The Boy Who Cried No Kings

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I've got an essay I'm writing right now about the

(00:04):
kinds of people who've been driven out of the Republican Party,
both good and bad, in the era of Donald Trump.
So let me talk about what occasioned this. I saw
this piece earlier this week published by The Bulwark. Now,
for those of you who don't know what the Bulwark is,

(00:25):
it's one of these anti Trump quote Republican media outlets
that got started up because there was all this money
among like vaguely right leaning people who hated Donald Trump.
But the problem was, well here was the problem. It
was trying to recruit Republican operatives who were mad about Trump,

(00:45):
but the money was coming from all these liberals, and
the audience was really just coming from liberals. It wasn't
really coming from disaffected Republicans. Trump is about as popular
with Republicans as most Republican presidents are when you look
at just what percentage of Republicans are voting for him.
But there was this loud, vocal group of anti Trump

(01:08):
Republicans who were particularly really upset, and Democrats wanted to
help buttress up these anti Trump Republicans, and so all
this liberal money was coming in to start media outlets
and things like that that would promote opinion hostile to Trump.

(01:30):
So two of the media entities that came out of
this were The Bulwark, which was sort of headed up
by Bill Crystal. Bill Crystal was a longtime kind of
Republican operative political advisor. He was the chief of staff
for Dan Quayle back when dan Quayle was the vice
president under George H. W. Bush. Bill Crystal would be

(01:55):
go into media and he was sort of one of
the big hot shots for The Weekly Standard, which was
a conservative journal of opinion for many years and years
and years before it went out of business, and Bill
Crystal was one of the main It is still one
of these guys that has just gone full so hard

(02:16):
anti Trump that he's actually abandoned all of the former
Republican things he believed. Another entity like that is The Remnant,
which is led up by Jonah Goldberg and a bunch
of people who sort of fled from National Review magazine
because they wanted to be more explicitly anti Trump. So

(02:36):
the Remnant. So the Bulwark, though, is utterly insane left wing,
and it's loaded with all of these people who have
not just said we are conservatives and we think Trump
is betraying conservatism. We think his character and attitude and

(02:56):
blah blah blah blah blah and policies are a betrayal
of concerns rrivatism. They've gone fully to the point of
just abandoning all the things they used to believe in.
And this is why I think so many Republicans can't
take them seriously. It's one thing to say I don't

(03:20):
like Donald Trump. I'm a conservative and I don't like
how Donald Trump behaves, or I think some of Donald
Trump's policy preferences, for example, his enthusiasm for tariffs, I
think that runs against the sort of economic conservatism that
I like. I think tariffs are just taxes, blah blah blah.
I can understand that and have a reasonable rational debate

(03:44):
with someone like that. But when someone goes to the
level of Donald Trump is bad and now all of
a sudden, I am pro abortion even though I was
pro life, that's what I can't abide. And so you've
got all these people like Bill Crystal and others who

(04:06):
have just completely changed all their positions just for the
sake of getting money from the media. And I've been
sort of thinking through like well, geez all these people

(04:26):
who have joined on with anti Trump media ventures like this,
were they just total and complete frauds, Because it's not
just Bill Crystal. You've got people like Bill Crystal. Tim
Miller is another one of these people. Tim Miller worked
as a Republican political operative for Senate campaigns. I believe

(04:50):
he worked on John McCain's campaign. Tim Miller is now
all of a sudden, believes in every liberal cause under
the sun. You've got all these. Tom Nichols is another one.
I think now he's like writing for the Atlantic, and

(05:10):
he used to be a big time Republican. Then Trump
comes long and Tom has now reversed his positions on
everything he used to believe. Nichols I think also used
to be a big wig, a political guy. I think
I remembered him writing about how you know, he was
heavily involved with Republican judicial nominations under George W. Bush.
But now all of a sudden, he's pro choice, all

(05:31):
of a sudden, he's this, All of a sudden, he's
that he's become this humongous liberal. And there are other
especially opinion writers and things like that, who've all of
a sudden they hate Trump so much that they've now
just abandoned everything they used to believe. Jennifer Rubin, Mona Sharon,

(05:51):
all these different people. It's kind of astounding. And it's
astounding because it makes me think, well, you're short of
a genuine, deep seated ideological conversion on a number of

(06:12):
different fronts, because you're not just saying I'm conservative, but
I don't like Donald Trump. You have to be saying
I'm conservative, I don't like Donald Trump. And my dislike
of Donald Trump has also caused me to reconsider everything
else I used to believe, including very deep seated moral
positions about things like abortion and gay marriage and homosexuality

(06:36):
and transgenderism and all this wide variety of like social
issues which touch on like core concepts of what you
think about human nature and what it is and who
it is. This whole crowd, and it's not just thought leaders.
We're also talking about people who worked within Republican administrations

(06:59):
and campaigns. This whole crowd were either frauds back then
or their frauds today. Either way, it's not good. Michael
Steele is another. Michael Steele is almost the example of
this that is most disturbing to me. Some of you

(07:21):
might remember his name. Michael Steele was kind of sort
of in the second Obama term. Around that timeframe, was
the chairman of the Republican National Committee, the chair of
the RNC, so his whole job is helping get Republicans elected.
I think he had been like the lieutenant governor of
Maryland or something like that, and then got involved with

(07:42):
the RNC and he becomes the chair of the RNC.
So here's like someone with a major Republican leadership position
who has so thoroughly flipped. I mean, now he's like
a talking head commentator for MSNBC that he was like

(08:02):
posting he was during the campaign. He was tweeting out
like AI images of Kamala Harris dressed up like wonder woman.
Like that's how thoroughly liberalized he is. And it just
makes you think, well, how could you go from in
twenty thirteen being the head of the RNC to actively

(08:27):
campaigning like swooning over Kamala Harris. It boggles the mind,
and it indicates that it fulfills the suspicion that a
lot of Republican base voters have always had, which is
that we're really really conservative, but a lot of our

(08:51):
elected officials and political operatives who are allegedly representing us
are are far less committed to the cause than we are.
That the people we vote for are deep down not
really as conservative as they claim to be, because we

(09:15):
elect them to do X, Y and Z, and they
get to Washington and they don't do X, Y and Z.
They present a certain kind of face, and then they
get to Washington and they govern in this very sort
of conventional, not very aggressively conservative style, and over time,
base conservative voters, we're getting more and more sick of it.

(09:41):
They got sick of it under George H. W. Bush.
George W. Bush, they got sick of it with McCain
and Romney, who they always thought was like a little
bit of an arms distance from those of us in
the base. And especially when it comes out afterwards that
all these advice and now in the Trump era, when
it comes out that all these people who were working

(10:03):
for those administrations, advisors, for those campaigns, operatives within the
party of that time, it turns out, oh, now they're
totally comfortable being not just disliking Trump but still being conservative,
willing to acknowledge when Trump does good things, even if
they criticize Trump for doing certain other things. No, they're
not at that level. They're at the level of full

(10:26):
on I'm campaigning for Kamala Harris. I mean, that's why
Lynn Cheney. I don't think anyone can respect Lynn Cheney.
Look if Lynn Cheney thought Trump did impeachable things on
January sixth of twenty twenty one, Okay, that's fine. It
doesn't justify campaigning for Kamala Harris like that jump doesn't

(10:53):
make sense. And not say actively campaigning for Kamala Harris
showing up a campaign events for Kamala Harris, singing her praises. Frankly,
it makes you question, well, you said, for your whole
time as a member of the House of Representatives, you
were so pro life and blah blah. How can you

(11:15):
rationalize justify endorsing Kamala Harris supporting Kamala Harris. And what
you see between Trump one point zero and Trump two
point zero in the transition from the first Trump administration
to the interregnum with Joe Biden to the second Trump administration,

(11:38):
is this steady purging, this steady purging out from Trump's
orbit of all pre Trumpian Republican operatives and to a

(11:59):
large extent. Now there's a lot of that that is good,
and there's both actively Trump and his people purging out
the old Guard and members of the old Guard self
deporting or self purging, if you will. So there was
this piece in the Bulwark the other day written by

(12:20):
this guy named Miles Brunner, who was this low level
Republican functionary. He worked on a bunch of Republican campaigns
in California for Janet and Wynn who I think she
used to be a member of the California State Senate,
and he worked for different kinds of Republican things, and

(12:41):
he eventually he moved to DC and he was working
for some Republican fundraising entity and he decided I'm quitting.
And his breaking point was the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Now,
he and his wife had suffered from a very difficult
late miscarriage, and he tried to characterize it. I just
I was so angry at publican anti abortion policies, at

(13:02):
the thought that someone going through what my wife experience
wouldn't be able to access life saving medical care, which
is just like parroting Republican talk. Excuse me, parroting Democrat
talking points about Republican state abortion laws which don't forbid
any kind of life saving interventions for someone who's gone

(13:24):
through a miscarriage or something like that. It just isn't
the case. And the idea that Donald Trump shifting the
Supreme Court to the right is what broke him. Now,
he claimed that he was changing his views on abortion
before that point, even though he was quote staunchly pro

(13:45):
life at the start. Well, I guess I'm questioning how
staunch his pro life convictions were a little. And again,
it seems like it's this shift for all these sort
of Republicans that they shift on abortion in a way
that doesn't seem to me to have much to do

(14:06):
with Donald Trump. And especially the idea like the Supreme
Court shifting to the right is not an exclusively Trumpian phenomenon.
That's something that all Republicans would have wanted, all right.
I mean, I think if Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz,

(14:31):
maybe even Jeb Bush, if one of those three had
won the twenty sixteen election. To imagine a world where
Donald Trump doesn't run, we have a Republican primary and
one of those three guys wins, maybe it's cruise maybe
it's Rubio, maybe it's Jeb Bush. All three of them
would have appointed, you know, similar kinds of people to

(14:56):
the Supreme Court to whom Donald Trump appointed. Hell, they
might have appointed, but the literal same exact three people,
all right. It's not like there's anything about Gorsuch, Kavanaugh,
Barrett that was like distinctly Trumpian. Trump was being advised
by the Federalist Society, who would have been advising Cruz
and would have been advising Rubio. I mean, Rubio or

(15:20):
Cruz might have appointed literally the exact same three people
that Trump did. So the idea that I rejected Donald
Trump and trump Ism, including his Supreme Court picks, well,
any Republican would have picked, well, hopefully any Republican would
have picked them. The kinds of people Trump picked are
the kinds of people Republicans have been saying they want
for decades now. Jeb Bush, I don't know. I feel

(15:42):
like Jeb Bush would have picked maybe more liberal picks,
but Cruise or Rubio I trust would have actually picked
those same kind of people. Overturning Grovy Wade was not
some secret Trumpian project. It was in the Republican Party
platform for decades. So reading this guy's essay, I kind

(16:03):
of come to the conclusion that probably, I mean both
for this guy's own sake. I mean, this guy's not
happy working as a Republican. He doesn't agree with what
Republicans think anymore, Like, yeah, I don't want to for
I don't want a guy like that to work for Republicans.
And clearly he was miserable good mutual parting of ways.
And I think the more liberal leaning Republicans who work

(16:27):
for the party in some capacity who make the decision
that I'm not happy working here and I'm gonna I'm
just gonna stop doing that, you know, good. The more
people who do that, the better. The problem is that
not everyone who used to work for the party, not
everyone who used to advise the party, was necessarily a

(16:49):
bad guy. And I want to talk about some of
the intellectuals who have been sidelined over the course of
the Trump era, who are no longer providing some of
the guide rails against Trump making not so great forays
specifically into social policy. That's next on the John Girardi Show.

(17:09):
The Trump era has been defined by one thing that
I think is really positive, purging out of the Republican
Party of phony liberal Republican operatives, people who were working
for the Republican Party who were far less conservative than
the actual people voting for the Republican Party. Now, one
of the things that does kind of distress me though,

(17:33):
and this was on display last Friday when you had
President Trump announcing all these new IVF policies, is the
sidelining of a group of people who I think were
really important for the conservative movement more broadly and had
influence not just within conservative thinkers but also conservative doers

(17:56):
in politics, which i'll loosely call the pro life intellectuals. Now,
it's a little simplistic to call them the pro life intellectuals,
but hear me out. In two thousand and one, George W. Bush,
the before nine to eleven, the first like big policy

(18:16):
kind of controversy of George W. Bush's tenure was over
embryo destructive stem cell research? What are you going to
do with embryo destructive stem cell research? And George W.
Was turning this issue over and over, he was getting
advice from different people, and he decided what something turned

(18:37):
out to be really prescient. He decided, I'm going to
not provide any federal funding for embryo destructive stem cell research.
I'm not going to fund the destruction of new embryos
for this research. And he then also decides to start

(18:58):
a president a Presidential Bioethics Council. It was sort of
under the executive branch under the president, and it was
an advisory council in which he invited scholars from around
the country with a definite sort of slant in favor

(19:19):
of people who believe in natural law theory, largely reconcilable
with Christian ideals in many cases pro life. Leading scholars
who were pro life, who would help advise the administration
on bioethical questions more broadly, which was a reasonable thing

(19:43):
to do. The federal government is involved in funding all
kinds of scientific research and bioethical questions touch on that
touch on bioethical concerns all the time. Now, it wasn't
a uniformly like right wing group. You had some sort
of liberal leaning people like Francis Fukuyama, but there was
definitely a lot of people who were very pro life,

(20:06):
sort of this who's who of great scholars. One of
my professors at Notre Dame Law School, Carter Snead, was
their general counsel, like the main attorney working for the council.
And then it was led by Leon cass who was
this great bioethicist and physician. Mary Ann Glendon who would

(20:28):
become Trump's ambassador. George W. Bush's ambassador to the Vatican
was on it. Ben Carson was on it. Professor Robert
George from Princeton University was on it. All these great
leading lights of the pro life movement, and they helped

(20:48):
advise the Bush administration, including on questions like IVF and
what the federal government's posture should be towards it, which
I don't think that George W. Bush administration felt itself
necessarily did not feel itself to be one hundred percent
bound by the recommendations of this Advisory Council, but it
provided this sort of guard rail so that the George W.

(21:09):
Bush administration wouldn't just go totally off the rails. And
this group, it's not like this group came out of nowhere.
This group was sort of had connections formal and informal
to prior Republican administrations and would continue to have influence
with subsequent Republican campaigns. I mean, Ben Carson became you

(21:31):
know part of the Trump and the first Trump administration.
Mike Pence was like aware of these kinds of groups. Uh.
And the problem is that, obviously we wanted to purge
out of the Republican Party all the fake, phony, hypocritical
you know, claim that your pro life but actually your

(21:52):
pro choice, claim that you're super conservative, and then actually
you're totally willing to stab conservatives in the back. We
wanted to get rid of those kinds of conservatives, but
we wound up purging also this group from influence, this
group of people who was you know, totally consistent with
everything they believed. I mean, this was not the group

(22:13):
of people who like you know, like flipping Bill Crystal,
who goes from Bill Crystal went from being on the
board of directors of the Susan B Anthony List back
in like twenty ten Susan b Anthony List, which is
like one of the big pro life advocacy groups in Washington,

(22:33):
to now he's just pro abortion, with barely any explanation
for this profound shift on this deep seated question of
ethics and human nature and this. And I feel as though,
you know, here's Trump announcing this new IVF policy. None

(22:55):
of that group is there, and instead they've been replaced
by this new crowd, the rfks, the doctor ozz, who
have no such guiding moral compasses at all, and I

(23:15):
think that's a really unfortunate thing. I say this as
someone who wants Trump to succeed. I want this to
be the most pro life administration ever, and I'm afraid
that in their zeal to purge out everything that was old,
they've succeeded too much. When we return my thoughts on
the very consequential No Kings protests from this Saturday next

(23:38):
on the John Gerardy Show, my wife was driving around
this past Saturday when the No Kings Days we're having,
the No King's Day protests were happening all across the country,
and it does actually seem like in some parts of
the country the turnout for these things was genuinely pretty big. Now,

(24:03):
the No King's Day protest, however, in Clovis, was not
exactly an earth shattering political events. My wife texted me
very impressive No King's Day protest at Clovis and Shaw Avenues.
Seven hippie twenty year olds, one old lady and a

(24:25):
masked guy waving anime flags, to which my wife commented,
no kings, but yas queens, which I guess is what
gay guys like to say. Yeah, so it was not
not exactly an earth shattering political moment for us here
in the San Jaquein Valley. However, I have a couple

(24:46):
of thoughts about it. Donald Trump's been around, Donald Trump.
I don't know why I'm going through puberty on the radio.
Donald Trump has been around. I love how I accidentally
have my voice break a little too high on the radio,
and then I feel the need to overcompensate. Donald Trump
has been around in American politics for about a decade

(25:09):
at this point, and liberals have been at def Con one.
Maybe not like the literal entire time. I feel like
there was a bit of a reprieve from like I
don't know, May of twenty twenty one through I guess

(25:35):
mid twenty twenty two or or early twenty twenty, I
don't know. For the most part, liberals have been at
def Con one over Donald Trump continuously since twenty sixteen,
and so it gets to the point where, oh, the

(25:57):
no King's Day, this is it. This is the big
moment against Donald Trump, where they're trying to project that
they're at this is the most serious moment. But they've
been at this level of saying this is the most
serious moment constantly and continuously over the course of like

(26:20):
ten years. I just don't feel like outside of people
who actually go to those sorts of rallies, and it's
not an inconsequential number though, I think the numbers are inflated. Frankly,
they were saying it's estimated somewhere anywhere between five and

(26:41):
eight million Americans participated in No Kings Day rallies throughout
the country. Hmm. That's a very broad range. That's a
suspiciously way too high range. You're telling me more than
one percent of the country. You're telling me almost two
percent of the country participated in a No King's Day rally. No. No,

(27:08):
Like there are only three hundred and fifty million people
in the whole country, you're telling me eight million of them,
I e. Over two percent of them participate in No
they did not. That's ridiculous. That number is insane. You're
over one percent of Americans participated in No King's Day rally.
No they did not. Stop. So there's that first. Let's

(27:32):
start there, A very very small percentage of Americans relatively speaking,
participated in these rallies. It was a bunch bigger percentage
in certain well I don't actually, I don't know if
it's a percentage. It was a bigger gross number, certainly
in big cities I have a lot of anti Trump
liberals in them. It was very little in you know

(27:56):
where we are here in the San Jaquin Valley. And
I think that what Democrats are, they're Democrats are trying
to make this into a thing. They're trying to sort
of emphasize, you know, we're coming for you, Donald Trump
the twenty twenty six mid terms. This is gonna be

(28:16):
a big deal. We're gonna stop you. We're gonna get
Democrats elected in twenty twenty six. The Democrat comeback is coming.
Is here. Let's go look at all this enthusiasm, look
at all this excitement, And I guess I feel like
all of these rallies are just so artificial. Now I

(28:40):
don't know all the funding for it. There are certain
like conservative websites that are breathlessly reporting on oh look
at these see dark money funders of it. Well, I
don't think they need to be dark money. If people
with a lot of Democrat money want fund protests against
Donald Trump. I don't know that it's necessarily like a
clandestine deal. Now, it does seem as though they try

(29:01):
to Florida conceal like who exactly it is, and they
want it to appear to be more grassroots probably than
it is. But you don't get a nationwide coordinated series
of these kinds of marches without any kind of coordinating money.
So yeah, it's a big coordinated thing. But is the
enthusiasm real. I don't know. I don't know that it is,

(29:24):
especially when you're talking about October of twenty twenty five.
Midterm elections aren't for thirteen months now. Is it relevant
in Virginia? Maybe? Is it relevant in New Jersey maybe
where they're having you know, local statewide elections right now? Yeah, yes,

(29:46):
for them, maybe it's relevant. But there's just so much
stuff Like I feel like political observers, reporters, talking heads
get lost in the immediacy of the moment and think
everything that's happening right now is the most important thing ever.
It's just not. Donald Trump ordered a military strike against Iran,

(30:13):
one of the most powerful countries in the Middle East,
to destroy their nuclear program. Like a couple of months ago,
and very few people remember. It's not like if we
have an election, if we were to have an election
in a month, trump bombing the Iranians would would that

(30:36):
crack the top five of most important issues? No, like
the news cycle moves on. I mean, that's my big
this is that's my big critique of Trump going down
this whole IVF road. That the whole IVF story got
started because the Alabama State Supreme Court in February of

(30:58):
twenty twenty four interpreted something in Alabama state law that
said that, yes, you can sue for a wrongful death
lawsuit rather than some other kind of general negligence lawsuit
or destruction of property or something if an IVF clinic
negligently just allows your embryos at an IVF clinic to
get destroyed, which would greatly enhance the liability risk for

(31:22):
IVF clinics. That story got spun up by Democrats in
the twenty twenty four campaign as all Republicans are trying
to shut down IVF nationwide, when again, it was an
Alabama State Supreme Court decision interpreting Alabama law. And rather
than just let the story die because it was in
February of twenty twenty four, and God knows that there
were going to be like twenty other things of way

(31:43):
more like political significance, newsworthiness. Between February twenty twenty four
and November of twenty twenty four, Trump decides to make
it a big campaign promise, and now we're stuck with
this stupid new IVF policies. And by the way, between
February of twenty twenty four and November twenty twenty four,

(32:05):
a lot of things happened. Donald Trump almost got assassinated
and the Democrats switched out Joe Biden for Kamala Harris,
like that fundamentally reshaped the whole makeup of that election.
No one cared about IVF by the time they were
voting in November of twenty twenty four. So yes, I

(32:25):
think that Republicans get to be prisoners of the moment
and everyone does Democrats too. And that's the thing, Like
Democrats have been crying wolf so much about how Donald
Trump is this most so agreed tous, so dangerous, so
norm violati blah blah blah blah blah, and Republicans are

(32:46):
able to point out like even like when Republicans don't
agree with something Donald Trump is doing to point out, well,
this was a normal Obama was violating at the time,
but no one made a big deal out of it.
This was a norm that's so and so violated at
the time. You guys didn't care about it. Then, I
do I think Trump is a one of a kind president. Sure,

(33:08):
do I think there are norms he has violated. Sure,
norms of like I don't know what you would expect
out of presidential decorum or things like that. I mean, clearly, Uh,
you know, I don't think. I don't think Bob Dole
or George H. W. Bush would have posted an AI

(33:28):
video of a fighter jet dropping a load of poop
on a bunch of No Kings Day protesters, which President
Trump did over this past weekend. But is that shaking
the foundations of our democracy? No, it's weird. How like
things that might be actually a little concerning, like the

(33:50):
bombing strikes against Venezuelan ships in the Caribbean, where you know,
I have no fondness for Venezuelan drug runners. However, well,
that's a military operation you're pulling off. Are those actual
military combatants if they're just people engaged in a criminal enterprise?

(34:15):
Should we be just assassinating them? Do you have legal
authority for that? I mean, as a lawyer, I'm now
probably a lot. The problem is that for something like that,
a lot of people don't give a damn if people
like that are just blown out of existence. I, as
a lawyer and someone who has thought about the Constitution,
would be well that hold on there, Like, what are

(34:39):
we doing? Like is this a military intervention? We're doing that?
We're we're engaged in military operations against Venezuelan drug dealers
where we were authorized to use just deadly military force
on site just to blow them out of the water,
as opposed to interdict them for you know, criminal law
enforcement purposes or immigration control purposes like stuff like that

(35:04):
I think is more like norm violative and doesn't seem
to get the same amount of press kind of like
how you know, when Barack Obama was using drone strikes
against someone who was an American citizen abroad without any
kind of court authorization that needed, that was a pretty
norm violative thing. Nobody blinks an eye about that. And

(35:28):
that's what I don't get, Like, here's these no King's
Day protests. We're at this Defcon one level over what
I guess mostly over immigration enforcement, which is this really
a thing that the country is that alarmed by. I
don't know that it is. Everyone knew the deal when

(35:52):
Trump was running. He wanted to deport all the illegal immigrants,
and he won forty nine to forty seven. So I
guess I don't know how you get to a constant
state of Defcon one emergency level, and especially when Democrats
have been at that fever pitch for again, like almost

(36:13):
a decade here with Donald Trump. I just don't know
how much of an impression that's gonna make on the
general voting populace when we return. The worst Politician in
America announces he's running for Nancy Pelosi's old House seat
or current House seat. I should say that's next on
the John Girardi Show, The Worst Politician in the United

(36:35):
States of America? Is it Zoron Mum Donnie Nope, you
might think, so it's not him. Is it AOC Nope,
it's not her. Not her. Is it Chuck Schumer, No,
it's not her. It is it Gavin Newsom, Nope, not him.
Kamala Harris, well, she's not a politician at the moment.
So no, not her. Who could it be the worst

(36:58):
politician in America. That would be Scott Wiener. Scott Wiener,
the California State Senator who represents San Francisco, has announced
he is running for Nancy Pelosi's seat in the House
of Representatives in the US House of Representatives. Among the
kinds of policies, mister Wiener has introduced mister Wiener, who

(37:23):
is a gay man who marched while in the state
legislature and gay pride parades wearing bondage gear. Mister Wiener
has voted for policies to decriminalize people intentionally giving someone
else aids. He has voted for reducing penalties for rape
of a minor. He has voted for all kinds of

(37:48):
just completely god awful legislation. He is the worst, the worst,
most left wing politician in America. Nancy Pelosi's daughter, it's
been rumored, might run for this seat. I'm almost willing
to campaign for her. I would crawl through broken glass
to vote against Scott Wiener anyway, could be coming to

(38:12):
the House of Representatives as soon as January of twenty
twenty seven. That'll do it, John Girardi Show, See you
next time on power talk,