The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Rifts, Rifts Everywhere

The prolonged agony of Joe Biden is causing rifts in the political universe similar to what a black hole does—a vortex sucking everything into a void beyond which lie quantum unknowns. This episode ponders a number of those unknowns as best we can.

First off, we note the sudden media/Democratic Party discovery of "Project 2025," and enumerate a few items we wish would be included, like year-round McRibs at McDonalds, and an end to the designated hitter rule in the National League. Then John provides an on-scene account of this week's National Conservatism conference where he was a speaker, and where he took note for the very first time of the "trad wives" movement, which really represents an implicit final rejection of immanentizing the eschaton. 

From there we take up some listener requests for "explainers" about the peculiar 12th Amendment (since Trump may choose a running mate from Florida, causing confusion and uncertainty), and then the workings of the 25th Amendment, which we all agree is unlikely to work on President Biden unless he actually lapses into a coma or something. Trump can render this moot, however, if he picks Steve and Lucretia's choices for Veep; John is going for a Florida veepnom.

Beneath the surface of all these issues is the knotty problem of KAH-mala. We ponder a few possibilities on this that so far we haven't heard anyone else present.  

Exit music this week, once against chosen for topicality: "Rift" from Phish, since some aspects of it sound like they almost could be thinking of Kamala:

Last night, in the moments my thoughts were adrift
And coasting a terrace, approaching a rift
Through which I could spy several glimpses beneath
Of the darkness the light from above could not reach
I spied wings of reason, herself taking flight
And upon yonder precipice saw her alight
And glared back at me one last look of dismay
As if she were the last one she thought I'd betray

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
Well, whiskey coming game, Paymoney my brain, Oh whiskey, don't
you let me? From power Lineblog dot com and produced by Ricochet dot
Com, this is the three WhiskeyHappy Hour with your bartenders Steve Hayward,

(00:23):
John You and power Lines International Womanof Mystery Lucretia. I gotta giving let
that whiskey bloon where you're being inloud down and load, John. I
have really good news for you.I have delved into the details of Project

(00:44):
twenty twenty five and it calls formaking McRib a year round, offering it
all McDonald's restaurants coast to coast aroundthe world, so you should be happy.
They're also going to get rid ofthe designated hitter in the National League,
and you know, five dollars alongwith girl jumped in all the good
ideas in there exactly. Can Ijust can I just put in a plea

(01:07):
to have McDonald's going back to fryingtheir French fries in beef Town. Tell
yes, that's right. The tastereally good back and we want to mention
how much better they are for youthat way. Yeah. I want the
old clamshell containers for burgers, whichthey got rid of around nineteen ninety and
all day breakfast, right, allday breakfast at McDonald's was the only good

(01:30):
thing that happened in the Obama years, and COVID killed that hasn't come back
anyway. Hi, everybody, it'sthe three Whiskey Happy Hour. We're going
kind of punchy start here today becausewe're giddy at a whole bunch of things.
So on our list today, we'regoing to talk about some listener questions
about the twelfth Amendment, which seldomgets mentioned, the twenty fifth Amendment.
Briefly, this all was wrapped upin the Biden Trump race. Uh.

(01:53):
And then we'll see what else weadd to all that. But first,
John, before whiskey, whiskey.I've been dying to do this, and
we haven't talked whiskey for a coupletimes. I just want to tell you,
guys, I bought a bottle ofGlenn Fittitch that is aged in cask
of a Montiado sherry casks. Ooh, now does that mean anything to either

(02:17):
of you two? Are you justphilistines? There's this that's a rhetorical question,
right right right, there's this absolutelylovely and I challenge you to go
find it and read it lovely.Edgar Allan Poe short story called The Cask
of a Montado and it begins somethinglike the thousand the Thousand Insults of Fortunado.

(02:42):
Anyway, it's this great story wherethis guy has takes out revenge on
his enemy by taking him through thecatacombs and to promise him this cask of
a Montiado that he has buried deepdown in what he and the guy has
some sort of asthma or something,and by the time they get there,
because of the off in the caves, he can't breathe and he's dying.

(03:02):
And the guy puts him in thiscave and boards it up and leaves him
there. Yeah. I think Ivaguely call that I wanted to tell you
anyway, So is it good?Lovely? Oh yeah, okay, but
I saw the label. I'm like, that's so cool, all right,

(03:23):
So sorry. Yeah, No,I'm I'm still working through my latest bottle
of quarter cast Lefroy and John hereon the road, so you may not
be getting your rations of whiskey rightnow. Yeah. I'm just at a
clerk reunion for some judge. Anddid you tell him? I said what
I told you to say, John, I will, I will, I

(03:44):
will. I haven't gotten to ityet. I've got it, okay,
but I will. I will reportback. Maybe he's a layer listener of
the Three Whiskey Happy Hour. Wenever know, wouldn't surprise me. I
mean, I know certain other federaljudges who are who I won't. We
have, Yes, we have,I have had. I have been lobbied
by federal judges to reveal the nameof Lucretia and the Fatina's the contempt motion

(04:08):
to protect her identity the time youspent in Riker's Island just because you refused.
Right, So, John, beforewe get into it with some of
our constitutional topics that listeners have askedabout. You were early in the week
at the latest big conference of theNational Conservatives. I think you spoke I
couldn't go. I wanted to,but I was not able to go.

(04:30):
But what got a lot of presscoverage and a lot of Twitter controversy and
a lot of nonsense, including theeditor of Reason magazine was horrified at your
presentation. In particular, really definitelySlady actually tweeted about how terrible it was
that you think that Trump ought toplay tit for tad on the on the
prosecution business. That's the only wayto make the Democrats stop. We've talked

(04:51):
about that here, classic theory exactly. Well, several commentators on the threat
did say, but that's what thisis classic game theory. What are you
talking about? Libertarians ought to understandthat. But anyway, what are your
observations. Do you have any highlights or low lights or my own defense.
That's how we got rid of theSpecial Council statute. Exactly after Bill
Clinton suffered from it. Did theDemocrats realize the error of their ways?

(05:14):
Right? So it was really interesting. And this is the second one I've
spoken at. The other one wasin Florida a few years ago. One
thing that makes it really different thanmost other conservative conferences I've been at it
is just the youth and energy.Yeah. Most of the people in the
audience are probably under or are definitelyunder thirty years old, and they're you

(05:35):
know, they're itching for a fight. They're brawlers, you know, they
you know, yeah, they liketo discuss the finer points of Straussi and
slash Jappa theory. I think Igot one question from the audience about Jaffa's
views on this or that, Butyou're right, they want to they they
they think I think they look uponall of us no matter even Lucrezia is

(05:58):
too soft on the left, andthey just want to go and take the
fight to them. They think we'reway too moderate and reasonable. That one
thing I came with just the levelof energy and youth in the move in
this do the branch of the movement. The second thing that I came away
with is I'm not sure a lotof people know what national conservativism is.
Yeah, like nationalism. I startedoff my mark saying, I think the

(06:20):
nation state has been a great device, and I'm a conservative, but I'm
not sure what you're getting out ofcombining the two, you know, and
I'm not sure most people know whatthe principles of the organization are, which
call for higher tariffs, more industrialpolicy withdrawal, less interventionism in the world,

(06:43):
and more religious more religious involvement inpublic affairs. Right. You know,
they have a statement of principles,and you know, I'm not sure
I agree actually with any of those, but I have a lot of friends
there, and I think that they'rebeing very provided Christian mouth opens up the
conference. You know, the formerhead of ADI with Steve and I were
there, and he's become a netcon. He used to be a pre

(07:05):
trade, deregulatory, pro interventionist,establishment republican, the kind of person Lucretia
would have run through with a javelin. We had a podcast where I ran
him through with a javelin. Idon't even remember what it was about,
but I disagree with him entirely.Steve, do you remember I don't,
right? And you were offended becauseyou're a good you know, he's a

(07:27):
good friendeer well, and he's youknow, I now Chris would be back
there sharpening the javelin for Lucretia tothrow at others. Well, I think
I think he's still a sort ofan economic libertarian. But it's the other
aspects of this John, which isyou want to have a self conscious orientation
of our government that puts America's interestfirst. We're still scared, all these

(07:48):
years later of the America first termbecause of its ill associations from eighty years
ago. Right, And that's crazy. And I think tariffs are likely a
bad idea, except maybe it's Chinafor certain things, but not ten percent
on everything. I think is anutty idea uh and uh oh, and

(08:09):
then we want to resist this Ithink serious undercurrent. It's been around for
a long time that the US needsto be part of the international consensus.
That as what's his name at uhthe guy at Virginia and the political science
department to put it. Uh no, no, not Sabado, the good

(08:30):
guy. The conservatives. Jim Caesar, It's Jim Caesar. Jim Seeser wrote
a great article on this more thanten years ago where he said the lest
view is that a policy or politicsshould be guided by an international consensus and
stretches from Berkeley to Berlin. Ithought that was a great phrase. One
more thing about in that kind thatI learned, I really think I really

(08:50):
want to hear with lu Crutius viewson this work because both men, both
men and women, the ones Iwas talking to, were really taken with
this idea of what they call thetraditional what oh yeah, yeah. So
one of them was telling one ofthe women was telling me jokingly that the
men were talking about this idea whereuh, a conservative man one goes to

(09:11):
dinner with a with a with apotential spouse or his spouse should order the
dinner for the traditional wife without askingthem what they want and having been to
dinner with Lucretia and his husband herhusband that would lead to immediate sabbing.
But people would stake knives, Iguarantee you right. But this was like

(09:33):
all the things I love target.So I was just so interested in this.
But these there's like trad what ohyeah, I mean, I can't
imagine a crazier thing, actually,But they were like, oh no,
this shows this shows the husband's carefor the wife because he studies her and
tries to identify what she would wantand then to order for her. I
thought that was insane. I'm stilllike, it's a liberal at heart.

(09:54):
I believe in the autonomy of individuals, even Lucretia. Uh, well,
that's a tough one, John.How do I say this? It's very
difficult if you are a professional woman, shall we say, but you still
cling to some of those traditional conservativevalues of family and so forth. So

(10:16):
I did actually give up my tenuredprofessorship in California to become a full time
wife and mother, and you know, that's one of those things that becomes
problematic for your career. But Isort of think felt like I bounced back,
but it's almost you know, doI stop and let somebody open the
door for me and then they don't, you know, because there's all these

(10:39):
funny but how do I say theidea of returning to that old idea of
trad wife doesn't kind of make sensein the modern world unless you are and
I know, I know women,smart women, but they are stay at
home wives and moms, and youknow, can I propose the compromise position,

(11:05):
which is Project twenty twenty five oughtto at least call for returning to
ladies menus at restaurants where they don'thave the prices. But you know,
I'm telling you that the youngsters don'teven know about that one. Yeah,
I know, and young people it'syou know, I see this sort of
thing all the time. Kind ofconfuses me. But it's not necessarily expected

(11:28):
that the guy pays on a dateanymore, you know, not at all.
Yeah, it's it's just, youknow, any more than it's expected
that the guy proposes to the womanor asks the guy the guy asks a
woman out on a date. Allof those things are kind of gone from
our generation, I think. Andit's difficult because you know, most of
the kids I know kids. Imean, you know, twenty somethings are

(11:52):
are conservative and learned how to dothe conservative things that you're supposed to do
with women open their door, dD and it sometimes gets them in trouble.
Why do you think you should paykind of thing? You know?
So I don't even know how toanswer your question, John, I really
don't, which is that this waslike one of the examples of how the
younger Conservice are really riled up,but they're also like pushing the boundaries of

(12:18):
what to believe. I have thisgreat image of them thinking, you know,
talking over dinner, Oh god,what do we about Ukraine? Pro
Ukraine, anti Ukraine? And thenlike you're having the scalps? Yeah,
what is that about? Well?My uh, I think finally when I
had dinner with a creture, shewanted everybody to have scalps, right,

(12:39):
she love ordered for everybody? Right. Well, I think my two observations
on the net con thing. Oneis I think I'm going to annoy lucrecy
because I think you've heard me tellthis joke before. But you know,
John, when they talk about industrialpolicy, they sound like Walter Mondale nineteen
eighty four, And this is bizarreare And I think of my old mentor,

(13:01):
Stan Evans. His joke would havebeen, gosh, some of these
ideas sound like socialism, but Iguess if it's national socialism, it's okay,
right. That's the kind of jokehe would have made. Right.
More seriously, the bit about theenergy and the iconic clasm as the previous
example of the young people who gothere, that's what I've picked up too.

(13:24):
I think that's one of its strongestpoints, is there's a lot of
energy there. You know. Istill go as often as I can to
the annual meeting of the Philadelphia Society. I was the president once fifteen years
ago, and it's excus much older, unfortunately, and we're still arguing over
imminentizing the esketon and not about youknow, nothing practical like to do a

(13:45):
trad wife movement and all the restof that stuff. So you can see
a disjunction here and why the youngercohort of conservatives really have so little interest
in you know what we old fartslike me have to say. So before
you go on, I want toread just one of the comments that I
was tagged on in Twitter WTF speakingabout law fair at nat Con for attorney

(14:09):
John, you just said you haveto retaliate against them in exactly the same
way until you get some deterrence.If we're not going to become a banana
republic, unfortunately, we're going tohave to use banana republic means. And
then there's a whole series of thingslike John, you is exactly right.
There's the meme of god what's hisname from Chinatown? Technical. Yes,

(14:41):
anyway, you're very popular on myfeed, and so my only comment was
maybe I am having some influence onhim. I thought you'd appreciate that.
John, you really should get onTwitter or x whatever whatever it's called.
Charles Murray is on on on Actswe want to call it, and you

(15:03):
know he just if people want toargue, he'll do it. If people
want to call him names and heblocks them. But you know, he
actually spends a lot of time onTwitter, but which amazes me. But
there you go. All right,John, I'm proud of you. I'm
proud of you. Yeah, Iknow, that's right. Stuff I've been
writing about for years. All ofa sudden they think this is something new

(15:24):
and terrible. Yeah, right right. One person thought it was terrible.
Yeah, that was Stephanie Slade fromReason. I think right, but most
people think it's absolutely exactly right.So there you go. At least most
of people will follow me, John, I know that surprises you. All
right, let's move on to ourtomics now. I'm never writing another thing

(15:46):
in you can't. I'm sure NationalReview is probably reeling from that one a
bit. Oh okay, let's let'stake on a couple of constitutional shoes related
to the election that listeners have askedabout. The first one is, you
know, we're getting close to anyday now Trump announcing his is running mate,

(16:07):
well by next week for sure.It's the convention, so he has
to. And there's the question arisesabout this quirky part of the Twelfth Amendment,
adopted after the election of eighteen hundredand ended in a kind of a
tie right between the Burr and Jeffersonand uncertainty, right, And you know,
it has a peculiar passage that says, a forget it's the first about

(16:33):
here, very first sentence. Theelectors shall meet in their respective states right
and vote by ballot for president andvice president, one of whom at least
shall not be an inhabitant of thesame state with themselves, right. So
what that means is is that theelectors, say, from Florida, if
it was Trump Rubio, two peoplefrom Florida, the electors couldn't vote for

(16:57):
both Trump and Rubio. They'd haveto not vote or vote for somebody else.
And there's some mysteries here to thisthat. But anyway, if you
want to say a little more aboutit, John or No. Just like
you know, people generally think,oh, this means the president and vice
presidential candidates from party can't be fromthe same state. That's not true.
And you read it as you justdid closely, Steve, it actually really

(17:18):
would only apply to the electors ofFlorida, right, So it's not as
if, I mean, they couldrun as a ticket everywhere else in the
country, it would be fine,right right. And if it's a state,
and if it's a close election,then you want to make sure you
have candidates from different states. Andthe other thing that was interesting is that
my memories of this last came upin two thousand because George W. Bush

(17:40):
was governor Texas and Dick Cheney,who was I think was the CEO of
Halliburn, was also a resident ofTexas. So he had to change his
residency to it. Yeah. Theinteresting about the constitutional law issue is that
the Constitution doesn't describe how you determinewho's an inhabitant of your state, and

(18:03):
so there's all kinds of weird thingsyou can do. Like so, for
example, you could move somewhere,get a driver's license, go somewhere,
you know, get the voter registrationchanged. But some states like California,
which one attax everybody whoever steps footin the state says it. If you're
in the state of California, youknow for more a day half the year

(18:25):
and a day you are an inhabitantof California, whether you like it or
not. So there are all thesestates that have different ideas about what's an
inhabitant, and the court, theSupreme Court says it's the totality of the
circumstances. It depends on lots ofthings, and so I don't think there's
a clean Supreme Court test for what'san inhabitant and would make a difference here.

(18:47):
So someone like Trump, who spendsa good portion of time is at
his place in New Jersey. Weknow, thinking about just tax law and
if you know, if you've workedfor a multi state or even multinational corporation,
and you spend x amount of timein this place an x amount you
pay taxes on all of those.You pay state taxes for the amount of

(19:10):
time that you are working, notliving, but working from that state.
Trump obviously, I mean, whoknows how all that works when you've got
that kind of money and those kindsof incomes. But if he spends x
amount of time in New Jersey,then he could easily claim that he's an
inhabitant of New Jersey for the purposesof the twelfth Amendment, because we wouldn't

(19:33):
want if he did choose Marco.I don't think he should choose, by
the way, but that would bea way out right, the same way
that Cheney did it. But here'sthe thing. I don't think that Trump
wants to change his residence because rightnow he's a resident of a state with
no income tax, right, sohe could cost him a lot of money.

(19:56):
Plus maybe I'm wrong, but Icould totally see Trump saying, Marco,
you change your state, yeah,right, show all right, But
he but Marco doesn't have a house, as I mean, Trump has residencies
in other places. Well from me, no Rubio because it has to do

(20:17):
with Rubio's future. Because if Globobecomes vice president never going to be his
senate again, then it doesn't reallymatter. But if he gets it and
then Trump loses Rubio, I mean, yeah, he'll be he can be
a senator from Florida, but it'sgoing to kill him in the next election.
Yeah, that's right, it's Imean, he may own a residence
stand suburban Virginia. I don't know, and you could do that, but
I think it's dodgy for senator.But let's game it out a different way.

(20:41):
Forget the legal question of what countsas residents for the purpose of the
twelfth Amendment. It might not getthat far because let's put it this way.
If you have a Trump Burgham ticketBurgham from what North Dakota, it's
three electoral votes. Maybe you don'tcare about this. You won't, you
won't. It's about burgery. We'llcome back to that question in the moment.

(21:04):
You don't care about those three electoralvotes for vice president because if you
win, you're gonna win by morethan that. But if you're a hare
I suppose you have a Hairess Nooseometicket from California Democrats aren't going to want
to sacrifice fifty two electoral votes forvice president. And the only thing I'm
not clear about is the language inthere is you have do you have to

(21:25):
have a majority of the five hundredand thirty eight to win the electoral college
or just the vote's cast? Becausethis has been a big space. Is
you see what I'm going with that? Right? Yes? Yes? So
yeah, So Steve's point is theconstitution. We've always understood the constitutional text
to require that you get a majorityof the electoral college. But when you

(21:48):
look at the text, it's clear, actually it does sound like it's just
a majority of the vote's cast.Now, no one's ever used that understanding.
So when you go over history whenthe electoral votes are counted and the
few cases where it's been kicked overit because under the twelfth Amendment is under
the previous the previous text, ifthere's no majority of the electoral college won

(22:10):
by a candidate, then it goesto the House where they right, yeah,
from president, where they vote bystate delegation. So, but the
vice president's picked by the Senate,isn't the yeah, okay, so you
see by the Senate simple majority.It's just so even clear simple majority,
not by state vice president. Yeah, vices, I think it's at the

(22:34):
Senate shall choose. I think itsays it's all. It says, it's
only the House. It's only thepresident in the House that has this weird
You vote by state delegation, notby member, and it's by majority.
So I mean, I think youcould see. I mean, here's a
scenario that's not out of this world, which is Biden and Harris narrowly win
the electoral college for president. Oh, I'm sorry, let's do it around

(22:57):
Harris and Newsome or Newsom Harris narrowlywin the electrical college for president. But
there's not a majority of the wholenumber of electors for vice president. But
you have a Republican Senate. Youcould have a Democratic president and a Republican
vice president. Seems to me that'sone way this. And then you might
have a suit of the Supreme Courtsaying is it the whole number of electors
or just the votes cast? Andlet me ask you a question. They

(23:19):
can choose anyone, right, theydon't. They won't necessarily have to choose
the party nominees for vice president.No, no, So that's the way
people thought it might have worked before, but the twelfth That's one of the
things they changed in the twelfth Amendmentwas that you would have to pick from
a list of the people the topthree. Right. So with the with

(23:42):
the VP, it says, youknow, you look at the votes by
the electors for vice president, andyou take the two highest vote givers,
you pick between them, and Ithink the House is the top three,
right, Yeah, yeah, yeah, not exceeding three on the list.
Yeah, voted right president, Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So okay,

(24:03):
so remember, can we get intolike the one little piece of skullduggery
that occurred in the election of eighteenhundred, which is why they did this,
is because I think before it wasit could be up to five and
so Hamilton and we're maneuvering to tryto get one of the Federalists get in
there on that list and then havethe republic the federalist column Congress which still

(24:27):
controlled the House, to pick theFederals, and I think Jefferson engaged in
his own kind of machinations to kickto manage it so no Federalists got on
the list that went to the House. Yeah, okay, fun stuff all
right, So can I ask though, I just want to see. Yeah,

(24:48):
I think he ought to pick Rubiobecause I think we're over confident after
the debate. It seems to me, if you think you're gonna win,
then you might pick Dvance or youmight pick Burgham because you're just solidifying your
advance appeals to the base. Burghamgives you a lot of money, probably
doesn't give you any more votes,might even lose votes. But Rubio at
least has the potential upside of moreHispanic votes. And it sees me if

(25:12):
you could change the Hispanic support forthe Repulam Party by five or even ten
points, then the election's over.So if you're not too overconfident from the
debate, then I think you pickedRubio. We've got our DEI co host
on that. I never denied that. I've never denied that. I to

(25:33):
say that. I don't know ifyou saw this. John Bergham, I
think committed I think well the guyI think, but he committed a terrible
blunder. A week or so ago, he said we should be clear that
we're at war with Russia. Wejust haven't sent our own troops yet,
which made it sound like he's ohbut sending now right, I don't you
know? That was that did notsound very good to me. I'm for
Tom Cotton, That's who I thinkwould be. I don't even think he's

(25:56):
on the short list, is he? I don't know? Or you never
underestimate Trump's ability to uh, youknow, get the get the cats going
with the lasers and then all ofa sudden throw out a mouse in the
other direction, right, Uh doyou think should be? Who do you
think? Who do you think itwill be? Trump? Versus who do

(26:18):
you think it should be? Ihave no idea who Trump will pick.
I I do think it's possible,it's possible that he will in fact throw
the mouse out there, but Iwould hope it would be jd Vance.
He's the most well I agree withhim on the most things. Maybe that's
why. And I'm not thinking.I'm not necessarily thinking in terms of what
a vice president brings to the table, because I'm not always sure that that

(26:41):
they can even show in any givencase that makes much difference. Right,
people are either Maybe Pens gave Trumpa few more votes because they liked his
boring, uh sanctimonious, in yourface sort of thing. But sorry,

(27:03):
but I had a debate yesterday reallyquickly with my colleague about because I didn't
remember, but he did. Youknow, Pennce actually calls himself a born
again evangelical traditional Catholic. Sorry,guys, there's no such thing as that.
Okay, no there is, butanyway, enough of that. They're

(27:26):
not even born against Catholic rights.Just a Protestant. Yeah, it's a
Protestant thing, I mean, yeah, anyway, but I mean he's been
both so I I mean so sohave I. By the way, I
grew up in one of those youknow, holy rollers speaking in tongues,
slaying spirit. Yeah, Pentecostal churches, and so yes, I know that's

(27:49):
why I can speak with some authorityon this now that but I am not
a holy roller Catholic whatever that means. Anyway, Back to back to jd
Vance, That's who I like.I don't think he hurts the ticket.
John, And I guess I wantedto ask you when you were talking about
this, and I mean this seriously. I'm not really not trying to tweak

(28:14):
you here. Are there really alot of people who vote based upon their
identity? I have never in mylife even thought for a quarter of a
millisecond that I should vote for someonebecause there were women. I can't imagine

(28:37):
anything yay, so stupid. Yaytake a picture, Steve, Yeah,
hold that on. I can't imagineanything so stupid as voting for someone because
they're white, they're Hispanic, they'reblack, the female, they're gay,
they're not gay. Those things areirrelevant in politics? Why do we play
this game? Still? Well,wait a minute, respond, isn't that

(29:03):
I'm not saying that's the way weshould do it, but isn't that the
way the political scientists say? Isit's a strong problem. That's what I'm
asking you, guys. You know, I think I think there is some
evidence for it. I think certainlythe Catholic vote swung more heavily than what
already would have for Kennedy in nineteensixty. And I think there's good evidence
that the evangelical vote helped Jimmy Carterin nineteen seventy six. Because but that's

(29:25):
not identity, Steve, Well,kind of is not really, because I
mean, why would you be aCatholic vote would be because that person shares
a whole bunch of perspectives on lifethat you share, which seems to me
to be relevant. The fact thatsomebody's skin color is dark like mine seems

(29:45):
absolutely irrelevant. That's what I'm tryingto get across. Well, that's normative.
I totally agree on normative, Likethat's not the way people should think.
But descriptively, it's the way peoplethink. Like, blacks vote for
the Democratic Party by like over ninetyfive. Have you ever voted for someone
because they're Korean? John, Idon't think I've ever seen a Korean on

(30:07):
in a battle. And I've gottento vote when I was running for presidents
of high school tutor society or something. But you know what, there is
this Korean guy running for Senate inNew Jersey who's very liberal, Andy Kim,
and even though he's Korean, Iwouldn't vote for him. Yeah,
yeah, I agree because I butI'm just saying most people don't vote that
way. That's all. Well,I mean, yeah, true, Oh

(30:29):
I love it. Oh oh.John's holding up a T shirt just so
you know that says, yeah,hold on, I gotta get that.
Don't let them steal your joy.Yeah, good, good, good,
this is great. I think that'sactually a quote from Justice Thomas Right.
Oh gosh, this great is ThomasSwag. This is fantastic. I'll look

(30:52):
for it on eBay tomorrow. Well, actually, but there is a counter
example I can think of that Bolterspoint that crete is was the governor's race
in New York in nineteen eighty two. You had a Jewish Republican lou Lahirrman
running against the Italian Democrat Mario Cuomo. Cuomo won the Jewish vote and Lariman

(31:12):
won the Italian vote. In NewYork. People there, Yeah, it's
so awesome because the Italians have leanRepublican for a long time, and the
Jewish vote, of course has beendemocratic, and it didn't matter that it
was the same team. So there'sa counter example. I mean, even
talking about the black voter in theHispanic vote, let's set aside. There
are reasons why the black vote hastrended democratic, and you can thank you

(31:37):
know, JFK and to some extenteven LBJ for that, because there has
been a concerted effort by the DemocraticParty first to actually bring civil rights or
to take the credit for advancing civilrights for blacks in the early sixties.
I'm going to say take the creditbecause let's remember it was Democrats who opposed
it all along, but they consolidatedthe vote in the Democratic Party through a

(32:01):
variety of different policies. That makessense, And what you're seeing with the
black vote right now, I thinkvery clearly are people who are calling out
the Democratic Party and saying, whathave you done for us? What have
you really done for us? Youpromise us handouts, you let you know

(32:22):
the thinking about Trump even going toBrooklyn and talking about Look, I don't
want to hand you things. Idon't want to treat you like your children.
I want you to be empowered,sorry I hate that word. To
make a life for yourself and createthe conditions whereby you can do that.
So all of those kinds of identitypolitics makes sense if you think of them

(32:45):
in terms of platforms and outreach andpolicies. They don't make sense to me.
This I mean, I actually gotin a fight with a woman.
I want to slug her so hard. I'll be honest with you. She
said, how could you not votefor Hillary Clinton? It's the first woman.
Well, I want to vote forHillary Clinton for dog patcher and the

(33:05):
hopes that there would be pit bullsout there that she had to catch with
her bare hands. I mean,sorry, I'm done with all right,
let's we go on all day aboutthis. Let's move on to another amendment
that's suddenly being discussed again. Uh, and that is the the twenty fifth
Amendment, Because well, let's see, it looks like we're barreling along to

(33:30):
the Democratic leadership, likely going toBiden sometimes soon saying you have to go,
sorry, you just can't stand theticket, and he will refuse.
And then the question becomes, well, will the habnet invoked the twenty fifth
Amendment and declare him unable to continuein office because of you know, mental
disability. Now the problem is,uh, political problem is well, first

(33:54):
of all, we want to gothrough how this works, especially Section four,
which is quite strange. People thinkit's just this cut and dry.
The cabinet's a majority of the cabinetsays he's not fit for duty, and
then he's the president's out. It'snot how section four works. But then
second, there's an obvious political conflictof interest. The vice president is supposed
to lead the effort or be partof the effort. She wants to be

(34:15):
president. Second, you've got atleast two cabinet members who want to be
president. A Buddha judge and what'syour name from Romando? And all the
cabinet members owe their jobs to PresidentBiden. So there's an element of personal
loyalty. By the way it hasleaked out the last couple of weeks that
there hasn't been like cabinet meetings forlike a year or eight months. Most

(34:37):
of the cabinet hasn't seen Biden,right, and even then they were scripted
entirely. Yes, correct, that'sright there exactly. So. So the
problem then is here, I'll justsay one more thing and I'll shut up.
The twenty fifth Amendment, key sectionfour. It's weird. It says,
I'm going to paraphrase it, I'mtoo long to read through. Will

(34:57):
lose people. It says a majoritythe cabin transmits that the president's unable to
discharge the duties of the office tothe president is therefore the vice president becomes
acting president. But next paragraph,but the president can then essentially contest this
finding and send a letter to theboth houses of Congress saying no, I'm
fine, there's no no disability.I'm president again. At that point,

(35:22):
Congress has four days to vote bya two thirds majority to override essentially what
the president has just transmitted saying thatthe president is able. So there's back
and forth here, and so youknow, even if they invote the twenty
fifth Amendment, it's not necessarily over. Is there two thirds vote of both
houses of Congress to kick Biden out? I'm not so sure of that.

(35:45):
So let me just argue for amoment that perhaps the idea wasn't necessarily to
prevent a senile president from right continuingin office, but it was in fact
to prevent something for just for thefun of it. I watched Dave again
the other night, the Great movieabout starring Kevin Klein. It's a great

(36:07):
movie, even though it's as usualthose movies are all liberal, but I
still love politics movies. So wherewhere the president has a stroke and they
try to hide it so that theguy in power can stay in power.
But the way that they that thegood guys fix the problem is that they
have Kevin Klein, who's pretending wholooks like the president and in his active

(36:30):
as the president, while the president'sin you know, being hidden away and
nobody knows that he's actually in acoma. He pretends to have another stroke
and collapses in front of all ofCongress, right and and the entire country
because it's all televised, and soit's very easy for the vice president to

(36:52):
do the right thing, step upand say, you know, I've got
to take over, and it's allthere's none of that what did you call
it, Steve, the conflict ofinterest between the president and or the vice
president and the president. So whenwe kind of are critical of the of
the twenty fifth Amendment and its ambiguities, I just want to argue for a

(37:15):
moment that I don't think it wasthat anybody envisioned that we would ever have
a party so corrupted that they wouldput forward someone who was progressively more and
more senile. And to the pointwhere where did we get far enough that
it's now necessary to take this guyout of you know, the command structure

(37:37):
for the nuclear codes and everything elsethat that means, I do want to
say really quickly, Stephen, thenI'll let John talk about what really matters
with the twenty fifth Amendment, andthat is that you've heard a lot more,
a lot more of the arguments thatwe I picked it as an article
man four or five months ago,probably by Paul Walden I think was his

(37:58):
name where he just argued, butit doesn't matter, he argued, before
we knew how soon, All right, well we knew, but before the
country recognized how seen now Joe Bidenwas that it doesn't matter because everything good
that Biden has done, student loanforgiveness, EPA, blah blah blah,
on and on and on was notdone by Biden. It wasn't his idea,

(38:19):
it wasn't implemented by him. It'sjust the fact that he's in the
office. It's allowed to happen.I've seen at least a dozen articles lately
that argue exactly that that, Ohgood, what was it yesterday? I
heard doctor Jill Biden and you knowthese other people, they're so incredibly competent

(38:39):
and focused on what's good for thecountry. We can trust them as the
brain trust of Biden. Okay,so yeah, I got it out there.
Yeah, I've seen a couple ofsmart lefties, I know, on
Twitter making that argument, of course, in Twitter short form, which was,
you know, we don't just electpresidents anymore, we elect the whole
apparatus. I mean, they're sortof open about the administrative state. It's

(39:00):
really quite revealing see why Trump issuch a threat to them. Of course,
of course, right, yeah.My only comment about I agree with
Lucretia's reading of the amendment is thatthe way it's written, it's not really
possible to keep a president out whowants to come back into office. And
there's no time times not time herewhere the acting president President Kamala Harris gets

(39:23):
to be president. Because if youlook at section four, are the majority
in the cabinet? Wouldn't the vicepresident notice that the vice president and the
majority have to both agree? Yes, neither can do it alone. They
transmit to Congress that the president's thephrase unable to discharge the powers and duties
of his office. Some Biden peopleare out there, I think saying this

(39:43):
is only physical not mental, whichI think is ridiculous, doesn't ridiculous even
though it was. I don't thinkit was planned. Yeah, maybe they
weren't thinking about mental illness, butthe text doesn't doesn't distinguish just as unable
to discharge the powers. Then theinteresting thing is, right says the vice
president becomes immediately the acting president.But then it says when the president transmits

(40:07):
a letter back to Congress saying thathe's able to resume the operations of the
government. Then he gets to unlesstwo thirds of the House and the Senate
agree that you can't, which meansthat on day say it's day one,
Harris gets the Cabinet to put inthe letter and he becomes she becomes acting

(40:28):
president. On day two, Bidencould send a letter right back right,
I am able, and then youneed a super majority of Congress for Harris
to win. It's almost it's almostimpossible to imagine the twenty fifth Amendment working
unless Biden consents to it. Well, I mean, hold on, John,
I can imagine and this game isout again with a scenario, which
is it gets to that second stage. This is sort of like the Chavron

(40:51):
two step twenty fifth. Look,you get to that second stage, and
the question in my mind is ourRepublicans going to provide the votes to for
all the Democrats going to go alongand Republicans want to provide the margin to
get to the two thirds point.If I'm a Republican leader, I would
not offer any votes unless the majorityof Democrats in the House and Senate are

(41:15):
going to do it. But otherwiseit looks like a partisan attack and that's
what's say. Wait, wait,wait, let me ask a question.
So if if Republicans were to say, oh, Kamala is our best bet,
if Biden's not going to da dada da da, let's get Kamla
on the ticket, there's no waythat stupid h O wins. Sorry and

(41:38):
okay, whether that's true or not. But thence the vice president has to
be chosen and has to be approvedby yeah both, I know, right,
yeah who? Then do Republicans haveany say on who that vice president?
All? Of course, because youhave to have a majority of both
houses. Look, I think becausewe're so close to election, I think

(42:00):
we just wouldn't have a vice presidentfor the rest of the year. That
would leave Mike Johnson as the thirdand the next in line to be president.
By the way, so I thinkyou just just say forget it.
Let's just, you know, picka vice president in the election of November.
You know, if it were ayear ago, that would be different.
But now we're so close, Ithink it doesn't matter. But well,
I totally agree. Remember, beforethe twenty fifth Amendment, there was

(42:22):
no process, and so there arelong periods of presidential American history where we
had no vice president and nobody noticed. Think about John Tyler, right,
he takes office as act as presidentalmost immediately because of William Henry Harris dying,
there's no vice president for four years. Yeah, wow, nobody knows.

(42:43):
The country got along just fine.Yeah, it might be a little
different considering how close the Senate isthese days. I don't know. That's
the only reason I can think itwould really matter what happens. So if
Kamala gets taken out, I don'tknow. Maybe she I'm trying not to.
I'm not. I try not tospeculate in really lethal terms about Kamala

(43:07):
Harris. She means, she means, fantasize everybody. Yeah, I know,
I'm trying not to. Uh whatSo Mike Johnson then becomes president.
Can you imagine a year ago,we probably never could have even had these
We couldn't have even gone on theseflights of fantasy because they wouldn't have even
occurred to us. Right, Ihad one word, little like tid bit

(43:29):
of information to all us. SoI've been to Washington for the last week,
making the round, seeing all thepeople, people of the AI neo
cons my new tradir trad conservative husband, wife, everybody in Washington thinks Biden
will go. Yeah, They're like, he's just in denial and it's just

(43:49):
a matter of how the Democrats figureout how to get him to do it
willingly. But nobody, like Democratsor Republicans, no matter who I talk
to, they all believe that Bidenwill go in the end and that it's
just got to be like Obama andBill Clinton and the Democratic leaders in the
House, in the Senate. ButI'm not so sure. Why would he
go? Right Like, this isthe last gasp of his lifetime desire for

(44:14):
power, and he's always wanted tobe president. He ran for it for
whatever four times, starting when Heedback in eighty eight, and he why
would he give up now? Andhis family doesn't want him to give up,
because why would his family give up? Hunter Biden supposed leads the new
chief of staff, and so hehas every reason for his father to stay

(44:34):
in and and they're not My understandingtoo, is they're not letting anybody anybody
near Biden. You know, nobody'sgetting to come and have that senior statesman
talk with Biden saying do the rightthing for your country, because they're not
allowing it they're not allowing anybody toget to him and talk to him.
Well, I mean King Jeffreys,the Democratic House leader, did apparently see

(44:55):
him in person here what Thursday orFriday. We wouldn't say what he said.
Bet it was mealy mouth because theydon't you know, they lack courage
to depress. But I bet hewasn't alone. I'm sure that's I'm sure
that's right. A good point.Yeah, I'll bet that's correct. Here's
help another angle on your point andthe crecious earlier point of voting by skin
color. It is the Congressional Blackcaucasset is the main supporter Biden. They're

(45:16):
always and I think it's truly like, not a single remember the Congressional Black
Caucus has called him to step aside. There, just like in South Carolina
in twenty twenty, they're standing firmbehind him. You gotta go, why,
why is the Congressional Black Caucus infavor of simility and incompetence in the
White House. You would think they'dwant to see it. You'd think they'd

(45:37):
want to see Kamela elevated to thehead of the ticket. But exactly,
I mean, I think I thinkthat is the case, they recognize that
will happen if Biden can win,Kamala probably can't. Just thinking that maybe
that's a scenario. Well, butshe becomes president if Biden wins, because
I mean the other thing nobody evertalks about, and quite rightly so,

(45:57):
but I'm going to do it becauseyou know, I don't care dementia,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, neurological, whateverthe problem is with Biden, which they
won't say, of course, they'reprogressive diseases. He's not going to live
until the end of another four yearterm. I hate to be a ghoul

(46:19):
and say it like that, buteverybody knows it's true, and nobody wants
to say it out loud. Iwonder if he's going to make it through
the election. And I mean,you know, oh, I don't know.
You're the Congressional Black Caucus. Whydon't you want Biden to step aside
as president now so Kamala can becomethe actual first black president and then run
as the incumbent. There's more advantagesthan the way that it would come up

(46:43):
in this this scen era's two there'stwo reasons I think can explain where they
are right now. One is thelonger you wait. So first of all,
the Black Caucus flips, I thinkit's over for Biden. However,
when they flip is important. Thelonger you wait between now the convention,
the more likely it is you cementHarris as the successor to Biden as the

(47:05):
nominee. If they dump on himnow and Biden's out Monday, then there's
going to be all kinds of pressureoff. It's a free for all,
and it casts Harris's candidacy in doubt. I actually think that's the calculation the
Black Cope is making. That JimClyburn, guy, who's the key figure
there, he's equivocated late in theweek. I'm for Biden. I'm riding
with Biden, but we're open ifhe you know, if he makes a
different decision and you know we're we'regood with that too. That was,

(47:29):
you know, He's They're all hedging, even the ones who say they're for
Biden are hedging. So I thinkthat's the reason it's holding them back.
It's in their interest if they wantHarris to wait. I think that's the
main calculation of it. But theymay force their hands sooner. I don't
know. However, if they actuallywent to Biden and said and said you

(47:50):
need to resign for the good ofthe country and made Kamala president, right
the president right now. That's adifferent calculation than what you're talking about,
right It's it's asking him to pullout of the nomination is one thing.
Asking him to step down from thepresidency seems to me. Why Democrats are
not doing that is well, yeah, I mean, who's what's the old

(48:14):
Buckley line who says he must sayb if he can't be the nominee,
he shouldn't be president any longer either. If he can't stand a trial,
well, well there's your good careerfriend. You should vote for Robert Oh.
By the way, that'll be myother sign that it's over for Biden.
As if the her tapes leak somehowfrom the Department of Justice, because

(48:37):
I'm sure they're under lock and key, but gosh, if they conveniently leaked
and they're as bad as people thinkthey are, Okay, yeah, I
talk about Republicans by way for amoment, while Steve Bannon sits in jail,
the slimy, useless excuses for Republicansin the House couldn't even vote to
find the jerk. Sorry Garland aboutrefusing to what is wrong with Republicans?

(49:06):
You need to go give them apep talk, John Banana republic stuff here.
They're not known as the stupid partyfor nothing, you know. Yeah,
but they're not just stupid, they'recowardly, they're well, sorry,
let me try a scenario on youguys that no one has yet mentioned,
which is, uh, Biden resignsfrom the presidency and makes camel a president.

(49:27):
Now. I wrote a post aboutthis the other day. What do
you mean? Sorry, ahead,Well, no, but I want to
play it on a different way,which is this. Well, here,
I'll explain it if you let me. After I say this, what if
part of the deal is she agreesnot to be the nominee and it is
just a caretaker president from now tillJanuary. Nobody's mentioned this prospect. Why

(49:47):
do I do it? Well,well, I don't permanent president will.
I don't know why either. Itseems unlikely. However, I think when
my intuition about this, and Iwrote, there's a piece I wrote that
was well received in the middle ofthe week. I called it the Abyss.
Inside the Abyss, I think thatone of the things that's causing Democrats
to hesitate about forcing Biden out andelevating Harris is if she became president and

(50:14):
the nominee all at once, doingeither one of those at this circumstance would
be a huge thing to do.To do both of them are clearly beyond
her capacities. It'll be a recipefor chaos at the White House level and
at the campaign level. And Ithink all the Democrats in Washington know that,
and so they're now looking at theabyss of what do we do with
this unknown territory without Biden's the nominee, And then they the next thought in

(50:37):
the head is, oh, mygod, Harris can't possibly do this either
one of them. And so that'sholding them up, and they're trying to
think. And that's that's why youhear these crazy schemes about let's have a
four week rapid fire primary process toallow a whole new slate of candidates to
run. I think that's what's goingon. I'm not how do I say

(50:58):
this. I have to challenge yourwhich is that somehow they think in some
way that Kamala is more incompetent thanBiden. They knew were in a Senate
and they knew her in California,they know. But what did Biden ever
accomplish as a senator other than toget re elected? Well, you know,

(51:23):
my point is that because the peoplesurrounding Biden, the real power behind
the throne, have managed to doeverything they do, why can't they do
the same thing for Kamala. Andhere's the interesting thing I saw the other
day. I'm not going to rememberthe numbers, but there's something like,
you know, Biden has the largestWhite House staff ever in the history of

(51:45):
the country, but that there's somethinglike a seventy percent that too. Was
it your article that I've read?Probably sorry that you don't remember anything I
write. Anyway, I do,but I read too much, that's the
problem. But my point is that'sremember that was one of the major criticisms

(52:08):
of come A lah back a coupleof years ago was that she couldn't even
keep a speech writer. And uh, you know, on and on and
on. We've discussed that many times. I guess I really am challenging your
premise that somehow all of the peoplewho are really exercising power in the White
House don't think that they could controlKamala just as well as they controlled Joe

(52:29):
Biden. Well, no, theymight. But what I'm saying is again,
remember my distinction I think I madeit before between the executive wing and
the legislative wing of the Democratic Party. They have different self interest even if
they share an ideology, And thepeople who are pushing by and out are
their legislative wing because they have longerterm interests. And I think they're the
ones who realized that Harris is adisaster. Yeah, the White House staff

(52:51):
thinks we can manage this, althoughI don't know she's going to want to
fire some people and bring in herown people. By the way, we
want to get have people well Obamapeople. Well, I don't know.
That's I mean, I haven't lookedclosely lately, and I don't know anybody
who had, I guess, Butwell, can I mention that the Wall

(53:13):
Street Journal has an article out Saturdayin the news pages, not those fabulous
editorial pages, and it's all abouthow the Republican attacks on Harris are racist
and sexist. And this is apreview of what's going to happen from the
media. But one part I thoughtwas in the middle of the story,
Lucretia was written for you, mentioning, mentioning, I'm just going to read

(53:36):
you two sentences from it Trump,He says. Trump repeatedly mispronounced Harris's first
name as Kamalaw in public, eventhough it recently releaked video of Trump on
his golf court shows the former presidentpronounce it correctly as Kamala. Some Democrats
said Trump's mispronunciation of Harris's name,intentional or not, made the vice president

(53:57):
sound more foreign or at a minute, was a sign of disrespect. I
thought, oh boy, wait tillthey hear the three whiskey happy. That's
just going to get version to keepdoing it now, I know, But
I didn't take that away from it. I thought he was making a rather
off color joke about it. Butwell, I'll just leave it at that.

(54:22):
We will, you know, if, first of all, what is
she actually she's really not black.She's half Jamaican and half Indian, right
right. I don't know what thateven translates to. So if we're gonna,
you know, have racial purity testshere, I don't even know how

(54:42):
she qualifies. But okay, she'sthe child of slave owners, not a
descendant of slaves, So does shehave to pay reparations when she's pushing them.
Uh, you know this, whenyou play these games, you just
go down such a rabbit hole.The Wall Street Journal sucks. I'm sorry.

(55:02):
Everything lately just pisses me off.Well, I remember if you go
back to but what twenty five yearsago now, when Tiger Woods burst upon
the scene and somebody asked him,what's what do you? What's your ancestry?
And he came up with Kablanesian.Remember that Kablanasian. It was,
you know, a combination of Caribbean, Black, and Asian. It never

(55:25):
caught on for obvious reasons. Right, makes as much sense as anything to
me. Well, right, butI think you know, Harris could could
claim that mentor we should give itto her. I don't know. Okay,
Yeah. The Wall Street Journal cameout with the article just a couple
of days ago saying intelligence experts arguethat the Russians are interfering with our election

(55:50):
again on behalf of Trump. Ohyeah, right, who believes that?
Nonsense? Shut up, Wall StreetJournal, go away, keep the opinion
page if you want. Well,my intelligence don't. Well, all right,
I mean I maybe I saw thatstory. I don't that's something I
want to know about though. Iwant to know if the same gang of
intelligence wackos who said the laptop wasRussian disinformation are trying it again, because

(56:14):
if the Wall Wall Street Journal wouldactually cite sources on that, it's just
the intelligence community talk about a misnomer. Yeah, but they did. They
did call out the deputy director ofthe d and I the deputy d NI

(56:35):
Director of National Intelligence by name,but other than that, it was intelligence
sources argue, Yeah, because Putinhas a real interest in making sure that
Biden loses right right, all right? Well, lastly, because we're running
along, so you know, themiddle of the week, I wrote an
article on The New York Post sayingthe Democrats want to embrace the smoke field

(56:58):
room because that way of collecting candidatewas actually pretty good. It was very
poorly received by Post readers. They'vealso drunk the kool aid that it's anti
democratic, and they made some goodpoints that there are no more party bosses.
I don't think that's quite correct,but I mean, that's how we
got Biden was party bosses. Really, But I don't know, I don't
know. You guys are both busy. You probably didn't see it. But

(57:20):
I saw it, and it wasa good piece. I think that my
only complaint or disagreement with it isis that some of the things you think
it will bring about, other thanthe possibility of actually choosing a better candidate,
are not true. I don't seehow just changing the presidential selection process
actually strengthens our parties. I reallydon't see that. There's so many ways

(57:43):
in which parties have been weakened byaggressives, you know, non partisan elections
and on and on and on andon, that I don't see that as
a compelling argument. Sorry, Steve, it's the reverse. It's the weekend
parties can't control the nominations anymore.Yeah, yeah, I mean, I
don't know. It just seems tome that, of course of American history,

(58:04):
we've gotten some of our best presidentsand best candidates from the old fashioned
bosses meeting in smoke filled rooms.And I think it's correct that the last
time it was done this way isnow nineteen fifty two. So that's getting
to be you know, seventy yearsago, as Stevenson and Eisenhower, and
you know, they were both prettygood candidates, right I think, And

(58:25):
you know, in the Democratic side, it went to three ballots, and
Stevenson had he was one of thosethose days you could run as someone who's
available. There were a few primariesand that estes Kiffe Offfer from Tennessee one.
He was kind of the Bernie Sandersof his day, or at least
that's what the Democratic establishment thought.He ended up as the running mate,
but it kind of, you know, irresponsible, demagogic populist, not a

(58:46):
socialist. But they didn't want himon the top of the ticket, thought
it'd be a lousy president. Theymade him the running mate because okay,
that's you know, the way Reaganpicked Bush in nineteen eighty in a certain
sense, and then the same onthe Republican side. Robert probably shouldn't have
been the nominating in a lot ofways, Mister Conservative Milton Friedman told me
once, of all the politicians heever met in his life, he thought

(59:07):
Robert Taff was the smartest of allof them. But the party wanted Eisenhower,
who didn't run into primary. Right. Okay, So that's the last
time you had the old fashioned wayof selecting candidates, and ever since then
it's been all downhill. I thinkthat the quality of the people that were
picked as was superior. Yeah,but that doesn't mean whether they were popularly

(59:28):
supported, right, I mean thissystem has to be I assume is aligning
more closely with what actually the membersof the party want as opposed to the
party bosses could be. I mean, I mean Trump would never have been
picked. Of course Biden might have, and certainly I think Obama would have.
You know, the party establishment,well, there were split between him
and want Hillary. Yeah, Obamahad successes in the primaries that they all

(59:52):
switched on them. Well, somepeople are people were early on who said,
you know, Harry Reid, theSenate Democratic leader, Obama, you
should run. I think you'd bereally good. So yeah, okay,
I guess my point the idea ofhaving I don't agree. I'm with you.
I do believe there are party bosses, but they're a different kind of
party bosses that would have been,say even one hundred years ago, because

(01:00:16):
what we see a lot less ofis the politician who starts out and the
partisan city council to the partisan mayorto the partisan go I mean, you've
lost the party control all the wayfrom the grassroots up that you used to
have. And I think that Becauseof that, you get the aocs,

(01:00:39):
you get the Jamal Bowmans, youget these scum idiots who never could have
in a a more partisan, genuineparty structure, all the way down to
the bottom, just sort of appearedout of nowhere, use the media and
whatever else to become some high leadersin their party. Do you want AOC

(01:01:01):
choosing your presidential candidate? I mean, that's that's no disagree. For example,
one great example for the Cretians.What's going on in Britain. They
have the party system we're talking about, and are they doing any better than
us with the quality of their candidatesand stability? Right now? I wouldn't
say so. Well, I'm well, I'm not sure about that, but

(01:01:22):
at least that aside for another day. I think, well, look,
I mean it used to be thatstate party chairs. That may be wrong
about this, but the old daysit became important who the state party chairs
were and who the county party chairswere. And now I don't think they're
important at all, and they're offin a bunch of clowns in both parties.
And I mean, look at whatCalifornia has done to parties right just

(01:01:44):
practically destroyed them. Well, Ilike to point out to people, know
this again fifty years again, morethan fifty years ago. Is in California,
the Republican Senate Central Committees you runfor on the primary ballot back when
we had party primary. And innineteen sixty eight my dad ran in La
County. He was recruited from theGoldwater people who wanted to take revenge against

(01:02:07):
the Rockefeller people. And my dadbeat an incumbent to be on the Central
Committee. And the company beat wasa prominent businessman named Richard Reardon. So
I was like, I was likeLos Angeles, that's of course, and
you know everyone fought until nineteen orsorry, two thousand and two he'd be
Republican nominee for governor and then BillSimon beat him. So I always tell

(01:02:30):
Bill Simon that, you know,you and my dad have the distinction of
the the two people who beat RichardRearden in elections. And but you know,
nobody liked my dad runs for CentralCommittee anymore. That's my point,
right, And there's a bunch ofserious business people. Another guy on the
committee was a Stanford NBA was veryconservative. Uh and and you know they
used to sneak up and steal electionsin democratic leaning districts just by superior organization.

(01:02:53):
And I see none of that anymore, right, So let me just
go on a different tech for onesecond. I don't know, you don't
want to go on with this forever. But the other problem with the smoke
filled room solution to the Democrats problemis, of course, the fact that
we've this is not groundbreaking or profound, but it deserves mentioning. We've been

(01:03:15):
hearing from the Democrats that they're savingdemocracy, and that's really going to be
their biggest problem with with somehow pushingBiden out, yeah or yes, And
if they were to replace Kamala,it becomes even more of a problem.
I mean, I don't think theycare about looking like hypocrites, that's pretty

(01:03:37):
obvious. But people will notice.People are not I mean, the voters
are not as bright sometimes as I'dlike them to be, but they'd notice
that. They'd notice that the partyscreaming that we can't have Trump has just
replaced the party's elected, democratically chosennominee with someone else, you know,

(01:03:57):
all of those things, and becausebecause they had to, because they lied
to the voters all along. Yeah, Okay, John has to go and
we're as wise as always. That'sright, So why don't so The Babylon
b people are working twenty four sevenovertime right now, So just give us
the two or three of your favoritesand then we'll go. We didn't even

(01:04:19):
discuss it, but Biden's popularity skyrocketsafter he announces Trump is his VP.
Desperate Democrats ask Buffalo Guy if hecan stage another insurrection like Biden's really starting

(01:04:40):
to wonder which putin he gave thattactical nuke two. Oh, they're really
good, okay. A party thatclaimed Biden was sharp for past four years
now says Tommala Harris is brilliant andBiden's doj charges George Clooney with insurrection.

(01:05:05):
All right, John, launch usout so you can go hand her favorite
justice always drink your whiskey, knee, Let's go Brandon and Steve Like Joe
Biden, I can't remember my newexcell line is anyway, see you next
week. Bye. In the moments, my thoughts were dripped and coastine and

(01:05:32):
terraces, approaching the rifted through whichI could spine several glynnens beneath of the
darkness of light from a both couldnot reach my finding some reason herself,
taking flights, and upon yonder Presidentsaw her a light and glare back at
me one laughter, look this name, and then you were the last one

(01:05:53):
she thought I'd betrayed. Ricochet Jointhe conversation.