Full Episode - Americans Have Become Numb To Trump’s Horrific Behavior + Can The GOP Be Saved From Trump’s Moral Decay? - The Chuck ToddCast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from
personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.
We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
the best shape. My mother single mother, now widow, myself
sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had
one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot,

(00:22):
but it was important at the time, and it's why
I was able to go to college. Little did he
know how important that would be in that moment. Well,
guess what. That's why I am here to tell you
about Etho's life. They can provide you with peace of
mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst
comes to pass. Ethos is an online platform that makes

(00:44):
getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect
your family's future in minutes, not months. There's no complicated
process and it's one hundred percent online. There's no medical
exam require you just answer a few health questions online.
You can get a quote and it's a little ten minutes,
and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving
your home. You can get up to three million dollars

(01:06):
in coverage and some policies start as low as two
dollars a day that would be billed monthly. As of
March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number
one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect
your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free
quoted Ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos

(01:27):
dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary, and the
rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life
insurance is something you should really think about, especially if
you've got a growing family. Hello, They're happy Thursday, and
welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast. I've got

(01:48):
a fascinating interview today with somebody who's been in politics
a long time. And for some of you who be
a familiar name and others you might say, oh, I
haven't heard from him in a while. It's Jack dan Forth.
He was a long time I'm senator from the state
of Missouri, very much a sort of kind of would
I would have referred to him as almost like Bob Dole,

(02:09):
not quite mister Republican, but close. And in fact, he
runs a project now that essentially about trying to recapture
the Republican Party, away from away from Donald Trump, away
from the Mega movement, but in particular the reason he
wanted to have a conversation with me. And by the way,
you'll hear when I tell you he's eighty nine years old.

(02:30):
You most of you will be surprised. And I think
all of you will hope that you are is nimble,
and is and is smart, and is coherent and is
you know, on top of things, as Senator dan Forth
is in our conversation, it is you'd forget that it's

(02:52):
been nearly thirty years since he's been in the Senate.
It doesn't feel that when you have that conversation with him.
But those that know Jack dan Forth, well, he's always
been on this. He's, like I said, a very much
a you know, when George W. Bush used the phrase
compassionate conservative, I think that's exactly what Jack dan Forth
would have described his type of conservatism. He's an episcopal

(03:15):
he was an ordained episcopal priest, so his faith is
very important to him and he's believed that faith in
general can be a unifier. But he's deeply troubled by
the lack of empathy in this version of the Republican Party.
He's also troubled by the loss of the definition of conservative.

(03:37):
It struck me in many ways, like versions of conversations
I've had with George Will over the last couple of
years since the Trump era of court. George will famously
left the Republican Party and said it's no longer a
conservative party. So he left and registered reregistered as an independent.
But the biggest thing that disturbs him is the character

(03:57):
and decency aspect of the Trump movement. And it actually
I did the interview a couple of days ago before
the President made it is just heinous remarks about Somalian
immigrants at that cabinet meeting earlier this week, and it
was one of those moments and where you know, I know,
we're all exhausted from outrage, right, and there's this collective

(04:21):
you feel it in sort of the legacy press corps. Look,
I can tell you Mayan, You're like, oh God, really,
here he goes again. And my immediate reaction was public's
not going to care. They're going to shrug their shoulders.
But then I sat there and said, no, I think
the public does care. They just don't know how to

(04:44):
express it. Anymore. Right, We don't know, we don't quite
know how to right. You know, the inability to shame
people in the Trump era has taken away I think
the public's best tool to keep politicians from totally misbehaving.
And that's a big part of this. But you'll hear

(05:06):
this in the conversation with Jack Danforth and we'll get
to it. I've got a few other things on there.
But to me, it really dovetails well with this conversation
with what the president's behavior because he asked this question
and he really believes if you took it to the voters.
I'm a little more skeptical about this, but he believes
if you basically say, is this who we are? Is

(05:26):
this who you want to be? Essentially holding up examples
of Donald Trump attacking people, calling reporters piggy, particularly the
harsh words he uses for any woman that pushes back
on him, what he says about anybody who's not white,
who's an immigrant in this country, the dehumanizing and demeaning way,

(05:47):
I mean, using the word garbage. I mean, this is
this is what inspires hate attacks on members of various
immigrant communities. Is when you have somebody with a platform
that Donald Trump has referring to the referring to people
in this dehumanizing way. And you know, this is where

(06:09):
I share in some ways Dandforth's optimism in that I
don't believe a majority of Americans want or accept behavior
that the President showed this week. Now we've had this
conversations before. He has, you know, demeaned people with disabilities.
He has mocked you know, where does it end. Right,

(06:31):
He mocked John McCain for being a prisoner of war
during Vietnam. His his he's called soldiers suckers and losers,
those that died in battle and combat because, as he
essentially is making clear, he wouldn't have allowed himself to
be stuck having to fight in the military and be drafted.

(06:56):
Pick whichever foot you want to pick to find out
whether he can, whether he was eligible or not for
the draft, or whether his deferment was honest. But he
wasn't alone on that, and so that's why it hasn't
been a penalty. But this is why I'm a I
used the phrase Trump fatigue, and that I think Trump

(07:17):
fatigue is a much more is a much bigger accelerant
to what I think is going to be a tough
election in a tough political environment for Republicans in twenty
six that there's just an exhaustion from Trump's antics and
the more and in some ways right, we're on reruns,

(07:38):
but we're on like crappy ring runs. You're like, I
don't want to watch this show again. I don't want
to see another version of this again. You know, I'll
confess it makes me even angrier. It's sort of how
poor Biden led this country. I'm sorry, I do. I
hope that a better leader would have would have helped

(08:00):
the country move on from Donald Trump, but we didn't
have that, and we are where we are. But there
are moments like this week where you're like, I can't
I can't believe we went back to this because I
don't think individually anybody that that a large man. And
perhaps you know this is this has been a question
that I've had uncomfortable conversations with people I trust. Perhaps

(08:26):
some of you out there have had similar that you know,
I've used the phrase others We're not this way, this
is not who we are. What if it is right?
What if we're in the minority, what if the deed,
what if there is such a belief and I and
I do. I've had conversations with people who I think
are high character people who shrug their shoulders at Trump's behavior,

(08:49):
and they shrugged their shoulders for a variety of reasons.
One is they believe, Hey, politics is a tough business.
You kind of need an asshole in there. I think
a lot of you no voters like that who are
so cynical about how politics works, so cynical about Washington,
and I understand it. But what I try to remind

(09:12):
people is that the cynicism that is driving the Trump
movement about Washington is a perception that while there are
nuggets of reality, for the most part, this isn't what
it is. But eventually perception does but become reality because
we have seen in the Trump era, Donald Trump has
mainstream kleptocracy.

Speaker 2 (09:33):
Right.

Speaker 1 (09:34):
The idea that Washington is for sale is not controversial.
It's just how you do business. Every fortune five hundred
company in America knows that if they want favorable treatment
from government regulators, there's an easy way to do this.
You don't have to go to Congress, you don't have
to go to the agency. You go to Donald Trump

(09:54):
and you simply say what can you do about this?
And by the way, we'd love to become a tributor
to pick whatever slush fund he's got going on. Maybe
it's a public sector slush fund like the East Wing
building or his inaugural fund, or maybe it's his library
or whatever it is. And you know, I say, I

(10:16):
don't say this to just throw it out there. This
is a fact. I'm just telling you. This is currently
how the influence game in Washington is working. It is
so efficient right now because there is there's no complicating factor.
Everybody knows if you're right, a big enough check and
you get in front of him, you can get whatever

(10:37):
you want. Right Look at the pardon situation. I mean,
he just pardoned this pardon of the former president of
Honduras who was a massive cocaine trafficker. I mean, this
is one of those where and if you've noticed, nobody
is defending this publicly, and quite a few Republicans are
expressing discomfort with this one and are going ahead when

(11:00):
caught by reporters with sticking the microphone in their face.
Aren't willing to just ignore this one, aren't willing to
just say well, Trump's Trump are actually going this Now,
this certainly sends a mixed message, given supposedly the focus
of what we're up to with Maduro and in Venezuela.
But the fact of the matter is the former president

(11:23):
of Honduras had figured out the game, so he hires
roger Stone, pays him, and roger Stone gets in front
of the president and a base probably calls in a
favor or two. You know, who knows how much the
price was, right, We don't have any transparency on that.
We have transparency on the pardon itself. We have transparency

(11:43):
on the on the request for the pardon from from
the former president himself, but we don't know how much
he paid. Essentially an influencer, which roger Stone essentially is
a I don't even know if he would have to
register to lobby I might argue, did he violate I'm
curious if if this is since he's representing a foreigner

(12:05):
in this pardon request, whether he filled out the proper paperwork,
which many a lobbyist has failed to do, which actually
is a crime if you didn't register as a foreign agent.
Whether somebody would have to register as a foreign agent
in order to represent that given I think that at
a minimum, given that Roger Stone back in the days

(12:27):
of black Manift and Stone, since they kind of invented,
or certainly they didn't invent the influence game, but they
certainly expanded the reach of the influence game when they
had when they first came to prominence in the eighties
during the Reagan era. He knows the rules. So my
guess is if on this front he likely followed them,

(12:52):
filled out the correct paperwork because he doesn't care if
he's fingered as a foreign lobbyist. He's not running for
office or he's not going to be up for any
Senate confirmed position. But the point is is that we
it is, it is we all know how this works,
and it is it is that sort of craven on

(13:13):
that front. And you know what point? And I do
think that there is this This is where I believe
the exhaustion comes in in that when you talk to
people individually, many of who may be Trump supporters, and
you ask ask them if this is something that they
would want to support in a politician, they'd all say no.

(13:33):
And then when you ask them why do they tolerate
it in Trump? It is they will come back to
this perception that somehow well politics is a dirty business,
and you kind of need a dirty representative sometimes in
order to accomplish this. The problem is, this is exactly
what Donald Trump wants people to think, and he's trying.
I mean, and this to me is the explanation of

(13:55):
how did Henry quay Are, a Democratic Member of Congress
from South Texas, end up getting a pardon from Donald Trump.
You know, there are certain crimes that the Justice Department
prosecutes that Donald Trump doesn't think should be criminal, you know,
whether it's you know, being influenced. He essentially pardons anybody
who commits a crime that he is committing. So I

(14:18):
guess you could say is at least he's being generous
with that, right, Henry Quaart took money out of being
to be influenced. Well, Donald Trump is taking money all
over the place and being influenced to sign pardons, to
agree to grease the wheels on regulation, to look the
other way on a merger and acquisition. I mean, look

(14:38):
look at the game they're playing with the with Warner
Brothers right now. I'm following this pretty closely. This is
a former employer with Comcasts trying to get their hands
on Warner Brothers. Netflix, and then of course there's you know,
what's the future of CNN since that's part of the
Warner Brothers organization. Is the Ellison family going to become

(14:59):
essentially the new m and they're going to consolidate and
try to control as much of the news ecosystem as
they can with CNN and CBS. In any normal administration,
there's no way any of these mergers could happen. Netflix
wouldn't get regulatory approval, Comcasts wouldn't get regulatory approval, neither
would Warner Brothers. Already we're seeing that the administration is
raising eyebrows about Netflix, raising eyebrows about Comcast because of

(15:23):
the President not liking Brian Robertson still mad over all
things NBC, MSNBC. Trust me on this one. His obsession
over Comcast is all about his failure as host of
The Apprentice. Okay, that's what this is about. His leftover
anger at NBC is that. Trust me. I've heard it
a million times from him. He believed that show was

(15:45):
much more successful than it actually was because he used
to say things, you know, the Apprentice pays your salary,
and it's like, I don't think so, brother, but you
keep telling yourself that, so there's this weird sort of
he's so angry at NBC that he's just going to
punish comcasts. Right, it's it's really less about NBC News
and MSNBC. It really is all about the Apprentice. It's

(16:06):
also his anger with Jeff Zucker, Right, It's weirdly it
all comes back to it. You know, You've got to remember, ultimately,
if he's got a grievance, it's usually something personal and
in this case, uh, it's it's it's about the apprentice
because obviously the Apprentice has become part of his identity.
But when you're watching this, the government's plain favorites. They're

(16:28):
basically saying, look, there won't be any regulatory you know,
shouting basically at Warner Brothers shareholders and the board of directors. Listen,
if you take the Ellison deal, won't be a problem
at all. You decide you wanna you wanna greenlight a
acquisition by Netflix or Comcast, well you know there's going
to be a lot of regulatory interest in looking at

(16:50):
this deal. This may take a year, maybe it takes
two years. How long. Maybe the value suddenly goes down
and and and this doesn't happen and et cetera. Now,
you know, we'll see if if the private sector can
kentuck business based on the private sector without government interference.

(17:12):
But it seems that Donald Trump wants to decide who
gets to own Warner Brothers in CNN, and so here
we are. This is what's really striking to me is
how normal this is all being portrayed, that this is
just Trump's Washington. This is how it works. You know,
the pardon of Henry Quayart, you know where nobody's even

(17:33):
blinking at this point about him once again likely selling
a parton I mean, now let's see what what what
was the price for Henry Quaar? Is it a party switch? Right?
Do we see that in the next Is it a
promise to party switch if they need that vote to
control the House of Representatives? Who knows? Right, But let's

(17:59):
just say Donald Trump has leverage over Henry Klar. Now
I question obviously, you know Quaar was in a was
was vulnerable to a deal like this, and and this
is what Trump does. This is just like the mafia,
right it is. You know it's a kid. I used
to tell a version of this story, you know, so

(18:21):
a criminal, criminal organization comes into a shopping district and says, hey,
good news, we've got some we're we're you know, we're
going to be able to provide security for you now.
And you, as the shopkeeper, say, well, I didn't. I
didn't ask for any new security. Oh so you don't
want any security for your shop? Well, anyway, if you
do want security, this is what it's going to cause.

(18:42):
And then the next morning the shopkeeper comes back and
he sees that his store has been ransacked. And then
the criminal element comes back to the ShopKeep the next
day and he says, so you said you didn't need security,
do you think you need security? Now? That's how a
criminal syndicate creates leverage over and honest that somebody who

(19:03):
might want to be honest, and suddenly there in between
a rock and a hard place. Do you hate hangovers?
We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out of Office gives you
the social buzz without the next day regret. They're best selling.
Out of Office gummies were designed to provide a mild,
relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation.
With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to

(19:25):
fit your vibe from a gentle one point five milligram
micro dose to their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a
more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern,
mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail.
And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I
don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul

(19:46):
is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be
fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THHC
and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and
simply help you unwine. So if you struggle to switch
off at night, so all so as a variety of
products specifically designed to just simply help you get a
better night's sleep, including their top selling sleepy gummies. It's

(20:07):
a fan favorite for deep restorative sleep. So bring on
the good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today. Right now,
Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
So go to get sold dot Com use the promo
code todcast. Don't forget that code that's get sold dot
Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off your Henry

(20:32):
quare whether you maybe you believe you're innocent, maybe you
did commit a crime, but you certainly have this hanging
over your head. There comes Donald Trump, he doesn't do
these things or zero. So I think we're all just
wondering what is you know, what is it that Henry
Kuayar has either agreed to or perhaps Donald Trump hasn't
called in his favor yet. But the point is is

(20:54):
that this is this is now everyday business. And this
is kind of the point. It goes back to, wy
are we so numb when the president of the United
States attacks fellow human beings and calls them garbage? Why
are we so numb when one of the largest cocaine
traffickers in the history of this country is set free
due to a presidential pardon? Why are we so numb

(21:15):
when a foreign country hands a nearly billion dollar plane
personal gift to the president and in return gets a
NATO like security agreement for a country that is not
necessarily worked in America's best interest. When it comes to
Afghanistan or Israel or other parts in the Middle East,

(21:36):
we're just shrugging our shoulders and I look at the
pardon situation. So again to sort of circle it back
to why I do think while the individual items here
don't cause the political feeding frenzy and don't create this
sort of moment of pressure, and I'll get to why
I think that isn't happening for a variety of reasons.

(22:00):
I do think now that with this crummy economy, sort
of exhaustion from ten years of this, that this stuff
doesn't play well the way he thinks it plays well.
And so you have a base of his party that's
sort of tired of the same old antics and exhausted
from having to somehow rationalize their support for him when

(22:26):
he couldn't be a more low life character morally or
ethically right. If any other politician behave this way, particularly
if they had a D next to their name, all
of these Republicans that are looking the other way on
Donald Trump would be filing articles of impeachment. The only
upside out of this pardon business is that I do
think we're going to reform. There's I think in the

(22:50):
next ten years there's going to be a constitutional amendment
that puts some guardrails around presidential pardons, perhaps creates a
pardon board where the president is not the final say,
but is part of a group that has a final say.
But what is happening now is just totally delegitimizing the
Justice Department as a whole. I mean, this guy. And

(23:12):
you know what was funny is the new the US
attorney in charge of the of the Sovereign District of
New York, the Southern District of New York, right, perhaps
the most important district within the Justice Department, arguably its
own many Justice Department. That's who prosecuted this, this former
Hundorn president. And oh, by the way, the prosecution actually
happened during the Trumpet first Trump administration. He was finally

(23:36):
extra guided in the United States, and the sentencing took
place during the Biden era. So there's not even this
way makes this even more of a head scratcher. Right,
This was an investigation and a prosecution that in theory
started and took place during Trump's first term, was completed
during Biden's term. And now Trump obviously has decided, you know,

(24:00):
he will decide who gets punished, and he will decide
who gets set free. This is the stuff that I
think is the is the extra anchor that is going
to drag Republicans down because it's it works two ways.
It demoralizes sort of Trump supporters that are like, you know,

(24:22):
you know, my kids keep asking me, you know, why
I vote for him? How do I defend you know,
him attacking fellow human beings and calling them garbage and
all of this corruption with the pardons, and oh, by
the way, the economy sucks.

Speaker 2 (24:35):
Right.

Speaker 1 (24:37):
That's why I think this is this is real weight
this time, and that this isn't something that's going to
go away. But there is another reason why this stuff
isn't sticking in the immediate and that is the fragmentation
of the US media. I mean, take the take the
current situation at the Pentagon. So HAIG SATs successfully essentially

(25:01):
got rid of the professional journalists from covering the Pentagon
because they you know, forced some you know, frankly something
that was against the First Amendment. I don't think was
constitutional what they did. I you know, I got to
think there's going to be a a I think having
to sign that sign that is unconstitutional, and I got

(25:23):
to think there's going to be a lawsuit that has
some success on this. I'm not active in the First
Amendment legal community because I'm not a lawyer, but if
I were, that certainly would be something I'd be advocating
and would be working on. But you know, so now
it's a whole bunch of you know, influencers. Right, You've
got lawer Lumer, you got that white that sort of

(25:43):
want to be white suprobate. There's a poor man's Tucker Carlson,
what's his name, Jack pro probacyak or whatever, sort of
a truly sort of irrational clown. And you know they're
also kind of sickopantea. But it says, you know, hag
Seth hasn't had to face a barrage of questions.

Speaker 2 (26:02):
Right.

Speaker 1 (26:02):
We even have this new Inspector General report out that
says exactly what everybody said he did during Signal Gate,
which is he risked the lives of folks involved in
that mission. Yes, he technically had the power to declassify
those things, but apparently he could not come up with
the could not come up with paperwork or prove that

(26:24):
he had done anything to declassified other than I guess
magically thinking about it in his head. It's kind of
like the Donald Trump defense during the during that investigation
of the classified documents that he had just said, I
just thought about declassifying it, so therefore they're declassified. But two,

(26:46):
but you look at the fact that there's no sort
of media pressure on hag Seth the way we would
have had twenty years ago, right where you've had. If
any of you remember Bobby ray Enman, who was a
nominee for Defense Secretary during Clinton, had some things in
his background, it became kind of a feeding frenzy and
he was ended up, uh pulling the nomination. We don't

(27:10):
have these moments because we have such a fragmented media.
I think if if part if, if if we had
the less splintered media and you had more of a
and everybody were focused on what's going on with pardons,
it would create I think national urgency. It would force

(27:32):
attention and there I think then you would have more
members of Congress, regardless of party, being forced to go
on the record on how they feel about these things.
But we don't have that right now. Because this is
another thing. In some ways Trump has accelerated this, but
his attacks on the mainstream press to delegitimize the mainstream press,

(27:54):
and he's done a terrific job of doing this. You know,
the help of a of a legacy entity like Fox
News Who's who who sort of character assassinated many a
journalist in their day. By doing all of this fragmenting
it's it makes it so no one thing becomes the

(28:17):
focal point for the for the sort of entire political
press court. I would argue these pardons are among the
most criminal things we've had a president do. In fact,
I'm I'm gonna one of my tododcast time Machine is
going to uh stories as soon as the anniversaries come up,

(28:37):
is going to be about the story of Lamar Alexander
having to be sworn in early as governor of Tennessee
because the person he was replacing was literally selling pardons
as he was out the door, and it was such
that Democrats joined Republicans and and essentially impeach getting rid
of the guy. It it happened in the seventies. I

(29:01):
will have the more of the details, but the basic
story was the Tennessee Legislature, which was Democratic controlled, essentially
they accelerated the timeline to swear in Lamar Alexander to
stop the outgoing governor from selling pardons. It's actually how
Fred Thompson got his acting career because they did a

(29:22):
movie about this loosely, and the movie maker couldn't find
anybody to play Fred Thompson, who was the lawyer at
the time for Lamar Alexander during during this period. So
Fred Thompson played himself and lo and behold, it started
a career. But the point was, there was a time
when selling pardons like Donald Trump is doing with something

(29:44):
that outraged left and right, that it was just this
isn't what you do in a free country. This isn't
what you do in a democracy, and if you do
do it, it's criminal and it should be stopped. And
I think the lack of focus, the frag mened media,
right there isn't this one. And he does plenty of

(30:04):
things that que the outrage, right, the attack on Somali immigrants,
what he does to elin Omar all the time, how
he goes after personally goes after people that in some
ways there's distractions, Right, Venezuela story is a big story.
So maybe the pardon, you know, takes a back seat.
And it's not new, right, Donald Trump selling a pardon

(30:25):
is no longer a shock anymore. And look, Joe Biden
didn't help the pardon story. When he did his versions
of preemptive pardons and gave all these pardons to his
family members, it's to me one of the just worst
things he could have done, because he essentially provided a
provided cover and a permission slip for Donald Trump to
abuse the process even further. And look, I'm no fan

(30:50):
of what about ism, but when you can give your
opponent material that allows them to say what about then
you're not in the best place on that front. But
I do think we've totally are under we're under angered

(31:11):
by this pardon situation, and I don't think we fully
appreciate the long term impact this is going to have
on our ability to convince another country to combat corruption,
our ability to convince another country to extradite bad actors
that we want to prosecute because our rule of law
is so ironclad and so well respected. He is totally

(31:36):
damaged the perception of America as an honest place for
the rule of law, and that has long that can
have a long tail effect that makes businesses less comfortable
doing business in this country. Right. One of the reasons
why we're supposed to be a safe haven to start

(31:56):
a business or bring money into here is is the
strength of our rule of law? But if it is
now this manipulable. And that's the thing, Like, are the
people that follow Donald Trump, if we we are not
outraged by the selling of pardons in this administration, are
we going to be outraged when the next president decides
to do it. So our inability collectively to enforce some

(32:21):
sort of guardrail on this, to seek to to sort
of I mean it is it has become so normal
for him to do this that it's being treated like
another plane landing safely at National Airport. And I'm just
here to tell you that, you know, to repeat an
old Bob doleism, where's the outrage? There should be real

(32:43):
outrage here. You know, I've spent a lot of time
on pardons on this my podcast, but hey, I know
I'm part of the fragmentation now. But this is an
extraordinarily important story. And if you're somebody with some influence
listening to this, know, I don't. I don't think there's
any over selling the importance of what we're seeing take

(33:06):
place in the in the slow destruction of what the
United States of America is supposed to represent when it
comes to the rule of law. When it comes to freedom,
when it comes to honesty, what he is eroding, you
don't just automatically get it back when he walks out
the door. And certainly if JD. Vance is his successor

(33:29):
or somebody, they're going to see what he got away with.
And we know this. Every president sees what a previous
president gets away with and tries it a little bit
more themselves. We've yet to see a president voluntarily give
up power, voluntarily like give you know, hand power back
that We've heard rhetoric claiming they would, but they're never

(33:53):
signing legislation that would. So it's going to probably take
a constantutiontional amendment. But this what we're seeing with the pardon,
with the use of the pardons, this is dictatorial. This
is the one dictatorial power he actually has, and he

(34:15):
is I don't think every anybody realizes how much damage
this is going to do to us long term, to
the rule of law. To pay to play in this town. Uh,
it is, it is. It is the you know, the
next stop on the road to losing this republic is

(34:35):
going to a full on kleptocracy. Right now, it's the
Trump's Republican Party that's the leptocracy where everything's paid a play.
But this will get contagious and may already have gotten contagious,
very very quickly. So that brings me to my guest,
I'm gonna sneak in a break here. But when we

(34:56):
come back former Missouri Senator Law long time and we talk,
we go by the way. We spend a lot of
time on essentially what he's trying to do, which is
reclaim the conservative movement, try to reform the Republican Party.
He will tell you he tried the third party. In fact,
he supported a third party candidate for the US Senate
in Missouri last cycle. He's gone down that road. He

(35:16):
doesn't think that that's a successful road. So at this point,
his core goal right now is to sort of wake
people up on the character front. Right. As I joked
with him, I said, maybe you need to make your
slogan make America decent again. But that's what he's that
and I think there's nobody that has more credibility on

(35:39):
that that I can think of in my thirty years
of covering politics than Jack dan Forth. So with that,
I'll sneak at a break and when we come back,
Jack dan Forth on the other side, I'll do a
little Q and A and let's just say I have
a few things to say about the college football playoff invitation.

(36:00):
There's a reason results matter more than promises, just like
there's a reason. Morgan and Morgan is America's largest injury
law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered
twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients.
It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing,
just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.
Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact,

(36:23):
in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded twenty six million dollars,
which was a staggering forty times the amount that the
insurance company originally offered. That original offer six hundred and
fifty thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty
thousand dollars. So with more than one thousand lawyers across
the country, they know how to deliver for everyday people.
If you're injured, you need a lawyer, You need somebody

(36:43):
to get your back. Check out for the People dot Com,
Slash podcast or Dow Pound Law Pound five two nine
Law on your cell phone. And remember all law firms
are not the same. So check out Morgan and Morgan.
Their fee is free unless they win. So joining me
now is who's frankly has got the passion that I'm

(37:08):
trying to bring to this podcast, and you know, which
is to focus on how do we get out of
this current mess we're in. We all know we're in
a mess. We have disagreements about why we're polarized. We
have disagreements about whether the current situation is sort of
a symptom of something larger, or whether the current actors

(37:29):
are the problems themselves. I've obviously been focused on the
media side of things. My guest today is a very
familiar name to those of you that are political junkies,
Jack dan Forth, former Republican senator from Missouri, an episcopal priest.
And I bring that up because, as you know, as
many of my listeners know, Senator, I've been yearning for

(37:50):
what I call for a pastor for patriotism. I feel
like America needs somebody to help us. They're just sort
of renewed civics and renew sort of what we understood
America to be. That it was an idea it's not
an ethnicity, it's not there's not a religious thing. And

(38:13):
and boy, there's nobody that could speak better to this moment.
I wish you were thirty years younger right now, and
let's run you for president, right trust me, we all
want to.

Speaker 2 (38:21):
Be twenty at three other reasons.

Speaker 1 (38:22):
Yeah, yes, so, but your your focus is trying to
rehabilitate the Republican Party. Walk me through what your focus is.

Speaker 2 (38:34):
Yeah, I mean, I guess the broad picture is pretty
much as you presented. I think that a great purpose
of America has been simply to hold ourselves together as
one nation, with all of our differences, with all of

(38:55):
our conflicting opinions, but to hold ourselves together, and right
now we're coming apart, and to hold ourselves together means
to me to restore that part of the country which
is a venue for bringing us together. Part of that,

(39:18):
I think is restoring the role of Congress. Congress was
created as the place where all these different interests, all
these opposing points of view came together and worked things out.
It was a place of compromise. Congress has now been diminished.

(39:39):
And one of the things that's happened is, and this
is now an issue before the Supreme Court in that
tariff case is the concentration of power, not just in
a few hands, which is what Madison was concerned about,
but in one person's hands, the presidency. The power to
tack the Congress has withered away, so it doesn't really

(40:01):
amount to much of anything now, much less not being
a place where different interests work things out. A lot
of people have said that the basic role of now
a member of Congress is performative, that is, self promotion
rather than legislating. So that's part of it. And then
the second part of the sort of creating the venue

(40:24):
is restoring the political center of America. And that's what
doesn't exist anymore. Really, it's right now, each of the
two parties has gravitated toward its extremes, and so now
people go to the polls now and they're faced with
the choice and the choices to two alternatives, neither of

(40:49):
which they want. You know, one would be the far left,
one would be now the Republican Party, the maga right.
And so the ideas where do people come together, Well,
most people are in the center, So let's restore that center.

Speaker 1 (41:06):
So this is the conundrum I have, which is let
me let's deal with one of the fun riddles that
I like to throw out there about American politics today.
The two major political parties have never been weaker, and
yet are the poll of the two of the red
and the blue. Right has never been stronger.

Speaker 2 (41:27):
Right.

Speaker 1 (41:27):
The parties as institutions are super weak. They have no money,
no resources, no ability to vet I mean, look, I'm
old enough to remember when the chairman of the RNC
tried to shame Donald Trump for attacking John McCain that
eventual chairman of the r and C would become the
chief of staff of the first Trump presidency. I say
this with no disrespect to rights previous. I think he's

(41:48):
a man with a good heart, and I think I think,
if given the opportunity, would try to do would try
to do the right thing here. But is the problem
our political parties are too weak? Is the problem too
much money? And the reason I say, I'm offering a

(42:09):
lot of choices here these answers to say, it's all
a problem, But what's solvable first? What do we need
to do first? I keep coming back to a third
party or an independent candidate temporarily because of the impact
I saw Ross perrot have on both parties. It sobered
them both up, right. It made the Democrats a little

(42:30):
more fiscally responsible, made the Republicans a little more sensitive
to working class folks on the issue of trade. So
it actually had a moderating effect on both parties. So
I think about the various reform efforts. Where do we begin?
Where would you begin?

Speaker 2 (42:51):
Well, actually, I've tried both of the both approaches, and
I am a Republican and I've spent so much of
my life in Republican elected politics, that's my identity. But
I did in the last senatorial election in Missouri, I
did support an independent candidate, and he was the independent

(43:15):
candidate really was is a traditional Republican you know, I
mean you would just say, okay.

Speaker 1 (43:22):
Well, by the way, John Bailey and I worked together, oh.

Speaker 2 (43:26):
Yeah, okay back in the yeah. He So this guy
was just right down the line, bright guy, attractive guy,
very well educated, and he ended up with less than
one percent of the vote. So, I mean, the history

(43:50):
of third party is actually winning has been pretty bad.
So maybe, I mean, maybe that's the one alternative. My
approach has been within the Republican Party because right now,
of course, elections are determined in primaries, and that means

(44:13):
to energize the extreme base. But I think that there
are just a ton of people out there who are
essentially conservative in their outlook, traditional Republicans in their way
of thinking and approaching things, and that the idea is
to appeal to them. So that's my focus has been

(44:35):
on trying to restore that traditional Republican party. Maybe maybe
it's feutile. I don't know, I just don't.

Speaker 1 (44:45):
Well, let me ask you about the party. I always
comfort myself by reminding people that the isolationist wing, the
sort of America First wing, whatever you want to describe,
sort of in mega has a lot of resemblance to it. Okay,
it's not fully that. In fact, I think we're about
to see the I think the coalition is cracking. I

(45:05):
think we're and part of it is just the passage
of time. I mean, you've been through a lot of
these periods where there's these cult of personalities that have
a grip on the nation of the country or a party,
But the grip basically is a decade and it is
tough to ever hold on beyond it. Right, Reagan's grip

(45:28):
basically didn't last, but half of Bush's term, right, Clinton's
grip didn't even make it to a third term. Neither
did Obama's.

Speaker 2 (45:36):
Right.

Speaker 1 (45:36):
It just and I think we're seeing that now. It's
just sort of exhaustion, We burn out. Do you think
if Trump is disappears, the the Reagan Coalition comes back
and the America First sort of isolationist wing, arguably both
of Missouri senators or members of that wing, does that

(45:56):
fade or what do you foresee in the near term.
You know, you got started in politics during the old
Taft Eisenhower disputes.

Speaker 2 (46:05):
Right, Well, I'm I'm not quite that old.

Speaker 1 (46:10):
No, but you were, but you were familiar with them, right,
you were familiar with them back then.

Speaker 2 (46:15):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know what here's here is maybe
this maybe I'm just Pollyanna, you know, but I think
that it's not just that people say, okay, you know,

(46:36):
the cost of living and that's going to turn people.
And yeah, I think that's part of it. But I
think mainly most people in our country are not ugly,
they're not nasty, they're not.

Speaker 1 (46:57):
Mean.

Speaker 2 (46:59):
And I what's happened in politics now, and particularly in
the Maga world, in the Trump world, is it's ugly.
I mean, it's just terribly mean and angry and aggrieve
and bitter. And look, I've been out of politics for

(47:25):
thirty one years now, but I don't believe human nature
has changed that much in thirty one years. And I
really knew the people of my state. I thought, really well.
I mean I for a long time. I spent so
much time with them, and you know what, they're good people.

(47:45):
I mean, they're just good, decent people.

Speaker 1 (47:48):
And does it matter if you're in the rural parts
of Missouri seven or the inner city.

Speaker 2 (47:53):
Know, and they're you know, and it was and they
had they they were funny. I mean, they had good
senses of humor. They laughed. Where's the laughter now in politics?
Where's the joy? And adult It's all so angry and
so bitter and so outrageous cruel, I would say, there's

(48:18):
a cruel some of this immigration stuff, you know. I
mean when they're when they are sending ice agents out
to break up families. I thought our party was supposed
to be family values. Well, how about deporting the husband
and what's going to happen with a wife and children.

(48:42):
I know of a case like that right in my
home state. This man is he's going to be deported
and he won't be able to return for a minimum
of twenty years. And he's married, and he has two
small daughters, and one of them is a special needs child.
What are we that kind of country? Are we that

(49:04):
kind of country that cheers that on, that says, oh,
we got to keep these immigrants out to the point
of shoving them out the door when they've got families.
So there's a cruelty in all of this. And I
think that if there's a way, and I've been thinking
about how to do this as a matter of fact,

(49:26):
if there's a way to just ask the American people
put the question to it, are we really like this?
Are we really this angry? This mean? You know what?
This week there's going to be a meeting in Washington.
I read about it, and it's a meeting about how
Christians are being picked on. I mean, crimea river. Christians

(49:53):
are supposed to feel they're victims, They're being pushed around,
the elites are out to get them, government to have
to give them. Please, are we really is it? Is
it sustainable to stoke up that kind of grievance, feeling

(50:14):
of grievance and anger Is that sustainable or is there
some equilibrium out there where most people really are kind
and decent and caring and want to live with their neighbors.
Whether their neighbors are progressive or conservative, whatever they are,

(50:36):
They're just going to live with them.

Speaker 1 (50:37):
I was counting on that exhaustion, the exhaustion from the anger,
the exhaustion, and I think we all thought, let me
put it this way, I shouldn't do the we all
I thought the idea of Biden's presidency was supposed to
be this. They I don't want to give me the
jolly guy. Right, You're in the Joe Biden and I

(51:00):
covered for most of the time, and I'm not going
to count the presidency because, frankly, it was a different
Joe Biden than the guy I covered his vice president
and the guy I covered as a senator. And I'm
sure you probably felt the same way. But the one
thing about Joe Biden is that guy was always joyful.
That guy was always a better he was a better
angel guy. So I do think that's what the country

(51:21):
kind of hoped he was going to offer of a
of a moment. Frankly, I go back to my phrase
pastor for patriotism, that maybe he was going to serve
as a bit of a faith healer, you know. And
I'm not a very religious person. I know you are,
but I kind of need we need a We need
somebody to restore faith in the idea of America. And

(51:43):
I do think it has to end up coming from
our If our president can't do it, who can, right?
And we are we?

Speaker 2 (51:50):
You know?

Speaker 1 (51:51):
I think I think Obama had that ability in him.
I think he made a few errors at the end
and sort of not reading, not understanding what was happening
inside his own party, and they led them down the
wrong road there. But so I take your point on this.
Is this something I mean, do you think I know

(52:13):
what I think? When you say those, I think, well,
this is what social media has done. It has made
us all self centered, It has made us all more
it is, we're all. I always joke because I'm obsessed
to try to fix local news. So I'll always say, well,
the one thing I've learned with this phone and I'm
holding it up, is we're all a little bit narcissistic,
and we all think whatever's happening right around us, we

(52:33):
had to talk about, Hey, that's local news. Maybe people
want more local news, right, let's let's get more micro.
But it does feel as if our politics changed when
the iPhone became the primary source of communication for political information.

Speaker 2 (52:50):
Yeah, I mean, I think that's right. And there's been
a lot of commentary about that. It's a great book
called Dang Generation. I'm just that about the effect that
the iPhone is having, especially on younger people, And I
think that all that's true. And I don't know, I

(53:12):
don't know that there's any antidote to that, but I
do think that there has to be a sustained effort
to focus public attention on the question of who are
we and are we really angry and mean and cruel

(53:36):
as people? Or are we not? And I think that
that that effort will call for a lot of it,
and it will call for the media, We'll call for
anybody who's got.

Speaker 1 (53:50):
Well, what do you do if the sitting president of
the United States does not agree with that assise?

Speaker 2 (53:54):
Oh no, he doesn't know. He's the opposite. He is
the opposite. He's the That's what he is. And that's why,
I mean, that's one of the reasons I think he's
caused more damage to our country than any other person
in our history. But so now what? And I think

(54:17):
it's got to be more than just top down. I
think it's got to be bottomed up. I think it's
got to be the American people being faced with that
question of who we are and is this really right?
And does Donald Trump and what he stands for really
represent us? And what we stand for who we are?
And so how to sustain that? Well? I can think

(54:41):
of how to do it in bits and pieces. You know.

Speaker 1 (54:46):
This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
by Waldgrain. Waldgrain is the first bake from Frozen subscription
box for our teasonal breads, seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas,
plus all items conveniently bake into twenty five minutes or less.
Unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients
you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can

(55:09):
be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants.
Wildgrains boxes are fully customizable. They're constantly adding seasonal and
limited tiding products for you to enjoy. In addition to
their classic box, they now feature a gluten free box
and a plant based box. I checked out the gluten
free box, and let me tell you they have a
gluten free sourdough bread. It is. We got two loads

(55:32):
of it and we've done one loaf already. It's a
cranberry and almond sourdough bread. It's like the best raisin
bread you've ever had, except it's not raisin. It's great.
You're gonna love this. You know it's in or miss
if you mess around in the gluten free bread world.
This is a hit. Seriously, I was impressed. So look
for a limited time. Wild Grain is offering our listeners

(55:53):
thirty dollars off your first box, plus free croissants in
every box when you go to wildgrain dot com slash
todcas asked to start your subscription, follow these instructions, free
croissants in every box, thirty dollars off your first box
when you go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast that's
wildgrain dot com slash toodcast, or simply use the promo
code toodcast at checkout. Always use the code get the discount.

(56:17):
I'm telling you, it's excellent, excellent. Brett, Well, let me
give you a suggestion because and I know I'm curious
how much conversation you've had. There are two senators that
always jump out to me as two senators that I
would like to lead, to see lead a conversation like
the one you've described, And they're the actual They're the

(56:40):
two senators who are also happened to be pastors, James
Langford out of Oklahoma and Raphael Warnock go to Georgia. Langford,
to me, is the closest thing to you that exists
in this current Senate. I say that not just because
of his past being an ordained pastor, but more in

(57:02):
who he is, who was his temperatip. I think I
got to think you know Langford a little bit. He is,
I think a top notch human being. I think if
it were politically safer, he would be speaking out more.
But I go back and forth of whether how much
grace I give certain senators. I'll give him more grace

(57:23):
than others because I feel like I know who he is.
Should what role could those two play? I feel like
if they chose to play a role here, they could
play a powerful role. But Langford would have to criticize
his own party, and I don't know if he's ready
to do that.

Speaker 2 (57:40):
Well, I don't, Yeah, but I don't think you need
to start out criticizing your own party. I think you
end up you start out as we have with our
organization called our Republican Legacy, putting forth certain points of
view or principles that are positive, that stand on their

(58:02):
own And if you put, if you put to the
American who are we? How do you want to treat
your neighbors? You know? Do you? How do you want
to do that? I think there would be a response.
I don't think it's necessarily it would be wonderful, it
would come for the person, and wonderful of more political leaders.

(58:24):
Anybody with the soapbox, though, can do it. I think
that there's a real role for religious congregations to do this,
bringing people together who are different, who have different opinions,
breaking bread together, you know, invite a Republican to lunch?

(58:46):
How about that?

Speaker 1 (58:47):
Right?

Speaker 2 (58:48):
I mean any other way around? Right? No more anything?
And they're you know so, I mean there could be
a real effort. It could be led by my religious congregations.
And it should be because the root of the word
religion is the same as for ligament, holding things together.

(59:09):
So how do we do that? Are there tactics for
doing it? Invite a Republican to lunch. How about if
somebody that you know who has got the opposite political
view has hit something awful happened by way of health
or family laws, call them up. Call that person up

(59:31):
and say I care about you. And Saint Paul said,
rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
And I think that that is what it takes. I
think it's I think essentially it's a question of what
we're really right and we're not like this. I know that,

(59:55):
I absolutely know that we as a people are not
like Donald Trump. I know that.

Speaker 1 (01:00:08):
So obviously you hope this is repairable from the inside out.
But when you look at the grip he has on
the party, Like I said, I think it's a coalition
that's in the midst of fracturing because it doesn't have
an ideological glue. Right, He's supposedly for non interventions, and
yet we're about to go on an escapade in Venezuela

(01:00:30):
where he's getting involved in the Hondura and presidential election.
He's inserted it. You know, it's as whatever you think
of Marjorie Taylor Green, I think I take her at
her word that she looks at this and said, hey,
I actually voted for a ideology here. And I think
Trump's got a problem. I think there's some true believers
in his movement that are like, wait a minute, we

(01:00:52):
didn't vote for this. We didn't vote for Ukraine or
Israel or Venezuela. And we know that Trump's a transactionalist.
He got he jumped in front of that parade because
he saw it as the fastest way to get the nomination.
And now he's like, oh, well, I can get paid
helping out the Hondurans here, and you know, I'll dabbling
this over there, and the Middle East Royalty loves me

(01:01:14):
and so and it's actually counter to what he promised
his constituents. But it hasn't. It hasn't broken.

Speaker 2 (01:01:20):
Our position, our position in our Republican legacy, which is
our effort to keep the ember of traditional conservatism burning.
Our position is that none of this is conservative, right,
none of it. It's not. I mean, we used to

(01:01:41):
think of ourselves as we're the conservative party. Okay, let's say,
let's ask the Republicans that question, do you view yourself
as conservative or not? But please don't let the conservative
label be appropriated by the maga people because they are.

Speaker 1 (01:02:00):
Not well Jack, I think the words lost its meaning
to most. If you ask my son, who's eight in
college studying, he thinks whatever Trump supporter is a conservative.
And I'm like, well, that's it's an ideological label that
doesn't fit what the definition used to be. And I
was trying to walk them through this, and you know

(01:02:22):
right now, it's just a label that's a fixed on
anything Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
Yeah, I know that's true, But I mean we've got
to reclaim that. And that's what our this group of ours,
our Republican legacy, is attempting to do. I mean pointing
out there's nothing conservative about blowing out up the national death.
That's not conservative. There's nothing conservative about deep washington involvement

(01:02:50):
in the economy, which was high protective. Cares Ronald Grigan
rolling over in his grave.

Speaker 1 (01:02:57):
Can you believe how many pieces of companies the USCU
now has.

Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
An owning company? That is? What's conservative about government owning companies?
What's conservative about government? The Washington and the President trying
to tell universities what they should teach, or law firms
about whom they should represent, or late night comedians about

(01:03:23):
who they should not. What's conservative about that? That's not conservative.
What's conservative about cottoning up to Vladimir Putin? How does
that square with the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower and
Ronald Reagan? It does not. So it's not that this
is just a different part of conservatism. It's the opposite

(01:03:50):
of what our party was, has been, and what I
think if faced with it. Look, that's why I think
it's important to field candidate, and hopefully in the presidential election.
Also maybe the person would lose, so they loses, she loses, whatever,
but at least present it to Republican voters. How do

(01:04:15):
you feel about huge deficits that are growing? How do
you feel about the Trump administration in its first term
that increased the national debt in four years by more
than almost forty percent, and that's going to increase it
by another three trillion over the next decade. How do
you feel about that? Do you think government should own businesses?

(01:04:35):
Do you favor high protective tariffs? Do you feel favor
pulling the plug on Ukraine? Put those questions to Republican voters.
Do you talk about fracturing of the Republican Party. I
don't think it would be fracturing over little stuff. I mean,
this is fundamental stuff that is defined the Republican Party

(01:04:57):
historically as the concern party, which it isn't anymore.

Speaker 1 (01:05:03):
Look, one of Missouri's US Senators, Josh Holly, I think,
is smarter about understanding that the voter, the voter that
elects Republicans now, doesn't necessarily agree with that definition of
doesn't rejected that version of the Republican Party and prefers

(01:05:25):
one that is I always say, this is not a
small government Republican party. This is a strong government Republican
You bet.

Speaker 2 (01:05:33):
It's really remarkable as a matter of fact that I
remember when I was a kid, somebody said this to me.
There there really is like a convergence in a circle
of the extreme right and the extreme life sendula right.
Eventually they touched, Yes, it's it's that, that's right. But

(01:05:57):
here's the thing. I mean, we're trying to do this
in our group, our Republican legacy. We're trying to do this.
We're trying to plant the flag for a principle, but
not enough people are doing it. Not enough people are
really putting the issue. So that's what I think we
should do it. Maybe Hally's right. Maybe we are the

(01:06:20):
party of big government and writing two thousand dollars checks
to people and all of that. Maybe we've become Maybe
that's the way to be popular. A lot of people
historically in politics think this is the way to become popular,
way to win elections is to give it away.

Speaker 1 (01:06:40):
Check it in every part, right, remember.

Speaker 2 (01:06:42):
That, that's right. That Comfreq Hubert Emphrey used to call
it the politics of joy. Just give it away. Government
intervenes and everything government should be big. Government isn't big
enough now. Government doesn't spend enough now. It is a
powerful enough now, and it doesn't abuse your enemies the

(01:07:05):
way it should, and it should do more of that.
So that yeah, So that's that's that has been I
guess the formula that they're relying on. But what if
you put the opposite to people? I mean, what if
somebody were to run for president? Not caring whether this

(01:07:27):
person necessarily had to win for his or her ego,
but just put the question to people, who are we
as a people? What are we as a party? What
do we stand for? Do we stand for anything anymore? Anything?

Speaker 1 (01:07:50):
So should we have more? I mean, do you think
you know you know this is this is well, let
me start with this. I'm obsessed with having a constant
tuitional convention. I think we need one, and I think
if you look at every period, every period in our
history where we've been at the brink, okay, where we

(01:08:10):
hit a low civil War being the lowest we've actually
that's always the moment we've actually amended our constitution. We
created more equal protector. Essentially, the equal protection clause comes
in after the Civil War.

Speaker 2 (01:08:26):
We have mead the Constitution. We didn't have any convention
to do it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:30):
No, that's true, but I don't trust this Congress to
actually allow that to happen. But let's say, but either way,
we can do it in any which way. After the
debacle of the early twentieth century, when arguably the worst
scandal we ever had Teapot Dome, well we get the
direct election of senators, and then we get the amendment

(01:08:53):
to allow the income tax, which actually creates the property
tax structure that funds local governments to this day. And
of course we gave women the right to vote. So
I just think that we will have an opportunity in
the next ten to fifteen years to do some reforms
because I do think there's enough shell shocked Americans like
whoa the last ten years, right, whether it's amending the

(01:09:15):
constitution to take away the power of the pardon to
an individual, I mean, this is the abuse of the
pardon process is clearly I think turned out to be
a problem. Maybe we do term limits, maybe we do this.
What do you think we need a moment here where?
And the reason I like a constitutional convention because I

(01:09:37):
want to bring liberals and conservatives. Let's talk about the
balanced budget amendment. Let's talk about term limits, let's talk
about the pardon power, let's talk about age limits. Right,
all of that would have to be constitutional amendments, but
the process itself could be restorative for civics terrible, You

(01:10:01):
don't want it, you think it's okay?

Speaker 2 (01:10:03):
Tell me why?

Speaker 1 (01:10:05):
Okay?

Speaker 2 (01:10:06):
Because I think that our Constitution is a work of genius,
and I think that our guiding principle is a principle
of genius. And the principle is it's it's the famous

(01:10:34):
what five words and and the Declaration of independence? Almen
are created equal? Did we depart from that right from
the beginning? Yeah? But is that our basic standard? Yes?
And we believed that we are capable, We the people

(01:10:58):
are capable of governing our selves. We don't have to
be governed by the powers that be. We take responsibility
for governing ourselves. And that was Jefferson's principle, and that
was what the Constitution was designed to do. No more

(01:11:24):
big deal king, no more big deal aristocracy, no more
big concentrated power in one person's hands or a few people.
We do this. That is our republican form of government.
That is what we are responsible for. And I think

(01:11:47):
we just have to insist on that. And that's it's
not a new principle, it's our principle.

Speaker 1 (01:11:55):
It's the I don't think we disagree here. I think
we may disagree in the vehicle to amend the Constitution,
but I do think we need to freshen it up.
We need to add some amendments.

Speaker 2 (01:12:03):
Do you well, maybe, yeah, amendments. But that's not counts
usual convention. What I mean, the first Constitution.

Speaker 1 (01:12:11):
I'm not interested in rewriting. I see what you're saying.
I'm not interested in rewriting it. That's what you're Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:12:17):
The first Constitutional Convention was presided over by George Washington.
What if then another countsitutional convention was provided presided by
Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:12:32):
Well, I don't I've heard that. I get that. I
don't want to fear the voter. Sometimes I do think
we make certain decisions like fear. We fear the voter.

Speaker 2 (01:12:42):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:12:42):
The Electoral College arguably was a creation because ultimately they
feared the voters and they were like, we better have
one more check on the voters. And you know, look
at jerrymandering. Right, I would argue, they fear the voter
and we need to we need to get rid of
that principle of fearing the voter and instead realizing, no,

(01:13:05):
the voter is in charge.

Speaker 2 (01:13:07):
Okay, we should please do it by amendments and that.

Speaker 1 (01:13:10):
Well I what I So that's what I I But
what I could see us having is gathering for to
debate these amendments. And I think that we should have
a form for it. And I think it's pretty clear
we've got some problems, whether it's money in politics, the
courts are going to rule one way. So if you
want to have any limitation, you're going to have to

(01:13:32):
create a constitutional amendment jerry mandering, you know, I think
I happen to think the House is too small I
actually think we don't have enough representatives in Washington given
the size of our population. I know, more politicians doesn't
sound like a reform to many people, but that's if
you if I, if I go back, I look at
it as founder's intent and the House of Representatives is

(01:13:54):
no longer the people's house, and that's a problem. And
how do you bring that mindset back to it? Yeah,
you know, I think the point is is that it
does feel as if we need, you know, like any house,
it needs updating, and the American House needs some updating.

Speaker 2 (01:14:14):
Yeah. I mean, now I understand what you're saying, and
I think there are you know, discrete areas which would
be worth addressing. I mean, my own view is in
the same of the money in politics. I don't think

(01:14:37):
that money is the same as speech, which is basically
with the Supreme Court decided. I think that there's a
right to speak, of course, into assembly. There's not a
right to bring a bull horned into a political meeting.
And that's essentially what we have now. So no, I

(01:14:58):
understand that I haven't thought about a constitutional amendment on
the gerrymandering or increasing the sides of the House. I
just don't have any thought.

Speaker 1 (01:15:12):
No, And I get that those are my hobby horses.

Speaker 2 (01:15:14):
Yeah, but I mean maybe they're good ideas, maybe they're not,
but I don't I'm not for scrapping what we have.
I'm for restoring what we have. I think that the
Supreme Court's decision in this tariff case is really going
to be important.

Speaker 1 (01:15:34):
How badly? Let me say, let's say this, what if
they uphold the president's authority? What does that do to
the checks and balances of our.

Speaker 2 (01:15:42):
It removes them, Yeah, it really removes them. But it
basically says that the president has absolutely powerative anything. He
can do anything you want if he wants, he could
paint the White House orange. And by the way, he
might side to do that. You know, yeah, it's it's

(01:16:04):
I mean, if Congress doesn't retain the power to tax, right,
which is you know, an express power an article one
of the Constitutions, the power to tax that that can
be given away aid.

Speaker 1 (01:16:27):
Why do you think it's been so hard to get
Congress to flex its? I mean, I've had a theory
that Congress doesn't want the responsibility that the laws that
they pass that could come with it, so they intentionally
allow the ambiguity in the laws they pass, especially if

(01:16:48):
they think the first administration that will execute those laws
is one that they agree with. And that's how the
ambiguity gets into the lawmaking process in the first place,
and then puts us where essentially an administrative state interprets
the law, and then we end up in the courts,
and then we have this sort of over time, it
is essentially accumulated to the executive's advantage.

Speaker 2 (01:17:13):
Yeah, well, I mean, I think even back in ancient history,
namely when I was around, the way to bridge what
seemed to be irreconcilable differences in the writing of legislation

(01:17:34):
is to bridge it with fuzz. So ambiguity is sort
of the default in how to finally pass legislation. So
I think there's that, But I think now it's more
than that. I think that Congress, now it really would

(01:18:01):
be an interesting question to put two members in Congress.
What are you doing? Well? What is it? Please?

Speaker 1 (01:18:12):
What is your job?

Speaker 2 (01:18:13):
Yet? Tell me what you've done other than say, get
on Fox News or put something on social media. What
have you done other than take many many vacations, I
mean the vacation time, I mean now, Thanksgiving, Christmas, is coming.

(01:18:38):
Then we've got the first of the year, and then
we've got whatever comes after that. But I mean they
just they go on vacation all the time.

Speaker 1 (01:18:49):
Well I was joking. Put a three day weekend, a
three day weekend for the rest of us is always
a two.

Speaker 3 (01:18:55):
Week recess, unbelievable in the work so called work week
is three days. Yeah, And it's what are they they're
drawing paychecks for what I mean what they're not legislating
because legislating is controversial, So to avoid controversy, and legislating

(01:19:23):
is producing something other than what Donald Trump wants you
to produce, So don't do it.

Speaker 1 (01:19:31):
So well, take take health care, where's where's the legislators
try to come up with a with a plan to
deal with the expiring healthcare subsidies. Where's there a health
and if your party is an alternative plan, show me
the process.

Speaker 2 (01:19:48):
What what are you doing about the pending and solvency
of the Social Security Trust Fund? When it comes, which
is scheduled become in eight years, social security benefits will
drop by sixty six hundred dollars.

Speaker 1 (01:20:06):
And Senator, I'm a well aware being a member of
gen X and not a baby boomer that I'm going
to be the first generation. Okay, because that eight years.
It's about I'm getting close to when I'm going to
be eligible and my generation is going to be the
one that gets the first haircut. And we didn't make
the mess.

Speaker 2 (01:20:27):
Yeah, and the nice thing about being money age is
it's your problem. So no, that's right. But I mean
you think about so what do you like, take major
pending issues Okay, yeah, the national debt and then related issues,

(01:20:48):
the pending insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, which
will result in major reduction of benefits, and then the
pending and solvency in the same year I think it's
twenty thirty three of the Health Insurance Trust Fund. In Medicare,

(01:21:12):
you think rural hospitals have suffered because of Medicaid cuts,
wait till the Medicare cuts come. So, I mean, these
are huge problems that are going to affect people. And
is Congress doing anything about this? The answer is nothing, punt.

(01:21:36):
You know what they'll end up doing. They will end
up appointing a commission. Now, I was Bob Carey from
Nebraska and I were the co chairs of something called
the Carrie Danforth Commission. In nineteen ninety four to deal
with these problems? Was this a successor?

Speaker 1 (01:22:00):
Wasn't there a moini Han commission before that? Wasn't this
yours was a successor to what Monahan was a part of.
I don't know during Reagan, but there was wondering Reagan.

Speaker 2 (01:22:09):
There was Simpson bowls.

Speaker 1 (01:22:11):
I remember Simpson balls after that?

Speaker 2 (01:22:13):
So and what happened to those? Yeah? So Tanashell, so
we have now we are we we have a committee.
We have it's been created. The name of it is Congress.
It's not named carried in for the Simpson bulls. It's

(01:22:35):
called Congress. So here's my idea. What would happen if
Congress would cancel just one of its vacation times, just one.
It could keep the other eight or nine or whatever
of them. Cancel one and just deal with these problems.

Speaker 1 (01:22:57):
Just legislate, show us and by the way, let us watch, yes,
let's watch the process. I remember one of my favorite
moments was when Obama hosted Republican senators and they debated
Obamacare in front of the American people, and everybody learned
something about that process. You didn't have to agree with
the idea or not, but it was so healthy to

(01:23:20):
see Lamar Alexander and Barack Obama going back and forth
about it. You're like, Okay, this is kind of what
our founders hoped would happen.

Speaker 2 (01:23:28):
Or or I'm the alternative and the alternative, why not
just have a little backroom politics among real politicians and decide, okay,
we'll come out of this with something.

Speaker 1 (01:23:43):
Right as you the way it worked. When people wanted
something to pass, you find reasons to support legislation. When
you wanted not to pass, you can find reasons not
to support.

Speaker 2 (01:23:55):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:23:55):
I'm sure every vote you cast in the affirmative you
could have made the case to go against You go
against that vote if that's what you wanted.

Speaker 2 (01:24:04):
To do, right, Yeah, I guess I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:24:08):
The point is everything's a compromise.

Speaker 2 (01:24:10):
Everything.

Speaker 1 (01:24:11):
How often did you vote for a perfect bill? Okay,
that's no, That.

Speaker 2 (01:24:16):
Is exactly right. And that's how it was designed. I mean,
that is how the framers of the Constitution designed it.
They designed it, they designed the legislative process. It's a
place of.

Speaker 1 (01:24:31):
Compromise, and it was supposed to be incrementalism.

Speaker 2 (01:24:34):
They designed it right as they designed it as sausage making.
And I happened to think sausage making is a good
thing to do, Yes, and you don't want to worry.
And hopefully it's going to be relatively good sausage. But
it's not going to be it's not going to be
you know, Prime rib, it's going to be sausage.

Speaker 1 (01:24:55):
Let me get you out of here. On two questions
that always befuddle the Senate these days. One is judicial
nominations and the other is the filibuster. I'm a I
have obsessively read Federalist seventy eight, which is Hamilton's defense
of the of the judiciary, and most importantly, of what

(01:25:17):
he thinks will make a good judiciary. He's essentially outlining
he he comes. He comes out against the election of judges.
He says, you can't have these as elections, and so
why state some states do this is beyond me, but
I'm going to set that aside. But the goal was
as neutral of arbiters as you can get, and now

(01:25:38):
they don't. He doesn't say how it should be done right.
He doesn't expressly say it should be two thirds of
the Senate, three quarters of the Senate, whatever. He just
says the goal should be that we're a long way
away from that goal. I would argue that unfortunately, these
black robes are red and blue. Right. I'm not saying
every every liberal justice it only thinks about being a

(01:26:01):
liberal before being a justice, and vice versa. But that's
what the public sees, and it feels as if the
judiciary is just another political game. How would you? And look,
I can make the case that Harry Reid did this,
or Mitch McConnell, I think they collectively broke this. Personally,

(01:26:21):
I think everybody's got dirty hands here, But what would
you what would be a better way to create our judiciary.
I don't like fifty votes, don't. I think it's made
the judiciary more partisan than it needs to be. But
I also respect the fact that the founders when they
wanted two thirds or three quarters, they actually said two
thirds or three quarters. If they wanted super majority, they

(01:26:42):
wrote it in there, and this one they were trusting
us not to worry about a supermajority. I kind of
think it turns out we're wrong, But but what say you?

Speaker 2 (01:26:54):
So? I think that we publicly have thought of the
judiciary is yet another policy making branch of government, and
I think that that's that goes back aways. I thought that,

(01:27:20):
you know, when I was around like Supreme Court nominations,
it was all about, well, okay, what's going to be
the policy result of this judge, particularly on the issue
of abortion is there? Are they going to stick with
roversus way? Do they an roversus way? It was viewed
as a policy making branch of government. It was not

(01:27:42):
created to be that. It was crazy, it.

Speaker 1 (01:27:45):
Was an arbiter right.

Speaker 2 (01:27:47):
It was yes. And the meaning of judicial conservatism as
opposed to political conservatism is judicial restraint. It's judges is saying,
wait a second, if we're going to get into deciding
a case, it has to be based on the clear

(01:28:09):
understanding of the meaning of the Constitution and not broadening
the Constitution to the point where I've got a free
hand to come out with policy results. That's what's happened.
I'm not sure now they've got rid of the pillarbous
fear for judges. I know that, you know, I was

(01:28:32):
very much supportive of Clarence Thomas in his nomination. There's
no way he could have been. I think we ended
up with fifty one votes.

Speaker 1 (01:28:43):
In a democratic Senate. I mean, I always have to
remind people Clarence Thomas got confirmed by a Democratic Senate.
I don't know if that nomination even gets accepted today
right now.

Speaker 2 (01:28:53):
It was, you know, he used to work for me.
That my involvement. He I gave him this first job
out of law school, and he worked for me, and
when I was state Attorney general, and he worked for
me when I was a senator. And I just saw

(01:29:13):
the suffering of the human being at that time. And
I can say that that process was you want a
good weight loss program? Yeah, that did it, that Stamus. Yeah,
so yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:29:31):
You did that process scar him. Do you think it
changed his views?

Speaker 2 (01:29:37):
No, I you know, amazingly, No, I don't. I think
he is. I think the sort of the presentation of him,
it was sort of this scowling but he's the opposite.
He is.

Speaker 1 (01:29:55):
I've heard this from people who know him as friends
that he's a jolly guy.

Speaker 2 (01:29:59):
He's really a good guy, the jokester guy. For people
who have clerked from other Supreme Court justices that Clarence
is the most popular justice among all of the clerks
in the Supreme Court building. He's he's just a good

(01:30:20):
guy and he's a very caring person. That's what he is.
That's what was so brutal about that whole yeah episode
restoring the filibuster for justices. I don't know anybody because
he confirmed anymore.

Speaker 1 (01:30:38):
No, no, no, and I don't know. But instead of restoring
the number with it, here's what I had a friend
at the Bush who was part of Bush's Bush forty
three's White House Counsel's office and said, you know, when
he was making nominations, when they were finding nominees, betting
nominees for the for the federal and circuit level, you know, said,

(01:31:00):
when you know you have to get sixty votes, you
find a certain type of person. When you know you
only need fifty votes, you can go with a different
type of person. So it has changed, whatever we think.
It has changed the makeup. Right, we have more more
ideological legal thinkers. Now maybe that's healthy over time, but
that can be damaging in the Yeah no, it in

(01:31:24):
different moments.

Speaker 2 (01:31:25):
I understand that. I think that's right. I think, you know, necessity,
maybe the mother of invention here is ever going to
confirm anybody. No, there are people, there are people in
the Senate now who simply vote against nominees for the
other party. They just automatic votes against them, right, you know,

(01:31:48):
I counted up the number of times when I was
in the Senate that I voted against any nominee for anything.
And this would be all of Carter and the first
part of Clinton.

Speaker 1 (01:32:03):
And all of Reagan, so basically all years of one
party twelve years of another. Right.

Speaker 2 (01:32:08):
Yeah, but all of these, including like six years of
nominees for the person and the other party, there only
twice I ever voted against the nominee. I mean, I
just said, Okay, this is the president's now. These people
just automatically vote against the numedie.

Speaker 1 (01:32:31):
So let me ask about the filibuster in general. Would
you I'm going to guess you think it's this process
is overused, yes, which is created because what I think
the real problem with governing these days is a reconciliation process.
What was created as sort of a as you you

(01:32:52):
just use the phrase great necessities, the mother of all invention,
the reconciliation invention by Bob BYRD was essentially a mother
of you know, one of those moments where they were like, hey,
we can't ever get a budget passed if we if
we try to keep doing this with the with sixty votes.
And yet you know, I was I certainly was raised

(01:33:14):
a part of the generation. I'm gonna guess you were too,
of the Mister Smith myth. And I say that it's
a myth, but there is this idea that, hey, one
person can make a difference, one person can stand up.
So what should the rillibuster rule be if in your
in your vision of it, regardless of what it is, now,

(01:33:36):
what would well, how.

Speaker 2 (01:33:37):
Would you like to see it? I do think it's
I do think it's overused. I mean, now it's commonly
said that it takes sixty votes to pass anything. Yeah,
but I I do think it's overused. I think we
never thought that way. But I do think that it's

(01:33:59):
important to reata the filibuster. I do believe that because
otherwise that you just have these wild gyrations who's in
the majority at a given time, And the filibuster at
least forces some degree of bipartisanship that otherwise wouldn't exist

(01:34:20):
at all.

Speaker 1 (01:34:21):
Yeah, well, look, what's the goal in twenty twenty six
of restore Republican legacy? What would be a good year
as far.

Speaker 2 (01:34:30):
As your concern, Well, we're so, we're working on it.
We're that our Republican legacy is really two couple of
things that it's doing. One, we're messaging. We're trying to
articulate in as many forms as we can the basic

(01:34:50):
conservative principles that define the Republican Party. We're organizing at
the statewide level, we're state chairs, and then increasingly we're
going to get into the business of trying to influence
and support conservative basic Republicans, fundamental Republicans, traditional Republicans, and elections,

(01:35:20):
both for party positions, party organizational positions, and for elections themselves.
So I hope that we will have a team on
the field, and I hope that I hope that there
will be some candidates, as I just heard of one
yesterday and Nebraska, and mostly I don't know these people themselves,

(01:35:45):
but that's what we're looking for, people who are good,
responsible conservatives, which is not what MEGA is today.

Speaker 1 (01:35:56):
And by conservative you mean less government, more government, right,
I mean, uh, government not involved in business. I mean
what what what you know any other principles you would
add into that?

Speaker 2 (01:36:10):
Yeah, yeah, well, I mean, uh, certainly, fiscal hawks, certainly
limited role for government and its intervention with the private
sector in the economy, and universities, at law firms and
all of that certainly, respect for the rule of law,

(01:36:31):
which means not weaponizing government against political enemies. Certainly, respect
for the constitutional order, which means not the extreme concentration
of power in the in the president, certainly, a national
defense second to none, and also a foreign policy that

(01:36:55):
supports our our friends in our ally that would include
you've grained all of that comprises the Republican Party as
it has existed for decades and decades and decades. All

(01:37:17):
of that has been scrapped, not modified, but I mean
thrown in the trash heap by Donald Trump, all of it.
So we're just standing for principle, and we're looking for
people who will make that stand in elections.

Speaker 1 (01:37:35):
Well, I hope this conversation provides some hope to some
of my I would say demoralized conservative friends who just
look at this and the character doesn't count anymore. Morals
and ethics.

Speaker 2 (01:37:50):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:37:52):
Look, I can tell you this, Senator Dane Forth, I
always sell you as a as a high character person,
and I thought that was an asset. And American politics
and the high character people are there, there doesn't seem
to be room for them anymore. I hope you're I
admire that this is what you're trying to leave as
a legacy.

Speaker 2 (01:38:12):
Thank you very much.

Speaker 1 (01:38:14):
Anyway, good luck, enjoy the rest of the holiday season,
and I'll check back in closer we get to the election.

Speaker 2 (01:38:20):
Good thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:38:29):
Well as you saw there, I particularly enjoyed the What
I loved about the conversation with Jack dan Forth was
a few things. One we talked a little bit about
the judiciary. We talked a little bit about, uh, the
future of the filibuster, what would work, what didn't, And
I was I appreciated his bluntness going don't do a

(01:38:50):
constitutional convention. But that gets it something that we've talked
about before, which is I'm not afraid of the voters
and that always you know, I'm not saying we should
read right the Constitution, and I think that's where we
got a little bit back and forth on that. But
we desperately need to consider some serious amendments, and I
think collectively as a country, we could use this moment

(01:39:13):
to to have this conversation term limits, age limits, guardrails,
on the on, on the pardon, a balanced budget amendment,
right like there's there's there's four or five things that
are about the infrastructure of the American democracy that I
think are worth, are worth convening citizens. You know, you

(01:39:33):
know we can take This is what the founders wanted
us to do and expected us to do. We shouldn't
wait for Congress, we shouldn't wait for a political leader.
We needed to do this, and maybe I need to
stop asking others to do it and maybe put my
own money where my mouth is. But let's get into
a few asks.

Speaker 2 (01:39:49):
Chucks, Ask Chuck.

Speaker 1 (01:39:54):
This question comes from Mike from the suburbs of Columbus, Ohio,
South Bloomfield, and he writes a jo in the podcast,
thanks for sharing your experience and perspective with regard to
the National Guard soldiers shot in Washington, DC. Is there
any indication that the FBI missed information in advance of
this heinous act because they were distracted by immigration enforcement? Well, Mike,
I think it's an excellent question. There is plenty of

(01:40:15):
anecdotal evidence that simply moving It's not just with the FBI,
but it's also been with DHS that shifting resources to
the President's deportation policy and focus on trying to essentially
find anybody they can to deport using any means necessary.

(01:40:37):
It's pretty clear that we know this that FBI resources
from counter terrorism has been sort of diverted into this.
We know that DHS resources that are focused on other
things have been diverted into all things ice and essentially
tracking down anybody that may be in this country that's documented.

(01:41:01):
There's been plenty of anecdotal that we you know, you'd
have to almost rely on more and more whistleblowers telling
us what's not being investigated versus what is being investigated.
I think over the next it's probably going to take
us a couple of years to know this for sure. Now,
maybe this investigation on sort of okay, what was you
know what, what did we know about this? Should there

(01:41:27):
have been a unit of the FBI and counter in
the counterintelligence unit that was sort of constantly keeping an
eye on some of these Afghan refugees, considering that we
were concerned that that Taliba or essentially enemies of of
of of the West, we're going to infiltrate. It's clear

(01:41:50):
that the vetting process fell down somewhere, but I don't
think it should get lost on anybody that you know,
we're we're you know, we do this with there's not
a shooting that happens now where we don't look for
another reason to not talk about the gun issue, right,
So it's in this case we want to talk about oh,

(01:42:11):
vetting these Afghan nationals, We're not talking about mental health.
And yet it does seem as if this was a
huge mental health issue this guy. You know, it is
not easy going from the Afghan culture to the American culture.
It sounds like he was having a lot of trouble.
Sounds like people are you know, and you know, how
much help do some of these refugee communities need in

(01:42:36):
making sure they can assimilate or if they're leaving a
war torn area that they're not experiencing PTSD and things
like this. I'm not looking for an excuse as to
why this guy did it to me. You know, he
should be off the streets period, Right, that's not the issue.
But I hope we do a real after action report
here because I want to know all of those things, right.

(01:42:59):
I want to know, has there been a unit of
the FBI that was a little a bit more aggressive
about keeping track in some of these refugee communities that
have come from some of these places where we've been
conducting counter terrorism measures. I want to know that. I
want to know what resources when we do settle these
settle folks in these refugee communities, in these various communities

(01:43:22):
that are willing to take refugees, whether it's the Twin
Cities with Somalo, this was Bellingham, Washington. What kind of
resources are we going back? Are we checking in? Are
we making sure these folks are able to assimilate to
our culture as best they can, navigate our culture as
best they can? You know, how are we helping to

(01:43:43):
integrate them? What does that look like? So I hope
it's a you know, I hope our Congress looks at
this in a sort of three hundred and sixty degrees
rather than just looking for the easiest path here, and
the easiest path here is let's go vetting after annies
and kick all immigrants out of the country, right, don't
let any more asylum seekers in? Right? That that kind

(01:44:05):
of obviously, isn't it? Sort of go? And by the way,
if we want to live in a free country, you know,
living in a free country means there's you know, if
you want to live in a less free country, we
can have people constantly harassed invented. Right, what's the line
that we want to have of having our own freedom
and privacy and having security. Right you can have, you

(01:44:29):
can guarantee security, but it takes away freedom. So what's
that line that you're willing to do and we don't.
We don't always have that whole conversation, you know. I
always say that's why, that's why God invented libertarians to
force us to have those conversations. Next question comes from
Chris c and he writes, love the longer podcast format.

(01:44:50):
It feels like I actually learned something. Oh, I appreciate it,
unlike the rapid fire style of most news shows. As
a Washington State grad, go Koog's I can't help but
feel like college football's broken.

Speaker 2 (01:45:00):
Man.

Speaker 1 (01:45:01):
I think about you guys all the time.

Speaker 2 (01:45:05):
I think it.

Speaker 1 (01:45:06):
Drives me nuts. Well, let me finish your question. Between
realignment and il chaos, coaching turnover, and players constantly transferring,
it's getting harder for fans to say connected. Maybe it's
just my Pacific Northwest perspective, but something feels like it
has to give before the sport loses its core appeal.
You know, Chris, this is what frustrates me about. First
of all, they're obviously college football has to you know,

(01:45:27):
we need a commissioner, right, there needs to be somebody
looking out for the sport, not entities, looking out for
universities and conferences. Right in theory, that's what they president
of the nc DOUBLEA could have been, should have been
that ship sailed and that ship shaaled decades ago. I
think Charlie Baker could be a terrific overseer of all this.

(01:45:47):
But you know, the NCUBA has no power over FBS football.
They have some power over Division two and Division one
f FCS, Division one Double A, they have no power
over over that. Now, imagine if Congress said conferences, you
know what that that you know, Congress intervenes, and I

(01:46:09):
do think your concerns, I do think this is begging
for congressional intervention. And that's the thing, right, the beauty
of a representative democracy is you have a Congressman in
Spokane who is seen that not you know, there was
you know, just willy nilly, the big ten USC and

(01:46:31):
Oregon got into bed together, YadA, YadA, YadA. Suddenly Washington
State can't compete on the highest level for college football.
Why why is there burrier to entry suddenly higher because
of a decision that USC made a decision that Oregon
made and a decision that the Big Ten made, And

(01:46:52):
I guess we could say Oregon would have stayed had
Washington stayed, right, You know, I know a couple of
versions of that backstory. But the point is I've long
thought that the strength of college football and why college
football was different, and I always thought kind of better
than the NFL. I mean, trust me, the game itself

(01:47:14):
is great in the NFL, don't get me wrong. But
what the beauty of college football is. It felt like
more people had more teams. You know, there was sort
of it just was it was both more local and
more accessible. And so, yeah, fifty thousand people would show
up in Spokane to see to see Washington State and
Ryan Leaf play in a game that gets into the

(01:47:38):
Rose Bowl. You know, I'm old enough to remember Mike
Leach having a lot of fun as the coach of
Washington State. Spokane is a great market for college football.
The advantage of college football over the NFL is the
NFL probably couldn't support a team in Spokane, but college
football can't. Right, The NFL can't support a team and

(01:48:02):
a team in is it Beaverton or corvallis excuse me Corvallis, Oregon.
But college football can Tallahassee, Florida, Tuscaloose, Alabama, Oxford, Mississippi, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Champagne, Illinois.
You see where I'm going here. That's what's so great

(01:48:25):
about college football. And frankly, the advantage that college football has,
right they have more markets where they have more devoted
fans in a variety of ways. And instead the powers
that be and the and the greed that's there with
with with what the conference has done is that it's
every conference for themselves and they're trying to hoard the value.

(01:48:48):
They're hoarding players, they're holding, hoarding TV money, and the
irony is what it's doing is And this is where
I love this guy. I think his name's Cody Campbell.
This is the the gentleman that's won the Sugar Daddy
for the Texas Tech football team. But too he's the
one that's been running these ads about about the old

(01:49:10):
broadcast media rate. He's basically trying to get the TV
negotiate to have all college football programs in Division one
and FBS pool their TV rights together and it be
negotiated as one right, just like the NFL negotiates as
one and NBC gets a piece of the NFL, CBS
gets a piece, Fox gets a piece, Amazon gets a piece,

(01:49:31):
Netflix gets a piece, etc. And if college football did
it that way, well, the Washington State could get more
TV revenue if it was in the same negotiation pool
of money as Oregon, Ohio State and Alabama and Notre Dame,

(01:49:51):
and it's one entity, and certainly, yes and all these
different media entities would get a piece of the action.
But what you would have is you would actually have
more revenue coming in. You'd probably get collectively more money
the more you spliced it up. And instead, the SEC

(01:50:12):
negotiates and then ESPN plays them off of and then
of course they're willing to pay a premium for the SEC,
so they're going to try to cheap out on what
they'll pay the American Conference or what they'll pay the ACC,
or they'll lock the ACC into this long term deal
because they realize because you know, they pulled one over
on the ACC commissioner who didn't realize how quickly the

(01:50:35):
valuation of these media rights were going to grow, and
ESPN was going to be sitting with a bargain while
they spent the money they saved from paying the ACC
to go ahead and pay the SEC. So look, I
hate this. What really frustrates me is that there's a
simple solution. Pull all the TV money together, and I
promise you everybody would have more money. Every program would

(01:50:58):
have more money than they have right now coming from
TV revenue, every single one. And that would and then
I think you would have the best of both worlds.
You'd get relevant college football back and Spokane and Greg Sante,
and the SEC would has still have a whole bunch
of cash to you know, jump into, like like Donald

(01:51:22):
Duck jumping into his vat of money back in the
old cartoon days. All right, Next question, it's anonymous, but
from a Notre Dame fan. With Trump's approval ratings continuing
to slip and the midterms looking more and more bleak
for Republicans, do you think we will start to see
some justices of the Supreme Court announced their retirement? Thanks

(01:51:45):
and go Irish. By the way, I'm one of those
who thinks Notre Dame in Miami both should be in
the playoff. Oklahoma and Alabama should be the ones fighting
for the last stop. But I will I will digress.
I one hundred percent believe this. I think that I
will be shocked if Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court

(01:52:07):
justice in twenty twenty seven. I think, given the current
political environment, and frankly, if I'm going to be you know,
I'm going to play political strategists for Republicans in the
White House, I would love nothing more to fire up
the Republican base than to have a open, have a
Supreme Court justice debate and to be able to sort

(01:52:31):
of soak up sort of, you know, especially if this
is going to be not the best economic environment, not
the best foreign policy environment, not the best moral and
ethical environment, having you know, to go back to a
sort of a core, having a fighting for somebody to
be a Supreme Court justice, hoping that it, you know,

(01:52:51):
bates the left into going, you know, sort of picking
a fight that showcases parts of the left that are
less popular with swing voters. There's a lot of reasons, oh,
by the way, the age of Thomas. But do you
want to risk a Democratic Senate coming in in twenty seven, right?
You know, the chances of that are about if you

(01:53:12):
believe the political markets, the prediction markets, about one and
three chance that that's going to happen. So if you
want to guarantee this advantage that you currently have in
the Supreme Court. This you know, this is the calendar
year twenty twenty six, particularly the first essentially six months.
So I think this is a really smart question. I

(01:53:32):
wish you'd put your name in there. I'm going to
give you extra credit because I think you have your
spot on and you know, both Thomas and Alito are
in the in the in the retirement zone. I think
Thomas is more likely to do this. Alito, I think,
really enjoys the job, so I think he's going to
be harder to pry to convince to do this. I

(01:53:56):
think Clarence Thomas will be perfectly happy getting into his
r and driving around the country to be if he
thinks he can be semi anonymous, which I think you
might enjoy that. So now I'm sorry, I haven't thought
about this, but I think you're onto something. And again
you're remaining nameless. But extra credit. Thank you for the

(01:54:19):
great nugget. Next question comes from Chase Carmichael, Little Rock, Arkansas.
I say, chuck, you and Sarah Esker recently said that
dismantling political parties has actually increased partisanship, which sounds backwards
from here in red state country, where everything still feels
very party driven. Can you walk us through how weaker
parties lead to stronger partisans If you take this one,
I'm declaring myself the charter member of the ash Chuck
five Timers Club. And yes I'm buying a jacket. I

(01:54:40):
love it, And yes we've taken this question. So congratulations,
welcome to the ashchuk five Timers Club. Like I said,
I can't wait till my friend Sarah Esker becomes in
five timer. I think if I go back to my
night I meet the press podcasting days, I think we're
up to She's been on three times. So I appreciate

(01:55:04):
you asking this so that we could clarify. So here's
what we mean by weaker parties. So, when McCain fine
Gold passed this was the bipartisan campaign finance Reform. It's
the biggest reform it made was limiting the amount of
money political parties could raise in large chunks. Okay, it

(01:55:26):
was called soft money. Back then you'll hear references to
soft money and hard money. And hard money means you
can essentially coordinate with campaigns and candidates. Soft money. You
can't spend directly on candidate advocacy, but you can spend
it on like operations. You know, you can spend it
on get out the vote costs. You can spend it

(01:55:48):
on office supply stuff. I mean literally, you know, anything
other than direct advocacy for the candidate. And so when
the when the parties were so here's here's why it
turned out to weaken the parties when you were when
you're a candidate running for office, and look, I understand

(01:56:09):
what you're saying in Arkansas, and that if you're in this, look,
parties have. The more local a political party is, there
are places where it is still strong because you've got
to go through the party if you want to maybe
get ballot access, or you've got to go through the
local party if you want to you know, get make
sure you're getting invited to all the key you know,

(01:56:31):
because some of these are you know, you've got to
talk to the super advocates, activists and the super voters
in a local community. So parties certainly have I mean,
I think about the county. I live in Arlington County.
The Arlington County Democrats are are a pretty powerful local entity.
Sometimes behaving a little small, d undemocratic, and some of

(01:56:53):
their aggressive tactics. But the point is the party is
if you want to run for local office and you
want to be on the county board, you try to
go around the party, you're gonna have a hard time. Well,
the national parties had that kind of hold for a
long time before the passage of McCain. Fine Gold. This

(01:57:14):
is one of those where good intentions. So when you're
a Senate Canaider, a presidential candidate and you needed money,
you had to go through the party. So what does
that mean, Well, that gives the party leverage over you.
So take Donald Trump's attack on John McCain and writes
previous at the time was chairman of the RNC, and
he denounced Donald Trump for that, and he said that Republican.

(01:57:37):
You know, John McCain's a republicly in good standing. You know,
if Donald Trump knew he had to go through the
party in order to get, you know, access to donors
and get these things, the party could say, you know, no,
we're not going to fund your candidacy. And if you
couldn't get funded and you had to your your reliance
was unfunding or volunteers was through the party, and the

(01:58:00):
party was not going to help you, then you've essentially
been purged by the party. Right, Yes, you can go around,
but it's much harder to run third party. It's much
harder to get on a ballot in a place where
the party controls access to the ballot and things like that.
And when they took away the biggest thing that the
parties had to offer candidates money and access to it,

(01:58:24):
when it became where the candidates themselves where essentially could
go find their own essentially build their own political parties, right,
find their own sugar daddy. We call them super PACs now.
But that's essentially what happened. So it doesn't change like
we you know, it's still the red versus the blue,
but it weakened parties. I mean, it is the strangest
conundrum to me. Right, we've were more polarized today, right,

(01:58:45):
And as part of it is because our politics is
very negative, meaning you're constantly being told who you shouldn't
vote for. Nobody's being nobody really is running for officing
what they want to do for you. Instead, they're running
for office telling you what that other person's going to
you know, screw how that other person's going to screw you.
So it created you know, we're sort of negative. We
have negative partisanship where people don't like the two parties

(01:59:08):
but they but they're really devoted to not liking one
of the two parties. Right, And that's there there, it's
almost like bizarro Superman. Right, you have Superman bizarro Superman.
You're on the bizarro You're a bizarro Democrat. You're not
pro Democrat, you're just anti Republican. You're a bizarro Republican.
You're not pro Republican, you're just anti Democrat. And that's
what we've become. But taking money away from the party

(01:59:32):
as an institution or as an organization where you had
to go through the party to get access to ballot
and it gave the party the ability to essentially keep
the David Dukes out or keep the the Lindon Larushi's
out right, And every once in a while, those those
people did sneak in. But for the most part, that

(01:59:54):
is what's allowed party, what it allowed parties to do that.
And that's that's what Sarah and I or learning too.
I love that my college football rants have have have

(02:00:14):
seeped into enough of my little ecosystem here that I
feel like almost every question that we get has some
reference to college football these days. So obviously I expressed
before my frustration and anger at the ACC because ultimately
I cannot believe the position that the ACC finds them in,

(02:00:36):
and as a is somebody who's a supporter, a donor,
a booster of the University of Miami athletic department. I am, Okay,
I'm putting all my cards out there. I am. I've
loved them since I was a kid. I've my daughter
is going to be a graduating scene, so yeah, I am.
And yes I write checks. Okay, I I am. I

(02:01:01):
am a booster. I am not a I'm for those
of you that know Miami football, I'm not Nevan Shapiro
level booster. Okay, I'm I'm a middle class booster h
in the in that world. So I consider myself though
a shareholder. This is the way I would look at it.
I feel that kind of I feel like I have

(02:01:23):
some uh and I'm sure I'm not alone. I'm sure
other people who support their support college, their favorite college
football program may feel the same way. And I'm just
appalled at the treatment the ACC has given its members.
It is I think the ACC's lack of you know,

(02:01:44):
they they didn't just not support Florida State when Florida
State got jobbed by ESPN two years ago, and I
love there was this d're in the there's a question
about whether Old miss should be dropped out of the
playoffs since they lost their head coach in Lane Kiffin,
And the chairman of the committee said, well, we don't

(02:02:06):
have a data point. We can't see how they play. Yeah,
because they're not going to play another game unless they
play in the playoff. Well, Florida State played two games
one both of their games without their quarterback. But they said, well,
even though they won, we still don't think they can
be competitive. It was look, I know what they were

(02:02:26):
worried about. They were worried that Florida State was actually
going to beat Michigan in a game that was nine
to seven because the Florida State defense was so good
and the Michigan defense was so good that it wasn't
gonna be very entertaining, and that if they ended up winning,
they probably wouldn't be able to keep up with their
Georgia or keep up with the I think that was
the other The other team in that one. Oh they did.

(02:02:47):
They took Alabama in Texas instead of Florida State. But
you know it is the ACC did really barely lifted
a finger in defending that with Florida State. And remember,
everybody in the conference gets a piece of this postseason
Bowl money, so the ACC really, this is why I

(02:03:10):
hold the leadership so account. I mean, look, no offense
to do by the way. I love Manidaz. I know
him a little bit. I think the way that I
hate the way he was shown the door down in Miami.
He was basically you know, and so I know he is.
You know, he loves the karma that he got to
the ACC title game before Crystal Ball did. But basically,

(02:03:35):
all these donors said they weren't going to donate money
if many Diaz was a coach, but they would donate
money if Mario Cristo Baal was the coach. So it's
just I hated the way that that happened. I'm glad
to see that there's real money now being invested in
this football program. There hasn't been for twenty years. So
but I've been torn about it because I think many
Diaz is a good dude. I think he loves that university.

(02:03:56):
I know he loves you know, And yeah, I felt
I felt my own little connection and I are about
the same age. We both grew up, you know. Our
love for the unuscery of Miami was sort of kate
because we were we were of that age when we
were kids growing up in Miami. I didn't know them
growing up, but I did. I always felt a bit
of a bond with him. So I'm personally really happy

(02:04:17):
for Manidiaz and I'm like, you know, I'm smiling for
him because i know he's you know, there's a little
bit of you know, how do you like me now?
Type of mindset there. So I don't want to denigrate
Duke's football program, but I'm going to denigrate Duke's football program.
They have no they have no business being in this game.

(02:04:38):
And I think, deep down inside, Manidiez knows they have
no business being in this game. Now, Look, the rules
are the rules, and the ridiculous tiebreakers that the conference
decided to create to deal with their seventeen teams and
their conference is what it was. Well, what are you
thinking you had an opportunity to have your two ten
and two teams face off? In here. But you created

(02:04:59):
a convolution system where your overall strength of schedule, your
non conference schedule, has no impact over in a tiebreaker situation.
That's just stupid. It really is stupid. And I have
to tell you if the ACC ends up getting completely
shut out of the College FOOTBA Playoff because Duke wins

(02:05:20):
this game and then James Madison and Tulane both end
up in the playoff, because it's the five highest ranked
conference champions, there's no guarantee for the Power four conferences.
The assumption was all the Power four conferences would have
somebody that would be in that top five. Remember last year,
Clemson didn't get the buy the five conference champions. The

(02:05:42):
bys went to the four highest ranked conference champions in
Boise State. I believe got the buy, not Clemson, right,
because Clemson shouldn't have been in there. That's another one
for their weird tiebreaker situation. Last year's the two highest
ranked ACC teams were Miami and SMU. They should have
faced off, but they created a system that a lot.
And what I want to say to the ACC is,

(02:06:05):
do you want to make your members any money? Do
you want to have to stop ESPN screwing you? All
the time with its coverage of the SEC versus how
they treat you as a business partner. And that's what
I don't get and I have to tell you, I
think there's a strong argument to be made that Miami,
Florida State, SMU, Clemson, North Carolina, and Virginia Tech to

(02:06:28):
say we're out. Maybe I'd bring a Georgia Tech in
Atlanta and Callen Stanford. I go and just get out
of the s ACC. Form your own sort of negotiate
your own TV contract. There's other TV contracts out there.
I think you can get a better deal each Each
school would get more money than what they're getting out

(02:06:51):
of there because you wouldn't have to have the the
you know, the the weaker football programs that don't generate
much revenue from the for the ACC, and just get
out of the ACC because the ACC is not looking
Miami can't sustain being a major power in football stuck
in the ACC. They either have to get out and
become an independent again, go join one of the two

(02:07:13):
major conferences, or see if there's a third way here.
Because it's clear and lets you know that unless unlet's
the university Presidency of ACC realize that they have that
this has been a catastrophic failure of leadership by the conference,
just catastrophic, costing every school millions of dollars. That's the

(02:07:34):
thing here. This is not just angry fan Chuck Todd here,
I'm looking. This is a financial thing. This is hurting
the bottom line. This is costing every member of the
conference money, and that trickles down. It's going to hurt
in your ability to compete for players. It's going to
hurt your ability to convince players to come if they

(02:07:55):
be getting into the college football playoff matters. None of
it is helpful, and I'd like to see a little
a little bit more urgency from the university presidents of
the of the football programs that care in the a CEC.
And that's part of the problem. It's only about half
the conference that does. The other half doesn't give a shit,
which is why you know there isn't more anger at

(02:08:15):
at the leader of the at the commissioner of the
a CEC. But that's got to change. Now let's go
to the rankings. I you know, the perception of the
SEC versus the reality the SEC really frustrates me. Oklahoma,
I mean Oaklahm and Alabama are just being automatically assumed
to be you know, there they are their locks, but

(02:08:37):
Notre Dame in Miami less, So what what's the what? Where?
Where is Alabama? They've played one good half of football,
the first half against Georgia. They almost pissed that game away.
I think they scored three points the entire second half
of that game, or maybe zero if memory serves. Let's

(02:08:58):
just say, i'm i'm I'm hoping for a two or
three score Georgia win on this one. If I think,
if they expose Alabama for being who they've mostly been,
which is kind of a more like they were last year.
You know, they've shown flashes of being a good playoff
caliber team, but not that many. But again, they carry
a brand name Oklahoma. My god, all right, look they've

(02:09:21):
got some good wins, right it? But who wants to
watch that putrid offense? And you know, kind of like
Miami last year, the you know, the best on the field.
You know, the best argument against Miami was, yeah, they
have a great offense, they don't have a championship defense.
So if they're on the bubble, no, well that to

(02:09:43):
me is Oklahoma. They have a championship defense, but they
don't have a championship offense and it's not even close,
and they're you know, there may might win a game,
but you know, depending on a matchup, that's it. So
if you're gonna hold Miami to account like that, that's
the way Oklahoma should be held to account. But they
they've got their magical victory against Alabama, and it's like
pay no attention, you know, you know, it's like a

(02:10:05):
Jedi mind trick, right, just like Alabama has this victory
over Georgia and it's like, never mind the Jedi mind trick.
And then there's this total like perception that the ACC
is garbage. Well, this garbage conference. Georgia Tech was one
score game, had a chance to win that game in
the last five minutes of the fourth quarter against Georgia.
Louisville blows out Kentucky, a team that took Texas to overtime.

(02:10:30):
You had Clemson whipping South Carolina. You've had If you
compare Miami and Alabama, they have one common opponent, Florida State.
Miami b Florida State. Alabama lost Florida State. So it
is it is frustrating to me that it is Miami

(02:10:50):
and Notre Dame that are in this sort of shootout
with each other when realistically they both probably belong and
in fact, you want to know the single highest rated
first round game you would have in the playoff. I mean,
if this truly is a TV show and ESPN executives
are just thinking about ratings, how about an eight to
nine matchup of Notre Dame at Miami at South Bend

(02:11:13):
and let's settle it. Let's settle this debate right here
and there. Now, the possibility of that, I think is
very very low. It does appear that. Look, if Alabama
and BYU get blown out, you know, both lose by
two or more scores. I think there's a scenario that

(02:11:34):
both Miami and Notre Dame get in, but that's in
that's I think that's a long shot. Now, if you
tell me that Notre Dame and Miami are ranked right
next to each other, Let's say Alabama gets blown out

(02:11:55):
and it's Notre Dame at ten Miami at eleven, or
they're back to back, and let's say Duke does win
that game and they're not going to make the playoff,
and ACC is going to get shut out and they're
leaving Miami on the cutting room floor and taking Notre Dame.
I think that's going I actually think that won't happen, right,

(02:12:17):
I think that there's a So I'm not saying I'm
optimistic Mimi's going to make the playoff, but I think
the chances are about one. I saw the odds are
sort of five to one. I think the odd should
be about three to one because I think under you know, shoot,
if I'm not convinced that if BYU beats Texas Tech,
that Texas Tech is a playoff team, I know some

(02:12:39):
people are, so I think regardless, I think if the
loser of the Big twelve game has a shot at
not making it the playoff at all. It all depends,
I think, on the margin of Georgia and Alabama. So
I'm I am, I'm frustrated. I don't know what this

(02:13:01):
committee is watching. I think if you set the precedent
that head to head doesn't matter, then what the hell
are we doing? It will make scheduling interconference games that
much harder. If you make these head to heads not
only not matter as a positive, but end up like
it feels like it's a negative. Right, you risk a

(02:13:22):
loss where the loss could punish you, but but the
wind doesn't get you anything. I mean, this is the
logic of the college football Playoff Committee just drives me nuts.
The idea that a loss matters more than a win,
because basically, in all of these scenarios, when they're differentiating
these teams, they're trying to make the case, well, this
is a better loss. Your losses are crappier than their losses. Well,

(02:13:47):
you know this is like I rolled my eyes when
the rationale the guy gave for Alabama for Alabama getting
moved ahead of Notre Dame was boy, they were in
a tough rivalry game on the road and Stauburn. Well
you know what frustrates me is Miami just gets you know,
their two losses are just getting well, they just lost
to a couple of medioc acc teams. Well, maybe what

(02:14:10):
you don't know is that the Louisville game is a
freaking trophy game, all right. And it's a trophy because
Louisville wanted to make a trophy game. It's for the
Howard Schnellenberger Trophy because Howard Snellenberger coach both teams. Well, look,
Miami doesn't Miami does not see Louisville's arrival. Louisville. Literally,
Miami is the second most important football program they play
after Kentucky. And I would bet that the Louisville football

(02:14:31):
partisans would say the Miami game means more to them.
They lobbied the ACC to make Miami one of their
every year opponents. That's how important Miami is this to
Louisville's status. So sorry if you don't think much of
the ACC. But Louisville cared so much about that game.
They put everything, you know, half their season was devoted

(02:14:53):
to trying to win the Miami game. Did it with
SMU So you know, I'm not I'm not gonna look
Mimi should have won both games. They blew it. Okay,
they absolutely blew it. But if you're going to sit
here and rationalize all these other you know, oh boy,
the SEC and these tough games, and boy boy Texas
A and M good for them for pulling out a

(02:15:15):
game against South Carolina team that loses to Clemson, who's
one of you know, a mid level sort of you know,
wasn't even good enough to tie Duke in the conference
in the conference standings. That it's this is because we
have created this perception that whatever happens in the SEC
is amazing, and if the same things happen in other

(02:15:38):
conferences is proof that that conference is weak. But when
it happens in the SEC, it's proof that the SEC
is tough. It's just a bunch of nonsense. And when
you're not a member, and every one of my friends
who are SEC people, they all drink this SEC kool aid,
and you're just like, Okay, you know what. Miami just
went on the road beat pitt in cold Yeah. Often,

(02:16:01):
Miami's done that. I can't remember them ever playing a
game that well in that cold weather. But did this
committee think that was an impressive showing anyway? It just
it's it's a bunch of bias bullshit. This committee is
not using metrics. They're sort of caught. And that's another thing. Right,

(02:16:22):
if they didn't rank any of these teams at all
all year long, and the first ranking they put together
was the one going into this week, I promise you
Oklahoma is not in the top ten because when you
look at Oklahoma into totality and you compare them. But
the problem is they release these rankings every week and
in some ways they're stuck with the ranking that they

(02:16:44):
initially give. When you realize the body of work, the
longer you go, you're like, Oklahoma's not a top ten team.
They have a record, good for them, but they're not
a top ten team, and it's you know, it's just
this whole thing sucks, and it sucks. The only thing.
The reason I complain about it so much is there
is a pattern that win in doubt. This committee screws

(02:17:06):
the ACC. They did it in twenty three, they did
it in twenty four, and it looks like they're going
to do it again in twenty five. And I'd like
to see somebody, whether it's university presidents or somebody else,
stand up and demand some accountability from the leadership of
the ACC. Now it should be a fun weekend of

(02:17:29):
college football champions Championships. I can't actually think Friday is
going to be amazing. I can't wait to watch Tulane
in North Texas get ready to be fully entertained. I'm pulling.
I got more of my son's friends are at Tulane
and my daughter's friends are Tulane, so we're Tulane advocates
in this house. I couldn't be a bigger Georgia Bulldog fan,

(02:17:51):
So let's go Georgia Bulldogs over Alabama. I think I'm
rooting for Texas Tech. I don't or it may not
matter if it's if BYU were Texas Tech wins, as
long as whoever wins wins by margin. What I don't
think what Miami could affords a close game, and considering
what this committee is doing and the big disappointment for me,
and by the way, there's a part of me that

(02:18:12):
is pulling for Duke to win this championship game. At
this point, I know it's better for the conference if
to guarantee a spot in the playoff for UV to win.
And I got friends that love their who's and all
that stuff, but I kind of want leadership of the
ACC to have to eat this shit sandwich. So and
you know, there's something, like I said, I'm happy for

(02:18:33):
Manny Das that he gets this, that he's having this
moment considering the uncomfortable way that I think and the
kind of shoddy way that I think the University of
Miami forced him out the door. So the big thing
I wish the Ohio State Indiana game meant something like
we should be more excited about this game than any

(02:18:55):
game all season long. It's one versus two, undefeated versus undefeated.
But honestly, do you put everything you need to in
that game knowing that you have the playoff coming up?
So this is a reminder. I have a new idea.
I think these conference championship games shouldn't go to the
top if you're going to be in the playoff. We

(02:19:18):
should instead go ahead and keep the conference titles, but
match up your bubble teams, right, So let's put Alabama
and Oklahoma and the SEC title game. Let's put Miami
and UVA and the ACC title game. Let's put USC
and I guess you would say Oregon in the Big

(02:19:39):
Ten title game, right like you do it? So that
it is the bubble teams, you get to either play
your way in and winning the conference means you don't
have to play that extra conference championship game. Just a thought.
We certainly got to do something about those championship games.
All right. I hope you enjoy the weekend. I really
want to enjoy the game on the field. I am

(02:19:59):
petrof of noon on Sunday when we hear what the
ESPN Invitational Committee decides to do. But with that, have
a great weekend.

All Episodes

Full Episode - Americans Have Become Numb To Trump’s Horrific Behavior + Can The GOP Be Saved From Trump’s Moral Decay?

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Full Episode - Americans Have Become Numb To Trump’s Horrific Behavior + Can The GOP Be Saved From Trump’s Moral Decay?