The Ricochet Podcast - Unexpectedly High Jobs, Way Down to Louisiana

Episode Date: December 6, 2019

Bobby Jindal, former governor of Louisiana, stops by to talk to the full crew about How Trump Wins the Populist Patriots and how that particular group has been ill served by Democrats and Republicans alike and what Republicans can do to win their support. The Jobs Report is out with “unexpectedly high” numbers: 266,000 new non-farm jobs. Remember when the reports were always “unexpectedly low”... Source

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

is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University. As government expands, liberty contracts. It's funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is because people are lining up for food.

That's a good thing. First of all, I think we missed this time. Please clap. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Rob Long and Peter Robinson. I'm James Lylex. Today we talk to Governor Bobby Jindal and John Yoo on impeachment. So let's have ourselves a podcast. Welcome, everybody.

It's the Ricochet Podcast, number 475. I'm James Lylex here in Minneapolis. Rob Long is in New York. Peter is in California. And I'm sure we're all basking in the amazing numbers that continue to prove Obama's recovery is going strong. Right, guys?

Obama's recovery. He's been taking credit for it, I believe, saying that... Oh, he has. He set the stage for all these wonderful things. So we've got great numbers. We have 266,000 non-farm jobs. I love that term.

Unemployment's down. The number of jobs was much more than anticipated. Stock market's boom, of course, which is setting us up for the inevitable crash. It's good news. But I think the most important thing is that we set that aside and remove the man who, for one reason or another, can be regarded as contributing to this economic boom. Right. We've got to get rid of Trump. Trump's got to go. Constitutional norms, et cetera. We saw this week something extraordinary. We saw liberal law professors swear fealty to the Constitution, portray themselves as originalist.

I'm so happy they've come around. Did you hear those guys, and did you get the same impression I did? It's like, now you want the Constitution to be what it says it is. Yes, that was amazing. And it wasn't just that they were arguing the text of the Constitution, although that was certainly amazing enough. They were using the originalist technique of arguing the history of the Constitution, the constitutional debates, the the founders actual intentions just unbelievable of course as i think one of our guests john you was going to point out they got a lot of it wrong

but it was just remarkable the hypocrisy is just bottomless, just bottomless. I like the briefly I like the where did I see this note in some of the Ukraine, but said only if you fire such and such a prosecutor. That's on the record. Well, that's because he was trying to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor, don't you know? That has nothing to do with any of this. It has nothing. The fact that the Obama administration may have surveilled Trump in order to get dirt on a political enemy during a campaign has nothing to do with the fact that Trump surveilled a political enemy in the course of a campaign to get political dirt. I mean, everything that they seem to be accusing Trump of doing

kind of circles back to what they did before. Rob, in New York, I imagine that everybody in the bars and the restaurants and the office buildings is riveted as they stare at the television screens in the chyron. I have no idea. I've been in Europe for two and a half weeks, where they are absolutely obsessed with other things. But if we go back to the jobs numbers for a bit, can I just be the jerk, the conservative jerk on the podcast? Go ahead.

Remind everyone that it is actually true that Obama has certain credit for this recovery. And it is actually true that Trump gets a lot of credit for this amazing number. The idea that the president, any president, President Mickey Mouse, is some kind of weird sorcerer who can create a 3.5 unemployment when he basically is both of these presidents always moving within very, very small ranges. The small marginal changes that Trump made to the Trump tax code should have resulted in an economic slowdown. Well, why do you figure that? Because the basic event was a cut in the corporate tax rate and a very deep one. Yeah, but that shouldn't have resorted. No, no, no. But the personal income tax bill for the top percent, which we're supposed to create a lot of liquidity and a lot of excess investment, all sorts of things, and a lot of risk capital, went way up because of the state and local tax.

Because of the loss of the salt deduction. The loss of the salt deduction. And yet what we discovered was that actually people vote when they when they invest in an economy it's a vote and they're not going to vote for a perfect economy but they vote for the most perfect economy and trump did what a really smart economic president does you make a big offer you say to a bunch of rich people who basically control tax code in this country you say look you're going to your individual tax is going to go up i'm going to remove a lot of deductions. On the other hand, I'm going to give you a larger automatic deduction, and I'm going to cut the corporate tax rates down.

Now, he cut corporate tax rates. Obama was in favor of that, but Obama wanted to connect it to a lot of other nonsense and was basically trying to horse trade it, and Trump just did it. There are reasons for this, and they're great, and we should celebrate them. Of course, Trump should get the political credit. But all all of us conservatives should be saying this is how it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be this way. And unless you unless the country elects an actual socialist, which, by the way, they could easily do. Right. Right. We'll be in big trouble. So the but what's amazing to me is just how um how small the effect when you really get down to it into large macroeconomic levels the small the effect of the quasi pseudo socialism light that obama practiced for eight years or practiced for the first two years really

until he was stopped dead in his tracks how how how easy that was for a country that is entrepreneurial and likes risk and likes to mix it up and doesn't mind starting something and doesn't mind hiring people. When you actually vote with your dollars, where are you going to open a plant, where are you going to start a business, you're always going to, at least for the past 20 years and for the next 20 years, it's going to be here. Right. That much I will grant you. When you take your foot off the economy's throat, the country starts breathing again remarkably quickly. The vibrancy, the bounce back is amazing.

You're making the additional argument that presidents only have marginal effects. That's a long conversation. I'm not quite sure. I'm going to grant that. Marginal direct effects, but the psychological effect of knowing that the animal spirit is huge. Yes. It isn't going to drape a boat anchor around the business's neck. Yes.

I mean, with Obama or with Hillary, you knew that you would have an EPA that would go after any sort of business that did the remotely connected thing with carbon or anything. But even that said. connected thing with carbon or anything and it would regulate them to death and hence those businesses small and large would not increase what they were doing because who knows what huge set of teeth attached to your glutes would be coming down the pipe rob makes a really important point the elimination of the salt deductions my taxes went up because of course course, I can't deduct the taxes I pay to California. This is something we're going to have to watch. This is a really interesting point. It's going to take a couple of years more before we understand the effects. I figured that eliminating

those deductions would mean that in very high-tax states, including my own beloved California, including New York, where Rob lives now, they would call into being a revolution. And you know what they're doing instead? They're just encouraging people to move to Texas and Florida. I don't know that there is going to be political reform, as much as there's simply going to be a resorting, that the sorting out is going to continue even faster, which I don't actually actually well i don't think that's healthy over the long term but we'll see it is fair to say that the country as a whole the economy as well maybe even the western nations as a whole are

are uh are breathing nitrous oxide right laughing gas and in america we kick the can down the road so we have a huge unfunded pension liabilities, including, you know, under that rubric, I say Social Security and other federal entitlements. We have payments out now to farmers that are greater than the the bank and auto nation, auto company bailouts in 2008. So we have we're spending money because interest rates are like zero percent. Eventually, interest rates are not going to be 0%. They're going to be something else. And the question is whether we'll have kicked the can down the road in a smart way, meaning I'm betting on 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 to be really, really good years, years of prosperity,

or whether we are setting ourselves up for a big collapse. I think the only way 2030 and 2040 are years of prosperity is if we have a vibrant, risk-taking entrepreneurial economy where we do not know and do not pretend to know and do not plan and do not pretend to be able to plan where the next big things are coming from. We just want to clear the space, as government should do, clear the space and give fuel to the engine. And that fuel comes in the guise of really, really great STEM education in America, really, really, really encouraging tax profile for starting businesses and employing people and everything. And then really, really, really, really good encouragement for rich people to put their money at risk when rich people put their money at risk everything great happens when rich people put their money in tax shelters or anything

else that's when the economy starts to slow down and get more abundant we can't have that so i start out by mentioning all these great numbers i bring everybody a big vat of pudding and rob is finding the flies in it but you're that's my job the fly finder rob the fly finder and yes i too am not exactly happy about the the welfare the payments to the farmers to offset the tariffs but on the other hand we are putting the wood to china in a way that had to be done eventually and if we get something that's a little bit more respectful of the intellectual property out of it, that would be great. And if we get also the idea that people look a little askance when they

see Made in China on something and wonder is this the best thing for me to have? How much spyware is embedded? I got a drive the other day, a computer drive, and I was relieved to find that it was made in Thailand. Oh, thank heavens. You know, the Chinese military hasn't embedded some sort of little chip in here

that combs through the data I put on the disk and sends it back to the Red Army. The thing is, cyber crime is an unsolvable problem. Well, not actually. No, Rob. I don't understand what you're about to say. It precisely is. Now, of course people are worried about cyber crime. I mean,

I read a report recently that said that 83% of U.S. consumers, they're planning to shop online for holiday gifts this year but if you keep in mind rob the fbi has received nearly 300 000 online theft complaints in 2017 with reported losses of 1.4 billion dollars okay that's because well people click on the buy button and they don't really think that some of those websites are created to people who just want your credit card information and your other personal information as well you got to be careful and i know rob you're careful there in new york which is a den of thieves right right well every time you bank shop or browse online you can be vulnerable to cyber criminals he said working his way gently into a commercial we all enjoy gift giving during the holidays right

but browsing and shopping and banking online can heighten your vulnerability to cybercrime and on top of this cyber threats keep evolving so you need protection that's evolved too no one can prevent all cybercrime and identity theft or monitor all transactions or all businesses but but the new norton 360 with lifelock is a powerful ally for your cyber security cyber cybersecurity during the holidays and beyond. You can sign up today and get up to 25% off your first year by going to norton.com slash ricochet. That's 25% off Norton 360 with LifeLock at norton.com slash ricochet. Terms apply.

And we thank Norton for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. And now we welcome to the podcast, Governor Bobby Jindal, former 55th Governor of Louisiana, previously served as a member of the House of Representatives and the Vice Chair of the Republican Governors Association. Reft President in 2015, too, which we all enjoyed, and we're glad to have him on the podcast. Welcome. Hey, guys. Thank you for having me. How are you this morning? Oh, I'm cold, and I'll get colder. But on the other hand, I live in a state that's as blue as you can get, and not just because the weather's cold. But hey, here's the

thing. Here in Minnesota, where everybody is a good liberal, we're always told to shop local. Shop local, local, local. But if you say, for example, America First, which is sort of a larger version of shopping local, you get frownedowned upon because that somehow is jingoistic And can't be had You had a piece in the Wall Street Journal last weekend called Trump wins the populist patriots In which you said quote populist patriots Hear President Trump say America first and think

It's about time For them you said it's common sense That the US government should value American lives more than the lives of foreigners That seems to be Controversial in some circles doesn't it sense that the U.S. government should value American lives more than the lives of foreigners. That seems to be controversial in some circles, doesn't it? No, look, that's exactly right. I think this is one of the reasons the Democrats won the last election. And if they continue down this road, I think they'll lose the next election as well. I think that a lot of these everyday Americans, and by the way, these aren't folks that have

always voted Republican. One of the points I made in my op-ed was that a lot of these voters may have been Bernie Sanders supporters. They may have even voted for President Obama. Some of them, not a lot of them, some of them. But I think the reason they voted for Trump is they saw him standing up against the political correctness on the left. They saw him standing up against this multiculturalism, this idea of open borders, this idea from the left that everything about America is bad. I mean, you hear them, when you hear the left talk about America, you hear them talk about racism and sexism and all these sins. And certainly America is not a perfect society. No human society will be, but it has provided more freedom and opportunity for more people than any other country in the history of the world. You never hear the left talking about the positive things. You never

hear them say America is the greatest country in the world. Yes, we've got things to improve, but look at all the great things that America has done. And so I think that a lot of those voters get turned off when they see the football players kneel during the national anthem. They get turned off when they see people putting down America. And I think Trump, quite smartly, he appealed to their patriots. Hey, Governor Peter Robinson here. A pleasure. We've never met, but it's just a pleasure to talk to you. FBD doesn't stand for friendly business, ducks. Or for the freelance beatbox department.

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

as you did just now for us, but you give equal attention to the shortcomings of the right. Populist patriots are equally disappointed, I'm quoting your column in the Wall Street Journal, equally, equally disappointed with the results of decades of Republican economic orthodoxy. Would you elaborate that argument for us? Sure, Peter, thank you. It's great to be talking with you as well. Thank you both for having me this morning. You know, look, I'm a lifelong Republican. I'm a conservative. For a long time, the Republican Party has been championing things like free trade and lowering the corporate tax rate and other traditional economic policies. And many of those things have positive elements to them. But my point was a lot of these populist patriots, they've said, look, we for decades have been

waiting. And what we're seeing is investments going overseas, jobs are going overseas. And the benefits that have come to America from these trade pacts disproportionately have gone to other areas. They've been concentrated on the coast. They've been concentrated in certain professions, in certain urban centers. They haven't helped everybody. So I think a lot of these voters are happy to see President Trump take on China and say,

look, if we're going to do trade deals, let's do fair trade. It's not right for China to be able to manipulate their currency or steal our intellectual property or prevent American companies from owning assets, you know, certain types of assets in China. And so I think they are happy to see him standing up for them and their interests. I think the tariffs are a great example of that. Many farmers, even though they may be hurt in the short term by tariffs, are happy to see him standing up for them and their interests. I think the tariffs are a great example of that. Many farmers, even though they may be hurt in the short term by tariffs, are happy to see finally somebody standing up for them for their long-term interests.

Well, Governor, how do you handle – here's the implicit argument. I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit here. Here's the implicit argument that you're making, I think. You're not going to accept this, but I'll put it to you to see what you do with it. American workers need to be protected because they can't compete. If they were productive, as productive as workers abroad, companies would have invested here. If we could manufacture as cheaply and effectively as they can manufacture abroad.

Companies would have invested here. The problem is that you don't even have – it's not a necessary part of this argument that it's the worker's own fault. On the contrary, I think there's a very good argument to be made that it's tax rates, that it is above all a failure of education. You could point to the chokehold that teachers unions have on education across the country. What you don't need protection, you need better education, you need lower regulation. But the main point, I come back to it again, the main point, the implicit point you're making is Donald Trump is saying, I'm going to stand up for American workers, which means I'll protect you because the global environment is rough and you can't really compete out there.

What do you do with that? You're right. I'm not going to accept that. I would say two things can be true at the same time. First, I would say American workers can compete with anybody on a level playing field. I'm all for trade. I think the president should be all for and is all for trade, but it needs to be fair trade. And what that means, for example, I was very specific when I talked about the things that China is doing that aren't fair to American workers and American companies. You know, whether it's stealing intellectual property, whether it's not playing by the same rules when it comes to foreign ownership, whether it's currency manipulation. Those are those are barriers where we would we should insist that, OK, if you want access to our great market, you need to give us access to your market. There needs to be a level playing field. But the second, so the first thing I would say is American workers can absolutely compete

and should compete on a level playing field, and trade can be and should be a win-win. I'm not saying we need to go back to the days of protectionism where we don't compete and we don't supply the rest of the world. But the second set of points you make I think are very important and also very true. In addition to that, so yes, our workers can be with anybody on a level playing field. But secondly, you're exactly right that there are things our government is doing that are harmful to our workers apart from trade and tariffs. For example, I couldn't agree with you more on the public education system and the need for school choice and competition and breaking up

the monopoly of our teacher union. Secondly, I couldn't agree with you more in terms of the need to lower tax rates and make our workers more competitive and allow them to keep more of their earnings. Third, I also agree with you, for example, that having more affordable domestic energy, one of the things the president has done is to unleash the American domestic energy market. Those are all things in my home state. We were talking earlier about Minnesota being cold here in the south of the Gulf Coast because of plentiful natural gas, because of fracking. We're seeing billions of dollars in investments, not only in exploration, but in petrochemical industries and the steel industries and other

downstream industries. And so absolutely, there are many other things apart from trade that the government can be doing to help the American worker and should be doing. And President Trump's doing many of those things. But when it comes to trade, we should absolutely insist on a level of playing field. And my point was that for too long, the Republican Party, at least the perception has been, is that it's prioritized the interest of multinational corporations over American workers. And that's why I think Trump has been smart to go after that and say, I'm going to stand up for the American worker because that's what's good for America. Governor Peter here with one more question before I give it to Rob Long, who knows a lot about the

South and wants to ask you about Louisiana. Actually, I do too. My question is as follows. You've explained what Trump is doing. He's taking on the anti-American left and he's taking on the anti-worker right. And my question is, how successful is that proving? You know, this goes without saying, you know, Louisiana in detail. I'm going to bet that up in the middle of the state around Alexandria, Trump is really popular. How about in New Orleans? We in particular, we hear a lot about polling data suggesting that he's beginning to break into double digits in support among African-Americans.

What are you seeing? How effective, how successful has Donald Trump been politically in the state you know best? Well, look, I think Trump will easily win Louisiana in his reelection bid. I remember some years ago when Mitt Romney was running for his, was campaigning to try to defeat President Obama. He asked me whether he should spend time in Louisiana. I said, with all due respect, Governor, if you're spending time campaigning here, then you've got real trouble in the rest of the country.

You should do just fine down here. And I really give credit. Look, Louisiana up until recently, not that long ago, was a swing state. This is a state that went for President Bill Clinton twice. This is a state that, until very recently, had not had a Republican majority in our legislature. It historically was one of the last southern states to continue to have a Democrat in the United States Senate. So this is not a, you know, Louisiana has not always been this deep red state. I give President Obama a backhanded compliment.

You know, he really deserves a lot of the credit for driving a lot of Louisianians into the Republican Party. And even by voter registration, we still have more Democrats than Republicans. What about the reelection of John Bel Edwards? The Democratic governor just got reelected. I thought it was interesting. They had a presidential debate that week, and they asked the Democrats on stage. They said, you know, the DGA just spent millions of dollars in Louisiana helping this Democrat win reelection. He signed one of the most pro-life bills in the country. What do you, they asked Elizabeth Warren, they asked all the candidates

up there, what do you think about that? You know, is there room in the Democratic Party for a pro-life Democrat? Look, I disagree with John Bell on a lot of his policies, but compared to national Democrats, he is pro-life. He is pro Second Amendment. He is not your typical national Democrat. And what I think is interesting is that the National Democratic Party does not really have room for these types of Southern Democrats. You know, you try to go to the DNC, you try to go to the National Convention and give a speech where you talk about being for Second Amendment rights or being pro-life. John Bell signed a law passed by our legislature that may be one of the most pro-life bills in the entire country,

and that's just not allowed in the Democratic Party anymore nationally. So I think that a lot of national commentators try to make the mistake of saying, oh, look, they reelected a Democratic governor, by the way, and also elected Republicans to every other statewide office and also elected a large majority in the House and the Senate as Republicans. I think they make the mistake saying, oh, Democrats can now be competitive in the South. Well, this is a different type of Democrat than Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or any of the other ones running for president. Hey, and also he's pro-gun, too.

So, Governor, it's Rob Long in New York. Thank you for joining us. I guess I want to talk a little bit about Louisiana because I think it's sort of an interesting state. You've been mentioning populism. Of course, when anyone in America knows anything about American history thinks populism, they do think Louisiana. And they think about Huey Long. For a long time, I mean, I don't know, 15 years ago, maybe 20 years ago, I was in a meeting, maybe the Republican Governors Association, we were all kind of thinking about the future, and someone said, you know, when the Democrats rediscover populism,

patriotic populism, the Republican Party's in big trouble. So when the Democrats discover, as you just described, a governor or a set of politics that are basically pro-gun, basically pro-life, basically pro-life, basically socially conservative, but economically liberal, the Republican Party is in big, big trouble. It never occurred to anybody that the Republicans would discover that first. They would discover that president would be a Republican president

who's basically socially, you know, essentially socially conservative, although personally he's not, but economically very liberal. Let's be honest. Donald Trump is economically very liberal. When you have tariffs and you are supporting and you're against any entitlement reform, you're kind of liberal. Where do you see – and it still astonishes me. If you could survey the Democrats, prominent Democrats in America today who you think on a spectrum of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, from zero to insane, so zero to Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, where would you put John Bel Edwards? If you were looking forward for a Republican strategy and thinking, okay, who do we have to look out at? Who do we have to look out for on the other side?

Who would you pick? Is there anybody? Look, before this presidential election campaign really got started, you looked at the Democratic field and you thought, you know, there are folks like – take some of the recent positions. Take a guy like Cory Booker, the senator from New Jersey. You may remember in previous years, here was a guy that stood up and was moderately for school choice and charter schools and served on a board with Betsy DeVos. Here was a guy that stood up and defended when Mitt Romney was attacked for being at Bain and the whole vulture capitalism. Here was a guy that stood up and defended

capitalism and the private sector. You had Democrats like that. And it wasn't just Cory Booker. You saw the governor and the senator, by the way, both candidates, Senator Bennett and Governor Hickenlooper from Colorado. You had these individuals in the Democratic Party that were willing to take on the teacher union. They were willing to stand up and say the private sector is not the enemy. There is a lot of positive things that come out of those. Isn't that Michael Bloomberg now?

I mean, if you were looking at the race, wouldn't you say that's Michael Bloomberg? You know, here's the problem. Well, two problems. One, Bloomberg, part of the problem is, though, you talked about populism before. In my view, in the old days, you're right. Populism was all about, you know, there was a joke in Louisiana.

Populists in Louisiana wanted everything for free and then complained they paid too much for it. And they looked at government to give them everything. I think the modern day, modern day populism is suspicious, not only of big business, but also suspicious of big government. And I think where Bloomberg's got at least one of his big blind spots, you know, he's done some good work in school reforms and taken on the teacher unions. and at one point he was for law and order before he started apologizing for all that. But his blind spot, I think, where a lot of liberals have a blind spot today, is their embrace of big government.

Yes, they take on big business, but they don't take on big government. So when you've got a nanny state that says you can't drink Big Gulf, that says you can't own, you can't be illegal, you can't own your guns, we're going to severely restrict your ability to own your guns. When all of a sudden you embrace that big government, and that's where you see the Bernie Sanders and the AOC with the Green New Deal and the Medicare for All. I think that's where they go off the tracks when it comes to their embrace of populism. I think one of the things that's prevented them from being more successful is that they're blinded. They view government as reciprocated and as loud as they are against the dangers of putting too much power in the hands of big tech companies or the big private sector, as much as they go after Amazon and others. And where I think a lot of conservative populists may cheer them or agree with them. I think,

for example, a guy like Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri, a very conservative Republican, could find common cause with some of these liberal populists about the tech companies. But where they lose that crossover support is when they embrace big, they diagnose big companies as a problem. Right. But it feels to me like you're making just one, you're making this between two things. One, big government liberal Democrats who are big, big, big, big, big government,

and big government, slightly socially conservative populists who, well, tariffs are a form of government regulation, so are regulating the tech companies. So all those things seem to be directionally in one direction, which is bigger government, more intrusive government. Who's speaking up for for less regulation, for letting the tech companies sort themselves out, for for not subsidizing farming? It is as if agriculture in this country needs more subsidized subsidies. Look, I understand you're from Louisiana. That's I'm not going to ask you to comment on that. But if you're a small government conservative, where do you go now? You're basically going to have to make your peace with a big government conservative, right? Well, and let's go back to something, a point you made earlier, which I think is really important.

And one of the things I strongly disagree with President Trump about, and look, I think it's good politics. I understand why he took this position. When he was campaigning, he absolutely took entitlement reform off the table. He said, look, we're not going to change Medicare. We're not going to change Social Security. Even at one point said he wasn't going to change Medicaid. And look, I'm a small government conservative, and I have been throughout my career. And what worries me is you cannot shrink government meaningfully if you're not willing to do at least some of those entitlement reforms. And for example, I spent a year of my life as the executive director on the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare back when President Clinton was in office. And we came up with this idea of premium support to help slow the growth in the Medicare program

and to give seniors more choices. I do think the Republican Party has got to wake up and say, more spending, more deficits, more borrowing is bad. We're fine criticizing President Obama for trillion-dollar deficits, but we can't be quiet when our party is in the White House or our party is the majority in Congress, and we have the same kinds of deficits. So I agree. The Republican Party, I think, needs to wake up and make the case for fiscal conservatism. I think the way to make that case, however, it can't just be all about numbers and percentages. Look, that's great,

but I think your average person, they hear trillions of dollars, they hear percentage of GDP, and they just close their eyes and they get bored with it. I think we need to make the point, two things. One, we need to make the point, the moral argument that this kind of reckless spending is really stealing from our children. Let's be honest about this. We're basically having a big party and leaving the bills for our children and grandchildren. We shouldn't be mortgaging their future. We shouldn't be leaving them more debt. We shouldn't be the first generation of American parents that says we're going to give our kids fewer opportunities than our parents gave us. And I would argue that's what we're doing with all this borrowing and spending. So one, I think we need to make the moral argument. Secondly, I think we need to make

the argument that this reckless spending and borrowing, it makes government larger. It makes us more dependent on our foreign creditors. I think it weakens us even today. So look, I agree that we need to reclaim the mantle of limited government. I also agree that that includes entitlement reform. But look, if we're going to have that conversation, we've got to work really hard and make the case because it's very easy for the Democratic Party to demagogue Republicans. As soon as we start talking about that,

then they come out and accuse us of being heartless. And it's very easy for them to say that. It's got to seem fair. It's all very abstract until we actually start getting bills every month from the government to pay for these things, which I think would would bring the issue home to people. It's very abstract, though. But what the Democrats want to do now is not abstract. But I mean, when you mentioned big government, that's true. They've always been a big government. When you mentioned populism, they've always had that that, you know, car in every pot, a chicken in every garage or whatever. We're going to do the help of the little guy.

What's different now about the left and the liberals is their ability and desire to use big government on very small things. That while they'll take half of your money and provide these things for everyone, they'll also reach down into your house and take your plastic straw. They'll regulate how much you can flush, how hot the water in your shower is, whether or not you can have a hamburger. These would seem to be the sort of things that would push them away from general electoral success if people realized how much micromanaging of one's life, and Bloomberg is a perfect example.

Knock that salt shaker out of your hand. So is it possible if they get shellacked in 2020 for the Democrats to do what happened after McGovern and look for somebody who doesn't represent this sort of big state socialist intrusive government? Or will they learn nothing and continue to press ahead because the planet's at stake, et cetera, et cetera? Well, look, for the good of the country, I do hope they learn a lesson. For the good of the Republican Party, if they don't learn a lesson, I think they'll continue to lose elections. Look, I think it's a great question.

Part of the problem they've got is their base has been so radicalized. The media loves to talk about their conservatives, and they love to talk about the Tea Party conservatives, and they love to call us radicals. When you really look at what the base of the Democratic Party is, the reason I think you saw so many so-called moderate Democrats run to the left, you had Joe Biden the other day come out with a $3 trillion plus tax increase package, and he's the moderate Democrat in the race.

I mean, you've got Joe Biden apologizing for everything he's ever done in his political life, from his criminal reform bills to the Clarence Thomas hearings, everything he's ever done in his political life, from his criminal reform bills to the Clarence Thomas hearings, everything he's ever done before. He's basically having to apologize, even some of the things that the Obama administration did. But here's the amazing thing about the left. Every four years, they keep moving the goalposts even further to the left so that any one of the candidates running for president today as a Democrat would be the most liberal nominee they have ever nominated.

Even the most conservative one up there on that stage is still more liberal than President Obama. I want you to think about that. When President Obama was in office, we thought he was a radical liberal. We thought he was going too far in terms of redefining the American dream. Every single person on that stage is more liberal than President Obama. I mean, just look at Obamacare as one example of that. So he didn't pursue, he didn't even try to get the public option done when he had 60 votes in the Senate because that was too radical. And now the left is looking at Obamacare and saying, you didn't increase taxes enough. You didn't interfere enough with people's ability to choose private insurance. You didn't grow

government enough. I mean, all the things that we hated about Obamacare, they view as he didn't go far enough. So when you think about what happens after this next election, I think there's a chance for the Democratic Party to wake up and say, hey, we keep losing these swing voters, these Midwestern voters, we keep losing these working class voters. Or the other choice, which is where they seem their leadership seems to be going, is we need to double down and just get even more votes from the far left urban core. We need to get even more votes from the AOC-type members. And you see the AOC-types trying to primary their fellow Democrats, saying you're not pure enough, you're not liberal enough, so we're coming after you.

They're putting their energies not in going after Republican members. They're putting their energies in going after other Democrats for not being liberal enough. I think you'll have an internal struggle within the Democratic Party. And I think you're beginning to see that now. You know, when Elizabeth Warren was rising, you saw some of these other Democrats coming after her saying, wait a minute, she's not electable. Not only was she hurt in the next presidential election, she may hurt other Democrats. You know, I think, for example, you look at those House members who won districts that Trump won. I think Nancy Pelosi is rightfully worried that with somebody as radical as Bernie Sanders

or Elizabeth Warren at the top of the ticket, what happens to our House majority? Well, we can only hope that when they lose, they conclude that it was their pledge to decarbonize the entire economy by 2040, and they realized that what people really wanted was for decarbonization by 2030. We've got to be more devoted to the cause next time.

Governor General, thank you so much for your time. We know you've got places to go. We'd love to have you on again and talk about this, other things, your future, how the election went, et cetera, but that's down the road. Thanks from Ricochet Podcast for joining us today, and we hope to talk to you soon. Thank you for having me, guys. Look forward to it. Thanks, Governor. Thank you, Governor. Thank you. Thanks, guys. I really enjoyed it. Well, that was a pleasure, and right now, I am not even going to

give Rob the opportunity to interrupt the segue, because there was some discussions with Jindal's office as to whether or not he would get to interrupt the segue. It didn't turn out that way, but I think that not giving the governor that chance and then giving it to Rob who has every chance in the world to do it just simply isn't right. So bang, here we go. Quip. Q-U-I-P.

That's right. But this holiday season it's here. You've got to shop. Your gift can start next year's good habits for somebody with Quip. Quip is something that's sure to put a smile on everyone's mouth because it's dental care they'll actually want to use every day. And you're saying, wait a minute, wait a minute, I'm going to give somebody a toothbrush for Christmas. Yes, yes, you are. First of all, it's very stylish. So you're giving them something that looks beautiful. Piece of industrial

engineering they'll be happy to have. But it's the perfect, thoughtful, and practical gift. With Equip electric toothbrush, refillable floss, and toothpaste, they're all intentionally designed to make good habits simple. Equip electric toothbrush has sensitive sonic vibrations and a timer with 30-second pulses to guide your routine. So 30 seconds up here, then you move it along, and you know that

you're getting your recommended two-minute brushing. When's the last time you actually brushed for two minutes? Well, if you're a Quip user, the answer is last time you brushed your teeth. And the Quip floss dispenser has pre-marked strings, so you're not just getting yards out, not knowing where to cut it, so you always get the right amount. Plus, Quip delivers brush heads, floss, and toothpaste refills every three months. Ever looked at your brush and it's all splayed and you think, oh, I've got to go to the store and get a new one, then you don't, and it's just old? No, it's just every three months they arrive at your door, fresh brush heads and floss and toothpaste. Join over 3 million happy customers and check everybody off your gift list right now with Quip.

Go to getquip.com slash ricochet and you'll save on gift sets and get your first refill free with a refill plan. That's your first refill free at getquip.com slash ricochet. getquip.com slash ricochet. And our thanks to Quip for sponsoring this, the Ricochet Podcast.

And now we bring back, oh, this guy again. Man, I tell you, John Yoo. Yeah, John Yoo, you know, E again. Man, I tell you, John Yoo. Yeah, John Yoo, you know, Emanuel Heller, professor of law and director of the Korea Law Center, visiting a scholar at both the Hoover Institution and AEI, which means he does a lot of visiting, of course. We love him. He's our go-to guy on all matters of impeachment, of course, constitutional law. And we are obliged to mention he is an expert on fast food meat products, which we may mention at the time. But he's not on Twitter because he's a wise man, as I like to say, so you can follow him on the freeway.

Just don't tailgate him or honk. He'll be driving that stylish convertible red, always wearing a tuxedo and looking as though he's either going off to fight Smurfs Spectre or to the casino for some baccarat. John, you there? That was such a great introduction. I think I can leave the show now. It's only downhill from here. I can't live up to that image.

Oh, but of course you can. Hey, we were talking at the top of the show about how these wonderful, these law professors are just strict constitutionalists now, and they revere the founders, and they're just fascinated to get inside. They're even quoting George Mason, who was a slaveholder. I mean, I completely realigned my view of the liberal law professor academia mindset. So how did you view what they had to say? I had my arms open saying, welcome to the party.

It's 1787 all of a sudden all of these liberal scholars who will go on and on about how originalism is illegitimate or bankrupt all they could do was quote the founders on the other hand i thought it was a sad display because it showed how partisan this has all become you know the democrats picked three witnesses who had already given money to Obama or to Clinton or had already said, already called for Trump's impeachment before Ukraine had ever happened. So they should have picked someone like Turley, who was the Republican witness, who said, look, I don't like Trump. I'm a registered Democrat. I voted against Trump, but I don't think he should be impeached. They're sure there's got to be plenty of people that Bill Kristol knows. You can look up in his role and say, I'm a Republican. I think he should be impeached. But instead, they made it. And so I thought it was bad for not just the, you know, the professor profession. profession wait wait wait wait before i want to i just want to hate john it's rob before i know peter wants to jump in i just want to ask one question uh wait were you busy that day your

phone didn't ring what's going on are you b-list now you know it would have been actually i would have been trump's best witness because if i'd gone on there it would all start talking about terrorism again they would have totally forgot it was about impeachment. Can you imagine if they throw me into the shark pool? So, John, Noah Feldman of Harvard, Pam Carlin of Stanford, Michael Gerhart of University of North Carolina Law School. Those were the Democratic witnesses. You've already said quite rightly that the hypocrisy was

unbelievable breathtaking because now all of a sudden they're talking about nothing but the constitution the founders intentions did they get any of it right did any of them make an argument in favor of impeaching this president on this record that stood so the sad thing is that of the four people there only one of them has ever actually written a book about impeachment and that was the guy in the middle gerhard i like pam carlin and noah feldman they're fine but they don't they don't they don't write about or do any research about impeachment or the framing or about the founders but you could tell they were kind of quippy it's a weird demonstration i think about what the democrats thought uh the

hearing should be about it's like these guys are just trying to produce one-line sound bites they did but unfortunately they were bad for democrats but i think there's two conclusions you can draw from the whole hearing one is i actually think there was some amount of agreement on whether there was a possibility of impeachable conduct. I think all four witnesses agreed that you can impeach a president for something that may not necessarily be a crime, something that's an abuse of power. But they disagreed about the facts. And this is where the House Democrats have not done the job. They rushed this through so fast. There's no way they could prove that someone should be removed from office during an election year on these thin facts. soliciting a personal, this direct quotation, soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader in exchange for his exercise of power, the foreign leader's exercise of power, and obstructing justice in Congress, that's a statement of facts, right, are worse than the misconduct of any prior president,

including what previous presidents who faced impeachment have done or been accused of doing, close quote. And John Yoo's point is that by the time Clinton was impeached, it was on the record that he had perjured himself under oath, right? And there's no such fact case that's been made here. Am I understanding your point? Yeah, I think Mike's wrong. I mean, first, there's lots of presidents who've done things far worse than anything Trump has done.

If you believe every single thing that the House Intelligence Committee said in its impeachment report. You know, Trump, for example, didn't intern all the Japanese Americans in the country. He didn't, you know, as FDR did during World War II. He didn't wiretap his political enemies like LBJ and Kennedy did, including Martin Luther King, you know during the civil rights movement you could go this is just sort of ridiculous to say trump has done something worse than any previous president had done and that's just that's just ridiculous on

the face of it yeah absurd now he could say he's done worse than any president has been impeached so andrew johnson uh was impeached basically because he refused to carry out congress's instructions on reconstruction i mean i think i think that's actually legitimate grounds for impeachment is he like president nixon who may have ordered the break-in to the democratic national party committee headquarters and then covered it i mean i use the irs to investigate his and audit his enemies i i don't think it's actually that close i don't think trump is nearly as close to but my poor point is the witnesses are actually arguing over something which is not within their area right expertise which is what actually happened what were the facts what did trump actually do

and at this point so there's no way the democrats can let's put it this way there's no way they intend to go back and clear up the fact case because that's not what they're interested in because that can't be done because the facts aren't there in the first place why are they doing it why are they going at it in such a sloppy slapdash rapid way yeah i i think it's just for politics i think when you start an investigation as the democrats did and then basically say we're going to have a vote on impeachment before christmas you have already announced to the world you're going to have a truncated insufficient as you said slapdash incomplete investigation so all the witnesses except maybe one phone call by that terrible

ambassador gordon sonland who i mean he should you know you're just talking about quip his motto should be first refill free if he was like a dentist or something because this guy's like the worst ambassador in the history of american foreign policy which is saying something yeah and he so but other than him in this one alleged phone call no witness who was actually brought to testify actually talked to president trump or heard anything president trump said about any of this so that you know as an investigator you know former justice department guy i would say at the very least you would have to interview john bolton nick mulvaney secretary of of State Mike Pompeo.

And the House Democrats just said, well, we're not going to wait around for that. So by putting an artificial deadline on their investigation, they guaranteed it's going to be a weak hearing, a weak investigation, incomplete. And they've guaranteed that the Senate will acquit because the senators can all just say, look, there's no facts here. You did a bad job. We're not going to find a conviction. So, John, though, will they have a trial in the Senate? Yeah, they have to.

So, I mean, under the Senate rules, they have a trial. Isn't that a perfect place to have Pompeo and Bolton and the big stars? I mean, big stars testify. I mean, isn't the Senate at will? They can call anybody they want. Rob, once again, you haven't been reading my articles in the Washington Post. I don't. You know why? They're behind a paywall, and I will not pay for you. No, it's actually – it's social science to call this overdetermined.

A, they're by me, and B, they're in the Washington Post. No, it's really all about the money. You're not value for the money. So actually, the Senate rules are really interesting, and they're the same rules that were used under Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. And basically in the Senate, you don't have witnesses presented. You don't have evidence presented. You don't have arguments by the senators unless the senators vote to change the rules. So under the existing rules if you remember the clinton trial i was hoping for it but the blue dress was never produced

in the senate um we didn't have an evidence room in the senate that was broad it had a lot of stuff of what's mostly broads actually and a lot of stuff in it that was not part of the original impeachment inquiry that actually you know bill clinton came close uh to to to be removed in the senate because that stuff they hadn't the senators hadn't heard yet and there were reports of senators going into the room and looking at the evidence that was kathleen willie and oneita broderick and all those people and coming out and thinking oh my god this is actually a lot worse than i thought so is is that the democrats plan here is to kind of like uh sandbag him in the senate no i so i the thing that was this different

between uh clinton and nixon and this trial is that in those cases the house basically delegated the the duty to conduct the investigation to the special counsel. So Ken Starr collected all that stuff. Ken Starr collected all the evidence and handed it over. That hasn't happened here. So that's why you would say the House should have a full investigation. The Senate could have information that never was presented to the House. That didn't really happen in the previous two cases where Congress just didn't do the investigation, really.

They were just kind of rehearsing what the independent counsel is doing. But I think you're right. The Senate could do what you're talking about, Rob. They could have a room. They could put all the evidence in. They could call witnesses. I would, you know, most Americans would expect a trial. You would actually get to see the witnesses.

Hasn't happened because of senators. It's not permitted under the Senate rules. You have to change rules. And but here's my big blockbuster idea. Have I told you guys this? No, no. About what should happen in the trial? So the Senate rules allow the president himself to appear instead of his lawyers.

I think this would be the biggest ratings hit in American history. If at the end of the Senate trial, Trump says, I'm going to represent myself pro se, and I'm going to go to the well of the Senate trial, Trump says, I'm going to represent myself pro se and I'm going to go to the well of the Senate and I'm going to speak in my defense. And the senators, all hundred have to sit there and they have to remain silent during his entire. Really? That's actually. Yes. They can't move, say anything.

They're allowed to ask questions. How can he not do this, John? I agree. Right. Right. It'll be bigger than the Super Bowl. They could even try to sell ads. It's like a pause for 30 seconds.

It would stop turning during his defense. I think that they should build a golden escalator that he can descend down to the steps to enter. That would be theater indeed. Indeed. And all of the senators, of course, they can't campaign. Those who are running for president can't hit the campaign trail. They've got to sit there right through this whole thing. Why not just have the Senate trial go on for three or four months

and pin Warren down for the entirety of it all? That's the other thing that Democrats have an interest in, it being a quick trial, because they know they're going to lose. Why drag it out? I think the longer this goes on, the better it looks for Trump. I was arguing with Peter at the Hoover Institution when we were there a few, I think a few weeks ago. The polls seem to show that the polls are moving in support of Trump in the states where Republican senators are elected from. So that's the key thing to look at

is if the political support for Republican senators is going up while all this continues to go on, why wouldn't Trump want to prolong it? So are you saying, here's my last question for you, John. If you are Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, do you hold the quickest trial you can

under current rules? Or do you look at the five states in which Republican senators are in danger in the next election cycle? Susan Collins in Maine, North Carolina, as I recall. Anyway, there are five states. And if those if the polls for Trump are ticking up in those states, you keep it going as long as you can. Is that your decision rule? I wouldn't decide that, but it's a happy consequence. It's so great when the Constitution and politics coincide. But I think if you're Senator McConnell, you could have done.

There's two things. There's one option, which is dismiss the case without a trial. You know, smack the face and just say, we're going to vote and dismiss this whole thing and not have a trial because this was so insufficient, not even close. Or have a full-blown trial. If you think about the – all the public knows is the House Democrats' version of events. Trump wasn't really allowed to put on any kind of defense in the House. So what would you do? You're Mitch McConnell for 10 minutes. Which decision do you make? Oh, I don't know what you guys think. I would go for the prolonged trial, but that's because I want to help all my friends who are constitutional law commentators out there, and I need them to have more work,

to buy more McRibs for months and months. I need this unending trial. A self-interested argument that I would expect to hear less. Well, we would love to see you testify. That would be great, of course, in your talks with a McRib in one hand and the Constitution in the other. John, thanks. We'll read you in the Washington Post. At least I will because I can get it at the office,

and I'll send copies to Rob, and he can get it because he's too cheap to help out a friend. But thanks for joining us here on the podcast again, and we'll speak to you fairly shortly, I assume. Have a good day. Thanks, John. Thanks. Take it easy. I like the idea of ascending down the steps. Thanks, John. Thanks. Would you like to say anything before you go, or would you like to interrupt a commercial? Your choice.

No, I think I'd just rather interrupt a commercial. Okay. All right. Well, you know, when you were a kid, Rob, I mean, you got up to all kinds of mischief, didn't you? You probably tied cans to people's cars. You, no doubt on Halloween, knocked over a mailbox or something like that. Were you a troublesome sort, or were you a good little apple polisher who just behaved all the time? I was somewhere in between. Okay.

Well, kids today have got it a little bit different. They can get into a lot of mischief when they're around in the world because of the wild, wild west of the Internet. I don't know what kind of things your kids are going to come across when they're on that place. To make sure your kids stay safe, you need Circle. Circle is the award-winning way to manage your family's online time across all their connected devices, inside and outside of your home. With Circle, parents can filter what content is allowed. They can set limits for screen time.

You can monitor history and usage. You can even reward your kids for their good behavior. It's very easy. Just take the Circle Home Plus, plug it into your router, just click, there it goes. Download the app, and from your phone, you can keep track across every single recorded device. That's laptops, phones, tablets, smart TVs, streaming devices, video game consoles, all from one place, right there in the app, right there in your hand.

And Circle has been getting rave reviews for good reasons from the Chicago Tribune, from People, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and many more. Look, you'll do anything for your kids, right? Do something easy that will keep your family on the right path and get Circle. Right now, our listeners get a limited time offer of $30 off a Circle Home Plus when you visit meetcircle.com slash ricochet and enter ricochet at the checkout. That's $30 off when you visit meetcircle.com slash ricochet and enter ricochet at the checkout. That's $30 off when you visit meetcircle.com slash ricochet and enter ricochet at the checkout.

That's meetcircle.com slash ricochet and enter ricochet to save $30. And our thanks to Circle for sponsoring this Ricochet podcast. Rob, before you run, you were swatting around Paris. You were a boulevardier. I think we described you as a boulevardier

or a flaneur at some point. I was a little bit of a flaneur, but I was traveling. I was in Paris and then traveled through the Loire Valley with my family for Thanksgiving, that incredible Thanksgiving in the Loire Valley. They cooked this incredibly great Thanksgiving dinner for us.

The French eat turkey for Christmas, so it's not like it's not something they don't do. It was great. It was really a lot of fun. And, of course, you know, then I left yesterday. December 5th was the nationwide strike. Everything was going to collapse and close down,

and there was a lot of hand-wringing and whirring. But, you know, when I woke up on Thursday morning, there was a string of taxis waiting, and I just took one to Charles de Gaulle, and Charles de Gaulle was working efficiently, and everybody was doing their thing. I think some of the domestic flights had been cancelled, but some hadn't. And then I

had a perfectly seamless experience going from central Paris to Charles de Gaulle, from Charles de Gaulle to JFK. The minute you land at JFK, it all falls apart, because it's just a gigantic mess there. And the idea that France having a nationwide strike, where everyone's supposed to stay home and not do anything is still more efficient in transportation than JFK.

JFK is just a complete and total and utter nightmare, and everyone associated with its management should be ashamed. It should be. It's absolutely appalling. And why is that? Is it because it's a sclerotic old New York institution? Well, a lot of it is to do with, look, we could rehearse all of the usual suspects.

It's incredibly, incredibly complicated, ossified, Soviet-style work. But even in the Soviet Union, if you didn't show up to work, they'd kill you. Here, you get an extra day off. No work can ever be done on a transportation project without every single

stakeholder being present by representatives. When they work on a train track in New Jersey and the Long Island Railroad, because it goes to an Amtrak station, an Amtrak representative must be there. Being paid. Yes, and if they are not, they're not doing anything. They're just there. So the levels of bureaucracy and, again, all of this,

that's the thing with JFK and all this stuff, all of these problems are the result of reform. This is what happens when reformers get control because they add more regulations. So none of this happens organically. Organically, things just get done. But it's the reforming instinct that leads you to reform the process, which means that, well, we're all going to have the stakeholders present. It all seems like good ideas at the time, and of course like every other, you know, all liberal process ideas, they turn into sclerotic nightmares,

Soviet-style, Eastern-style decay. I'm wondering whether you're letting France off a little bit easy here. The news yesterday was that a million people marched in Paris. You'd already hopped in the taxi and gone off to Charlotte. I was going, yeah.

So you've got to run but here's the question yeah france lovely place to visit those of us who follow your instagram account are still drooling but would you want to live there well sure i mean i would uh it's a it it's a very difficult place to have a business to start a business it's a very difficult place to do a lot of things. But then in many ways, so is California, right? The problem with France is that there's the cadre of people who are sort of an entrepreneurial zeal and want to go start things small. But it's not zero.

It's larger than it was last year and larger than it was 10 years ago. And that's a good sign. It's a good thing. That the French are just on the forefront of realizing what we have. We talked about this a lot on this podcast, what we will eventually face, which is a whole boatload of promises made that simply cannot be kept to people about how long they need to work and what they're going to get and what their benefits are going to be. And when you have when you simply, you know, the math in France, the math in the United States, it's not any different. When you have a bunch of old people and not as many young people,

and the old people are taking checks every month, and those checks are going more and more and more because the old people are getting free health care, so they're living longer and longer and longer, it gets very expensive. What you need, the only way out of this, I mean, there's two ways out. One, reduce the entitlements,

which they can't do in France. And the second thing is to grow the economy huge, right? To have some kind of boom years, which they also kind of can't do in France because of the de registre economy, which is sort of top down. There's a lot of sclerotic planning. They can't quite do that either.

That's our only hope, by the way. The only difference between us and France is that we kind of think that maybe we'll be able to grow out of it. But that growth has to be consistent. And we haven't been hitting those targets, but we've been coming close. So I do love France.

I think France is going to figure it out. They are super, super pro-American. All this nonsense about how they're anti-American is just ridiculous. They're not crazy about Trump, but they're pro-American, and it's just a lovely country. It's a lovely country. Well, you end the podcast as you began. My theory is that if there were a place to get a decent croissant at JFK, Rob would be singing JFK's praises. No, I don't think so.

First of all, it's hard to find a decent croissant anywhere, including in Paris. But no. JFK is the Soviet Union. It is the Soviet Union. It's a bunch of people working there who have no interest in providing

any value. Well, when LaGuardia is finished, because they're doing a bunch of people working there who have no interest in providing any value. Well, when LaGuardia is finished, because they're doing a lot of work there, I assume that it'll be a little bit better. And Newark is good, too. But none of these are as good as the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, which is one of the finest in the country, and a civilized place the likes of which

you just simply won't experience elsewhere. Period. We're perfect. Thank you. Goodbye, Rob. We know you. Thank you. Bye, Rob. We know you got to go, so we'll let you go. Is he gone? Wow, that was fast. He was so insulted, perhaps, by my assertion of Minneapolis superiority.

I know it's hard for New Yorkers to take, but New Yorkers love to bond over the things that don't. No, I'm 100% free. 100%. I mean, I haven't been there, but a small regional airport is so much better. We are not a small regional airport. We are a large international hub. Thank you very much. Little tiny little boutique airports

with little twee, little boutique-y, you know, very, very parochial little shops and things. Fantastic. Gotta run, fellas. Bye-bye. Next week, Bob. You know, and the great thing is I can get to that airport in 10 minutes from my house. It's just fantastic.

I mean, it's just right around the corner, and it's just a great little place. But who cares? We're not here to talk about that. We are to talk about the member post of the week, and I'm going to tell you that in just a second here. First of all, I've got to tell you this podcast was brought to you by – See, now usually that would be your sign to quit but not in the ricochet now no no we tell you that it's brought to you by circle by quip and by norton 360 lifelock please support them for supporting us and you know what i'm going to say next don't you and you're probably saying this is

the week i go to do what to join join Ricochet? That would be great. To leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts? That would be great, too. Either one of those. Help us get more people to listen, get more people to pay. And at the end of the day, Ricochet survives, and we're here for the 2020, 2024, 2028 elections and all the ones in between.

Member post of the week. Usually something that I end up noting because I participated in it and I liked it. When I cast my mind back over the last week, you know, Ricochet is a center-right politics and culture site. And so there's going to be a lot of going back and forth

on the events of the day, as you might imagine. So my post of the week isn't going to be about impeachment, or it isn't going to be about some little detail in a bill that somebody found, because that stuff's cool. It's the bread and butter ricochet. What makes it special, what stands out to me, are the ones that just create unusual conversations that go in places you don't expect,

and that was this week on Her Majesty's Secret Service. Gary McVeigh posted one that stuck right out to me, because first of all, her majesty's secret service we we know what that is don't we we know that that's a bond movie it's the one that has george laszlo it's the one that has louis sullivan singing that great song we have all the time in the world it's got diana riggs got telly savalas it's a classic movie some regarded as the best bond movie ever and then gary also noted in his title, this never happened to the other fellow, which made me sit up right away

because that was a line spoken by Lazenby as Bond in the opening credits of the movie. And I thought, well, let's argue about this, whether or not he broke the fourth wall. And we had a back and forth as to whether or not Lazenby actually stared at the camera. And I think that I proved decisively that he did. But Ricochet being Ricochet,

it led off into all kinds of other directions about the other bonds, and we had just an enjoyable chat about this cultural heritage that's lasted 30, 35 years, and what it's meant to us over the decades, etc. And I think we just do in our

sleep. Gary McVeigh, I'm with you on this entirely. Gary McVeigh, I'm with you on this entirely. Gary McVeigh is a treasure. I will read anything he writes at any time on any subject. However, his subject is almost always films and film history. He knows an immense amount. And by contrast with the critic John Simon, who just died last week, he was in the news again. John Simon hated everything about it.

That's right. Everything he ever reviewed. He hated the actors. He hated sets. He reviewed mostly theater. Gary McVeigh loves movies. He loves actors. He loves the business. You get this.

It's a popular medium made to please and entertain people, and he understands that. He writes with knowledge but also real appreciation. I'm just so happy to have him on Ricochet. You're absolutely right. We're happy to have you, you who's listening to this, listening to us. So, go

to Ricochet. Join. You can get access to the member feed which is where a lot of fun stuff happens. Believe me, front page is great. Member feed is just where we are. It's where the community gets built uh rob's already gone but i'll say thank you peter it's been a pleasure as ever and uh thanks to max for filling in for yeti who is sunning himself down in the caribbean grinding my teeth in envy at that

and uh that's all we have it's only 10 minutes to get to your airport, James. You could be in the Caribbean in three hours from this very moment. I could be in Iceland in six hours. Six hours and change from here. But somehow the idea of going to a glacier at this point does not really inspire. It's only the start of winter, good Lord. We have many months to go. And we'll see you here, everybody, as we share those months together at Ricochet.com. Next week, Peter.

Next week, Tim. Aruba, Jamaica Ooh, I wanna take you Formula Bahama Come on, my pretty mama Key Largo Montego

Baby, why don't we go Jamaica, off, Keynes. There's a place called Kokomo. That's where you want to go to get away from it all. Ricochet. Join the conversation. Everybody's in the sand. Drop the cocaine, nothing in your hand. We'll see you next time.