Will Cain Country - Will Super Tuesday Be The End Of The Road For Nikki Haley?

Episode Date: March 5, 2024

Story #1: Is it the end for former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley presidential aspirations? Live coverage of Super Tuesday with former congressman and host of the From The Kitchen Table podcast, Sean Duffy. Story #2: What part of Democracy won't the left destroy to 'Save Democracy?' Story #3: The internet: funded, created, and controlled by the Department of Defense. Will this be the same for artificial intelligence? A conversation with author and A.I. expert Reid Blackman. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, is it the end for Nikki Haley. Live coverage of Super Tuesday. Two, what institution of our constitutional republic is safe? What part of our democracy will not be destroyed under the banner of saving democracy, apparently not the Supreme Court of the United States. And three, the Internet, funded, created, controlled by the Department of Defense. Is it the same for artificial intelligence? It is the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News Facebook page,

on the Fox News YouTube channel, and always on demand, an audio format, wherever you get your favorite podcast at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. You can watch the Will Kane podcast on demand. Simply go to YouTube and hit subscribe at Will Kane Show underneath the live version of this show, streaming right now at Fox News. In the description underneath the video, you'll see a button to hit subscribe to Will Kane Show. That's where you will get this show whenever and however you like there at Wilcane Show on YouTube. We have a bit of a breaking news here when it comes to Super Tuesday. It's less to do with the Republican primary, which seems like it will be somewhat anticlimactic. It looks like it will be an overwhelming sweep

for Donald Trump. But when it comes to the Democratic nomination for president, this morning on NBC News, Michelle Obama announced she is not interested in running for president. That is significant news in that the real clear politics betting average has Michelle Obama as the second leading candidate for Democrats. Joe Biden coming in at about 63% of the betting average, Michelle Obama registering 13%. If she is truly out, that leaves an interesting scenario for potentially the Democratic convention. Yesterday here on the Will Kane show, we had the host of the Ruthless podcast who suspected that come the convention, you could see four to five names forwarded with the bowing out of Joe Biden. Those names could and would include Kamala Harris,

Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, but apparently not Michelle Obama. But today is not about the machinations at the Democratic Convention. Today is not about Joe Biden. Today is not about Democrats. Today is about the Republican primary. Today is Super Tuesday. In order to break it all down, let's start with story number one. He is the host on Fox Business. He's a former congressman from Wisconsin. He's a co-host of From the Kitchen Table podcast, and he is my friend Sean Duffy. What's up, man? Well, King, good to see you. I just look at you got your old Texas gear on, your Texas shirt, and I'm hearing a suit and tie, I feel a little overdressed, but ready to go, my friend, my brother, Big Day in Texas.

You are. You are more appropriately dressed for Super Tuesday. For a man that might be running for office or covering it on a news channel, I'm just a humble correspondent in a diner in suburban Texas or a host of a digital show on Fox News.com. So I can wear a Pearl Snap. But, man, I did want to talk to you today about what might happen on Super Tuesday, but before we get into predictions of what the end of today might look like for Republicans, let's talk about what this day is like for a candidate. What this day is like for Nikki Haley?

You have been, Sean, a politician. You've run for office. You successfully won both at the district attorney level and United States Congress. What is this day like? Is it glad-handing until polls close and then turning on the television? Tell me about Election Day. Yeah, so Super Tuesday is a different animal, right? You have so many states in play.

It's hard to go glad-hand and make a difference on Election Day. So that's not that big of a part of it. It's how much news coverage can I get? How can I get my message out? But if you're running in a state for governor or you're running for Congress in a congressional seat, oh, man, you're out there all day long. every last vote because though you might see the poll data, nothing's won until all the votes are in. And so you don't want to leave anything on the table. So you work your heart out all day

long. You don't take that day off. But this day, again, I think it's different. I think what's more important, Will, is, again, this is not the show. This is not the November election. But what you do is you get to test your teams out and see how well we're going to do on the ground. How well does our get-out the vote effort actually work in states that matter? Do you have enough volunteers? Are you making the right phone calls? The trial run of a primary is really important to see what goes well and what doesn't go well. What do you have to fix? What do you have to tweak as you look forward to the main show in November, the big race?

And so that's what Donald Trump is focused on right now. How well is my team going to perform today in all the different components and aspects of Election Day campaigning. Nikki Haley, I think, on the other hand, does she really feel like, oh, go ahead. No, please. Tell us the perspective of Nikki Haley. So, yeah, when Nikki Haley, I think she sees that this is, I mean, again, South Carolina, I think was the end of her campaign.

She's still in it. Her money started to dry up a little bit. But I think for her, this is her last throw. This is her last hurrah. I think she's going to move on. Maybe she's going to go to corporate boards. Maybe she's going to be an analyst somewhere. But I think this is gonna be the end for her.

There's no path to victory after today. So I think she's probably savoring the last moments of a presidential campaign that was never to be. And again, after tonight, I think she'll, whether she admits that she's done, regardless, she is going to be done and will be a non-news story after tonight's election, especially if it goes the way we think,

which Donald Trump is going to mop the floor with her. I mean, the only space that she's won in was in D.C. And you have a lot of Democrat, liberal voters who came out and gave her a victory there, which is meaningless in the great scheme of electoral politics. Well, let's think about if she actually will be done after today. This morning, Fox and Friends, Nikki Haley, as well as Donald Trump, gave interviews to the hosts of Fox and Friends. And Ainsley Earhart really pushed Nikki Haley on whether or not after today she would drop out and then subsequently endorse Donald Trump. Let's listen together to her answer on Fox and Friends.

If you don't have a good night, are you going to drop out? And when will you realize it's time to unify? Will you unify and support Donald Trump if he does win tonight? I mean, Ainsley, if I were to get out of the race, it would still be the longest presidential general election in history. I don't know why everybody's so adamant that they have to follow Trump's lead to get me out of this race. You know, all of these people deserve to vote. 16 states want to have their voices heard. Let's let their voices get heard. I think that's it's as

pro-American as it gets. That's where democracy. We don't anoint kings in America. We let people have choices. And so many people said they wanted someone to vote for because they think it's a terrible mistake that we're going with two candidates in their 80s that can't serve eight years. So, Sean, she made the argument there. She's made the age argument several times. And she also made the argument that somehow, you know, it's anti-American for her to drop out of the race depriving voters of a choice. But she did go on as well and say that she dropped the phrase of, you know, waiting until the convention. She didn't say she would wait until the convention, but people should have their choices and made their voices heard until the convention. And when I heard

convention, it made me wonder, will she drop out after Super Tuesday? And if the answer is no, So what is she waiting to happen before the Republican convention? So first, again, she may not drop out, but she will be a non-entity. She will be like Marianne Williams running in the Democrat primary, where no one really cares. You don't get any press. But she's made the argument before that people deserve to have a choice. And a lot of states have had primaries or caucuses, and when those voices have been heard, they're not voting for her.

They're voting for Donald Trump. And I think the same thing will be tonight. When the voices are heard, it's not Nikki Haley, who they're voting for is Donald Trump. And so at one point, politicians have to recognize, now is not my time. This isn't actually working right now. And staying in the race isn't about giving people a choice. The choices truly have been made. And whether you're in the race or not, Donald Trump is going to be the nominee.

And the argument that she's made, too, about the age of, Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Good argument if you want to make it, but it doesn't work, right? No one's buying that argument because they might go, Joe Biden's too old, but they look at Donald Trump on the stump and they'll, yeah, he's up in age and his upper 70s, but it doesn't perform like that. He's with it, with strong messaging,

with really aggressive rallies. He's sharpened with it. So you've tried that argument, Nikki, and it doesn't work with the American voter. So I'm sorry. You can keep doing it, but it's not going to work. The results are not going to be any different if you stay in this race or you get out. And what she's going to have a hard time dealing with is the fact that she's gotten a lot of press,

and especially from liberals in the media, that she could be the alternative to Donald Trump. But the reality is the voters are saying not Nikki. You know, one other, yeah, I'll leave it at that well. Well, what I was going to say is, but I feel like, Sean, she's making an argument that she's not making yet. She's not yet being completely honest about why she is still in the race. And I think that is objectively true. So I'm left to read between the lines. Like, why are you in a race that you are certain to lose?

So I'm going to play another clip for you. Now, we have talked to her on the Will Kane Show and had, by the way, the director of no labels on the Will Kane Show. And we've talked about whether or not she would jump to a third party. Well, not she would jump specifically to no labels to continue to stay in the race. Again, she was asked on Fox and Friends about that, and she was fairly definitive. Listen to her again on Fox and Friends. You said you're not running for no labels if you don't get the Republican nomination. So just set the record straight.

Is it no to no labels? Is it yes to support the nominee? I am a conservative Republican. I have been all my life. And, you know, the problem is right now, every. saying if you don't, if you don't support Donald Trump, you're a Democrat. That's terrible and that's not unifying and that's not going to get anyone to win a general election. What I will tell you is I'm a conservative Republican. I have said many, many times, I would not run as an independent.

I would not run as no labels because I am a Republican and that's who I've always been. That's what I'm going to do. So I found that fairly definitive. Okay, she will not run third party. She will not run no labels. But I'm still stuck with why. Why are you running as a Republican? And this argument that I'm making that she is making a case that she's not really making yet, to me, is buried in that statement about, you know, we'll pull through essentially until the convention. And it's as though she is waiting for another shoe to drop. Now, I don't know if she thinks that is, you know, a conviction in a court, and that will change the equation for her. but it's not we can talk about age and we can talk about the different

arguments she's making to the voter but I don't think it's about the voter she's in the race for another reason and I'm trying to figure out and by the way Sean I don't think it's just to continue to cash donor checks I think that she and her team think there is a reason for her to remain and that's going to be if she stays in after Super Tuesday that reason is going to get more obvious like what are you waiting to happen to Donald Trump? So, and again, I don't know what the future holds.

Could it be convictions? Could it be, you know, attempts at Donald Trump's life? I don't know what's going to happen. And the bottom line, though, Will, is if something happens to Donald Trump and Republicans have a second choice of who they want, it's not going to be Nikki Haley. I think it'll be a Vivek Ram Swami. It'll be a Ron DeSantis.

But Nikki Haley has so soured to the taste of so many Republicans, Republicans. If she goes to the convention, I guarantee you, Donald Trump's not there. She will not be the nominee. And here's what's interesting, Will, and for those of your viewers, I don't know if they recall this, but John McCain was loved by the media. He was called the Maverick, and he would vote against Republicans, and the media celebrated him for that. And he's like, I'm going to run for president. Well, he ran for president in 2008, and the media showered their love on him until he got the nomination. And then they viciously turned on him and ripped his skin off when he was the Republican nominee against Barack Obama. Nikki Haley is experiencing the John McCain effect in the sense that the media doesn't like Trump, and so they're showering a lot of love and praise, and they don't really dig into her past and her policies, her family life. They don't do any of that. She's off limits.

But if Nikki Haley was the nominee, make no mistake, that she would not be treated by the press the way she is now, if she was the nominee, they would. They would absolutely try to destroy her. And so the polling that you see, she'll also oftentimes cite the polling that she has between her and Joe Biden, that she does better than Donald Trump. She wins with bigger margins against Biden than Donald Trump does. And you've got to take that in context because Donald Trump, the left, you know, rips him apart every minute of air they can give to rip Donald Trump apart or the lawfare

against Donald Trump. They're attacking him at every angle, and they leave her alone. But if they actually did to Nikki Haley what they do to Donald Trump, and by the way, they would if she was the nominee, I don't think she would fare nearly as well as Trump does against Biden. So you've got to make sure we understand the kind of press that the two of them are getting and how they do in the polls. And I think Nikki Haley actually loves the positive press that the liberals have given her. And she's kind of, you know, a mini-celebrity because she's the anti-Trump. And they want anybody but Trump. They want to pick.

They want to pick the Republican nominee. And are the nominees that the liberals like? They like Nikki Haley better than Trump. And I think they're a little bit offended that they can't get her over the finish line, that Donald Trump, and again, he's changed policies. I mean, by the way, I don't think Republicans have changed a whole lot on policy.

Go back to Ronald Reagan. And whether you're like lower taxes, less regulation, we want, you know, we didn't want so many secure borders, but we wanted a strong national defense. Donald Trump is all those things of Ronald Reagan except he was more of a tariff guy, right? He's using tariffs where Ronald Reagan was more of a free trader at all costs,

and Donald Trump is different on the border. But beyond that, Republicans are the same so that Nikki Haley thinks that Donald Trump is not a true conservative, not doing conservative things. I kind of think she's out to lunch. The conservative Republican view squarely sits in the seat of Donald Trump's perspective of where the country needs to go, not necessarily the George Bush perspective,

that's given to us by Nikki Haley. It also doesn't factor into the fact that there could be, there most likely will be a third-party nominee at a minimum that is possibly RFK. And then when you put in the third-party nominee, Nikki Haley's numbers don't look the same. In fact, she loses to Joe Biden because so much of the Trump vote moves over to RFK.

You know, you talked about Nikki Haley souring, that the Republican base has soured on Nikki Haley through this process. Do you think it soured on her so much, Sean, that there's no chance for her to be vice president? I mean, if you listen to that interview with Donald Trump again on Fox & Friends this morning, there are some that are like, wow, there was actually some moments of where it was softer towards Nikki Haley. Do you think she is, do you think she's a viable candidate as vice president? Donald Trump is very kind to the vanquished. He heaps praise on them, but when they're actual real opponents, he's ferocious. Listen, I don't think so.

I think there's a lot of people who are Trump supporters that are not big fans of Nikki Haley. Now, you might, well, you can make the argument, well, don't you want to broaden your base? Doesn't Nikki Haley bring in some people that Trump doesn't have right now? And wouldn't that help him electorally? Maybe, but I think she's been so harsh and so demeaning of Trump. I think it'll be hard for him to bring Nikki Haley in. And just another point on this, too. I think you can't underestimate the experience that Donald Trump had in 2017.

He was an outsider to D.C. He built a cabinet and a government with people that didn't like him, and they worked against him. They thwarted him. They leaked press stories about him. And I think he's sensitive to that. a different candidate might take a Nikki Haley to build the base. I think Donald Trump cares about loyalty. He cares about people who are going to buy into the movement and are going to support him in that movement. Give him pushback behind closed doors, but he feels safe that they're never going

to try to undermine him with the public or with the White House team. And I don't think Donald Trump would feel that way about Nikki Haley. That's why I don't think he will pick her. Well, can I bring up one other point that you mentioned on Michelle Obama at the start of the show? I think that was fascinating, right? So, by the way, I think if Michelle Obama got in the race, I think Donald, I mean, I think she cleans up, right? I don't like her as a, I don't like her policies. I don't like her, you know, her and Barack Obama. In a general election? Yeah, in a general election, she is unstoppable. She wins. But here's what's interesting. A lot of people think it's a great idea to run for Congress or run for the Senate. And they do it because they don't know what it's like.

They don't know how hard it is. Even running for president, I think you could have run for, for Congress or the senator or governor, and you don't realize how hard it is to run for president. Michelle Obama's done it twice with her husband. She knows how much work goes in to run in for president, how much work goes into governing. And once you pull the curtain back and see how hard it is to actually get there

and then to govern, and then you look at her, I mean, really cushy life, big money, homes all over the country, ocean front properties. She's like, there's no way. not going to go back to that mess. My life is too good. Even though I could win, I know what I have to do to get there and what I have to give up to govern, and I don't want any part of it. We served our time. We're completely out. So I don't, again, I think she'd be great, not personally,

but I think electorally for Democrats, but I don't think there's any chance that she does it. Gavin Newsom. Why do you think she would clean up, Sean, in a general election? Listen, why do you think she would clean up in a general election? Yeah, because she has kind of an Oprah aspect ever. A lot of people, a lot of independence, like her. I think the language that she and Barack Obama have perfected of, you know, being very liberal, but really speaking to the middle. I think she does it just like Barack. And I think a lot of people would, would and could buy into the vision. So I think she wins a lot of suburban women. I think she re-rallies the African-American vote that I think Joe Biden is losing. And you put

those two things together, and she might soften the losses that Joe Biden has had with the Hispanic vote. I think he put that together. And the gains that Trump has made there, he would lose with a Michelle Obama candidacy, which is why I think she would win. So let's do this really quickly, Sean, on these other names. If Joe Biden is not the nominee as Democrat, do you think Gretchen Whitmer is a formidable force in a general election against Donald Trump? No, I don't. I think she's, no, I think she's weak. I think she's intellectually weak. She's policy week, so no, I don't think she, I think Donald Trump beats her. What about Gavin Newsom against Trump?

I think, I think Gavin Newsom. I mean, you probably watched the interview that he did with Ron DeSantis with Sean Hannity. He was lying through his teeth, but man, he does it well. I mean, he was selling his, I mean, the disaster of California, the way he was selling California, if you didn't know better, you'd be like, wow, California is not a bad place to live. Gavin Newsom's kind of got things under control. So I think Gavin is a very talented politician. He has a great look about him.

And, yeah, I think he would be hard to beat. And again, sometimes it's not always policy. Well, it's also a popularity contest. And I think Gavin Newsom has a very congenial personality, and he comes across really well and he can sell his horrible ideas really well to the average Joe that's out there. Jane that's out there. And I think he would be a tough opponent for Trump. I don't, I feel

pretty confident Trump is going to win if all things are fair. But I think Gavin, Gavin would be a challenge. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, look, I've said many of the same things you just said about Gavin Newsom. I think he's super slick. I think he is a talented politician in the ways that you describe where he's just really good at spinning and talking. And, you know, like you said, I mean, against Ronda Santas, he made California seem like, you know, the best place in the world while they have a, you know, the largest outflow of residents of any state in the country. But I wonder if he's too slick by half, like, for a general election. You know what I mean? Like, he's got a little too much used carsman or Gordon Gecko from Wall Street, too slicked back, too polished.

The Lelai's almost too slick. I wonder if he's like, you know, it's like, yeah, that guy can really sell. It makes me feel like I'm getting a bad deal. You know, there is a used car salesman aspect of him, but you got to always remember that the media is going to come to his defense. They're going to soften all of the rough edges of California. They would work for Gavin Newsom in a way that they're not working for Joe Biden. And again, I think the package that he puts together would be really hard to beat. And the question becomes, well, why, I mean, again, Democrats like power.

Democrats want to win this election. There's not a great deal of love for Joe Biden. So the question is, why hasn't this happened yet? And the real answer to that, if you're behind closed doors and you talk to Democrats of knowledge and in power, they'll tell you, well, we can't get around Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris is the problem. The most loyal voting bloc of the Democrat Party is the African-American woman vote. And they talk all about diversity and equity and inclusion, and they're the party of, you know, minorities. Well, when you have a minority vice president who's a female and you don't take her,

and you replace her with a white guy from California. The consequence of that for the party, I think those with knowledge and power inside the party, they think that's untenable for them. They think they would rather run with Joe Biden, who, again, we all see his failings. We see the mental failings, the physical failings, the policy failures.

We see all of that, but we can't sustain the blowback of running someone other than Kamala Harris. And if we do run Kamala Harris, she's worse than Joe Biden. So they're in this pickle, they're in this box, and they can't pick Gavin, they can't take Kamala. So like, well, we just, we got to prop Joe up

and we got to run with him with all of, you know, even the negative, I mean, he's down at, you know, the high 30s, low 40s for approval. Every main issue that the American people care about, whether it's the economy or border or foreign policy, he's getting crushed on. Is your life better with Joe Biden, even versus Donald Trump?

and people think their lives have gotten worse because of his policies. That's a horrible candidate to run with and they're keeping him because of what they've created with Kamala Harris as the VP and they know she can't win. I want to go back to politics and your experience in politics.

So this morning I did a diner in Texas and I've never run for anything outside of fifth grade class president. There may have been like an 11th grade treasurer in high school. totally ill-suited to be treasurer of anything. My wife does the books. I don't do the books.

But this is as close as it gets to politics for me. Like when you do a diner, I mean, you're, you know, what you see on TV is like a tenth of what a dime. You know, you're talking. You're shaking hands. You're meeting people. You're hearing what's important to them. And one of the guys this morning said to me, Sean, there's two different kinds of politicians. There's the politician that likes people.

and there's the politician that likes the job and the guy that likes the job and maybe that's like Ron DeSantis often isn't good at being with people in an environment like that and I just you know it's kind of interesting you think about the actual process

of campaigning and you were talking about how hard it is as a presidential candidate but I mean at the congressional level at the local level you know I mean it's a lot of energy to like sit there and I like it I am a people person So that's, I'm all in on that kind of thing.

I enjoyed my time this morning. But, you know, you're all, you kind of got to measure time the whole time. Like, you know, how much time do I have with this person? Because there's another person standing here. I got to be on TV in a minute. It's a little bit of a juggling act to do that. And by the way, be real the whole time. You've got to be a real person.

Can't be faker. Yeah. I think they see through the liar. Oh, they see all this. They see right through the liar. I mean, I think Bill Clinton was probably the best politician in moderate. in history. He loved people. He thrived off the energy he got from people. Really good, really great memory. He would remember people's names, their mother's names. I mean, he was really,

he was really good at it. And I find that if you're going to, if you're going to run in big races, you actually, to your point, well, you have to like people. And you're right, you can't be fake. You've got to be real who you are. You've got to be interested in what they care about, what their concerns are, what their life struggles are. And you got to be honest as well. policies that you disagree with that they want you to support you got to go like listen i'm sorry this is why i don't support it and this is why um what you'll find though is there's some people that that want to sit and chat right and by the way will cane in the in the diner is a little bit different than will cane you know walking down a parade route in you know in in in in Dallas

Texas somewhere you might get a different response by the way you've told me you've told me this story i mean you're right will cane in the diner is um my challenge there is talking to everybody that wants to talk, right? The opposite is you talking about going to the county fair and walking up to strangers who are not there to see you, who are there to get a corn dog and ride the tilt-a-whirl, and you're like, hey, can I get 30 seconds of your time? I'll take 10 seconds. I'm Sean Duff. You're running for Congress. Here's a piece of literature. That's by eight seconds. And, you know, listen, that's hard. It's hard to do that. Or being in a diner that no one knows you and you walk up to a couple tables and shake hands and introduce

yourself. Here's what's interesting about the American people, and I think all this is human nature. I would walk a parade route, Will, and I would walk down the parade route, and I'd just shake hands, introduce myself. And so I'd touch someone for one second. Shake their hand, introduce myself, shake hand, introduce myself, and then I might come to someone who wanted to sit and chat. And I'd talk to them for 30 seconds or a minute, and I'd move on. But that minute, that's second that I shook someone's hand, they'll, if I go back and ask them two years later, they'll go, I met Sean Duffy. He's a nice guy. Oh, really?

We met each other for a minute, but people get a read off you, whether you're a genuine, nice human being by just shaking your hand or not. People look at their, we all have guts. We have a gut reaction. And if you're authentic, all those hands I shake, they met me, and they knew me. And again, that's why I'd again, I tell the story, but I would shake so many hands, will, those who are watching, like between my thumb and my pointer finger, I would have a callous in the, like the crotch of my hand

from shaking so many hands. And it was a massive callus. Because so many people, no, I was, no, I didn't. And sometimes I would have, my hand was the dirtiest thing ever because I had shaking so many of them. By the way, if I see a guy walking on a parade route that wants to shake hands, I'm like, I do not want to shake your hand because I know how filthy that thing is.

But sometimes, I'd be grabbing penis and pouring it into that dirty. hand after and eating them. And I think I just became immune. I was like those kids in second grade who become immune from all the disease they come into contact with in the classroom. But you love it. If you ever run for office, I don't know if you're going to think about that or not, but there's nothing more exhilarating to be part of this process, the American electoral process, and reaching out, giving a message, you know, and again, going to a rally and giving a speech, that's really exhilarating. But there's a lot of downtime where you're just, You're getting shaken hands, you know, introducing yourself to people that they don't really want to meet you.

That's hard, but the process is amazing, and you'll have to do things. You have to pull from places inside your soul that you never knew existed, that you never knew you could draw from. And again, whether you win or lose, it is one of the most challenging things that humans go through. And again, because of that, it's so exhilarating, so fun. And I've only had the joy of winning. I haven't had to work that hard and actually lose. a race, but I feel bad for those who do, who put their hearts into it. I look at Ron DeSantis. I think Ron has done so great in Florida. Again, and I think Ron is awkward. I've said that to you

on Fox Nation and other places and on your morning show. He's an awkward dude. He's not a good people person, but he's been a great governor, but he put whatever heart Ron has, he put into that race and to have the voters reject you when you had so much love in your home state and you think you did a really good job in your home state, which, by the way, I think he has done a great job. To get that rejection is really hard. And sometimes it's hard to come back from that. Though I do I think Ron will be back? Yes. But it'll take a little soul healing before he does. And we, I think it's true. People put this out, we still haven't elected a president who wasn't, or at least we can take a pretty good span, expansive history here, who wasn't good at it. Like we haven't, every president has been a pretty good retail politician.

I mean, all the mass media, social media, I mean, if we, if we, let me, let me, look, Biden in his day, I don't know, in 2020 is an outlier, but even in his day back in the day, he was a retail politician type, you know what I mean? Yeah. Certainly when he was a senator. Trump, Obama, W., Clinton, I don't know about the first Bush as a retail politician. Reagan, but you're going back pretty far now. And the only ones I have questions about would be the first Bush, really, as a retail politician. They're all capable of talking to you and making you feel like they care about you and connecting. So I think Joe Biden, you're right, I think he was a great retail politician. You don't last for 70 years in politics, whatever, 60 years

of politics unless you're good at it. I do think in the 2020 race, he was not the same Joe Biden, and there was no retail politics because of the pandemic. And you recall he sat in the basement and was able to get by the retail portion of politics because of the pandemic. I've met Barack Obama and I've met Donald Trump. And again, I might disagree with Barack Obama until the cows come home. But when you meet him, he is charming. It is what you got from.

And even with, I mean, I think this is a disservice to Donald Trump. You meet Donald Trump, whether you're in a big group or you're in a small group. And you're like the only guy there and he's engaging and interested and interesting and wants opinions and feedback. And again, you feel like you're the only guy in the room. That's a real knack and skill. And by the way, I don't think that many people have it. I'm not sure you have it or I have it, but it is remarkable people that are able to do that. And Trump is one of them.

And so all the things that people say about Trump that are so negative and nasty, he couldn't be, I think, a kinder, more generous. human being with people that meet him. Even when he was in business, he was kind and generous. And yeah, they had a public persona on, you know, you're fired on his television show. And in business, I think he was tough. But the general public that he met, a wonderfully generous human being.

And I think you don't get there unless you're generous. And I think it's a disservice to the American people to try to just categorize him as some mean, orange buffoon who wants to destroy democracy and destroy the country. when that couldn't be further from the truth. All right, last thing with you, Sean, any surprise? By the end of today, Super Tuesday, does Nikki Haley, I mean, she got 40 in South Carolina,

and she's proud of that 40. It's also her home state. She was governor of South Carolina. She is. She points out, hey, 40%'s a lot. I mean, like, there won't be a state today she gets 40 in, right? I mean, like, there's going to, do you anticipate any surprise on Super Tuesday? So, Wilkie, I'm a good enough friend of yours, that if you run for office in Texas,

and you get 40%, you try to tell me that's a good thing. I'm going to say, Will, I'm sorry, you got crushed. You did not do well. You got spanked in Texas if you get 40%. She got spanked in South Carolina with a 40% portion of the vote. So, no, I don't think she's going to top 40%. Again, I think she's becoming an afterthought. What we could see, though, and again, we have some Democrat primaries today as well.

I'm interested to see, do we have Democrats not show up, and they may not show up because Joe Biden is the only guy in the ballot, but do we have a resistance to Joe Biden because of his policies with Israel and Hamas or Palestine? Do we have people not show up and give or give some kind of resistance vote to Joe Biden because of the economy, because of his EV push, because of crime? That's what I'm interested in the scene. And I think that's indicative of, you know, where the voters at looking out to November. And maybe just on that point, too, again, it's Super Tuesday. And again, we're running campaigns, seeing how we do, we're going to see whether Joe Biden has resistance. But, you know, as we sit here in March, and what are we eight months

away? I can't do that. Seven, eight months away from the election. That is forever in politics. So many things can change. What you find is the, the electorate's mind doesn't really get made up probably until September, right? So you kind of have all spring and a lot through the summer before people decide, you know, how is my life? How are these candidates? They really start to pay attention and suss them up and decide who they're going to vote for.

And we know we have the Biden camp, we have a Trump camp, if they're the two on the ballot. But there's this part in the middle that are persuadables. And where do they go? They're not going to make up their minds at any point until we get into September, maybe even October. They're going to wait.

as they see how the economy is doing, how foreign policy is, what's going on with the border. And so, again, this is a sampling of today, but is not really instructive for November. All right, check them out from the Kitchen Table podcast. Go hit subscribe to Fox News podcast with his wife and my co-host, Rachel Campos Duffy. Thanks so much, Sean. Thanks, well. Appreciate it. All right, take care.

Coming up, what institution of our constitutional republic will not be destroyed under the banner of saving democracy. That's next on the Will Cain show. The new Bimo, V.I. Porter MasterCard is your ticket to more. More perks, more points, more flights, more of all the things you want in a travel rewards card, and then some. Get your ticket to more with the new Bimo, ViPorter Mastercard, and get up to 20. $4,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit bemo.com slash the iPorter to learn more.

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. what won't be destroyed destroyed what of democracy will not be destroyed under the banner of saving democracy it's the will cane show streaming live at foxnews.com on the fox news

youtube channel always on demand at spotify apple or on youtube at will cane show after the supreme court's nine o decision to overturn the colorado supreme court's decision to keep donald trump off the ballot. The freak out has been total. Much of the left now calling for the absolute dissolution of the Supreme Court. The headlines from the Atlantic to the insanity of MSNBC, people who hold professorial positions at law schools saying dissolve the Supreme Court, take away the power of the Supreme Court. Apparently, by the way, indicting conservative judicial thought like originalism. Little did Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor and Cantanji Brown Jackson know they're now big proponents of originalism. Little did they know they're now MAGA. It was a 9-0 decision. Look,

that's an embarrassment. Okay. That should be the Colorado Supreme Court hanging its head in shame. That should be the quote unquote legal experts writing articles at the Atlantic never again being commissioned for a piece, talking about how experts think this could be the one that finally does in Trump. It's all a farce. It's all a joke. They're living in an alternate reality and nothing matters except for the singular focus on destroying Donald Trump. Of course, destroying Donald Trump has been sold as defending democracy, saving democracy. And I want you to think about the things. Let's take inventory of the list of institutions, foundational elements of not our democracy, but our constitutional republic, are willing to be destroyed

in order to save democracy. Well, first of all, what is represented by the Colorado Supreme Court case is voting. You can't vote for certain candidates. It's already happened in Maine. Something like that in Hawaii. Like, oh, I'm not allowed to vote for certain candidates in order to save democracy. Free speech, of course, has been destroyed or attempted to be destroyed in the country under the banner of saving democracy again the first amendment to the constitution the first

entry into the bill of rights roadkill on the way to quote unquote saving democracy the constitution itself of course is a big impediment people want to make it a living constitution reinterpreted every five to ten years that'll speed up by the way like everything else in the progressive movement barraq obama would have no place in today's democratic party the baroque obama of two thousand and wanted to secure the border and was opposed to gay marriage. He would be MAGA, according to today's Democrats. The point is the rate of change. The pace picks up over time.

So we're going to have to reimagine the Constitution. What? Every 18 months, destroy the Constitution to save democracy. We just mentioned destroying the Supreme Court. How about the electoral college? That's been, ever since, you know, Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote. Then you want to destroy the way. we elect presidents want to have a direct vote direct democracy not proportional representation you just

want to have new york and l a do it just two urban centers the biggest ones we'll just do it that way we'll just do it in blue districts in order to you know save democracy rfk has to be destroyed for that matter no labels has to be destroyed dean phillips the man running for president as a democrat as a challenge to joe biden has to be destroyed all third parties have to be destroyed because they represent a threat to democracy. The rule of law itself, as we've seen the Justice Department, weaponized against its political opponents, destroyed the rule of law in order to save democracy. Rural white voters, a threat to democracy, said explicitly in a new book called Rural White Rage, that these people, they say, are the most anti-democratic, fascist, tyrannical, racist, anti-gay people in America.

So rural white voters have to be destroyed. The southern border, affect. being destroyed. Why? We can all left guests to change the voting base, to live in a utopic open borders society in order to what? Promote democracy? Separation of powers between the executive and the executive and the legislative. And then, of course, do away with the judicial. Do away with the separation of powers in order to save democracy. Privacy as the intelligence agencies. Look in on every American. Monitor our speech from misinformation. See what kind of affiliations we have, see where we were on January 6th in order to save democracy. The surveillance state, which was not designed to spy on Americans, at least when it comes to

the CIA, which has been totally blown away, the charter of that organization, the limitations on spying Americans, spying on Americans destroyed in order to save democracy. And that's just a partial list. But that is some foundational elements of the United States. What we need to understand, as was said here on the Will Kane show, replace the word democracy with our power, with our power. Every time a Democrat says, we need to do something to save our democracy, hear that they're saying, we need to do something to save our power. And they'll destroy all of these elements that are America in order to save their power.

The Internet was created, was funded, and to some extent we know is controlled by the Defense Department by the intelligence services. Is it the same for artificial intelligence? That's coming up next on the Will Cain Show. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells the story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at Fox Truecrime.com. According to a congressional report, the National Science Foundation worked with the FBI and CIA on something called Track F, an AI system designed to stop misinformation. Let's figure out exactly what's going on here with AI in story number three.

Reid Blackman is the author of Ethical Machines, and he's a founder and CEO of Virtue, which is an AI Ethical Risk Consultancy. You can find him on X at Reed Blackman, and he joins us here on a regular basis to discuss issues around AI. So, Reed, look, this is pretty, you know, a lot of people pointing out today, first of all, the Internet in itself, funded by a DARPA grant, created, always been tied up in the Defense Department and to some extent the intelligence agencies. So the independence of the Internet at large and anybody that, by the way, I think Google was funded by a grant as well from some of these agencies, at least in part, you know, which kind of like. you go, well, how independent are these organizations and this entire framework? How independent is it when we're trying to establish, you know, some framework, some ground of free speech? And then here we go, you know, with AI. What do you make of this story from this, this congressional report on the National Science Foundation? Yeah, so the allegation is something

like this from what I gather. I mean, it's a very long, dense report. But the short of it is something like this. The government is funding various companies that will play a role in ferreting out and ultimately blocking misinformation on social media platforms. The concern, of course, is that government playing a role in potential censorship of views that, of course, the government shouldn't censor because we live in a free society, freedom that, we have a right to free speech, and so the government shouldn't play a role in doing that sort of thing. So obviously, the major issue is government overreach, government surveillance and government

curtailing of free speech. That's the concern. It's legitimate, though, read. Look, we know through the Twitter files reporting from guys like Matt Taibi, the role that our intelligence agencies were playing behind the scenes, FBI, at a minimum the FBI, in helping craft policies with the tech companies when they were cracking down on free speech. So, I mean, it's not even a concern. It's like it's a reality that we have to come to grips with it. The government is looking to backdoor sensor-free speech through private companies. And I don't, at this point, I think we need to be concerned about also, you know, positive propaganda-based thought originations, not just shutting down speech, but manipulating speech through the use of artificial intelligence. Yeah, so, I mean, I wonder how much though.

you disagree with what's being done in principle as opposed to in practice. So you might think in principle it's a good idea, but in practice, when the government gets involved, things go haywire because people want to stay in power. As you said earlier, they want to have control, again, so that they can stay in power. But I wonder how much you disagree with in principle. I mean, suppose, for instance, all the way. So, I mean, I'm of the view if, let's say China is creating disinformation. right that it's plainly false let's just assume we know it's false and they're putting it on social

media they're using AI in various ways to amplify that message and the message is one that would subvert the integrity of our elections I'm over the view that we should stop that sort of thing that seems like a bad bad thing and then I think well who's going to stop that sort of thing and I think in principle our government is supposed to save us from external threats And that seems like a legitimate external threat. I'm going to back into your hypothetical, okay? So first of all, in principle, I am pretty closely affiliated to a free speech absolutist. Like, my principle is there is no practical way to implement a virtuous speech censorship.

A, who defines what is misinformation? B, who's the gatekeeper that watches and monitors and selects universal enforcement instead of selects, selective enforcement of whatever is misinformation. See, these are all elusive things. You can't define misinformation. You can't find the trusted gatekeeper who won't shut down people they disagree with or selectively censor. So I'm an absolutist pretty much on that. Now, we can push issues like child pornography or whatever. Sure. Clearly, we're all going to get to, yeah, there needs to be some censorship. But the idea is that the First Amendment is a pretty much absolutist principle. and we start from that.

Now, you changed, and that, by the way, these are rights that are availed to American citizens. You changed it when you said Chinese, let's say the Chinese. And look, let's be more on the nose with it, like Russia. Everybody says Russia, Russia, Russia, that's the use, that's the excuse for censorship. Well, my argument, well, Russia and China don't have any free speech rights in America. There's no First Amendment right for any citizens or governments in other countries. but the issue is read when they start saying oh you're a tool of Putin or you're echoing misinformation an American citizen now right yeah yeah and now we're back to the principal hey

American citizen pretty much free speech okay so there's a couple things to say here so number one is there's a sense to which I agree with you about some issues so one thing that the report mentions and I don't know that this is true but one thing the report mentions is looking for for instance, anti-black messages on, say, on social media. That strikes me as too far. Too much gets characterized as anti-black or racist. And there's, I think, a concern that, but say, saying affirmative action shouldn't exist, counts as anti-black.

That's not a world that I think that we want to live in. So I think that in many ways, or at least in some ways, you and I are on the same page. Well, I'd go one step further, real quick, read. I'd go one step further. Racism. Yeah. Yeah. openly racist stuff is not, is not, it's still protected speech because it's free speech.

Agreed. Yes. Agreed. I think we're on the same page with regards to that. I was, so I think that sort of thing is very potentially overreach. Now, two points. Number one, we're talking about social media, not the government. Social media is a business.

And they have control over their business, as I think more or less they ought to, unless something deeply illegal is going on. And then you don't have a. right to post on Facebook as far as I know. You don't have a right, constitutional right, to post on Twitter. That's one thing to say. And the second thing to say is you certainly don't have a right, even if you have a right to post, you don't have a right to have your voice amplified. Right. So there's always, and maybe people don't understand the extent to which this is happening, but every social media platform from X or Twitter to Facebook and Instagram to

TikTok, it's curated, right? You don't get to see all the stuff. You get to see the things that the AI algorithms that those companies developed want to show you for whatever reason, probably to maximize your engagement with the platform. Now, that means it's going to amplify some messages and it's not going to amplify others. You don't have a right to be amplified, right? Sometimes I post on social media and it explode. Sometimes I post on social media and it falls completely flat. And I don't know why the algorithm is doing something, but there's an act of curation that all these social media companies are doing. And there is no right for them to curate in a way that amplifies your voice or my voice or any particular individual voice.

That's always. Okay. So here's my response to that. You're 100% right. So, for example, during the Colin Kaepernick, you know, kneeling during the National Anthem thing, one of the points I made is, look, when you're an employee of a business, you don't have full free speech rights in the course of your job for that business. Like, a grocery checkout teller can't wear a Make America Great Again hat if the grocery store doesn't want you wearing a Make America Great Again hat while you work in it, while you're working the teller.

And an NFL player doesn't have a right to kneel during the National Anthem if the NFL doesn't want you kneeling during the National Anthem. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you get to do it on someone else's dime on their platform. And so you're right. To the extent, and that's the key here, these companies are private, they can make their own policies. The two responses to that would be, one, the Twitter files were so valuable for us,

and Elon Musk has been so valuable in exposing the way they were, their internal biases, right? And by the way, Google's Gemini, AI generation, image generation, did it itself because it was so absurd, right? And so everybody's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, look at Google, like, wow. And if they're doing that with images, if they're doing it with images, you know they're doing it with search results as well. So that should have some consumer effect.

Knowledge helps the consumer, like, and by the way, I think Google has 96% of search traffic like they dominate so but we should know these things as consumers we should know that facebook is doing this but the second point is how truly private are they and that takes back to this i i i think that we're talking about read like if the government's in the background doing this you know how truly private are you okay so look i agree that by the way i think i'm totally distracted i think i'm totally distracted no one watching can see this but i have a window up. I can see Reed. And there's another window up the producers of having my feet. Am I watching Sean Duffy in a tank top done with his hit on the Will Cain show? Is that what I'm

seeing? I don't see Sean Duffy in the control. He can help me. Somebody in a tank top. It actually on how truly it actually is. Go ahead. Because I had the same return feed up for him during his interview before. I should probably turn that off. But yeah. I see Sean in a tank top as I'm listen to Reed, try to very seriously tell me about AI and whether or not it's got government. I mean, I could do it in a tank top if you prefer. I mean, that's fine. I like a tank top. All right, please address my point, though, Reed. Let's see, the point. Well, so one thing that you said that's interesting is that you want consumers to be aware of what the, basically the, what kind of curation they're engaged in. What kind of curation is Facebook or X engaged in? That's only going to

happen through regulations that require a certain level of transparency. Right. So that's One thing is that sounds like an argument in favor of a certain kind of regulation or at least one regulation, which I'm sort of fine with. And that's what some regulations coming down in the pike are asking for. But it's a regulatory requirement. The other thing, what was the, I don't know. Look, the other question, the other thing that you said was, is it really private. I think the short answer is yes. I mean, we see right now the government going after big tech trying to break them up as monopolies. So there's clearly an antagonistic relationship. In all cases, like, sometimes something gets funded and you raise an eyebrow when you think, oh, well, if it's funded by them, that's really suspicious. And sometimes the funding is really independent. There's no strings of hats. Sometimes there's strings attached. Sometimes there's not.

And then we just get into this sort of investigative journalistic question, to what extent is government pulling the strings of, say, of Facebook or on Instagram? I'm not inclined to conceive of Zuckerberg or Musk as marionettes. So I'm inclined to think they pretty much do what they. want, but it could turn out to be wrong about that. Maybe there's, you know, sticks and carrots that the government is using on them that we're not aware of. I just don't know the answer.

And by the way, I'm playing this forward because we're talking about AI, you know, like, how much is government going to have its fingers in? Because I think, like, the Internet is one thing when you have a wild, wild west and they're trying to, like, you know, tamp it down, like censor. Then the next step, though, is, I mean, I hate to say it this way, like mind control. Like, AI has the potential to reshape our forward-thinking vision of reality. You know what I mean? Tell us something that is that is not.

And the government's hands in that is pretty terrifying. In fact, let's switch to this. Anyone's hand in that is terrifying, right? Anyone's fair. Yeah. And so then the question is, well, how do we stop anyone's hand from doing that sort of thing, from being manipulative or misleading in that kind of way? Well, you don't.

And that's where you and I might differ. I'm more concerned about the government. attempting to manipulate my mind than a random collection of memers on the internet. And I know I'm being a little bit dismissive. I know I'm being dismissive because there can be nefarious actors as well and foreign powers. Your point on foreign powers is well taken. But I just would rather have the Wild Wild West full of misinformation, the democratization of information because then the truth can poke through.

You might have to fight for it. You might have to work for it, but it's there. But if the government's the one controlling it, the truth doesn't even get to poke through the clouds. Yeah, I sort of, I guess I think that there's lots of powers that play. The government is one of them. And like, I'll say something really stupid and obvious. I don't want bad regulation. No, I want good regulation.

Now, there's a claim, and I take it that this is the one that you're making is that there is no good regulation to be had, where government plays some role in tamping down misinformation because it's necessarily going to be. censorship, government overreach, government surveillance of its own citizens in an objectionable way. And I guess I just don't know the answer. I sort of, I want to hear some proposals on the table of what would decent regulation look like where government plays some role in tamping on misinformation. I am more optimistic than you, which is a low bar, but I think there's got to be something. Let me make one more, let me make one more comparison. I don't know anything about predatory lending by credit cards.

I just don't know. I don't know about it. I know that they engage in it, but there are regulations to protect me. So thankfully, I don't have to go learn about how credit card companies operate in ways that might be predatory, in ways that might be victim to. The government has taken it off my shoulders to have that kind of fear and concern and burden of figuring all that stuff out. And I'm grateful for that because I'm just not interested.

I don't want to read terms and conditions of credit card companies and that sort of thing. I'm inclined to think, and I could be dissuaded, but I'm inclined to think that the burden of figuring out what's true and what's not in a phenomenally polluted environment is too high of a burden to place on the average citizen. Now, maybe that turns out to be true, or sorry, maybe that turns out to be wrong, but I have very little, I have very little faith in the average person to find that truth poking through, and I think they need some kind of help, especially when there are actors who are actively working to undermine the average citizen's ability to find that truth. talking through. So, you know, this is kind of, we'll end on this, read. So, you know, I'm going to be real with you. I go back and forth. Look, first of all, I'm different than you. I have much more faith in the average person. Yeah. You know, what did I see the other day? Oh, was that documentary from Netflix with that Indian dude? Was it called Wild Wild West or something like that? Oh, yeah, yeah, sure. Yeah, yeah. He starts to cult, something like that. Yeah, and they had some quote, and I don't, this could

have been AI. And then he was saying that the average person is an idiot. You know, it's government by an idiot for an idiot. And so, you know, everybody's laughing. And, you know, the thing about having faith in the average person is this. You don't have to have faith that everyone out there is a genius and willing to put in the work to find the truth. You don't have to have that faith. But you have to look at the alternative. And I have no faith in our government, overlords willingness to faithfully pursue the truth. That's what I would say. You know, William F. Buckley once famously said he'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard. And there's no doubt that the faculty of Harvard

is, quote-unquote, smarter than the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book, right? Sure, sure. But smart does not equal wisdom. Those are two different things. And well, I don't think I have to have complete faith in the average person to always do the work and always find the truth, but it exceeds the bar of the elites, the faith I have in the elites, to actually care about the truth. Yeah. So let me say one last thing on this. So I don't think that my claim is that people are idiots. I think my claim is that there are people looking to actively undermine the average person's exercising of their intellectual capacities. And so they've got whatever. intellectual capacity they do. I generally think, right, you've got everything from Breitbart to New York Times and everything between and the average citizen has to sort of work it out. What concerns me is actors potentially using AI to undermine people's ability to exercise their intellectual capacities in the appropriate way. And I think that we could, and I think we agree on that front, especially on the foreign political actors front. And then I think the government's role is to protect, protect us from those. those acts of, if you like, intellectual aggression. Well, they're protecting us from ourselves under the banner of saving democracy. That's what's happened, though.

They use, you know, we know, for example, that our intelligence services have interfered in foreign elections under the banner of saving democracy. Can't let these, I'll give you, can't let these communists win an election in Italy. We're going to help spin this election so that it wins for democracy. What we didn't really ever anticipate was them turning it back on America under the manner of saving democracy. Look, at the end of the day, you and I might be pretty close together. Might be a little bit far apart on principle, but might be very close together in practice

insofar as, you know, I think you attribute in many cases to them desire more and more power. I always like to say, you know, a lot of times it's just incompetence. Like, it's a hard problem. Even if you, even if you are of goodwill, right? It's both, right. Even if you are, I mean, most people in our government can't spell AI, let alone we, yield it in an effective manner.

And so between government overreach, general incompetence, yeah, I think that there's a lot of reason to push back against it. So to that extent, I think we're on the same page. I don't think we're in the sweet spot yet, but we'll end it here. I think AI right now is actually in a pretty good spot. I think it will get a little better. I like that there is grok and chat GPT and there's like however many, and there's no dominant player, I guess chat GPT,

is the leader, but I don't think they've won, you know. And with so many different ones, competitors and democratization, there's no capture of AI, but I'm worried we're headed there. Just like Google capture search. Sounds like you're fighting for DEI for AI. Get out of here. I'm fighting for anti-monopolistic end results when it comes to AI that are easily manipulated are captured by government players or anybody nefarious.

We don't need one to not dominant monopolistic player. Yeah. And for what it's worth, the government is pushing back quite a bit in a bipartisan way against tech monopolies, right? So I think her name is Lena. I think Lena Khan, I think, is pushing back as a, she's pushing against anti-trust laws against the big tech company. So there has been recently push back against, say, Apple and the way that they,

the way that they operate. They just actually received a, what was it, a $2 billion fine or a $5 billion fine, was it yesterday, by the European Union for monopolistic practices. So for what it's worth, I mean, I agree with you that, you know, let a thousand AI flowers bloom. That's better than it's being centralized and controlled by one entity. And there's reason for hope on that front, because among other things, just natural competitiveness of the market, we also have government pushing against monopolistic tech. And by the way, one of those thousand flowers can be your DEA. AI AI if you want. No, I'm not.

That's not. And have it owned by Google. We already have that DEI, AI. It's owned by Google. All right. Ethical machines, check it out. Founder and CEO of Virtue. Reid Blackman, great discussion.

Thanks, Reid. Yeah. Always a pleasure, man. All right, man. We'll see you again. All right, that's going to do it for me today here on the Will Kane show. Super Tuesday edition. I'll see you again tomorrow with the results.

Tune in right here. Let's hang out. Let's figure out. Is it over for Nikki Haley tomorrow on the Will Kane 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 Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas.

Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com.