Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Fifty Three: Ziegler, Party Of One

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Fifty Three: Ziegler, Party Of One · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode two hundred and fifty three of the
0:03
Speaker 1: Death of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm
0:05
Speaker 1: your host on today's show. Kamala Harris will not be
0:09
Speaker 1: the next governor of California and her political career might
0:13
Speaker 1: be over. The Russia Gate nonsense finally succeeds in distracting
0:17
Speaker 1: Maga world from the Epstein mythology. Howard Stern is apparently
0:22
Speaker 1: finally out at Sirius XM Radio. Liberals lose their mind
0:27
Speaker 1: over Sidney Sweeney and a blue Jeans commercial. ESPN and
0:32
Speaker 1: the NFL effectively merge, but no one seems to care
0:36
Speaker 1: about how dangerous this is, and for the first time,
0:40
Speaker 1: my father finally appears on the Death of Journalism podcasts.
0:46
Speaker 1: We begin this episode of the Death of Journalism Podcast
0:49
Speaker 1: with a major political development which really has not gotten
0:54
Speaker 1: nearly as much attention as I thought that it might.
0:57
Speaker 1: It did for about twenty four to three thirty six hours,
1:00
Speaker 1: but it already feels like old news as I tape
1:04
Speaker 1: this episode of the podcast, I'm referring to the fact
1:06
Speaker 1: that former Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris,
1:10
Speaker 1: former Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has announced that she
1:14
Speaker 1: will not be running for the position of governor of
1:17
Speaker 1: California because obviously Gavin Newsom is termed out at the
1:22
Speaker 1: end of twenty twenty six, there'll be an election next year,
1:25
Speaker 1: presumably here in California, to determine who knew some successor
1:29
Speaker 1: would be. And contrary to what some in the conservative world,
1:34
Speaker 1: a Republican world would like to tell you, if Harris
1:36
Speaker 1: had wanted to be the next governor of California, she
1:41
Speaker 1: obviously easily could have had the position. There is zero
1:45
Speaker 1: chance whatsoever that if she had announced as Governor of
1:49
Speaker 1: California to be candidate for governor of California, she would
1:53
Speaker 1: have obviously been in the top two in the primary,
1:56
Speaker 1: and she obviously would have won. There's no one that
2:00
Speaker 1: could have beat her on name recognition alone. Obviously, this
2:04
Speaker 1: is California. And so I did see a lot of
2:06
Speaker 1: delusional people out there, including Congressman Kevin Kylie, who I
2:11
Speaker 1: generally like a Republican from here in California, who have
2:14
Speaker 1: been claiming that, oh, you know, Harris might not have won,
2:17
Speaker 1: she would have given Republicans an opportunity to win the office. Bullshit,
2:22
Speaker 1: complete bullshit. So she turns down that position, which is
2:27
Speaker 1: obviously a huge position. I mean, it's one of the
2:30
Speaker 1: most powerful political positions in the world. California is clearly
2:35
Speaker 1: huge in all sorts of different ways, and Harris has
2:39
Speaker 1: turned it down. Now, when I heard that, I had
2:43
Speaker 1: a bit of a this will surprise you, of course,
2:45
Speaker 1: not really a contrarian view of what this meant. First
2:50
Speaker 1: of all, as a Californian. This is the really contrarian part.
2:53
Speaker 1: Considering the fact that I really do not like Kamala
2:56
Speaker 1: Harris at all and I find her to be dangerous.
2:59
Speaker 1: I was actually disappointed that she was not going to
3:02
Speaker 1: run for governor of California. And you're probably wondering, sake,
3:06
Speaker 1: how could that possibly be. Well, it's because I'm a
3:08
Speaker 1: realist and a Kamala Harris who at least has some
3:14
Speaker 1: concern about what is going to happen in the future
3:18
Speaker 1: of her political career. Because she's still young enough, especially
3:21
Speaker 1: in this day and age where we've got an almost
3:24
Speaker 1: eighty year old president and we just had an eighty
3:27
Speaker 1: year plus president, it's still theoretically possible to be governor
3:31
Speaker 1: of California and then some time down the road run
3:34
Speaker 1: for president. So had she run for governor of California,
3:39
Speaker 1: there's a scenario there where she's not insane. She's going
3:43
Speaker 1: to have a self interest in being at least somewhat
3:47
Speaker 1: of a centrist, not to mention that in comparison to
3:50
Speaker 1: people that might win the governorship of California, she's probably
3:54
Speaker 1: not nearly as insane from a political perspective as a
3:58
Speaker 1: lot of them are. From my perspective as a resident
4:03
Speaker 1: of the state of California with two kids going to
4:06
Speaker 1: school here, I actually would have preferred her to be
4:10
Speaker 1: the next governor because she's a lot less bad than
4:12
Speaker 1: what we're likely to get with her not being in contention,
4:17
Speaker 1: especially considering the fact that, again part of my presumption
4:20
Speaker 1: is that if she was governor of California, she would
4:23
Speaker 1: still be worried about keeping her presidential viability alive in
4:27
Speaker 1: the long term, and therefore she wouldn't be nearly as
4:29
Speaker 1: insane as some of these other leftist socialists that are
4:33
Speaker 1: likely to be in contention to be the next governor
4:37
Speaker 1: of California. So that was the first part, that is
4:40
Speaker 1: I'm sure a unique person. There's no way that there's
4:44
Speaker 1: another conservative in California that was actually rooting for Kambala
4:48
Speaker 1: Arris to be the next governor of California, because that
4:51
Speaker 1: was the least bad scenario in my estimation. So then
4:55
Speaker 1: when I heard that she was not running and that
4:58
Speaker 1: she had a book out, and that the book was
5:01
Speaker 1: obviously about her failed campaign in twenty twenty four, and
5:05
Speaker 1: that the book was called one hundred and seven Days,
5:08
Speaker 1: I thought, Okay, this is pretty clear she's going to
5:11
Speaker 1: run in twenty twenty eight for president. I mean, that's obvious, right,
5:16
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no chance that that's not the case. So,
5:20
Speaker 1: I mean, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure
5:22
Speaker 1: out if you've got a book out about your failed
5:25
Speaker 1: campaign and it's called one hundred and seven days, and
5:28
Speaker 1: I think the title is important because that's clearly making
5:32
Speaker 1: the message as obvious as possible that, look, I didn't
5:35
Speaker 1: have enough time here. It's an inherent excuse for why
5:39
Speaker 1: you lost. So if you're trying to build a narrative
5:42
Speaker 1: for why you deserve a second chance at this, you
5:47
Speaker 1: know your your memoir on the election calling it one
5:49
Speaker 1: hundred and seven days, it's probably not a bad idea.
5:53
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not sure it's going to be effective,
5:55
Speaker 1: but it's, you know, among your options, it's the best
5:57
Speaker 1: that you have. It's the best avenue you have to
6:00
Speaker 1: try to build an argument for a future presidential campaign.
6:04
Speaker 1: So I'm thinking, all right, she's not running for governor
6:07
Speaker 1: of California. She's got this book out about her failed campaign.
6:11
Speaker 1: It's called One hundred and seven Days, and I'm thinking,
6:15
Speaker 1: all right, Wow, Democrats have a problem. Democrats have a
6:19
Speaker 1: major problem here because her celebrity is significant. She was
6:24
Speaker 1: the vice president of United States, she's a woman of color.
6:27
Speaker 1: This gives her enormous advantages when it comes to the
6:31
Speaker 1: Democratic race in twenty twenty eight. Not saying she's going
6:34
Speaker 1: to win it. In fact, she may not come close
6:37
Speaker 1: to winning it, but she's a problem because she's going
6:40
Speaker 1: to have a significant number of votes right off the bat,
6:44
Speaker 1: probably in the realm of twenty to twenty five percent,
6:47
Speaker 1: and that in a crowded race is incredibly formidable. But
6:52
Speaker 1: then she did her first interview for the book, and
6:56
Speaker 1: she went on CBS and did a late night interview
7:00
Speaker 1: with Stephen Colbert, which is an understandable choice if you're
7:04
Speaker 1: looking for a friendly interview, because Stephen Colbert was effectively
7:08
Speaker 1: part of her campaign but I'm not sure it was
7:10
Speaker 1: the best selection for an interview if you're really serious
7:15
Speaker 1: about building up a narrative to try to run for
7:18
Speaker 1: president in twenty twenty eight. And I had low expectations
7:22
Speaker 1: for how she would do in this interview. She's terrible
7:24
Speaker 1: in interviews, and clearly Colbert was as soft as possible.
7:28
Speaker 1: I mean, this essentially was somebody on her payroll for
7:30
Speaker 1: all intents and purposes. But I thought her interview with
7:35
Speaker 1: Colbert was horrific. I mean it was in a borderline disaster.
7:40
Speaker 1: Given all the advantages that she has, given the fact
7:43
Speaker 1: that this was the first major interview she's done since
7:47
Speaker 1: the election, people are at least willing to listen, and
7:51
Speaker 1: her basic narrative was, you know what, I'm basically giving up.
7:56
Speaker 1: That's what I got out of this was I don't
7:58
Speaker 1: want to be governor California because you know, the system
8:01
Speaker 1: is so broken. I don't want to work from withinside
8:04
Speaker 1: the system. I want to listen to people, which to
8:07
Speaker 1: me is just a cliche. It's purely ridiculous. What are
8:13
Speaker 1: you going to do? I mean, you're out of power,
8:15
Speaker 1: and you passed up an opportunity to have an enormous
8:18
Speaker 1: amount of power as governor California, and now you're just
8:22
Speaker 1: gonna go across the country, badgering people who don't want
8:26
Speaker 1: to listen to what you have to say, hawking a book.
8:30
Speaker 1: And she sounded depressed to me. She sounded, you know,
8:34
Speaker 1: completely off balance. I you know, it's normal word salad
8:39
Speaker 1: stuff with this incredibly friendly interviewer, Stephen Colbert. So I
8:46
Speaker 1: actually went through a pretty quick evolution when it came
8:49
Speaker 1: to my analysis of where she stands for twenty twenty eight.
8:54
Speaker 1: I have been somebody again who does not like her,
8:58
Speaker 1: but who has been I think more on the realistic
9:01
Speaker 1: side of the advantages that she theoretically has for a
9:05
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight presidential campaign. And I have never said
9:08
Speaker 1: that she would win the presidency. I mean she could
9:11
Speaker 1: if things were bad and she got the nomination. I mean,
9:14
Speaker 1: you have to have someone who will beat her. And
9:17
Speaker 1: you know JD. Vance, who I think is a potentially
9:20
Speaker 1: great candidate, but he's only a great candidate if the
9:23
Speaker 1: Trump administration is seen as a success and Trump is
9:27
Speaker 1: completely on board and the Trump Coalition is still intact.
9:31
Speaker 1: If that's not all the case, then he can be
9:34
Speaker 1: easily defeated even by somebody like Kamala Harris. But as
9:37
Speaker 1: far as her getting the nomination, I've always felt like
9:41
Speaker 1: it's possible, you know. There it is a possibility that
9:45
Speaker 1: in the crowded race where she has enough name recognition
9:50
Speaker 1: that there's nobody in a good enough position to beat her,
9:53
Speaker 1: and being a woman of color makes it basically impossible
9:57
Speaker 1: to attack her. See, the only way she would lose
10:02
Speaker 1: the front runner position, since there's no white Knight that's
10:05
Speaker 1: going to come out of nowhere, no Barack Obama that's
10:09
Speaker 1: going to come out of almost nowhere and suddenly overtake her,
10:12
Speaker 1: where the entire left wing media galvanizes around this person.
10:16
Speaker 1: There's too many options and there's too much division. So
10:20
Speaker 1: because of her name recognition and the fact that she
10:24
Speaker 1: was vice president and you can't attack her because she's
10:27
Speaker 1: a woman of color, that makes it very, very difficult.
10:31
Speaker 1: And I was actually kind of hoping that she would
10:34
Speaker 1: be a major candidate in twenty twenty eight because I
10:36
Speaker 1: think it's a problem for Democrats. What do you do
10:40
Speaker 1: about Kamala you know, from the sound of music, what
10:43
Speaker 1: do you do about Maria? How do you solve a
10:45
Speaker 1: problem like Maria? How do you solve a problem like Kamala.
10:48
Speaker 1: That's essentially what they would have on their hands. And
10:51
Speaker 1: we're still a long way off, but I'm actually a
10:54
Speaker 1: big believer that when it comes to presidential elections, they're
10:57
Speaker 1: a lot like you know, aircraft carriers. I mean, trying
11:00
Speaker 1: to turn them around or change directions is very difficult.
11:03
Speaker 1: It takes a lot of time. And yes, we're a
11:06
Speaker 1: long way off from twenty twenty eight, but in this
11:08
Speaker 1: day and age, where celebrity is everything, it's fairly easy
11:12
Speaker 1: to see where things are gonna go and where they're
11:15
Speaker 1: not gonna go. And you know, I am no longer
11:19
Speaker 1: convinced that she's even gonna run. I think it's possible
11:24
Speaker 1: that she takes a pass on this because I think
11:26
Speaker 1: that it's very conceivable that by the time this becomes
11:31
Speaker 1: a serious matter the middle of twenty twenty seven or
11:34
Speaker 1: the beginning of twenty twenty seven, her numbers have eroded
11:38
Speaker 1: to the point where she is no longer the Democratic
11:41
Speaker 1: front runner based solely on name recognition, and therefore she
11:47
Speaker 1: may realize that she's gonna lose, and you know, that
11:51
Speaker 1: is not a great place to be. I mean, if
11:54
Speaker 1: she she can still be a celebrity martyr for the
11:58
Speaker 1: rest of her life based upon the fact that she
12:01
Speaker 1: was vice president and liberals think she got a raw
12:04
Speaker 1: deal one hundred and seven days and she fought the
12:07
Speaker 1: good fight. But you know, for whatever reason, she lost,
12:11
Speaker 1: even though in their minds she ran a great campaign,
12:13
Speaker 1: which is a ridiculous storyline, totally absurd. She was a
12:18
Speaker 1: bad candidate. But I am no longer convinced that she's
12:21
Speaker 1: gonna run now. She may, mean, it's quite possible, she may.
12:25
Speaker 1: She may recover from whatever psychological problems that she's enduring,
12:30
Speaker 1: whatever depression that she's dealing with currently in the aftermath
12:35
Speaker 1: of the loss. But I don't see her poll numbers
12:39
Speaker 1: doing anything but eroding between now and early twenty twenty seven.
12:45
Speaker 1: I mean, what is she going to do to keep
12:47
Speaker 1: herself relevant, especially when she's terrible at doing interviews. So
12:53
Speaker 1: I have changed. I am no longer of the belief
12:56
Speaker 1: that she is the front runner, not the front runner.
13:01
Speaker 1: I don't know who the front runner is. I don't
13:03
Speaker 1: think there is one. I mean, she is still in
13:05
Speaker 1: the mix if she wants to be, but I don't
13:08
Speaker 1: think she's the front runner to be the Democratic presidential
13:10
Speaker 1: nominee in twenty twenty eight, and I actually think that's
13:13
Speaker 1: a good thing for Democrats and probably a bad thing
13:16
Speaker 1: for Republicans as far as how that would impact the race.
13:20
Speaker 1: If she's not a front runner, and if she therefore
13:24
Speaker 1: might not run because she doesn't want to end up
13:27
Speaker 1: embarrassing herself and completely destroying whatever legacy that she might have,
13:33
Speaker 1: this thing becomes wide open. I mean, right now, Pete
13:36
Speaker 1: Boudha Judge for some reason seems to be doing well
13:40
Speaker 1: in the polling. That's not really that relevant obviously in
13:43
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, but it does indicate name recognition, and
13:46
Speaker 1: it does indicate where the Democratic base is. But I
13:51
Speaker 1: think the most significant part of Harris deciding not to
13:56
Speaker 1: run for governor of California and not getting off to
13:59
Speaker 1: a good start at all when it comes to a
14:01
Speaker 1: theoretical or potential twenty twenty eight campaign, is that I
14:05
Speaker 1: think this brings, unfortunately Gavin Newsom much more into the mix.
14:11
Speaker 1: I mean, when my first reaction when Harris wasn't running
14:15
Speaker 1: for governor was that Newsom would be upset by this
14:18
Speaker 1: because he needs her off to the side. He needs
14:22
Speaker 1: that problem taken care of. You can't have two people
14:26
Speaker 1: from California, even in the Democratic primary. When California brings
14:32
Speaker 1: with it so much baggage, even within the Democratic base,
14:36
Speaker 1: they're going to split at least some of the support.
14:40
Speaker 1: And Newsom for his path to work, he needs Harris
14:45
Speaker 1: taken care of because he can't attack her. And so
14:49
Speaker 1: this is a scenario the way that currently looks, that
14:53
Speaker 1: is consistent with Newsom maybe being able to pull this off.
14:57
Speaker 1: If Harris takes a pass like she did with California governor,
15:01
Speaker 1: and she takes a pass on the twenty twenty eight
15:03
Speaker 1: presidential run, that opens up a very significant path for
15:08
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom. One it takes away a major celebrity, but
15:13
Speaker 1: that celebrity happens to be from California, and it opens
15:17
Speaker 1: up a in my view, a much more significant path
15:20
Speaker 1: for Gavin Newsom, because I thought Harris was blocking Newsom
15:24
Speaker 1: for all intents and purposes. And if that blockage is
15:27
Speaker 1: removed now all of a sudden, Newsom is much more formidable.
15:32
Speaker 1: He's still got major problems because he's not going to
15:34
Speaker 1: do well in the states that matter early on in
15:37
Speaker 1: a Democratic primary, and it's going to be a crowded field.
15:40
Speaker 1: But on celebrity and alleged credibility and liberal street cred alone,
15:47
Speaker 1: Newsom is going to be a significant force, and it's
15:52
Speaker 1: very clear that he is running. I mean, that couldn't
15:55
Speaker 1: be more obvious. There's no hesitation when it comes to
15:58
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom, and we we have a lot of evidence
16:01
Speaker 1: of that when it comes to this story out of
16:04
Speaker 1: Texas involving the redistricting fight, where the state of Texas
16:09
Speaker 1: is currently embroiled in an almost humorous battle with Democrats
16:14
Speaker 1: who are fleeing the state to try to prevent the
16:18
Speaker 1: state legislature from redistricting the congressional districts to the advantage
16:24
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party. Now, Donald Trump has made it
16:26
Speaker 1: very very clear he wants Texas to redistrict, redraw the
16:32
Speaker 1: lines for the congressional seats because he believes that Republicans
16:36
Speaker 1: can win another five seats. Now, that sounds like a
16:40
Speaker 1: lot to me, and that sounds like a very optimistic projection.
16:44
Speaker 1: But I guess it is theoretically possible. I'm not sure
16:48
Speaker 1: that it's philosophically the right thing to do, because generally
16:53
Speaker 1: you redistrict after a census, you know, when you get
16:57
Speaker 1: the new population in and you know, all the states
16:59
Speaker 1: get the number of House seats that they're allotted, and
17:03
Speaker 1: then you redraw the lines based upon that information. Well,
17:08
Speaker 1: we're well into this decade, We're in twenty twenty five,
17:11
Speaker 1: and Texas is suddenly deciding, Okay, we're going to redistrict
17:16
Speaker 1: because we think we can get several more Republican seats
17:19
Speaker 1: out of the state. Now, in defense of Texas, it
17:23
Speaker 1: appears to me as if what they're doing is within
17:26
Speaker 1: their law. Whether it should be or not as another matter,
17:29
Speaker 1: but it does appear to be legal, and Democrats are
17:33
Speaker 1: doing everything they possibly can, including literally fleeing the state
17:36
Speaker 1: to try to prevent it from happening. But Gavin Newsom
17:40
Speaker 1: is using this debate as an opportunity for him to
17:44
Speaker 1: basically say, me too, if Texas is going to redistrict,
17:48
Speaker 1: then our redistrict because I think I can get us
17:52
Speaker 1: more Democratic seats here in California, which is kind of
17:57
Speaker 1: ridiculous based upon the population of California, the political breakdown,
18:02
Speaker 1: which is basically about you know, sixty forty or sixty
18:05
Speaker 1: five thirty five, depending on how you slice a Democrat.
18:10
Speaker 1: But yet almost all of the congressional seats already are democrat.
18:16
Speaker 1: I've talked about how one of the reasons why I
18:19
Speaker 1: think Republicans might, underline, might be able to hold the
18:22
Speaker 1: House in twenty twenty six is that one they might
18:27
Speaker 1: be able to pick up some more seats in Texas.
18:29
Speaker 1: But also there's not that many seats left to lose.
18:32
Speaker 1: In California. Republicans lost four close congressional races where they
18:39
Speaker 1: had incumbents, loses, as I predicted would happen in very
18:42
Speaker 1: close races in twenty twenty four, there's only one or
18:46
Speaker 1: two seats left to be picked off from Republicans unless
18:52
Speaker 1: there is a radical redistricting effort. Well, here in California,
18:57
Speaker 1: we have this thing called the state constitution. The entire
19:02
Speaker 1: redistricting plan is part of the constitution because it was
19:07
Speaker 1: approved by the voters of the state. You know, this
19:10
Speaker 1: thing called democracy that Newsom often likes to talk about
19:15
Speaker 1: it and support and defend, even though during COVID he
19:18
Speaker 1: appointed himself a king with emergency powers for multiple years
19:23
Speaker 1: and no accountability. I mean, he's the biggest typo credit
19:26
Speaker 1: on the planet when it comes to the issue of
19:28
Speaker 1: democracy and monarchy or tyranny. But the reality is our
19:34
Speaker 1: law here in California couldn't be more clear, and it's
19:36
Speaker 1: different than Texas. But Newsome mostly because he realizes that
19:42
Speaker 1: this will help him politically in the potential Democratic primary
19:46
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty eight. He's trying to show the Democratic
19:50
Speaker 1: base that he's willing and able to fight back. He's
19:53
Speaker 1: going to fight back if Texas is going to redistrict,
19:56
Speaker 1: I'll force California to redistrict. And you want it. You've
19:59
Speaker 1: never se redistrict thing until you've seen me redistrict, which
20:04
Speaker 1: you know what he could get away with this. I
20:06
Speaker 1: mean it's going to be difficult, but with a compliant
20:09
Speaker 1: media and obviously a massive Democratic advantage and voter registration
20:15
Speaker 1: here in California, he could pull this off. It would
20:17
Speaker 1: be absolutely outrageous to change or go around or ignore
20:23
Speaker 1: the state constitution in order to do it. But I mean,
20:27
Speaker 1: if you really really wanted to, I guess you could
20:29
Speaker 1: squeeze a couple of Democratic seats out of California, even
20:33
Speaker 1: based upon the fact that Democrats already are way over represented. Now,
20:38
Speaker 1: I don't buy the idea that you ought to have
20:40
Speaker 1: direct representation, where if a political party has thirty five
20:45
Speaker 1: percent of the vote that they get thirty five percent
20:47
Speaker 1: of the seats in the state. But if you use
20:50
Speaker 1: that even as as any sort of a measure or
20:53
Speaker 1: a standard, Republicans are already way underrepresented here in California.
21:00
Speaker 1: And I'm not somebody that believes that gerrymandering or redistricting
21:04
Speaker 1: ought to be done for overtly political purposes. I understand
21:08
Speaker 1: that it is a political act inherently, and that it is.
21:12
Speaker 1: You know that that's been a job given to the
21:15
Speaker 1: state legislatures, and that's part of what happens. I mean,
21:18
Speaker 1: you can argue that that's democracy because people voted for
21:21
Speaker 1: their state legislatures. And if people voted, say big time
21:25
Speaker 1: Republican or big time Democrat for their state legislatures, whether
21:29
Speaker 1: they realized it or not, they were voting for that
21:32
Speaker 1: party to have the advantage when it comes to federal elections.
21:37
Speaker 1: But I just think this is a dangerous situation on
21:41
Speaker 1: both ends. I think we ought to you know, I'm
21:44
Speaker 1: a big believer in logical, simplified geographic lines that have
21:51
Speaker 1: some semblance of integrity from a population perspective as opposed
21:56
Speaker 1: to and that's where the word gerrymandering comes from. That
21:59
Speaker 1: you know, there was a district that looked like a salamander,
22:03
Speaker 1: and so they coined the phrase gerrymander because somebody was
22:08
Speaker 1: trying to figure out, Okay, how do we put all
22:11
Speaker 1: the votes from one party into one district so that
22:14
Speaker 1: you know, they might win that district, but they're not
22:16
Speaker 1: going to win any of the districts surrounding them. To me,
22:19
Speaker 1: this is a never ending battle that doesn't go anywhere good.
22:23
Speaker 1: I don't think it's good for the country. I don't
22:25
Speaker 1: think it's good for democracy, and I certainly don't think
22:29
Speaker 1: what Gavin Newsom is claiming he's going to do is
22:32
Speaker 1: at all good. I think it's It would be horrific,
22:34
Speaker 1: not just because it might lead to more Democratic votes
22:38
Speaker 1: in the Congress, because I think what he's proposing is
22:41
Speaker 1: far more dangerous than what's happening in Texas, simply because
22:45
Speaker 1: in Texas this is part of their law. This is
22:48
Speaker 1: within their law. What he is proposing Newsom is proposing
22:52
Speaker 1: it's not part of California law. He wants to radically
22:56
Speaker 1: alter or go around the state constitution. And fortunately, you know,
23:01
Speaker 1: we have a populace here that's not well educated, we
23:04
Speaker 1: have a media that's completely on Newsom's side, and no
23:08
Speaker 1: one's going to educate the public about what Newsom is
23:11
Speaker 1: actually doing. I'm hoping that part of what's happening here
23:14
Speaker 1: is simply saber rattling and him trying to show the
23:17
Speaker 1: Democratic base that's going to be voting for president in
23:21
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight that he's the fighter and that he's
23:24
Speaker 1: willing to do things other people aren't willing to do.
23:26
Speaker 1: But this is this is an important battle because not
23:31
Speaker 1: just from the philosophical perspective, but also from the standpoint
23:34
Speaker 1: of what's going to happen in twenty twenty six. If
23:37
Speaker 1: Texas is able to be successful in this and Newsom
23:41
Speaker 1: doesn't pull the trigger in trying to counteract it, Republicans
23:46
Speaker 1: have a chance of holding on to the House. If
23:50
Speaker 1: Texas is not successful or if Newsom does counteract this,
23:55
Speaker 1: I think Democrats are heavily favored right now to take
23:58
Speaker 1: the House. We're still well over a year away, and
24:02
Speaker 1: a lot can happen and perceptions of the economy can change.
24:06
Speaker 1: But if we had a mid term election this fall,
24:09
Speaker 1: I think Democrats would clearly take the House of Representatives
24:13
Speaker 1: based upon the current polling. So this does have significance,
24:17
Speaker 1: and obviously the story will continue to watch on the podcast. Now,
24:21
Speaker 1: another topic that we have discussed quite a bit is
24:25
Speaker 1: this obsession with Russia Gate that has now gotten, in
24:30
Speaker 1: my view, totally out of control among the so called
24:35
Speaker 1: Republican or conservative base, the right wing media, MAGA world,
24:40
Speaker 1: and I am once again in a phone booth on this.
24:44
Speaker 1: I am a party of one. I understand fully that
24:49
Speaker 1: my view on this is not at all popular, probably
24:53
Speaker 1: even among people who listen to this podcast, but I
24:57
Speaker 1: am more and more convinced that this this is largely bullshit,
25:01
Speaker 1: if not completely bullshit. I mean, this whole narrative has
25:05
Speaker 1: massive problems with it, the most fundamental of which is
25:09
Speaker 1: that there was a first Trump administration, and that first
25:12
Speaker 1: Trump administration happened in large part because the director of
25:15
Speaker 1: the FBI, James called Me, came out ten days before
25:18
Speaker 1: the election and torpedoed Hillary Clinton's campaign and oh, by
25:22
Speaker 1: the way, never said anything about an investigation of Russian
25:27
Speaker 1: collusion with the Trump campaign during the actual campaign, when
25:32
Speaker 1: it may have had a significant impact on Trump and
25:35
Speaker 1: may have even theoretically kept him out of the White House.
25:38
Speaker 1: So none of that makes any sense on its face,
25:42
Speaker 1: And so we have this first Trump administration that would
25:45
Speaker 1: have had access to any and all of these documents
25:48
Speaker 1: that are now being bandied about as some sort of
25:51
Speaker 1: massive bombshell. We've also had multiple investigations, including one by
25:56
Speaker 1: John Durham, who Magaworld generally thinks awesome. And while there
26:02
Speaker 1: were some problems that were revealed in that, you know,
26:07
Speaker 1: inherently significant parts of his investigation are now being touted as,
26:13
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, this is new information by Tolsey Gabbard
26:19
Speaker 1: under highly suspicious circumstances because of the timing and the
26:22
Speaker 1: need of a distraction from the whole Epstein absurdity. And
26:27
Speaker 1: you know, in taking this out of the theoretical into
26:29
Speaker 1: the practical, I really think that there are two major
26:32
Speaker 1: misrepresentations or mischaracterizations that are at the foundation of how
26:38
Speaker 1: and why the right wing media has bought into and
26:42
Speaker 1: has promoted this narrative of a coup or you know,
26:48
Speaker 1: the Obama Hillary team trying to take out Trump with
26:52
Speaker 1: a known lie about attempted Russian meddling in the twenty
26:57
Speaker 1: sixteen election. The first is the definition of meddling. This
27:02
Speaker 1: is very crafty, although not that crafty. This is a
27:06
Speaker 1: little it's a little crude, frankly, I mean, it's pretty
27:09
Speaker 1: obvious what they've done here, but it's worked where Tulsi
27:13
Speaker 1: Gabbered and her supporters have essentially changed the definition in
27:20
Speaker 1: some of these communications. Yes, the Obama administration knew that
27:25
Speaker 1: Russia was not attempting nor were they able to infiltrate
27:31
Speaker 1: the actual election results, Okay, in other words like manipulating
27:38
Speaker 1: vote tabulations. And so when that becomes part of an
27:46
Speaker 1: alleged emission admission by the Obama administration that there was
27:51
Speaker 1: no Russian medaling, that's just false. That's just a different
27:55
Speaker 1: definition of meddling. There was still meddling. It may not
27:59
Speaker 1: have been magnificant at all. I'm totally open to the
28:03
Speaker 1: idea that Russia had little, if any actual impact on
28:07
Speaker 1: the results of the twenty sixteen election, but you cannot
28:11
Speaker 1: deny that they at least tried. And more importantly, you
28:15
Speaker 1: cannot credibly claim that these documents prove that the Obama
28:21
Speaker 1: administration knew that it was a lie because you've changed
28:25
Speaker 1: the definitions. And then the second part of this conflation
28:32
Speaker 1: or this manipulation comes from the John Durham report itself
28:38
Speaker 1: and these alleged Soros Hillary emails that Durham concluded, it
28:45
Speaker 1: appears the New York Times has done some significant work
28:49
Speaker 1: on this, and I realize conservatives Trump fans don't care
28:52
Speaker 1: about the New York Times anymore. In fact, they see
28:55
Speaker 1: that as an indication that they must be right if
28:57
Speaker 1: the New York Times tells them they're wrong, which is
28:59
Speaker 1: a major, major, major problem in all sorts of different directions.
29:04
Speaker 1: But those communications appear, and it was Durham himself who
29:09
Speaker 1: concluded this appeared to be faked, faked Russian disinformation. And
29:16
Speaker 1: so when you take away this bastardized definition of meddling,
29:23
Speaker 1: and you take away these communications that Durham himself believed,
29:29
Speaker 1: and that's why this is new information, right. This is
29:31
Speaker 1: why he didn't tout that these emails in his report.
29:37
Speaker 1: The reason he didn't tout them was not because he
29:39
Speaker 1: was an idiot or that he forgot about him or
29:42
Speaker 1: he lost them. It's that he had strong reason to
29:46
Speaker 1: believe they were fake. And so what has changed? What
29:51
Speaker 1: has changed suddenly in twenty twenty five to allow Tulsey
29:56
Speaker 1: Gabberd to make this allegation with enormous success within the
30:02
Speaker 1: right wing. I mean, this has been accepted as gospel
30:06
Speaker 1: now in the right wing media, no one's pushing back
30:10
Speaker 1: against it. Everyone is on the right wing is loving this.
30:14
Speaker 1: Trump of course, is loving this. And I believe that
30:17
Speaker 1: there's obviously an incentive for Tulsa Gabbard to provide her
30:21
Speaker 1: boss with exactly what she knew he wanted at a
30:24
Speaker 1: perfect time for him, especially given the fact that she
30:28
Speaker 1: had been criticized for her intelligence leading up to the
30:33
Speaker 1: airstrikes on Iran, where Trump specifically essentially said that she
30:38
Speaker 1: didn't know what she was talking about. Well, now she's
30:41
Speaker 1: a heroine again. She's a wonder woman. And that doesn't
30:46
Speaker 1: prove that what she's saying isn't true, but it provides
30:49
Speaker 1: a very strong motivation for why she would be willing
30:53
Speaker 1: and able to manipulate the factual record to create a
30:57
Speaker 1: narrative that's not based in truth. So what's changed. How
31:01
Speaker 1: are we all of a sudden in twenty twenty five
31:05
Speaker 1: pretending that all sorts of different elements of history never
31:09
Speaker 1: really happened and that this is somehow new information. I mean,
31:13
Speaker 1: it's just absurd on its face that we can possibly
31:17
Speaker 1: be having legitimate new information in twenty twenty five, given
31:21
Speaker 1: the fact that we already had a first Trump administration.
31:23
Speaker 1: We already had a Durham Report. This is not possible
31:27
Speaker 1: without some very significant explanation for which there does not
31:32
Speaker 1: appear to be one. Well. My theory on how and
31:35
Speaker 1: why this has been allowed to happen is that what
31:38
Speaker 1: has changed since say, twenty seventeen, when Trump took office,
31:43
Speaker 1: is that the media on both the right and the
31:47
Speaker 1: left has radically been altered. The landscape is completely different
31:54
Speaker 1: on the right, and the legacy media has completely lost
31:58
Speaker 1: credibility and power, especially when it comes to people who
32:02
Speaker 1: are Trump fans or who are Republicans, and that this
32:07
Speaker 1: has allowed Tulci Gabbard to promote a narrative that would
32:12
Speaker 1: have been successfully shot down had it been attempted in
32:17
Speaker 1: whether it was twenty seventeen, eighteen nineteen, whatever, at whatever
32:22
Speaker 1: point this information would have been accessed and would have
32:26
Speaker 1: been promoted by supporters of Donald Trump to try to
32:30
Speaker 1: explain the origins of the Russia Gate of fiasco. And
32:35
Speaker 1: that's really the only way to describe it. It was
32:37
Speaker 1: absolutely a fiasco. The vast majority of the allegations against
32:41
Speaker 1: Trump were wrong, by the way, one hundred percent of
32:44
Speaker 1: them were not wrong. Bill Maher I think has it right.
32:48
Speaker 1: It was not a nothing burger. It wasn't a big
32:51
Speaker 1: juicy burger, you know, a big juicy steak, but it
32:53
Speaker 1: was a burger. There were some significant things that were
32:57
Speaker 1: found out in the entire Russia investigation and the Muller Report.
33:02
Speaker 1: By the way, word out today that Robert Muller can't
33:06
Speaker 1: even be subpoena or questioned in this whole affair because
33:10
Speaker 1: he now apparently has some level of dementia, which is
33:14
Speaker 1: not surprising giving how poorly he testified at the time
33:19
Speaker 1: after the Muller Report had been created, and that was
33:23
Speaker 1: really the end of any effort to try to impeach
33:27
Speaker 1: Donald Trump over this. And by the way, before I
33:30
Speaker 1: get further into you know why, I'm convinced that this
33:34
Speaker 1: entire narrative is bullshit. Can we just for a second
33:38
Speaker 1: realize and appreciate that in many ways, this whole story
33:44
Speaker 1: is ridiculous from the perspective of making Donald Trump somehow
33:50
Speaker 1: a martyr. He won the twenty sixteen election. Why are
33:54
Speaker 1: we talking about this? He won the election. Now, some
33:58
Speaker 1: will say, but John, Theussia Gate investigation was used to
34:02
Speaker 1: destroy his first term. Well, hold on a second. First
34:06
Speaker 1: of all, I was told that his first term was
34:08
Speaker 1: fantastic up until the COVID panic happened, So I don't
34:13
Speaker 1: quite get that, but all right, maybe it was a hindrance. Yeah,
34:16
Speaker 1: he had to fight off a lot of allegations that
34:19
Speaker 1: turned out to not be true. He was not impeached,
34:23
Speaker 1: all right. He was later impeached for the Ukrainian situation,
34:27
Speaker 1: not for Russia Gate, although there were some vague connections
34:30
Speaker 1: to the Russia Gate investigation. But he was never impeached,
34:35
Speaker 1: and he won. He won the election, and he won
34:38
Speaker 1: clearly the entire debate over Russian collusion. And in fact,
34:43
Speaker 1: I would argue then in the long run, Russia Gate
34:47
Speaker 1: was the greatest thing that ever happened to Donald Trump,
34:49
Speaker 1: because now his opponents are completely and totally discredited. Whenever
34:56
Speaker 1: they want to discredit any report a legacy media outlet,
35:02
Speaker 1: all they have to say is Russia, Russia, Russia, and
35:07
Speaker 1: that's it. The legacy media has zero, zero influence, zero
35:14
Speaker 1: over the MAGA base or the Republican base because in
35:19
Speaker 1: large part, not entirely, but in large part because of
35:23
Speaker 1: Russia Gate. So Trump won this election. He was not impeached. Yeah,
35:30
Speaker 1: it was a hindrance. I'll grant you that, but in
35:33
Speaker 1: the end he won. In the end, it actually helped
35:37
Speaker 1: him because his enemies were totally disarmed and discredited. Anyway,
35:44
Speaker 1: back to the media issue. So I have this theory
35:48
Speaker 1: about how the media landscape has radically changed from when
35:52
Speaker 1: Trump first took office in twenty seventeen, and that that's
35:55
Speaker 1: a large part of how and why Tulca Gabbard and
35:58
Speaker 1: the right wing media is able to get away with this.
36:01
Speaker 1: And Dan Abrams, my former boss at Media where I
36:05
Speaker 1: was a senior columnist for several years, and a guy
36:07
Speaker 1: who until this year was hosting a primetime show on
36:11
Speaker 1: News Nation on which I was a guest a couple
36:14
Speaker 1: times a month, asked me to come on as serious
36:18
Speaker 1: XM satellite radio show to discuss this. And I thought
36:23
Speaker 1: this was a really interesting discussion, and so instead of
36:26
Speaker 1: regurgitating it, Although some of this will be a repeat
36:30
Speaker 1: of what I just said, here is about a six
36:33
Speaker 1: and a half minute snippet of my conversation with Dan Abrams,
36:38
Speaker 1: legal analyst for ABC Good Morning America about how the
36:43
Speaker 1: media landscape has changed. And I start by first of
36:48
Speaker 1: all mentioning the fact that can we at least acknowledge
36:52
Speaker 1: basic history here and that Donald Trump never becomes president
36:56
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, likely unless James call me, the director
37:01
Speaker 1: of the FBI does what he did with regard to
37:04
Speaker 1: reopening the Hillary Clinton email investigation. By the way, probably
37:09
Speaker 1: unnecessarily about ten days before the election. And by the way,
37:15
Speaker 1: can we not revise history in every possible way, because
37:20
Speaker 1: I've seen some people claim that, you know, well, no
37:23
Speaker 1: Trump was gonna win anyway. Now. Trump people didn't even
37:26
Speaker 1: think they were gonna win, even after Koby did what
37:29
Speaker 1: he did. I mean election night, Trump campaign was already
37:36
Speaker 1: acting like they were gonna lose. Trump himself didn't think
37:40
Speaker 1: he was gonna win. So, I mean, that's part of
37:43
Speaker 1: what allowed the Russia Gate narrative to take hold, was
37:48
Speaker 1: that even the Trump people seemed shocked by their victory.
37:51
Speaker 1: So therefore there needed to be an explanation for how
37:54
Speaker 1: the fuck this happened. And liberals looked around and said,
37:58
Speaker 1: oh my god, it must have been rushed. So this
38:02
Speaker 1: was all a perfect storm of absurdity. But can we
38:06
Speaker 1: not totally revise history here anyway? Here here, I am
38:11
Speaker 1: in a discussion with Dan Abrams on Serious XM satellite
38:15
Speaker 1: radio where I make the argument that what we're being
38:20
Speaker 1: told in the right wing media is not accurate, and
38:23
Speaker 1: then explain why they're able to get away with it
38:25
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five when they may not have been
38:28
Speaker 1: able to get away with it during a first Trump administration. Well, Dan,
38:33
Speaker 1: I'm really glad that you're addressing this, because I think
38:35
Speaker 1: this is being largely missed as a media story, and
38:40
Speaker 1: your question is dead on. Your question is, so why
38:43
Speaker 1: is this coming out now? Obviously we had a first
38:46
Speaker 1: Trump administration, by the way, we had a Biden administration
38:49
Speaker 1: after a Trump administration, so quite logically, the Gabbard story
38:54
Speaker 1: makes no sense, especially when James call Mey was given
38:58
Speaker 1: a credit, I believe legitimately so for helping elect Donald
39:02
Speaker 1: Trump to begin with. That's that's a piece of history
39:04
Speaker 1: that just keeps getting completely and totally forgotten. We just
39:07
Speaker 1: forget about what Komi did ten days before the election,
39:10
Speaker 1: because that's a hell of a conspiracy.
39:12
Speaker 2: And and John, the other thing they ignore is that
39:15
Speaker 2: the FBI never leaked that there was a Russia investigation
39:19
Speaker 2: in the lead up to the election.
39:21
Speaker 1: Corregt you no, one hundred percent. I mean, this is
39:23
Speaker 1: the craziest conspiracy of all time, Dad, I mean, it's
39:26
Speaker 1: absolutely So here's what's the difference. The difference is that
39:31
Speaker 1: the media environment has fundamentally changed from what existed in
39:37
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen. Now, you and I both know because we've
39:40
Speaker 1: lived it, that things were already changing in twenty seventeen,
39:44
Speaker 1: but they had not yet collapsed. And in twenty seventeen
39:48
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, the mainstream news media still had legitimacy outside
39:53
Speaker 1: of the left wing in this country. They still had
39:55
Speaker 1: larger audiences than they have today. The New York Times
39:58
Speaker 1: and the Washington Post still had a lot more credibility
40:01
Speaker 1: than they did they do today, especially on the right.
40:04
Speaker 1: But there was still an element of the right wing
40:07
Speaker 1: media during that time period that had a semblance of
40:11
Speaker 1: credibility and a willingness to stand up against absurdity. And
40:17
Speaker 1: both of those flanks, if you think about this as
40:19
Speaker 1: like a war, both of those flanks have collapsed in
40:24
Speaker 1: the last seven or eight years, where now the New
40:27
Speaker 1: York Times does and I'm sure you've seen it. A
40:30
Speaker 1: really interesting piece about this old John Durham report situation,
40:35
Speaker 1: where Durham himself effectively concluded that these emails that are
40:41
Speaker 1: now being touted all over right wing social media as
40:45
Speaker 1: the smoking gun were actually faked by Russian disinformation, and
40:50
Speaker 1: then it's actually proof of the exact opposite scenario of
40:54
Speaker 1: what the right wing is claiming. In twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen,
40:58
Speaker 1: that type of report in The New York Times would
41:00
Speaker 1: have been taken seriously by a significant portion of the
41:05
Speaker 1: right wing and even in the right wing media. But
41:07
Speaker 1: today Dan it's the opposite. Not only is it not
41:11
Speaker 1: taken seriously, it is seen as a sign of the
41:14
Speaker 1: righteousness of their own cause, because if The New York
41:18
Speaker 1: Times is against you, you must be telling the truth,
41:22
Speaker 1: you must be on the side of right. And then
41:25
Speaker 1: there's nobody left within the right wing media echo chamber
41:30
Speaker 1: that is willing to stand up and say, guys, in
41:34
Speaker 1: this case, the New York Times is right. In this case,
41:38
Speaker 1: Taulci Gabbart is playing fast and loose with the facts.
41:42
Speaker 1: In this case, this scenario, this conspiracy doesn't even make
41:45
Speaker 1: any sense because they have now all realized there's nothing
41:50
Speaker 1: in it for them. There is nothing in it for
41:54
Speaker 1: standing up against the Trump myth making. And Tulsi Gabbard
41:58
Speaker 1: understands her boss extremely well. She is giving him exactly
42:03
Speaker 1: what he wants, creating this myth that the base loves,
42:07
Speaker 1: the base is in love with, this myth about the
42:10
Speaker 1: Russia Gate investigation, and so effectively this is like giving
42:15
Speaker 1: therapy to their customers and the right wing media and
42:18
Speaker 1: people that used to stand up. And I mean, look,
42:21
Speaker 1: I mean I'm gonna name some names here, you know,
42:23
Speaker 1: but you know, Tucker Carlson once upon a time might
42:26
Speaker 1: have stood up. Glenn Beck absolutely would have stood up.
42:30
Speaker 1: A friend of yours, Megan Kelly, would have stood up.
42:32
Speaker 1: But there's they're all in the independent media now, there's
42:35
Speaker 1: nothing in it for them to stand up, So they
42:38
Speaker 1: will all go along with this and pretend to even
42:41
Speaker 1: believe it because that's what the customers want. And it's
42:44
Speaker 1: all about servicing the customer and it's not anything having
42:48
Speaker 1: to do with the truth.
42:49
Speaker 2: The numbers eight sixty six nine six seven six eight
42:51
Speaker 2: eight seven. Talking to John Ziegler, you know, John, there's
42:55
Speaker 2: maybe no better example of that than you. Meaning you
43:00
Speaker 2: still consider yourself a conservative. You still you could still
43:07
Speaker 2: outside of the world of Trump, fit into what might
43:10
Speaker 2: be called the right wing media in this country, and
43:14
Speaker 2: yet you have found yourself isolated and of a sort
43:20
Speaker 2: of pariah like nature, because you're way too conservative for liberals,
43:25
Speaker 2: and you are way too critical of Trump in a
43:29
Speaker 2: sort of call them as you see them way that
43:33
Speaker 2: they don't want to hear from you.
43:36
Speaker 1: Well, Dan, not to be narcissistic, but I actually think
43:39
Speaker 1: that I am an interesting example here because then there's
43:41
Speaker 1: some data points that you may have even forgotten, even
43:44
Speaker 1: though you followed my career pretty carefully. I'm the guy
43:48
Speaker 1: who did a movie about Barack Obama's election called Medium
43:52
Speaker 1: Malpractice that debuted on The Today Show in prime time.
43:55
Speaker 1: I'm a guy who was a writer and a consultant
43:59
Speaker 1: on Hillary, the movie that was the basis for the
44:02
Speaker 1: Citizens United Supreme Court case, which, by the way, is
44:05
Speaker 1: the most contrived Supreme Court case probably in modern history.
44:10
Speaker 1: I'm a credentialed member of the right wing conspiracy who
44:14
Speaker 1: has every reason to have suspicion about Obama and Hillary.
44:18
Speaker 1: But I also care about the truth, and I know
44:22
Speaker 1: that this conspiracy theory is crack pot and is not
44:26
Speaker 1: based in fact, It's not based in logic, and the
44:29
Speaker 1: truth ought to matter. But we no longer live in
44:32
Speaker 1: a world, Dan, on both the left and the right,
44:35
Speaker 1: where truth is the coin of the realm. The coin
44:38
Speaker 1: of the realm is popularity with your target demographic. That's
44:43
Speaker 1: all that matters. And I think we're at a breaking point, Dan,
44:46
Speaker 1: in all elements of media. I think this is getting
44:49
Speaker 1: worse than I ever anticipated, and it's happening faster than
44:53
Speaker 1: even I anticipated. And I'm somebody that's been way ahead
44:55
Speaker 1: of the curve on what fragmentation was gonna do to
44:58
Speaker 1: our national discourse. I wrote a book about it in
45:00
Speaker 1: two thousand and five that no one bothered to read
45:03
Speaker 1: or buy. But it's even happening faster and more dramatically
45:06
Speaker 1: than I anticipated. And Trump understands this better than anybody.
45:11
Speaker 1: Trump is a genius at being able to manipulate the
45:15
Speaker 1: destruction of so called mainstream news media for his own purposes.
45:19
Speaker 1: And I think you've articulated it very well in the
45:21
Speaker 1: first fifteen minutes of his own.
45:23
Speaker 2: And as a result, you know, there isn't a place
45:29
Speaker 2: in the new media world for people like you.
45:32
Speaker 1: Now. I fully realize that much as Dan implies there,
45:37
Speaker 1: since I have no role in the modern media, that
45:41
Speaker 1: what I said is not a popular position. I mean,
45:45
Speaker 1: there are no conservatives who have my position on this,
45:50
Speaker 1: but that is my honest and sincere view of the truth,
45:53
Speaker 1: and I think the facts and logic are on my side.
45:57
Speaker 1: Dan brings up some interesting points about what you can
46:00
Speaker 1: learn about the media because of my situation, I'm going
46:05
Speaker 1: to refrain from further narcissism and save that for another day,
46:08
Speaker 1: but I do think that there's some theoretical relevance in that.
46:11
Speaker 1: And you know, Dan and I have always had a
46:14
Speaker 1: really good relationship with kind of seen an eye to
46:16
Speaker 1: eye and a lot of things, even though I'm far
46:18
Speaker 1: more conservative politically than he is, but we get each other.
46:23
Speaker 1: And that's kind of why I miss doing his News
46:26
Speaker 1: Nation show, because it really was a fantastic show, and
46:30
Speaker 1: we had a really good chemistry, and it was a
46:33
Speaker 1: very rare medium in this day and age for someone
46:36
Speaker 1: like myself who really only cares about the truth and
46:39
Speaker 1: doesn't give a damn about the political ramifications and isn't
46:44
Speaker 1: trying to grift and has no incentive other than telling
46:48
Speaker 1: what he believes to be the truth to actually have
46:51
Speaker 1: a platform. And in fact, I even referenced that later
46:54
Speaker 1: on in the interview. I said, well, you know, Dan,
46:57
Speaker 1: you think I'm an interesting example. I think you're an
46:59
Speaker 1: interesting example too, because you know, you're too busy to
47:03
Speaker 1: do the News Nation show. And I'm not sure that
47:04
Speaker 1: News Nation can exist in this environment because it's all
47:08
Speaker 1: about cult casting or micro cult casting, and broadcasting can't
47:13
Speaker 1: hack it anymore. Broadcasting where you're trying to appeal to
47:17
Speaker 1: a broad audience, you're trying to appeal to people who
47:19
Speaker 1: really care about the truth, and it's not about their
47:22
Speaker 1: political agenda, and you're not afraid to offend people by
47:25
Speaker 1: telling them things they don't want to hear. I'm not
47:27
Speaker 1: sure that it can exist in this current business environment
47:31
Speaker 1: in the news media, and I'm not sure that it
47:33
Speaker 1: will ever be able to exist in the future. And
47:36
Speaker 1: you know, Dan and I did get into a discussion
47:38
Speaker 1: and you can find this online on YouTube and I
47:40
Speaker 1: posted it on my Twitter page. But we also get
47:43
Speaker 1: into a discussion about what will happen when Trump once
47:46
Speaker 1: Trump leaves. I am less optimistic than even Dan is
47:49
Speaker 1: about how the media landscape will be altered once Trump
47:54
Speaker 1: is no longer in office. I don't think we're going
47:56
Speaker 1: to go back at all. I mean, you know, there
47:59
Speaker 1: was an argument and in the first term, that if
48:02
Speaker 1: Trump disappeared that maybe magically we could all go back
48:05
Speaker 1: to the way things were. We are so far beyond
48:08
Speaker 1: that now in every possible way, both from a business
48:12
Speaker 1: model standpoint as well as the perspective of the Trump base.
48:18
Speaker 1: Regardless of whether Trump is still running or not, or
48:21
Speaker 1: still an office or not, is never going to stop
48:25
Speaker 1: abiding by these new rules that Trump has created, and
48:28
Speaker 1: those rules are you only believe the right wing media,
48:31
Speaker 1: you inherently disbelieve the legacy media, and the right wing
48:35
Speaker 1: media now has no incentive to stand up and tell
48:38
Speaker 1: the truth if it's something that their base doesn't want
48:41
Speaker 1: to hear, unless you're John Zigler, which is why John
48:45
Speaker 1: Sickler is where he currently is in the wilderness. Thanks
48:56
Speaker 1: for listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show.
49:00
Speaker 1: If you're interested in listening to the entire show, you
49:03
Speaker 1: must become a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's p
49:07
Speaker 1: A t R e O n dot com. Patreon dot com.
49:12
Speaker 1: Slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name
49:18
Speaker 1: is j O h N z I E G L
49:20
Speaker 1: e R. That's patreon dot com. Slash the Death of
49:26
Speaker 1: Journalism with John Ziggler. Good luck to you on that.
49:31
Speaker 1: But that's how you can subscribe