Former U.S. Senator Jack Danforth joins the Chuck ToddCast for a candid and sweeping conversation about the crisis inside the Republican Party and the decay of American politics. Danforth explains why he’s devoted his later years to trying to rehabilitate the GOP—even as he admits the effort may be futile—and argues that Congress has devolved into a stage for self-promotion rather than a forum for legislating. He and Chuck explore how weak parties coexist with fierce partisan loyalty, how smartphones and grievance politics have poisoned public discourse, and why the joy has drained from public service. Danforth reflects on the GOP’s transformation from the “family party” into one defined by division, how Christians have been pushed into a persecution mindset, and why Trump has inflicted deeper damage on the country than any single figure in U.S. history.
The conversation turns to the future: whether leaders like James Lankford can spark a moral revival within the GOP, what true conservatism should stand for after being hollowed out by MAGA, and why Republican voters deserve a candidate who actually reflects traditional conservative principles. Danforth and Chuck also dig into constitutional reform, the filibuster, the politicization of the judiciary, and Congress’s abdication on major issues like Social Security and Medicare. Ultimately, Danforth makes the case that America must rediscover kindness, character, and a sense of shared identity if it hopes to govern itself the way the founders intended.
Go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order.
Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life!
Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win!
Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary.
Timeline:
(Timestamps may vary based on advertisements)
00:00 Senator Jack Danforth joins the Chuck ToddCast
01:30 Why he’s focused on rehabilitating the Republican party
02:15 We need to restore the role of congress
03:15 Congress has become about self-promotion over legislating
04:30 The parties are weak, but partisan loyalty is strong
05:45 What could moderate both parties?
07:45 Rehabilitating the Republican party might be futile
10:00 Politics has become incredibly ugly, aggrieved and bitter
11:00 The joy has left politics
11:30 Republicans were the “family party”, now has ICE breaking them up
12:45 Christians have been whipped up into a persecution complex
14:15 The country hoped Joe Biden would serve as a healer
15:45 Smartphones have warped political discourse (AUDIO ISSUE)
16:30 There has to be a focus on “who we are as a people”
17:00 Trump has caused more damage to U.S. than any other person
18:15 James Lankford could be a leader in moral revival of GOP
20:30 We need to show kindness to people on the other side of the aisle
21:15 We as a people, are not like Donald Trump
22:45 Trump’s governance and style are not conservative
23:15 Conservatism has lost all meaning in the era of MAGA
25:30 Republican voters need to be offered a truly conservative candidate
26:45 The GOP is now a “strong government” party, not “small government”
27:30 “Our Republican Legacy” is trying to restore traditional GOP
29:00 Does the Republican party stand for anything anymore?
30:30 There are enough shellshocked Americans to get constitutional changes
31:30 Why a constitutional convention would be a bad idea
33:00 The founders trusted us to govern ourselves
34:15 The founders did fear the voter, and added checks to their power
35:45 Money isn’t the same as speech, and it’s corrupted our politics
37:30 Congress must retain the power to tax
39:30 GOP congress has mostly been on vacation and doing TV hits
41:15 Congress is doing nothing to solve the insolvency of social security
42:30 Medicare cuts are coming if congress doesn’t act
44:30 The public learned things during the deliberations over Obamacare
45
Mark as Played
Transcript
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. So joining me now is
who's frankly has got the passion that I'm trying to
(01:49):
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 are the
(02:10):
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 what I
(02:31):
call for a pastor for patriotism. I feel like America
needs somebody to help us. They're just sort of renew
civics and renew sort of what we understood America to be.
That it was an idea, it's not an ethnicity, there's
(02:51):
not a religious thing. 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 breadth
it right, trust me, we all want to be twenty.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Three other reasons. Yeah, yes, so.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
But your your focus is trying to rehabilitate the Republican Party.
Walk me through what your focus is.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Yeah, I mean, I guess the broad picture is pretty
much as you present it. 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
(03:36):
of 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,
(03:58):
I think is restore 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.
(04:19):
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
(04:42):
amount to much of anything now, much less not being
a place where different interests work things out. A lot
of people, a lot of people have said that the
basic role of now a member of Congress has performative
that is, self promotion rather than legislating part of it.
And then the second part of the sort of creating
(05:03):
the venue 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
(05:24):
faced with the choice, and the choices to two alternatives,
neither of which they want. You know, one would be
the far left, one would be now the Republican Party,
the maga right. And so the idea is, Okay, where
do people come together? Well, most people are in the center,
So let's restore that center.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
So this is the conundrum I have, which is, let me,
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 pull of the two of the red
and the blue. Right has never been stronger. Right, The
(06:08):
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 rn C would become the chief
of staff at the first Trump presidency. I say this
with no disrespect to rights previous. I think he's a
(06:29):
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
(06:50):
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
(07:11):
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 (07:32):
Well, actually, I've tried both of both approaches. 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 candidate really
(07:57):
was is a true ditional Republican, you know, I mean,
you would just say Okay.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Wait, by the way, John Bailey and I work together.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Oh yeah, okay, back in the day. 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.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
So, I mean the history and the 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
(08:51):
determined in primaries, and that means 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 in their way of thinking and
approaching things, and that the idea is to appeal to them.
(09:13):
So that's my focus has been on trying to restore
that traditional Republican party. Maybe maybe it's feudal. I don't know,
I just don't.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Well, let me ask you this about the party. I
always comfort myself by reminding people that the 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, and in fact,
I think we're about to see the I think the
coalition is cracking. I think we're and part of it
(09:48):
is just the passage of time. I mean, I think
you've you've been through a lot of these periods where
there's these cultive personalities that have a grip on the
nation of the country or a part. But the grip
basically is a decade, and it is tough to ever
hold on beyond it. Right, Reagan's grip basically didn't last
(10:11):
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 (10:16):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
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
(10:37):
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 (10:45):
Right, Well, I'm I'm not quite that old, No.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
But you were, but you were familiar with them. You
were familiar with them back then.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Yeah, sure, yeah, yeah, you know what here's here is
and maybe this maybe I'm just Pollyanna, you know, but
I think that it's not just that. Do people say, okay,
(11:16):
you know 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 (11:37):
Mean.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
And I think 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
(12:05):
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.
(12:26):
I mean, they're just good, decent people.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
And does it matter if you're in the rural parts
of Missouri seven or the inner city know, and.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
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 a cruel
(13:00):
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. I know
(13:23):
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. Are we
that kind of country? Are we that kind of country
(13:46):
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. I think that if there's
a way, and I've been thinking about how to do
this as a matter of fact, if there's a way
(14:08):
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,
(14:30):
I mean crimea river. Christians are supposed to feel they're victims,
They're being pushed around. The elites are out to get them,
governments out to give them please. Are we really is it?
Is it sustainable to stoke up that kind of grievance,
(14:54):
feeling 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
(15:16):
they are them.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
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 I covered
(15:41):
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. Yeah, 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
(16:02):
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
(16:24):
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 (16:31):
You know?
Speaker 1 (16:31):
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
(16:53):
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 is, it's 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
(17:14):
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 (17:30):
Yeah, I mean, I think that's right. And there's been
a lot of commentary about that. It's a great book
called The Anxious Generation. I'm just that about the effect
that the iPhone is having, especially on on younger people,
and I think that all that's true, And I don't know,
(17:53):
I 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
(18:15):
cruel as people? Or are we not? And I think
that that that effort will call for a lot of us,
and it will call for the media, We'll call for
anybody who's got.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Well, what do you do if the sitting president of
the United States does not agree with that assise?
Speaker 2 (18:35):
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 it was, and
(18:57):
I think it's got to be more than just top end.
I think it's got to be bottomed up. I think
it's got to be the American people being faced through
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?
(19:17):
And so how to sustain that well, I can think
of how to do it in bits and pieces.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
In This episode of The Chuck Podcast is brought to
you by Wildgrain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
Frozen subscription box for our teasonal breads, seasonal pastries, and
fresh pastas, plus all items conveniently bake in twenty five
minutes or less. Unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain
(19:44):
uses simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation
process that can be easier on your belly and richer
in nutrients and antioxidants. Wildgrain's boxes are fully customizable. They're
constantly adding seasonal and limited time 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
(20:06):
out the gluten free box and let me tell you,
they have a gluten free sourdough bread.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
It is.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
We got two loads 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 hit 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. Wildgrain is
(20:33):
offering our listeners thirty dollars off your first box, plus
free croissants in every box when you go to wildgrain
dot com slash podcast 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 toodcast
that's wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or simply use the
promo code toodcast at check out. Always use the code
(20:57):
get the discount. 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 conversations 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
(21:20):
They're the 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 his
(21:42):
in who he is, who is 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
I how much grace I give certain senators. I'll give
(22:03):
him more grace 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 (22:21):
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
(22:43):
own and if you put, if you put to the
American but 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 necessary. It would be wonderful it
would come for the present and wonderful of more political leaders.
(23:05):
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?
(23:27):
How about that? Right? I mean any other way around? Right?
No anything, And they're you know, so, I mean there
could be a real effort. It could be led by
religious congregations, and it should be because the root of
the word religion is the same as for ligament, holding
(23:48):
things together. 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
(24:11):
person up 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
(24:31):
what we're really right and we're not like this. I
know that, I absolutely know that we as a people
are not like Donald Trump. I know that.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
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 fract 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
(25:10):
where he's getting involved in the Honduran 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 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 didn't vote
(25:33):
for this. We didn't vote for Ukraine, or Israel or Venezuela.
And we know that Trump's a transactionalist. 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 dabble in this over there, and the
Middle East Royalty loves me and so and it's actually
(25:56):
counter to what he promised his constituents.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
But it hasn't broken 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. None of it. It's not. I mean,
(26:20):
we used to think of ourselves 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 not. Jack.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
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, right now, it's just
(27:03):
a label that's a fixed on anything Trump.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Yeah, I know that's true, But I mean we've got
to reclaim it. And that's what our 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
(27:30):
involvement in the economy, which was high protective caress Ronald
Reagan rolling over in his grave?
Speaker 1 (27:38):
Can you believe how many pieces of companies the US
government now has.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
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
(28:04):
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 it's the
(28:29):
opposite of what our party was, has been, and what
I think if faced with it. But that's why I
think it's important to field candidates and hopefully in the
presidential election. Also maybe the person would lose, so he loses,
she loses, whatever, but at least present it to Republican voters.
(28:55):
How do you feel about huge deficits that are growing?
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?
(29:16):
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
(29:38):
historically as the conservative party, which it isn't anymore.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
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
(30:06):
one that is I always say, this is not a
small government Republican party. This is a strong government.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
Republican You bet. It's really remarkable as a matter of
fact that I remember when I was a kid, somebody
said this to me. There they're really it is like
a convergence in a circle of the extreme right of
the extreme life right.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
Eventually they touched.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Yes, it's it's that, that's right. But 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 to plant the flag for a principle. But not
enough people are doing it. Not enough people are really
(30:52):
putting the issue. So that's what I think we should
do it. Maybe maybe Hally's right. We are the party
of big government and writing two thousand dollars checks to
people and all of that. Maybe we've become a maybe
that's the way to be popular. A lot of people
(31:13):
historically in politics think this is the way to become popular,
way to win elections is to give it away.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
Checking in every pot.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
Right, remember that that's right. That comfrequent Hubert Humphrey 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 isn't
powerful enough now, and it doesn't abuse your enemies the
(31:46):
way it should and it should do more of that.
So that yeah, So that's that, 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
(32:08):
person necessarily had to win for his or her ego,
but just put the question to people, who are we
as a people and what are we as a party?
What do we stand for? Do we stand for anything anymore? Anything?
Speaker 1 (32:31):
So should we have more? I mean, do you think
you know this is?
Speaker 2 (32:35):
This is?
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Well, let me start with this. I'm obsessed with having
a constitutional 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 we hit a low Civil War being the lowest
we've we've actually that's always the moment we've actually amended
(32:59):
our Constitution. We created more equal protect Essentially, the equal
protection clause comes in after the Civil War.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
We have mead the Constitution. We didn't have any convention
to do it.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
No, that's true, but I don't trust this Congress 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
(33:34):
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
(33:56):
constitution to take away the power of the part to
an individual. I mean, this is the abuse of the
pardon processes is clearly I think turned out to be
a problem. Maybe we do term limits, maybe we do this.
What do you do? You think we need a moment
here where? And if the reason, I like a constitutional
(34:17):
convention because I 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.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Terrible idea.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
Oh, you don't want it. You think it's okay, tell
me why?
Speaker 2 (34:45):
No?
Speaker 1 (34:45):
No, okay?
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Because I think that our constitution is a work of genius.
I do too, and I think that our guiding principle
is a principle of genius. And the principle is it's
(35:13):
the famous what five words and the declaration of independence.
All men 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,
(35:38):
are capable of governing ourselves. 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 big
(36:05):
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
(36:28):
we just have to insist on that. And that's it's
not a new principle, it's our principle.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
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, do you.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Know, Well maybe yeah, amendments, But that's not counc usual convention.
What I mean the first Constitution.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
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,
the first Constitutional Convention was presided over by George Washington.
What if then another countutional convention was provided side by
Donald Trump?
Speaker 2 (37:12):
Well, I don't.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
I've heard that. I get that. I don't want to
fear the voter. Sometimes I do think we make certain
decisions like we fear, we fear the voter.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
Right.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
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,
(37:46):
the voter is in charge.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
Okay, should please do it by months?
Speaker 1 (37:50):
And now, 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
(38:10):
you want to have any limitation, you're going to have
to 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
(38:31):
at it as founder's intent and the House of Representatives
is 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 (38:55):
Yeah. I mean, no, I understand what you're saying, and
I think they're 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 that
(39:19):
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 now I understand
(39:40):
that I haven't thought about a constitutional amendment on the
germandering or increasing the sides of the House. I just
don't have any.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
And I get that those are my hobby horses.
Speaker 2 (39:55):
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 (40:15):
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.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
Of our It removes them, Yeah, it really removes them.
But it basically says that the president has absolute power
to do anything. He can do anything he wants if
he wants. He could paint the White House orange, and
by the way, he might decide to do that, you know, Yeah,
(40:44):
it's 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 attacks that
that can be given away.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
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,
(41:24):
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
(41:45):
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. Why do you
think it's been so hard to get Congress to flexits?
(42:08):
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 they think the first
administration that will execute those laws is one that they
(42:29):
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 (42:50):
Yeah. Well, I mean, I think even back in ancient history,
namely when I was around, the way to bridge what
seemed to be a reconcilable differences in the writing of
legislation is to bridge it with fuzz. So ambiguity is
(43:18):
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 be an interesting question to put two members in Congress.
(43:44):
What are you doing? Well? What is it? Please? What
is your job?
Speaker 1 (43:49):
Tell me?
Speaker 2 (43:50):
Tell me what you've done other than say get on
Fox News or put something on social media? What what?
What have you done other than take many many vacations?
I mean the vacation done. I mean now Thanksgiving, Christmas
(44:14):
is coming, 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. Well,
I was joking.
Speaker 1 (44:27):
A three day weekend, a three day weekend for the
rest of us is always a two week.
Speaker 2 (44:32):
Recess, unbelievable. And 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 is
(45:01):
producing something other than what Donald Trump wants you to produce,
So don't do it.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
Well, take take health Care's where's the legislators trying to
come up with a plan to deal with the expiring
healthcare subsidies. Where's there a health and if your publican
party is an alternative plan, show me the process.
Speaker 2 (45:24):
What are you doing about the pending and solvency of
the Social Security Trust Fund? When it comes, which is
scheduled to become in eight years, social security benefits will
drop by sixty six hundred dollars.
Speaker 1 (45:42):
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 (46:03):
Yeah, and the nice thing about being my 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, the national debt and then related issues
(46:24):
the pending and solvency 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
(46:46):
in medicare you think we're all hospitals have suffered because
of Medicaid cuts. Wait till the Medicare cuts come. So,
I mean, these are are huge problems that are going
to affect people. And is Congress doing anything about this?
(47:09):
The answer is nothing, punt. You know what they'll end
up doing. They will end up appointing a condition. Now,
I was Bob carry from Nebraska and I were the
co chairs of something called the Carrie Danforth Commission in
(47:29):
nineteen ninety four to deal with these problems?
Speaker 1 (47:34):
Was this a successor to the old wasn't there a
Moni Han Commission before that? Wasn't this yours was a
successor to what moynihan was a part of, right during Reagan?
But there was wondering Reaganimpson bowls. I remember Simpson balls
after that?
Speaker 2 (47:49):
So and what happened to those?
Speaker 1 (47:52):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (47:53):
So, Tanaschel, So we have now we we have a
we have it's been created. The name of it is Congress.
It's not named carried in for their Simpson bulls. It's
called Congress. So here's my idea. What would happen if
(48:18):
Congress would cancel just one of its vacation times, just one,
it could keep the other eight or nine or whatever
of them. Yeah, cancel one and just deal with these problems.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
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
(48:56):
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 (49:04):
Or or the alternative and the alternative. Why not just
have a little back room politics among real politicians and decide, okay,
we'll come out of this with something.
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Right, as you the way it worked. When people want
something to pass, you find reasons to support legislation. When
you wanted not to pass, you can find reasons not
to support.
Speaker 2 (49:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
I'm sure every vote you cast in the affirmative you
could have made the case to go against your go
against that vote if that's what you wanted.
Speaker 2 (49:40):
To do, right, Yeah, I guess I don't know.
Speaker 1 (49:45):
The point is, everything's a compromise everything. How often did
you vote for a perfect bill?
Speaker 2 (49:51):
Okay, No, that is exactly right. And that's how it
was designed. I mean that is how the frame that
the Constitution designed it. They designed it, They designed the
legislative process. It's a place of.
Speaker 1 (50:07):
Compromise, and it was supposed to be incrementalism.
Speaker 2 (50:10):
They designed it as they designed it as sausage making. Yeah,
and I happen to think sausage making is a good
thing to do.
Speaker 1 (50:19):
Yes, And you don't want to worry.
Speaker 2 (50:20):
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, a prim rib. It's going to be sausage.
Speaker 1 (50:31):
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. Yeah, I'm a
I've obsessively read Federalist seventy eight, which is Hamilton's defense
of the of the judiciary, and most importantly, of what
(50:54):
he thinks will make a good judiciary. He's essentially outlining
heap he comes. He comes out against the election of judges.
He says, you can't have these as elections. 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 they don't.
(51:15):
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 liberal
justice it only thinks about being a liberal before being
(51:38):
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, I think everybody's
(51:58):
got dirty hands here. But what would you what would
be a better way to create our judiciary. I don't
like fifty votes. I 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 wrote
(52:19):
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 (52:31):
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 away. I thought that,
(52:56):
you know, when I was around, like Supreme Court nomination,
it was all about, 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?
Are they an row versus way? It was viewed as
a policy making branch of government. It was not created
(53:20):
to be that. It was crazy an arbiter right. It
was yes, And the meaning of judicial conservatism as opposed
to political conservatism is judicial restraint. It's judges saying, wait
a second, if we're going to get into deciding a case,
(53:43):
it has to be based on the clear understanding of
the meaning of the Constitution and not broadening the constitution
to the point where I've got a freehand 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.
(54:06):
I know that. You know, I was 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 (54:20):
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 (54:29):
It was you know, he used to work for me. Yes,
that was 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
(54:50):
saw the suffering of the human being at that time.
I can say that that process was you want a
good weight loss program? Yeah? That did it? That Thamas? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (55:04):
So yeah, do you did that process scar him? Do
you think it changed his views?
Speaker 2 (55:13):
No? I you know, amazingly, No, I don't. I think
he is. I think the sort of the presentation of
him was sort of this scowling he's the opposite he is.
Speaker 1 (55:32):
I've heard this from people who know him, his friends,
that he's a jolly guy.
Speaker 2 (55:35):
He's really a good guy, the jokester guy. From people
who have clerked, from other Supreme Court justices, that Clarence
is the most popular justice among all the clerks in
the Supreme Court building. He's he's just a good guy,
(55:58):
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 he
confirmed anymore.
Speaker 1 (56:14):
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 Council'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,
(56:36):
he said, 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
(56:57):
that can be damaging.
Speaker 2 (56:58):
In the Yeah, because in different moments understand that. I
think that's right. I think, you know, necessity maybe the
mother of invention here is, how are we going to
confirm anybody? No, there are people, there are people in
the Senate now who simply vote against nominees for the
(57:19):
other party. They just automatic quotes against them. Right. You know,
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 uh Carter and the
first part of Clinton.
Speaker 1 (57:40):
And all of Reagan, so basically years of twelve years
of another right one.
Speaker 2 (57:45):
Yeah, but all of these, including like six years of
nominees for the person of the other party, only twice
I ever voted against the nominee. I mean, I just said, okay,
this is the president's now. These people just automatically, yeah,
(58:06):
vote against them.
Speaker 1 (58:08):
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 the reconciliation process.
What was created as sort of a as you you
(58:28):
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
(58:50):
a part of the generation. I'm going to 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 rilibuster rule be if in your
in your vision of it, regardless of what it is, now,
(59:12):
what would well, how.
Speaker 2 (59:14):
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 do think it's overused. I think we never
thought that way. But I do think that it's important
(59:36):
to retain the filibuster. I do believe that because otherwise
that you just have these wild gyrations. Right, who's in
the majority at a given time, and the filibuster at
least forces some degree of bipartisanship that otherwise wouldn't exist
(59:57):
at all.
Speaker 1 (59:58):
Yeah, well, what's the goal in twenty twenty six of
restore Republican legacy? What would be a good year as
far as your concern.
Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
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 conservative principles that define the
(01:00:29):
Republican Party. We're organizing at the statewide level, We're recruiting
state chairs, and then increasingly we're going to get in
the business of trying to influence and support conservative basic Republicans,
(01:00:51):
fundamental Republicans, traditional Republicans in elections, both for party positions,
party organizational positions, and for elections themselves. So I hope
that we will, you know, have a team on the field,
and I hope that I hope that there will be
some candidates. I just heard of one yesterday and Nebraska,
(01:01:17):
and mostly I don't know these people themselves, but that's
what we're looking for. People who are good, responsible conservatives,
which is not what mega is today.
Speaker 1 (01:01:32):
And by conservative you mean less government, not more government, right,
I mean government not involved in business. I mean what
what what you know any other principles you would add
into that?
Speaker 2 (01:01:47):
Yeah, yeah, well, I mean, uh, certainly fiscal hawks right.
Certainly limited role for government and its intervention with the
private sector and the economy, and universities at law firms
and all of that. Certainly, respect for the rule of law,
(01:02:07):
which means not weaponizing government against political enemies. Certainly, respect
for the constitutional order, which means not the extreme concentration
of power in the president. Certainly a national defense second
(01:02:28):
to none. And also a foreign policy that supports our
our friends and our allies that would include Ukraine. All
of that comprises the Republican Party as it has existed
(01:02:49):
for decades and decades and decades. All 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 (01:03:12):
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 (01:03:27):
You know.
Speaker 1 (01:03:29):
Look, I can tell you this, Senator dan Forth. I
always tell you as a as a high character person,
and I thought that was an asset in American politics,
and the high character people are 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 (01:03:48):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (01:03:50):
Anyway, good luck, enjoy the rest of the holiday season,
and I'll check back in closer we get to the election.
Speaker 2 (01:03:57):
Good thanks, Jech.
Speaker 1 (01:04:02):
Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out
of Office gives you the social buzz without the next
day regret. Their 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 fit your vibe, from a
gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their newest
(01:04:23):
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 is a wellness brand that
believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes
(01:04:43):
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, Soul also
has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply
help you get a better night's sleep, including their top
selling sleepy gummies and favorite for deep restorative sleep. So
bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today.
(01:05:05):
Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off
your entire order, So go to gitsold dot com use
the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code that's getsold
dot Com promo code podcast for thirty percent off
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. So joining me now is
who's frankly has got the passion that I'm trying to
(01:49):
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 are the
(02:10):
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 what I
(02:31):
call for a pastor for patriotism. I feel like America
needs somebody to help us. They're just sort of renew
civics and renew sort of what we understood America to be.
That it was an idea, it's not an ethnicity, there's
(02:51):
not a religious thing. 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 breadth
it right, trust me, we all want to be twenty.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Three other reasons. Yeah, yes, so.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
But your your focus is trying to rehabilitate the Republican Party.
Walk me through what your focus is.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Yeah, I mean, I guess the broad picture is pretty
much as you present it. 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
(03:36):
of 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,
(03:58):
I think is restore 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.
(04:19):
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
(04:42):
amount to much of anything now, much less not being
a place where different interests work things out. A lot
of people, a lot of people have said that the
basic role of now a member of Congress has performative
that is, self promotion rather than legislating part of it.
And then the second part of the sort of creating
(05:03):
the venue 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
(05:24):
faced with the choice, and the choices to two alternatives,
neither of which they want. You know, one would be
the far left, one would be now the Republican Party,
the maga right. And so the idea is, Okay, where
do people come together? Well, most people are in the center,
So let's restore that center.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
So this is the conundrum I have, which is, let me,
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 pull of the two of the red
and the blue. Right has never been stronger. Right, The
(06:08):
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 rn C would become the chief
of staff at the first Trump presidency. I say this
with no disrespect to rights previous. I think he's a
(06:29):
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
(06:50):
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
(07:11):
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 (07:32):
Well, actually, I've tried both of both approaches. 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 candidate really
(07:57):
was is a true ditional Republican, you know, I mean,
you would just say Okay.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Wait, by the way, John Bailey and I work together.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Oh yeah, okay, back in the day. 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.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
So, I mean the history and the 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
(08:51):
determined in primaries, and that means 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 in their way of thinking and
approaching things, and that the idea is to appeal to them.
(09:13):
So that's my focus has been on trying to restore
that traditional Republican party. Maybe maybe it's feudal. I don't know,
I just don't.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Well, let me ask you this about the party. I
always comfort myself by reminding people that the 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, and in fact,
I think we're about to see the I think the
coalition is cracking. I think we're and part of it
(09:48):
is just the passage of time. I mean, I think
you've you've been through a lot of these periods where
there's these cultive personalities that have a grip on the
nation of the country or a part. But the grip
basically is a decade, and it is tough to ever
hold on beyond it. Right, Reagan's grip basically didn't last
(10:11):
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 (10:16):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
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
(10:37):
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 (10:45):
Right, Well, I'm I'm not quite that old, No.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
But you were, but you were familiar with them. You
were familiar with them back then.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Yeah, sure, yeah, yeah, you know what here's here is
and maybe this maybe I'm just Pollyanna, you know, but
I think that it's not just that. Do people say, okay,
(11:16):
you know 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 (11:37):
Mean.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
And I think 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
(12:05):
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.
(12:26):
I mean, they're just good, decent people.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
And does it matter if you're in the rural parts
of Missouri seven or the inner city know, and.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
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 a cruel
(13:00):
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. I know
(13:23):
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. Are we
that kind of country? Are we that kind of country
(13:46):
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. I think that if there's
a way, and I've been thinking about how to do
this as a matter of fact, if there's a way
(14:08):
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,
(14:30):
I mean crimea river. Christians are supposed to feel they're victims,
They're being pushed around. The elites are out to get them,
governments out to give them please. Are we really is it?
Is it sustainable to stoke up that kind of grievance,
(14:54):
feeling 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
(15:16):
they are them.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
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 I covered
(15:41):
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. Yeah, 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
(16:02):
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
(16:24):
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 (16:31):
You know?
Speaker 1 (16:31):
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
(16:53):
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 is, it's 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
(17:14):
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 (17:30):
Yeah, I mean, I think that's right. And there's been
a lot of commentary about that. It's a great book
called The Anxious Generation. I'm just that about the effect
that the iPhone is having, especially on on younger people,
and I think that all that's true, And I don't know,
(17:53):
I 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
(18:15):
cruel as people? Or are we not? And I think
that that that effort will call for a lot of us,
and it will call for the media, We'll call for
anybody who's got.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Well, what do you do if the sitting president of
the United States does not agree with that assise?
Speaker 2 (18:35):
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 it was, and
(18:57):
I think it's got to be more than just top end.
I think it's got to be bottomed up. I think
it's got to be the American people being faced through
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?
(19:17):
And so how to sustain that well, I can think
of how to do it in bits and pieces.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
In This episode of The Chuck Podcast is brought to
you by Wildgrain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
Frozen subscription box for our teasonal breads, seasonal pastries, and
fresh pastas, plus all items conveniently bake in twenty five
minutes or less. Unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain
(19:44):
uses simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation
process that can be easier on your belly and richer
in nutrients and antioxidants. Wildgrain's boxes are fully customizable. They're
constantly adding seasonal and limited time 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
(20:06):
out the gluten free box and let me tell you,
they have a gluten free sourdough bread.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
It is.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
We got two loads 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 hit 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. Wildgrain is
(20:33):
offering our listeners thirty dollars off your first box, plus
free croissants in every box when you go to wildgrain
dot com slash podcast 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 toodcast
that's wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or simply use the
promo code toodcast at check out. Always use the code
(20:57):
get the discount. 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 conversations 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
(21:20):
They're the 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 his
(21:42):
in who he is, who is 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
I how much grace I give certain senators. I'll give
(22:03):
him more grace 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 (22:21):
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
(22:43):
own and if you put, if you put to the
American but 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 necessary. It would be wonderful it
would come for the present and wonderful of more political leaders.
(23:05):
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?
(23:27):
How about that? Right? I mean any other way around? Right?
No anything, And they're you know, so, I mean there
could be a real effort. It could be led by
religious congregations, and it should be because the root of
the word religion is the same as for ligament, holding
(23:48):
things together. 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
(24:11):
person up 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
(24:31):
what we're really right and we're not like this. I
know that, I absolutely know that we as a people
are not like Donald Trump. I know that.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
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 fract 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
(25:10):
where he's getting involved in the Honduran 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 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 didn't vote
(25:33):
for this. We didn't vote for Ukraine, or Israel or Venezuela.
And we know that Trump's a transactionalist. 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 dabble in this over there, and the
Middle East Royalty loves me and so and it's actually
(25:56):
counter to what he promised his constituents.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
But it hasn't broken 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. None of it. It's not. I mean,
(26:20):
we used to think of ourselves 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 not. Jack.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
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, right now, it's just
(27:03):
a label that's a fixed on anything Trump.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Yeah, I know that's true, But I mean we've got
to reclaim it. And that's what our 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
(27:30):
involvement in the economy, which was high protective caress Ronald
Reagan rolling over in his grave?
Speaker 1 (27:38):
Can you believe how many pieces of companies the US
government now has.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
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
(28:04):
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 it's the
(28:29):
opposite of what our party was, has been, and what
I think if faced with it. But that's why I
think it's important to field candidates and hopefully in the
presidential election. Also maybe the person would lose, so he loses,
she loses, whatever, but at least present it to Republican voters.
(28:55):
How do you feel about huge deficits that are growing?
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?
(29:16):
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
(29:38):
historically as the conservative party, which it isn't anymore.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
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
(30:06):
one that is I always say, this is not a
small government Republican party. This is a strong government.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
Republican You bet. It's really remarkable as a matter of
fact that I remember when I was a kid, somebody
said this to me. There they're really it is like
a convergence in a circle of the extreme right of
the extreme life right.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
Eventually they touched.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Yes, it's it's that, that's right. But 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 to plant the flag for a principle. But not
enough people are doing it. Not enough people are really
(30:52):
putting the issue. So that's what I think we should
do it. Maybe maybe Hally's right. We are the party
of big government and writing two thousand dollars checks to
people and all of that. Maybe we've become a maybe
that's the way to be popular. A lot of people
(31:13):
historically in politics think this is the way to become popular,
way to win elections is to give it away.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
Checking in every pot.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
Right, remember that that's right. That comfrequent Hubert Humphrey 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 isn't
powerful enough now, and it doesn't abuse your enemies the
(31:46):
way it should and it should do more of that.
So that yeah, So that's that, 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
(32:08):
person necessarily had to win for his or her ego,
but just put the question to people, who are we
as a people and what are we as a party?
What do we stand for? Do we stand for anything anymore? Anything?
Speaker 1 (32:31):
So should we have more? I mean, do you think
you know this is?
Speaker 2 (32:35):
This is?
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Well, let me start with this. I'm obsessed with having
a constitutional 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 we hit a low Civil War being the lowest
we've we've actually that's always the moment we've actually amended
(32:59):
our Constitution. We created more equal protect Essentially, the equal
protection clause comes in after the Civil War.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
We have mead the Constitution. We didn't have any convention
to do it.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
No, that's true, but I don't trust this Congress 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
(33:34):
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
(33:56):
constitution to take away the power of the part to
an individual. I mean, this is the abuse of the
pardon processes is clearly I think turned out to be
a problem. Maybe we do term limits, maybe we do this.
What do you do? You think we need a moment
here where? And if the reason, I like a constitutional
(34:17):
convention because I 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.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Terrible idea.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
Oh, you don't want it. You think it's okay, tell
me why?
Speaker 2 (34:45):
No?
Speaker 1 (34:45):
No, okay?
Speaker 2 (34:47):
Because I think that our constitution is a work of genius.
I do too, and I think that our guiding principle
is a principle of genius. And the principle is it's
(35:13):
the famous what five words and the declaration of independence.
All men 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,
(35:38):
are capable of governing ourselves. 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 big
(36:05):
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
(36:28):
we just have to insist on that. And that's it's
not a new principle, it's our principle.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
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, do you.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Know, Well maybe yeah, amendments, But that's not counc usual convention.
What I mean the first Constitution.
Speaker 1 (36:52):
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,
the first Constitutional Convention was presided over by George Washington.
What if then another countutional convention was provided side by
Donald Trump?
Speaker 2 (37:12):
Well, I don't.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
I've heard that. I get that. I don't want to
fear the voter. Sometimes I do think we make certain
decisions like we fear, we fear the voter.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
Right.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
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,
(37:46):
the voter is in charge.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
Okay, should please do it by months?
Speaker 1 (37:50):
And now, 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
(38:10):
you want to have any limitation, you're going to have
to 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
(38:31):
at it as founder's intent and the House of Representatives
is 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 (38:55):
Yeah. I mean, no, I understand what you're saying, and
I think they're 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 that
(39:19):
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 now I understand
(39:40):
that I haven't thought about a constitutional amendment on the
germandering or increasing the sides of the House. I just
don't have any.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
And I get that those are my hobby horses.
Speaker 2 (39:55):
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 (40:15):
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.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
Of our It removes them, Yeah, it really removes them.
But it basically says that the president has absolute power
to do anything. He can do anything he wants if
he wants. He could paint the White House orange, and
by the way, he might decide to do that, you know, Yeah,
(40:44):
it's 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 attacks that
that can be given away.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
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,
(41:24):
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
(41:45):
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. Why do you
think it's been so hard to get Congress to flexits?
(42:08):
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 they think the first
administration that will execute those laws is one that they
(42:29):
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 (42:50):
Yeah. Well, I mean, I think even back in ancient history,
namely when I was around, the way to bridge what
seemed to be a reconcilable differences in the writing of
legislation is to bridge it with fuzz. So ambiguity is
(43:18):
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 be an interesting question to put two members in Congress.
(43:44):
What are you doing? Well? What is it? Please? What
is your job?
Speaker 1 (43:49):
Tell me?
Speaker 2 (43:50):
Tell me what you've done other than say get on
Fox News or put something on social media? What what?
What have you done other than take many many vacations?
I mean the vacation done. I mean now Thanksgiving, Christmas
(44:14):
is coming, 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. Well,
I was joking.
Speaker 1 (44:27):
A three day weekend, a three day weekend for the
rest of us is always a two week.
Speaker 2 (44:32):
Recess, unbelievable. And 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 is
(45:01):
producing something other than what Donald Trump wants you to produce,
So don't do it.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
Well, take take health Care's where's the legislators trying to
come up with a plan to deal with the expiring
healthcare subsidies. Where's there a health and if your publican
party is an alternative plan, show me the process.
Speaker 2 (45:24):
What are you doing about the pending and solvency of
the Social Security Trust Fund? When it comes, which is
scheduled to become in eight years, social security benefits will
drop by sixty six hundred dollars.
Speaker 1 (45:42):
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 (46:03):
Yeah, and the nice thing about being my 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, the national debt and then related issues
(46:24):
the pending and solvency 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
(46:46):
in medicare you think we're all hospitals have suffered because
of Medicaid cuts. Wait till the Medicare cuts come. So,
I mean, these are are huge problems that are going
to affect people. And is Congress doing anything about this?
(47:09):
The answer is nothing, punt. You know what they'll end
up doing. They will end up appointing a condition. Now,
I was Bob carry from Nebraska and I were the
co chairs of something called the Carrie Danforth Commission in
(47:29):
nineteen ninety four to deal with these problems?
Speaker 1 (47:34):
Was this a successor to the old wasn't there a
Moni Han Commission before that? Wasn't this yours was a
successor to what moynihan was a part of, right during Reagan?
But there was wondering Reaganimpson bowls. I remember Simpson balls
after that?
Speaker 2 (47:49):
So and what happened to those?
Speaker 1 (47:52):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (47:53):
So, Tanaschel, So we have now we we have a
we have it's been created. The name of it is Congress.
It's not named carried in for their Simpson bulls. It's
called Congress. So here's my idea. What would happen if
(48:18):
Congress would cancel just one of its vacation times, just one,
it could keep the other eight or nine or whatever
of them. Yeah, cancel one and just deal with these problems.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
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
(48:56):
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 (49:04):
Or or the alternative and the alternative. Why not just
have a little back room politics among real politicians and decide, okay,
we'll come out of this with something.
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Right, as you the way it worked. When people want
something to pass, you find reasons to support legislation. When
you wanted not to pass, you can find reasons not
to support.
Speaker 2 (49:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
I'm sure every vote you cast in the affirmative you
could have made the case to go against your go
against that vote if that's what you wanted.
Speaker 2 (49:40):
To do, right, Yeah, I guess I don't know.
Speaker 1 (49:45):
The point is, everything's a compromise everything. How often did
you vote for a perfect bill?
Speaker 2 (49:51):
Okay, No, that is exactly right. And that's how it
was designed. I mean that is how the frame that
the Constitution designed it. They designed it, They designed the
legislative process. It's a place of.
Speaker 1 (50:07):
Compromise, and it was supposed to be incrementalism.
Speaker 2 (50:10):
They designed it as they designed it as sausage making. Yeah,
and I happen to think sausage making is a good
thing to do.
Speaker 1 (50:19):
Yes, And you don't want to worry.
Speaker 2 (50:20):
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, a prim rib. It's going to be sausage.
Speaker 1 (50:31):
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. Yeah, I'm a
I've obsessively read Federalist seventy eight, which is Hamilton's defense
of the of the judiciary, and most importantly, of what
(50:54):
he thinks will make a good judiciary. He's essentially outlining
heap he comes. He comes out against the election of judges.
He says, you can't have these as elections. 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 they don't.
(51:15):
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 liberal
justice it only thinks about being a liberal before being
(51:38):
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, I think everybody's
(51:58):
got dirty hands here. But what would you what would
be a better way to create our judiciary. I don't
like fifty votes. I 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 wrote
(52:19):
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 (52:31):
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 away. I thought that,
(52:56):
you know, when I was around, like Supreme Court nomination,
it was all about, 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?
Are they an row versus way? It was viewed as
a policy making branch of government. It was not created
(53:20):
to be that. It was crazy an arbiter right. It
was yes, And the meaning of judicial conservatism as opposed
to political conservatism is judicial restraint. It's judges saying, wait
a second, if we're going to get into deciding a case,
(53:43):
it has to be based on the clear understanding of
the meaning of the Constitution and not broadening the constitution
to the point where I've got a freehand 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.
(54:06):
I know that. You know, I was 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 (54:20):
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 (54:29):
It was you know, he used to work for me. Yes,
that was 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
(54:50):
saw the suffering of the human being at that time.
I can say that that process was you want a
good weight loss program? Yeah? That did it? That Thamas? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (55:04):
So yeah, do you did that process scar him? Do
you think it changed his views?
Speaker 2 (55:13):
No? I you know, amazingly, No, I don't. I think
he is. I think the sort of the presentation of
him was sort of this scowling he's the opposite he is.
Speaker 1 (55:32):
I've heard this from people who know him, his friends,
that he's a jolly guy.
Speaker 2 (55:35):
He's really a good guy, the jokester guy. From people
who have clerked, from other Supreme Court justices, that Clarence
is the most popular justice among all the clerks in
the Supreme Court building. He's he's just a good guy,
(55:58):
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 he
confirmed anymore.
Speaker 1 (56:14):
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 Council'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,
(56:36):
he said, 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
(56:57):
that can be damaging.
Speaker 2 (56:58):
In the Yeah, because in different moments understand that. I
think that's right. I think, you know, necessity maybe the
mother of invention here is, how are we going to
confirm anybody? No, there are people, there are people in
the Senate now who simply vote against nominees for the
(57:19):
other party. They just automatic quotes against them. Right. You know,
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 uh Carter and the
first part of Clinton.
Speaker 1 (57:40):
And all of Reagan, so basically years of twelve years
of another right one.
Speaker 2 (57:45):
Yeah, but all of these, including like six years of
nominees for the person of the other party, only twice
I ever voted against the nominee. I mean, I just said, okay,
this is the president's now. These people just automatically, yeah,
(58:06):
vote against them.
Speaker 1 (58:08):
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 the reconciliation process.
What was created as sort of a as you you
(58:28):
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
(58:50):
a part of the generation. I'm going to 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 rilibuster rule be if in your
in your vision of it, regardless of what it is, now,
(59:12):
what would well, how.
Speaker 2 (59:14):
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 do think it's overused. I think we never
thought that way. But I do think that it's important
(59:36):
to retain the filibuster. I do believe that because otherwise
that you just have these wild gyrations. Right, who's in
the majority at a given time, and the filibuster at
least forces some degree of bipartisanship that otherwise wouldn't exist
(59:57):
at all.
Speaker 1 (59:58):
Yeah, well, what's the goal in twenty twenty six of
restore Republican legacy? What would be a good year as
far as your concern.
Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
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 conservative principles that define the
(01:00:29):
Republican Party. We're organizing at the statewide level, We're recruiting
state chairs, and then increasingly we're going to get in
the business of trying to influence and support conservative basic Republicans,
(01:00:51):
fundamental Republicans, traditional Republicans in elections, both for party positions,
party organizational positions, and for elections themselves. So I hope
that we will, you know, have a team on the field,
and I hope that I hope that there will be
some candidates. I just heard of one yesterday and Nebraska,
(01:01:17):
and mostly I don't know these people themselves, but that's
what we're looking for. People who are good, responsible conservatives,
which is not what mega is today.
Speaker 1 (01:01:32):
And by conservative you mean less government, not more government, right,
I mean government not involved in business. I mean what
what what you know any other principles you would add
into that?
Speaker 2 (01:01:47):
Yeah, yeah, well, I mean, uh, certainly fiscal hawks right.
Certainly limited role for government and its intervention with the
private sector and the economy, and universities at law firms
and all of that. Certainly, respect for the rule of law,
(01:02:07):
which means not weaponizing government against political enemies. Certainly, respect
for the constitutional order, which means not the extreme concentration
of power in the president. Certainly a national defense second
(01:02:28):
to none. And also a foreign policy that supports our
our friends and our allies that would include Ukraine. All
of that comprises the Republican Party as it has existed
(01:02:49):
for decades and decades and decades. All 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 (01:03:12):
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 (01:03:27):
You know.
Speaker 1 (01:03:29):
Look, I can tell you this, Senator dan Forth. I
always tell you as a as a high character person,
and I thought that was an asset in American politics,
and the high character people are 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 (01:03:48):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (01:03:50):
Anyway, good luck, enjoy the rest of the holiday season,
and I'll check back in closer we get to the election.
Speaker 2 (01:03:57):
Good thanks, Jech.
Speaker 1 (01:04:02):
Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out
of Office gives you the social buzz without the next
day regret. Their 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 fit your vibe, from a
gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their newest
(01:04:23):
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 is a wellness brand that
believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes
(01:04:43):
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, Soul also
has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply
help you get a better night's sleep, including their top
selling sleepy gummies and favorite for deep restorative sleep. So
bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today.
(01:05:05):
Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off
your entire order, So go to gitsold dot com use
the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code that's getsold
dot Com promo code podcast for thirty percent off
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.