Will Cain Country - Is Rep. Donalds Ready To Be VP? Is Nikki Haley Running With No Labels?

Episode Date: February 27, 2024

Story #1: Could he be the next Vice President of the United States? A conversation with Congressman Byron Donalds (R-FL). Story #2: I don't believe in moderate, left, or right. Why the traditional political spectrum makes no sense in modern America. Story #3: Could former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley jump to a third party run with No Labels after Super Tuesday? A conversation with former South Carolina Congressman and National Director of No Labels, Joe Cunningham.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, could he be the vice president, a conversation with congressman, Byron Donald. Two, I don't believe in moderate. I don't believe in left. I don't believe in right. The traditional political spectrum makes no sense in modern America. And three, could Nikki Haley jump to third party after Super Tuesday? A conversation with no labels, Joe Cunningham. It's the Will Cain Show streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and on the Fox News Facebook page.

Always on demand wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. Hit subscribe to always hear the Will Cain Show. And head over to Will Cain Show on YouTube to get the Will Cain Show on YouTube to get the Will. Wilkins show on demand by hitting Subscribe. I had a conversation this weekend in South Carolina with Congressman Mike Waltz. Mike Waltz, Republican, former Green Beret, an incredibly impressive individual friend here of Fox and Friends and the Will Kane Show. But we had a disagreement on Saturday night after Donald Trump won South Carolina.

And that was about the future of the movement, a populist movement that places America first. I told Congressman Waltz that in looking at the report. Republican presidential primary debate stage, I didn't see a deep bench. I didn't see someone ready to take up the mantle of Trumpism, of America first. Waltz disagreed with me and said he thought there were plenty of people that inspired positivity, the ability to lead forward in a different direction that I think defies traditional definitions of left and right. I wanted to shared this story with you in this context. Over the past six months, I've been doing my best

to talk to as many people in Lahaina Maui as possible. I've been making phone calls. You, the listener of the Will Kane Show, you the viewer of Fox News, you the American, so generously gave us $2.5 million that I promised to put directly into the hands of people affected by those fires in Lahaina. Today, we have distributed something like, $180, $12,000 grants in what will ultimately be over 200 families who lost homes in Lahaina that receive $12,000, again, out of your generosity donating $2.5 million. I try to make personal contact vet as many of these individuals as possible, and what that adds up to is a lot of nights on the phone talking to people, explaining why I'm calling,

hearing their situation. And I just wanted to hear, I wanted to share one story. I wanted to share the story of Dwayne Kobitaki. Dwayne works public works in Maui. He was in the fires that day. He has been, like many of the people involved as first responders that day, connected to churches. He's a man of faith, a deep believer in Jesus Christ, and dealt with, I think, not just the logistical trauma, of losing your home and losing your town, but the psychological trauma of seeing something

completely disappear, your memories, your childhood, your history, over 110 people, and being there directly as you're surrounded by flames. I talked to Dwayne on the phone, and the conversation tends to go in familiar directions. Many of the women I speak to are quickly, you can hear over the phone, reduced to tears. But they all say the same thing. And Dwayne, as a man said something that I hear often, it's so hard to ask for help. It's so hard to be the recipient of someone else's generosity. You want to position yourself in this world to be someone who's there for others,

not someone who's among the others asking for help. And Duane said, and I have heard this more than once, that the biggest eye-opening thing in this entire experience is the generosity of your fellow man, is the generosity of your fellow American. Hawaii's always had a tenuous or somewhat strained relationship with the mainland, with the idea of America, the last state to join the union, a strong independent streak. Hawaiians think of themselves, not unlike Texans, as Hawaiians. It doesn't mean they don't think of themselves as Americans, but they feel thousands of miles, both emotionally and literally, removed from America. But Dwayne said to me something, again, that I have heard. I can't believe the generosity of people that I have never met who don't know me.

I can't believe the generosity of the viewers of Fox News, of the listeners, of the Will Kane Show, of America. And Duane said, this is something I want my children to try to understand. I want them to understand America. Those are direct words. They're not the only time that I've heard them. Duane and I talked a lot about, you know, my life in the summers in Maui. We talked about body surfing on Kanopali Beach.

He said, bra, that's my body surfing break. If I do a little pigeon there, forgive me. He said, it's possible we were in the same. waves. I said, it's possible we were. He said, we might have been in the same barrel. I said, it's possible as we found out we're roughly the same age. I then saw Duane's picture, and he is a giant of a man, tattooed in traditional Hawaiian tattoos. And I said, Dwayne, if we were in the same wave, I promise you, I yielded. I promise you I would have backed out, should there be any competition. I just wanted to share you that story because I want to remember who we are. I

remember that positivity. I want to remember America. And no matter what happens to this movement, no matter where this direction goes, whatever this country may be, if we can find leaders who inspire, if we can find positivity, I think we need a reminder to continue to carry the mantle of who we are as America. I bring that up, that positivity, not just because I think it's important and it's core to who we are, but because we have to continue to look at that going forward. I hope that Michael Waltz is right and that I am wrong. There are, inspirational leaders of positivity ready to put America first to remind us who we are as Americans. And I think today one of my first guests does help represent that positive, inspirational

future for America. Let's start with story number one. He is the congressman from Florida. He is Congressman Byron Donald and he is a friend of the Will Cain Show. And he is rumored, not just rumored. He's listed on the short list. as a candidate for vice president. You ready, Congressman? You ready to be vice president? Yeah, of course. Look, at the beginning,

look, President Trump's going to make that decision. Would I do the job? Of course I would. It's about putting this country in position to be successful. Some people might be like, well, you know, you're a two-term congressman, you know, why you or what makes you think that you could be on that list? One, you know, I have a lot of relationships on Capitol Hill.

And I think having learned the legislative process, both in Florida and in D.C., you gotta have people who know that place to get to move an agenda through it. But number two, and more importantly, I think you gotta have leadership that comes from different walks of life in our country. I'm from the inner city, Brooklyn, New York,

born and raised. You know, a lot of sacrifices in life, worked hard, made something to myself. And then the third part is there's a lot of people in our party who frankly have asked if I'm gonna be on, if I'm gonna be the VP. And I keep saying, look, It's not my call. That's Donald Trump's call. And I'm a support whatever he does. But could I do that job? Yeah, I could. And the reason why is because leadership is the most important thing. And at the core, leadership's really about sound decision making. And if you make sound decisions, you have an ability to lead and get our country into a place that it needs to go. I was listening to your monologue earlier. You know, it's not really about, you know, conservatism per se, although I am very conservative. It's about common sense.

just doing the right things to put our country and really our people in a place to be successful. So, you know, whatever the job is, I'm here for it. I just want to win. I want a great America. Have you had conversations about Vice President with Donald Trump? No, we've not talked about it. And, you know, will we talk about it? Maybe. I guess at some point we might. But right now, it's been focused on the stuff happening on Capitol Hill and then just campaigning for the president to make sure he becomes the 47th president. I get it. There are some people who are probably jockeying for position and all that kind of stuff. Like, I'm not really doing that. I just do my job. It's an ode to Bill Belichick. Just do your job. And that's what I do. And I think it is pretty cool, though, I will say, you know, that people, you know, in our politics, in our party, think that highly of what I've done so far than I think that I could go on a ticket.

You know, you're from Florida, Donald Trump's from Florida. Many have pointed out constitutionally you guys would be barred from a joint. ticket together. I guess theoretically Donald Trump could change his primary residence back to New Jersey. So that is not something, you as a potential candidate for VP, you would have some logistics as a team to work out on the ticket. Yeah, look, I'm not going to tell Donald Trump to move. I'm going to let you do that. Well, you know what, again, if that, if it comes to fruition, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. You know, we have this primary process. got to come to an end, let's get that done. You know, I think, you know, the VP stuff, it'll take care of itself.

I really do believe that. You know, I came, I got, it's not even run for Congress, really to try to help shape politics overall, do great things for my district and put our country in a better position. So, you know, I don't, I'm not a lifer. I don't think I'm going to be around forever. You know, I gave myself 10 years to do this. Now in year three, year four, really in year four now. And I got a shelf life.

I think that politics is not something that you spend your life doing. I think you go for a while, you do your job, and then you go back to normal life. And trust me, as the years go by, sometimes I do think about normal life more and more. What do you want to do after politics? Actually, I would probably go back into finance. I was a finance guy before I got into politics. I'm a securities license, 766. I had a book of business.

I spent 20 years in banking insurance. financial services was my last stop. And, you know, I do miss the business. It's a great business to just to work in. You help people accomplish your dream. So, you know, I probably would end up going back. But, you know, you never know what life has for you in the next step of your journey. So whatever that is, I look forward to it. You could end up on ESPN's first take. You know, you talked about, I know your big thing. Yes, sir. Now we're talking. Let's go. Well, you know, this, okay, this is actually a great transition. You talk about, you know, we need people from different walks of life.

And I know what you're referencing, you know, inner city, Brooklyn, you're black. But there's something that, you know, I've thought about you and I, and maybe it's our mutual love of sports, you just invoke Bill Belichick. But I noticed this when I was at ESPN as well. Like, I'm not looking to get too, like, philosophical about race. But I had this unique relationship with a lot of the guys at ESPN, specifically, well, not exclusively, but specifically the black guys at ESPN. where they came at me with a certain level of skepticism because, you know, I don't want to say my politics, but my my bias, my ideology, my point of view was obvious on first take. And then they would find out, and this is kind of my characterization, Congressman, that I'm just

kind of a dude. I'm just a guy, you know, like I like sports. I like to give each other a hard time. I like to laugh. I like to have fun with one other. I don't take myself too seriously. And I think that's kind of one of the reasons you and I have hit it off to some extent that whether or not you're black and I'm white were both dudes, you know, and as I look across Washington, Congressman, I'm not sure there are a lot of dudes. And I'm using that phrase because it's just kind of like, it's the same thing you would encounter in a locker room. It's the same thing you would encounter in so many different walks of life where it's like, yeah, we could be at a bar. We could be talking sports. We could be over each other's house. We could be having a good time, right?

That doesn't mean there's not differences in our experiences in life. but there is like a common thread. And I'm curious, like, do you see that a lot in D.C.? Because I don't see a lot of dudes in Washington, D.C. I mean, look, I'll put it this way. You know, there's a handful of members I hang out with where, you know, we talk normal life. We don't just talk about what happened on the floor or what's happening with the leadership or anything like that. I think because even us, you know, we need to be able to decompress.

You know, there's a handful of guys. We're going to grab cigars. We'll have drinks. or we'll just hang out and just talk mess, watch games, whatever. And you got to be able to do that, man. I mean, you got to enjoy life. You know, life on Capitol Hill can be stressful. But at the end of the day, we're still people.

And I found, like, even when I was in the state legislature, there was a handful of guys that I just hung out with. And, you know, we always would chop it up. And, you know, you have fun, crack jokes and just be men, even though there's an awesome responsibility, you know, that we have. So I would say what you're saying is accurate. You know, look, there's a lot of different ways to get to Capitol Hill. You know, some people are political lifers, and that's all well and good.

That's just not been my experience. And so, you know, I like to, you know, spend time with guys who are just wanting to have a good time. Who? Who do you chop it up with on Capitol Hill? Oh, man, I hang out with Cory Mills. I hang out with Rich McCormick. Pat Fallon will hang out meet him. I hang out every now and again.

Wesley Hunt, my guy to Texas. You know, we, oh, man, Wesley's a fool. He's a character. So we always have a good time. Mark Green, who's actually going to be leaving us soon. A bunch of us are getting together in a couple of days. We're going to hang out. I mean, there's a bunch of us that just get together periodically,

in spite the schedules and in spite the travel. So here's a relationship I'm curious about. I'm curious about your relationship with Jamal Bowman, Congressman, Democrat, New York. You're originally from New York. So I imagine you and Jamal have some similar life experiences or, you know, I don't know if you grew up the same way, but, you know, grow up in the same town. You have some commonalities. And I saw that video. You may have done it more than once where you and you and Congressman Bowman have been on the front steps of the Capitol, basically

doing an episode of first take over some kind of congressional issue. And I'm kind of curious, like, what is your relationship like with Bowman? You know, actually, it's, you know, it's pretty good. It's a good relationship. We don't see each other too often, but when we cross paths, you know, we say hello, you know, engage a little bit, see what's going on in his world, see, you know, with respect to family, like, man, how's your family doing? How's my family doing? Stuff like that. What happened on the steps was just purely organic because one of the first conversations we had was nothing about politics. It was football. We were talking about the giants at the time. And so, you know,

we were just going back and forth of a football, talking about different teams, how we saw the season going. And so every time we would talk, we would actually not talk politics. One of the things that most people don't understand is that there's not a lot of debating that goes on in Washington. There's actually very few debates in Washington. Everybody just kind of give speeches and they go on about their business. So when you see a member and you engage, you end up talking about something that you find common ground on. For us, it was football. So then when I got down to the state, we would argue like, you know, you argued like you argue in a barbershop.

So we're arguing over football like that. And then when they came to the Capitol steps, because we had already engaged in that kind of, in that back and forth before, then the cameras just got to see it. But it was about politics. And it was about, I think it was about the time it was about President Trump and Joe Biden. And he was like, what about Ron DeSantis? And I was just like, yeah, come on, man. Everybody knows that Ron DeSantis is better than Joe Biden. You know that.

Almost like how it's in the barbershop, we have that conversation about who's better, you know, Michael or Kobe or LeBron or who's the better quarterback, Peyton. or Tom Brady or now you've got to put in Patrick Mahomes. I mean, this guy's phenomenal. But those are the conversations we would have behind the scenes, and, you know, it's spelled out for the cameras to see. Is he any good on football? Does he know what he's talking about when it comes to the Giants? No, I mean, like football and politics,

he doesn't know what he's talking about, but that's okay. It's my job to educate him. Did you educate him on fire alarms? Did you teach him when and where you can pull a fire alarm? I stayed away from the fire alarm stuff. So, you know, he talked to me about it briefly, and I just looked at him, and I'm like, come on, dude, really? Like, bro, come on.

And I just left it at that. Well, you know what's funny. And we just moved on. I saw that. I saw that. And again, like, you know, it's, it. How did you say this? Like, I'm not, I can't say, hey, I know black culture.

But, like, I've kind of been surrounded by black culture much of my life. I'm from a small town in Texas. At the time I was growing up, it was white and black. Now it's like every other town in Texas and across most of America, heavily Latino. know. But spent years obviously in New York. My kids went to school in Harlem. I worked at ESPN. And I think a lot of people might have seen that interaction with you and Jamal. I've been like, wow, that's tense. And I actually saw it and I was like, I think these two dudes might like each other. Like they're enjoying this debate right here on the steps of Capitol Hill.

Oh, no, we did. That's the funny part. Everybody, people who don't know or if you never really seen an encounter where, you know, you have men just go back and argue. And the best way to explain it is the barbershop. Because in the barbershop, conversations, they get intense, but it's always in good fun. And everybody knows when it crosses that live because you can see it's a different look. Like, there's no more smiles. You know, there's no more loud talk. Things tend to actually get a lot quieter and they get more direct. I'm just being honest.

Things get quiet and they don't get louder. But, you know, between he and I, it was just, you know, that's just how guys get down in the barbershop. And that's how we argue. You know, I think, you know, I think as LeBron has that. show on HBO, where they're sitting in the barbers chairs and they get into those debates. And sometimes they get a little rowdy. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes somebody's trying to explain a key point. I think those are really, that's really how men typically engage. And so it's just different when the cameras see it. Because I think, especially with, you know,

with the political press, they're accustomed to everybody coming out and be like, I want to talk about what my good friend from New York said. And I don't, we don't talk that way in real life. In real life, we get after it. And I think it's important for people. Oh, they're not dudes. I understand that you can have those arguments of disagreements or whatever and it still be respectful towards one another. Yeah, well, they're not dudes. That's the thing.

Like, you know, when Chuck Schumer comes out and does his thing, I mean, I'm pretty clear. He's not a dude. We're going to come back to the barbershop in just a minute. I want you to talk to me about this week. Okay. There is today, Mike Johnson, Speaker Mike Johnson, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Joe Biden, are all meeting. They're attempting to work out some kind of funding resolution.

to keep a partial government shut down from happening. There's talks over Ukraine, there's Republicans have held, many Republicans have held firm on the inclusion of some type of security for the border. What I'd love to hear from you is Speaker Johnson's going to have a, he's got a real challenge here because he's got to somehow find a win for both Republicans, I think like yourself, who necessitate something significant at the border. at the same time working with Democrats to keep the government funded. So I would ask you this.

Describe for me a win. Border security is the only win, Will. I just got to tell you. What's happening, we're going to be around 10 million entrants encounters at the southern border. That's crazy. That's just pure insanity. The major cities can't handle it.

And so, you know, my advice to the speaker is make sure you have 218 Republicans for whatever deal you negotiate. Because if that, if you have 218 Republicans in the House, that means you're going to have a good deal that can secure the border. And I'm a realist on this matter right now. The government's going to get funded at some point. If you were going to ask me what matters more right now, $20 billion in additional government spending or securing the southern border to stop another two to three people from coming into the country this year, I would say it's securing the border over the $20 billion. It's not even close. We know we have a massive spending problem. We've got to fix it. The Democrats don't want to do that. But you can't take in this amount of people into your cities, into your towns, into your states, and not have major repercussions down the line. And I think you're already starting to see it.

Describe for me the win on securing the border. What could you get from the Biden administration and from Democrats? It would be a win for our southern border. Remain in Mexico, ending parole and catch and release. I think those would be two. major wins. There's other things you could do around family separation, stuff like that. And I think it's important for people to understand that right now, the Biden administration does not do DNA testing at the border when children come across with a adult that they say is the family member. There is no DNA testing. So nobody knows that that's truly the family or not. The cartels and the coyotes know as long as they send an adult over with a child, the child will get in and the adult to get in, regardless of the adult is actually the parent. I mean, that's just crazy to me,

but this is what happens in Biden's America. So I think you have to re-institute that. The other thing is we have to put in place where if you want to apply for asylum, don't apply for it at our southern border, apply for it either in Mexico or at the U.S. Embassy in your country or the next closest country. Don't give the coyotes and the cartels $10,000 to $80,000 to be shipped into the United States, we have to shut all of that down. So I think that's a win. Now, Democrats would say that's that's inhumane, but my counter to that is the only thing that's inhumane is knowing that young girls are being sold into sex slavery and knowing that there are migrants who are dying in the back of tractor trailers because it's too hot because there's no air condition in them

and they're dying of heat exhaustion. Like that's inhumane as far as I'm concerned. But look, You have a situation where the radical Democrats in our country, they've been wanting this policy, will. This is the policy they've always wanted. They've always wanted massive open borders. Now they got it. And my concern is that the American people are seeing now how terrible of a policy this is. And it's not going to work out for our country. Why do they want massive open borders?

Because I think in their view that the United States is the one opportunity for a lot of people to be successful. And I do agree with that. It's a great opportunity for people to be successful. And they view that having borders and restricting immigration is not in the best interest of people. But my concern as a member of Congress and even as a citizen is not about what everybody in the world wants. It's about what's best for the United States of America.

Look, to simplify it, man, everybody in their life, if you're a dude, you've thrown a great party. You've had a great party at your house. Everybody comes over. people are calling you, be like, hey, I didn't get an invite. And you're like, oh, man, I'm so sorry. Things were busy. Come on by. Here's the address. Come through. But at some point, the party's over. And you can't stay. You know, when I was in college, they would say, you ain't got to go home, but you can't stay here. And that's the situation in the country as well. You can come to our

country, work hard, make something of yourself, but you can't, you got to come the right way. You can't just try to just, you know, to jump into a party you weren't invited to, and then think you can stay just because you walked in the door. That's not right. And if that's how we deal with our own homes and our own property, we should deal that way as a nation. But the Democrats don't feel that way. They have been wanting this open border strategy for a very long time. They feel that no nation should have borders, that people should be able to move freely in order to just make the best of themselves. But the reality is that you have to maintain the order of a country. Because if you don't do that, you don't have order. If you don't have order, you can't have a strong

economy. If you can't have a strong economy, people in your own country suffer. And that's to the detriment of the American people. That's why I'll never support it. Yeah, I think that's right. At the end of the rainbow, it's a lack of a belief in the nation state or the virtuousness of the nation state and some empathy-driven idea that, you know, you've got to have open arms to anyone who is in need. That's actually, I think the philosophical end of the rainbow, I think it's also generous, because I do think there's some strategic stuff at play as well over the short term when it comes to changing the electorate. You know, when you brought up DNA testing and you brought up asylum, the case in Georgia is an illustration of both of those where the

illegal immigrant killed that woman at the University of Georgia, because from what we know, I believe he had a marriage of convenience to avail himself of the asylum laws. I don't know if a child. He came over with a woman. They had a child with them. I don't know genetically if it is his child, but they claim family status, which helps their asylum claim. And you see right there that that's a case where your potential solutions very probably could have had a positive impact that averted the murder of a young woman in Georgia. Now, the question is, I think, Congressman, if you got all that, and I think all of that is unlikely because, well, there's, a Democrat Senate and there's a Democrat president. But if you got all that, do you think Republicans,

could you get those Republican votes? Could Speaker Johnson get that if the price was $61 billion for Ukraine? I think the better way to say it is that you would get the votes on the floor. There are members of our conference who are not going to vote for Ukraine funding. It's not the majority of our conference. It is a minority of the conference, but they just won't vote for it. But I think that if you had border secured, even though they wouldn't vote for Ukraine funding, they wouldn't be, they would be less, I guess, upset about Ukraine getting money for its border while America remains unsecured. I think that package can definitely pass on the House floor if the elements of border security are there. But this is why Speaker Johnson's comments to the president have been very clear

and they are morally correct. You have to secure our nation first before we're going to secure another nation that just makes sense and so i think that you get the border package done um i think if that border package as i described got done you would see the vast majority of republicans vote for aid for ukraine along with democrats and that money will go through i don't think the 61 billion is needed i think they probably need about 34 35 billion most of that going towards lethal aid the rest of it is like humanitarian costs and so on and so forth and i'm not sure there are enough votes on Capitol hill that want to continue to be in that business because we've seen that money actually not get into the hands of the people who needed the best. That money is siphoned off into other apparatuses that I don't think it's in our interest to be funding anyway.

Okay. So I had you describe a win. Now I'm going to ask you what's going to happen with this debate over funding? What I think is going to happen is that there's probably going to be some short-term kicker continuing resolution for a week or two. I think there's going to be probably two appropriation bills. We call them a minibus and a megabus, or there'll probably be three mini-buses. And what I mean by that is that they'll put two or three of the appropriation bills together in a package, and that now creates a mini-buss. If you put eight or nine of them together in another package, that's a megabus. The thing that nobody wants to see on our side is an omnibus package means you put all the spending into one bill. And the reason why nobody wants to see that is because typically what happens when it's all in the bus package.

in one bill, that means somebody in the leadership in the four corners stuck stuff, put stuff in that bill that nobody will find out about until after it's already signed into law. And that's how you get some of these stupid programs that get funded that end up pissing people off because they got jammed all together in one bill and nobody had a chance to read it, review it, object to it. Even staff members miss these things. But somebody stuck stuff in there because they knew they couldn't get it passed on its own in a stand-alone vote. So that's what I think is going to happen.

I think you're going to see two or three appropriation bills that will follow a continuing resolution. All right, back to the barbershop. The best player in the NBA is undoubtedly without debate, Nicola Yokich. Today, in the NBA? Today. Man, I got to give it to Yoke, man.

He's the final. MVP, two-time MVP. I mean, look, it's right now it's between Yoke and M. Bid, but M. B. gets hurt too much. And I love M. B., but he gets hurt too much. And Yoke, man, the Joker, man, this guy's, he doesn't jump. If you were starting a franchise today, I know, he doesn't hardly run. If you were starting a franchise today, you would rather have, I mean, I'm a homer, but I'm also right. You would rather have Joel Mbid than Luca Dantzich. Give me Luca Dantzich. Actually, if I was starting today, give me Anthony Edwards.

That boy, he's special. Yes. Anthony Edward? Oh, he is special. Here's my problem with Luca. Luca's phenomenal. I'm not sure how many years I'm going to get out of Luca. That concerns me.

What do you mean? It concerns me. Physically? Yeah. It's really about his physical nature. I mean, Luca, I mean, he's a big boy now. But as he gets older, he's going to have to be able to keep, you know, keep his weight under control because it's only going to hurt his athleticism.

I mean, his game isn't an athletic game, but it will hurt him in terms of staying healthy. That's my only concern about Luca. But Anthony Edwards, oh, man, this guy, you're a rare athletic specimen like him. Vision doesn't age. A brain only gets better. And that's Lucas superpower, seeing angles, seeing passes, seeing the floor, controlling it not just with your speed, but with how slow you can go as well, I have no concerns at age 40,

Luca will be LeBron James. No, I totally disagree with you. Luca gets hurt now. You don't get, listen, he's on another network. Shannon Sharps says it better than anybody. You don't get healthy or playing professional sports. You just don't. You get nicked up as you age.

It happens to everybody. Well, I mean, you know, we're not in our 20s anymore, but I know every once in a while you get up. and your back is just bothering you for no reason at all that you just slept different. You know, it just, it happens. So my concern for Luca is, LeBron is the best athlete I've ever seen play any sport anywhere. And he takes care of his body.

You cannot confuse LeBron James and Luca Donchick in terms of care and concern for their body and their athleticism. I'm sorry, you just can't make that. Everybody's doubted him that this, everybody's doubted him through this point. I mean, I can't believe. It's like people just give me gold. You know, they just leave it on the side of the road, and I pick it up, you know, like, I'm the one that said Stephen A, your boy Shannon, which, by the way, if you invoke Shannon Sharp on a basketball debate, you're usually losing. And, you know, you're just leaving gold on the side of the road for me when it comes to Luca.

I love Luca, I do. Love Luca. We should have you on, on Fridays, it's the Will Kane Show's sports exclusive podcast. And then we just do sports for one hour, you and me. Listen, count me in. We could do that. Listen, I got to tell you, man, I love talking sports. I don't get to do it much. Love sports, you know, love football.

I was telling a couple of my friends. I was like, man, the Chiefs going to win this Super Bowl. They're like, no, no, they're not. San Francisco got the better team. And I said, they do. But Patrick Mahomes is different. Different caliber. Different guy.

That's right. Different level. Patrick Mahomes. Congress and Byron Donald's, I mean it. I'll always tell you when I think you're wrong, but I think you represent one of the potentials. for inspiration and a positive vision for this movement moving forward. So I appreciate you and I appreciate you being on The Will Kane Show.

All right, listen, thanks, well, thanks for me on. Take it easy. All right. Take care. You heard Congressman Donald say, it's not left, it's not right, it's common sense. I no longer can really believe in the idea of left or right, and therefore I can't believe in the idea of moderate. I've had several conversations with friends over the last couple of weeks, mostly at home here in Dallas, about the idea of extremity. and I no longer understand where to contextualize that. I feel like everyone's speaking a different language

because in modern America, I don't see a political spectrum that is a straight line between left and right. And if that's the case, how do you position yourself as a quote-unquote moderate? Let's dive into that next on the Will Cain Show. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle,

along with all your Brett Bear favorites, like his All-Star panel and much more. Available now at foxnewspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do.

Take the quiz every day at the quiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. jump third party. Could she be the candidate for no labels? A conversation with no labels Joe Cunningham coming up in just moments here on the Will Cain show, streaming live at foxnews.com and on the Fox News YouTube channel, Fox News Facebook page. I've always promised and felt almost an instinctual pull to be nothing but absolutely real with you. Extreme authenticity. Hide nothing.

You know, when I do the Will Kane show, there's nothing on the other side of this camera. There's no teleprompter. It's black. Right over here, I've got a return where I can see myself and the guest talking. I don't read anything that I share with you. That doesn't mean I don't prepare. I don't think about it. When I do, for example, when I do an interview, I bullet point out different topics I want to hit with a guest.

but I follow my curiosity within the conversation and use those bullet points as sort of road markers to come back to within the conversation. When I do a monologue, I often, I think as I started to learn when I was in law school at the University of Texas, outline bullet point, different things that I want to cover. I write them down in a legal pad. I often make bullet points here, and the truth is after I write it down, I rarely have to look at it. There's something about the process of outlining or bullet pointing that puts it in to my memory. I tell you all this because when it comes to what I want to talk about now, I have no outline. I have no bullet points. And honestly, I don't even know that I have a coherent thought. I have, I just want to sound it out with you.

And I think I'm trying to sound it out with myself in real time, overtime. I've had a lot of conversations recently with friends. And, you know, if I'm being real most, not all of my friends in Texas are conservative when I lived in New York for 15 years most but not all of my friends were progressive but almost everybody whether or not they consider themselves a progressive or conservative strives from some idea of moderation they talk about the extremes extreme right the extreme left and I think instead of being able to define their own thoughts what they are capable of doing is define what is not their thoughts. it's always easier for people to say what they're not than to say what they are because what

you are is a blank slate you're confronted with an open-ended question you're not provided a multiple choice it's not a true or false now American politics throughout its history has offered you true or false they've offered you a bipolar spectrum of political ideologies in a straight line from left to right. And most people would see that spectrum and choose their quote unquote team and define themselves somewhere short of the poll of the far left or the far right. And in that, I think you hear people begin to say things like can't we just find somebody moderate can't we just find somebody somewhat center someone center right someone center left someone common sense and when i've had these conversations

recently with my friends in dallas who all would self-describe as conservative i feel at times like they're speaking a different language i almost feel like i'm incapable of participating in the conversation because i don't know what any of the terms mean anymore my entire framework not just for politics, but for life, has been somewhat scrambled over the past, I'd say, decade. I certainly would have been someone throughout my 20s and 30s who would have seen myself on that political spectrum. I would have said, you know, here is, for example, my ideology, and it would have been driven by my view of the Constitution, and it would have been driven by what I think is a fidelity to logic and objective truth. but what has happened over the last eight to ten years is any coherence in that spectrum I feel like was absolutely put into a blender look at this point the left is defined by

issues such as a full embrace of censorship government backdoor private corporation government mandated censorship, the open rejection of debate, and the tar and feathering of disagreement as misinformation. The left is far now removed from any fidelity to free speech. The left is for open borders, and the left is for a liberalization when it comes to laws on crime. But at the same time, the left is now much more active globally, militarily. and seeing apparently now America as the defender of global democracy.

On the other hand, the right also shares much of the right, that same globalist protector of democracy ideology. So how are they polar opposites? Far right 15 years ago would have been defined by George W. Bush launching wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And far left would have defined itself in that true or false as other, you know, doveish, skeptical of foreign military involvement. Now they're the same. There is no doubt that, you know, there are some on the right, as we've, I think, learned from and in some cases leaned into populism who have veered towards pandering, telling you what you want to hear. And so I don't know anymore, like how you define yourself as a centrist. I don't know anymore how you could possibly stake out a position

that could be reasonably described as moderate. There are people throughout time who said it's not a polar line, it's not linear, it's more circular. And at the top, communism and fascism meet and very similar. And I think there's something to that. But I still don't think the way that we talk to each other culturally, the issues that are presented to us, I don't know where the lack of ability to define a man and a woman fits within any political. spectrum. And I feel like we've been put into a blender where there is no such thing as moderate. And I can't launch into that spiel when I tell someone, well, that's why I don't see much difference between Nikki Haley and Joe Biden. It's why I can't have a, you know, a clean

conversation about why Donald Trump doesn't represent in my mind anything beyond stylistically far right. Like, what does that mean? What is far right? Trade fairness instead of free trade skepticism towards military involvement globally are these now staked out positions of what someone would be considered far right explain to me anymore you know the context and the truth is it never was a context it was all it was all um wrapping paper designed to present us with i think truly a false

either or discussion true or false a or b It was never real. It always just made it easy so that we could define what we are not and never have to confront what we are. I know this. Here's what I am. I believe in the maximization of freedom. I believe in a culture that is grounded in a moral and historically in standing the test of tradition and time, Judeo-Christian ethic. I believe in the United States is a risk-tolerant nation built on frontiersmen.

I in entrepreneurs and I believe that when we set our hierarchy of priorities we should always start with what serves America first now you define that you tell me what that's not you tell me how that fits on that spectrum and I guess then I'll be able to tell you what I am I'm not left am I right I'm not moderate am I America first and I don't think I'm alone in this frustration I don't think I'm alone in seeing the world isn't and probably never was the way it has been presented in culture and in politics in America. So with that, how do you mount a presidential campaign that describes itself as centrist or moderate? How do they fit into that scrambling dynamic of America? We'll ask in just moments, the leader of no labels Joe Cunningham, and whether or not they will recruit Nikki Hayley,

after Super Tuesday, next on the Will Cain Show. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me, Kennedy. Make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week. Download and listen at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. You know, I was listening to the Rosillo podcast, my old friend from ESPN, Ryan Rosillo,

and his producer, Steve Serrudi, who was my producer at the Will Kane Show on ESPN. They discussed whether or not I ever be able to be a guest on the Rosillo Pod under the Ringer and Spotify. And they said some very nice things, and they are both friends. I think a lot of them both, and they are important relationships. But in that conversation where they discussed whether they could actually pull it off, having me on the Rassilopod, I was casually described as, you know, pretty far right. That's picking up, you know, on the conversation. just had us. What does that mean anymore? I don't even know what that means whether or not I am

far right. Let's figure it out because it also helps contextualize what the role of a third party is and whether or not there's such thing as moderation coming up right here on the Will Cain Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel. Also on the Fox News Facebook page and on demand at Apple, Spotify or Fox News podcast, hit subscribe. Go find Will Cain show on YouTube. You can get past episodes. Share them with your friends. Hit subscribe. He is no labels Joe Cunningham. He's a former Democratic congressman from South Carolina. He was this weekend on Fox and Friends.

Joe, we made some news. Some of our conversation made its way around the media where you told me that you would be happy. You would be, I don't know that you used the word thrilled, but you would be happy to welcome Nikki Haley to no labels. And I blame you, Will, for that news spreading like wildfire. It was great to be on with you. Great to see you this weekend in South Carolina. I hope you come back soon. I mean, look, you know, we've been asked that.

The truth is we've been talking to a lot of spectacular candidates. And as I mentioned, you know, this past Sunday, you know, we're looking for somebody with broad cross appeal. And, you know, just to back up, give people an idea as to who we are, we're online, nolabels.org. And we started this project to give Americans another voice. And like I said, on Sunday, another choice. People are generally dissatisfied with this. It looks like the inevitable matchup, rematch between Trump and Biden. And so we'd be looking to give them another option.

And I think it has to be a contrast between what they're being offered right now. You know, I appreciate you backing up, Joe. This isn't designed to be a campaign ad. I'm not necessarily, obviously, promoting no labels. I seek understanding. And I told you this weekend, hey, I want to have a deeper conversation with you, a longer conversation than the three or four minutes we get together on Fox and France, which you very graciously drove an hour and 45 minutes from Charleston to Columbia to give us those four minutes. I hope it was worth it. And now I'm excited to go a little deeper with you.

But, you know, I do not want to take for granted that people know no labels. Give us a little bit, Joe, no labels have been around a little bit. there's a little bit of history to it. Give us that background of no labels. Yeah, so it's a 501 C4, and it was started, you know, over a dozen years ago. And the reason it was started was to create a space in Congress for Democrats and Republicans to meet and hopefully try to bridge this partisan divide. I ran for Congress in 2018 here in South Carolina's first congressional district, which was held by Mark Sanford, and heavily gerrymandered Republican. seat, no one expected me to win.

And I remember somebody on the campaign trail mentioning this caucus, the problem solvers caucus, which no labels helped create, the one I'm talking about. And I said, yeah, I'll take a look at it, you know, when I get up there. When I got to D.C. and I swore in, there's a, you know, a hundred different caucuses, right? I found this one, the problem solvers caucus, to be the only one up there where Democrats and Republicans regularly meet in a room every single week. These are the moderates, you know, these are Republicans who are Republicans who, who won in Democratic districts and Democrats who want a Republican.

And they meet every week to talk about ideas, whether it be like the news of the day, whether it be the border, the budget. When I was there, it was COVID, but it also gives people an opportunity, Democrats and Republicans to look across the aisle for a co-sponsor of a bill they're wanting to introduce, to make it bipartisan, to show people they can work together. That has always been the bread and butter of the group. You see our leaders now, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Congressman from Pennsylvania, Republican, Democrat, Jared Golden, Democrat from Maine,

working together to present a bipartisan bill to secure our border, provide funding for Ukraine and Israel. So you see them stepping up in ways to provide bipartisan solutions. So that's always been the bread and butter of this group. Now, about a year and a half ago, no label started assessing, Like, what's going to happen if it's a Biden-Trump rematch? And how's America feel about it? And would they be, would they entertain another option, like a bipartisan ticket? And so we did an extensive amount of modeling and polling to find that, yes, Americans would be open to this, unlike any other time in recent history.

And I understand the skepticism that comes along with, you know, a third ticket or a third party, that type of discussion. I understand America's history with it, right? I also understand that we're in a very unique time that, Will, you and I have never seen before in this country, where Americans are so dissatisfied. And I don't know about you, I see it a lot within Democrats that are simply just not excited about this upcoming election. So I want to get into 2024 with you, but tell me this, you know, it's public and we can look it up together. it's a 501c3. Who is funding no labels? Who is the major financial muscle behind making this a presidential ticket? I've gone through it, Joe. There's a lot of big names when it comes to finance. So talk to you about who's backing no labels. Yeah, so no labels, it's a 501C4,

and the truth that's underlaw, we're not required to disclose our supporters. And we honor that. We honor their privacy. And we'll, just to kind of take one step back, Our role right now is gaining ballot access, you know, to secure ballot as many states as we can and offer that ballot line to a ticket. Now, once there's a ticket, once there's a campaign, and here's the distinction that people need to understand is that once a campaign is set up, a super PAC is up and running, those donors, those supporters should be disclosed. And they will be in accordance with law. However, this goes back to a case called UD-O-8 versus FEC. This whole, you know, something similar was done in 2008, where a court rule that, yes, you can secure ballot access

without having to reveal supporters and donors so long as you're not advocating for or against a specific candidate. And that case itself kind of was predicated by a United States Supreme Court case Alabama versus the NWACP. And then I'll give you a chance to ask a follow-up question. But that case itself was based upon the state of Alabama trying to get the NWACP nonprofit to release its supporters, its members.

And we know that was in an effort to discriminate against them, prevent them from obtaining state jobs or otherwise. So it has a long history. and this is pretty much settled case law. And I'll add one more thing, too. The folks who are trying to prevent our access to the ballot have said openly that they want to go after any potential candidates. They want to go after our supporters.

They want to discourage and attack folks and try to undermine that support. So that lends itself to a reluctance to violate the privacy of those supporters. All right. Well, I know that's a mouthful, but I want to give you the full point. picture since we had some time to break it down. Well, and it's also part of the conversation I want to have with you today. So your 501C4, correction for me, your 501C4, I did see this past weekend.

I'm not pulling it up. By the way, I'm not scrolling sports scores when I look at my phone and I'm talking to you. I'm trying to pull up something that I want to ask you about. You know, I did manage to see a list of donors to know labels. I believe this past weekend, I don't have it in front of me. I couldn't look it up in time, but I do happen to see what you're talking. about wherein the headline from the Associated Press, U.S. News and World Report, who are no labels donors? Democratic groups file complaints in an attempt to find out.

Subhead, two Democratic-aligned groups this week have filed campaign finance complaints against no labels. So they want to know who's funding this. They want to know who's behind it. I understand. I think you make a very, I think you make what should be for anyone watching or listening, a serious argument to understand about if those donors are revealed right now, they will be the subject of serious political attack. And you don't have to trust me, and I don't think you have to trust Joe Cunningham. It's been reported, Joe, your side. And, you know, I'm using your side, because you referred to it when we were talking this weekend as your side on air, has gone after, meaning the left, meaning Democrats, has gone after no labels or

threatened no labels in some pretty shocking ways, including a report from semaphore, that you guys received a letter saying, hey, there will be no Jill Stein this year. And if you have, forget skeletons, if you have a fingernail in your closet, prepare for investigations and attacks. And that's coming at you, Joe, from your party or former party. That's coming at you from Democrats. Yeah, it's, it's been, I mentioned this on our show. it's been incredibly disappointing, you know, and again, in speaking, I always believe Democrats to hold the high ground as it relates to ballot access, voting rights, things like that. But when you hear stories like, such as the one that came out this weekend about that robocall

for Biden, you know, these tactics, which I thought kind of sense was similar to the efforts by a Democratic operative to hijack our no labels website and turn it. into a false website and mislead our supporters. I told you I was up in federal court in Delaware where a judge ruled in our favor. And we continue to go to court because of partisan groups trying to block our access to the ballot. I cannot think of anything more anti-democratic than trying to block somebody's access to the ballot. And I'll speak for a second about my good friend, Dean Phillips, who's experienced this firsthand, running in the Democratic primary,

access being blocked in Florida, in North Carolina, in Tennessee, and in other states. Yes, this whole notion that's being put forth by the far left that, you know, this justification that some are trying to make that in order to save democracy, we must first destroy it. I fundamentally disagree with it. I come from, you know, look, I think Democrats should, instead of trying to suppress access to the ballot, get out there and make your case on why people should vote. I think Republicans should do the same.

And I speak about Democrats, but I also see culpability on the right as well. You know, we also saw the RNC trying to pull the plug on the presidential campaign with Trump early. So I say that to say that there's enough, you know, dysfunction. Well, Joe, I mean, let's be fair. I want to be fair, and I want you to be fair, and we just got to actually describe reality. The RNC, seeing that the inevitable winner of the Republican primary is Donald Trump is hardly the same is what's going on right now. And I just, meaning from the left, and you're only part of the story, by the way. The threats and attacks on the labels are only part of the story, restricting ballot access for Donald Trump, as you just mentioned, like going after Dean Phillips.

I mean, quite honestly, we did see some of this in the past with Bernie Sanders. And the justification is what you said. We got to save democracy. So anything that gets in the way of Democrats is a threat to democracy. And that now includes you. I mean, we're going to get to 2024 and talk about who. But let's just let's say it had been Joe Manchin as your candidate. I mean, reap the whirlwind, Joe.

Reap the whirlwind, no labels. You're going to be attacked. And I have to ask you, man, what does that tell you? Like, you were a Democrat. What does that tell you about the state of democracy and Democrats? Well, it's disappointing. You know, I marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge with John Lewis his final time. You know, again, I served in Congress and I supported a large number of voting rights measures.

And to see – and look, Will, like, I could go down the list of these lawsuits that have been filed frivolous lawsuits against us to block or access to the ballot, whether it be in Arizona, in Delaware, in Kansas. I mean, and we challenge them, and we win. and we're continuing to win. It's interesting that, you know, a lawsuit would be filed. I like the ones you mentioned earlier, the IRS, the FEC, but few media outlets follow up and say, oh, here's the conclusion to that. No labels won that lawsuit, and they won the appeal,

and we're going to continue to win, because once you get into the court of law, we have a constitutional right to do what we're doing. And while it may not be accepted by partisan groups, we're simply exercising our constitutional and it's not about no labels winning as I mentioned on Sunday like 75% of the country

are not excited about this rematch and they want another option and we're fighting like hell to give it to them that's all we're doing we're not advocating for against particular candidate once a candidate if we're winning a candidate is announced will and these attacks can continue

and that may be politics as usual once you have a name candidate it can be that's running a campaign I don't like a lot of the tactics, but that's different than accessing the ballot and what we're doing. And I don't want to deep tease the audience, but you and I are going to talk about 2024. We are going to talk about Nikki Haley and the role of no labels in 2024. But I just here's the thing, Joe, and I'm just having an honest conversation with you. And I don't know if you heard any of what I had to say before you came on.

And, you know, I look at you, okay, and I take nothing away from your experience. and you have a level of involvement and experience on Capitol Hill that I don't understand. But I see this like, okay, everything sensible is described as bipartisan. Everything moderate is described as something that is between two polls described as partisan. And I'm having trouble with it. I'm just having trouble with this sort of like framework, okay? And I think this is part of what I'm getting at here when you see Democrats going after you so hard and, you know, subverting democracy to save democracy. You said it earlier.

Hey, this has never been more weird or nor – I can't remember the words you use. But, you know, where we sit today has never been more tenuous or chaotic in American politics. What that's done for me, Joe, is it's made me think, well, I don't have a coherent framework of left and right in which to understand what's happening in America. America. And so when you come to me and say I was on Capitol Hill and Joe Cunningham says, Will, we want you to come into the problem solvers caucus. I'm like, hey, I want to solve problems, you know, and I don't mind talking to people that I disagree with. I like that idea. Let's see what we can find. But if you come to me in the way that I feel like no labels is positioned of we want to be moderate, we want to be centrist, we want to be bipartisan, and even the names that are talked

about, Mansion, Haley, Romney, what I hear and why I don't see a place for you right now is I don't see how you fit into the framework of America in 2023. I see how you fit into the framework in 2005. I could see how you are somewhere between George W. Bush and John Kerry, you know, or something like that. But how do you fit into a framework beyond just personality? And we know that Donald Trump's personality is polarizing. And we know that Joe Biden's incompetence associated to his age is polarizing. But how do you help me beyond, like, I'm going to pick somebody who's very Washington, D.C., always been Washington, D.C., and sell it to you with the niceties of moderation.

Yeah. No, that's a great question, Will. I guess I'd ask you, and I ask a lot of people this, do you think Washington, D.C. is a reflection of the American public or vice versa? I think it should be vice versa, obviously. It should be that the Washington, D.C. is a reflection of the American public. I think it's increasingly less the case, to your point, and I don't think it even has a desire to represent much of America.

So personally, this is Joe Cunning of him speaking here. Personally, I get hung up on the disconnect between Washington, D.C. and American. You know, and I'll take Democrats, for example, on the Democratic Party, how 80% of Democrats believe that Joe Biden shouldn't run for reelection. You and I talked about this this weekend. I said that publicly a year and a half ago when I was running for a governor and took a lot of blowback. Now more people are saying this, but not as many people in elected office. When you compare the number of people in Congress who will say that openly, you can probably count on one finger, Dean Phillips, and he's running for president.

So there's that obvious disconnect. So the circling back and closing a loop on your question, where is it? spot for this. I believe that somewhat in the middle is where most Americans are. And we put out this book called Common Sense where we talk about different policies. And we talk about how both parties may go to the extreme of a certain issue. And where most Americans are on these, you know, hot button issues like gun safety or like women's access to, you know, their own reproductive health, their control over it. And we found out that there is a lot of agreement, somewhat in center.

So that's substance. Now, style is something different, too, Will. We see, you know, you live this more than I do because, you know, you're in that realm of media. But you know that the people who say the most outrageous and outlandish things, often they're the ones who get the news. They're often the ones who get the retweets. They're often the ones who raise money off of it. I think at no labels, think what we've tried to do is,

tone down the divisive rhetoric and if there's a disagreement leave it at that particular subject but and then hopefully move on to work on something else um so so so we talk about like where your spot is where your role is yeah um yeah i think the the problem solvers caucus has had a lot of victories i look i was up there for two years i had two bills signed in the law by trump i was able to do that because I was working through a channel that brought Democrats and Republicans together. Now, take any accomplishments or take any type of that work aside, I think you and I can probably both agree on having a space or a forum where you have people from opposite ends of the political spectrum

or at least different parties sitting down and speaking to each other is probably advantage of our democracy. I do agree with that. I do agree with that. I will tell you that rhetoric is one of my least, like if you ranked my priorities, it's it's i understand that rhetoric can inflame the american public at a grassroots level i'm not sure that's actually in our top five concerns maybe not our top 10 concerns um i want to try something with you really quick um okay let me go through a couple of things and i want

do it quick with you and you just kind of give me a thumbs up a thumbs down yes or no you think it's too complicated say that one that one's going to take too much time like for example like guns like you brought up guns i think that issue is um is is is so infused with ignorance, that it's impossible to figure out where the middle is on it. Like, I just think it's a hugely ignorant issue for most people that are polled. But I'm going to give you a couple of things. Okay, better yet, I'm just going to describe a platform. And you tell me, what about a platform that committed to securing the American southern border?

My suspicion would be that would get a strong consensus support among the American people. A platform that said, hey, we need to be skeptical in trade. This is anti-the-Republican platforms from, say, 2012. We need to be somewhat skeptical of the effect of free trade on American jobs and have a little bit more of a protectionist mindset when it comes to, say, China or whatever it may be, and see if we can keep jobs in Pennsylvania. That might have been said in 2012 by Barack Obama now. I don't know.

So I feel like I'm trying to give on both sides here on something that I think gives consensus. Certainly, if we were around the clock 10, 15 years ago, it'd have been like, hey, should we be going into Iraq? Should we be going and staying in Afghanistan? we'd be going into Ukraine, you know, this would have been something, I think, where there's actually maybe some consensus to be found in America. I think that on the cultural stuff, I think it's overwhelming, it's not a consensus, like on, you know, girls and boys' sports or boys and girls' sports and transgender issues. I think on abortion, you know, it's clear that the American

public doesn't want extremely restrictive, democratically elected abortion laws. So what I'm getting that is I'm describing a platform for you, Joe. And I would be surprised, I'm going to let you push back on it, if you think that platform is divisive. If you think that platform is far right. And what I wonder is, that is basically the platform of Donald Trump? And so is the entire response just to the person instead of the platform? Is it style over substance? Well, we see, you know, we've done a lot of polling.

And what we find is, you know, to your point, and I guess it's a different way of saying it. is that a lot of people in the country, especially in the Republican Party, and even a share of independence, would say they like Trump policies, but not Trump. And so that would lend credibility to what you just said. A lot of people do have a problem with style. A lot of people. hopefully he catches up here in just one moment because we've got to talk about 2024 and no labels today see if you can get Joe back connected we got to get a few more things we've got to get some specifics about no labels here I don't think that was

media censorship I don't think that was YouTube or Fox News stepping in as Joe was about to tell me that Trump's policies are not only popular in a consensus with American people but actually the one that scrambled those political lines we've been talking about throughout today's program. That's why he won over, for example, Union Democrats. That's why he won Pennsylvania. That's why he won Michigan. That's why he won things that were lost by John McCain and lost by Mitt Romney. That's why the Republican Party was so different. And so oddly now described as far right is that it is a scrambling of the political lines and no longer fits that spectrum. It's just that everything for the last eight years has been defined by two

words. Two words and two words alone. Donald Trump. Nikki Haley, a response to Donald Trump. Joe Biden, a response to Donald Trump. Everything, simply, a response to Donald Trump. And sadly, as we point out, not his policies, not his positioning, which is consensus, as we described, but his personality. And I get it. I get it. I've been open with the audience, you know. I've said it on air. I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016. I did vote for him in 2020. I don't often talk about my votes. But the difference between 16 and 20 for me was the ability to set style in the background in pursuit of substance. It was the ability to look beyond whatever problems you might have with the man and see what the man has done for the country. And I think that is the right

place to go. I once read a book by Peggy Noon called When Character was King about Ronald Reagan. understand the value of character and I understand the value of leadership. But you know what you also have to do at some point? You got to look at the wall and see how many Ws and Ls are on the wall. You got to look at accomplishments. You got to look at America and say pretty easily, discernibly, hey, what was America like four years ago? What is America like today? What was it like under Donald Trump? What is it like today under Joe Biden? economically at home wars across the world what is it and i think when you look at that wall it's pretty easy to see the w's and the ls and then we're only left with can you then therefore look

beyond the style can you look beyond that superficial thing that's driven every bit of american politics and a lot of american culture for the last eight years those two words donald trump here's what i want to ask joe cunningham and hopefully we're rail to get him back on the horn. Who knows what happened to the internet in South Carolina. I want to ask him about Nikki Haley, whether or not that is a realistic candidate. We got to talk about sore loser laws, whether or not it's even possible for Nick Haley. If not Nikki Haley, who would be the candidate? And depending then on who is that candidate, are we just now looking at a redux of 1992? Are we just now looking at a spoiler role for no labels in ensuring the opposite

party of whatever is the top of the ticket. If it's Nicky Aote's a Republican, if it's Joe Manson as a Democrat, the opposite party is elected president of the United States. That's what I'm hoping to do here with Joe Cunningham in just moments here. I think my guys will go back to me and tell me if it's a possibility or an impossibility. If it's an impossibility, we're going to get him back here on the show in just a little bit. I'll tell you one of the things I've been looking at talking about here on the wheel cane show i don't know if we can do this two a days i don't know if we what do you got what do you need pull up in studio camera for me um i don't know if you can pull up in studio camera along with um working on getting joe back see if you can bring you guys up

uh yeah and you've got establishment james young james tinfoil pat's out there somewhere in the ether working on his whiteboard and two days in the control room in New York City. I'm going to present an argument to you guys, a debate, and we're going to try to sort this out. While we're doing this two days, we're trying to get Joe Cunningham back? We are.

I think his computer may have died is what I'm guessing. It went down really fast and he hasn't come back yet, so hopefully very soon, but I'm keeping my eye on it. If his computer died, Joe, that doesn't give me faith about running a presidential campaign. Let's go into this thing with a 30% charge. Man on Reddit posts that his wife of several years, with whom they have kids, went out for a girl's weekend, and on Friday night, did a little dancing, did a little kissing. Dude walked her home.

She invited him up. They slept together. Calls the husband the next morning. admits the infidelity, crying, upset. The debate for the table is, should he forgive her? I'm going to give you guys a few minutes to think about that. Reddit is divided. It's a 50-50 proposition right now.

Should he forgive her? Let me give two days, young establishment James and tinfoil pat a minute to think about that because that's a bit of a bear. but they can think about it because right now we have no labels Joe Cunningham back right now Joe what happened did your computer die hey well next time you want get rid of me just just say so and I can leave man you don't have to cut me off like that that was very rude that's very rude of you uh you like I just put the blame on you I don't know man I don't know if it's the uh the Wi-Fi here in South Carolina or or if it's my outdated computer

but um my apologies um where were we listen dip into those, let's dip into those coffers for no labels and upgrade that computer, get a full battery charge before we run a presidential campaign. I was actually getting ready to submit to me that Donald Trump's platform is actually a consensus building platform for America if you can just get past his personality. I do want to do this. I want to move forward now. I do want to talk about 2024. I feel like I put it off throughout our conversation. Okay, you said to me on Fox and Friends that you'd be happy to have Nikki Haley. That, as we mentioned at the outset of our conversation got a lot of news. Here's the question. Could you even get Nikki Haley or are you

precluded by many, many states having sore loser laws preventing someone from jumping from Republican to third party in your case, no labels? I'd be happy to answer that. I want to touch base on your last statement, though, and just push back on it that our, you know, the platform of no labels and our common sense, you know, pulls evenly from both sides. It's not an image of Donald Trump. And we got, you know, it's basically a reflection where most Americans are. And I mentioned earlier that many Republicans feel like they like Trump policies, but not Trump, but not obviously not Democrats and not all independents as well. So, but if people want to learn more, Will, they go no labels.org. That's my second plug for the website and putting in there for us.

So on your question about, you know, if, you know, the sore loser laws, which have been talked about recently in press, which apply to a number of states. And for those listening who may not be familiar with those, it basically says if you run for an office under a particular party, you lose that primary, you're precluded, you know, you're prevented from coming back and running in the general election under a different banner, under a different party. As in anything will with law. It's a gray area. We have a lot of great attorneys and legal scholars looking into just our full extent of what our options are. And here's a few different factors that come into mind. Number one, what's going to happen with this Colorado Supreme Court case? What's the Supreme Court

going to say as to how Donald Trump was removed? And here's why that's, here's the connection between that case and a sore leisure law. How, why the opinion, why the opinion, is, or how narrow it is, on the ability for a state to remove somebody from the ballot, particularly for a federal office. And then coming back to another point is that a lot of people are conflicted as to whether or not these sore loser laws can apply to a federal office, particularly presidential election. And even taking another step back in realizing that, well, you know, the people aren't really directly electing a president. They're electing the electors which then elect the president and that's going you know that's a nuance but an

important one as well but at the end of the day you know we have to put all that in the calculus and determine where it applies how it applies and which states a ticket like this based on modeling and polling could be impacted by and whether or not that would essentially you know block or inhibit a pathway to 270 in the Electoral College. So is it your belief then? And I know what you're talking about. Everything in the law is gray. And there are attorneys out there.

I've seen some ballot experts who have said that in the end, they believe that these state sore loser laws would not preclude someone from running for president. So is it your belief that if you choose Nikki Haley, she can legally be the candidate for no labels? We don't know yet. As I mentioned, I think the, I don't think there's a clear answer yet. And further, I think what the U.S. Supreme Court may say about Colorado or to the lesser extent, Maine, will be very instructive as to how far, you know, how far can these states go and removing people from the ballot and whether or not they have a right to, particularly on the federal offices, but even more importantly, on the presidential vice presidential ticket. Who is your top draft pick? Not dodging the question, Will, but you can see how it gets complicated.

And there's a few different factors. Yeah, and you spend much of your presidential campaign litigating the legitimacy of the campaign. Who is your top draft pick? Is it Nikki Haley? Well, we're talking a lot of different leaders. I don't think there's anyone with an inside lane. But, you know, we've always said, you know, as I mentioned on Sunday, our time frame is to get passed Super Tuesday. And for that reason, it's to know who the presumptive nominees are. And as

we mentioned on Sunday, we think it's me, Trump Biden, but we're waiting. We're going on our own time frame. And then we're going to assess, you know, what leaders that were very interested in and they're very interested in this. And, you know, we said, look, no labels could say all day which candidates, potential candidates they're interested in. But as you know, it's got to go both ways. And so, you know, I can tell you there's a number of very qualified and spectacular. Who are you considering? I can't share with you.

I can't share with you the names, Will, no matter how many different ways you ask the question. Unfortunately, I'm not being coy, but going back to the beginning of our conversation, man. Like, you know what folks and groups and people will try to do once names are floated. You and I both know very well, the level of intimidation. Well, okay. Level of harassment. Well, there have been names that have been floated.

Joe Manchin and Mitt Romney. Are you going to figure out another way to ask the question? Well, I'm really good at this, and we'll see how good you are withstanding. I know you are. I know you are. I don't think of anything about it. Well, but I can tie it together here. So here are two names that have been mentioned.

Joe Manchin, Democrat, Senator, West Virginia, Mitt Romney, Republican, Senator. Utah. Both have said, though, they're not going to do so. It is your, is, is it your understanding that that has been, what you're telling me is, you tell me names, they will, they will be attacked. They will, they will, they will be the subject of pressure. Were those two men subject to those attacks? Well, I mean, you see things play out in the news media. I guess that's a big question best asked to them. Will I not Manchin and Romney felt attack? You know, I mean, I, you know, I've seen the same news article as you have. I've seen a lot of speculation as to names that have been circulating.

But, you know, I'm not here to confirm or deny because I don't want to be the reason that people get subjected to attacks or harassment on their side. I feel like you are using a little bit of legitimacy as a rip court on your parachute out of this conversation. The legitimacy is the attacks. I'm not sure you telling me today, we would really like this person. would subject them to immediate attack beyond what's already there. So I'm going to try this one more time.

I'm going to try it different, okay? I'm not asking to tell me who you're considering. I'm not asking to tell me your top draft pick. I'm asking you to give me someone who in your mind would well represent no labels. They may not even be a contender for president. What I want to know is the kind of politician you consider to be a good symbol for no labels. I think you take a look at our community. And Sarah Mansion was one of them, too.

You know, and when we, when I served in the problem solacellcus, it became bicameral, where we had people over there on the Senate side. A lot of great leaders in the Senate who worked with no labels. You know, anybody who's, you know, been a part of that process and exuded by partisanship, you know, we, yeah. Yeah, I mean, we definitely feel like those are folks that the common sense majority, as we call them, would, you know, would like. But again, that's the people in the Problem Solvers Caucus, people on the Senate side that have worked with no labels, people former governors and former senators, those are all public names. And those are all people that we've worked with in the past. Now, whether or not some of them would be considered or willing to step up, that's another question that I'm not at liberty to answer. All right.

So this is my last question for you. It's not going back to the well. It's not variation in the same, though, is it? No. I'd love to do it again just to irritate you, Joe, but no, I'm going to move on. What I'm going to say is this. I think you're going to have to address this. And I think, you know, I would hope you and I have a decent report now and you'd address it with me here directly in the future.

But if it's Nikki Haley, there are going to people say, you just elected Joe Biden. You just Ross Perot, George Bush. You know, you split the Republican vote. If it's Joe Manchin, you know, you already know the response from Democrats. There will be no Jill Stein. There is Joe, no Joe Manchin. The point is you put a Democrat at the top, and you're going to have to deal with attacks from the left. You put a Republican at the top, and you're going to be, in effect, Joe, giving the election to Joe Biden.

Like, how do you get beyond this idea that you're not just a spoiler? You can actually find an electorate out there that's willing to put your candidate above the other two for president. Well, I think the premise of the question, insinuates that these voters are, you know, belong to these parties. You got to earn votes, first of all. And to take even a giant step back, you know, political parties were not mentioned in our Constitution. And we've gotten to this point where, you know, people are serving the parties instead of the other way around. So I'd reject the notion that we owe a specific duty to.

to either political party. We owe duty to the American people, you know, the 75%, 80% of Americans who are not happy with either of these choices. And there's no other group. There's no party who's standing up and speaking to them. So, you know, to your question like, you know, how do I feel if, you know,

if people are saying we're going to be a spoiler or, or that's not the intention. I would rather, you know, this effort not be necessary. I would rather American people, 80% of Americans say, hey, we're happy with their choices. We're really excited about both of them or either of them, but that's simply just not the case right now. Yeah. And we won't be doing this if it weren't. Yeah, I hear you on the duty, but I think you're also, you're no dummy and you know the strategy.

And I think what the question comes down to is, you know, can you actually win? Because if you can't actually win, all you're in doing is ensuring someone else loses. we've said from the outset that unless there's a clear pathway to victory when we launch this thing and I think you know if and when the bout lines offered and it's taken and candidates are announced and it takes off off will I think we'll know fairly soon what or not these numbers the 80% of Americans are unhappy the choices if they wrap their arms around this ticket and that's going to be a lot to do with the campaign, which, again, we're not running. We'd be offering a ballot line.

But if it takes off of the whimper, I'd imagine the ticket be pulled down because the last thing we want to be is a footnote in American democracy as to just completely tilting the scales. I do think that if there's ever a chance in modern history where something like this is possible, and Victor Hugo said this. He said, there's nothing more powerful than idea whose time has come. and to sit back and say our democracy is in great shape, you know, our country is in great shape right now, would not be intellectually honest with each other.

And we're at least standing up to try to do something about it. And if we launch this and it becomes very apparent that, hey, America does not have the appetite for this, then we'll pull it back. And we have that ability to do so, I should say, by the way. Okay, last question. This is going to tie all of our conversation together on like my skin. skepticism on where you fit in the current American political dialogue, what it means to be a moderate, and my pressing you on who could be a potential candidate. Donald Trump's not the

only person I feel like that has scrambled the political lines. So I'm just going to ask you, like as a theory, is there any circumstance where, for example, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. could represent no labels. I don't know. I haven't given that much thought, to be honest. you know, we'd be looking at a potential leaders that have the ability to bring folks together and have a clear and concise message. I don't think, I don't think any discussion has been had with his camp, but I can't say that for sure. You know, we're talking to a lot of folks with experience and serving, but, you know, we're going to continue to wait until after Super Tuesday, assess it, and figure out who can stitch that coalition together to put a pathway of victory.

Well, here's why I say, and I'll say this as we go, Joe, I don't begrudge your existence. I don't. I hope that you guys don't play a spoiler role. I appreciate what you said about pulling it down. If that's the only role we're going to end up playing, it's not a pathway to victory. But I'll say, you know, I like the idea of not giving Americans just a two-part multiple-choice question. I don't think it should reflect America. But I also don't think the answer is to just find something that's bipartisan in the middle. I think it's to stake out unique ground that addresses the unique issues of the American public.

And if that's who you guys end up being, if that's what you could be, then I think that you're a very valuable addition to the American conversation. And you're a valuable addition to this conversation. I really have appreciated this despite your technical issues. You tried to back out on it once I got you to admit that Trump was. the consensus platform in America. Now, I'm giving you a hard time. I know you didn't say that. But I do appreciate you, Joe, and I hope you'll join us again as this thing takes form here over the next several months.

I'd love to, and thanks for having me on and enjoy the discussion. And, you know, at the end of the day, we're looking for folks who put their country here at their party and who can answer the call. And, you know, I think we'll know a lot more in the coming month and look forward to chat more with you. all right thanks a lot joe there you goes there's joe cunningham here on the will cane show all right a long episode small technical break which we filled with some content which we need to bring home now so let's go back to the studio let's bring back in two a days young establishment james and if he can tinfoil pat pulling himself away from the whiteboard with arrows and lines going everywhere man deals with the fact that his wife cheats on him on a girls weekend they've got kids they've

built a life they've been married i think it was something like between five and 15 years Reddit is divided. Does he forgive her or does he burn it down? You're the man, young James. What do you do? I mean, to be fair, we've seen it a, how this happen, a good instances in my hometown, and usually what happens is they kind of wait until the kids all go off to college

and then part their ways, kind of have an amicable partnership to raise the kids. So a delayed, just sl-punt. Yeah, because when we talked about this... A house full of anger. Just leaving it sitting there. Because when we just sits there, everyone knows. Yeah. You're right.

I think that happens a lot, actually. Two days. You're about to get married. Yeah, I am. And my response yesterday was absolutely just, you know, you have to, you know, leave. The trust is gone. But after thinking about it and think about with kids, I think I would try to work it out and see, you know,

what I could do because there is a lot more involved in it at that point. And maybe you can work it out. I've seen it happen. But I've also seen it not work out, but we'll see it. So tinfoil pat's out there, but I know he and I are on the same page. You know, he's got like six kids. I got him here. You know, I've got two kids.

And I'll tell you, I think that if it's you, James, you walk away. Honestly, if it's you, Dan, if it's you, Dan, even, you know, your head, you're not yet married. I think you walk away. If it's me or Pat, you know, we've built something more than just the edifice of our ego and even trust. We've built kids in a life and it's, it's just bigger. It's bigger than your ego. It's bigger than your frailty. And I know a lot of guys are like, oh, you can never regain the trust or even, you know, whatever, your alfist, I don't know. but a man has more to do than just be I don't know there's too much the foundation has a house built on top of it maybe the foundation is eroded now but you can't you can't destroy kids lives you can't destroy your financial by the way wait till the courts get a hold of you in that divorce process you're not going to win you can't destroy everything if she's truly remorseful by the way and wants to come back and is dedicated to making this thing work I do think forgiveness is part of life so I think it's an interesting question we can keep it up. Will Cain Show at

Fox.com. Hit me up at Will Cain. See Will Cain on Instagram. Let me know what you think. Big episode. I think a lot of interesting stuff today with Congressman Byron Donald and Joe Cunningham of No Labels. That'll do it for us today. I will see you again next time on the Will Cain show. Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members.

You can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. This is Jason Chaffetz from the Jason in the House podcast. Join me every Monday to dive deeper into the latest political headlines and chat with remarkable guests. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com. wherever you download podcasts.