Jim Oberweis Brings Old-School Conservatism to the Age of Trump

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
Hello and welcome to the All the Ambition Podcast.

(00:04):
I'm your very bald host, MookieSmith.
And the one with all theambition today is Mr.
Jim Ulverweiss.
He is a former Illinois senator.
And he's got some stories totell and opinions to share.
And I can't wait to dive in withyou.
Jim, welcome aboard.

(00:25):
Thanks, Mookie.

SPEAKER_01 (00:26):
I appreciate the chance to uh talk to your
audience.

SPEAKER_00 (00:29):
I am a Chicago native, born and raised.
So I'm familiar with someChicago, Illinois politics.
Our governors end up in jail.
That seems to be a common theme.
How many of them went to jail?

(00:51):
Most folks don't realize this.
Four of them, right?
Two Republicans and twoDemocrats.
So we're we're bipartisan in ourlevel of corruption.

SPEAKER_01 (01:03):
And by the way, the uh uh most recent Speaker of the
House, uh, who served for 40years and was speaker for uh 36
of those 40 years is also on hisway to prison.

SPEAKER_00 (01:16):
It's a distinction.
We we we own it, I think, in inIllinois for some reason.
Now I now I live in California.
I lived in New York for for overa decade, but you know, my
heart, my heart is in Illinois,and uh and it's wonderful to
have you on.
I'm I'm eager to hear about someof your some of your stories.

(01:38):
Did you ever have Oberweiss icecream when you lived in Chicago?
You know, actually, yes.
Is there is it that's funny?
I didn't I didn't put the twotogether, but now that you bring
it up, uh is there anyconnection with that?

SPEAKER_01 (01:52):
Yeah, my family, and I was chairman of the company,
not executive chairman, I didn'twork in the business, but I uh
served on the board for 20 yearsor so.

SPEAKER_00 (02:01):
Okay, terrific.
And and I I did a littleresearch into your background
too.
So you've been you've beenfunding your political career
privately to a certain extent,too, which gives you some
freedom and some leverage, Ithink.

SPEAKER_01 (02:19):
Well, it it allows me to uh vote where my heart is
instead of having to uh payattention to uh you know uh big
contributors.

SPEAKER_00 (02:30):
Absolutely, and and and big contributors, citizens
united.
It's it's been kind of crazy.
Uh another another story thatI've heard, which would be
wonderful maybe to anchor ourconversation in, is uh Barack
Obama and those primaries goingback a few years.

(02:52):
But that that's one of thebranches of history that I think
a lot of people would befascinated to hear about.
Can you give us a little contextfor how that shook out?

SPEAKER_01 (03:05):
I was uh encouraged, let's see, I'm trying to think
that must have been uh about2004 approximately.
Uh I was encouraged to run forthe U.S.
Senate.
Um Barack Obama was uh on theDemocrat side, so I uh there
were a few debates where theyhad both Republicans and
Democrats.

(03:25):
I got to meet him a little bitin that fashion.
Anyway, I came in second to avery strong candidate, Jack
Ryan, who you may know, and hiswife, Jerry Ryan, is an actress.
Uh and he was, you know, aformer Goldman Sachs guy.
He'd left his job to teachschool on the south side of
Chicago.
I mean, he was a really goodcandidate.
But uh after a few months, uhand I think it was June, um, he

(03:50):
announced that he was uh goingto withdraw because the Chicago
Tribune had pried open hissealed divorce agreement, um in
which there were some uhaccusations from his ex-wife
that were uh he just didn't wantcirculating, didn't want his his

(04:11):
uh son to have to deal with.
So, of course, the logical thingthen would be to uh uh replace
the first place guy with asecond place guy who was me.
However, um I had taken a veryvocal uh stand against illegal
immigration.
Uh, and uh I was probably tooearly at the time for many

(04:34):
people.
I certainly was too early forthe liberal press in Chicago.
I mean, they went crazy.
I actually had a commercialwhere I was flying in a
helicopter over Soldier Fieldsaying enough people are
entering this company illegallyevery week to fill every seat in
Soldier Field.
Well, they went crazy.
First they thought, no, he'sgotta be lying.
But then I produced a study froma professor at the University of
Michigan justifying thosenumbers.

(04:55):
Then it was, well, he must bebiased, he must be racist or
whatever.
So as it turned out, the thehead of the Republican State
Central Committee did not wantme on that ballot.
Uh she bought this whole uh uhbusiness about uh uh not wanting
illegal immigration to be amajor issue associated with the

(05:17):
Republicans at that time.
So they asked the third placeperson, uh, a fine gentleman,
another state senator by thename of Steve Rauschenberger, if
he would be willing to uh uhtake the place.
And my understanding is he toldthem, no, you should take the
second place guy.
Well, that didn't go over wellwith them, so they kept looking.
Uh eventually they uh uh talkedto uh the former Bears coach,

(05:41):
considered being the nominee,and you know, he had a lot of
name recognition, obviously.
Uh he thought about it for acouple weeks and came back and
said, no, he wasn't interested.
He should take the second placeguy.
Um then in desperation, theyfinally came up with a brilliant
solution.
That is to bring in Alan Keyesfrom Maryland to move to

(06:02):
Chicago.
Uh and then, well, that wouldtake race out, you know, and
then we have uh anAfrican-American against an
African-American.
Uh so that was their solution.
Unfortunately, uh, about threeweeks into the campaign, they
got him talking about uhreparations, and it was all
over.
It was it was downhill fromthere, it was a disaster.
Uh, and uh that kind of madeObama's career.

(06:25):
You know, now he wins by a bigpercentage.
He's now a national figure, uh,and that certainly was a major
stepping stone to him becomingpresident.
Some of my friends jokingly,thank God, uh, accused me of of
helping elect uh Obama by uh notuh getting in there and and and
running uh as the replacement.
Wasn't my fault.

SPEAKER_00 (06:46):
Well, it's it's an interesting, interesting story,
and it's also evocative in thesense of how much our country
oscillates from one extreme toanother.
So uh I sometimes like to thinkthat uh Barack Obama would have
been impossible without GeorgeBush Jr.
And it's hard to conceive ofDonald Trump without Barack

(07:11):
Obama.
So you might have nudged, nudgedthe arrow one way and then
created a reaction that produceda counter-reaction that
engendered uh Donald Trump.
So it's it's very, veryinteresting.
Yeah, and your position onimmigration was a harbinger,

(07:33):
obviously, of uh immigrationmandate reform that we're
experiencing right now.

SPEAKER_01 (07:41):
I find out throughout my life, I have uh uh
frequently been a little aheadof my times.
That's one example.
Uh I started a uh uh a mutualfund uh um family in the uh 80s,
and I was very strong on smallcapital stock.
Again, I was a little ahead ofmy time there, but they had a
very good period uh uh in the uh10 or 15 years after that.

(08:06):
Um I uh on a number of issues,uh I've been very concerned
recently about the unsustainablegrowth in our national debt.
And some people are telling meagain, you know, I'm a little
ahead of my time, but somethingat some point is going to uh
come back.
In our industry, uh, we'vetalked about uh what's sometimes
referred to as a black swanevent, which is a kind of an

(08:29):
unexpected out-of-the-bluehappening that triggers uh uh an
unexpected reaction.
And that's exactly what I'mafraid of with our national
debt.
Something happens suddenly,triggers something, and now we
have uh much higher interestrates, uh much higher inflation
rates.
And to be honest with you, uh Iwas not looking to run for this

(08:49):
congressional seat.
Um I had no interest.
Uh well, let me let me give youa little history leading up to
that.
Um in 2012, I was elected to theIllinois State Senate.
Uh in 2016, I was re-elected.
Uh, and in uh 2018 I became theRepublican whip.
In 2020, they asked me to runagainst the um incumbent

(09:13):
Democrat Congresswoman, which Iagreed to do, and I had the
president's endorsement in 2020.
And as it turned out, as ofelection night, I had won by
1,500 votes.
However, this is Illinois, andthree days later they decided to
count a bunch of mail-in ballotsthat were never initial by an
election judge as required underIllinois law.

(09:35):
Uh after that, I said, okay,that's it.
I am done forever with Illinois,and I'm done forever with
politics.
I'm going to Florida to playpickleball and golf, and I ended
up playing some duplicatebridge.
Uh and interestingly, I wentfrom beginner to life master in
three years because I really uhuh enjoyed the game and picked
it up very quickly.
Um so anyway, that that's that'skind of the background uh where

(09:58):
I was coming from.
Uh and uh uh I honestly had nointention of running for this
congressional seat, butliterally within the first week
after Byron Donald's, ourcongressman, who's a great
congressman, announced that hewas going to run for governor of
Florida.
I had eight or nine peoplesaying, Jim, please consider
running for this open seat.

(10:20):
We have concerns about ournational debt.
And they they hit me hit me inmy my soft spot, if you will,
uh, because that's a hugeconcern that I have as well.
And I heard it enough times thatI said, okay, I'm in.

SPEAKER_00 (10:32):
Well, to give um viewers and listeners some
context, the national debt iswhat, around$34 trillion.
That is up.
It's more than that now.

SPEAKER_01 (10:45):
It was$36 trillion last year when they asked me to
run.
It's$37 trillion now on a gradeat$38,000.

SPEAKER_00 (10:53):
When people just toss numbers around, it's hard
to conceive of, but that's$37,000 billion.
And the interest on that is morethan what we're paying the uh
Department of Defense tomaintain.
It's close to a trilliondollars, is that right?

(11:15):
Just the interest on$37trillion.

SPEAKER_01 (11:19):
Yes, and and that's with that's with our very low
current interest rates.
Now, if if this this uhso-called black swan event
happens and those interest ratesgo up to six or seven or eight
percent, look out.
This this can start a wholecycle that would be very, very
debt uh uh dangerous for ourcountry.
So uh we have to stop that, wehave to get control of that.

(11:42):
And you know, I think a lot ofpoliticians will talk about
that.
And by the way, I don't considermyself a politician, I'm a
business guy, uh, inside andout, an entrepreneur.
I've started started numerousbusinesses, and uh uh I'm doing
this as a service.
Um, and then by the way, I'vepledged that uh as long as I
serve in Congress, I will donatemy entire salary, the equivalent

(12:06):
thereof, to charity.
Uh so I'm not doing it for moneyeither.
Um and by the way, that's theother thing, and we can talk
about it more, but uh I alsoconsider myself a
philanthropist.
I started the OberweissFoundation 30 years ago, and we
support conservative causes uhwho are out to provide education
on conservative things like uhTurning Point USA.

(12:28):
That was one of the first uhthat we uh supported.
Uh I knew Charlie Kirk uh whenhe was a high school senior, uh
just an amazing young man andnever a violent bone in his
body.
He was a terrific guy, what anunbelievable loss.
Anyway, uh those I I certain uhsupport those types of causes,

(12:49):
and I also support um people inneed, uh things like uh food
banks, uh cancer research, uhcaring centers, pregnancy
centers, those types oforganizations as well.

SPEAKER_00 (13:03):
Well, that's a great overview.
Um let's go back to the debtjust for a second, because um
your opinions and your actionson these issues, especially when
they're harbingers of uh youknow, policy to come,
administrations to come, isinteresting and it's timely.
So um, you know, Elon Muskjoined the Trump administration,

(13:25):
as we know, and then theestablishment of Doge.
And the the breaking point forMusk vis-a-vis Trump, at least
you know, from what we saw fromthe newspapers, was um was the
debt.
So he's he's slashingdepartments, he's jumping around
stages with the chainsaw,figuratively and literally.

(13:48):
And uh the big beautiful billwas passed, which just piled on
more debt.
So, regardless of which side ofthe political aisle you sit on,
from a matter of fiscalconservatism, right, from fiscal
responsibility, the bigbeautiful bill just layered on

(14:12):
more debt.
So, do you find that frustratingin the same way that Elon Musk
found it frustrating?

SPEAKER_01 (14:20):
Very, and politicians talk about uh
wanting to uh uh reducespending, reduce the debt, so
on, but nobody seems to be ableto do or what it's all the
common line is we'll get rid ofthe waste, fraud, and abuse,
right?
Everybody uses those terms, butnobody seems to do anything
about it.
And I was hopeful, and we'veheard this for what, 20 or 30
years.
I was really hopeful with ElonMusk in there that we'd actually

(14:43):
make some progress in thatdirection.
Uh, I'm disappointed that thingsdidn't work out better than they
did, but uh uh I think heprobably threw some good ideas
out there, and hopefully thereare people following up with
some of those ideas.
I have a few ideas of my own, bythe way.
For example, um Congress's job,one of their main jobs, is to

(15:03):
pass a budget.
Guess what?
They haven't done that in morethan a decade.
I believe that um we should havea policy that if Congress does
not pass a budget when it's due,they shouldn't get paid until
they do pass a budget.
And no retroactive pay either.
Uh and I promise you, if that isthe law of the land, Congress

(15:25):
will pass a budget because theyall want to get paid.
Uh so it would mean thatRepublicans would have to work
with Democrats, there'd have tobe some compromises, but they
would make those compromises,they would get it done, and I
think that would be the rightthing to do for our country.
Furthermore, that budget shouldbe balanced in every year, uh,
except perhaps in in times ofwar, possibly in times of

(15:49):
recession.
Uh, and if it's not going to bea balanced budget, we should
have to have Congress pass it byuh an extra majority, perhaps a
60% vote or something of thatnature.
If we did those things, let metell you, it would begin to take
care of that debt in a hurry.
I believe it would start toreduce it, but even if it didn't
reduce it, if it just stoppedgrowing, as long as our economy

(16:09):
can continue to grow, it wouldbecome less and less of a
significant problem over aperiod of time.
Right now, our debt isapproximately equal to our
entire gross domestic product.
And in some other cases, forother countries, that's been a
tipping point uh where peoplehave begun to lose confidence in
the uh uh the currency.
And and by the way, uh if someof our viewers aren't aware, um

(16:32):
our treasury debt has alwaysbeen triple A for you know
forever.
Not anymore.
Exactly.
It's it's one notch below that.
Uh, and there's of course someconcern if we don't do
something, it could go downanother notch.
And this is really uh not a goodthing for our country.
So the right thing is to get inthere, to start to uh get

(16:55):
control of that spending and uhuh get control of our debt.
Another concrete principle thatI've talked about that I think
makes a lot of sense, and again,this would take a little
compromise from Republicans andDemocrats, but we're spending a
lot of money on IC.
Now, as we talked about, I'mvery, very much in favor of uh
controlling our immigrationproblem, securing our borders,

(17:17):
uh, encouraging people who arehere illegally to leave.
Well, uh, you know, paying ICEagents uh and having 500 of them
go into Minneapolis is not theright way to do that.
Uh paying uh people$3,000 apieceto leave our country is not the
right way to do that.
The right way to do that is tostop government benefits to

(17:38):
people here illegally.
Stop paying SNAP benefits, stoppaying unemployment
compensation, stop paying SocialSecurity for heaven's sakes.
If people are here illegally andthey pay into the social
security system and they can'treceive anything, maybe that'll
help our social security systema little bit.
Those are the right way to dealwith this.
And guess what?
Over a period of time would makethis country less attractive for

(18:02):
people to sneak in hereillegally to take advantage of
those government benefitsbecause they wouldn't be there.
Uh so it solves all kinds ofproblems.
It solves some fiscal problemsand it solves some of our
immigration problems.
Why can't Congress see this?
It's just common sense.

SPEAKER_00 (18:17):
That's part of the problem.
In order for Congress to enactreform, Congress needs to be
reformed.
So when it comes tocongressional pay, they need to
undercut their ability to befreeloaders in a sense.
When it comes to congressionalaccountability, especially in

(18:38):
this administration, Congresshas abdicated its role to a
large extent to the executive.
Now, if you agree with Trump oncertain issues, certain
policies, and you want themexpedited, sure, it cuts to the
chase faster.
You eliminate some of thecongressional legislative
bureaucracy.

(18:59):
But aside from a handful ofRepublican senators who seem to
be autonomous, Rand Paul, forexample, there's very little
pushback and there's very littlelegislation.
So you come across in certainkey ways as an old school
Republican.
And by that I mean you believein the separation of powers, you

(19:23):
believe in a powerful Congresswho could legislate, and you
believe in affecting change,which is not performative, but
it's actual in terms ofpractice.
So sounds like you oppose theseblanket ice raids, and you're
more for presumably targetedapproaches and approaches that

(19:44):
have to do with the money.
Which is, by the way, I agree,it's not talked about enough.

SPEAKER_01 (19:49):
Remove incentives for what I was saying about ICE.
We need to have an agreementwith all states and
municipalities that if they havein detention somebody who has
committed other crimes besidesjust uh immigration crimes, they
must turn those people over toICE.
That's the way we're gonna getrid of that.

(20:10):
That's what the whole idea wasget rid of the criminals, stop
these uh these uh murderers,these rapists, and so on, get
them out of this country.
So absolutely, uh that has to bean agreement.
And if again, if they don't doit, cut off the federal dollars
to them.
Again, money in the case likethat will get action.

(20:31):
Uh, and uh it's it's the rightthing to do.
And by the way, if I can put aplug in, uh if uh if our viewers
like the common sense ideas thatI'm talking about, I would ask
them to please go to ourwebsite, which is votejimo.com.

SPEAKER_00 (20:48):
I'll put it in the uh podcast description so they
can click on it.

SPEAKER_01 (20:53):
Yeah, great, I appreciate it.
Uh I think they'll see morecommon sense ideas.
Uh you know, I'm I'm in afortunate position where I'm not
doing this for a new job.
I'm a very strong proponent ofterm limits.
I think if we have term limits,we'll get better congressmen,
better senators, we'll getpeople who are patriots, who are
doing it to help our country,not for a career, not for the

(21:16):
money.
Uh the whole idea of careerpoliticians like I saw in
Illinois is just disastrous forthe state of Illinois.
It's disastrous for many statesthat have that situation.
Florida is a wonderful exampleof a state that enacted
eight-year term limits forlegislators and for the
governor.
Now, you can say, well, uhGovernor DeSantis has done a

(21:36):
great job.
I hate to see him go after eightyears, but guess what?
We got another good one coming.
Byron Donald's is going to be uhuh equally great governor, uh,
so it's still the right thing todo.

SPEAKER_00 (21:47):
Yeah, I mean it's it's refreshing to hear your
common sense um budget basedapproach to a lot of these
policies and issues.
And you must be frustrated andCertain ways.
You know, when Donald Trumpfirst came to power, yeah, he
endorsed you.

(22:07):
And obviously, you don't want toconvey any disloyalty or you
know, you know, fight againstthe mainstream.
But um there must be somefrustration on your part with
regard to, as you mentioned, uh,you know, the ICE actions uh now
with the raging war in theMiddle East.

(22:27):
Uh it's complicated running thecountry.
But uh how do you feel aboutthese kind of contradictions?

SPEAKER_01 (22:36):
Uh let me make very clear.
Uh, I think that uh ourpresident has done some
incredibly good things for ourcountry.
Uh securing the border iscertainly one of those.
Uh there are, you know, gettingrid of this whole woke culture.
I mean, we've turned the countryinto the right direction.
I'm very supportive of that.
Uh you mentioned that uh uh thebig beautiful bill uh certainly

(22:59):
didn't help balance our budget,uh, and you're correct in that.
Yet if I were there, I believe Iwould have probably had to end
up voting for it because itwould have been a huge tax
increase if we didn't do that.
So it it wasn't perfect, in myopinion.
Uh, and I would have hoped thatwe could uh deal with some of
those measures individually uhafter the uh passage of that

(23:20):
bill.
Now, unfortunately, not too muchhas really been dealt with yet,
but I've just suggested to you acouple of solid principles that
would help to uh get our budgetuh back into balance, and I
think there's lots ofopportunities for that.
And you know, we we talk aboutrooting out waste and fraud.
There's plenty of money there.
I mean, look at what look atwhat we found in uh in in

(23:41):
Minneapolis, for heaven's sakes.
I mean, that's just crazy.
And and it's not justMinneapolis.
Your state, California, by theway, I think is pretty guilty of
a lot of that stuff too.
So uh there's there's a lot ofroom to make progress there.

SPEAKER_00 (23:54):
Absolutely.
No, no disagreement here.
I think um Americans have becomeso tribal and polarized that
it's very, very frustrating toget clear and actionable about
issues and make sense in in thatkind of in that kind of way.
Why and how do you think we gothere?

(24:15):
You've been active for decades,right?
So so you you are part of theold guard when it comes to the
GOP, and you've seen theAmerican political landscape
change.
Some would call it evolution,some would call it the opposite.

(24:36):
But why do you think there's somuch infighting?
Why why can't we agree on keyissues and make pragmatic policy
that could benefit everybody?

SPEAKER_01 (24:51):
We have started a great business, the Overwise
family of mutual funds.
And by the way, Morningstar,which ranks funds, just ranked
our microcat fund as one of thetop five funds in the entire
country for the last 25 years.
And that's helped us grow fromzero startup to today managing
over five billion dollars.
I'm very fortunate that I have ason very capable running a

(25:11):
business.
He's been running it since I gotinvolved in this uh political
process.
Um, it was not my goal.
It was I felt a calling to tryto help our country in that
regard.
Uh, as I said, it's certainlynot a career, not doing it for
the money.
I'll I'll donate an amount equalto my uh uh salary.
And I did the same thing in theIllinois Senate.
I I donated uh amount equal tomy salary back to uh the

(25:33):
Overwise Foundation, which Istarted 30 years ago, which
supports conservative causes andpeople in need of financial
help.
Uh so I I think I'm doing it forthe right reason.
I think we need more people uhfollowing in that uh that
direction, and term limits wouldhelp get us there.
There are lots of common sensethings that we could do.
Uh, and I'll and I realize I'llonly be one out of 400 and some.

(25:57):
By the way, I want to mentionthis.
I thought my idea of uh nobudget, no pay was kind of a new
creative idea.
No sooner that I and I had anarticle on it written in the
local press, I got a call fromRick Scott, our senator, and
said, guess what, Jim?
I've already filed that bill.
So he's got that going in thestate in the U.S.

(26:18):
Senate, and I hope that if I canget into Congress, I can help to
push that uh in the uh in theCongress.
And by the way, if we passsomething like that, it would
end all these continuingresolutions.
Uh, it would end governmentshutdowns.
There wouldn't be any more.
Uh so you know it's a win-winfor a country.

SPEAKER_00 (26:37):
Absolutely.
So again, you're very much apragmatist, and you and you look
at it from a fiscal point ofview, fiscal responsibility,
fiscal action, money walks.
But American culture seems toconsider that secondary or
tertiary.
It's all about values now anddeep emotion.

(27:02):
And we're divided like neverbefore.
Why?
What has happened to us wherewe've gone from being able to
talk to each other about allthese issues?
The debt, immigration, theborder, the presidency, and now

(27:23):
it doesn't seem like we'recapable of doing it anymore.
What happened?

SPEAKER_01 (27:29):
Well, it seems like uh um under Barack Obama, some
conflict started to emerge, andit's gotten considerably worse
since then.
Uh, I mean, honestly, I have acouple of daughters who live in
California, by the way, who uhwe just can't talk about the
president, we can't talk aboutpolitics.
Uh what do they call it uh uhTrump uh uh syndrome, or they

(27:56):
they they just can't discuss it.
Trump derangement syndrome T T DS.
Exactly.
Uh and uh as a result, we reallytry to talk about things other
than politics to the best degreethat we can, but every once in a
while something sneaks in and ituh it's a problem.
So uh I hope we can uh get pastthis.

(28:18):
Uh you know, 200 years ago,things were this bad or worse.
If if you remember uh in thehistory books, uh uh some of the
politicians, if they got into areal big argument, they would go
outside and have a duel and killone another.
Um, so it's not that bad yet,uh, but it's pretty bad.

SPEAKER_00 (28:37):
I I think part of it might be etiquette.
Um, frankly, I find a lot ofTrump's policies common sense.
So, for example, a secureborder.
Right, you have a country, youneed a secure border, right?
Um power throughout the world,you know, staking the claim.

(29:01):
The list goes on and on, whereby any reasonable standard, I
would say Trump's policies andworldview make sense, make sense
for America.
But there's a style to him,which comes across to many
people as a little bit rougharound the edges.

(29:23):
The etiquette of the presidencyhas been, in a sense, turned
upside down.
You've gone from the banquetdinners to the McDonald's.
Uh, you you've you've you'veintroduced a new type of
polemic, if you will.
And I just feel um I'm no springchicken.

(29:43):
I've I've seen a lot ofevolution.
I was in high school during theReagan years, and I've seen this
kind of pendulum go back andforth.
Uh, Donald Trump seems like theunpolitician.
Like 7 Up was the un cola.
He's the consummate outsider.
He came in.

(30:04):
Uh, I've lived in New York, so Iknow that Queen's mentality too.
And I think he was just soabrasive and continues to ruffle
so many feathers deliberately,that uh a lot of people
emotionally just can't handleit.
It's short circuits, peoplesense that.

SPEAKER_01 (30:28):
But on the other hand, uh if we look at the whole
woke culture where they were,you know, pressing all kinds of
silly nonsense.
If if you believe that uh thegovernment uh shouldn't pay for
uh operations on our kids tochange their sex, you were a bad
person.
Uh if if you believe that uh uheverybody should be treated

(30:51):
equally and not specialprivileges, you are a bad
person.
You don't understand, you're notfair.
So that's where it started, andit certainly got worse, and now
uh we're we're reversing a lotof that in a hurry.

SPEAKER_00 (31:05):
You got an action and then a reaction to it.
Personally, I think one of themost ridiculous and most
ubiquitous things is the she,he, him, her signature line.
Now it would come across asleast violative, and you would
say, well, who cares?
But I think to your point, itreally epitomizes the

(31:29):
overextension of what could beconsidered woke culture, and it
really precipitated thisbackfire, which has is really uh
you know gone against theself-interest of folks who
really just mandated their ownworldview in a way that comes

(31:50):
across as undemocratic.
There's a sense of hypocrisy andirony to all that, which uh
absolutely.
Yeah, which which again, whichTrump's often acerbic manner uh
appealed to a lot of people asmuch as he triggered folks, he
got people said things thatpeople were thinking but were

(32:11):
afraid to say.
And again, the libertarian meloves this kind of provocateur,
which questions the mostfundamental aspects of
government, of policy, and evenof decor.
So, so I think, well, you know,even if you consider it an

(32:32):
experiment, I think the countryis better off for it for being
able to experience this kind ofcounterpoint and this kind of
shakeup, which goes back to Muskand Doge and re-evaluating core
principles.
Because again, to Reagan'spoint, uh, I'm from the

(32:53):
government and I'm here to helpis the last thing that'll really
benefit anybody.

SPEAKER_01 (32:59):
Speaking of Reagan, he was definitely one of my
heroes.
And I'll tell you one of thethings that that he said uh
something to the effect of showme somebody who agrees with me
on 80% of the issues, he's my80% friend, not my 20% enemy.
And I I believe that 100%.

SPEAKER_00 (33:17):
But that highlights one of the one of the gaps, I
think, um, in in even thecurrent administration, which is
it's so provocative and it's soincendiary in ways that it
doesn't necessarily encouragebipartisan action.

(33:38):
It feeds off the polarizing fireof what came before it.
And I would just hope that wecan get to the point where we
are talking about policy, andthere is a sensibility on the
part of the executive that he orshe is a representative of the

(34:00):
entire country and not just hisor her own constituency.
If I have one major complaintabout Trump, and again, I'm I'm
sitting here agreeing about theborder and and about a lot of
the policy that's there, is thisfeeling of built-in animosity

(34:22):
and division?
And I don't think it's healthyfor the country.

SPEAKER_01 (34:26):
You brought up another issue, and that's the
whole gerrymandering thing.
I am 100% opposed to that.
Uh, Iowa does it right, wherethey have a computer program
that does everything to try tokeep communities concise and
together.
And you know, I came fromIllinois, which is probably the
uh uh one of the worst forgerrymandering.
California is probably uh doingsome things.

(34:48):
Florida actually has a provisionin their constitution to make it
more difficult to do that.
But now uh our president wouldlike to see Florida redistrict
right now.
Uh I hope that doesn't happenquite frankly.
That's one area that I disagreewith.
I I understand the politics.
He wants to get Texas andFlorida, which are strong
Republican states, to pick up afew seats for Congress, but uh
that's something whereshort-term benefit would there'd

(35:11):
be a short-term benefit, but inthe long term, uh I don't think
it's good for our country.

SPEAKER_00 (35:16):
Yeah, uh, I think the gerrymandering is a big
problem, and it's become quidpro quo with Texas laying down
and then Newsom in Californiagetting the proposition passed.
And that that's not good foranybody.
It it really fundamentallydestroys one of the one of the
precepts of a democracy, whichis we've got fair, balanced

(35:41):
representation.
And if you get rid of that, thenthen what?
Big big issue.
Um, looking forward though to20, yeah, I mean, the midterms
are one thing, 2028, theevolution of American politics,
you've been in the game forquite some time.

(36:03):
Where do where do you thinkwe're headed and where do you
want it to go?
Like passing the baton to yourkids, the next generation.
Uh what what could or shouldAmerica look like as we move
forward?

SPEAKER_01 (36:23):
Uh, first of all, um, I'm financially secure, I'm
not worried about it for myself,but I have 21 grandkids, and I
am concerned as to whether ornot they will have the same
kinds of economic opportunitiesthat I've had, the same type of
uh uh opportunity to start abusiness, grow a business, uh,
and I want to do whatever I canto make sure that they do

(36:44):
inherit that kind of a country.
And I I think getting our our uhnational debt under control is a
huge step in in that direction.
So that's why I'm involved inthis race.
That's that's one of the bigthings that I care about.
Uh and you know, the thebuzzword today is affordability
and inflation and so on.

(37:05):
Well, guess what?
That's the biggest, best thingthat we could do to keep
inflation under control, to keepthe value of our currency
strong, uh, and uh uh allow usto uh have those types of
opportunities for futuregenerations.
So that's why I'm doing this,that's why I'm here.

SPEAKER_00 (37:24):
Balancing the budget is the least sexy thing the
government wants to do becausethey want to spend, right?
And you want to placate yourconstituents so they get more
enthusiastic about voting foryou.
All the special interests, thetax code is a mess.

SPEAKER_01 (37:45):
So balancing the budget is most people don't
understand what$1 trillion is,much less$37 trillion.
And it's not an issue that'sright there on their forefront.
They're worried about you know,what is the price of gasoline?
What is the price of eggs andbutter and milk?
Um, so it, you know, from thatstandpoint, our our campaign
teams that keep telling me, Jim,talk about affordability, not

(38:08):
about the national debt.
And I'm telling them, I'm doingthis because I'm concerned about
the national debt, I'm concernedabout the future of our country,
and this is the way we can solveit.
I want to talk about the truethings, the right things, not
the politically slogan of themoment.

SPEAKER_00 (38:22):
Going back to Rand Paul from Kentucky, he's one of
the few who keeps harping on thedebt, harping on civil
liberties, harping oncontrolling the government in
ways and keeping it accountablethat most folks in Congress, at
least on the GOP side, haveabdicated.

(38:45):
Conversely, if you look atTrump's global strategy,
Venezuela, um, the Middle Eastnow, I think it's about the oil.
It's about global power.
And the reason I bring it upwithin the context of the debt,
if you can't really bring downthat debt, although you know

(39:06):
it's a problem, one way is tofill the coffers a little bit
with with other sources ofrevenue and at least influence
and power.
How do you feel about thisMonroe doctrine being
re-reanimated in a sense?
People are calling it the DonroDoctrine, where uh reinstating

(39:30):
American hegemony and control inthe Western Hemisphere and going
even beyond that to ultimately,I think, secure one-fifth of the
world's oil supply.
Because between the Middle Eastand Venezuela, you're talking
about half the oil on theplanet.

SPEAKER_01 (39:50):
Well, what the president has done, uh obviously
in Venezuela was a masterfulstroke.
Uh, it showed uh some incredibleplanning and strategy and
effectiveness of Americanmilitary.
Uh when you turn to Iran, um,it's a little different

(40:10):
situation.
Uh he has taken, in my opinion,a huge gamble.
Uh if he is able to get regimechange and get people who care
about free markets and freeelections uh in charge in Iran.
He will get on in history as oneof the strongest, best, most

(40:30):
wonderful presidents ever uh bybringing peace to the Middle
East and bringing true change touh the whole culture there.
But it isn't clear that that'sgoing to be the result at this
point.

SPEAKER_00 (40:42):
That's a big if.
It's a big if, especiallywithout boots on the ground.
And even if you bring boots onthe ground, it's uh it's a big
country and they have anentrenched infrastructure there.

SPEAKER_01 (40:56):
And I'm not sure that you can bomb your way to a
region.

SPEAKER_00 (40:59):
You most likely cannot.
So what what is it an outcomethat that could be could be
beneficial to the U.S.?
Um, it's beneficial to Israel.
Every bomb that falls on Iran isbeneficial to Israel, but how
could it be beneficial to usmedium to long term?

SPEAKER_01 (41:22):
Well, I would have to say uh Israel has been our
friend.
Israel is the only truedemocracy in the entire Middle
East.
Uh, I think it is, I think weneed to continue to support
them.
I I support their efforts, andto the degree that we can uh uh
make a difference in Iran, andit helps Israel and it it
lessens the power of uhHezbollah or uh Hamas, great.

(41:47):
Um but it's it's what is thelong-term strategy?
What happens in Iran?
Uh, and maybe it does take bootson the ground.
Hopefully, maybe those boots areIsraeli boots, uh, but that that
would be very difficult uh formany Iranians to uh accept, uh
even more difficult perhaps thanU.S.

(42:08):
boots on the ground.
Uh and I don't really want tosee U.S.
boots on the ground either.
So it it's it's a difficultstrategy.
The best thing we can hope foris that uh uh we get rid of the
new uh Ayatollah, the son of theold one, and get a more uh uh
accommodative uh leadereventually to uh rise up in that

(42:28):
country.
And the other alternative isthat we find ways to start
arming the millions of peoplewho are opposed to the current
regime and the current policiesof the country, and that they're
able to stage a, I don't know ifyou want to call it a coup, a
takeover, a change, whatever youwant to call it.
Uh that is a possibility, butagain, a difficult strategy to

(42:50):
uh uh to enact.

SPEAKER_00 (42:52):
Yeah, the Kurdish people are 10 million strong in
Iran, and they have a strongpresence in Iraq.
We have bases in Erbil, in Iraqto this day.
They've been our loyal allyagainst Saddam Hussein, ISIS,
and we just have a terribletrack record of being

(43:13):
opportunistic to the point thatwe we engage with them as
partners, and when it's equallyconvenient, we'll you know
discard them.
So I think they're probablyhighly skeptical of engaging in
an insurrection against theTehran government, knowing that
uh we've been fickle in thepast, and and repercussions of

(43:38):
it not succeeding areexistential.
So so an insurrection like thatwould be nice, um, but this kind
of proxy army is pushing it alittle bit.
So uh we'll have to we'll haveto wait and see.
I personally think Trump, withthe success of Venezuela, was

(43:59):
hoping for.
Not so much regime change, whichis a long shot, but a similar
kind of situation.
Um, Delcy in Venezuela now doesTrump's bidding about key
issues.
No oil to Cuba, for example, andbringing back the American oil
companies to build up theinfrastructure.

(44:20):
And Delcy knows that with a snapof his fingers, um, you know,
the Gerald Ford aircraft carrierwill be back off the shore of
Caracas.
So that kind of force strengthand getting Venezuela to behave
or at least do Trump's bidding.
I think Trump is hoping forsomething similar in Iran.

(44:44):
That we pummel them to the pointwhere they have to listen to us.
So no more nukes, dismantle yourmissiles, we'll let you stay in
power, or at least we'll stopbombing you, and we'll tell the
Israelis to stop bombing you ifyou behave.
And I think that that isprobably a best case scenario

(45:09):
out of all of this.

SPEAKER_01 (45:11):
Well, second best.
The best would be totaloverthrow and new government.

SPEAKER_00 (45:16):
Again, that's just so unlikely.
You know, fingers crossed, butum the second best is still
better than civil war on the onehand, and here's the new boss,
same as the old boss on theother.
Right.
So we'll we'll have to wait andsee.
Um, how much have you thoughtabout international politics?

(45:38):
Uh, you've obviously beenrepresenting the people of
Illinois, you have your ownbusiness, uh, which is very much
in a in a domestic focus.
I'm sure you've got interestselsewhere too.
But uh, what's your vision forAmerica's role in the world
moving forward?

(45:59):
We've got Russia distracted withUkraine, but China is always
that sleeping giant that's wokenup.
And then you've got Taiwan.
How do you feel about America'splace in the world moving
forward?

SPEAKER_01 (46:14):
I I think we have taken a big step forward.
I think uh the entire world hasseen what we have been able to
do in uh uh Venezuela and Iran.
Uh and uh I guess we're notwalking softly and carrying a
big stick, we're walking loudlyand carrying a big stick at the
same time.

SPEAKER_00 (46:32):
We're using the stick.
Yes, right, exactly.

SPEAKER_01 (46:36):
Um look, my expertise is clearly in economic
matters.
Um foreign policy, I certainlyhave a lot to learn, and I
recognize that I don't haveaccess to the same information
that uh our president does orthat uh our uh Department of War
have.
Uh so I have to kind of cross myfingers and hope that they have

(46:57):
the information, they know whatthey're doing, and that the end
result will be favorable.
Uh but I will tell you one areathat I do have a little
disagreement with.
Uh from my viewpoint, um, in theRussia-Ukraine war, Russia is
the bad guy, period, end ofdiscussion.
They invaded the Ukraine.
Uh, we should be standing firmto support the Ukraine.
Uh, I do think the president'sdone the right thing to get the

(47:18):
rest of Europe involved becauseit's Europe's even more
important for the rest of Europethan it is for the United
States.
But we we need to continue tosupport them, and I believe the
right thing to do is to giveUkraine long-range missiles.
If they have the ability toattack Moscow, suddenly Russia's
gonna be Putin's gonna be a lotmore interested in negotiating a

(47:39):
deal.

SPEAKER_00 (47:40):
I can tell you're a Ronald Reagan fan.

SPEAKER_01 (47:43):
You bet.

SPEAKER_00 (47:44):
I think that's what Ronald Reagan would recommend.
He's he's spinning right downthere with regard to this issue.
And he's like, what are you guysdoing?
This is clear cut.
Yeah.
What what about the tariffs?
Not to pick on the Donald toomuch, but as a businessman, how
do you feel about the tariffs?

(48:05):
Now, the Supreme Court has ruledthat the AIPA emergency
designation is unconstitutional.
Uh, the administration is goingabout circumventing that with
individual cases againstindividual countries.
But how how how did you feelabout the tariffs?

(48:26):
And how do you feel about such acontrolling, restrictive, heavy
hand on the part of theexecutive?

SPEAKER_01 (48:37):
Well, let me tell you another part of my
background.
I'm a University of Chicago MBA,and they're certainly uh uh free
traders, uh, and I tend tosupport that.
I believe that we if we had freeand fair trade worldwide, it
would be the best thing for theentire world.
Everybody would benefit.

(48:58):
However, we don't.
Uh, and again, growing up in theuh dairy industry, I'm aware
that uh let's say a farmer innorthern Minnesota or northern
Wisconsin can't ship his milk 10miles away or 20 miles away into
Canada because of uh provisionsthat the huge tariffs that they
had on U.S.
milk and dairy products.

(49:20):
So, to the degree that thepresident has been able to use
tariffs to get concessions uhfrom other countries to either
reduce their tariffs or to opentheir trade to make it more
fair, um, more power to him.
Again, uh he he's taken somegambles there, uh, but in many
cases they've been successfuland they've worked out.
So I I applaud him for havingdone that.

(49:42):
Uh with the Supreme Courtruling, though, we have
certainly kind of a mess.
Uh and we're going back down andthey redoing them under
different uh legal requirements.
Uh, I hope he's successful.
Again, I my ideal situationwould be no tariffs for anybody
and no trade restrictions foranybody.

(50:02):
I mean, what the heck?
We can produce soybeans and cornmore efficiently than China can.
China can build bicycles andtoys and and other things more
efficiently than we can.
Let China build the toys, let usgrow the soybeans and corn and
trade.
I mean, that that's the way theworld would would benefit.

SPEAKER_00 (50:20):
Yeah, and I understand this need for
emergency resources.
So if we do go to war in a bigway, we need to be able to, you
know, cook up aluminum.
We need microprocessors, we needto be independent when it comes

(50:40):
to core infrastructure supplychain needs.
I get it.
I think that that that that isimportant from a manufacturing
point of view, indigenous.
But I I I love your point thatwhy are we tariffing the hell
out of Calcutta so that we canhave t-shirt factories in

(51:04):
Louisiana?
It that that's not that's notwhat we do.
So um, I think a little morecommon sense and and a little
more maybe self-control might goa long way, but uh, you know,
you you you can't haveeverything, nobody's perfect,
and America is um figuring itout, I think uh in ways that is

(51:29):
provocative, but also very, veryhealthy.
Because I think we need thiskind of disruption.
We need to shake stuff up.
And out of that disruption, Ithink we get insights, we get
new experience, and we get newopportunities.
Speaking of which, I have to askyou about the number one cliche,

(51:50):
which is also true, which isartificial intelligence.
Uh, how how you made a face, alot of people are making a face.
Uh do you do you consider it anexistential threat, especially
economically?
And as a businessman, you seethe cap X of companies, which

(52:11):
are ridiculous.
The ebidda, right?
The the the market cap ratio ofthese companies are through the
roof, and debt is at recordlevels.
Do you see it as a bubble?
Are you afraid?
You're afraid of the debt, whichyou should be, which we all

(52:31):
should be.
But is the AI bubble overhypedor does it keep you up at night?

SPEAKER_01 (52:39):
Look, if we go back uh, you know a thousand years or
two thousand years, everybodywas a farmer or a hunter
primarily.
Uh, and uh eventually uh we gota little specialization, and
along came the wheel and other,you know, the automobile in the
1900s, and everybody was worriedabout the horses and so on, and

(53:01):
the uh buggy whip manufacturers.
Then, you know, we we got radioand TV and everything changed,
and then you got the internet,and everybody was worried about
oh, we're gonna lose so manyjobs, and they're gonna be put
out of business and so on.
Look, these technologicalchanges have historically
resulted in some change, there'sno question about it.
Some industries lose jobs, otherindustries benefit, but on

(53:25):
balance, uh the uh efficiency,the effectiveness of our economy
continues to grow and grow veryrapidly.
AI is, I think, just acontinuation of the same trend.
Uh, there will be many peoplewho will lose their jobs if
they're in certain industries,but there will be all kinds of
new jobs opening up.
And if there aren't, you know,look, in a worst-case basis, we

(53:49):
could adjust by uh uh havingpeople work 30-hour weeks
instead of 40-hour weeks.
So still, again, we benefit bythese types of innovations.
Now, is there some risk um tosomehow uh artificial
intelligence taking over and youknow doing things that are
detrimental to humanity?

(54:10):
I'm not enough of an expert inthat area to have an opinion.
My guess is no, I'm not terriblyworried about it.
I don't lose any sleep at night.
Um, but it certainly issomething we should pay
attention to and and be awareof.
Um, am I worried about uhcompanies uh being too levered
in uh uh trying to grow their uhAI experience?

(54:32):
Look, the stock market willdetermine that.
Uh one thing I know is I canhave my opinion, but it's the
market gets it right over a longperiod of time.
It sometimes gets it wrong in ashort period of time, but
eventually it gets it right.
So uh we'll see what the uh whatthe ultimate decision is.
There will be, no doubt, somecompanies that will be huge

(54:53):
winners.
Um we happen to own a stock uhthat that that's in that area,
the symbols AAOI, appliedoptical electronics, and that
stock has gone from uh about 35um just 30 or 40 days ago to it
hit a high of I don't know 125or so, like a day or two ago,

(55:16):
it's down about 17 points today.
So it's it's reacting toinvestors' beliefs uh very, very
quickly.
Uh so the market will help todetermine the winners and the
losers.
There'll be some of each.

SPEAKER_00 (55:33):
I'm Pollyanna about most of this, and I think to
your point, there's gonna be alot of disruption.
But to the point I made earlier,shake it up, I think we'll be
we'll come out better for it,but it it's gonna be tough, and
there's gonna be major winnersand even bigger losers, so you
gotta put your chips in theright place, which is hard to

(55:57):
do.
But uh be optimistic.
I think I'm hopeful for America,I'm hopeful for what we can do,
and it's good to look forward tostuff and just the spirit of the
country.
Uh, I'm a first-generationAmerican.
Both my parents were Hungarian,left after the war.
They emigrated actually toCaracas, Venezuela, of all

(56:20):
places.
I have a son who's a Marine atCamp Pendleton.
So I was wondering if he mightget deployed to Venezuela and
then it would have been a fullfull circle, right?
So I love this country.
I think the experimentcontinues, and I think it's
important that people keep thatin mind: that there's no certain
solutions, there's no one answerto things.

(56:42):
And as long as we just treateach other with civility, we
listen as much as we speak, andwe embrace opinions, we don't
just throw them off, and then webelieve in values, work, focus
on your family, be patriotic tothe country.

(57:04):
If you just get a few of thesethings right, we'll all be
better off for it.
And I think we'll solve 90% ofour problems with just that.

SPEAKER_01 (57:12):
Mookie, you're right on, exactly.

SPEAKER_00 (57:15):
So thanks so much for joining us, Jim Oberweiss.
When you when you mentioned yourname and the ice cream, you
know, I I knew about yourbusinesses, but I remember the
ice cream growing up in inChicago.
So that's really kind ofwonderful.
You hit a childhood memory withthat.

SPEAKER_01 (57:35):
Interestingly, that business was bought a couple of
years ago by the Huffman familyof Illinois and Naples and St.
Louis.
And uh I'm told they're gonnaopen a bunch of Oberweiss ice
cream stores down here in the uhNaples to Fort Myers area.
And they actually already haveOverweiss ice cream at the Hertz
Arena, which they own in thisarea as well.
So I'm uh looking forward to uhhaving it.

SPEAKER_00 (57:57):
It expands.
That's what in California we'rehoping is gonna happen to In N
Out Burger, which is aCalifornia tradition, which is
in Nevada now.
Maybe it will hit Illinois andmaybe Florida someday, so we can
have the the worlds comingtogether.
Thanks so much, Jim.
I'm gonna put links in thedescription below for uh for all

(58:22):
that you mentioned, your action,your charity, your philanthropy,
and and your your your yourpolitical political activation
too.

SPEAKER_01 (58:31):
And I hope our viewers will take a moment and
go to our website, votejimo.com,and on there you will see a list
of over 700 Republicans who'vealready endorsed our campaign
for Congress.
And if you you look at mypositions and you like what you
have to see, I hope you'll uhclick.
There's a column for endorse orvolunteer.

(58:52):
And if you click on that column,and there's a tab that you can
click on to endorse our campaignand add your name to the list.
We're hoping to get to athousand by the uh time of the
primary.

SPEAKER_00 (59:00):
It's awesome that you're still you're still
cranking it.
You've been you've been activelyengaged most of your adult life
in uh in service, and youcontinue to do so in in Florida
too.
So that's thanks again.

SPEAKER_01 (59:16):
I appreciate the opportunity to uh talk to your
viewers.

SPEAKER_00 (59:19):
That's great.
Thank you so much.
Dim like, comment, share, folks,and hit the link below to uh
learn more about Jim's campaignand help them along.
It's a it's a worthy cause, andit's wonderful talking to
someone who's got common senseand uh just believes in the
country and wants everyone tobenefit.

(59:42):
That's terrific.
Thank you.
Thank you.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Hey Jonas!

Crime Junkie

Betrayal Weekly

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Jim Oberweis Brings Old-School Conservatism to the Age of Trump

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Hey Jonas!

Crime Junkie

Betrayal Weekly

All Episodes

Jim Oberweis Brings Old-School Conservatism to the Age of Trump

Hey Jonas!