The Ricochet Podcast - This Is How We Talk

Episode Date: July 19, 2024

Another crazy week in American politics, another milestone. The Ricochet Podcast hits the 700-episode mark, and the chatter continues. Ann Coulter drops in — more briefly than expected, due to technical issues — to give us her hot take on the Republican National Convention. Then James, Steve, and Rob debate the Republican platform for the 21st century, find common ground on brass bands and Doric columns, and reflect on the passing of Bob Newhart. - Opening sound this week: Trump makes his acceptance speech, Fox 32 (Chicago) talks pollingNEW

The moment at which you are, cancellation doesn't matter at all. Hollywood is for sworn and the clergy is, then it'll be safe. Or who knows? I can show them my special art. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe then Christopher Ruffo will have won everything and the cultural wars will have been. Yeah.

Right. But even that, even that would be too far. Right. So this is not going out. So in case anybody hears this, it's not awful or naughty stuff. It's just today it would be very socially unacceptable. It's images from a specific time and place. Very much so. Collected for reasons we can go into later.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Rob Long and Stephen Hayward sitting in for Peter Robinson again. I'm James Lylex, and today we talk to Ann Coulter. So let's have ourselves a podcast. I'm not supposed to be here tonight. Not supposed to be here.

And I'll tell you, I stand before you in this arena only by the grace of Almighty God. A new AP poll shows 65% of Democrats believe Biden should withdraw from the race, plus 58% of Democrats think Kamala Harris would make a good president. Welcome, everybody. It's the Ricochet Podcast, number 700. Now, just figure that out in Roman numerals. Yikes. We got to this point. And how did we get to this point?

Why, with the usual fine, sparkling conversation that you find at Ricochet.com every single day, brought to you here in podcast form. I'm James Lalix in Minneapolis, rob long in new york i presume and stephen hayward sitting in for p well let's oh yeah we don't know what happened to be here peter he's just completely he's he's gone uh he's done a runner he's gone on a walk he may be walking across australia at this point towards the irs rock or is it airs rock it's airs rock yeah it's airs rock okay you't know, Stephen, being the world traveler that you are. Where do you happen to be today? Not that anybody cares, but...

Yeah, I have been to the top of Ayers Rock, by the way, for what it's worth, some years ago. I am currently where I usually am, which is the foggy, cool central coast of California. There we go. We got the country. Sort of paradise. We have the country. Well, to bring everybody up to speed in the news, on the Democratic side, Joe Biden has stepped down. Joe Biden is staying in.

Kamala Harris is going to be the presidential nominee. It's going to be an open convention. On the Republican side, Donald Trump spoke too long. I know which side, frankly, I would like to be on if I was concerned about the party's health and how things are going, but it's almost difficult at this point to say one thing or the other, because by the time this thing hits the podcast waves, things may have changed. Convention, though. I'm sure all of you were riveted. I stopped actually paying attention to them when I stopped going to them.

As a matter of fact, when I was going to them, I wasn't paying particular attention, because it's just an awful lot of theater and it gets tiresome. Last night's always fun. The balloon drop, the hoopla, great fun. Everybody energized, pours out, goes to the bar, etc. But have you picked up anything so far vibe-wise from your long-distance observations of the conventions? I haven't picked up anything vibe-wise. I mean, I think it was a it was a it was a bad speech it started great and then it just went all over the place and i

just it's it's proof once again that trump will tease us with his discipline and then falls totally apart but the the convention itself was kind of i mean it was a good convention in general and i um also it's kind of um i mean, I was just remembering that we didn't have conventions, really. We didn't have conventional conventions four years ago. And it was, it felt like an old friend, you know? I mean, these conventions are always kind of fun. I mean, for me anyway, I just kind of like them.

I just like the idea of the goofiness of it. And I think this one was kind of on message and had uh i mean i mean i full disclosure that there are things that the republican party is moving in a direction that's that it's not including me um in that they're becoming a lot less economically conservative than i am so but but to to to present a coherent worldview uh and a coherent economic view to the people is how you judge these things. And I think they did a really good job on that. I really do. I think that you have to give them credit for it.

The hardest thing in the world is to be clear, right, and to tell people in simple terms what you stand for, what you're going to do. And everybody did that except Trump, but, but he, even he did it for the first, you know, the first two hours of his speech, the last three hours, he meandered. So, I mean, in general, I mean, it's, it's, it's, I mean, listen, if you woke up this morning and you were in the RNC, you'd be pretty, pretty pleased with yourself. Yeah. Yeah. I have lots of observations. Two quick ones. One is, everyone knows the story of the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln speaks for 272 words, and Edward Everett spoke for two hours. And Trump decided to be Edward Everett when the rest of the convention was a little closer to

the Gettysburg Address, right? It was sort of moving and emotional and very effective. The other thing is, I'd love to see what the ratings are for this convention. I don't know if we still do ratings in the conventional way or not, Rob, you would know. But well, the reason I say that is, I think there was a lot of a lot more interest in what was going to happen at this convention because of the events of Saturday last. Yeah, I think you're right. In one parallel between 2016 and now, and also another assassination attempt is, you know, I was in Washington as a young kid out of college in March 30, 1981, and, you know, watching all that very closely, and one of the many effects of Reagan surviving so bravely, that assassination attempt, is that the

wavering Republicans who were unenthusiastic about his plan fell in line behind him instantly, and he unified the party. People now forget that, you know, Bob Dole, Pete Domenici, a lot of the old moderate liberal Republicans did not really like Reaganomics, and there was a lot of doubt that he could carry his own party all the way to the end, and that unified everybody behind Reagan. Likewise today, the people who have doubts about Trump have been unified behind him, and so you had a convention that was much more unified and together and enthusiastic than the one in 2016 when large parts of the party only grudgingly accepted his nomination right yeah yeah and also i think we're i mean the

republican party is kind of used to him i think the audience in general is used to him so uh the other the other issue here is that it didn't seem like amateur hour the way it has in trump world since 2016 it didn't seem like oh my god the d-listers are in charge this thing's a mess it felt like somebody had really thought about okay what what's the message we're going to make the american people with that all had a lot of it had to be rethought after saturday and i think they did a good job there um i i you know just i'm just i'm going to be the skunk of the garden party i'm unfortunately for me it seems a little it a little too frankly too left wing for me i mean the the the economic message to me is is is liberal uh it's big government and i'm not crazy about that

but i think the mood of the people it might reflect the mood of the people yeah i'm perfectly willing to be out of step with the American people. I often am, and I think I might be here. Well, there's one significant exception to that, Rob, in the speech last night, and it might have been the part you slept through or rolling your eyes. But remember, Trump made a big point of saying we're going to do tax cuts, and because we need to have faster growth, that's the only way we can reduce our deficit and reduce the national debt.

That is old-school Reaganaganomics supply-side economics that parts all the sort of napkins who say reaganomics and the reagan era is dead well that was a significant exception to that yeah i guess i i i hear you there i found that um not full-throated enough for me um because it would because it didn't come it doesn't it doesn't come with it. And actually, look, I mean, the man who gave that speech is. Is at least cheap. He shares responsibility with the present president of wrecking the country's finances. I mean, just single handedly wrecking them. And then. But it wasn't from tax cuts. It wasn't from tax cuts. Well, no, it never is.

It was from spending. It was from spending, yeah. But the left is always going to say that what wrecks the American economy is tax cuts because it means that the billionaires have lots of money, which they go into their golden rooms and burn. Right, but they're against billionaires, too. The populist message from the Republican Party isn't, we're going to protect rich people, and that you are the wealth that you've created and the value you've created over time is yours. It's we're going to get the fat cats, too. That's the message of populism. So it's not exactly I mean, I'm clinging to Steve's little golden crumbs of Reaganism because I'm old and I have to.

But I would I would like a more full throated Reaganism. And you can't there is no way you uh i agree with tax cuts as a stimulus i think that's true and in general i think starving the beast is a good idea although the beast never seems to be starved and if you're if you are chief one of your chief platforms is i'm never going to touch entitlements we now have two presidential candidates both of whom are living in cloud cuckoo land there is only one way especially when you're talking about rebuilding the the the defense like i'm in favor of a strong defense too i would like the i would like a presidential candidate either one to tell me why we need one especially if one party is resolutely turning to

an isolationist uh position why do we need this big army if we are going to be isolationist? Who are we fighting? Well, you get two points there. One, when it comes to the fat cats, I don't ever see the Republican Party going after billionaires for the sake of billionaires. We hate these guys because they have an awful lot of money. That's unfair, is a Bernie Sanders line. If they hate the fat cats and the elites, it's because of something

else other than their money. It's their influence. It's their control, supposed control. It's, it's, it's that it, I mean, it's, it, they're not mad at billionaires because billionaires have enough all the money. They're mad at them because they say that, uh, we all have to put on masks and they buy up the farmland and, uh, you know, and tell us we have to live in 15 minute cities that, that, that stuff. So I, so I mean, I think that's different. And when it comes to the military thing, well, you can you can say the best defense is a strong offense. And if we just sit here behind our shores and continue, I mean, part of one of the reasons we need a big military is to keep the sea lanes open. That's not an isolationist thing. Being able to assert power anywhere to ensure the free flow of oil and goods is not isolationism.

I mean, it's just that's a very good point. I would like to hear that argument. That's a good argument. I'd like to hear it. Well, Rob, I think we're coming to the you know, you and I, I'm older than you, but, you know, we've spent our entire life wanting to hear specific things being said by our leaders no no but here's what i mean is if you're if you're arguing for a strong defense and you have a kind of a robust uh position about projecting american power and america's role as a global hegemon and you think america should stay the strongest country in the world i mean which by the way position i kind of agree with but it's an old school it's an old school position it is not the position of the republican party it is not the position of the vice presidential nominee for the republican party it is just simply not they do not want us in there they that's they're the ones who invented the term forever wars they don't want us they don't they didn't want i mean i agree with them about iraq we shouldn't have been in iraq it was a

gigantic failure um but the idea that we're gonna we're on the one side of our mouth we're gonna talk about how we need to like we need to pare back our uh our commitments to the world and we can't be giving the ukraine money and we can't be doing all that's all that those are all coherent world points but they don't um they they they they directly contradict at least they don't complement the idea of a large robust military i mean if the Chinese invade Taiwan, why is it in our interest to defend Taiwan? I mean, all the people saying we shouldn't be in Ukraine, I agree. But what's so great about Taiwan? Chips.

Semi-conductors. Okay, yeah, but the chips, we have to build them here. And I agree, we're in the middle of an offshore, you know, we're drawing back from China in many ways, we're reshoring, as they say, we're, you know, there have been moves in that direction, but we're not there yet. And, I mean, I get what you're saying, Rob, but I want to go, you just

said that you agree with the people who don't believe that we should be sending money to, sending money and material to Ukraine? Or you're saying you understand that position? I understand the isolationist argument. It's a good argument. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

It's an old American argument. It's sewn into the American flag. It's practically, it's in our DNA, and I totally get it. And we have, for the past century, done the opposite. You raise a lot of questions that unfortunately require extensive discussion, which we don't have time for. I'll just mention a couple of observations, though. One is neither Trump nor Vance mentioned the word Ukraine. What Trump did say last night in his speech was, if our hostages are not out of gaza remember there's what eight or ten or twelve americans there if our hostages are not out by the time i take office

there's essentially it's going to be hell to pay for gaza that's what he said there he made a very specific point the larger one is uh yeah we we want to i think the old school would be so the the point about ukraine is they're preserving you might say strategic flexibility. Trump has been very silent about Ukraine. There's some interesting discipline. There's defects and pluses to that. The point about having a large, powerful military is no one's going to mess with you. That's old school, right? And I think that's true. Part of Ronald Reagan's strategy was we're going to bankrupt the Soviet Union by outbuilding them. It cost a lot, but it worked. But the problem with China is I'm not sure we can outbuild them.

They're outbuilding us, and so this is a serious problem to figure out. Yes, I think that's true. I guess what I would say on what America's position is're the republicans seem to be playing a lot with fire yeah and they're making a lot of arguments for things that are not in traditionally conservative or at least not by any definition conservative like tariffs and once you make that argument it's hard to it's just it just it's hard to back out of it because they're they're popular people like tariffs even though they're dumb and they're inflationary and they hurt the economy. And I just I'm slowly coming to the belated understanding that that the Republicans are no longer the grownups in the room hampered and saddled by their good sense.

A party that features Kid Rock and Hulk hogan are not a serious party oh i like that part i'm like i'm in favor of that i just mean it used to be that you know we had to make i'm not we i'm not a republic republicans had to make these tough unpopular difficult to make arguments about taxes and why low taxes are better and regulation and what all and said federalism and all sorts of stuff and um uh and why tariffs are like sound good but they're they're dumb uh and we just don't do that anymore and um maybe that's a that's a that's a shift and that's i guess a shift in the population that's fine too shift probably generational politics that's that's fine too but i just i yearn for i yearn i just see i yearn that's i'm just gonna leave it at that i yearn yeah i yearn too i do i absolutely do yearn but the problem was perhaps in the mind of the voters um and i'm not contradicting

anything you said here that those arguments were made tepidly and came along with a series of things that seem to be not so much helping the american people as it did the chamber of commerce that's always the argument that's made is that at the same time that they would talk about lower regulations and lower taxes and the rest of it in an abstract sense, it really didn't click with an awful lot of people. They would be talking about immigration and lots of it, so we can get the wages down, so we can get more cheap workers, etc. And eventually, I mean, what began with Reagan, I think, sort of just became a sclerotic series of arguments that were made by people that never really explained it just seemed to be an institutional rote recitation that didn't really address the dynamics that were going on in the country. Now, when you talk about tariffs. Yeah. Yeah. I hate them, too. Absolutely do.

But on the other hand, I think if if you said to people, look, we're going to put tariffs on China that are so significant that those $3 cheap plastic shoes from Timu are going to be $4. And we're going to make sure that American shoes can be made for $5, and they're going to be better. It's hard to argue with that. I mean, it's not how it plays out. Well, I like the first part of it. If you want to have a trade war, the first part of it makes sense. The second part of it doesn't. The't the idea that okay we're going to put tariffs on the cheapo chinese shoes and we're going to help americans make cheapo cheapo shoes like why are we helping people do that but i understand i mean we've been joined i understand the one part of it but i i guess i'm just i'm just still a paleo economic conservative i still don't like it when the federal government which in my lifetime has often been controlled entirely by liberal progressives, will be in the White House and in the executive branch again, I guarantee you.

And the idea that we're going to cede to that administrative branch all sorts of dumb things, to me, I don't know, makes me a little nervous. I'm too old. I remember the Obama administration. So that's my problem i agree i mean we've been wandering in the wilderness saying these things for an awful long time and we will continue and we will continue to do so um because you know if nothing else as a reminder of the basic bedrock ideas that got us through the 80s and i have have not been eliminated or contradicted by time, experience, or changes. I mean, there are some things that abide. There are some things

that are true. So yes, let's keep saying them. And the other hand, if the Timu shoes go up to four bucks, I'm not exactly going to be crying. Welcome back to Ann Coulter, author, host of the podcast, Unsafe with ann coulter on some one particular ricochet networker yes latest books are in trump we trust e pluribus awesome and resistance is futile how the trump hating left lost its collective mind and welcome back thank you really enjoyed these for our um acceptance speech last night. How about you guys? Well, we had a clock to two and a half, but in my ancient senescent state, I may have dropped off. Before we get to the RNC, though, your thoughts on the abortive attempt, the assassination attempt, which really

did change the complexion of this election. Two things. One is, I don't think every single speaker at the RNC needed to describe it to us. And every single one. I'm in a house of people and I got them all groaning when they got to. And then the shot whizzed past his ear and he pumped his fist. Yes. And he and except it goes on for 20 minutes, this description. And he said, fight, fight. This is the most watched video probably in, certainly in the last 50 years. There is no one in that audience who didn't see it. Please, please stop describing it. That's point one. Point two, everyone seems to think I've a bunch of bets.

Unfortunately, the one with James Higgins is only for a nickel. The Coulterter family biggest bet um but many nickel bets in one stake bet that the nominee would not be biden which i concluded immediately after reading the new york times editorial um in one of my in one of my ricochet podcasts i i described and i think i'm right about this that whether biden stays or goes is basically a fight between two groups within the democratic party the blacks and the jews and i'm putting my money on the jews um after after trump got took it in the ear all my bets started saying okay are you ready to buy me a mistake dinner yet and i said hang on and now we see it looks like i mean

who knows it can go back and forth i i'm stronger belief than usual that they're going to make Biden drop out. So I'm going to win my bets. Yay. I think people got a little too enthusiastic, in other words, about that shooting. I mean, just saying, OK, Trump has won. It's over. His speech was good, although weird and rambling last night a lot of the convention was incredibly weird but by and large i can see why a lot of republicans are thinking right now

it's over he's going to win a lot of people said out of the shooting a lot of democrats i'm i know said okay that's it i'm voting for trump but four months is a long way away so i'm not making any bets on the general election. And do we have any bets together? We have had, we've bet together. I don't know whether we're on the same side of a bet as anybody. I can't remember. You know, this is why you got to write these things down.

No, by and large, it's usually you and me against the rest of the hamptons which is which is but the uh but only in this only on these only on every four years because the years all ann does is like attack me yes because i'm a true buchananite and if i can put in a good word for romney um i think he gets a a bad rap as being more of an establishment Republican than he was. The reason I supported him, because he looks like it, he looks like Mr. Wall Street, and I think that probably didn't play well with the white working class. He doesn't talk like Trump. But the reason I supported him and supported him ferociously in 2012 was

he had the toughest position on immigration of any republican in my lifetime remember he was mr it'll be self-deportation we simply info we don't have to round them up they round them up to get them here we don't have to round them up to get them we're just going to enforce the immigration law prevent employers from hiring them and they'll go back the same way they came and you will recall perhaps you will not rupert murdoch um one of the immigrants who absolutely does not care about the welfare of the average american um a few weeks before the nomination um had a sit-down meeting with with mit romney this is like the centerpiece of his campaign would be like telling trump to drop build the wall and he and he harangues romney and says you got to drop this self-deportation and romney just laughed and said no i i can't so he stood by when

being harangued by rupert murdoch whereas you know trump capitulates in a second no matter who's talking to him including jared kushner um so i i think romney looks like establishment weenie rhino republican like my friend rob long here but he really was not okay was it weird when they booed mitch mcconnell i mean you've been a pretty uh outspoken mitch mcconnell uh defender uh i was when he was running and they were primarying him um i wrote about this in um i think it's i think it's never trust a liberal over three where i think that's the one where i attacked the tea partiers i mean i loved the original grassroots tea partners but then you had all these quote tea party candidates and as i counted it we had lost like five senate seats because of tea partiers primary republicans who may not be my cup of tea but they have an r after their name and so i was ferociously defending

uh mitch mcconnell i think that was that would have been 2010 um that was the big or maybe it was 20 2012 and he had um that guy i forget his name. But anyway, he had a Tea Party candidate running against him. And I'm saying, you know, Kentucky isn't a red state. We could lose this seat. No, it didn't happen. But, you know, Christine bad the Republican is, at least until you have a massive, overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate. That's Andrew. Yeah. And it's Steve Hayward out in California. And, you know, as James mentioned, among your books was In Trump We Trust from 2016. And then you guys had, you and Trump had a really bad breakup i mean it was ben affleck j-lo bad but but i note that the benefers back together at least that's what the tabloids

say so my question for you is is there anything a second trump term could do that would revive an old trumpeter is would the wall satisfy you or do you need a big yes there is i think i've been very clear on this point yes i want a wall okay i'll tell you the story i'll say the story behind this uh uh what we were 2020 we were at a i think probably the very same house you're in right now. We're at a dinner party, a lot of Republicans there. And they were like, they're trying to bring Ann back into the fold. And these are establishment Republicans, but they're big Trumpers. And one of them said, Ann, listen, I talk to the White House all the time.

You know, one of those guys who's like, I mean, I know people. Ann, what could I, I'd like to tell them. What is it, what they could do for that um would bring you back to the fold and ann said build a wall i want a wall and one of the wives said oh and i don't think the wall was that big a deal it's like are you crazy like so uh that's that's the backstory to that to build a wall but it's true like if he you know that 2020 would have been a very different election had he been able to say, I built a wall. By the way, Trump missed a major opportunity last night. I think he could still do it, which is he says, let's want to get rid of all this green energy nonsense, these windmills.

You know, right now, when those things wear out, we bury all those blades. How about sticking them in the ground at the border and using all those stupid blades and windmills for wall construction wow i think i think people love that idea right a wall that consists entirely of spinning mincing blades yes uh you know annie interesting we've been on this podcast for 30 minutes you've been with us for however many jd vance hasn't come up once is that because we're too enthusiastic and bound up in the Trump mystique? Or is it because it isn't that important? Tell us what you think about the guy. Oh, she froze.

Yeah, she's frozen up. So we'll have to improvise. Ladies and gentlemen, for a moment there, you may actually have thought that Ann Coulter did not immediately respond to the question with a delightful series of charming observations and outrageous assertions. But no, she froze. We lost her. So we're going to have to get her back here in a second. And in the meantime, since it's just us, what do you think, guys? I am intrigued by the fact that it's been a long time since we've had a veep with a beard. Oh, right. A hundred years, I think.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, by the way, that beard grew. He was clean-shaven at the beginning of Trump's acceptance speech last night. He didn't have the beard until the end of it. Right, right. Yeah, at the end he became the Civil War general.

Yeah. Right, right. He's a very interesting character. Oh, we got her back? We got Lil' Ann back. We're hearing her back from the other side of the multiverse. Yeah. And she's winking in and out like Kirk in the Tholian Web.

Anyway, so go on, Rob. You know, J.D. Vance has got to be the one of the most interesting people interesting in a personal journey interesting intellectual journey i mean um i i'm again i don't want to be the jerk here but i am always the jerk here i am disquieted by the fact that he was such a full-throated trump critic and and then now a full-throated trump uh uh uh running mate it's so they're so extreme that i i feels to me like this is an unformed person it's acolyte rob acolytes the word you're looking for someone going off to seminary ought to have that one right yeah you're right well you know i'm all due respect to acolytes i just it just to me it

feels a little i don't i don't it just feels unformed like this is a young man and he's you know the the the his own personal life story is interesting and his i mean the, in light of his, you know, populism, economic populism, his his Ivy League roots and powerful wife. I mean, these are all sort of these will be red flags for for a candidate like J.D. Vance, I mean to say. So I find him he's confusing to me because I feel him. His inconsistency makes me nervous. Well, two observations. One is he's the youngest vice presidential running mate since Richard Nixon in 1952. And I think the fact that Trump picked him and, as Rob points out, was willing to set aside all those old harsh remarks is kind of interesting. But I think he picked him because it's doubling down on the brand of rejecting the establishment. Right. Yeah. picked him because it's doubling down on the brand of rejecting the establishment, right?

Yeah. And it wasn't, he didn't pick somebody to pick a state, appeal to a certain group. He said, no, I'm going to double down on my brand and point the way of the future of the party. Second thing, one of the things I thought was interesting in Vance's speech is twice he said, and I think people picked up on this, he said, you know, I know there's a lot of disagreement amongst us about what we should do about various issues. But that's what makes us stronger. We'll just argue these things out.

I thought that was a very interesting knowledge. And he said it makes our movement stronger, which I've always believed, by the way. That's true. I thought that was quite a significant part of his speech that a lot of people just missed. Yeah, I agree. And there's a lot of things with J.D. Vance that I disagree with. I'm a Uke Crane Hawk supporter. He isn't. There are some changes in his opinions on this and that. The other I don't agree with. But on the other hand, if we got if he got with a Doug Burgum,

for example, or somebody who what would Doug Burgum event, he would have been another Pence. He would have been sort of another hologram, decent man with some, you know, integrity and smarts and all that, but just brings absolutely nothing. Vance bring that, that, that cohort of the country that is worried about people mired in intergenerational poverty and drug use. I mean, that's, that's just that box deck. And, and it's, it's, it's hard not to see that it's a way of saying, I see these people, I see this problem, I understand it, and I'm concerned about it. But, you know, when you say that he was a strong critic and then he's changed, well, two things. One, all of us by this point in our lives should know that politicians are infinitely malleable depending on the circumstances, and we shouldn't trust any of them. And two, from what I understand about Trump, it's not not what you said yesterday it's what you're saying today if you were just if you if you were a critic a month ago but today

you are in full-throated agreement that matters more than what you said before and i don't know if that's a personality defect or if it's just uh human nature for him or well he does like it when you bend the knee yes the people around him tend to be, I guess I'll use the term acolytes, but people around him do not tend to stand up to him. And the ones that do, don't last. What do we mean by bend the knee, though? Because, I mean, we've used that, we use it a lot during the first Trump presidential campaign and administration, because we wanted to say there's a little bit of the Caesar to it. We wanted to say there's a little bit of the king and the authoritarian and the rest of

it. Bend the knee. We had that. But, you know, maybe it's not so much as that as not bending the knee, but just assuaging the the the ego of of of making sure that he knows you're on his side. That's not necessarily submitting yourself to the, to the magisterial authority of Donald Trump. It's just, it's,

it's just saying I'm on, I'm on the side of the people who don't laugh at you as Donnie from Queens. I'm on the side of the people who are not making fun of you as an RFE, stay short fingered, Bulgarian, uh, who doesn't really belong in polite society at all i'm not one of those and i'm coming around to the idea that that's that that's what it is

not the authoritarian nature because the whole caesar authoritarian stuff just got very very tired early on when we saw that that was not how the administration was going to go yeah i'm not sure though that that i'm not sure that that that's not how the administration was going to go. Yeah, I'm not sure, though, that I'm not sure that that's true. I mean, I understand what you're saying, except that I think that the people, the bending the knee means you have to capitulate. And, you know, he has one thing we can say about him is he has terrible, terrible taste in staff, right? I mean, by his own admission he's fired

them all and didn't like them all and he surrounded himself he he's a very bad hirer right and so loyalty is the most important thing for him because he's inconsistent um so bending the knee is it is a pejorative because it did it does seem like there were times and even I'm sure we'll see in the future where, um, he's surrounded by willing eunuchs, right? And they think what,

what, what's happened to Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or any of those people who were sort of statesmen in 2015. And then by 2018, we're sort of, um, I mean, in the harem practically. So, uh, I're sort of, I mean, in the harem, practically.

So I'm not sure. But again, we're talking about... And he is right. We're talking about politicians who want access to power and the ability to use power. And so the clearest route to that is going to be going through the guy who's at the top. Yeah. Oh, sorry.

No, nothing. I don't mean to get particularly spun up or part of this issue. If I sound as if I am, it's because I'm really energetic today, and I'm very energetic. Why are you energetic, James? What? I am. I am. One of the reasons is my metabolism.

How's your metabolism? Working it. I'm sorry. You checking that metabolism? I somehow reset my metabolism. I went to Europe for two weeks. I ate absolutely everything. I came back, I'd lost a pound. I am serious. And people say it's the walking. People say it's the fact that the food isn't processed and full of seed oils, whatever it is.

I mean, I ate a lot of fish and chips and I had dessert after every meal and I came back and I lost a pound. So the metabolism thing is really important, but it's a mystery sometimes, isn't it? That's where Lumen comes in. And I love this thing. I absolutely love this thing. I wish I had for you an unboxing video where I could show you the Lumen. I wish that I could show you, tell you the wonderful silky feel of the portable pouch it has. I wish I could just impress upon you how this thing feels like an Apple device. It's so cool. And I'm glad they sent me one. What is it you ask? Sounds great. I want one, but what is it? Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath.

It's got an app, right? It lets you know if you're burning fat or carbs, and it gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, your workouts, your sleep, and even your stress management. All you have to do is to breathe into your Lumen first thing in the morning, and it's a process. The app tells you how to do it. It's very simple. You watch the app, you breathe, you wait until the ball starts bouncing, and then it goes, and then it thinks, and it cogitates, and it will tell you what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs. Then, Lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for the day based on your measurements.

Your metabolism is your body's engine. It's how your body turns the food you eat into the fuel that keeps you going. And because your metabolism is the center of everything your body does, optimal metabolic health translates into a bunch of benefits, including easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness results, better sleep, and the ability to go to Europe for two weeks, eat absolutely everything on the continent, and come back just as you were. Lumen gives you recommendations to improve your metabolic health, and that's what I love

about it. I started using this thing, and it knows me, like right off the bat. It knows exactly what's going on. So here's how many carbs you can have for the day. Here's how much of this. And it's like a gift. I look at that carb measurement and I say, I'm going to have that. I'm going to have that in a pancake.

And I'm going to have that in a Mars bar. It's great. It's absolutely great. I cannot endorse this thing enough. I love it. The feel of the unit just tells you that it's, it's a solid piece of tech. I just, anyway, if you want to take the next step in improving your health and see whether or not I'm telling you how cool this thing is, go to lumen.me slash ricochet to get 15% off your

lumen. This is l-u-m-e-n dot m-e slash ricochet for 15% off your purchase. And we thank Lumen for sponsoring this Ricochet podcast. Any chance we have Ann back yet? Or have we just... I don't think so. Steve, you wanted to chime in on this. Is she on a sloped roof or something?

I mean, did she... She get an update from CrowdStrike? That's one of my jokes is how do you flummox the Secret Service? You slip them a roofie. That was really bad. Hey, nice. Now, look, Rob.

You are just stand-up king today. Well, I am having a good time with you guys. I'm like you, James. I'm kind of amped up. But I do dissent from Brother Rob. But, Brother Rob, you are my favorite rhino. And I usually... of amped up. But I do dissent from Brother Rob. But Brother Rob, you are my favorite rhino, and I usually... Well, thank you. But on this loyalty question, I have a different perspective. First of all, as an old guy, my knees don't bend very well anymore, so this is a tough

subject. But I will concede to you that Trump gives loyalty a bad name. But look, loyalty to presidents and to administrations is actually a very serious and significant problem and a reasonable demand. I mean, Nixon complained about disloyal appointees. The Reagan administration had a big problem with that. And by the way, I think you want to make a distinction between political loyalty, which is, are you loyal to the president's program and ideas? Or are you personal loyalty to the person? Or are you loyal to the president's program and ideas? Or are you your personal loyalty to the person? Or are you out to make your own career? You know, it used to be said that Nancy Reagan had a superpower for being able to tell when someone was working in the Reagan White House to help Reagan look good and help achieve his objectives, or was it someone

there to build up their own resume and maybe sometimes undermine them? The problem with Trump is, and now I'm coming back closer to your position again is you don't know what his program is necessarily i think a lot of people who went to work for him like uh general kelly and some of the others they probably intended to be loyal to him in the ordinary sense dimattis hr mcmaster all those tons of guys there's a very bar they're all very able people uh who would thrive in any other administration with a president who was less shall we say mercurial than trump was so one question for a second term if we have one as expected is trump going to be steadier and more consistent than what he wants done or if not it'll be just like the first term

with lots of chaos even if you appoint really really able and people who intend to be loyal. So it's a more complicated problem. That's all. I mean, the second term would not have Russiagate. It would not have, from the get-go, this whole concerted narrative that would absolutely cloud it. What do you mean? Yeah, I mean, that's important. Is it not?

No, it's not. It really isn't. I mean, he blew it in the first term. Presidents in their second term have less power they accomplish less i'm not talking about power i'm talking about what they need accomplishments what they need to do in the second term is compromise and they think about their legacy and that's when they get nervous because they don't have any leverage because everybody knows they're not running again and the minute you get you take office any second term president it's the same thing the clock is ticking that's you know

kind of what they why they call the second term president lame duck you don't have the the stick you used to have well that's he's going to walk in with that that's going to be this that's the political reality of his second term it would be the reality of anybody's second term sorry steve go ahead no that's that's another reason for the J.D. Vance pick. Right. Is that is pointing beyond. In other words, he doesn't want to be a typical second term president. Well, yeah, I mean, I think I think that that would be the the three dimensional chess argument for it. But I just wish I knew what their what their plan was in a country that is not, he is not going to, I mean, we are not going to have suddenly a,

a lock on the house and the Senate, even if he does, it's only for two years. What his plan is to do things differently from the way he did them in the first term. Um, and, and I don't see that.

But when I, when I say there won't be a Russiagate, I mean, we will have, I, we hope we will have a political landscape that is actually about the issues. You may disagree with what issues he wants and the way he wants to do them, but it seems as if we have a fighting chance to do that without having this immense tornadic activity in the press and the media and the culture about Russiagate. Yeah, but remember, Russiagate was a problem for him because he made it a problem for him

because he woke up every day and spent three hours in his bedroom putting on his makeup and fixing his hair and tweeting and watching the morning shows and getting furious. He chose to do that. I mean, if you look at when Bill Clinton was being impe impeached, rightfully so, in my mind, it was about to be kicked out of office, which I wish he had been. He actually managed to get things done. You if you cannot compartmentalize as a chief executive, especially in your second term, you're sunk. You're sunk. So the idea that this is I mean, I mean, I know I'm a broken record on this. I should probably I'm sure there's a million Trump supporters now turning this thing off because nobody wants to hear it. But no, they were going. He didn't, the stuff he got in his first term, a tax bill, which I agreed with, and then some foreign policy successes, which were great.

But he passed steel tariffs, which were idiotic and hurt the american economy this is not an argument you can't argue this this is 2019 economic data and it was because of what he did in steel for steel the the uh the our trade gap i mean in terms of importing exporting to mexico went south when he renegotiated foolishly nafta and didn't change much except to include the big trade unions in on the bargaining table and then he went to china these are true this is what happened right then he went to china and and and rattled his sword and i was all in favor of it but the first thing he gave up was in the intellectual property protections that american businesses need so it's like this guy is inconsistent at best and we haven't gotten to the part where he ceded the

entire federal government to the swamp during covid and he attacked the republican governors who stood up so i mean i i hope he's going to be better but like we i think we if you if you have if you have principles of that are conservative you have you can't just give them up because, you know, he got shot in the ear and looked heroic and is in many ways kind of a cool dude. And he's a funny guy and I think he's super charismatic. But I don't know, like the world's getting more complicated. This is the funny part is that you have on the left right now people who believe that Donald Trump is going to get into office and institute Project 2025 and put them all in camps. They actually believe that. And over here, on the other side, you have Rob Long saying, no, I'm going to get back in and put in more steel tariffs. Yeah, but he literally said he's going to.

Which I agree with you is a bad idea. But what I'm talking about is that we had four years, three years, of a cultural narrative about this guy that was overblown. It was absolutely just a volcano of paranoia that I don't think we're going to have this time because it's burned itself out. And the idea that we're going to replay the four years of hair on fire that we had previous, I don't think that's the case. I think that that has been spent, is what I'm saying. And so in the absence, I mean, one of the reasons possibly we couldn't have good arguments about any of the things you were talking about was because we always were backed into a corner about, well, he's a tool of Putin. And that was the only thing that anybody ever really talked about for a very long time. In the absence of that, I think there's an opportunity in the first two years to have a little bit more clarity and a little bit more discussion of the issues.

That's my hope. I may be a Pollyanna. I'm sure I am. We got a few minutes here. Steve, settle this. Before we send out the party for Anne. I will settle it, Rob, but it won't go well for you because I have to say I'm really unused to Rob Long, the policy wonk. Oh, I'm not.

Well, I can do a different balance sheet on various policies, but I won't. Instead, I'm going to look at something that normally I would expect from you to observe, and just give one example. When George W. Bush pulled us out of the Kyoto Protocol back in, what, 2002, he just did it with a letter or an executive order or whatever. Yeah. When Trump pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord, he did a big White House ceremony. He had a brass band. He invited everyone to come. He talked about how he loved our coal miners. By the way, coal mining went down more under Trump than it did under Obama. Okay. But the point was is that why is that important?

That's important because, like I said, I have a more favorable view on the balance sheet of policies than you do. But the broader point is he is working a – well, first of all, it's a frontal challenge to the premises and the dialogue of our establishment. You know, no other Republican would have had a brass band to say, I'm going to give the middle finger to the Paris Climate Accord, which is a nothing burger agreement, by the way. He didn't need to do that. By the way, everybody around him was against it. His secretary of state was against him doing that. Jared and Ivanka were against it. And he went and did it.

And that's what I like about the guy. And I think we're getting more of that, please. And I'll just plant this now, and you guys will talk about it later, some other episode. But the civil service reform idea, it sounds wonky, and it's actually, I think, quite significant. And if he makes some progress on that, that's going to be very significant, I think. I 100% agree. I do too. And here's something else that I'd like to see back. I'd like to see back the push toward traditional architecture and government buildings. And I know that a lot of people believe that this is just a precursor to fascism because, you know, what did Mussolini do? Well, actually, he went with sort of a stripped down fascist modern thing, but that's irrelevant. The idea

that somehow we are going to be repudiating all of the progressive elements of the 20th century if we go back to a more eye-pleasing symmetrical form of architecture is ridiculous, of course. It would be, they'd have a better job making the argument on the other side if they weren't defending hideous monstrosities that soil the landscape at nearly almost every American city where they're planted. I just love the idea. Biden, I think, got rid of that edict. On day one.

On day one. And I think Trump will probably do it back. There's probably some building out there, and given the pace at which these things are constructed and planned, that's been moving along for six years now. And now the guys who stripped off the columns for the version that they're planning to build are wondering if we're going to have to put the columns back on good thing with computer aided design that's right it can be okay when trump was trump did this thing and we had you know it was symmetrical it had a portico it had the columns and then

biden came in we made it asymmetrical we added a whole bunch of uh reflective glass and brutalist concrete on this side but now now Trump's coming in. I wonder if we can get anybody got that. My professor of architectural history in college gave a big, like a five day, not five day, like a three day lecture on the horrible turn in public architecture from sort of you know modernism if you like it you know the steel glass thing it's that's that's kind of everywhere but to the brutalist kind of uh concrete stuff that they were doing every federal building looks like that pretty much and he said and he used the perfect example of it was the boston city hall right which is on this scully

square which is old squares kind of beautiful and it's like it used to be kind of this rabbit's warren roads and was just this big flat plaza with this concrete beehive on top of it that was asymmetrical and kind of uh top heavy and he said and i remember this regular goes this building and this plaza is fit only for angry and violent demonstrations and you look at you like yeah like it's a it's a it's a government screaming at the people and providing them flat ground in the you know with no trees to scream back and it was it's and it was exactly right i can never look at those buildings again so yeah okay all right i'm i'm uh i'm in favor of brass bands when we pull out of stupid climate change nonsense i'm in favor of uh

putting uh doric columns back but he's about to say no no no no i'm gonna stop you right there because you're right he was right about the brutalism building and as i've said before it's interesting whenever they make a movie about a dystopian future all they have to do is go and find a college campus somewhere that was built between 65 and 75 and they have all of the the humorless oppressive nature of an authoritarian state authoritarian state right there it's an awful form of architecture and i thought it was dead i thought we were past it. When I was in Edinburgh last week,

a couple of weeks ago, I got to see the new Scottish Parliament. Oh, is that awful? I've seen that. It is an absolute excrescence of it. It's one of the worst buildings I've ever seen in my life. And if you look at the design, you'll say, well, if you look, you can see that it's intended to be a tree that grows out

and that these are the leaves, well, if you look, you can see that it's intended to be a tree that grows out and that these are the leaves. Yes, if you are about a thousand feet in the air looking down. If you are standing around it, it is a bulbous, formless, shapeless thing that is spattered for no apparent reason with these strange shapes that look like sevens or inverted L's or something like that. And I couldn't figure out what they were they're all over the place they're they're like a strange barnacle that fastened to the building so we we go inside and it's it's brutalist it's a brutalist bill it literally is raw concrete you can see it everywhere unadorned it's the sort of thing that you can just i mean it looks like what the who are relieving their bladders on and the who's next cover album it's awful you go to this door that takes you up this this meandering

staircase so you just go and see your parliamentary people at work and instead of i mean i'd just been to hollywood i'd just been to uh you know other beautiful buildings and i'd seen that even the humblest of spaces elevated the soul, embiggened your sense of glory, that the smallest, most reasonable buildings, commercial or otherwise, had an element of uplift to it. They said that we're going to gather together the spirit of humanity in this doorframe. What you get in the Scottish Parliament is an unadorned, concrete, dank little thing through which you have to pass.

And it makes you feel as though you are just nothing but a gnat that the great stony finger of the state is going to come down to crush. But at least they explain what the things on the outside of the building are. They have a key. Here's this shape. It means this. Here's this shape. It means this. And I found a strange seven inverted l whatever the hell this

thing was and it is a abstract representation of a skating minister meant to meant to connote motion joy forward movement well well no no no i know what painting they're talking about i had seen it the day before in the museum i'd literally been staring because i know the painting before i saw it and i'm looking at it i'm happy to meet an old friend in person how are you i'm looking at this painting it's having a wry sense of amusement at its composition and it's me and then i'm thinking i just saw this thing and it never occurred to me looking at building, that these shapes were meant to be an example of that. If you failed with me, you failed with absolutely everybody. And if we have, thanks to Donald Trump, a new architectural standard that once again speaks to the deep roots of the culture in the country in all of the antecedents you know what i don't give a

rat's patoot about steel tariffs but i'm remember churchill's famous line about architecture first we shape our buildings and then our buildings shape us yeah and by the way it's worth reading the whole speech where he lays out why parliament has to be rebuilt exactly the way it was after the germans bombed it in the war and so yeah if you get brutalist architecture for your parliament building i think there probably is a connection with our brutalist politics that have come along at the same time wrap it up there steve good for you well before we go a couple of things one i'm gonna uh rob you want to tell them about the meetup so we just should tell them to go to ricochet.com and see if i go to ricochet.com we got a couple meetups one last week in July. We have one scheduled in St. Louis early October. There are plenty of slots left. Please join Ricochet or come to a meetup or just join Ricochet and tell people you want to meet up at a certain time and place and people will show up. some delightful little Hollywood anecdote about Bob Newhart, whose passing we deeply lament,

since he was incredibly, you don't want to say influential, I don't want to replay his crusty eulogy, but it was hard, you know, if he influenced anybody, it was in very subtle ways because his ability and style was so unique and so wonderful. I mean, I think that, that unfortunately he didn't influence enough people uh because he was a real he was a genius and he and he was just a pure economy this guy uh never no movement no no line no eyebrow move nothing was out of it all was just the perfect timing he sort of invented it in a lot of ways um and he has this some people who don't know him like younger people like he had this trademark stammer he did

ignore it um the button down line of bob newhart was the biggest selling album and biggest selling comedy album and it remained that way i think until the the 80s or something i mean he just was the number one and um and it was just him having a one-way phone call uh and with a variety of things a one-way conversation and it's unbelievably brilliant it's sort of will rogers mark twain kind of level of um genius and he and he had a way of talking that was really his way although it had had you know become more of a signature and i just will tell you he he uh i i would i don't think he told me the story because we worked we did a show together um but i think his son told me the story he told us uh that he's at um you know he says my kids you know they don't even listen to this i'm only the oldest one has

heard my albums the youngest his youngest daughter Courtney, he's this wonderful, wonderful person. She's too young. She didn't really know what he did. And they're at Thanksgiving dinner in his house, his beautiful house in Bel Air, having Thanksgiving. And he's telling the story to the kids. He's trying to tell a story about when he was growing up.

And his daughter, his youngest daughter, Courtney, says, Dad, can you talk faster and he said um um and no courtney did did this is the way i talk i talk and um and then he gestured to the house and to the crank and and that is why we have we have these things it's because this is how i talk and just like he nailed it like and and it was you could you could imitate it but you couldn't catch whatever that little spark was inside him that made it funny so you could you could repeat word for word with the same number of pauses everything he said and for some reason was missing the soul and um and uh he just he was the greatest he was the greatest

and an incredibly nice guy to work with and very very thoughtful with the writers but every now and then he would come up to you and say things like um can uh can we just give somebody else this line or or can i just um not say anything in the scene look the star of the show rarely makes that request but he's like i don't really i don't know i feel like you gave me a line for no reason i can just stand there he doesn't mind standing there he was like yeah i'll just stand there behind the desk or stand there at the table or i'll just stand there like that's what I do. I'm fine. And to have a star of that level, that magnitude, actively lobbying for less was kind of a gift. Was he responsible for the greatest ending of any sitcom series ever conceived? I can tell you what I think. He remembers it

that he had come up with it. And he might have. However, I worked with one of the very, very talented writers who had been a young writer on Newhart before he became a young writer on Cheers and was there when I was there. And years before the end of new heart,

he said that he had pitched this idea once in the room and they all kind of laughed. So somehow the idea was out there and we, I won't give it away because some people don't know, but it's a great ending to it, but I remember Bob was telling me like, it was a great ending. Everybody loved it. The only problem was it was extremely painful and emotionally damaging to the woman playing his wife in the second series, who felt like, because she knew she had never measured up to Suzanne Plachette.

Well, I was just going to say, the entire thing may just be, if you have that much power in Hollywood, the ability to get back in bed with Suzanne Plachette. But there we end, uh, for the week. And, uh, Steven, it's,

uh, you can get anything. Yeah. I've just said we're ending. Oh, right. Steven's still here. You got anything you want to say?

No, not after that. All right. Been a pleasure as ever. This was episode number 700. How did we get there? Because ricochet is fun. And once you go there,

if you have not gone there yet, uh, just discovering this podcast, entirely possible, go there and you will find a place you've been looking for all your life on the internet. Seriously. Not Facebook, not Twitter, not X, not Instagram, not the talks. No. Sane, center, civil conversations. And crazy sometimes.

Elbows are thrown. Pans are hurled at heads. But it's all part of a community that we love. The member feed, that's where it's at. And yeah, you've got to cough up a couple of shekels to get there, but it's worth every single one of them. Go to iTunes if you wouldn't like. Is there still an iTunes? No. Music. Podcast. Whatever Apple's calling it.

Give us five stars. Would it kill you? Wouldn't kill you. And join us next week when, who knows, maybe Anne will be back. I have this horrible feeling that actually she doesn't know that she was disconnected, that she's been answering our question for the last 47 minutes, which, knowing her, would be possible, and it would be hilariously funny anyway to listen to. So if there's a lost recording of Anne's reply in 47 minutes, we'll be putting it out as an extra bonus ad junk podcast. Gentlemen, that's it for me,

except to note that Bob Newhart's second album was recorded here, partially in Minneapolis. Thank you very much. That's it. We'll see you later. And we'll see you in the comments at Ricochet 4.0. Next week, fellas. Ricochet.

Join the conversation