Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Thirty Two: Costner '26

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Thirty Two: Costner '26 · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode two hundred and thirty two of the
0:02
Speaker 1: Death of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm
0:05
Speaker 1: your host. On today's show. We tie up some loose
0:07
Speaker 1: ends from Trump's big speech to Congress last week. The
0:11
Speaker 1: Trump Musk relationship takes a couple of wild turns. Gavin
0:16
Speaker 1: Newsom's new podcast is making waves and starting to concern me.
0:22
Speaker 1: Lebron James goes after ESPN, stephen A. Smith, and Penn
0:26
Speaker 1: State Football sells off what was left of its soul,
0:30
Speaker 1: ending any real hope of justice for Joe Paterno. Another
0:37
Speaker 1: jam packed episode of the Death of Journalism podcast this week.
0:41
Speaker 1: I want to begin briefly by going back to one
0:45
Speaker 1: of the big stories from last week, which was Trump's
0:48
Speaker 1: as dressed to Congress, usually known as the State of
0:51
Speaker 1: the Union address, but not known as the State of
0:53
Speaker 1: Union Address because he had just taken office. And there
0:56
Speaker 1: are a couple of things I want to follow up
0:59
Speaker 1: on and tie up from that particular news story. The
1:02
Speaker 1: first is the ratings for that event, and one of
1:07
Speaker 1: the things I talked about in the last episode of
1:08
Speaker 1: the podcast was that I think the hyper partisan nature
1:13
Speaker 1: of the speech is eventually going to end it as
1:17
Speaker 1: any sort of communal political event in the United States
1:22
Speaker 1: of America. Now we've seen this happen to many other
1:26
Speaker 1: formerly communal events, most recently obviously the oscars, which I
1:29
Speaker 1: talked a novel lot about. And the ratings certainly do
1:33
Speaker 1: show that this prediction that I made, which I don't
1:37
Speaker 1: think is good for the Union to have the State
1:39
Speaker 1: of the Union be a minor partisan event as opposed
1:43
Speaker 1: to a wider event that can sometimes unify the country.
1:47
Speaker 1: And to be clear, Trump did not cause this problem,
1:50
Speaker 1: but I think he has amplified and this is the
1:53
Speaker 1: direction things have been going for a very long time, unfortunately,
1:57
Speaker 1: but the ratings for that event, I do think expoh
2:00
Speaker 1: a lot of what I was discussing in the last
2:02
Speaker 1: episode of the podcast. The overall audience for Trump's address
2:07
Speaker 1: to Congress was about thirty two million people, which is
2:11
Speaker 1: a very large number and it's significant, although it's a
2:14
Speaker 1: little bit deceiving because this address aired on every major network,
2:21
Speaker 1: the cable news networks and the four regular networks ABCNBCCBS,
2:26
Speaker 1: and Fox Plus obviously CNN, MSNB, Fox and MSNBC and
2:31
Speaker 1: Fox News Channel. So when it's on seven different major channels,
2:36
Speaker 1: it was also on News Nation, although I didn't get
2:39
Speaker 1: the ratings from News Nation, So at least eight broadcast outlets,
2:43
Speaker 1: probably more that we're airing this thing live. That kind
2:48
Speaker 1: of artificially juices the number, because you're inherently, first of all,
2:53
Speaker 1: you're elevating the event, because people understand, Okay, if everyone's
2:57
Speaker 1: airing this, this must be something that's important, I should
2:59
Speaker 1: probably check it out out. You have a lot of
3:01
Speaker 1: those people. Plus you have eliminated a lot of other
3:04
Speaker 1: options for people when they don't have other options. If
3:07
Speaker 1: they're a TV viewer and all their other options are
3:10
Speaker 1: taken away, they're either going to turn the television off.
3:12
Speaker 1: Some might just stick around. So that thirty two to
3:16
Speaker 1: thirty three million number is already a bit inflated. It's
3:20
Speaker 1: certainly a lot larger than for instance, the Academy Awards
3:24
Speaker 1: got over a week ago that was not even twenty
3:28
Speaker 1: million viewers. But of the thirty two million viewers or
3:32
Speaker 1: so that the ratings accounted for, almost eleven million of
3:37
Speaker 1: them were watching Fox News Channel. Almost an eleven million,
3:43
Speaker 1: about a third, almost exactly a third of the audience
3:47
Speaker 1: was watching on Fox News Channel, and a couple of
3:50
Speaker 1: million more we're watching on the Fox network. Now, I
3:53
Speaker 1: don't know necessarily that those watching on the Fox network
3:57
Speaker 1: are as politically conservative or report publican or pro Trump
4:01
Speaker 1: as those watching on Fox News Channel, But I think
4:04
Speaker 1: you can see where I'm going with this. That is
4:07
Speaker 1: an extraordinary number. The number of people watching on Fox
4:10
Speaker 1: News Channel dwarfed every other network, And I just don't
4:15
Speaker 1: think this is a good trend at all. It's representative
4:20
Speaker 1: of something I discuss on a consistent basis, which is
4:25
Speaker 1: the fragmentation and the Balkanization of our culture and our politics.
4:32
Speaker 1: And you know, when you see ratings that or whole
4:37
Speaker 1: results that show that seventy percent of those watching approved
4:41
Speaker 1: of Trump's speech, that's not nearly as impressive as it
4:45
Speaker 1: used to be, because it's obvious that the vast majority
4:49
Speaker 1: of people watching or watching because they want to be
4:52
Speaker 1: preached to, they're already part of the choir. Those that
4:55
Speaker 1: are Democrats aren't even going to bother to show up
4:58
Speaker 1: and watch because they just don't want to get dunked on.
5:01
Speaker 1: They don't want to deal with it. And so you know,
5:05
Speaker 1: that is not a unifying event. That is an event
5:09
Speaker 1: that is divisive, and that's not healthy for the Union.
5:13
Speaker 1: I don't want to blabor it, but I had mentioned
5:15
Speaker 1: it quite a bit in the last episode of the podcast,
5:17
Speaker 1: and I thought those ratings numbers were very interesting. Now,
5:20
Speaker 1: there were a couple other things that occurred in the
5:22
Speaker 1: aftermath of Trump's address to Congress. One was that Trump
5:26
Speaker 1: actually called for the firing of two MSNBC hosts, Nicole
5:32
Speaker 1: Wallace and Rachel Maddow for comments that they made that
5:35
Speaker 1: were absolutely ridiculous about DJ Daniel. Now, DJ Daniel, you're
5:41
Speaker 1: probably aware of who he is. He was basically the
5:44
Speaker 1: star of the entire event because he was the thirteen
5:49
Speaker 1: year old cancer patient who was made an honorary Secret
5:55
Speaker 1: Service agent, much to his surprise and excitement during the speech.
6:00
Speaker 1: He happens to be black. He also happens to be
6:03
Speaker 1: very hilarious, very charismatic, adorable. He's thirteen, but he has
6:09
Speaker 1: a vibe of a younger kid than that. And this
6:14
Speaker 1: drove Democrats and liberals crazy because here Trump was a
6:18
Speaker 1: guy that they have claimed absurdly is a racist, elevating
6:24
Speaker 1: this black boy who has cancer in a way that
6:28
Speaker 1: was extremely compelling and very moving, and they handled it horrendously.
6:34
Speaker 1: And I don't think that Trump should have the authority
6:38
Speaker 1: to fire MSNBC OOSI has very right to say they
6:41
Speaker 1: ought to be fired. That's free speech. That's not really
6:45
Speaker 1: my issue here. I disagree with what Wallace and Mattowse said.
6:49
Speaker 1: They ought to be criticized for it. But the DJ
6:51
Speaker 1: J Daniel issue, I think has an element to it
6:56
Speaker 1: that nobody else is going to mention. And that's kind
6:59
Speaker 1: of what I specializing in general, especially on this podcast.
7:04
Speaker 1: And I want to make something very clear. I love
7:06
Speaker 1: the DJ Daniel's story. I love it. However, I think
7:10
Speaker 1: there's a potential I don't want to say dark side
7:14
Speaker 1: is probably too strong a word, but there's a potential
7:18
Speaker 1: downside to this story that I hope I'm wrong about.
7:22
Speaker 1: But before I get to that, I want to play
7:25
Speaker 1: one of many clips of interviews with DJ Daniel that
7:29
Speaker 1: went viral in the aftermath of Trump's speech, just to
7:32
Speaker 1: give you a sense of what I'm talking about about.
7:36
Speaker 1: How much the media fell in love, or at least
7:38
Speaker 1: the conservative media fell in love understandably with DJ Daniel,
7:43
Speaker 1: how funny he is, how charismatic he is. Also by
7:47
Speaker 1: the way, how he gets away with statements that if
7:52
Speaker 1: he wasn't adorable and maybe even black playing a role
7:58
Speaker 1: in this that he that would get in trouble. I mean,
8:01
Speaker 1: on numerous occasions he basically threatened, if you wanted to
8:05
Speaker 1: an interpret that way, assault on people who did things
8:09
Speaker 1: he didn't like, including his own girlfriend, although that's not
8:12
Speaker 1: in this particular clip that I'm going to play for you,
8:14
Speaker 1: But just to give you a sense of why the
8:17
Speaker 1: DJ Daniels story resonated, it was really because of his
8:21
Speaker 1: own charisma, and because he's so funny, and because obviously
8:27
Speaker 1: liberals were incensed that this little black boy was now
8:31
Speaker 1: being literally embraced as he went to the Oval office
8:34
Speaker 1: the day afterwards, literally embraced by Donald Trump, a guy
8:39
Speaker 1: who they claim absurdly is a racist. So here is
8:42
Speaker 1: what I thought was maybe the most interesting and the
8:45
Speaker 1: funniest of his interviews. It occurred on a right wing
8:49
Speaker 1: television network. I'm not even sure what this was. I
8:52
Speaker 1: tried to figure it out. I don't know if this
8:53
Speaker 1: was One America News or what it was, but it's
8:56
Speaker 1: a it was a right wing pro Trump media outlet.
8:59
Speaker 1: This was an interview done right in front of the
9:01
Speaker 1: White House, and this was one of those DJ Daniel
9:04
Speaker 1: clips that went viral.
9:07
Speaker 2: Can I call you officer or agent? DJ Daniel, all
9:10
Speaker 2: of the above. It really doesn't matter to me. I
9:12
Speaker 2: love a woman, so I don't care. That's amazing, DJ Daniel.
9:17
Speaker 3: I want to ask you first and foremost, do you
9:20
Speaker 3: love President Trump? And are you so excited to be
9:22
Speaker 3: here on the White House grounds?
9:24
Speaker 4: Offestly because I gave him a great note that said
9:27
Speaker 4: Donald Trump is the best president of the United States
9:30
Speaker 4: of America.
9:32
Speaker 1: And why do you feel that way?
9:35
Speaker 4: Because honestly, honest that wanted to see Donald Trump in
9:39
Speaker 4: real life, and now it's actually came true. And to
9:42
Speaker 4: my friends, I know one of my friends told me
9:44
Speaker 4: to say this to Donald Trump, but I ain't say
9:46
Speaker 4: it to him, so good Luckily.
9:48
Speaker 2: The last thing is we know you got to bounce.
9:50
Speaker 3: What would your one piece of advice for the Secret Service?
9:54
Speaker 2: Spee?
9:55
Speaker 4: Please stop being mean to person and Trump, because if
9:57
Speaker 4: I see you being mean to him while I'm coming
9:59
Speaker 4: after you.
10:00
Speaker 2: I love that.
10:01
Speaker 3: I think you need to become the director of the
10:02
Speaker 3: sear Service.
10:03
Speaker 2: DJ.
10:03
Speaker 3: It is such an honor to have met you.
10:06
Speaker 2: What he has one more thing to say?
10:08
Speaker 3: I won't interrupt you.
10:09
Speaker 4: If you're a jimmer print, and you're being mean to
10:11
Speaker 4: President Trump. I'm on your bumper.
10:15
Speaker 3: You are about to go so viral, and you went
10:17
Speaker 3: viral last night.
10:18
Speaker 4: I ain't gonna I'm I'm kind of acting like miss
10:21
Speaker 4: Cannas Matthews from Houston, Texas.
10:26
Speaker 3: That's amazing. Do you have anything else that you want
10:28
Speaker 3: to say? You should just take my job at this.
10:30
Speaker 2: Point, may bless America.
10:33
Speaker 3: How about that, Steve, I think we found my replacement,
10:36
Speaker 3: your replacement.
10:37
Speaker 2: Would you have a run for president? I'm not sure.
10:40
Speaker 4: I'm a little bit too young if he well, really
10:43
Speaker 4: and truly, I'm not young. I'm a thirteenth a. I'm
10:45
Speaker 4: a fifty year old trip and a fifty year old
10:47
Speaker 4: body might look thirteen, but I'm fifty.
10:50
Speaker 2: I love that.
10:50
Speaker 3: And it sounds like you gotta go.
10:52
Speaker 2: The warm posse loves you.
10:53
Speaker 3: It's an honor to have met you, sir.
10:55
Speaker 4: I can't go yet because I'll see a little bald spot.
10:58
Speaker 4: I rub bald heads for the lucky.
11:00
Speaker 2: I think they want you to go, so I think
11:02
Speaker 2: you're gonna want to go. Very nice to meet you.
11:07
Speaker 1: DJ Daniels, so amazing.
11:09
Speaker 2: Absolutely incredible woman's hand.
11:17
Speaker 1: Oh man, thank you so much. Jacksovi, Natalie, thank you
11:22
Speaker 1: so much. DJ Daniels, who stole the show last night,
11:25
Speaker 1: still in the show again here. Now, that's hilarious and adorable.
11:30
Speaker 1: And I totally get why I went viral, and I
11:33
Speaker 1: am totally understanding of and supportive of why everyone embraced,
11:38
Speaker 1: especially on the right, especially in Trump world, the DJ
11:41
Speaker 1: Daniels story. It was a grand slam home run moment
11:46
Speaker 1: in Trump's address to Congress, however, and I don't I
11:52
Speaker 1: don't take any joy in this, I really don't, But
11:54
Speaker 1: I feel like I have an obligation to point out
11:58
Speaker 1: that there is a potential downside to this story, and
12:01
Speaker 1: that is that this kid clearly and understandably fell in
12:06
Speaker 1: love with the attention that he was getting. It's totally understandable,
12:11
Speaker 1: it's totally natural. I mean, this is a thirteen year
12:14
Speaker 1: old kid who out of nowhere, all of a sudden,
12:16
Speaker 1: becomes almost a household name, and you know, for a
12:21
Speaker 1: couple of days, everyone wants to talk to him. He's
12:24
Speaker 1: a big deal. He's on television. He's getting away with
12:28
Speaker 1: saying things that are in other contexts highly inappropriate, and
12:33
Speaker 1: everyone's laughing, everyone's cheering. He's meeting the president and then
12:39
Speaker 1: it all stops, and probably stops almost on a dot.
12:44
Speaker 5: Now.
12:44
Speaker 1: I'm sure when he goes back home he'll get up
12:46
Speaker 1: a lot of attention there. But I just I fear
12:50
Speaker 1: that this whole episode created an adrenaline junkie, an attention
12:55
Speaker 1: junkie here, and that there's a chance this isn't going
12:59
Speaker 1: to end. I hope I'm wrong. Obviously, his health is paramount,
13:04
Speaker 1: and if he really is in dire straits medically, then
13:08
Speaker 1: maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe this is his one moment,
13:11
Speaker 1: and who cares about the future because the future doesn't
13:14
Speaker 1: look that great. But I just have this sinking feeling
13:18
Speaker 1: that there's gonna be a downside to the creation of
13:22
Speaker 1: the DJ Daniel celebrity because he's not going to understand
13:28
Speaker 1: why this all suddenly went away, at least I don't
13:31
Speaker 1: think he is. I hope, I really hope I'm wrong,
13:33
Speaker 1: because I think the kid's awesome and I love the story.
13:37
Speaker 1: But this is where I can't stand the news media.
13:41
Speaker 1: The news media is basically feeding off of this kind
13:45
Speaker 1: of odd personality that he has and feeding into it,
13:51
Speaker 1: and they don't give a damn that you know, all
13:54
Speaker 1: these people he thinks are his friends are never gonna
13:58
Speaker 1: be in touch with him again, and that I think
14:00
Speaker 1: could have a downside. So I hope I'm wrong. I
14:03
Speaker 1: really do, because I love that particular story and I
14:06
Speaker 1: wish him the best obviously. Now there's one other thing
14:09
Speaker 1: from the speech itself that I want to address, because
14:14
Speaker 1: this actually is an incredibly minor story that I think
14:20
Speaker 1: has remarkable significance in its power to illustrate so much
14:27
Speaker 1: of what is happening with regard to the media in
14:30
Speaker 1: the Trump era and how difficult it is to cover
14:34
Speaker 1: Trump fairly. And I myself, among many other people, have
14:39
Speaker 1: experienced this strain, this difficulty firsthand on a weekly basis.
14:45
Speaker 1: By by the way, it's part of the reason why
14:47
Speaker 1: I went to one episode a week instead of two episodes.
14:51
Speaker 1: It's just that exhausting. There were other reasons as well
14:55
Speaker 1: that I've addressed previously and maybe we'll do again in
14:57
Speaker 1: the future. But the reality is it is incredibly draining
15:03
Speaker 1: to treat Donald Trump fairly for a lot of reasons,
15:07
Speaker 1: one of which is it's very difficult to tell what
15:11
Speaker 1: the truth is, and you can get lulled into this
15:16
Speaker 1: belief that if something sounds like it's a falsehood and
15:20
Speaker 1: it's coming from Trump, then you presume it's a falsehood
15:24
Speaker 1: because of past history. That's human nature, that's logic. But
15:30
Speaker 1: that's also dangerous because occasionally Trump will says something crazy
15:35
Speaker 1: and it turns out to be true, or oftentimes Trump
15:40
Speaker 1: will say something that sounds crazy and his supporters will
15:46
Speaker 1: find a way to rationalize that it's actually true. And
15:52
Speaker 1: you put some of this is on purpose and some
15:54
Speaker 1: of this is by accident, and I'm not sure which
15:58
Speaker 1: the I actually think that it's possible that the example
16:02
Speaker 1: I'm going to talk about is on purpose. And if
16:05
Speaker 1: it is, you know what, there's a genius somewhere within
16:09
Speaker 1: the Trump team, because the way this turned out couldn't
16:13
Speaker 1: have been better in many ways for Donald Trump, even
16:17
Speaker 1: though I believe what he said was purposely inaccurate. And
16:22
Speaker 1: what I'm referring to is this controversy over the eight
16:26
Speaker 1: million dollars that was allegedly spent on experiments to make
16:31
Speaker 1: mice transgendered. You may recall that that's what Trump said
16:37
Speaker 1: in the speech. I played that clip in the last
16:40
Speaker 1: episode of the podcast, and I declared it to be untrue,
16:45
Speaker 1: and I declared it to be untrue based upon a
16:49
Speaker 1: cursory investigation of this story. Now, remember that speech was
16:54
Speaker 1: Tuesday night. I tape on Wednesday morning. I got a
16:56
Speaker 1: lot of other things I'm going going to do and
17:00
Speaker 1: preparing for the podcast. I didn't spend a lot of
17:03
Speaker 1: time on it. And I jumped to what I thought
17:06
Speaker 1: was a fairly logical conclusion because I was seeing some
17:10
Speaker 1: credible posts, including from some media outlets, that what was
17:16
Speaker 1: happening was that Trump had misunderstood or mis identified this
17:23
Speaker 1: program that was actually transgetic or transgenic I'm not even
17:28
Speaker 1: sure which it is, transgenic mice as opposed to transgender mice,
17:34
Speaker 1: because everyone was trying to figure out what the hell
17:36
Speaker 1: is Trump talking about? What is this eight million dollars
17:40
Speaker 1: to make mice transgender? And that seemed logical to me
17:45
Speaker 1: that this was a confusion. It's somebody, you know, not
17:49
Speaker 1: Trump himself, but somebody who was researching this had misidentified
17:54
Speaker 1: or misunderstood transgender mice and transgenic mice. And I went
18:00
Speaker 1: with that version of the story, and I declared what
18:02
Speaker 1: Trump said to be false. Well, I was inaccurate in
18:06
Speaker 1: that what I said was untrue. This apparently had nothing
18:11
Speaker 1: to do with a misinterpretation of the words transgender and
18:16
Speaker 1: transgentic that that did not cause Trump to say what
18:21
Speaker 1: he did. Now CNN was doing the same thing that
18:26
Speaker 1: I was doing. They had a suspicion that this was
18:29
Speaker 1: not accurate, and they put out a fact check that
18:34
Speaker 1: Trump was false. What Trump said was false, and what
18:38
Speaker 1: he said was wrong because what he was really referring
18:41
Speaker 1: to was experiments with monkeys, because that's all they could
18:45
Speaker 1: figure out Trump was talking about. Again, this is an
18:48
Speaker 1: incredible advantage that Trump asked, where he can say something
18:52
Speaker 1: that sounds nuts and everyone's trying to figure out, Okay,
18:55
Speaker 1: what does he really mean? What's he referring to? And CNN,
19:01
Speaker 1: much like what happened with me and others, misinterpreted what
19:05
Speaker 1: Trump was referring to, and they thought he was referring
19:09
Speaker 1: to programs involving monkeys, and they under they explained why
19:15
Speaker 1: there was a reasonable medical explanation for why that money
19:20
Speaker 1: was being spent on those experiments. But then CNN did
19:26
Speaker 1: a I guess you would call it a fact check
19:28
Speaker 1: of their fact check, for which they got an enormous
19:32
Speaker 1: amount of grief from Trump fans. Trump fans declared victory
19:37
Speaker 1: in this little dust up because CNN actually clarified, or
19:43
Speaker 1: you could even argue, revoked their fact check and then
19:48
Speaker 1: put together a new one, and in the fact check
19:52
Speaker 1: of their fact check, they said the Trump administration had
19:56
Speaker 1: provided new information about what Trump was worth referring to.
20:01
Speaker 1: They wrote the White House list that was provided after
20:04
Speaker 1: the speech and after the initial fact check made clear
20:09
Speaker 1: what Trump in the speech did not. The studies were
20:14
Speaker 1: meant to figure out how these treatments, these hormonal treatments,
20:19
Speaker 1: might affect the health of humans who take them, not
20:25
Speaker 1: for the purpose of making mice transgender. That's in the
20:30
Speaker 1: second CNN fact check. Now it's hilarious and I think
20:35
Speaker 1: very very telling that we live in a world where
20:39
Speaker 1: CNN can fact check the President of the United States
20:44
Speaker 1: in a effectively a State of the Union address, and
20:47
Speaker 1: in their clarification of their original fact check, can declare
20:52
Speaker 1: that the president was wrong, that the essence of what
20:56
Speaker 1: the President said, that we were spending eight million dollars
21:00
Speaker 1: to turn mice transgendered, that that was indeed false, but
21:05
Speaker 1: just for different reasons than the original CNN fact checked indicated,
21:11
Speaker 1: And that can be perceived widely widely as a victory
21:16
Speaker 1: for Trump, as a loss for CNN. And I'm like,
21:22
Speaker 1: are you kidding me? Are we serious? Right now? So
21:27
Speaker 1: let's compare what these these two entities did, the Trump
21:33
Speaker 1: team and Trump himself and CNN. Trump at best, at
21:40
Speaker 1: best created a grotesque misimpression for the purposes of making
21:46
Speaker 1: a joke. That that is the best interpretation that you
21:50
Speaker 1: can put on what Trump said. Although as we played
21:54
Speaker 1: the clip last week, he said, that's real. So he
21:59
Speaker 1: when you say that's real, you're making it clear you're
22:02
Speaker 1: not telling a joke. Well, so again I'm trying to
22:06
Speaker 1: give Trump every benefit of the doubt, but what he
22:10
Speaker 1: said was not true. The only way you can and
22:14
Speaker 1: part of the confusion here is that the only way
22:16
Speaker 1: you can rationalize what Trump said is that if you
22:21
Speaker 1: look at that experiment that was done, or those experiments
22:25
Speaker 1: that were done through the prism of what it might
22:29
Speaker 1: mean if the same experiments were done on human beings.
22:35
Speaker 1: But that's not what was happening. They were Those were
22:38
Speaker 1: happening to mice for the purposes of determining what impact
22:43
Speaker 1: they may have on humans if humans were given the
22:46
Speaker 1: same hormones. But somebody, and you know, my guess is
22:52
Speaker 1: that they're you know, they're being thought of very highly
22:55
Speaker 1: in Trump world right now, in the indage world, one
22:58
Speaker 1: of Elon Musk's minions probably looked at the details and said, hey,
23:02
Speaker 1: we can we can rationalize that this is making mice transgendered.
23:08
Speaker 1: Of course, the idea that mice have a sexual identity
23:13
Speaker 1: that can change based upon their biology is just badly ridiculous.
23:19
Speaker 1: That no one is trying to change mice and make
23:23
Speaker 1: them into, you know, transgendered people just to spend tax
23:27
Speaker 1: money for the purposes of who knows what. There is
23:31
Speaker 1: a seemingly very legitimate explanation for why those experiments were done,
23:37
Speaker 1: and Trump greatly misconstrued that dramatically, and I'm being kind here,
23:44
Speaker 1: he effectively you could call it a lie. If a
23:48
Speaker 1: Democrat did it, Republicans would be calling it a lie.
23:52
Speaker 1: But again, going back to comparing Trump, Trump tells effectively
23:56
Speaker 1: a lie, makes makes it clear this isn't a joke.
24:00
Speaker 1: I'm telling here. Then the media tries to fact check,
24:05
Speaker 1: but because what he said was so crazy and so
24:10
Speaker 1: not keeping within the truth, they misconstrue partially out of
24:15
Speaker 1: time constraints and not having you know, not having the
24:18
Speaker 1: time at least in their minds, And that's what happened
24:21
Speaker 1: to me on this podcast, not having the time to
24:23
Speaker 1: get into it as deeply as I should have, or
24:26
Speaker 1: maybe CNN should have to begin with, but then correcting themselves. See,
24:32
Speaker 1: that's the thing that is amazing to me. I actually
24:36
Speaker 1: think higher of CNN because of this particular episode. What
24:40
Speaker 1: their original report was inaccurate, but understandable given the circumstances.
24:46
Speaker 1: They corrected it. They did so fairly. They got dunked
24:51
Speaker 1: on as the losers in this and then the narrative,
24:55
Speaker 1: oh Trump was right again. Media is such a bunch
24:59
Speaker 1: of fucking more us that is now accepted widely, especially
25:05
Speaker 1: in Trump world. And guess what, because of this episode,
25:09
Speaker 1: it will happen again and probably again, because that's the
25:13
Speaker 1: way Trump works. This is a great tactic for him.
25:17
Speaker 1: He basically, whether on purpose or not, bates the media
25:22
Speaker 1: into making mistakes because they're trying to figure out what
25:25
Speaker 1: the fuck he's talking about. And there will be tens
25:31
Speaker 1: of millions, tens of millions of Americans. I don't know
25:34
Speaker 1: how many, but there will be tens of millions of
25:36
Speaker 1: Americans who to this day believe that the United States
25:40
Speaker 1: government was spending eight million dollars for the purpose for
25:43
Speaker 1: the prime purpose of turning mice transgendered, and that is
25:48
Speaker 1: not true, nor is it even remotely the intent of
25:52
Speaker 1: what that money was used for. And the President United
25:54
Speaker 1: States said something that was not true at a major
25:58
Speaker 1: national address claimed it was real, and then you know,
26:02
Speaker 1: a smaller number of people will think aha, C and
26:05
Speaker 1: N blew it because they had to correct their correction. Now, interestingly,
26:11
Speaker 1: this topic made it into the to the live open
26:15
Speaker 1: of Saturday Night Live this past weekend, and the live
26:19
Speaker 1: open from Saturday Night Live was interesting on a couple
26:22
Speaker 1: of different levels, not just because it referenced this topic
26:25
Speaker 1: from the perspective of the idea that Trump actually lied
26:29
Speaker 1: about transgendered mice. But first of all, it was a
26:34
Speaker 1: much better live open this week than it was previous
26:36
Speaker 1: the previous week, which is ironic because the previous week
26:40
Speaker 1: and I talked about this in the last episode of
26:42
Speaker 1: the podcast, they had this great opportunity to talk about
26:44
Speaker 1: the Zelensky Trump vance dust up in the White House,
26:49
Speaker 1: something everyone knew about, which is which is basically manna
26:53
Speaker 1: from heaven in this very fragmented era where we have
26:56
Speaker 1: nothing in common, so therefore it's much more difficult to
26:58
Speaker 1: find things to joke about. They did a terrible job
27:01
Speaker 1: with that. Yet this past weekend, Saturday and Alive took
27:06
Speaker 1: a story that I think very very very few people
27:10
Speaker 1: in their audience had even heard about, which was an
27:14
Speaker 1: alleged dust up that did not happen on television between
27:18
Speaker 1: Elon Musk and Marco Rubio in a cabinet meeting, and
27:22
Speaker 1: that was reported about in The New York Times based
27:26
Speaker 1: upon unnamed sources, which of course is inherently, especially in
27:31
Speaker 1: this era, untrustworthy. And anything that is in the New
27:34
Speaker 1: York Times from unnamed sources that's negative about Trump in
27:37
Speaker 1: any way is not going to be believed by any
27:40
Speaker 1: any one Trump fan, not one Trump fan. It's going
27:42
Speaker 1: to go, oh my god, that's totally true, not one,
27:45
Speaker 1: because that's how little trust the New York Time Times
27:48
Speaker 1: now has in conservative circles and especially those who aren't
27:52
Speaker 1: Trump fans. But that was the subject matter for the
27:56
Speaker 1: open for Saturday Night Live, and it was actually much funnier.
28:00
Speaker 1: That was weird to me. It was actually much better
28:02
Speaker 1: done and much funnier than the week before, which would
28:06
Speaker 1: have been much easier. There was much better fodder with Zelenski,
28:10
Speaker 1: Trump and Van something everyone knew about then trying to
28:13
Speaker 1: make fun of this cabinet meeting that we don't even
28:16
Speaker 1: know for sure The New York Times was accurate about
28:20
Speaker 1: when they reported it, and that very few people had
28:23
Speaker 1: even heard about, because you know, The New York Times
28:25
Speaker 1: doesn't have nearly the reach that it used to have,
28:29
Speaker 1: especially among people who are watching Saturday Night Live. But
28:33
Speaker 1: the issue itself of the Musk Rubio, I guess you
28:37
Speaker 1: would call it a dust up that was reported in
28:40
Speaker 1: The New York Times by at least one reporter who
28:43
Speaker 1: famously is very close to Donald Trump. And I think
28:49
Speaker 1: the story has something to it. Is it exaggerated? Probably
28:53
Speaker 1: so everyone involved denied the essence of the story. In fact,
28:59
Speaker 1: just for the record, here is Donald Trump addressing the
29:03
Speaker 1: New York Times story with with what I would describe
29:06
Speaker 1: for him as a not very strong denial. This is
29:10
Speaker 1: almost the non denial denial of this story. That he
29:15
Speaker 1: called this cabinet meeting and Elon Musk got into it
29:19
Speaker 1: with several cabinet members, but specifically Mark Rubio, the Secretary
29:23
Speaker 1: of State, over who has the authority to fire who?
29:27
Speaker 1: And here's what Trump said about that New York Times report.
29:34
Speaker 6: No, clash I was there. You're just a troublemaker, and
29:37
Speaker 6: you're not supposed to be asking that question because we're
29:40
Speaker 6: talking about the World Cup. Elon gets along great with
29:43
Speaker 6: Marco and they're both doing a fantastic job. There is
29:46
Speaker 6: no clash. Who are you with?
29:49
Speaker 1: Who are you with?
29:51
Speaker 6: No wonder that's ano NBC any other questions about the
29:58
Speaker 6: World Cup.
29:59
Speaker 1: Now parsing that, As you know, someone who has followed
30:03
Speaker 1: Donald Trump very closely now for a decade, maybe longer
30:06
Speaker 1: than that, that doesn't feel like a very strong denial.
30:10
Speaker 1: That feels like there was something to the story. And
30:14
Speaker 1: Maggie Haberman, one of the reporters, as I said, is
30:18
Speaker 1: famously well connected to Trump world for better or for worse,
30:23
Speaker 1: I think there was something to it. And the essence
30:25
Speaker 1: of the story was that there's increasing frustration with who
30:30
Speaker 1: has the authority to fire people? And Trump was essentially
30:36
Speaker 1: forced to acknowledge in this cabinet meeting that Must does
30:40
Speaker 1: not have any authority to fire anybody, that that is
30:43
Speaker 1: up to the leader of each department. And you know
30:48
Speaker 1: there are those who will argue, well, Must never had
30:50
Speaker 1: that authority. But in this very strange world we're living in,
30:53
Speaker 1: now your authority is basically what it's perceived to be.
30:58
Speaker 1: And if people are perceiving you as acting on behalf
31:02
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump, that you have essentially the same authority
31:05
Speaker 1: as Donald Trump, who's acting like a king. If you're
31:08
Speaker 1: the co king cole bonarch in Elon Musk, then essentially
31:12
Speaker 1: you do have that authority because anything you say will
31:16
Speaker 1: be perceived as an order from the king from Trump,
31:21
Speaker 1: well for better for worse, rightly or wrongly, whether it's
31:26
Speaker 1: real or or whether it's just perception. Trump had to
31:30
Speaker 1: clip Elon musk swings on this, and this is not
31:35
Speaker 1: the first time that, at least in perception, he has
31:38
Speaker 1: clipped Elon Musk swings. That email that went out to
31:42
Speaker 1: all federal workers, that was supposed to go out to
31:44
Speaker 1: all federal workers asking them what you did last week,
31:48
Speaker 1: that had the balls cut off of it. And you know,
31:51
Speaker 1: I referenced on this podcast that I thought that was
31:54
Speaker 1: a humiliating moment for Elon Musk. And I don't even
31:57
Speaker 1: know who did that. I don't know who who ordered
32:00
Speaker 1: code red on the email, but Musk had to be
32:03
Speaker 1: irritated by that because he looked silly his authority. And
32:10
Speaker 1: you can argue that his authority is way, way too
32:12
Speaker 1: broad for someone who's unelected. That's a separate issue. But
32:15
Speaker 1: within Trump world, his authority is all about perception. That's
32:20
Speaker 1: all he has. And if he's perceived as a paper tiger,
32:24
Speaker 1: he's perceived is just not having any real authority, no
32:28
Speaker 1: real power, then that's going to cause a problem for
32:32
Speaker 1: a guy who's used to having ultimate authority over everything
32:35
Speaker 1: he does. I mean, he thinks seemingly that this is
32:39
Speaker 1: going to be like what he did with Twitter, and
32:41
Speaker 1: he comes in and he fires almost everybody and there's
32:44
Speaker 1: almost no negative drawbacks to all the cutbacks at Twitter. Well,
32:50
Speaker 1: it's not going to be that way for a whole
32:53
Speaker 1: hosts of reasons in the federal government, and now here
32:55
Speaker 1: we have Trump in a very dramatics suation. He calls
33:00
Speaker 1: a special Cabinet meeting to have this happen. It gets
33:04
Speaker 1: reported about negatively in the New York Times, it's the
33:07
Speaker 1: subject of the live open for satur of the Night
33:10
Speaker 1: Live and you know, Mike Myers does his very poor
33:14
Speaker 1: Elon Musk impression again. And so now this is part
33:18
Speaker 1: of the public consciousness. And we've talked a lot about
33:22
Speaker 1: how the media has it out for the Trump Musk relationship,
33:26
Speaker 1: and I think they're scoring some points. It doesn't seem
33:30
Speaker 1: to have had any real impact on the relationship itself.
33:33
Speaker 1: In fact, at least so far as I kind of predicted,
33:37
Speaker 1: it's had, at least temporarily. The opposite of fact, it
33:41
Speaker 1: seems to have made it even stronger, where we had
33:45
Speaker 1: this bizarre spectacle on Tuesday of Donald Trump essentially doing
33:50
Speaker 1: a Tesla commercial with Elon Musk on the White House lawn.
33:56
Speaker 1: And if you think I'm exaggerating, I'm not. This is
34:01
Speaker 1: was motivated seemingly in part because of all these protests,
34:05
Speaker 1: some of them violent and destructive against Tesla, because Elon
34:10
Speaker 1: Musk is now being perceived as obviously Trump's co president,
34:15
Speaker 1: and so people the left essentially is acting out against Tesla,
34:21
Speaker 1: which is kind of interesting on its own. Matt Walsh,
34:26
Speaker 1: you know, the conservative commentator I thought, made a good
34:29
Speaker 1: point on Twitter yesterday where he said, can you imagine
34:32
Speaker 1: if the same kind of violent protests had broken out
34:35
Speaker 1: against bud Light during the conservative boycott of bud Light,
34:40
Speaker 1: and what kind of media coverage, negative media coverage that
34:43
Speaker 1: would create. Well, I think that's a pretty good analogy
34:47
Speaker 1: to make here where the left is lashing out against Tesla,
34:51
Speaker 1: which is just hilarious on its own, because you know,
34:54
Speaker 1: electric vehicles used to be part of the Tesla's used
34:59
Speaker 1: to be part of the liber woke religion, so they,
35:03
Speaker 1: you know, Elon has been tossed out of the the
35:06
Speaker 1: woke religion, and now it's exactly the opposite. Liberals are
35:09
Speaker 1: are not just boycotting, but you know, vandalizing and creating
35:13
Speaker 1: violence against Tesla. And I think Trump feels bad about it.
35:19
Speaker 1: I think he feels like he owes Elon Musk a favor.
35:22
Speaker 1: This might have even been a consolation price for clipping
35:26
Speaker 1: his wings in that cabinet meeting. But you know, Musk
35:31
Speaker 1: clearly under a lot of pressure. The stock price for
35:33
Speaker 1: Tesla is collapsing, and Trump essentially does a commercial on
35:40
Speaker 1: the White House lawn. And here is Donald Trump, the
35:44
Speaker 1: President United States, effectively pitching Tesla's as president with the
35:50
Speaker 1: cars right there with Elon Musk with the press on
35:54
Speaker 1: the White House law And here's what that sounded like. Oh,
35:57
Speaker 1: President Trump, are you looking to buy as well?
36:00
Speaker 6: I'm gonna buy, and I'm gonna buy because number one
36:04
Speaker 6: is a great product, as good as it gets. And
36:06
Speaker 6: number two, because this man has devoted his energy in
36:09
Speaker 6: his life to doing this. I think he's been treated
36:12
Speaker 6: very unfairly by a very small group of people.
36:16
Speaker 1: And I just want.
36:17
Speaker 6: People to know that you can't be penalized for being
36:20
Speaker 6: a patriot. And he's a great patriot. And he's also
36:24
Speaker 6: done an incredible job with Tesla, And I mean, nobody
36:28
Speaker 6: else has a car company started up in the last
36:31
Speaker 6: thirty years that's been successful, I don't think so. And
36:34
Speaker 6: not only successful, but super successful. And because he's able
36:38
Speaker 6: to find billions and billions and billions of dollars of
36:43
Speaker 6: fraud and waste and all.
36:44
Speaker 4: Of the things.
36:44
Speaker 1: I mean, our country is going to be.
36:46
Speaker 6: Very strong very soon because of a lot of the
36:49
Speaker 6: things that he's done and a lot of the things
36:50
Speaker 6: that I'm doing. And there's no better team, but there's
36:54
Speaker 6: no better for what we're doing. There's nobody like this,
36:57
Speaker 6: and he shouldn't be penalized. When I watched the other day,
37:01
Speaker 6: I said, I can't believe it.
37:03
Speaker 1: It should be the opposite.
37:04
Speaker 6: People should be going wild and they love the product.
37:07
Speaker 6: But because he's finding all sorts of terrible things that
37:11
Speaker 6: have taken place against our country. They want to penalize
37:15
Speaker 6: him in an economic sense, and I just think that's
37:18
Speaker 6: very unfair. So I just wanted to make a statement.
37:21
Speaker 1: I'm gonna buy one. Now here's the bad news.
37:23
Speaker 6: I'm not allowed to drive because if I haven't driven
37:26
Speaker 6: a car in a long time, and I love to
37:28
Speaker 6: drive cars. But I'm going to have it at the
37:30
Speaker 6: White House and I'm gonna let my staff use it.
37:32
Speaker 6: I'm gonna let people at the place use it. And
37:35
Speaker 6: they all are all excited about that I'm not allowed
37:38
Speaker 6: to use it. Can you believe it? One of my
37:42
Speaker 6: great things in life is that I can You.
37:44
Speaker 7: Know, I like to drive cars, but I'm not allowed to.
37:47
Speaker 1: Now. I realize we are desensitized. And look, I know
37:51
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden drove a car on the White House
37:55
Speaker 1: lawn during his presidency. I don't think it's exactly analogous.
37:59
Speaker 1: I think they're different. Says First of all, you know,
38:01
Speaker 1: Elon Musk is Trump's biggest financial supporter, and by the way,
38:06
Speaker 1: right after this happened, Musk pledged another one hundred million
38:11
Speaker 1: dollars to Trump backed political action committees and so awfully swampy, folks,
38:18
Speaker 1: you know, awfully swampy. If you're someone who believed that
38:21
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was all about draining the swamp, you know,
38:24
Speaker 1: I've never believed that at all. I think Trump is
38:26
Speaker 1: essentially a swamp creature himself. And this is about a
38:29
Speaker 1: swampy as you get. You have the formerly now, I guess,
38:33
Speaker 1: since Tesla stock has collapsed, the richest man in the
38:36
Speaker 1: world having the President United States to a commercial for
38:40
Speaker 1: his embattled Tesla cars on the on the Law of
38:45
Speaker 1: the White House on live television. I mean, that's that's
38:48
Speaker 1: pretty swampy. And then you get, you know, that richest
38:51
Speaker 1: man or formerly richest man, Elon Musk, pledging another one
38:54
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars to help back you politically. That's swampy.
38:59
Speaker 1: That's about a wompy as you get. And you know,
39:02
Speaker 1: I made an appearance which kind of surprised me a bit,
39:05
Speaker 1: on News Nation television to discuss this this Tesla commercial
39:11
Speaker 1: on Tuesday night. I was surprised because I had not
39:13
Speaker 1: been asked on News Nation ever since Dan Abrams Show
39:16
Speaker 1: officially ended in February. But I was asked on Leland
39:21
Speaker 1: Viddert Show. Leland Viddt has taken over for the nine
39:23
Speaker 1: pm slot on News Nation Television for Dan Abrams, and
39:28
Speaker 1: they asked me on to talk about it and it
39:30
Speaker 1: was a fun little appearance. I posted it on my
39:34
Speaker 1: social media accounts. If you're interested, it's also on YouTube.
39:37
Speaker 1: You can check it out. But in preparing for that
39:41
Speaker 1: situation it did. I did find it interesting to think
39:44
Speaker 1: about how strange a world we live in, where in
39:49
Speaker 1: just a few years, you know, Tesla and Elon Musk
39:53
Speaker 1: went from heroes to zero's and similarly, in the opposite direction,
40:00
Speaker 1: you know, on the Republican side, Rfk Junior went from
40:05
Speaker 1: a liberal nut job to a superstar. Mike Pence went
40:10
Speaker 1: from Vice president to being persona non grata somehow, Now
40:15
Speaker 1: tariffs are something that Republicans stand and applaud on national television.
40:23
Speaker 1: In Unison, Republicans are are enthusiastically in favor of tariffs
40:29
Speaker 1: against Canada and Mexico. How did that happen? Democrats are
40:34
Speaker 1: the anti Russia party, Well, Republicans are much more of
40:37
Speaker 1: the pro Russia party. Thomas Massey is now being attacked
40:44
Speaker 1: probably the most conservative member of Congress, the one libertarian
40:47
Speaker 1: member of Congress, Congressman from Kentucky, who's in my opinion,
40:51
Speaker 1: had become far too trumpy over the years. Now Trump
40:54
Speaker 1: is saying that he's going to primary Thomas Massey because
40:58
Speaker 1: he didn't go along with the effort to you know,
41:03
Speaker 1: pass the cr the continuing resolution to kick the can
41:07
Speaker 1: down the road another seven or eight months when it
41:09
Speaker 1: comes to funding the government, which Massi's one hundred percent right.
41:13
Speaker 1: Massie says, the only one that didn't get the memo
41:16
Speaker 1: that we're not really serious about cutting spending. I mean,
41:19
Speaker 1: this whole Doge Musk effort is about cutting spending, and
41:23
Speaker 1: Massy is actually acting like folks, I thought this was
41:27
Speaker 1: our goal. And now because he's standing up for essentially
41:31
Speaker 1: what Trump claims to want, he's gonna get primary. At
41:35
Speaker 1: least according to what Trump is posting on social media,
41:39
Speaker 1: everything is just so upside down, and it's frankly hilarious
41:44
Speaker 1: if it was you know, I got. I've gotten to
41:46
Speaker 1: the point where it's just so maddening you have to laugh.
41:50
Speaker 1: You have to laugh at how the hell we got
41:52
Speaker 1: into this situation. But going back to Massey and this
41:58
Speaker 1: whole issue of getting some semblance of financial responsibility, I
42:05
Speaker 1: am continually increasingly pessimistic about what the hell the path
42:11
Speaker 1: is to all of this actually working when it comes
42:15
Speaker 1: to reducing significantly the size of government and cutting into
42:20
Speaker 1: our debt and our deficit. I mean, let's be clear
42:23
Speaker 1: at this point. You know, Doje has gotten a lot
42:26
Speaker 1: of publicity, especially on the right, for allegedly finding all
42:28
Speaker 1: of this waste and the corruption and you know, all
42:33
Speaker 1: that saving all this money. I am not convinced that
42:36
Speaker 1: it's real. But even if it is real, it's still
42:39
Speaker 1: not a significant amount of money in terms of the
42:42
Speaker 1: entire federal deficit and federal budget. And that's after the
42:47
Speaker 1: low hanging fruit has already been identified. And you have
42:51
Speaker 1: Elon Musk with his very I think somewhat naive although
42:56
Speaker 1: well intentioned wings being clipped on the federal employee email
43:01
Speaker 1: on the who has the authority to fire people? And
43:04
Speaker 1: now we have this continuing resolution passing, and not only
43:08
Speaker 1: does it pass with only with except with one exception,
43:11
Speaker 1: only Republican votes, and then the one guy on the
43:14
Speaker 1: Republican side the votes against it, Thomas Massey, gets threatened
43:18
Speaker 1: with being primaried in public, not privately, not privately publicly
43:25
Speaker 1: by the President of the States. And he's the one
43:29
Speaker 1: time seems to actually believe in this whole idea of
43:33
Speaker 1: cutting spending. And so you have Trump losing in court,
43:38
Speaker 1: even the Supreme Court thanks to his own nominee, Amy
43:42
Speaker 1: Comy Barrett, the you know, losing major rulings on a
43:48
Speaker 1: consistent basis. Now that doesn't mean he's going to lose
43:50
Speaker 1: them all when it's all said and done. But that
43:52
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ruling was ominous, with Roberts and Barrett voting
43:56
Speaker 1: against Trump. So you have Musk, you know, probably exaggerating
44:01
Speaker 1: how much waste and fraud has been identified. His wins
44:06
Speaker 1: are getting clipped, his stock price is going way down.
44:10
Speaker 1: Trump is helping to do commercials for him to try
44:12
Speaker 1: to prop up Tesla, although I'm not sure how many
44:14
Speaker 1: Trump fans or actually in the market for a Tesla
44:17
Speaker 1: or could afford one even if they were in the
44:20
Speaker 1: market for one. You've got Congress doing absolutely nothing, Republicans
44:26
Speaker 1: in Congress showing no inclination that they are ready or
44:30
Speaker 1: willing to actually endure any pain whatsoever when it comes
44:35
Speaker 1: to reducing spending. You've got the stock markets tanking at
44:40
Speaker 1: least as of this taping over the last several days,
44:43
Speaker 1: largely because of the tariffs. Consumer confidence waning, and so
44:49
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering, Okay, what is the path here? What
44:53
Speaker 1: is the path to this actually working? And I've talked
44:57
Speaker 1: a lot in recent weeks about short term versus long term,
45:02
Speaker 1: and I get, I get you gotta have short term
45:05
Speaker 1: pain to get to long term gain. There are massive, inherent,
45:10
Speaker 1: fundamental problems in virtually every element of our government, and
45:16
Speaker 1: we've been overspending at a grotesque level for way, way
45:20
Speaker 1: too long. And from an ideological perspective, I'm a thousand
45:25
Speaker 1: percent in favor of doing everything we possibly can, and
45:28
Speaker 1: this might be the last chance we got. We got,
45:31
Speaker 1: you know, this miracle called Elon Musk, who's willing to
45:34
Speaker 1: go in there and do the dirty work. But I'm
45:37
Speaker 1: not sure he has the authority to do it. Congress
45:40
Speaker 1: doesn't have the guts to back him up with any
45:43
Speaker 1: kind of legislation. The courts are not bowing down some
45:49
Speaker 1: and by the way, I'm not one hundred percent sure
45:51
Speaker 1: I'm against what the courts are doing because I'm not
45:54
Speaker 1: a believer in a king. I'm a believer in checking
45:58
Speaker 1: executive authority, and I'm not sure that Trump hasn't exceeded
46:03
Speaker 1: dramatically his executive authority on a lot of these issues,
46:07
Speaker 1: but what is the path here? Trump is claiming that
46:11
Speaker 1: he's not worried about a recession, although there are a
46:14
Speaker 1: lot of economists that are starting to be concerned about that.
46:18
Speaker 1: He's also claiming that the stock market doesn't matter, which
46:22
Speaker 1: is something that contradicts statements that Trump has made on
46:26
Speaker 1: a consistent basis throughout his political career. He has always
46:32
Speaker 1: talked about I shouldn't say always, but he has consistently
46:35
Speaker 1: talked about whenever the stock market fits his agenda, whether
46:39
Speaker 1: you know it's down when someone else is in office
46:41
Speaker 1: or it's up when he's in office, he uses that
46:44
Speaker 1: as a barometer for how well or poorly the economy
46:48
Speaker 1: is doing well. Now, all of a sudden, because the
46:50
Speaker 1: stock market is down, it's not an important factor. By
46:54
Speaker 1: the way, it might not be. The stock market will
46:57
Speaker 1: eventually recover. In all likelihood, it almost always does, so
47:01
Speaker 1: I'm not all that concerned about it. But it's starting
47:04
Speaker 1: to create a negative narrative. And one of the things
47:08
Speaker 1: that I have talked about, really since the beginning of
47:11
Speaker 1: Trump two point zero is that Trump has a massive
47:15
Speaker 1: time problem. Does he have the time to get through
47:21
Speaker 1: the tunnel to at least see the light at the
47:24
Speaker 1: end of the tunnel before this all falls apart, because
47:30
Speaker 1: I think this will take a long time, even even
47:33
Speaker 1: if you have the guts and the inclination and the
47:37
Speaker 1: fortitude and the ability to get all this done, and
47:40
Speaker 1: even if it works, I think it'll take too long
47:44
Speaker 1: because our attention spans are too short. We've become woosified
47:48
Speaker 1: as a country. We have no understanding of the idea
47:51
Speaker 1: that you're supposed to endure pain from time to time.
47:55
Speaker 1: This is why we're all so obese. We're an obese nation.
47:57
Speaker 1: That's symbolic of this whole issue. In order to lose weight,
48:01
Speaker 1: you gotta do work, you gotta burn calories and stop
48:05
Speaker 1: eating like a pig that requires short term pain. For
48:11
Speaker 1: lack of a better word. Well, most people are not
48:14
Speaker 1: willing to do that, and it's a society. We're clearly
48:17
Speaker 1: not willing to do that, which is why no one
48:19
Speaker 1: has tried to do this in the recent past. Politically,
48:24
Speaker 1: everyone's always understood this was not possible. It's why no
48:30
Speaker 1: one's made a serious effort at it. Because you know,
48:33
Speaker 1: as soon as you put your toe in that water,
48:37
Speaker 1: it is extremely hot or cold, depending on your perspective,
48:41
Speaker 1: it's not comfortable, and everyone almost immediately cries uncle and says, okay,
48:47
Speaker 1: never mind, let's just go along with the budget deficit
48:51
Speaker 1: and let's keep you know, passing these continuing resolutions and
48:55
Speaker 1: let somebody else deal with it down the road, which
48:58
Speaker 1: of course is not healthy all, but that's the politically
49:02
Speaker 1: expedient path, and Congress is showing very clearly that that's
49:08
Speaker 1: the path they want to take. And by the way,
49:11
Speaker 1: let's pretend that by some miracle, all this works out,
49:17
Speaker 1: that the spending gets cut and we you know, we
49:21
Speaker 1: avoid a recession, and then eventually we get the benefits
49:24
Speaker 1: of the cut spending. Guess what's going to happen the
49:28
Speaker 1: next time a Democrat takes over Because none of this
49:31
Speaker 1: is being done by law, none of it. This is
49:36
Speaker 1: all being done by edict. So there's nothing permanent about this.
49:40
Speaker 1: It's all going to just be reversed and Democrats will
49:44
Speaker 1: get the benefit, assuming they ever take over again. We'll
49:46
Speaker 1: get the benefit of getting to spend all those money
49:48
Speaker 1: by rehiring all these people and you know, going crazy
49:52
Speaker 1: when it comes to the government checkbook. Now I'm not
49:54
Speaker 1: saying that, you know, that would have zero impact we
49:58
Speaker 1: would have a positive impact. But that's that's the best
50:00
Speaker 1: case scenario. And again I'm not particularly optimistic about that
50:05
Speaker 1: scenario from a timing perspective, especially when you've got tariffs
50:11
Speaker 1: further accelerating the economic chaos. I mean, if Trump sticks
50:16
Speaker 1: with these tariffs, my guess is he won't. My guess
50:20
Speaker 1: is He's gonna get some sort of concession, declare victory,
50:24
Speaker 1: and move on. That's that's Trump's m O. But if
50:29
Speaker 1: he for some reason is stuck into this for an
50:31
Speaker 1: extended period of time, there's going to be real at
50:35
Speaker 1: least in the short term. And Trump has even acknowledged
50:38
Speaker 1: this real economic damage and pain. How much no one
50:42
Speaker 1: really seems to know. But you know, we're living in
50:46
Speaker 1: a world where our attention spans are so short. People
50:52
Speaker 1: are now accepting the idea that everything happens is Trump's fault.
50:55
Speaker 1: He owns all of it. For better or worse, Those
50:59
Speaker 1: midterm elections aren't that far away. Trump's not going to
51:02
Speaker 1: care about him because he's he's out of office hopefully
51:06
Speaker 1: apparently in twenty twenty eight regardless, and it doesn't really
51:09
Speaker 1: matter to him the last two years. He'll just govern
51:11
Speaker 1: by executive order. And or just go play golf. Who knows,
51:16
Speaker 1: But there's you know, right now, if the economy is
51:20
Speaker 1: significantly worse in November of twenty twenty six than it
51:24
Speaker 1: is right now, that's going to be terrible for Republicans.
51:28
Speaker 1: Republicans are clearly going to lose the House, and it
51:30
Speaker 1: might be difficult for them to lose the Senate, but
51:33
Speaker 1: not impossible. And you know, and then you got, you know,
51:37
Speaker 1: the Democrats take the House, will impeach Trump, which won't
51:40
Speaker 1: go anywhere. I mean, you certainly won't end in his
51:43
Speaker 1: conviction or removal, but it's going to just completely change
51:46
Speaker 1: the narrative of everything. So we're dealing with a precarious
51:50
Speaker 1: situation here. I wish I understood what Trump's full plan was,
51:56
Speaker 1: and I wish you had confidence that I knew there
51:58
Speaker 1: really was a plan. See that's I think the Rarshack
52:02
Speaker 1: test with Trump and why people like me are more
52:06
Speaker 1: pessimistic than Trump fans. Trump fans presume, Oh Trump's a genius,
52:10
Speaker 1: He's got it all figured out. This is all going
52:12
Speaker 1: to make sense, and this is all going to come
52:14
Speaker 1: together just like it always does. I mean, everyone doubted him,
52:18
Speaker 1: they said he was out of it. In twenty twenty three,
52:20
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, there's no way chance, you know, hell,
52:23
Speaker 1: he could ever possibly be president, and here he was.
52:25
Speaker 1: He won historic victory. We trust Trump. He's always he's
52:29
Speaker 1: always going to come out winning in the end. And
52:33
Speaker 1: I get it. I get it if you know, if
52:35
Speaker 1: you're a Trump cult member, that argument makes sense. But
52:40
Speaker 1: I don't trust the idea that somehow, you know, there's
52:43
Speaker 1: a method to all of this madness, that this is
52:46
Speaker 1: all going to work out, And partially because I don't
52:49
Speaker 1: know that Musk has the authority to even do either
52:53
Speaker 1: real or imagine to do what is a huge part
52:57
Speaker 1: of this equation. And Congress has I hate it exceedingly
53:01
Speaker 1: clear that they don't have the guts to do this.
53:05
Speaker 1: It's not even close. And then for Thomas Massey, I
53:09
Speaker 1: just can't tell you how crazy that is. It'd be
53:12
Speaker 1: crazy under normal circumstances. But when a huge part of
53:17
Speaker 1: your entire narrative for your administration is cutting spending and
53:22
Speaker 1: you're going to primary the only Republican congressman is actually
53:25
Speaker 1: willing to walk the walk and not just talk the
53:28
Speaker 1: talk on the issue. I mean, come on, that's as
53:32
Speaker 1: clear as it could possibly be that there's something very
53:36
Speaker 1: very wrong here, and so you know, this was always
53:40
Speaker 1: going to be a very very steep hill to climb,
53:43
Speaker 1: and I am seeing no evidence that they're going to
53:46
Speaker 1: be able to climb it. I gosh, I would love
53:49
Speaker 1: to be wrong. I would love to be wrong. I
53:51
Speaker 1: would love for Elon Musk to succeed somehow in all
53:54
Speaker 1: of this, and for the short term pain to be
53:59
Speaker 1: bearable and short lived, and we get out the other
54:02
Speaker 1: side and we return to some semblance of fiscal sanity
54:07
Speaker 1: and where we've built, as Trump himself has said, we
54:10
Speaker 1: have built a better foundation for the future of the country.
54:13
Speaker 1: Trump literally said those words. In theory. That sounds fantastic,
54:19
Speaker 1: but I'm just very very dubious as to whether or
54:22
Speaker 1: not that's going to be successful in the real world,
54:25
Speaker 1: especially with the media and the Democratic Party, uh and
54:29
Speaker 1: the nature of modern humanity all working steadfastly against Trump
54:35
Speaker 1: achieving that goal. So we'll see. I'm sure this is
54:37
Speaker 1: going to can be a continuing theme of the podcast
54:40
Speaker 1: going forward, but that, to me is the primary issue
54:43
Speaker 1: when it comes to Trump two point zero. I've said
54:46
Speaker 1: it from the beginning. It's a timing issue. I don't
54:49
Speaker 1: think he has the time to do what he wants
54:52
Speaker 1: to do, even if it's executed perfectly, and there's no
54:55
Speaker 1: evidence at all so far that it's really being executed
54:59
Speaker 1: perfectly or nearly as well as the right wing media
55:02
Speaker 1: would let you believe. That it is turning from domestic
55:07
Speaker 1: policy and the economics to what's going on with regard
55:11
Speaker 1: to the Ukraine Russia war. You know, I almost hesitate
55:15
Speaker 1: to talk about this because it changes almost on an
55:19
Speaker 1: hourly basis, and I have no idea what the reality
55:22
Speaker 1: is going to be even by the time you listen
55:24
Speaker 1: to this podcast. But as of this taping, after a
55:29
Speaker 1: lot of back and forth between Trump and Zelenski and
55:32
Speaker 1: Zelensky finally literally and I guess legitimately apologizing to Trump
55:39
Speaker 1: for what happened at the White House via a letter,
55:43
Speaker 1: it appears as if as of right now, Trump and
55:46
Speaker 1: Zelensky have somewhat healed that rift and Zelensky has agreed
55:53
Speaker 1: to a temporary cease fire that was broken by Trump.
55:59
Speaker 1: And the weird part about this to me is that
56:04
Speaker 1: Trump went to Zelensky first, or whoever it was Rubio
56:09
Speaker 1: I guess went to Zelenski first. And now the ball
56:15
Speaker 1: is in Russia's court, and that doesn't make a lot
56:17
Speaker 1: of sense to me from a strategic perspective. But just
56:21
Speaker 1: so you can further understand what's going on here, here's
56:25
Speaker 1: Trump talking about the state of those negotiations.
56:30
Speaker 7: But very importantly, and I said it, Ukraine ceasefire. Ukraine
56:36
Speaker 7: ceasefire just agreed to a little while ago. Now we
56:39
Speaker 7: have to go to Russia and hopefully President Putin will
56:42
Speaker 7: agree to that also, and we can get this show
56:45
Speaker 7: on the road. We can get this horrible war where
56:48
Speaker 7: two three thousand soldiers a week, every week, two three
56:52
Speaker 7: four thousand. Sometimes I get the reports and they're not
56:55
Speaker 7: American soldiers, they're Ukrainian and they're Russian.
57:00
Speaker 6: But people are being killed outside of that.
57:01
Speaker 7: People are being killed in the cities as things explode throughout.
57:05
Speaker 6: The cities, and we want to get that war over with.
57:08
Speaker 7: So I think it's a very big I think it's
57:12
Speaker 7: a big difference between the last visit you saw at
57:15
Speaker 7: the Oval Office and this soap that's a total ceasefire.
57:19
Speaker 7: Ukraine has agreed to it, and hopefully Russia will agree
57:23
Speaker 7: to it. We're going to meet with him later on
57:25
Speaker 7: today and tomorrow, and hopefully we'll be able to wipe
57:29
Speaker 7: out a deal. But I think the cease fire is
57:31
Speaker 7: very important. If we can get Russia to do it,
57:33
Speaker 7: that'll be great. If we can't, we just keep going
57:35
Speaker 7: on and people are gonna get killed, lots of people.
57:39
Speaker 1: Now that sounds really good. And I predicted in the
57:41
Speaker 1: last episode of the podcast that I thought Trump was
57:43
Speaker 1: going to get a short term victory here. I thought that,
57:47
Speaker 1: you know, for sure, Trump fans, we're going to be
57:50
Speaker 1: able to declare that Trump is a genius, that he
57:52
Speaker 1: got the war to end. It's not going to matter
57:54
Speaker 1: to them under what circumstances that he used the leverage
57:59
Speaker 1: given to him by the US military and the US
58:02
Speaker 1: economic power and all the cards that we have in
58:06
Speaker 1: comparison to Ukraine and how much they need us. He
58:09
Speaker 1: was going to use that leverage to cause there to
58:12
Speaker 1: be a peace agreement and everyone was going to cheer,
58:16
Speaker 1: and we would benefit from a mineral's writes contract with Ukraine,
58:23
Speaker 1: which sounds like a good deal for the United States.
58:25
Speaker 1: So I am still of the belief that that scenario
58:28
Speaker 1: is very, very plausible, that Trump was going to be
58:30
Speaker 1: able to declare victory with some credibility. But what I
58:35
Speaker 1: don't get at least in the short run, is why
58:39
Speaker 1: you go to Ukraine first. You've acknowledged as clearly as
58:43
Speaker 1: you possibly can publicly that Ukraine does not have leverage
58:48
Speaker 1: in this situation. You've said to Zelenski to his face,
58:52
Speaker 1: you don't have the cards. You don't have the cards. So,
58:56
Speaker 1: just from a common sense perspective, if you're trying to
58:59
Speaker 1: broke a deal between two parties and one has dramatic
59:06
Speaker 1: leverage over the other in this case, that's Russia over Ukraine,
59:10
Speaker 1: something you have publicly and now acknowledged to the face
59:14
Speaker 1: of Zelenski on national television on multiple occasions. You could
59:19
Speaker 1: not have made it more clear. You might as well
59:20
Speaker 1: have bought a billboard in Moscow to let them know
59:26
Speaker 1: that Zelenski has no leverage here, has no cards. If
59:31
Speaker 1: you're trying to broker a deal in that situation, don't
59:34
Speaker 1: you have to go to the party that has the
59:37
Speaker 1: more leverage first. I mean, it's just basic common sense
59:43
Speaker 1: because why in the world would Rush. I don't care
59:46
Speaker 1: what the details are. I'm not an expert on the
59:49
Speaker 1: details of this negotiating process. I don't think very many
59:54
Speaker 1: people are. But I do know human nature and I
59:58
Speaker 1: just don't understand why poo and would accept that. Why
1:00:02
Speaker 1: I don't care how good it is from his perspective.
1:00:05
Speaker 1: This is something to the United States and the Ukraine agreed to.
1:00:11
Speaker 1: So I have all the leverage Trump told me in
1:00:15
Speaker 1: the whole world, I have all the leverage. Why would
1:00:18
Speaker 1: I agree to it? That makes no sense whatsoever. And
1:00:22
Speaker 1: you know, the one thing Trump is allegedly an expert
1:00:25
Speaker 1: on is negotiation, and so I honestly don't get it.
1:00:30
Speaker 1: If somebody can explain it to me, please do. I'm
1:00:34
Speaker 1: all ears, but I do not understand under what basis
1:00:39
Speaker 1: or why Russia and Putin would accept any deal to me.
1:00:44
Speaker 1: In this circumstance, you have to go to Russia first,
1:00:48
Speaker 1: and you have to say, okay, what would you agree to?
1:00:52
Speaker 1: And then, you know, maybe you push back, if you're
1:00:54
Speaker 1: doing this as a good faith actor, you push back
1:00:58
Speaker 1: understanding that there's certain things that Zelensky and the Ukraine
1:01:01
Speaker 1: are not going to go for. And then you say
1:01:04
Speaker 1: and then you get Putin to agree to something. Then
1:01:07
Speaker 1: you go to Zelenski and you say, okay, look, I
1:01:10
Speaker 1: told you didn't have any cards. This is that shit sandwich.
1:01:13
Speaker 1: You're going to have to eat because I'm not going
1:01:15
Speaker 1: to back you any further than this, and now you
1:01:18
Speaker 1: have the leverage to get Zelenski to sign off on it.
1:01:23
Speaker 1: That makes sense from a common sense and a human perspective.
1:01:27
Speaker 1: So I will be stunned, and maybe, who knows, maybe
1:01:30
Speaker 1: it will happen by the time you've already listened to this.
1:01:32
Speaker 1: I have no way of knowing. These things seem to
1:01:35
Speaker 1: be happening on a rapid basis, an ever changing basis.
1:01:40
Speaker 1: But I will be stunned and confused if Putin accepts
1:01:47
Speaker 1: this ceasefire deal, unless, of course, it's not a real ceasefire, right.
1:01:52
Speaker 1: I mean it's possible Putin may go for it and
1:01:55
Speaker 1: realize it's not worth the paper it's printed on that
1:01:58
Speaker 1: he's going to do whatever the hell he wants to
1:01:59
Speaker 1: do anyway, because he has the leverage. That is certainly
1:02:02
Speaker 1: a possible scenario here. But I am confused by the
1:02:07
Speaker 1: path that this negotiation is taking, and I'm very curious
1:02:13
Speaker 1: to see how it's all going to turn out, because
1:02:15
Speaker 1: this makes absolutely no sense to me from a common
1:02:18
Speaker 1: sense or a human perspective. Now, somewhat related, and I
1:02:24
Speaker 1: mean somewhat related, there was an episode that occurred at
1:02:28
Speaker 1: Trump's golf course in Scotland, Turnberry, where his golf course
1:02:35
Speaker 1: was vandalized by those who appeared to be protesting on
1:02:42
Speaker 1: behalf of Gaza. You know, you remember Trump said that
1:02:46
Speaker 1: he was going to turn Gaza into an American resort.
1:02:49
Speaker 1: And Trump's crown jewel of all of his golf courses
1:02:54
Speaker 1: is Turnberry in Scotland, a very famous golf course where
1:02:58
Speaker 1: they used to have some of the best British opens.
1:03:01
Speaker 1: Two of the most memorable British opens in modern history,
1:03:05
Speaker 1: both involving Tom Watson, were played at Turnbury. Interestingly, one
1:03:11
Speaker 1: of the connections I'm making in my mind between the
1:03:14
Speaker 1: story I just talked about with Ukraine and Russia and
1:03:18
Speaker 1: Turnbury in Scotland is not just that this involves an
1:03:22
Speaker 1: international situation that Trump has been outspoken about. But I've
1:03:28
Speaker 1: always been very suspicious I still am to some degree
1:03:32
Speaker 1: about how it is that Trump was able to purchase Turnbury.
1:03:36
Speaker 1: I mean, the two most famous courses that Trump owns
1:03:40
Speaker 1: are Turnbury in Scotland and Durrell in Miami, a place
1:03:45
Speaker 1: where I spent a lot of time as a kid,
1:03:47
Speaker 1: back when they used to have the old durral Eastern Open,
1:03:49
Speaker 1: and my father was working for one of the main
1:03:52
Speaker 1: sponsors of the tournament, and so we went down there,
1:03:55
Speaker 1: like I think three or at least three or four
1:03:57
Speaker 1: years in a row. Was one of the highlights of
1:03:59
Speaker 1: my childildhood. Love Drew. Anyway, Trump has always been a master,
1:04:05
Speaker 1: a master at purchasing things without actually spending any of
1:04:10
Speaker 1: his own money, generally by taking massive loans, and he's
1:04:16
Speaker 1: been exceedingly successful at this. But weirdly, with both Turnberry
1:04:21
Speaker 1: and Darrow, that's not what happened. He spent for him
1:04:27
Speaker 1: an extraordinary amount of cash on both of those situations.
1:04:33
Speaker 1: Now I don't know what is real and what is fake,
1:04:37
Speaker 1: but there were some pretty reputable golf reporters that did
1:04:41
Speaker 1: a lot of investigation into the financing of those two situations.
1:04:46
Speaker 1: And this was in the midst of the whole Russia
1:04:49
Speaker 1: Gate thing, so it could have easily been influenced by that.
1:04:53
Speaker 1: And these guys were not conservatives, but I remember listening
1:04:57
Speaker 1: to a podcast that they did, and it made me
1:05:01
Speaker 1: believe that there's a lot of smoke that there was
1:05:04
Speaker 1: Russian money involved in those purchases. I don't know that
1:05:08
Speaker 1: to be a fact, it's never been proven, but I'm suspicious.
1:05:12
Speaker 1: But that's not even the real reason why I'm bringing
1:05:14
Speaker 1: up the turn Breed thing. The real reason I'm bringing
1:05:16
Speaker 1: up the turn Breate thing is that if you are
1:05:20
Speaker 1: someone who thought you were promoting the cause of Gaza,
1:05:25
Speaker 1: and that you thought it was a good idea to
1:05:29
Speaker 1: vandalize pretty significantly Trump's crown jewel golf course Turnbury, and
1:05:36
Speaker 1: you thought that was going to be helpful to your cause,
1:05:40
Speaker 1: you're a fucking imbecile. Because my guess is that when
1:05:44
Speaker 1: Trump heard about this, the nuclear option was quite literally
1:05:48
Speaker 1: on the table. It would not have surprised me if
1:05:50
Speaker 1: someone had to talk Trump out of using nuclear weapons
1:05:54
Speaker 1: as a retaliation against Gaza for what they did to
1:05:57
Speaker 1: turn Bury. And that's only a slight exaggeration, because Turnberry
1:06:02
Speaker 1: is his baby, and so whoever decided to do that
1:06:06
Speaker 1: is a fucking idiot. And it would not surprise me.
1:06:10
Speaker 1: Now if making Gaza an American resort is now above
1:06:16
Speaker 1: making Canada the fifty first state on Trump's priority list,
1:06:20
Speaker 1: I'm not kidding. That's how big a deal Turnberry is
1:06:24
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump personally. Now, interestingly, there was also a
1:06:28
Speaker 1: story involving draw that I wanted to quickly share with
1:06:32
Speaker 1: you because I have talked a lot about the negotiations
1:06:37
Speaker 1: between the PGA Tour and Live Golf, and I've talked
1:06:40
Speaker 1: a lot about how Trump's involvement is potentially a negative.
1:06:47
Speaker 1: You may recall that, you know, it was several weeks
1:06:49
Speaker 1: ago that there were not one but two meetings three
1:06:52
Speaker 1: if you count Donald Trump playing golf with Tiger Woods
1:06:55
Speaker 1: the morning of the Super Bowl. So there have been
1:06:58
Speaker 1: multiple meetings between Trump and the PGA Tour, and one
1:07:02
Speaker 1: meeting between Trump, the PGA Tour and Live Golf at
1:07:06
Speaker 1: the White House. And it was perceived that those negotiations
1:07:13
Speaker 1: were on the one yard line and that Trump was
1:07:16
Speaker 1: going to put it into the end zone. And when
1:07:18
Speaker 1: that did not happen, I put forward the theory that
1:07:23
Speaker 1: Trump had actually, for better or for worse, created a
1:07:27
Speaker 1: problem in the negotiations, which I can easily see happening
1:07:31
Speaker 1: because this is a topic that Trump knows. This is
1:07:34
Speaker 1: a topic Trump cares a lot about. He's beholden to
1:07:37
Speaker 1: the Saudis because they've been paying him for use of
1:07:41
Speaker 1: his golf courses, and he's been helping promote live golf
1:07:44
Speaker 1: for years. He's obviously very close to the Saudis. The
1:07:47
Speaker 1: PGA Tour has screwed him in the past, specifically with Durrow.
1:07:54
Speaker 1: Durrow was taken out of the position of hosting a
1:08:01
Speaker 1: major PGA Tour event back when he was running for
1:08:04
Speaker 1: president the first time because he was that toxic. It's
1:08:09
Speaker 1: hilarious in retrospect, but this was before he was even
1:08:12
Speaker 1: the Republican presidential nominee. In twenty sixteen, the PGA Tour
1:08:17
Speaker 1: got the heb gbs and there were other issues involved,
1:08:20
Speaker 1: but this was I think the deciding factor that after
1:08:23
Speaker 1: having had Durral host a PGA event for decades and decades,
1:08:28
Speaker 1: one of their premier events, as I've already alluded to
1:08:31
Speaker 1: having attended it as a kid several times, they got
1:08:34
Speaker 1: rid of it and they sent it to Mexico, of
1:08:36
Speaker 1: all places. This was a massive insult to Donald Trump,
1:08:41
Speaker 1: a massive insult and something he's not gonna forget, which
1:08:45
Speaker 1: is why I don't think that he's a particularly good
1:08:48
Speaker 1: faith actor when it comes to negotiating a deal between
1:08:51
Speaker 1: the PGA Tour and Live Because whether Rory McElroy realizes
1:08:56
Speaker 1: it or not, he said that Trump's on the PGA Tour.
1:08:59
Speaker 1: So I know Trump well enough to know he's not
1:09:02
Speaker 1: forgetting about the PGA Tour screwing him over. And he's got,
1:09:08
Speaker 1: as I said, close ties to the Saudi's and to
1:09:11
Speaker 1: Live Golf. Well, sure enough, it now appears as if
1:09:16
Speaker 1: if there was a negotiation at the one yard line
1:09:19
Speaker 1: between the PGA Tour and Live it's now probably back
1:09:23
Speaker 1: to the ten yard line. There is no sign at
1:09:25
Speaker 1: all that it is imminent, and reading the tea leaves,
1:09:29
Speaker 1: because it's now been several weeks, the fact that there
1:09:32
Speaker 1: hasn't been a deal makes me think that Trump probably
1:09:35
Speaker 1: put a fly in the ointment. You can certainly see
1:09:38
Speaker 1: a scenario where Trump's listening to both sides and he
1:09:41
Speaker 1: gets an idea and has had a shiny object, and
1:09:43
Speaker 1: he says, well what about this? And then you know,
1:09:46
Speaker 1: both sides have to go back and go what do
1:09:48
Speaker 1: we think about what Trump wanted? And so now you're
1:09:52
Speaker 1: putting in a third major actor who's looking to benefit
1:09:57
Speaker 1: from this negotiation, which it's already an incredibly complicated situation.
1:10:02
Speaker 1: I actually now believe that the PGA Tour Live Golf
1:10:06
Speaker 1: negotiation is a puzzle that has no solution, and that
1:10:11
Speaker 1: Trump may have, you know, basically caused a lot of
1:10:15
Speaker 1: the puzzle pieces to be tossed aside. Now they're looking
1:10:17
Speaker 1: for a couple of missing puzzle pieces because of whatever
1:10:22
Speaker 1: interest Trump had or whatever idea he had that he
1:10:25
Speaker 1: threw into the mix. Well. Interestingly, in the aftermath of
1:10:29
Speaker 1: this meeting, the PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan was asked
1:10:34
Speaker 1: about returning having the PGA Tour return to Trump's golf
1:10:40
Speaker 1: course at Durrell in Miami, and without any reference to
1:10:46
Speaker 1: the past whatsoever, Monaghan said, Oh, We've been there before
1:10:50
Speaker 1: and we would love to return. We would love to
1:10:54
Speaker 1: return to trump Durrell. Gee, I wonder how that happened.
1:11:00
Speaker 1: And you know what that sounds like. That sounds awfully
1:11:03
Speaker 1: swampy too. So wait a minute. So the president states
1:11:08
Speaker 1: engauges in the negotiation between an American charity, which is
1:11:12
Speaker 1: essentially what the PGA Tour is, in a foreign comic
1:11:15
Speaker 1: coaze mission, which is essentially what live golf is, And
1:11:19
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, the PGA Tour is talking about
1:11:21
Speaker 1: returning to one of Trump's two crown jewels, which, by
1:11:27
Speaker 1: the way, I'm fine with because I love the tradition
1:11:30
Speaker 1: of having a golf tournament at Durraw. But you know,
1:11:34
Speaker 1: Republicans would consider that Trump fans would consider that to
1:11:36
Speaker 1: be awfully swampy, awfully swampy to have those negotiations result
1:11:43
Speaker 1: in Trump getting a direct, significant benefit for it. But
1:11:47
Speaker 1: of course Trump doesn't take a salary. That's what Trump
1:11:49
Speaker 1: fans will tell you. Trump doesn't take a salary, so
1:11:52
Speaker 1: none of this matters. Trump just decides he can benefit
1:11:56
Speaker 1: far more dramatically than his salary in other ways by
1:11:59
Speaker 1: using his Oh, by the way, you wouldn't it be
1:12:02
Speaker 1: nice to have the PGA Tour return to Durau, which,
1:12:05
Speaker 1: if there is a deal, I can assure you will
1:12:08
Speaker 1: happen because if Trump is integral to that, he's going
1:12:12
Speaker 1: to expect to be paid back, and that's exactly how
1:12:14
Speaker 1: he would want it to happen, which kind of proves
1:12:16
Speaker 1: my original point, which is that Trump's not a good
1:12:19
Speaker 1: faith actor here. I don't know what language or accident
1:12:22
Speaker 1: I was using in that particular phrase, but you get
1:12:24
Speaker 1: the point. I somehow turned Italian for a second. Trump
1:12:27
Speaker 1: is not a good faith actor in this circumstance for
1:12:30
Speaker 1: the reasons that I have already explained, and I am
1:12:34
Speaker 1: not confident at all that there's anything close to a deal,
1:12:37
Speaker 1: possibly because this is so complex and now both sides
1:12:41
Speaker 1: are so embedded that there's no way to get to
1:12:43
Speaker 1: a deal, and that involving Trump when they everyone thought
1:12:47
Speaker 1: it was going to be, you know, a tush push
1:12:49
Speaker 1: over the gold gold line, was actually a negative because
1:12:52
Speaker 1: now you have a third party with their interests being
1:12:56
Speaker 1: injected into the last moments of a very complex negotiation.
1:13:02
Speaker 1: One other golf note, Tiger Woods, announced yesterday that he
1:13:07
Speaker 1: has a rupture to achilles tendon in his left ankle
1:13:11
Speaker 1: and that it looks like he'll be out for the
1:13:13
Speaker 1: entire twenty twenty five golf season. This is sad because
1:13:19
Speaker 1: this means that this is the last year Tiger has
1:13:22
Speaker 1: in his forties before he officially becomes a senior golfer.
1:13:26
Speaker 1: I did not have high hopes for how he would do,
1:13:29
Speaker 1: especially after his mother passed away suddenly and he decided
1:13:33
Speaker 1: not to play any golf. It was presumed he would
1:13:35
Speaker 1: return at the Masters. He was never gonna win any
1:13:39
Speaker 1: of these tournaments, but it's still a nice It would
1:13:42
Speaker 1: have been nice to see him. It's a sad day
1:13:45
Speaker 1: because you know, at this age, with everything his body's
1:13:48
Speaker 1: gone through. You miss an entire season at the age
1:13:54
Speaker 1: of forty nine, the next time you tee it up,
1:13:56
Speaker 1: potentially you're fifty years old. You know, that's just not
1:14:01
Speaker 1: going to happen, especially given everything that he's been through. Now.
1:14:06
Speaker 1: I do have some hope that because if it's his
1:14:08
Speaker 1: left leg and the surgery was not invasive, and it's
1:14:12
Speaker 1: possible that maybe this is not a catastrophic injury, that maybe,
1:14:18
Speaker 1: you know, maybe we'll see him again at the Father
1:14:20
Speaker 1: Son PNC at the end of the year. I think
1:14:22
Speaker 1: that's probably the next time we'll see him, or maybe
1:14:25
Speaker 1: his charity tournament just before that, the Hero Challenge. But
1:14:30
Speaker 1: I don't think we're going to see him at any
1:14:31
Speaker 1: of the major championships this year, and you're starting to
1:14:34
Speaker 1: get to the point where you may not see Tiger
1:14:37
Speaker 1: Woods at any major championships ever again, assuming that he's
1:14:42
Speaker 1: even able to recover from this injury. Who knows, but
1:14:45
Speaker 1: it's just another sad day. We're not going to get
1:14:48
Speaker 1: the soft landing with Tiger Woods. We got a very
1:14:50
Speaker 1: soft landing with Jack Nicholas, who was still playing semi
1:14:53
Speaker 1: competitive golf into his sixties. We're not going to get
1:14:56
Speaker 1: the soft landing with Tiger Woods, and that's really really sick.
1:15:00
Speaker 1: I want to turn now to a couple of podcasts
1:15:04
Speaker 1: that have been making news and for somewhat not really
1:15:09
Speaker 1: similar reasons, but the podcasts have I think similar intentions.
1:15:15
Speaker 1: There's there's this, and I think this is actually potentially
1:15:19
Speaker 1: a good trend. I think it's a smart trend. And
1:15:22
Speaker 1: the trend I'm referring to is that putting people from
1:15:26
Speaker 1: the left and the right on the same podcast, which
1:15:29
Speaker 1: used to be, you know, the way you know political
1:15:33
Speaker 1: debates worked. I mean, you know, CNN's Crossfire was probably
1:15:36
Speaker 1: the most famous among many shows that fit that pattern,
1:15:40
Speaker 1: that used that dynamic, and that kind of went away.
1:15:44
Speaker 1: I believe it went away when Bill O'Reilly became very
1:15:48
Speaker 1: successful at Fox News Channel by almost never having anyone
1:15:53
Speaker 1: on the show who disagreed with him. That used to
1:15:56
Speaker 1: be the model for this kind of thing. Here's my opinion,
1:15:59
Speaker 1: here's some one that disagrees with me. Let's have a debate.
1:16:02
Speaker 1: Bill O'Reilly realized, and unless you're gonna, you know, put
1:16:05
Speaker 1: on a someone from the Washington generals who really couldn't
1:16:09
Speaker 1: compete with you, and therefore you dunk on them and
1:16:12
Speaker 1: your fans cheered. The best way to do this, ratings
1:16:16
Speaker 1: wise is to, you know, you give your opinion and
1:16:18
Speaker 1: then have someone who's an alleged expert come on and
1:16:21
Speaker 1: say how smart you are. I've always found out to
1:16:23
Speaker 1: be very, very boring. But we're now seeing with the
1:16:26
Speaker 1: popularity of podcasts that we're now I think potentially going
1:16:32
Speaker 1: in a different direction back to semi true debate. And
1:16:38
Speaker 1: there are two podcasts I want to point out as
1:16:41
Speaker 1: being examples of this. The first is another interview between
1:16:45
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson and Chris Cuomo. Now they did I think
1:16:49
Speaker 1: this was at some point last year. I can't even remember,
1:16:52
Speaker 1: but it was after Tucker had been fired from Fox
1:16:57
Speaker 1: News Channel Chris Cuomo, who had been fired from CNN.
1:17:00
Speaker 1: Obviously he's a liberal, Tucker proceed as a conservative, you know,
1:17:04
Speaker 1: too much fanfare. They they had a meeting of the minds.
1:17:07
Speaker 1: If we even even we can talk together, then obviously
1:17:10
Speaker 1: there's hope for humanity and hope for the country, and
1:17:13
Speaker 1: a lot of it's just acting, it's fake whatever. And
1:17:17
Speaker 1: I don't have a lot of respect for Tucker anymore.
1:17:20
Speaker 1: I've made that very clear. I've never had any real
1:17:22
Speaker 1: respect for Chris Cuomo. I think he's mostly an actor
1:17:26
Speaker 1: in his current act that he's he's trying to understand
1:17:29
Speaker 1: the right, and he's not nearly as left as he
1:17:31
Speaker 1: used to be, or that his name would imply. Anyway,
1:17:34
Speaker 1: they did another interview together and there was a moment
1:17:39
Speaker 1: that went viral because Tucker and Cuomo started talking about
1:17:44
Speaker 1: why the JFK files have not yet been released. Now,
1:17:48
Speaker 1: to be clear, here we are in the middle of March.
1:17:52
Speaker 1: We still have not had the Epstein files released, and
1:17:55
Speaker 1: we still have not had the so called JFK files released.
1:17:59
Speaker 1: And the conspiracy theorists in Trump world are getting very,
1:18:03
Speaker 1: very agitated. And I've made it very clear that I
1:18:06
Speaker 1: think it's because there's nothing really to reveal in either
1:18:10
Speaker 1: of those particular situations. But Talker is not going to
1:18:15
Speaker 1: take this lying down. He put forward this, you know,
1:18:21
Speaker 1: crazy crack pot conspiracy theory that you know, basically the
1:18:26
Speaker 1: government is afraid to reveal these JFK files. And and
1:18:31
Speaker 1: in this clip you're going to hear Tucker Carlson and
1:18:34
Speaker 1: Chris Plomo basically, in my view, sounding like complete idiots
1:18:39
Speaker 1: who know nothing really of the of the issues involved here.
1:18:42
Speaker 1: And both seemingly have already accepted the idea that there
1:18:46
Speaker 1: was some sort of a conspiracy involving the JFK assassination.
1:18:50
Speaker 1: Now this is this is not the clip where there
1:18:54
Speaker 1: were actually two clips that went viral. The second one
1:18:56
Speaker 1: I'm not going to play because I don't think I
1:18:58
Speaker 1: need to, because it basically is where Tucker decides that
1:19:02
Speaker 1: he's going to blame Republican Senator Tom Cotton with no
1:19:05
Speaker 1: evidence for why the JFK files have not been released.
1:19:09
Speaker 1: But here is Tucker and and Chris Cuomo. Basically, you know,
1:19:14
Speaker 1: two media stars exposing to the world that their conspiracy
1:19:20
Speaker 1: nut jobs. And here's what that sounded like.
1:19:22
Speaker 8: Trump says, I'm releasing the files. Okay, somebody says something
1:19:26
Speaker 8: to Mike Pompeo that he then goes to the President
1:19:28
Speaker 8: of the United States and says, you can't release these things,
1:19:32
Speaker 8: and Trump acknowledges it. Now, do I believe that Trump
1:19:35
Speaker 8: did it under threat?
1:19:37
Speaker 2: No?
1:19:38
Speaker 8: I think that Trump just decided that whatever he was
1:19:41
Speaker 8: being told made sense.
1:19:43
Speaker 1: But it's it's and.
1:19:44
Speaker 9: I'm not even speaking of Trump for Pompeo as a
1:19:46
Speaker 9: very sinister person. And you're absolutely right, Pumpeu was the
1:19:49
Speaker 9: driver behind that, but who's driving Pompeo? The story doesn't
1:19:52
Speaker 9: make sense. And by the way, we have the file
1:19:54
Speaker 9: numbers of most of the files that have not been disclosed.
1:19:57
Speaker 9: So it's like Trump issues an executive wor on January
1:20:00
Speaker 9: twenty third, saying you're going to release this stuff. They
1:20:02
Speaker 9: kind of can't not release it, and yet now it's
1:20:05
Speaker 9: the first week of March and they haven't released it.
1:20:08
Speaker 9: So pressure is currently being applied on the administration not
1:20:11
Speaker 9: to release those files.
1:20:13
Speaker 8: It seems that way by whom I don't know who
1:20:16
Speaker 8: who is the pope?
1:20:18
Speaker 1: And I'm not even I'm not even guessing.
1:20:21
Speaker 9: All I'm saying is we can say with certainty that
1:20:24
Speaker 9: there is a force acting on these people, very serious force,
1:20:28
Speaker 9: to the point where they're embarrassing themselves because they promise
1:20:31
Speaker 9: they did release this and they haven't.
1:20:33
Speaker 1: Now, as I've already referenced, Tucker goes on very nefariously,
1:20:38
Speaker 1: although somewhat hilariously, to try to claim that Republicans Senator
1:20:43
Speaker 1: Tom Cotton was behind this and implies that there are
1:20:47
Speaker 1: some pro Israel forces, you know, nebulous, nefarious underground I
1:20:54
Speaker 1: don't know, deep state, who knows forces that are trying
1:20:57
Speaker 1: to protect powerful people to keep these devastating files from
1:21:04
Speaker 1: being released. Now, Cuomo at least was, I think on
1:21:08
Speaker 1: somewhat rational ground where he he believes it's about protecting
1:21:13
Speaker 1: the CIA or the FBI from embarrassment. That is a
1:21:16
Speaker 1: scenario that I think is plausible. I want to make
1:21:19
Speaker 1: that clear. That's the only plausible scenario I've heard where
1:21:24
Speaker 1: we could any we could learn anything relevant from these
1:21:28
Speaker 1: so called JFK files that have yet to be released.
1:21:31
Speaker 1: But I'm even skeptical of that because I'm not sure
1:21:34
Speaker 1: these files have anything to do with JFK because of
1:21:38
Speaker 1: the way that these files are identified, and this is
1:21:42
Speaker 1: something that people do not understand, and I think it's
1:21:45
Speaker 1: partially one because they don't want to understand it too,
1:21:48
Speaker 1: because it's difficult to explain. But the best way I
1:21:52
Speaker 1: have heard it explained is that these documents and how
1:21:56
Speaker 1: they get categorized is a bit like ripples in in
1:22:00
Speaker 1: a pond, and there are all sorts of different investigations
1:22:05
Speaker 1: and different situations that over time the JFK assassination has touched,
1:22:12
Speaker 1: and that those still may be sensitive enough to keep
1:22:16
Speaker 1: them hidden from the public, and that they don't have
1:22:19
Speaker 1: anything to do with who killed JFK or you know,
1:22:23
Speaker 1: how it was done or why it was done, or
1:22:26
Speaker 1: covering up some sort of massive conspiracy here. But I
1:22:29
Speaker 1: do think it's rational and possible that there's embarrassing information
1:22:35
Speaker 1: to our intelligence agencies, because, after all, in retrospect, it's
1:22:40
Speaker 1: ridiculous that Lee Harvey Oswald, who had a very sinister
1:22:46
Speaker 1: history including you know, living in Russia and visits to
1:22:51
Speaker 1: Mexico and you know, involving himself with you know, the
1:22:57
Speaker 1: castro situation in Cuba and protests in New Orleans and
1:23:03
Speaker 1: the shooting of General Walker. I mean, there are all
1:23:05
Speaker 1: sorts of red flags. And he was allowed to be
1:23:10
Speaker 1: working at the school book Depository building where the parade
1:23:14
Speaker 1: route was changed to go right in front of him,
1:23:17
Speaker 1: where no one was restricting windows being opened, and the
1:23:21
Speaker 1: president was in an open limousine, the convertible. I mean,
1:23:26
Speaker 1: that was a catastrophic disaster from an intelligence perspective. Now,
1:23:31
Speaker 1: it was a very different time, obviously, no computers or
1:23:36
Speaker 1: instant communication, but it's certainly possible that that is what
1:23:42
Speaker 1: is still left in the JFK files. My guess is
1:23:45
Speaker 1: it's not, but that at least is rational what Tucker
1:23:49
Speaker 1: Carlson is claiming is not rational. It makes no sense. Cotton,
1:23:54
Speaker 1: by the way, has vehemently denied this. And the hilarious
1:23:58
Speaker 1: part of it of it, and you can go search
1:24:00
Speaker 1: it for yourself, is that Cuomo asks Tucker a very
1:24:04
Speaker 1: simple question, so have you asked Tom Cotton about this?
1:24:09
Speaker 1: And sheepishly Tucker Carlson had to admit, Yeah, No, I didn't.
1:24:13
Speaker 1: In fact, I didn't even think to do that, even
1:24:15
Speaker 1: though I do communicate with him on a consistent basis,
1:24:19
Speaker 1: which by the way, Cotton confirmed in his denial on Twitter.
1:24:22
Speaker 1: And I just thought that was such a telling moment
1:24:25
Speaker 1: where Tucker doesn't really believe in any of this shit,
1:24:29
Speaker 1: because if he did, he would actually at least ask
1:24:33
Speaker 1: Tom Cotton, Hey, what the hell are you doing allegedly,
1:24:36
Speaker 1: which there's no evidence he's actually doing this, what are
1:24:38
Speaker 1: you doing in blocking the JK files? He didn't do
1:24:42
Speaker 1: it one because he probably knows the story is bullshit
1:24:45
Speaker 1: and he was not expecting Cuomo to ask a very legitimate,
1:24:49
Speaker 1: relevant question, and then he you know, he didn't know
1:24:52
Speaker 1: how to handle it. So yeah, I never have done that.
1:24:54
Speaker 1: I never even I didn't even think to do that. Honestly,
1:24:57
Speaker 1: I'm that's almost a direct quote from Tucker Carlson. And
1:25:00
Speaker 1: so the bottom line of this is one with the
1:25:02
Speaker 1: JFK files, your expectations should be very very low for this.
1:25:08
Speaker 1: The conspiracy theorists are going to be generally very very disappointed,
1:25:12
Speaker 1: and we have further evidence that Tucker Carlson is either
1:25:17
Speaker 1: completely acting or has lost his goddamn mind, or maybe
1:25:21
Speaker 1: a little bit of both, maybe a little bit of both. Now,
1:25:24
Speaker 1: there's another podcast that I want to reference that I
1:25:27
Speaker 1: think is probably more significant from a political perspective, and
1:25:31
Speaker 1: that is one being hosted by California Governor Gavin Newsom, because,
1:25:36
Speaker 1: you know, having fixed all of California's problems, Gavin Newsom
1:25:40
Speaker 1: doesn't really have anything else to do in his last
1:25:43
Speaker 1: two years in office, so he's going to start a podcast.
1:25:47
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not like the city of Los Angeles
1:25:50
Speaker 1: just had the largest and most destructive disaster in the
1:25:53
Speaker 1: history of of the city with the wildfires. I mean,
1:25:57
Speaker 1: it's just ridiculous on its face, with all the problems
1:26:01
Speaker 1: that California faces as large. At fun of the way,
1:26:03
Speaker 1: even if California wasn't facing a lot of problems, it's
1:26:06
Speaker 1: by far the largest and most complicated state in the
1:26:10
Speaker 1: country population wise. The idea that the governor of California
1:26:14
Speaker 1: has the time and the energy to be focused on
1:26:19
Speaker 1: a significant podcast. I mean, they've already done three episodes
1:26:24
Speaker 1: of this thing as of this taping the first one.
1:26:28
Speaker 1: And the focus of this podcast, which is why I
1:26:30
Speaker 1: think this is potentially significant from a political perspective, The
1:26:34
Speaker 1: focus on this podcast is interviewing I guess conservative or
1:26:41
Speaker 1: Republican figures, and I'm not going to take that effort seriously,
1:26:47
Speaker 1: at least until Adam Carolla is a guest who has
1:26:51
Speaker 1: really been a thorn in Gavin Newsom's side. And many
1:26:56
Speaker 1: years ago, there was an interview that Corolla did with
1:27:00
Speaker 1: Newsom that still goes viral from time to time because
1:27:02
Speaker 1: it's just so good. It's actually, by the way, it's
1:27:05
Speaker 1: almost identical to an interview that I did with the
1:27:09
Speaker 1: state Education secretary when I was a talk show host
1:27:12
Speaker 1: at KFI. I'm not suggesting it's plagiarism, but maybe it's
1:27:15
Speaker 1: just great minds think alike. But it's almost word for word,
1:27:19
Speaker 1: you know, basically trying to get Gavin Newsom to explain
1:27:22
Speaker 1: why certain demographics have certain problems in society and it's hilarious,
1:27:28
Speaker 1: and Newsome was completely destroyed. And then on news Nation
1:27:34
Speaker 1: last year, I guess it was last year. You know,
1:27:38
Speaker 1: things kind of come together. I'm pretty sure this was
1:27:40
Speaker 1: last year. Out of as it was last year at
1:27:44
Speaker 1: a weird set of circumstances, Adam Carolla was able to
1:27:48
Speaker 1: confront Gavin Newsom live on News Nation and crushed him
1:27:53
Speaker 1: as much as he could in a short period of
1:27:54
Speaker 1: time on COVID. So my guess is that Gavin Newsom
1:27:58
Speaker 1: is going to avoid I'm Corolla at all costs. Of
1:28:02
Speaker 1: course he's gonna avoid me. And you can do that
1:28:04
Speaker 1: because I'm not a celebrity. If I was a celebrity,
1:28:08
Speaker 1: I can assure you that I would be making it
1:28:11
Speaker 1: very clear that I was very, very willing to go
1:28:14
Speaker 1: on Gavin Newsom's podcast any time any plays any in
1:28:18
Speaker 1: any subject matter you want, I bring it on, buddy,
1:28:22
Speaker 1: because I will crush you. And so unlessen until Adam
1:28:28
Speaker 1: Carolla is at least invited on, I'm not going to
1:28:30
Speaker 1: take it seriously as a debate show. However, I am
1:28:36
Speaker 1: taking it seriously as a political gambit, because what it
1:28:41
Speaker 1: seems to be is a way for Gavin Newsom to
1:28:46
Speaker 1: create this narrative that he's not only willing to talk
1:28:51
Speaker 1: to the other side and learn from the other side,
1:28:54
Speaker 1: but he's also able to out debate the other side
1:28:58
Speaker 1: in a way that no other potential candidate for the
1:29:02
Speaker 1: Democratic presidential nomination in twenty twenty eight can actually do.
1:29:07
Speaker 1: And it seems to me that he is very strategically
1:29:11
Speaker 1: and so far, I think, quite effectively choosing his opponents,
1:29:18
Speaker 1: much like a boxer back when boxing was actually a sport,
1:29:22
Speaker 1: a boxer who was, you know, strategically going up against
1:29:26
Speaker 1: the tomato cans to build up their record so that
1:29:30
Speaker 1: they can get a shot at the title. I think
1:29:33
Speaker 1: that's a pretty good analogy here because the first three
1:29:36
Speaker 1: guests that Newsom has had have been Charlie Kirk and
1:29:41
Speaker 1: then Michael Savage and now Steve Bannon, and those are
1:29:46
Speaker 1: good choices from his perspective, because those are all three
1:29:51
Speaker 1: names that are large enough to be taken seriously. But
1:29:54
Speaker 1: they all also have their own vulnerabilities where I don't
1:29:58
Speaker 1: think that they're gonna really, you know, to use the
1:30:01
Speaker 1: boxing analogy lay too many gloves on Newsome and that
1:30:06
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk interview was the first one, and I'm gonna
1:30:10
Speaker 1: address that one. The Steve Bannon interview has not been
1:30:12
Speaker 1: released as of this taping yet, so I don't know
1:30:14
Speaker 1: how that's gonna go. Michael Savage was awful. Michael Savage,
1:30:20
Speaker 1: who I once filled once or twice filled in for
1:30:23
Speaker 1: on his radio show back in the day, and I,
1:30:26
Speaker 1: you know, my impression of him was that he's completely insane,
1:30:29
Speaker 1: and I mean that sincerely. In fact, I was told
1:30:31
Speaker 1: I've never told this story before. I was told when
1:30:35
Speaker 1: I was filling in for Michael Savage. And I can't
1:30:38
Speaker 1: remember what year this was, but this was This was
1:30:41
Speaker 1: at least more than a decade ago, maybe even longer
1:30:45
Speaker 1: than that ago, but anyway, he was at the height
1:30:48
Speaker 1: of his radio career and I was actually told that
1:30:55
Speaker 1: I should be prepared for Michael to take over the
1:30:59
Speaker 1: show at any moment if he didn't like the content.
1:31:05
Speaker 1: Now I don't know if that was really true, but
1:31:07
Speaker 1: I was told that by the producer, and I'm just
1:31:10
Speaker 1: thinking that's crazy. I've never heard anything like that. That's insane,
1:31:14
Speaker 1: and everything else I've ever heard about Michael Savage is
1:31:18
Speaker 1: consistent with that. He's nuts and now he's old and
1:31:22
Speaker 1: feeble and almost senile, and so Gavin Newsom crushed him,
1:31:28
Speaker 1: and I'm concerned about how he'll do with Steve Bannon.
1:31:31
Speaker 1: But when it came to Charlie Kirk, Charlie Kirk is
1:31:33
Speaker 1: at least a young guy who's smart. I think Charlie
1:31:37
Speaker 1: Kirk is smart, but I also think he's exceedingly overrated.
1:31:41
Speaker 1: He's gotten this credit and Newsom even forwarded this, promoted
1:31:46
Speaker 1: this narrative that somehow Kirk is behind the whole Republican
1:31:51
Speaker 1: resurgence among younger demographics and he's some sort of of
1:31:56
Speaker 1: mastermind of getting out the vote. And I'm like, this
1:31:59
Speaker 1: is the same guy who was essentially running Carrie Lake's
1:32:03
Speaker 1: campaign for governor in Arizona, where they catastrophically miscalculated what
1:32:10
Speaker 1: was going to happen. He claimed. On multiple occasions, Kirk
1:32:13
Speaker 1: did that Lake had won the election when it was
1:32:16
Speaker 1: clear she had lost. This was after the votes had
1:32:19
Speaker 1: already almost all been counted. And so I really don't
1:32:24
Speaker 1: understand how Kirk all of a sudden is this wonder kid.
1:32:27
Speaker 1: But okay, whatever, at least he's smart. At least he's
1:32:30
Speaker 1: a decent debater. He's not super aggressive, not nearly as
1:32:34
Speaker 1: aggressive as I would be, especially going up against Gavin Newsom.
1:32:39
Speaker 1: And this interview made a lot of noise. It made
1:32:44
Speaker 1: some noise, and it made some news. It made a
1:32:46
Speaker 1: lot of news because of the fact that it was
1:32:50
Speaker 1: perceived that Newsom was dramatically shifting his position on transgender
1:32:58
Speaker 1: athletes biological males playing female sports. So here's what it
1:33:04
Speaker 1: sounded like when when Kirk addressed this issue kind of
1:33:08
Speaker 1: confronted Newsom and then Newsome and my god, I can't
1:33:11
Speaker 1: this made so much news, way more than it probably deserved,
1:33:16
Speaker 1: because I'm not sure what Newsom said was nearly as
1:33:19
Speaker 1: dramatic as a lot of people, both on the left
1:33:22
Speaker 1: and the right made it out to be. But here
1:33:25
Speaker 1: was Kirk raising the issue and Newsome acknowledging that biological
1:33:31
Speaker 1: males playing sports against females is inherently unfair.
1:33:36
Speaker 10: It's like you right now should come out and be like,
1:33:38
Speaker 10: you know what, the young man who's about to win
1:33:40
Speaker 10: the state championship in the long jump in female sports,
1:33:43
Speaker 10: that shouldn't happen. You as the governor should step out
1:33:46
Speaker 10: and say no, no, And I appreciate, and but like,
1:33:48
Speaker 10: would you do something like that? Would you say no
1:33:50
Speaker 10: men in female sports.
1:33:51
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's an issue of fairness.
1:33:52
Speaker 5: I completely agree with you on that, So that's easy
1:33:55
Speaker 5: to call out the unfairness of that.
1:33:57
Speaker 1: Now I will fully acknowledge that that's a shift. That's
1:34:02
Speaker 1: an important admission by Newsome. It's obvious anybody with any
1:34:08
Speaker 1: common sense will tell you that that's unfair for biological
1:34:13
Speaker 1: males to play sports against females. So I'm not going
1:34:16
Speaker 1: to give Gavin Newsom a lot of credit for knowledging
1:34:19
Speaker 1: the two plus two equals four. It also isn't the
1:34:23
Speaker 1: same as him coming out and saying, you know what,
1:34:26
Speaker 1: I have been wrong on the issue. My side has
1:34:29
Speaker 1: been wrong on the issue. I've been governor out for
1:34:32
Speaker 1: six years. I've not done anything to protect females from
1:34:36
Speaker 1: having to play sports against biological males. And now I'm
1:34:39
Speaker 1: going to correct that what I just said would be dramatic.
1:34:45
Speaker 1: What Newsom said was not dramatic. Yet somehow it was
1:34:50
Speaker 1: perceived that way, and I'm not one hundred percent sure why,
1:34:53
Speaker 1: but both the left and the right went bananas, and frankly,
1:34:58
Speaker 1: I don't know that anybody really bought this, because even
1:35:02
Speaker 1: liberal commentators like on CNN, I saw. David Axelrod Obama's
1:35:08
Speaker 1: former political campaign manager, basically panned this as being obvious, pandering,
1:35:16
Speaker 1: and being too obvious about the fact that he is
1:35:19
Speaker 1: trying to show the world that he's a liberal who
1:35:23
Speaker 1: gets it, kind of like the Bill Maher effect. You
1:35:26
Speaker 1: know that Newsom is using Bill Maher as a way
1:35:31
Speaker 1: to reinvent himself, or using the Bill Maher method or
1:35:34
Speaker 1: Bill Maher path to reinvent himself. That he's clearly a liberal.
1:35:39
Speaker 1: He's got no problem maintaining his liberal street cred, but
1:35:43
Speaker 1: at least he's a liberal that can understand when liberals
1:35:48
Speaker 1: are wrong and acknowledge it well. To me, that was
1:35:51
Speaker 1: a useless acknowledgment by Newsom because he didn't pledge to
1:35:55
Speaker 1: do anything about it, and he pretended as if he's
1:35:58
Speaker 1: not part of the problem. If it's so fundamentally unfair,
1:36:02
Speaker 1: then the follow up, which Kirk didn't do, which I
1:36:06
Speaker 1: would have been, which is okay, so what are you
1:36:08
Speaker 1: gonna do about it?
1:36:09
Speaker 7: Now?
1:36:10
Speaker 1: Big guy? You've just acknowledged that you're allowing inherently unfair
1:36:17
Speaker 1: things to occur in your state, and in fact, you know,
1:36:21
Speaker 1: in one situation there's a track participant that's probably gonna
1:36:25
Speaker 1: win the state championship. Who's actually a biological male competing
1:36:29
Speaker 1: against females. Are you gonna do anything to stop this
1:36:32
Speaker 1: or at least prevent it from happening in the future. Well,
1:36:35
Speaker 1: that didn't happen, and my guess is it's not gonna
1:36:38
Speaker 1: happen because this is all show. This is all literally
1:36:42
Speaker 1: a show and figuratively a show. This is all to
1:36:44
Speaker 1: try to reinvent the narrative of who Gavin Newsome is.
1:36:50
Speaker 1: And at first I thought, there's just no way this
1:36:54
Speaker 1: is gonna work, right, There's just no way. He's way
1:36:58
Speaker 1: too much on the record for so much of this
1:37:01
Speaker 1: liberal insanity, and of course than what he did during
1:37:04
Speaker 1: COVID and the wildfire disaster. There's just no way he
1:37:09
Speaker 1: can pull this off. There's no way of reinventing this
1:37:14
Speaker 1: by you know, by the twenty twenty eight primary season.
1:37:19
Speaker 1: And you know, I'm not one hundred percent sure that's
1:37:22
Speaker 1: the case anymore. We've seen stranger reinventions, especially when somebody
1:37:29
Speaker 1: has celebrity and they have resources, and they have enough
1:37:33
Speaker 1: of the media that is willing to help them. Although,
1:37:36
Speaker 1: like I said, I don't think you know a lot
1:37:38
Speaker 1: of the left wing media is applauding what Trump. What Trump.
1:37:41
Speaker 1: I hears a Freudian slip what Newsom did when it
1:37:45
Speaker 1: came to the issue of transgender athletes, and how unfair
1:37:48
Speaker 1: that is. But I can now see a path. I'm
1:37:51
Speaker 1: not saying it's gonna happen. I'm just worried that I
1:37:55
Speaker 1: see a path to where Newsom could over time reinvent
1:38:01
Speaker 1: himself and somehow become the semi voice of reason within
1:38:08
Speaker 1: what will likely be a crowded Democratic field for the
1:38:12
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight presidential nomination. Now, I'm going to get
1:38:15
Speaker 1: to another development when it comes to Democrats in twenty
1:38:19
Speaker 1: twenty eight, and just a moment which will probably impact
1:38:21
Speaker 1: and factly will impact California in a very different way,
1:38:24
Speaker 1: involving Kamala Harris. But first I want to play a
1:38:27
Speaker 1: second clip from this interview between Gavin Newsom and Charlie Kirk.
1:38:34
Speaker 1: This is I think actually Kirk's best moment, at least
1:38:37
Speaker 1: that I saw during this interview. And you know, this
1:38:40
Speaker 1: is not the way I would have handled it. I
1:38:42
Speaker 1: would have been far, far, far more aggressive. But sometimes
1:38:46
Speaker 1: that's not the best tactic. Sometimes the best tactic is
1:38:50
Speaker 1: to actually go soft and maybe even be funny about it,
1:38:55
Speaker 1: and then just let it kind of sit. And that's
1:38:59
Speaker 1: what Kirk did did when it came to the issue
1:39:01
Speaker 1: indirectly of the COVID lockdowns. Were almost the fifty year
1:39:06
Speaker 1: anniversary of Gavin Newsom shutting down California, which I think
1:39:10
Speaker 1: was the point of no return for the COVID panic,
1:39:14
Speaker 1: about which I wrote immediately that it was completely and
1:39:18
Speaker 1: totally wrong. I wrote a column and I'm still very
1:39:20
Speaker 1: proud of to this day the next morning after on
1:39:24
Speaker 1: March nineteenth, when Gavin Newsom shut down California and effectively
1:39:28
Speaker 1: caused the panic to overtake the entire country, forcing the
1:39:33
Speaker 1: entire country to effectively lock down. And he did it
1:39:36
Speaker 1: on a statistical based on a statistical formula for the
1:39:40
Speaker 1: number of people that were going to get COVID. That
1:39:42
Speaker 1: was absurd and obviously insane and impossible. And I proved
1:39:47
Speaker 1: that it was insane in a column I wrote for
1:39:49
Speaker 1: media the very next morning. I turned out to be
1:39:51
Speaker 1: one thousand percent right. Newsom was one thousand percent wrong.
1:39:54
Speaker 1: No one ever calls him on it to this day.
1:39:58
Speaker 1: But you know, in my view of all the COVID
1:40:01
Speaker 1: villains Newsom is the most significant Well, during this conversation
1:40:05
Speaker 1: with Kirk, Newsom is explaining that part of why he
1:40:12
Speaker 1: did this interview. And this is really fascinating from the
1:40:14
Speaker 1: perspective that I've always talked about when it comes to
1:40:18
Speaker 1: Trump and Newsom. Apparently Kimberly Guilfoyle is the person that
1:40:23
Speaker 1: put Newsom and Kirk together. And now Kimberly Guilfoyle is
1:40:27
Speaker 1: Newsom's former wife and the former fiance of Donald Trump Junior.
1:40:33
Speaker 1: She's been jettisoned off to Grease as the ambassador there
1:40:36
Speaker 1: because Donald Trump Junior as a new girlfriend, a new
1:40:39
Speaker 1: younger model of girlfriends. So I found that to be
1:40:43
Speaker 1: very very interesting that Kimberly Guilfoyle was involved in this.
1:40:47
Speaker 1: But another person involved in the meeting of Charlie Kirk
1:40:51
Speaker 1: and Gavin Newsom was Newsom's son. Now, I don't know
1:40:57
Speaker 1: exactly how old Newsom's son is, but he's sounds like
1:41:00
Speaker 1: he's in a teenage realm, and he apparently is a
1:41:04
Speaker 1: fan of Charlie Kirk, which is amazing. I'd love to
1:41:06
Speaker 1: hear more about this. But because Newsom's son is a
1:41:11
Speaker 1: fan of Charlie Kirk, that was part of what facilitated
1:41:16
Speaker 1: this Kirk Knewso interview, and Kirk asked him whether or
1:41:21
Speaker 1: not he let him out of school to come out
1:41:25
Speaker 1: to meet Kirk, and Newsom says, no, I would never
1:41:29
Speaker 1: do that. And Kirk makes a joke about, well, you
1:41:31
Speaker 1: shut down schools for two years, and Newsom has basically
1:41:37
Speaker 1: no response to that other than a very nervous chuckle.
1:41:40
Speaker 1: And here's what that sounded like.
1:41:43
Speaker 5: Last night, trying to put my son to bed. He's like, no, Dad,
1:41:46
Speaker 5: I just time. What time's Charlie gonna be here?
1:41:49
Speaker 1: What time?
1:41:49
Speaker 5: And I'm like, dude, you're in school to morrow.
1:41:51
Speaker 1: He's thirteen.
1:41:51
Speaker 5: He's like, no, no, no, This morning wakes up at sicks
1:41:54
Speaker 5: up and he's like I'm coming. I'm like, he literally
1:41:57
Speaker 5: would not leave the house.
1:41:58
Speaker 10: Did you let him to take off school?
1:42:00
Speaker 1: No, he did, of course not. He's not here for
1:42:01
Speaker 1: a good reason. But the point is you canceled school
1:42:03
Speaker 1: for like two years.
1:42:04
Speaker 5: Once on the point is the point, which is you
1:42:08
Speaker 5: are making a damn debts.
1:42:10
Speaker 1: I'm kidding.
1:42:11
Speaker 5: When you go to these college campus I love watching
1:42:12
Speaker 5: your TikTok, which is next level.
1:42:14
Speaker 1: Clearly that that's expressed by my thirteen year old son.
1:42:16
Speaker 1: I want to meet this guy. Ye.
1:42:18
Speaker 10: I actually it's coming to a turning point event this
1:42:20
Speaker 10: summer Tampa, Florida Student Action Summit.
1:42:23
Speaker 11: I actually because, by the way, if you should be concerned,
1:42:26
Speaker 11: but let me say here, here is why I'm concerned,
1:42:29
Speaker 11: because you you have expressed that I should be concerned
1:42:31
Speaker 11: as a Democrat, that we're getting Oh, we're getting blobbard.
1:42:35
Speaker 5: Yes, that you've you've figured something out.
1:42:38
Speaker 1: It's not me.
1:42:38
Speaker 10: The president first deserves the credit.
1:42:40
Speaker 5: But why no, no, hold on, you were at this
1:42:42
Speaker 5: before Trump was trying to know, but he was a
1:42:44
Speaker 5: Democrat back in twenty eleven.
1:42:46
Speaker 10: The president deserves huge credit. And I just have to
1:42:48
Speaker 10: say that as an obligatory thing because without him, our
1:42:51
Speaker 10: meason would be small. And you can appreciate that. In politics,
1:42:53
Speaker 10: you have to appreciate the person.
1:42:55
Speaker 5: Who you for you, that's what you sort of attached to.
1:42:58
Speaker 10: It was also just the catalyst. It was a cultural
1:43:00
Speaker 10: moment that just opened us up.
1:43:03
Speaker 1: Now that's not the way I would have done it,
1:43:05
Speaker 1: but that I thought was effective. Maybe a little too subtle,
1:43:10
Speaker 1: but I thought that was effective. That was funny, It
1:43:12
Speaker 1: made the point I think it probably deserved to follow
1:43:16
Speaker 1: up when Newsom had nothing to say other than the
1:43:19
Speaker 1: nervous chuckle. But that's pretty good. But that being said,
1:43:26
Speaker 1: I think so far this effort is largely achieving Newsom's goal,
1:43:32
Speaker 1: which is to pretend that he's going up against the best,
1:43:39
Speaker 1: the biggest, the boldest minds on the right, and when
1:43:44
Speaker 1: he at least holds his own or in the case
1:43:46
Speaker 1: of Michael Savage, clearly defeats them, this shows the left
1:43:52
Speaker 1: that this is a battle he can win. He can
1:43:55
Speaker 1: take on the Trump supporters and win. Now, you remember
1:43:59
Speaker 1: he got clot by Ron DeSantis in their debate, but
1:44:03
Speaker 1: I guess people are going to forget about that, and
1:44:06
Speaker 1: I'll be very curious to see where this goes from here.
1:44:09
Speaker 1: I'm also curious to see how Steve Bannon will do,
1:44:13
Speaker 1: because my sense is that Steve Bannon probably thinks that
1:44:16
Speaker 1: he has a chance to run for president. Who knows.
1:44:18
Speaker 1: I mean, stranger things have happened than Steve Bannon and
1:44:21
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom ending up as the two candidates for president
1:44:25
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty eight. I'm not predicting that in any way,
1:44:27
Speaker 1: shape or form, but stranger things have happened in that
1:44:31
Speaker 1: particular scenario, and you know, that's the third interview that
1:44:35
Speaker 1: Newsom has scheduled as of this taping. Apparently he's already
1:44:39
Speaker 1: taped it but hasn't been made public yet for Gavin
1:44:42
Speaker 1: Newsom's podcast. But I'm concerned. I'm not I'm not at
1:44:46
Speaker 1: a high level of agitation. I'm just a level of
1:44:49
Speaker 1: concern that Newsom is being allowed, partially because he's correctly
1:44:55
Speaker 1: choosing his opponents, He's being allowed to reinvent himself and
1:45:01
Speaker 1: promote and create this narrative that he's not really a
1:45:05
Speaker 1: whack job, that he's not that far left, and that
1:45:08
Speaker 1: he actually has the ability to out debate those who
1:45:12
Speaker 1: are well known on the right. And that is a
1:45:15
Speaker 1: very dangerous narrative if you're talking about what's going to
1:45:18
Speaker 1: happen in twenty twenty eight. Now. I have been on
1:45:22
Speaker 1: record saying I think Newson would have a very very
1:45:25
Speaker 1: difficult time winning the Democratic presidential nomination in twenty twenty eight,
1:45:29
Speaker 1: you know, especially if Kamala Harris ran. If Kamala Harris ran,
1:45:34
Speaker 1: I think that that would effectively end Gavin Newsom's chances
1:45:39
Speaker 1: of winning the nomination unless he was willing and able
1:45:43
Speaker 1: to take her out. See what I don't think he
1:45:48
Speaker 1: would be willing or able to do that. And that's
1:45:51
Speaker 1: part of the many problems that the Democratic Party has
1:45:55
Speaker 1: is that because she is a woman of color, she's
1:45:58
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to really go after her. That's not
1:46:01
Speaker 1: part of the that's not acceptable within the woke liberal religion,
1:46:06
Speaker 1: and especially going after a woman of color from your
1:46:09
Speaker 1: own state. I think that would be very, very difficult
1:46:12
Speaker 1: for Newsom not to mention that inherently they are in
1:46:16
Speaker 1: the same territory. I mean literally and figuratively. There's only
1:46:20
Speaker 1: so much room for a liberal from California in a
1:46:25
Speaker 1: national Democratic primary. So if Harris is in, I think
1:46:30
Speaker 1: that blocks Newsome. If Harris is out, I think Newsom
1:46:35
Speaker 1: has a heck of a chance. Doesn't mean he's gonna win,
1:46:39
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of things that can happen. I'm
1:46:41
Speaker 1: not even sure you would be the favorite. He'd have
1:46:43
Speaker 1: a lot of challenges, but he's definitely a major contender.
1:46:48
Speaker 1: If Harris decides not to run for the nomination in
1:46:52
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight, and in the last week there have
1:46:55
Speaker 1: been several reports then indicate that Harris may not run
1:47:01
Speaker 1: for president in twenty twenty eight, then instead she may
1:47:05
Speaker 1: run for Newsom's position. She may run to be governor
1:47:09
Speaker 1: of California in twenty twenty six, and you know, I
1:47:15
Speaker 1: am I am very conflicted about this. I mean, yes,
1:47:20
Speaker 1: if she runs for governor, it essentially ends any hope
1:47:24
Speaker 1: that she's in all likelihood going to be president of
1:47:27
Speaker 1: the United States. I mean, it's not impossible. You could
1:47:31
Speaker 1: see a scenario where she wins the governorship of California
1:47:34
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty six, she gets re elected in thirty
1:47:40
Speaker 1: and then she runs for president thirty two. If there's
1:47:43
Speaker 1: not a Democratic incumbent that is, that is a scenario
1:47:47
Speaker 1: that would theoretically work for Kamala Harris. She wouldn't be
1:47:51
Speaker 1: too old in twenty thirty two, especially after having gone
1:47:56
Speaker 1: through Biden and Trump in the you know, very advanced
1:48:00
Speaker 1: stages of being president. So that's a scenario that would
1:48:03
Speaker 1: still exist. And that, by the way, might be part
1:48:06
Speaker 1: of why it seems like she is leaning no decision
1:48:11
Speaker 1: been made yet leaning towards running for governor. I mean
1:48:15
Speaker 1: running for governor for Harris would be a layup. I
1:48:19
Speaker 1: want to make this very clear. If she runs for governor,
1:48:23
Speaker 1: she is the next governor of California. There are people
1:48:27
Speaker 1: like Republican Congressman Kevin Kyleie from California, who I like,
1:48:31
Speaker 1: who was great during COVID, who have been trying to
1:48:34
Speaker 1: put forward this narrative that if Harris runs for governor
1:48:38
Speaker 1: of California, that means a Republican can possibly win. That
1:48:43
Speaker 1: is ridiculous. There is no chance of that whatsoever. A
1:48:49
Speaker 1: Republican cannot possibly beat Harris in twenty twenty six. No chance, zero.
1:48:57
Speaker 1: And there are a hundred reasons why. But the biggest is,
1:49:01
Speaker 1: and this is the impact of Donald Trump. That is
1:49:05
Speaker 1: that every single candidate for every major office will have
1:49:10
Speaker 1: the first primary question that they have to answer, are
1:49:15
Speaker 1: you pro Trump? And if you are pro Trump, how
1:49:18
Speaker 1: pro Trump are you? Well? In order to be considered
1:49:24
Speaker 1: the top Republican candidate in a state as large as California,
1:49:30
Speaker 1: where no massive celebrity exists, it's gonna have the money
1:49:35
Speaker 1: and the name recognition to overwhelm everybody else in order
1:49:40
Speaker 1: to have any chance at all to getting into the
1:49:42
Speaker 1: top two. And the way California does it is so
1:49:44
Speaker 1: screwed up. There's no actual party primaries. You have a
1:49:48
Speaker 1: general primary, and then the top two vote getters, regardless
1:49:51
Speaker 1: of which party they're a member of they go into
1:49:54
Speaker 1: the general election. To have any chance to get into
1:49:57
Speaker 1: the top two, to be the number one Republican, k
1:50:01
Speaker 1: you're gonna have to be super trumpy. There's no other option.
1:50:07
Speaker 1: Much of California, especially the rural areas of California, is
1:50:11
Speaker 1: very trumpy. And so this relatively unknown, maybe totally unknown
1:50:18
Speaker 1: person on the Republican side, I mean, okay, fine, you're
1:50:21
Speaker 1: gonna beat Harris, Tell me who's gonna be the candidate?
1:50:24
Speaker 1: Because they would have to be a rich celebrity and
1:50:27
Speaker 1: then they have, you know, maybe under that circumstance they
1:50:31
Speaker 1: can get around the how trumpy are you questioned? But
1:50:35
Speaker 1: it's still going to exist. And if you decide that
1:50:38
Speaker 1: you're all on board with Trump, which you'll have to
1:50:40
Speaker 1: be in order to survive the primary process, that eliminates
1:50:46
Speaker 1: any chance you have in the general election. I mean,
1:50:50
Speaker 1: Trump himself has the advantages of having been president and
1:50:54
Speaker 1: being a massive celebrity, couldn't come anywhere near Harris and
1:51:00
Speaker 1: California when it came to the presidential election in twenty
1:51:03
Speaker 1: twenty four. So how is a non celebrity with no
1:51:06
Speaker 1: money going up against Harris? Who's gonna have all the
1:51:11
Speaker 1: negative baggage of being a Trump fan in California and
1:51:15
Speaker 1: none of the positives. How the fuck are they gonna
1:51:17
Speaker 1: possibly beat Kamala Harris. There's no scenario, So I don't
1:51:22
Speaker 1: want anyone to believe this bullshit narrative that's out there
1:51:26
Speaker 1: partially because of Kevin Kylie. And by the way, maybe
1:51:28
Speaker 1: because he's thinking about running for governor himself. That would
1:51:32
Speaker 1: make sense to me, because he's not a dumb guy.
1:51:35
Speaker 1: The only way you would be saying that is if
1:51:36
Speaker 1: you had an inherent self interest in it. And maybe
1:51:40
Speaker 1: if he thinks he's running, he wants people to believe
1:51:42
Speaker 1: that a Republican can win. Let me break it to
1:51:45
Speaker 1: Kevin Kylie. If he somehow made it into the final two,
1:51:49
Speaker 1: he would get crushed by Kamala Harris in California. I
1:51:52
Speaker 1: don't care how bad a candidate she is, and she's bad,
1:51:56
Speaker 1: no chance whatsoever now, just for shits and giggles, because
1:52:00
Speaker 1: this is the kind of thing I think about a lot. Why,
1:52:04
Speaker 1: I don't know, because it's never gonna happen. But if
1:52:07
Speaker 1: I'm coming up with a scenario that would prevent Kamala
1:52:10
Speaker 1: Harris from being the next governor of California should she
1:52:15
Speaker 1: decide that she wants to run for that office. Here's
1:52:17
Speaker 1: the only scenario that is remotely plausible that I see.
1:52:22
Speaker 1: And again to be clear, this ain't gonna happen. This
1:52:25
Speaker 1: is not gonna happen. But if I was in charge
1:52:28
Speaker 1: of the world, I think this is plausible. So here's
1:52:31
Speaker 1: what's gonna happen. You're gonna go to Kevin cost and
1:52:36
Speaker 1: you're gonna Kevin can you run for governor as an
1:52:39
Speaker 1: independent because you can't have any of the trumpy stain
1:52:43
Speaker 1: on you? All right, and you're not really a Republican
1:52:46
Speaker 1: to begin with. You' shent me not a Trump guy.
1:52:49
Speaker 1: But you've got the name recognition, the celebrity, the money
1:52:52
Speaker 1: to run a legitimate independent campaign. And in exchange, we
1:52:59
Speaker 1: the republic Party are not going to endorse any of
1:53:02
Speaker 1: our candidates, any of our midgets figuratively that are running
1:53:07
Speaker 1: with no name recognition and no money, none of them
1:53:09
Speaker 1: are going to gain any traction. Okay, so you by
1:53:14
Speaker 1: name recognition alone, with Harris running, you're going to get
1:53:17
Speaker 1: in the top two because you know at least twenty
1:53:21
Speaker 1: percent of people are going to vote for Kevin Costner.
1:53:25
Speaker 1: And no other Republican's going to get twenty percent. So
1:53:29
Speaker 1: it's going to be Harris versus Costner for the California governorship.
1:53:34
Speaker 1: Now you got a race. Now you've got a race,
1:53:38
Speaker 1: because now you've got you know, thirty five percent of
1:53:41
Speaker 1: the state that's Republican voters. They ain't voting for Harris,
1:53:46
Speaker 1: and they have a lot of reasons to like Costner
1:53:48
Speaker 1: even though he doesn't have a Republican ran next to
1:53:51
Speaker 1: his name, and Costner appeals to a lot of people
1:53:55
Speaker 1: who are not Republicans. Kevin Costner, I realize he's an actor,
1:54:01
Speaker 1: and I actually have people that I know that are
1:54:05
Speaker 1: in his sphere. I probably have two or three people
1:54:08
Speaker 1: I know that are that have had extensive dealings with
1:54:11
Speaker 1: Kevin Costner. He might be a complete asshole. I'm just
1:54:15
Speaker 1: talking about the political potential of this because of how
1:54:19
Speaker 1: he is perceived and his unique street cred with different
1:54:25
Speaker 1: groups of people. There is no public figure that I
1:54:29
Speaker 1: know of who can speak to as Costner has an
1:54:34
Speaker 1: association of gun owners. Go search it for yourself. It's
1:54:39
Speaker 1: one of the best pro gun speeches I've ever seen
1:54:41
Speaker 1: in my life. It was by Kevin Costner. Like two
1:54:44
Speaker 1: years ago. It was amazing. Not to mention, of course,
1:54:48
Speaker 1: you know the Star of Yellowstone, which is a very
1:54:51
Speaker 1: popular show, and you know that gives him a lot
1:54:54
Speaker 1: of even though it's a TV show, gives him a
1:54:56
Speaker 1: lot of rural pro gun street. But it's his real
1:55:01
Speaker 1: life story that he tells. But there's no public figure
1:55:04
Speaker 1: that has the ability to do that and also give
1:55:08
Speaker 1: one of the best eulogies I've ever seen in my
1:55:10
Speaker 1: life at the funeral of Whitney Houston, obviously a famous
1:55:15
Speaker 1: black female, a almost entirely black funeral, which was a
1:55:20
Speaker 1: shit show. I mean that thing. I watched the whole thing.
1:55:23
Speaker 1: It was a shit show until Kevin Coster showed up
1:55:27
Speaker 1: and knocked it out of the fucking park. And you know,
1:55:31
Speaker 1: so you got a guy that can appeal to gun owners,
1:55:34
Speaker 1: and you know has given the eulogy at Whitney Houston's
1:55:39
Speaker 1: funeral and done movies that appeal to hispanics. This is
1:55:44
Speaker 1: a guy who would be very dangerous, very dangerous to
1:55:48
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris. Unfortunately, I doubt Costner has the inclination. The
1:55:53
Speaker 1: Republican Party doesn't have the imagination, you know, so that's
1:55:57
Speaker 1: not going to happen. But that's the only scenario that
1:56:00
Speaker 1: I can even conceive of where if Kamala Amras decides
1:56:04
Speaker 1: to run for governor, she doesn't win. And if she
1:56:07
Speaker 1: decides to run for governor, that completely changes, obviously the
1:56:13
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight race for the Democratic presidential nomination, because
1:56:16
Speaker 1: there's just no way that she can run in twenty
1:56:21
Speaker 1: twenty six, take office in twenty twenty seven, and then
1:56:23
Speaker 1: turn around and then I'm she's gonna run for president.
1:56:25
Speaker 1: That's just that's not logistically possible. Thanks for listening to
1:56:30
Speaker 1: today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested
1:56:34
Speaker 1: in listening to the entire show, you must become a patron.
1:56:38
Speaker 1: Please go to Patreon. That's p A T R e
1:56:42
Speaker 1: O N dot com. Patreon dot com slash the Death
1:56:48
Speaker 1: of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is jhn z
1:56:53
Speaker 1: I E G L e R. That's patreon dot com
1:56:58
Speaker 1: slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziegler. Good luck
1:57:03
Speaker 1: to you on that. But that's how you can subscribe