And here she is running away from her own husband's record, which was what got her elected to the Senate. And by the way, on which roughly within the boundaries of which she served in the Senate, she was by the standards of New York state senators. Certainly she was more conservative than Chuck Schumer. Certainly she was more conservative than her successor, Kristen Gillibrand. And now here she is running to the left as fast as she can. What does she want out of life, for goodness sake?

Peter, my image of her is that if you can imagine a lab somewhere where they're mixing chemicals and they've got a little Bunsen burner going and they come out with a test tube and it's got distilled ambition in it, that would be Hillary Clinton. That's all she is. I don't think she believes anything. I don't think she has any convictions whatsoever. She's completely for sale. That's been very obvious. She is – she's willing to put up with anything from her husband, from the voters, from the Iranians. It doesn't matter as long as it advances her.

And so distilled ambition. I can't see anything else in the woman.eter i may have said this to you before the key to understanding the clintons is to understand sharks they have to keep swimming to stay alive right this is just animal instinct oh troy wasn't it funny the people who said i don't really think she's going to run. I mean, those always made me laugh. Oh, I love that. There was a cottage industry. Well, you know, this is – I thought so. I thought – I mean, first of all, she's not looking good.

And even now that she's – I mean, all that announcement – well, she's reannounced two or three times now. But we have to presume that everything that can be done by the makeup artist's art has been done. Everything that can be done with hair has been done. Everything with wardrobe and lighting. And she still looks – I mean she's an older lady but she's also rich. Why doesn't she just take up gardening? She has a grandchild. She has no interest outside of the accrual of power.

This is a one-track mind. Before we get on to our next guest, I do need to mention that for those of us who, unlike Senator Cotton, missed our window for Harvard law, this graduate of Belmont University says partially in jest to a couple of Ivy Leaguers. It might be helpful to know that no matter how old you are, no matter how far removed from your college years, there is a resource that allows you to consume university-level lectures a la carte at the time and place of your choosing. And that the provider of said courses just happens to be a sponsor of the Ricochet podcast. And I'm talking, of course, about the great courses. It's a perfect product for people who listen to the kind of podcasts that we put out here at Ricochet, people who are interested in lifelong learning. You can get it across any number of different platforms. You can get CDs. You can get DVDs. You can get it on the Great Courses app. You can get the downloadable MP3s. They have a series that is referenced in

our copy here. There's one that I actually consumed years ago. I, like I think you, Mona, have been a client of the Great Courses since long before they were one of our sponsors. Since I was three. They have a lecture series called The Conservative Tradition. Yes. Love this one. Yes, and the professor, Patrick Allitt, who delivers the course, who I believe is at Emory. I think he was at Emory when he recorded it anyway.

And this traces the development of conservatism from its early stages to today. It's sort of interesting too in that it keeps pinballing back and forth between American conservatism and British conservatism. It's a wonderful lecture series, highly recommended. The Great Courses right now is celebrating their 25th anniversary. They have over 500 courses in many subjects including philosophy, history, religion and more. And for a limited time, The Great Courses has a special offer for Ricochet listeners. You can order from eight of their best-selling courses including The Conservative Tradition at up to 80% off of the original price. But this offer is only available for a limited time, so you have to hurry.

You can order today by going to thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. That's thegreatcourses.com slash ricochet. And our thanks to The Great Courses for sponsoring. I confess to having binged on Patrick Allitt. I did the same thing. Isn't he terrific? I did the same thing. Isn't he terrific? I did the same thing.

Yeah. You know what? I don't know if you do this, Mona, but I find with a lot of these, I will end up listening to them twice because if they're really good, you will do that. You will just hang out one after the other. And then you realize that that is not,

that's sort of the best for the sheer entertainment value. And then as far as retention, you kind of want to go back and do them one at a time and actually sit with the material. But I mean, what a fantastic opportunity to be able to do that. I mean, this is one of these innovations of modern society. That's exactly right. Before 25 years ago, when the great courses started, this was not an option for people. And note the other thing. I, too, have loved the great courses for years and years. The other thing about the great courses that for listeners who are not familiar

with it is that it will fit into empty spaces in your life. So my wife, for example, listens to great court. She goes, takes the dog for a walk, pretty brisk walk. That's often her exercise for the day.

And she used to make the odd phone call, but it's a little bit awkward walking and talking. She'll listen to the great courses. Needless to say, when you're in the car, you can listen to the great courses at enormous – we listened to a couple driving from – well, family vacation time. We had a long drive from New England down to North Carolina and listened to a couple of sets of courses, everybody in the car listening at once. It's wonderful. It's just wonderful. All right. Well, it is nothing short of a feast

here on the podcast today because joining us now is a man who, and I mean this sincerely, if you are a professional writer and you pick up a piece by Andy Ferguson. Oh, don't start. No, this is true. You know this is true, Peter.

He hears this too much. This is why you're trying to shut it down. Within the first few paragraphs. Peter, would you be quiet and let the man speak? Within the first few paragraphs, you will find yourself thinking, god, this guy is really good. I could take a few lessons here. By the last few paragraphs, you will be thinking if Andy Ferguson is the competition, I should probably take up woodworking. He is a senior editor at the Weekly Standard and the author of several books, including most recently Crazy You, One Dad's Crash Course in Getting His Kid into College. Andy, welcome to the program. You're talking to Troy Sinek. I've got Peter and Mona Cherin here with me, which means we have four former White House speechwriters on the line at the moment. This would be where sinful politicians go when they die. So with that in mind, Andy, let me start here, and maybe you can all weigh in on this. When you look at this presidential field, if you were back in the game, who would you want to be writing for?

I don't mean necessarily in terms of policy, but who would you want to be working up a draft for knowing, hey, this guy or girl can make this sing? Well, I think Donald Trump, because he'd fire me right away and then I would never have to do it again. I have no ambitions to be another speechwriter, but I think that Jeb Bush has a kind of a nice, relaxed style, but he's a little bit like his old man in that when he gives his speech, he sort of looks like he was wishing he were somewhere else, and it's kind of an imposition that he has to read all these words, and he'd much rather do a Q&A or something like that. So having worked for one Bush, I don't think I'd want to work for another.

Anyway, Cruz clearly is extremely practiced in everything he says, speaks in full paragraphs, and I don't think he really needs anybody. Rand Paul is, I think, another speaker who probably would just like to talk and not read a speech by anybody else.

Do they need us? I'm sorry? Do they need us? Does Ted Cruz – my theory used to be that no matter how good – by the way, I worked for – as Andy and I both worked – I worked for – when he was vice president, we both worked for George H.W. Bush or GB as he was known to us at the time. This was before Sons became prominent and two initials in that family were more than enough. But how many times did we hear Andy, oh, but he's so good in small groups. I just came to – you can't get to be president. You cannot govern the country by way of small groups. I just came to, you can't get to be president. You cannot govern the country by way of small groups. You must be able to give a full bore presidential address, which deals with policy,

which makes an argument, which holds an audience's attention for at least 12 minutes, maybe 20, maybe 22 or 23. And if you can't do that, it doesn't matter how good you are in small groups or even how good you are extemporaneously. I know perfectly well because during his announcement address, Ted Cruz gave a good long address and it was beautifully done. But sometimes I think to myself, you know, he enjoys a little bit too much just how dominant he can be when he's sitting across from Megyn Kelly or another interviewer. He enjoys a little bit too much the 45-second answer. These boys just have to, boys and women, just have to be able to give a full-bore address. Or am I making myself a dinosaur by saying such things? Well, that's a separate question, Peter. We can deal with that later.

I'm fascinated by the fact, I mean, that's a really good question. Do they need this? And of course, you know, if one of them gets elected president, the president speaks four or five times a day, and there's no way he can wing it every time. Even George H.W. Bush had to reconcile himself to that fact, as much as he hated giving set speeches. But I think there are now, as I recall, there are three of these candidates, Cruz, Walker, and I believe Paul, I may be wrong about Paul, who gave nearly hour-long speeches

without prompters or without note cards. And that suggests to me that we may have passed the point where speechwriters are the essential component to a campaign now. And let me put in a word for Carly Fiorina. Yes. I mean, all of these years that I've been writing my columns and commenting on politics, you know, I've always repeated the Bon Mo of Rick Brookhiser of National Review who said the presidency is not an entry level post. And so, you know, all of these businessmen and various others would crop up every four years and I would always say, nope, nope, nope. If you haven't been elected to something, don't waste our time. You're just not fit.

She is causing me to question whether that absolutely has to be a hard and fast rule. She's really wonderful. She's so good on her feet. She's very well versed on the important issues facing the country. She's unflappable. She's intelligent. She is causing me to question that iron rule. What do you guys think?

Oh, I have become more and more. So background is pretty simple to state. I live out here in Silicon Valley. I know a number of people who worked with her when she was at Hewlett Packard. Their opinion of her is unanimous. They detest her. They detest her. I'm for her already. They detest her. They detest her. And therefore –

I'm for her already. I hereby endorse Carly Fiorina. Truly. You can't find anybody who was at HP in those days who has a good word to say about her. So I've been a little slow to warm to her. But she is tough. She's smart. She's extremely well-spoken.

When we had her on this podcast, I said, look, you're a businesswoman. Mitt Romney was a businessman. He lost by seven points. How are you going to be different? And she said, I'm quoting, Mitt Romney pulled his punches. I will fight. I almost kissed my microphone, which was as close. So that was – I just thought –

She's also very – She's very funny, too. She really knows how to deliver a line, which is often an underrated gift in a politician. Yes. Speaking of which, may I? I mean, look what it did for President Dole. Yeah, right. Well, you know, when it comes to things like this, the entry-level position, I quote one of my favorite sages, Mona Charon, who I once heard say on television in an argument sort of along the lines of,

you know, somebody, Barack Obama doesn't have enough experience or somebody else didn't have enough experience. And Mona said, it's not experience, it's judgment. And what you're really looking at experience and talking about is almost like a proxy for saying that the person has good judgment. You hope that the person who's acquired a lot of experience will show good judgment, but that's the only way experience is important. You can have someone who's new in a field who would show much better judgment than somebody. I mean, look, Barack Obama finally now has seven years of being president of the United States, and he's getting worse. Exactly. Yes.

Well said. Hey, Troy, if I may, point of personal privilege to quote something here. Andy's latest piece in the Weekly Standard is called The Unending Conversation. And the point of departure is a piece written, what, in 1990 something, 1990 something by Sidney Plumenthal. Andy will tell us what he thinks of Sidney Plumenthal about the Clintons who were then leading the conversation. Let me just, this is why I can't read anything by Andy until I've finished my own writing for the day, because otherwise I'll just shoot myself. Once Blumenthal tells us, he asked Bill Clinton, quote, now Andy quotes Blumenthal, how he squared the seeming contradictions between the extensive research of pollsters on the fears and hopes of working class Reagan Democrats who have been alienated

from the party with the notion advanced by Robert Reich in his latest book, The Work of Nations, that the realities of the global economy render only human capital non-portable across national boundaries, making education the salient priority, close quote. That's a quotation. Now, here comes Andy. You'll notice that this sentence begins to degenerate at about the halfway mark, roughly around the word party. By the end, when the Ivy League word salient pops up out of nowhere, it has become nonsensical. But it is an elevated kind of gibberish, the kind you'd hear as the adjunct professors drain the seventh bottle of Chardonnay at the faculty club cheese tasting. There's no recovering from that. You know, I had to leave out something from that.

So in the original article, which appeared in the New Republic in 1992, and Blumenthal The conversation by Simeon Blumenthal. Go ahead. Yeah. Blumenthal was trying to introduce Clinton to the readership of the New Republic, which at that time actually had a readership. And so he's kind of flattering Clinton as he goes along. And he says to show how smart Clinton is and also by reflection how smart Sidney Blumenthal is, he quotes this absolutely absurd and meaningless question that you just read to him. But the best part is, Sidney goes on to say, Clinton's answer was instantaneous. Ira Magaziner.

So his answer was Ira Magaziner, the guy who gave us Hillary Care. And also now the muckety-muck at the Clinton Foundation. So even then, even 20 – what? 25, 23 years ago, these guys were scratching each other's backs and log rolling and dealing in gibberish. Andy, this gets to something that Mona and Troy and I were talking about. You may have heard a bit. I think you were on a moment or two before we were aware that you were with us. Rather like the Holy Spirit in a certain way, Andrew.

The question is, what do the Clintons – That's a compliment too far. I mean I like the other stuff but – So what does Hillary Clinton want? What do the – she's rich. Why doesn't she take up gardening? She could divorce him and start all over again in a big place in the Hamptons with a really nice apartment in Manhattan. What does – I love that you come up with the eat, pray, love.

What is the game they're playing here? What do they really want out of life? Out of life, not politics. Out of life. Well, to quote our president, that's above my pay grade. I really can't imagine what motivates people to do what they do. And it's not just that she could have a really, really great life living in the Hamptons and great chefs or whatever her heart's desire is. It's that as an alternative to leading a beautifully, wonderful, pleasurable life,

she wants to live this kind of life, which is a kind of life that as a presidential candidate in which you just live in the middle of this kaleidoscope of ever shifting people and saying the same thing over and over and over again and putting up with idiots and even worse, putting up with reporters, although she doesn't have to do much of that. But anyway, that's the curious thing to me is how do they like, why do they like the life that they've chosen? Not why didn't they choose the nice life that they could have. It just strikes me as only a particular kind of mentality would seek out a life like the one they live.

Okay. Could you contrast Hillary Clinton? I actually think there's something here that you can work with. So this is – because you contrast Hillary Clinton with someone whom you've read about and written about and whom you met and had a couple of conversations with who also seem to hate it and yet love it, and that's Richard Nixon. Yeah. Yeah, although, boy, that one's really above my pay grade. I can't – Nixon is a total black box to me. I can't figure him out. But Andy, isn't he her role model? Oh, good point.

Right? I mean, she has modeled herself not on the Watergate committee that she served on and was kicked off of, I gather, but rather on the target. She's decided to be absolutely Nixonian in the way she handles her opponents, in the way she handles questions, the privacy of, you know, she breaks all the rules. Yeah. I hadn't thought about it in quite that way. You know, when she was in the White House, I mean, her real Nixonian quality, I think, is this secretiveness, this sort of chronic and habitual and reflexive secrecy, and not wanting anyone anywhere near her business dealings or all of that sort of thing. And Nixon had that same kind of reflective thing. But when Hillary had it during the White House years, it was always portrayed as she wants her zone of privacy.

The reason she's secret and gives sort of Clintonian legalistic answers to the inquiries of prosecutors and so on is that she's protecting her own zone of privacy. And she can't really make that argument there anymore. She's the one who's put herself in this position where, like it or not, her life is going to have to be an open book. And so she's lost this rationale, and now she really is Nixonian. Now she doesn't have any justification for the refusal to deal with all of

the countless questions that swirl around her. Andy, would you tell us about your conversation with Richard Nixon immediately after hearing him address a conference of newspaper editors? Well, it involves profanity, Peter. I don't know if I'd be comfortable. It's a podcast, Andy. The FCC doesn't cover us. Well, I've dined out on this story for a long time. So Nixon was obviously in retirement. It was probably five or six years before his death.

And he was invited to speak to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, which were having their big confab in Washington that year. And so I thought, well, that sounds amusing. I can go cover that. So I went down to the hotel downtown Washington, and there he was. And somebody said, it must have been right before the 90 elections maybe, one of the editors asked him, can you give us your sense of the politics of the country right now? I mean, where are we headed? And so Nixon literally stood up without any notes or anything, went through all 50 states and gave a two- or three-sentence summary

of what the political situation was there, whether the Republicans were up or down, whether the state Senate might tip to the Democrats and so on. It was astonishing. And, of course, he'd been out of the politics business for a long time. But anyway, he was so obviously smart and anything. So believe it or not, at least three quarters of the room stood up and gave him a standing ovation. Wow. And afterwards, he left.

And I used to know the guy who traveled with him all the time and his sort of body guy, as they call it. So I had been talking to him and my friend came over and said, do you want to meet the president? I said, Oh, hell yeah, let's go. So I walked out, went up the escalator with Nixon and walked out to the car with him. And I said, you know, Mr. President, I'll tell you, I never thought I'd see a room full of newspaper editors give anyone a standing ovation, much less, you know, let's face it, much less Richard Nixon. And he kind of gave me that sidelong look and he said, yeah, well, we're all a bunch of shits anyway.

See, that's the kind of honesty we need in politics. Andy and Mona and Troy, this is my last question on politics. Why – we love the Bush family. Several of us on this podcast have worked for Bush's personally. Jeb Bush was a very fine governor as Andy pointed out in his cover story on Jeb Bush for the Weekly Standard. He's raised, I believe, twice as much as the next Republican contender. He's at over $100 million and who is it? Scott Walker, maybe up in the $40 or so range. In other words, he should be – well, he is the dominant figure in the race for the nomination.

Why don't we feel enthusiasm for Jeb Bush? I'm not even saying we're not going to end up supporting him and that enthusiasm might not grow on us. But right now we don't. Why? Andrew? Well, just speaking personally, I'm beyond enthusiasm. I haven't been enthusiastic, I think, for 20, 25 years sure Bush is frustrated by this, but the reason people aren't flocking to him, as many pundits erroneously expected, is that this is a really, really interesting, deep field of candidates. And, you know, we were talking about Carly Fiorina. Who knew that was coming out of left field? But here's this very accomplished,

appealing person who's great on the issues, as almost all of them are. And so why would anybody want to flock around Jeb when they can still investigate crazy Rand Paul or Cruz or now Kasich? I mean, these are substantial people who deserve to be paid attention to. And so I think it's great that Jeb, who I like personally and professionally on just about every level, I think it's great that he's not being coronated. And while we're listing pleasant surprises, wouldn't we have to add Rick Perry at this point? Hasn't he been impressive over the last couple of weeks? His speech to the National Press Club on race is taking on Trump?

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I don't, I can't see him really going anywhere. We don't. Yeah, but you know, but there's another one. He's an extremely accomplished man. He was a great governor and really can take some credit for Texas performing as well as it did in the last 15 really pretty awful years. And so, you know, more power to him, I say.

Okay, here's my last question, Andy. So imagine you're writing the history of the early 21st century in 50 years, and you're explaining why it is that the Republicans screwed up in 2016. What was it

that the Republican Party did that sank them? What would you say? Wow. Well, I don't know. I mean, the die may be cast here. in this sense, that people have just sort of imbibed this view of Republicans, even though they may understand Republican arguments and we may even have a very appealing candidate

to be the face of the party and so on. It's almost become second nature to certain kinds of people, college-educated people, I guess, lots of Hispanics. Asians are almost totally lost to the Democratic Party. They've imbibed this view of the Republicans as uncaring and in the pockets of rich people. And I just don't know what the evidence that you could bring out to the contrary would take these people away from that view of Republicans. And I suppose, heaven forbid, if this really is a bad year for Republicans, it will be because with the combined forces of the universities and the media and the Democratic Party itself and the new media,

that they have just impressed this view of Republicans onto the electorate so deeply that you can't wash it out. Andy, we're running out of time here, but on the way out, how's the dog doing? Good, because now I'm depressed. I was so happy before talking about Carly. That's my job. I think we're leaving on an up note by asking you, how is your dog doing? Because I know that jeopardized your booking on this episode at one point. Oh, that's very

nice of you to ask. He was supposed to get an ultrasound because of various bodily issues that he's been having, and we're trying to get to the bottom of that, so to speak. And anyway, he's kind of, and we're trying to get to the bottom of that, so to speak. Anyway, he's kind of recovered of himself over the last few days, and now we've put off the ultrasound until next week to see if he's going to be okay.

He's 12, and so he's getting up there. And he's got weight problems. He drinks too much. He smokes. You know, it's unusual. I was going to say, this is getting painfully close to home, Andy. All right. Well, best to him, and thanks to you, Andy Ferguson, for joining us.

Keep on doing the Lord's work and giving the rest of us inferiority complexes. Thanks for being with us. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much, you guys. Thanks, Andy. Bye-bye.

Even the dog question, he manages to turn into a virtuoso performance. God, that's annoying. Well, since Rob's out on the cruise probably blowing the ricochet payroll at the craps table, we've got to recoup some of the losses here at HQ, which we'll do partially with the support of our great sponsors at Casper Mattresses. Here's the thing about mattresses. You don't appreciate a good one until you sleep on a bad one. Having just done one of my cross-country road trips and slept on a couple of less than pleasant hotel mattresses, including one in Sioux Falls, South Dakota that I think was made of

obsidian, I can tell you it matters. You've got the durable good problem. The mattress is something you're probably going to live with for a decade and you can't exactly road test it in a showroom. Believe me, I've been thrown out of these places. And into that breach steps Casper mattresses. They're going to get you a mattress at a better price with a lot more convenience. And this part is key, better quality. They combine two technologies, premium latex foam and memory foam to give you a better night's rest on a bed that has just the right sink and just the right bounce. And here's the brilliance of it. They send it direct to you, and if you don't like it, you can send it back.

They have a risk-free trial and return policy where you can try sleeping on the mattress for 100 days over three months. But you won't need 100 days. Because you have one, don't you? I have one. I have one. And this business about – we go through the copy because it's our copy. This business about you get to try it and they'll pick it up if you don't like it. I didn't quite realize the importance of that until we got one. And what we did was take our old mattress and just put it against the wall in the garage while we were trying.

And then I remembered that when we bought that mattress, the old mattress, which we never liked very much in the first place, of course the mattress store in the act of delivering that one took the old one away. And that's the way it usually goes. You get stuck with a new mattress because your old one is no longer available to you. And that just isn't the way it works with Casper. That little change in the routine, this thing arrives in a box. I don't quite know how they compress it as much as they do compress it, but it arrives at your doorstep in a box. You take your old mattress and stick it someplace for a while. And then you can have that one taken away when you're convinced, as you will be pretty quickly, I don't think it'll take 100 days if your experience is anything like ours,

that the Casper is the better deal. But you really can change your mind with Casper as you can't with these – to make up a name, Mattress Liquidator or Sleep Better or all these chain stores where it's part of their deal that they say, oh, yes, yes, yes, yes. You have 100 – they may say something like that. But their crew takes your old bed away when they get the new one. You can't get it back. Go with Casper. Go with – give Casper a try. We love it. We just love it.

These mattresses are made in America and are available for shockingly affordable prices. Shockingly affordable prices, $500 for a twin, $950 for a king. It's a big discount from what you're going to find on that showroom floor. So give them a try. You can get $50 off any mattress purchase by going to casper.com slash ricochet. That's casper.com slash ricochet. Terms and conditions apply and are – thanks to Casper for sponsoring the Ricochet podcast. Okay, guys. There is – in the show notes provided by the Blue Yeti, there are strict instructions to discuss Donald Trump, which strikes me as part of the problem.

As The Onion, which for all its scatology is also sometimes one of the most perceptive organs in the American media, noted earlier this week, if you want to stop the Trump machine, you've got to stop clicking on the links with his name in it. But this is the guy who's giving the media what it wants and little ricochet is not going to change that one way or the other. So let's tackle it from this angle uh rick perry as you mentioned earlier peter came out swinging at trump yesterday he called him i have the quotes here he called him a cancer on conservatism and characterized his views as this is another quote a toxic mix of demagoguery

mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued, from which the following prompt is Perry pursuing the right strategy or do you just get out of the way here and let Trump implode on his own? Oh, he's fine. Rick Perry – in my judgment, Perry is pursuing the right strategy if he never mentions Trump again. Hit him a couple times really hard. This is like – you know something about this, Troy, since you raised – everybody on this show loves dogs. This is the moment when you roll up a newspaper and whack the dog in the nose. And then if necessary, you do it again. But don't do it a third time.

If Rick Perry is thinking, gee, I sort gee, this is the fear, my fear. The fear would be that Rick Perry's thinking, hmm, I'm getting a respectful treatment from the Washington Post by attacking Donald Trump. This feels pretty good. I guess I'll keep at it. No, stop, stop. Trump is going to play himself out. He's already way overstepped in going after John McCain, insulting John McCain's record of militias, a guy who spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton being tortured, and Donald Trump insulted him. Unbelievable. That kind of man people will get onto sooner or later.

So fine, good. I think Rick Perry did the right thing by standing up to him and getting right in his face. But stop it. Talk about other things now. I'll be very – sorry. Go ahead, Troy. Well, just one quick note because I want to hear what you have to say, Mona.

I will just make one quick observation on the metaphor that you chose, Peter, because it's accurate in a way that you may not think it was. The reference that Peter was making, my parents are dog traders. There are certain dogs that no matter how many times you hit them with the newspaper will not stop and that's probably worth remembering in this case with drugs. It's called distemper in this case. Go ahead, Mo. Right. So there is – I think part of this is what is going on on the right in America.

It's fed by talk radio. It's fed by the vicious polarization that Barack people on the conservative side who, if they get criticized by the media, this part of the base is with them. And it doesn't matter what they say or how many Democrats they may have donated to or whatever. If they're being criticized by the mainstream media, there's this rally round effect. And I am curious to see how Trump's numbers will, in fact, do post the McCain thing. A lot of people expect that, oh, now all the conservatives will abandon him. My suspicion is that for that percentage who just are angry and want somebody to express their anger, it won't matter what he said about John McCain. They'll say, oh, well, yeah, right.

But John McCain, heck, you know, he was a rhino and yeah, blah, blah. You know, don't you suspect that? Yeah, yeah, I do. There's also, no, I'm trying, I just don't know how many, I think Trump's numbers are now, are starting to fall off. The real fear for Donald Trump, and the reason we should stop clicking on the links, is that he'll run as an independent – he's a very rich man as his financial disclosure, what was it, the day before yesterday, made clear. He is worth well north of a billion dollars. There are several places on that forum where you just write in, how much is this worth more than a billion? How much is that worth more than a billion?

You don't have to spend – but he's worth well north of a billion dollars. That's plenty to finance all on his own, a very creditable third party campaign. And if that guy sucks away two to 3% of the vote from the Republican nominee in a couple of key States, he's cooked us. Right. But does it, but how do you prevent him from doing that? Is attacking him the way to go? Arguably, that would only stiffen his resolve. Well, my point about Rick Perry is every candidate needs to – Trump is there. Every candidate needs to make a statement about this person and define himself in one way or another as to how he stands on Donald Trump. And Rick Perry came out really fast and really powerfully and said, I make no apologies for

my record on immigration. I've handled the issue as the governor of the state with the longest border with Mexico. I have handled this issue for more than a dozen years. I don't take lectures from that jerk. Terrific, I think. And frankly, Ted Cruz has been a little slow here. I haven't heard Ted Cruz come out and define himself against Donald Trump. So that's important. But over the longer term, yes, I don't believe they should be paying too

much attention to this person. Well, Ted Cruz has to some degree almost wrapped his arms around Donald Trump. I mean, I think he feels like they're fishing in the same pond. Has he? You both feel? Oh, absolutely. Yes. I think he sees that as a big overlap with the kind of voters that he's trying to reach. And what was hilarious was when he was challenged and asked why he didn't condemn some of Trump's more outlandish statements. He said he didn't believe in Republican on Republican violence, which is hilarious since he has devoted himself as a senator to going after the Republican leadership and his book is entirely blasting at other Republicans. So, yeah, I don't know.

I'll give you one positive note there, Peter. Maybe this is Pollyanna-ish, but this has been the thought that has occurred to me recently. worried about Trump running in the general election next year as a third-party candidate and drawing a fair amount of support because I do think that we have to keep this in the context of the sort of media cycle that we live in. How long has this been going on now? A month maybe? Oh. We're already sort of starting to reach that. Feels to me more like 10 days, yeah. We're already sort of starting to reach the half-life. And so if you were seriously thinking about him running in the general election as a third-party candidate, that means that this shtick, which is what it is, has to go on, what, 16, 17 more months?

I think that gets old way before you get to that point and the novelty wears off. I hope. I think that's a very good point. If not, we may live in a very different country. Troy? The last few years have made me worry about that quite regularly. What kind of dog do you own, by the way? Remind me of that breed.

Oh, God, are we going to do this again? Mona, here's the backstory on this. I feel like you're witnessing a fight in the family right now. Peter and I have a longstanding dispute. Donald Trump is as ridiculous as a French bulldog. That is a contradiction in terms, is it not? He didn't even let me explain it. That's a mark of a bully.

All right. Go ahead. That's microaggressed. You're an idiot and you're way overrated. Peter and I have a longstanding dispute over which of us has the more emasculating canine. I'm the owner of a French bulldog. I'm also – I'll have you know, Peter. I've never pulled this arrow out of my quiver.

I'm also the owner of a South African mastiff that runs to about 160 pounds. But we'll table that for now. Oh, you're just – Just so we're having a fair fight. You need to post a picture of that baby before I believe it. It has to be you and the Mastiff with today's newspaper

with a dateline visible. No photoshopping. I know you're making that up. Go ahead. Peter, on the other hand, I think we should solicit a vote for this in the comments to see who wins out here

because Peter has, well, I'll let you explain it, Peter. What kind of breed of dog do you have? I have a water dog originally bred for retrieving waterfowl. OK. But you're leading with the weaker one here. You know what I'm getting at and you're evading it. It's called a poodle. That's originally a German word.

French poodle is a total misnomer. But most people would refer to it as a French poodle, yes. Does it – let me ask you this question. In the Robinson household, are there any clothes for this animal? This is a key point. The delay in answering makes me feel like i know the answer okay but nothing nothing more no no no wait nothing more than that that slippers slippers slippers good god man well when it comes in with the door come when it comes in from outside and for because of its very aggressive masculine romp, it will come in with muddy feet.

So it has slippers. Yes. What a great idea. We've established the breed. We've established the fact that you have a full line of poodle accessories from Banana Pop. I will never trust Troy Sinek again. This is too much. I can't take it.

Okay. Wait. We've done those two things, right? Troy, you're assuming in a very 20th century way that masculinity itself is a good thing. Okay? Like, get with the program. Wait a minute. Thank you, Mona. We've established the breed. We've established the clothing.

Here comes the kill shot. Peter, what is the animal's name? Crusoe. Crusoe. Not Fido. Crusoe Robinson. Yes, it's right. That's cute. Crusoe. Crusoe Robinson. Crusoe. Crusoe Robinson. Yes, it's right.

Oh, that's cute. Thank you. Thank you. That is adorable. Literary touch from my children there. I love it. Oh, and it was named by the kids. Wow, I really miscalculated on this one.

I was stronger staying with the original two. Never ask a question in court unless you already know the answer. You would think I would know this after all the years with Epstein and you. One final topic, it was a post that I put up this week, and we can run through this

quickly. I, as I mentioned, this is how seriously I take sitting in for Rob that I decided last week to just throw my dog in the car and drive across country as he does. And I do this probably three or four times a year. And a couple of days ago, I posted on the main feed. I went out of my way to stop in what I regard as one of the most beautiful places in the United States of America, which is Jackson Hole, Wyoming. You stand there in front of the Snake River at the base of the Teton Mountains.

We put up this post. It ended up – last I saw, we've got over 100 comments. But asking people for the places – it can be American or international. But the places that leave you breathless, the places that just kind of inspire reverence for nature in you when you're there. In your travels, Peter and Mona, what have been the places that have left you sort of gobsmacked? I'm also a mountain person.

I would say the Cascades in British Columbia, just north of Vancouver when you go up into the – I think it's called the Cascades. When you go up into the mountains there,'s called the Cascades when you go up into the mountains there they held the Olympics there a few years ago it's not Winnipeg but what's it called never be embarrassed about a sketchy

knowledge of Canadian geography you go to vancouver and drive north about two and a half hours and and you're there and it's incidentally is the only way to drive in canada north right that's right that is perfectly true like 99 of the population lives within five miles of the u.s border or something is it whistler yes? Yes, it's Whistler. It is spectacular. I'm not a skier, but we went in the summer and you just ride the chairlift

just all the way up. You go right up through the clouds and then emerge at what feels like the top of the world. It really looks like the view from the top of Everest when you're up there. It isn't that tall, but it's very tall and it's absolutely stunning and gorgeous. And it plunges down to the sea, which is great.

Peter, I assume yours is some she-she dog park in Marin County where there's past foie gras. Oh, no. Am I ever – still a French bulldog. I mean really. Yeah. I am still – I know I'm talking to Troy who was – to a man who grew up in Southern California. I grew up in upstate New York and spent the first more than a third of my life back east and I've lived now for a couple of decades in California. I still have not got – California, I don't even want to start listing the problems this state has.

But I haven't even begun to get used to the natural beauty out here everywhere. I took my French poodle for a walk early this morning and just look the quality of the light in the sky, the brown of the hills. That takes different people different ways. There are some people who don't like the brownness of the hills around here when summer comes and all the grasses burn out. I love it. go now, but he lived in Paso Robles and he and Ronald Reagan first bonded over riding horses together in the hills of California in Ventura County. He rode with Reagan a great deal and he told me something that I'd never heard before, that Reagan – they'd ride in the hills and Judge Clark was talking about the President

Reagan's third ranch, what we think of as the ranch now, which has live oak everywhere, the burned out brown look of California hills. And Reagan would quite often just stop and say a prayer. And he and Bill would say to each other, this is our cathedral with oak trees for walls. Isn't that sweet? Isn't that sweet? But that's that in some basic way is the right response to – in other words, you got it right, Troy. There is such a thing as a natural cathedral and Ronald Reagan would have agreed. Could I add one more from California, Peter?

Sure. We have a family photo from when the kids were very little. We went to Yosemite. And that place, I mean, the backdrop against which we are sitting looks like it was photoshopped. It looks like something, it looks like it was just superimposed. But it's real. It is the most spectacular thing. and it does take your breath away. And I agree.

Even for people who aren't religious, there's that sense of awe that comes over you when you see that kind of natural beauty. So three things. One, I would like to point out, though it saddens me, being from California, not living here anymore, although I'm talking to you from California right now. The natural beauty that we're all describing, entirely true. I mean it's spectacular. In a sad way, subsidizes all the dysfunction that you were talking about. Oh, it's true. It's true.

I wouldn't put up with these tax rates if this were Kansas. Exactly. Exactly right. It's true. And the weather. And the weather. And the weather. Exactly.

Those two factors. The two things that as of yet government can't screw up in California are the two things that are keeping it afloat. Second point, Peter, when you take the dog out for the walk, is the walking time limited? Does he have proper arch support? Are you getting – Listen, Buster. OK. Nobody's going to take you seriously again unless within the next two hours you post a picture of yourself with a mastiff with today's newspaper in the foreground. You know what the irony of that is?

This is live in 2015. I can – the dog is right outside. It happens to be here right now. Oh, sure. No, finding a newspaper would be the hard part. Especially the data on my iPhone. Final point, third point, we are way over time. So thank you, Mona, for sitting in.

That was wonderful. It was a privilege. Thank you, guys. Peter, thank you. Thanks to Senator Cotton and Andy Ferguson for being with us and thanks to our sponsors from The Great Courses and Casper. I would say I'll see you guys next week, but that will not happen. Peter, I think you will see James and Rob again next week. And happily enough, Mona, you tell Jay Nordlinger that he's a fine man,

but even at that, he's not allowed to have you all to himself. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me. It's a great treat. Troy, I await the Mastiff shot. It's coming. It's coming. That I promise you.

Thanks, everybody, for listening. This has been the Rob J. Podcast. It's coming. It's coming. That I promise you. Thanks everybody for listening. Bye-bye. How much is that doggy in the window? The one with the waggly tail. How much is that doggy in the window? I do hope

that dog is for sale. I must take a trip to California And leave my poor sweetheart alone If he has a dog, he won't be lonesome And the doggy will have a good home How much is that doggy in the window? And the doggie will have a good home. How much is that doggie in the window? The one with the waggly tail. How much is that doggie in the window? I do hope that doggie's for sale.

I read in the papers they're robbers with flashlights that shine in the dark. If he has a doggy to protect him, he'll scare them away with one bark. I don't want a bunny or a king. Ricochet. Join the conversation. for a walk How much is that doggy in the window The one with the waggly tail

How much is that doggy in the window