Questioning the Tylenol Autism Connection

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm gonna go where angels fear to tread, and I'm
going to talk about some of this MAHA stuff that's
going on, especially the announcement yesterday about tail and all
and it's possible relationship to autism, and my general thoughts
about women's health and women's health surrounding pregnancy and reproduction.

(00:24):
This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
It's become more of a pet peeve of mine having
been the husband to a woman who has been pregnant
now for the sixth time, and we're expecting our new
baby in November. So the other day the administration started
talking about this notion that there might be some connection

(00:50):
between thaile and all use during pregnancy and autism. Now
I immediately hear that, and I'm skeptical. Okay, what well,
First of all, I'm a little skeptical about quote autism.

(01:12):
I'm not saying that there isn't some identifiable thing, some
sort of identifiable problem, mental illness, mental handicap, social handicap,
behavioral handicap, whatever to which we ascribe the word autism.
There are clearly kids whom we label autistic who have

(01:35):
some kind of actual, real thing that is wrong with them. However,
the whole idea of autism is that it is on
the spectrum. It is a spectrum. It is not a
single concrete thing. It's a broad spectrum of behaviors. And

(01:56):
when RFK and other people talk about why do we
have this massive increase in autism, I'm a little sort
of shrugging my shoulders at it, because what we've said,
it's a concept that has only been applied recently in

(02:16):
human history. It's like talking about in the nineties and
in the early two thousands when people, oh, there's a
startling increase in ADD and ADHD in attention deficit disorder. Yeah,
because it's a concept that no one it was not
a category that anyone used for behavioral problems for children.

(02:38):
No one had used it really until I don't know,
it sort of seemed to come into popular parlance and
popular consciousness in like the nineties and the two thousands.
With ADD. You don't see as much about ADD seemingly nowadays,
seems like it's more about the more common things seems

(03:00):
to be diagnosing kids on the autism spectrum. I don't know.
Maybe ADD or ADHD is part of that anyway. Yeah, well, yeah,
no one in the nineteen forties was being diagnosed with
add because they hadn't even they hadn't even categorized such
a concept, which feeds into my suspicion that kids on

(03:23):
the mildest end of the autism spectrum, whom we're labeling autistic,
actually maybe have nothing wrong with them. I have deep
suspicions that kids at the milder end of the autism
spectrum are very often its parents who have destroyed their

(03:44):
kids' attention spans by feeding them screens from the time
they were born. And probably there's something I don't This
is all just a hunch, might incredibly unscientific hunch with
no research, but I feel like there's some connection between
terrible eating habits and some of these behavioral ideas eating

(04:08):
tons of sugar, watching tons of television. I don't know,
just my hunch that this is how these things seem
to correlate, at least from my very anecdotal experience anyway,
So I guess I am very leery of people making
these connections because very often the connection and this is

(04:31):
one of the difficulties with scientific research, and with various
kinds of scientific research. This is a problem for example,
with abortion research, how do you know are there mental
health harms from abortion? I think it's true, but I
also see that it's a very difficult thing to actually

(04:54):
study and control for, because, I mean, first the control
is difficult, and also so like you're dealing, you may
be dealing with people who have lots of other crap
going on in their lives that might lead to mental
health problems. Does greater mental health problems prompt one more
likely to pursue abortion? Does do mental health problems come

(05:14):
after abortion? Now? I think there is some, And you
also have to factor in the logical fallacy of post
hoc ergo propter hawk something happened after this, Therefore it
happened because of this correlation does not imploy causation. Okay,
so sometimes with scientific research about you know, does some

(05:37):
condition follow after doing X activity, using X Y or
Z drug, et cetera. Some that's difficult to determine. So
I have to preface all this by just frankly admitting
I'm just a guy with a microphone. I do not
know everything about everything. I have not reviewed the scientific
backing for what RFK and the administration was saying yesterday

(05:59):
about time and all in its relation to autism. I remain, though,
very skeptical about claims of things contributing to the massive
rise in autism, because I don't know that we really
are having necessarily a massive rise in autism. We have
a rise in children being diagnosed with something we call autism,

(06:22):
but do we actually have an increase in children with
some kind of genuine condition. And again, this is not
me saying autism is fake or made up. There are
clearly some kids who have that label autistic, who have
some kind of developmental disability or handicap or whatever. It is.

(06:44):
Clearly there are some kids for whom we should have
some kind of you know, medicalized label attached to them
in order to appropriately help them and work with them.
But there's a lot of kids who I'm not sure
that that's true. So I'm therefore skeptical when I see, oh,

(07:07):
the massive increase in autism, Well, is it really a
massive increase? Are we really sure that there's a massive
increase in kids who are like this or are we
just massively over diagnosing people. I also, I don't know
what the scientific backing is of these claims about tilnal.

(07:29):
I've read a lot of people who say that the
science behind it is bunk, that it barely stands up
to even light scrutiny. A lot of critiques of Kennedy
for this. Now everyone on the left side of the
aisle is critiquing him, which you know, they would critique
Kennedy if he said that the sun that the sky

(07:51):
was blue. They would critique him to say that the
sky is green. So I kind of take that with
a grain of salt. But I've even seen conservatives sort
of saying the same thing. Here's the thing I find
frustrating for pregnant women in reproductive health. There seems like
it seems to me having viewed some of my wife's struggles,

(08:16):
some of the difficulties we were facing with infertility at
the start of our marriage, which a lot of the
infertility health industry is not really geared around the idea
of actually fixing things that are wrong with a woman's

(08:37):
reproductive health. A lot of reproductive health, hormonal health, women's
hormonal health is premised around looking at trying to brute
force basically a woman's body back into health or completely

(08:59):
bypass it all together. That's what IVF is, Okay, IVF
became this massive cash cow for doctors, and as a result,
actual reproductive and hormonal health for women atrophied over the
course of the last thirty years, because fundamentally, what IVF

(09:24):
is is you're not actually fixing something that's wrong with
very often it's a woman's sometimes it's a man's fertility,
sometimes it's the woman's fertility, very often a woman's fertility.
You're not actually fixing anything wrong with the woman. You're
trying to achieve a baby by completely bypassing the normal

(09:45):
reproductive system altogether. So in a certain sense, it's not
even healthcare. It's something that side steps health side steps
actually fixing the problem altogether. And a lot of women's
hormonal health seems to be a process of trying to

(10:06):
utilize birth control to brute force problems into going away.
We see this with the ways in which treatments for
PCOS or endometriosis, things like that, that there's very often
not much that's offered to women for dealing with painful periods,

(10:30):
things like that. Not much is offered other than looking
at one's dosage of hormonal birth control. And I kind
of am inclined towards the idea that there is a
from the medical community that has been wired this way
for the last thirty years. There's almost a lack of

(10:51):
I'm not saying every single doctor is like this, but
it seems like this is an approach to medicine, an
approach to pregnancy health and maternal health that seems to
have a certain lack of empathy and sympathy for women.
This brings me to the announcement yesterday. Women are already

(11:19):
very nervous about social opprobrium and social norms when it
comes to their pregnancies. When stuff gets said from on high,
it trickles down to individual women. It trickles down to
their individual obg yns giving them recommendations for what to
do and what not to do, and those social norms

(11:40):
can be hugely influential and hugely like shaming. Okay, there's
a reason why very few women smoke cigarettes when they're pregnant.
It's a pot that is a positive and good form
of social shaming. Okay, everyone knows you shouldn't smoke while
you're pregnant. I mean, maybe you shouldn't smoke at any time,
but you certainly absolutely shouldn't smme when you're pregnant. Like

(12:01):
if you spoke when you're pregnant, people look at you
like you're practically you're one step away from being a criminal.
But this applies to taking other kinds of drugs and medications,
things like that. So when my wife read the news
of pregnant ladies shouldn't take tiland All, it might contribute
to this very vague disease that we have obviously massively

(12:24):
over applied to too many people because of what seems
to be a very relatively weak causal connection. She was
really ticked off because here's the list of pain medications
pregnant ladies. For simple pain medication that pregnant ladies are
allowed up until two days ago to take thailand All,

(12:49):
end of list. Pregnant ladies are already warned against taking
Obgyns say don't take advil, they say don't take a leave,
they say don't take aspirint. So if you also so,
the only thing on the table for my wife for

(13:11):
simple headaches, simple body aches, basic the basic kind of
management of anything you would use, tyland All. The tabe
tiland All is the only thing left. Tiland All is it,
which is hugely frustrating to her. She often tends to
prefer advil blah blah blah blah blah, but that's the
only thing on the table, and to blithely just sort

(13:35):
of be like, eh, probably not tiland all either, and
just take the approach of well, sorry, there's nothing on
the tabe it. Honestly, it just sort of reminds me
of COVID, like where people were proposing very intrusive, disruptive

(13:57):
approaches to dealing with COVID, like everyone should wear a
mask in public all the time. And then the sort
of skeptical response was all right, well that's a really
big nuisance to have all of society be doing that.
Are you sure it really helps the problem, and the

(14:19):
response being well, yeah, sure it seems like it does. No,
not good enough. Okay, if you're gonna ask a huge
cohort of people or apply social opprobrium on them, maybe
even do stuff that could result. I mean, I talked

(14:41):
with an obgyn yesterday. He was talking about, well, well,
then what am I supposed to give a patient? If
she shows up at an er with paint, with serious
pain and she's pregnant. Now I can't give her a
Do I give her tilent all? Do I give her
some form of tilent. What am I supposed to do?
Because these this is coming from HHS. It puts liability
risk on the doctor prescribing it or on the doctor

(15:03):
who would be giving it to a patient in again
a kind of urgent care or emergency room kind of setting. Yeah,
you can still get it over the counter. Pregnant ladies
can still go buy cigarettes if they want to. But
for a doctor actually in a hospital setting to give
this to someone, now, they're gonna be are they gonna
be hugely limited? It's just dumb. It if it's genuinely true,

(15:30):
if you have rock solid reams of statistical proof that yes,
tail and all is obviously causing autism direct link, Okay, fine,
sounds good. If you've got the goods, then all right.
Then that means that we have to have a certain

(15:52):
level of reassessing things. Maybe we need to develop different
kinds of pain medica. I mean that seems way easier
said than done. But this sort of blithe attitude, well,
you know, pregnant ladies will figure it out. You know,
pregnant lady's got a lot of aches and pains. Pregnant
ladies have got a lot of sore muscles, got a

(16:13):
lot of aches and pains. They got a lot going on.
They need some kind of form of simple pain management,
and they've already got a leave is off the table,
aspruns off the table, advils off the table. To blithely
take tailanol off the table without really rock solid proof
is just is just dump all right? When we return,

(16:36):
I want to push back on the idea that I
am not maga enough or something for sort of pushing
back on this next on the John Girardi Show. Sometimes
I feel when I take some sort of counter megatarian position,
I e. Right now, when I'm criticizing this whole Maha
thing about saying that we shouldn't have tailanol, and it's

(17:01):
in part my criticism is it doesn't seem I mean,
I preface everything, but I'm not a scientist. I haven't
reviewed the science. Even if I did review the science,
I'm not sure what I would be looking for to
show that it's great or not great. It seems like
a lot of the commentary is that the science behind
the tile and all to autism connection is not so great.

(17:21):
I am skeptical pretty much of any claims that anything
is causing quote the massive rise of autism. I don't
even know if there is a massive rise of autism,
there's a massive rise in diagnosing autism, a massive rise
in calling certain kinds of behavior autism, that doesn't really
I don't know that it really needs to be medicalized
some of that behavior. So I am skeptical about a

(17:43):
lot of those claims. And so to make some kind
of causality claim between tail and all use while pregnant
and autism when they are about eight hundred thousand billion
other kinds of factors going on in a woman's pregnancy
that could have a causal link instead makes me skeptical.

(18:05):
I don't know how strong a connection you could possibly establish,
But I know that the recommendation don't use tailanol is
hugely disruptive to pregnant women because there's already a bunch
of studies on the books, and Obgyn's already sort of
tell pregnant patients, pregnant ladies, don't take a leave, don't
take advil, don't take aspirin. If you take tailanol off

(18:28):
the table, that's a lot of ladies who've got a
lot of little aches and pains. We're already feeling kind
of like crap. All the time who now have another
option taken off the table. And it also limits what
doctors can do if doctors have it in front of
them that you know, there's a liability risk to them
for giving patients tail and all. If a patient presents

(18:51):
herself in an er or something with pain and then
the doctors, well, what options in my toolbox do I
have left? I just don't think it's good, and I
don't think it's good to impose such a huge, weighty,
disruptive change without really rock solid evidence. And it leads

(19:15):
me to this. I sometimes I get on the air
and I'm conscious of the fact that I'm a conservative
talk radio host. Most of the people listening to me
really like Trump, and I think, by extension, a lot
of the people listening to me like Robert Kennedy Junior.
I continue to sort of I think there are obviously
some very good things about the Kennedy nomination. I think

(19:40):
his willingness to the mere fact that he's not going
to be subject to regulatory capture by the pharmaceutical industry
is in a way a massive qualification that he has
that very few other HHS heads would have. Too many
other people who are form where HS heads would HHS

(20:03):
secretaries would have the temptation of, hey, you want to
be on the board of directors of Pfizer after you're
done at HHS, Oh, okay, make hundreds of thousands of dollars,
and it would lead to them having less, you know,
dealing with the pharmaceutical industry with more kid gloves. So
there's a part of me that appreciates RFK in that way.
The end of the day, though, RFK has said some

(20:24):
wildly off the wall dumb things about healthcare, the idea
that the measles vaccine killed more people than measles. You know,
he has a couple of greatest hits from before he
was AHHS secretary, you know, while an adult, while a
well educated adult. This isn't me pulling up some stupid
thing he said when he was nineteen years old, okay,

(20:47):
and has been a very liberal guy up you know,
for his whole life. And I don't think he's really
changed that much. I mean, he's sort of supported Trump
because Trump was willing to give him a platform and
give him influence. So I'm I don't think I'm like

(21:08):
betraying some hardcore conservative bona fitas or something when I
come on the radio and say I'm pretty skeptical of
Robert Kennedy Junior. I continue to think it was one
of the biggest I mean, I was really reluctant about
it because I didn't want another pro choice HHS secretary,
which too many Republicans appoint HHS secretaries who are pro choice,

(21:29):
and it really frustrates me, and I'm really tired of it.
So I forgive me if I express some sort of
Maha skepticism on some of these things. I can also
just sort of see how very often pregnant women and

(21:53):
their health gets sort of viewed by the dominant consensus
within healthcare as like as that reproduction, fertility, et cetera.
Are not. It is not a beautiful and working system
to be respected and helped, but something to be bypassed

(22:13):
and ignored. And I think too much the dominant, if
you will, liberal consensus within reproductive health care has pushed
in that way. And so to see another instance of
sort of blithely ignoring the difficulties associated with reproduction, like
tail and all being like the only over the counter

(22:34):
pain reliever left that women are sort of supposed to
be taking and have that taken away, It just seems,
it just seems really dismissive of the needs that pregnant
ladies face when we return. Do we genuinely inhabit two
different worlds? Liberals who genuinely think that Jimmy Kimmel was

(22:56):
the big story of the last three weeks. That's next
on the John Girardi Show. Jimmy Kimmel came back on
the air last night. Not a lot of response or
reaction because not that many people care. His show doesn't
have the greatest ratings. Even if his numbers doubled for

(23:19):
like a night, you know, it would probably go back
down again, and Greg Gutfield, of all people, would still
be America's most popular late night comedy show. But I'm
not here really to talk about Jimmy Kimmel that much.
I mean, we might talk about him a little bit.
There is you know, there's this whole issue of was
this a First Amendment violation by the Trump people and

(23:41):
the conservatives sort of wringing their hands over this. Now.
I'm not going to say that there isn't some colorable
argument that should Brendan Carr have said anything, Probably he
shouldn't have said anything. If only for political reasons. You know,

(24:02):
Brendan Carr by saying anything, sort of gave liberals an
excuse to sort of turn this into a Trump is
attacking the First Amendment thing when it could have just
been not that. So there's a part of me that thinks, yeah,
Brendan Carr politically should have just kept his trap shot
about it, especially if he knew that Sinclair and some

(24:24):
of these other corporations that own local television affiliates, including
a number of local ABC affiliates, was going to be
doing this job for them and still Sinclair you didn't
air Jimmy Kimmel Show on Tuesday Night. That there is
a kind of colorable argument that having public officials make

(24:48):
disparaging comments about the content of a private show to
sort of try to exert soft influence and soft pressure,
some pressure thought of an FCC investigation or something that
that is a kind of First Amendment violation. It's the
federal government flexing its muscle to try to influence someone

(25:13):
to not say something they don't want said. Okay, not good.
But if that is a First Amendment violation, then what
Brendan Carr did was incredibly mild could be corrected with
one statement of Listen, Obviously, I have my opinion on
what should be done. The FCC does have protocols for

(25:34):
investigating certain kinds of things we're not going to investigate. However,
I think that private companies have the right to decide
whether they want to do and I decry mister Kimnlell's
comments as abhorrent. Okay, the whole thing could be resolved there.
It's kind of this thing where Andy McCarthy from National
Review brought this up. It's this thing like in the law,

(25:54):
where someone maybe could do a bad thing that could
be legally actionable, but the second question is, well are
there any damages. Okay, you can behave negligently and do
something stupid on the job, but if what you did

(26:14):
didn't cost anyone any money, it didn't really result in
any ultimate harm. Yeah, you may have been liable in
some way, but if you didn't cause harm, then there's
no lawsuit there. There's no reason to bring the suit.
I think what Brendan Carr did was sort of negligible
as far as its ultimate impact. The reason Jimmy Kimmel
was off the air was because local television affiliates were

(26:36):
really furious at ABC for Kimmel's comments. Kimmel wasn't going
to apologize adequately, and so local affiliates were preempting him
for with you know, reruns of local news, and ABC
already doesn't make a lot of money on Kimmel's show.
I'm sure Kimmel's show is a money pit, so they
pulled him. Okay, that's that's what that was all about.

(26:57):
So remember a couple of things, though. The enormous amount
of huge government pressure and influence that was brought to
bear by Democrat administrations against social media platforms, television platforms
to de platform anyone who said anything they didn't like.

(27:21):
The enormous number of channel I mean, the enormous number
of channels that got banned from YouTube, for example, YouTube
profiles from right of center leaning organizations. I saw this
all the time in the pro life world, every big
pro life organization, Students for Life of America, Live Action,

(27:43):
this that the other. Throughout the Biden era, throughout even
the first Trump era, were constantly being subjected to being
banned on YouTube, shadow banned on YouTube, blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah. The Biden Department of Justice,
the Obama Department of Justice. We're constantly making threatening statements

(28:07):
to I mean the Biden Department Justice, certainly making threatening
statements to YouTube, Facebook, et cetera about and people spreading
misinformation about COVID. You know, it seems like not a
great thing that you're allowing this misinformation to spread. This
was Zuckerberg's sort of cya defense, but I don't think
he was wrong about this. We were banning you know, channels, accounts,

(28:30):
whatever from Facebook because we had federal We had folks
from the FBI demanding to come meet with us, concerned
about the threat of whether it was you know, after
the twenty sixteen election, you had the FBI coming in
really about the deep threat of Russian influence on the
election and Russian influence using social media. Whereas the still

(28:53):
very liberal leadership of the FBI was like convinced that
the Russians hacked the twenty sixteen election adversely impacted the
twenty sixteen election went a kind of more sober analysis
of the twenty sixteen election was okay, was there some
sort of attempt at Russian influence? Sure it was amateur,

(29:14):
It cannot be argued that it did anything to significantly
influence any number of votes whatsoever, the idea that it was,
and the FBI took this very seriously, even after the
twenty sixteen election, even under Trump, where it was sort

(29:35):
of this compromised consensus of well, Trump wasn't directly colluding
with the Russians, but we all have to agree that
the Russians tried to hack the election, to which we
should have said, well, no, even that's kind of a
silly narrative. But so you've had the FBI social media
looking at scrutinizing, encouraging the banning of social media accounts

(29:59):
for what they say for years under Democrat control. I
mean the whole Citizens United case was basically a nonprofit
group released a film critical of Hillary Clinton. She wanted
it banned as a campaign expense that should be subject

(30:20):
to the FCC. The Supreme Court said, no, people have
First Amendment right to do this, even a nonprofita's First
Amendment right to do this, and so Clinton basically vowed
that she would go after speech like that for the
rest of her life. President Obama tried to get the
United States to agree to a UN resolution to render

(30:41):
this UN resolution prompted by all these Islamic countries to
render criticism of religion, which basically they just meant Islam
to be illegal, whether it was criminally punishable or not,
to render such stuff illegal, basically to try to create
almost this concept of hate speech. The very concept of

(31:02):
hate speech is something that the Left has pushed constantly
as a means of shutting up people they don't agree with.
So I guess I'm just not crying any big alligator
tears for Brendan Carr saying one thing on the Benny
Johnson Show podcast, which I don't even know who the

(31:25):
heck Benny Johnson is or if he has a podcast
or a show, or I didn't even know what it is.
It could be Howard Johnson or Johnson and Johnson for
all I know. It's just not that big of a deal.
But the way that it's reported on, I think liberals

(31:46):
genuinely think, like, let's look at this headline from Variety.
Jimmy Kimmel's return to his talk show on Tuesday Night
promises to be one of the most massive television moments
of the decade, and based on past performance, Kimmel is
up to the challenge. What planet do they live on?

(32:12):
The most significant television moment of the decade. It's not
even gonna be the biggest television moment of the week.
Charlie Kirk's memorial blew it out of the water. I'm
sure between television and digital and how much it was
talked about and discussed, Are you kidding me? I'll go

(32:33):
further than that. I bet the Sunday night football game
got better ratings than freaking Jimmy Kimmel's show on Tuesday Night,
the most significant show of the decade, one of the
most massive television moments of the decade. What planet do
these people live on? And I'm genuinely asking this. I

(32:56):
think this is one of the things that the Charlie
Kirk's assassination has revealed, almost more than any other event
a significant event in recent history. Charlie Kirk's assassination, I
feel has revealed that left and right America really inhabit

(33:20):
different worlds, that we have really so siloed ourselves from
each other that there's not even a kind of comprehension
of what red state America is or what conservatives are
how they think. I mean, like the MSNBC coverage right

(33:42):
when Kirk got shot, someone came on their airwaves and suggested, well,
we don't know that it was an assassin who killed Kirk.
Maybe it was a supporter shooting off their gun in celebration.
What shooting off the gun in celebration, like like we're
in a like we're in blazing saddles or something. And

(34:05):
what's her face? Just did a cabaret dance in front
of all the drunk cowboys and were yeh, who's shooting
our guns up in the air? Like And I think
it was genuine. The host was being genuine. I think
MSNBC commentator type people people who live in New York
and are diehard liberals and who it's also a thing

(34:29):
with like New York City people just don't like guns,
even if they're kind of conserved. They they don't touch guns,
they don't use guns. They don't like guns. Yeah, I
remember my grandfather was like the only guy who voted
for Richard Nixon rather than John Kennedy that my dad
even knew as a kid. My grandfather was very right wing,
didn't like guns, grew up in Brooklyn, didn't like guns.

(34:50):
He was in the army and he didn't even like guns,
which is hilarious anyway, that they genuinely think that if
you're in favor of the Second Amendment, it means that
you're a root and tutin son of a gun cowboy
from the Old West who genuinely goes around firing your
gun in the air because you're celebrating, you know something.

(35:14):
It's it's unbelievable. I mean, my mom got me a
subscription to The New York Times for my birthday, which
kind of has been helpful for writing stuff and doing
the radio and the headlines. It's like they live on
a completely different planet. They genuinely live on a totally
different planet from the rest of us. But yeah, it

(35:34):
was that headline from Variety Magazine. Jimmy Kimmels return to
his talk show on Tuesday promises to be one of
the most massive television moments of the decade. It's gonna
be forgotten in two weeks. He was suspended for three days,

(35:57):
Like this is insane, But everyone on the lefts convinced
that this is the greatest assault on the First Amendment
that the country's ever seen. Not you know, a guy
getting shot in the neck because he is going on
college campuses talking to people and wanting to openly debate them.
Somehow feel like that's a worse infringement on the First

(36:17):
Amendment when we return, even Rachel Maddow calling out Kamala
Harris for something she said in her book. Next, on
the John Girardi Show, Rachel Maddow had Kamala Harris on
to talk about her book, Kamala picking some really tough interviews,
but even Rachel Mattow couldn't get over this. There's a
part in the book where Harris says she would have
picked Pete Bootage, but he was gay, and she just

(36:40):
thought that was too much for America to handle. Here's
her response to Mattow kind of questioning her about it, saying, Hey,
what the heck to say that he couldn't be on
the ticket effectively because he was gay? It's hard to hear.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
No, No, that's not what I said. That that's that
he couldn't be on the ticket because he is gay.

Speaker 1 (36:57):
That is precisely what she said.

Speaker 2 (36:59):
My point, as I write in the book, is that
I was clear that in one hundred and seven days
in one of the most hotly contested elections for president
and United States, against someone like Donald Trump, who knows no.

Speaker 1 (37:17):
Floor philibustering, doesn't know what to say.

Speaker 2 (37:23):
To be a black woman running for president United States,
and as a vice presidential running mate a gay man,
with the stakes being so high, it made me very sad,
but I also realized it would be a real risk.

Speaker 1 (37:43):
See this is amazing. She's basically said, well, they're so bigoted,
and that's why I couldn't do it. No, that wouldn't work.
You still objectively said you would have rather picked him,
and you did because he was gay. Well, because they're
so big of it. All right. I don't know that

(38:06):
more than one hundred and seven days would have helped
her much on the campaign. That'll do it, John Girardi Show,
See you next time on Power Talk