A new segment was added to the show . Tentatively, for now, we calling it Mo's 'Final Thought.' And we'll be compiling the Thoughts over the course of the week and posting them for you to review and ponder each Thursday night.
We welcome your feedback at laterwithmokelly@gmail.com
We welcome your feedback at laterwithmokelly@gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:00):
Lad With.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
That's where I actually wanted to center my remarks from
my final thought tonight.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Because it's a political nerd.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
I watch all the State of the Unions, and tomorrow
is the State of the Union, and usually they are
boring as all get out, and they reveal very little
about the present or future of our nation. Usually they're
pretty pro forma and pretty predictable. Tomorrow, I'm sure that
the State of the Union will be absolutely none of that.
(00:43):
Given the moment we're in and the president we have.
This is the Trump administration two point zero. It's gonna
be very different than the first time around. You can
bet we're gonna hear about tariffs. We'll hear about the
pausing of aid to Ukraine and the process of slashing
supposed waste from the federal government. I don't have to
be psychic. You know that that's going to be a
part of the State of the Union. You can also
(01:05):
bet that Republicans will stand and applaud every single word
that President Trump offers, and Democrats will sit on their
hands accordingly. You know, one side of the House will
go up, the other side will sit down. There will
be zero unity or conciliation. We're going to be as
partisan as ever. Tomorrow will be no different. There will
also likely be insults and pass grievances in the speech.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
You can bet on that as well.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
You can also bet that Elon Musk will be in
the House, probably in a baseball cap and T shirt.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Hell, he might even take the podium and say a
few words. Who knows.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Maybe he'll even have his kid on his shoulders. Again,
probably whyite be more boogers on the furniture. Who knows?
He does have fourteen kids to choose from, so it
shouldn't be difficult to find at least one rug rat
to use as a prop.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
But that's a digression.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
But unlike the other joint sessions of Congress, this is
an exceptionally consequential moment. It will define our foreign policy,
which most likely will lead to the expansion of Russia.
Trump may even reaffirm his desire for the United States
to leave NATO, not joking, and in doing so, rendering
(02:14):
Article five moot. You know, that's the principle that an
attack on one is an attack on all, and if
we leave NATO that would mean we would no longer
be part of the all. It would also mean that
Russia could expand beyond Ukraine and into the Balkans or
into Poland without interference from the US. How better to
get the Soviet Union band back together. But here's the truth.
(02:35):
There is zero intersection of Russian and American geopolitical interests.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Zero.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Maybe in a Trump personal sense, but not in a
foreign policy America first sense. Russia sides with North Korea
and China for starters. That hasn't changed. They are by
definition our adversaries and have been for decades. Secretary of
Defense Pete Hegseth has called for Cyber Command to stand
down on all Russia operations. It's more than slightly odd
(03:08):
that in no way makes America safer or in alignment
with American interests. Who in the hell announces that we're
standing down on investigations. The President may even call tomorrow
night for easing of sanctions against Russia, just even despite
its invasion of Ukraine, which some people try to argue
(03:28):
Ukraine brought it on themselves is to dress they were wearing,
even despite its continued interference in American elections. This, combined
with the pause on Ukrainian aid, a reasonable person, and again,
I like dealing with reasonable people, But a reasonable person
would come to the conclusion that the president is putting
Russia first and not America. Who tells an adversary or
(03:49):
even an ally that they're lessening security in regard to
the country.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Publicly, who are you really protecting?
Speaker 1 (03:58):
But regardless, I expect fireworks because the president is promoting
the speech like an episode of The Apprentice, you know,
because ratings and entertainment seemingly are far more important in
twenty twenty five than governance. Tomorrow, Tuesday should be a
tumultuous day from the stock market to the state of
the Union.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
But here's the truth.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
None of this is a game or a TV show,
even though a game show host might be up there
speaking for KF. I am six forty, I'm o Kelly.
(04:39):
Everything a president does, everything be it by word or deed,
does one of two things. It either increases confidence or
it increases concern. It's hard to argue that anything a
president does is inherently neutral. It's not like a president
can do something and not have a ripple effect elsewhere. Granted,
(05:03):
not everything a president does is massively important, But I
would argue, and I am arguing tonight, that nothing a
president does is wholly unimportant. Even the little things matter.
One of the easiest ways to gauge confidence or concern
just look at the stock market. The president says something,
or signs an executive action, or makes a post on
(05:26):
social media, and what happens. The markets react, sometimes positively,
sometimes negatively. Over the past two days, the Dow has
dropped more than thirteen hundred points. That says the hell
of a lot. What the market does tomorrow after tonight's
joint session will say plenty as well, And it won't
be about whether they thought they liked the speech, whether
(05:49):
they thought that the speech was funny, or whether they
were mad at some of the insults to the speech.
You won't have anything to do with that. If it
instilled confidence, the markets will likely reach bound from that
thirteen hundred point drop in the past two days, It'll
likely rebound in a big way. If it freaked out
investors more than they're already freaked out, the drop will continue.
(06:11):
That's what I'm looking for, and that has nothing to
do with my analysis. I'm looking at how markets, how
countries will respond. Why, Because everything a president does, be
it by word or deed, either increases confidence or increases concern,
and this is an extremely precarious moment for our nation.
We are now in trade wars with not one, but
(06:33):
three different countries, and two of them, in theory are
our allies, or maybe were, maybe they used to be
our allies. Our economy was already fragile due to inflation.
You heard President Trump talk about that inflation is still
a real thing.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
You know what else is real? Bird flu that's also real.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
That's affecting our groceries, That's affecting our supply chains and
other factors. And I made mention of it earlier, but
I want to reiterate the sister of North Korea's Kim
John Ouhn. I don't know what her title is, but
she's influential. She threatened the US. Given the arrival of
a US aircraft carrier in South Korea on Sunday, that's
(07:15):
going to impact the markets. There's the uncertainty of the
Israel Kaza ceasefire. There is the uncertainty of Ukraine and
Russia the war, whether there'll be a mineral deal, whether
it'll be an actual ceasefire, whether they'll actually be peace,
what concessions are going to be made, And we've already
said that we're going to pause our aid to Ukraine,
(07:36):
which means probably ended all together. That is going to
send a message, and different countries are going to respond
in their own way, and our markets are going to respond.
And it doesn't really matter whether you like the speech.
It doesn't really matter whether you hated the speech, because
everything a president does, be it by word or deed,
either increases confidence or increases concern.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
And you don't have to take my word for it.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
I know with some of your things like MO, you
don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you
know what I may not. That's why tomorrow I'm going
to watch and see the response, because that says more
and carries far more weight than anything I have to say.
You don't have to take the word of anyone in
the spin room on cable news and they are spinning.
They're going to try to tell you everything they want
(08:21):
you to believe, not actually what you actually saw. The
President did one of two things. Either helped allay the
fears surrounding these issues that I just told you about,
or he made everything all the worse.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
And you'll see it in the stock market.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
And stock markets usually react negatively to uncertainty or negative
economic news like terrorists. You'll see it in our grocery
store prices. You'll see it in our future trade agreements.
You'll see it in our gas prices. The speech tonight
may or may not be memorable. In fact, I can't
remember half of it. The guy spoke for like an
(08:58):
hour and forty minutes. I remember aligne here or there.
You may remember two lines, but likely none of us
will remember what was said in the coming months. But
this is what we will remember. Tonight's joint speech was
not an olive branch. It was not a picture of
a unified America. It was basically a campaign speech for
a job you already had, relitigating the last election, assessing
(09:20):
blame for anything negative, and claiming credit for everything else,
both real and imaginary.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
And there's going to be a response to all of that.
And whether you like the speech, you may not like
the response. So I'm just saying, slow down.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
The impact of the speech tonight, I would say, more
so than other speeches, will be felt. It will be
real and really remarkable. It starts tomorrow. Because the response
is not just here. Canada will have a response, Mexico
will have a response, Europe will have a response, Ukraine
will have a response, and then from that the markets
(09:57):
and the world will give us a better sense of
the impact of that speech, because to me, that is
far more important than ratings, viewership, or dare I say
owning the libs or at least it used to be.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
For KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
I'm MO Kelly, Charles Barkley, NBA Hall of Famer. He
(10:34):
was on a podcast called The Stephen Room with Ernie
Johnson and if you know Inside the NBA, he's one
of the co hosts of Inside the NBA, one of
the most popular TV shows sports shows around and we've
talked about it here later with MO Kelly. But here's
what Charles Berkley had to say during this podcast quote,
I don't care who the president is. He's the President
(10:56):
of the United States. It's bothered me the last ten
years they're like, well, I'm not going as in visiting
the White House because this certain person as president dude
is the president of the United States. Even though I
disagree with President Trump on some things, if I met him,
I would still give him the respect and dignity he deserves.
We can disagree, but it bothers me when these teams
(11:18):
don't want to go to the White House. I'm just
disappointed we got so divided. Where do we get to
as a country when we're like, we're not going to
the White House, we don't like who is in there.
That's just stupid. Close quote. First, I think that's an oversimplification.
But I'm not going to disrespect Charles Barkley. He's a
friend of the show and he's been on with me.
(11:40):
I respect his approach to cultural and social issues. He's honest,
he's transparent, and he's definitely not a partisan. That is
if you've ever really talked to him and listened to him.
In fact, we've discussed this on various levels on my show.
But here is something I think Charles Barkley has missed
in this discussion. Whereas I personally agree with him, this
(12:03):
is not a personal decision in the context we're talking
about here, we're talking about teams, and they largely have
to agree as a team.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Good luck with that.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Dozens of athletes, all with the voice, all with the
say not a personal decision. Ultimately, it's a group one,
and it is most definitely a controversial one in today's world. Now,
we should live in a country and in time where
it's not a controversial stance to visit the White House
and shake hands with the president. It should be that way.
(12:38):
But this is not that country anymore, and this is
no longer that time. After arguably the most partisan speech
before a joint session of Congress in television history just
last night, whether you'd liked it or not, it was
severely and supremely partisan. I think it is fair for
an athlete to say, hey, you know what, I'd rather
(13:00):
opt out, and to say it's stupid to use Charles's word,
is to then put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders
of the player or players, and that is also unfair
to them. It shouldn't be on their shoulders solely. Now,
some of the onus is on the president too, and
(13:22):
that's true of any president. You can't say, on one hand,
the players need to be above the personal and petty politics,
and not also expect that of the president himself. Here's
why the president presidently and previously has directly involved himself
in the affairs of athletes. He's insulted athletes, he takes
(13:42):
stances on issues of sports from NASCAR drivers Confederate flags
in NASCAR, kneeling and football comments and very personal insults
of innumerable athletes from Lebron James on down. You can't
only put it on the shoulders of the athletes themselves.
And not only that, there are also social consequences attached.
(14:03):
Artists who have performed that either Trump inauguration, for example,
have been shunned. Careers like singer Chrissette Michelle have been
effectively ended she performed at the first inauguration. Artists like
Snoop Dogg have even been boycotted after his appearance at
the second inauguration. Visiting the White House is no longer
seen as some innocuous and apolitical decision, and I understand
(14:26):
why there are those who would rather not have to
deal with either the headache or the consequences. It's not fair,
but it's a fact where's the office of the president
is bigger than one person and transcends that one person.
That distinction is largely irrelevant to people.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Now.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
The very fact that athletes are judged for either visiting
or not visiting is testament to that fact, and you
can find evidence of that in Charles Barkley's own remarks
and This goes back to my conversation with Jackie Ray
earlier in the week. It is more than slightly hypocritical
to hold athletes to a higher standard than the actual
president of the United States. Me personally, I would be
(15:05):
fine with it, and it would be an honor to
visit the White House regardless of president.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
But I understand why.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Those others may not feel the same way and feel
that it's an outdated practice more suited for a civil
time in America. We're going to have to make a
decision at some point if we really want to keep
politics out of sports. Hear me, now, if we really
want to keep politics out of sports, then we have to,
at the minimum, stop forcing athletes to engage in political
(15:33):
activities and stop ignoring presidents who insert themselves into pro sports.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
For k I am six forty, I'm mo.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Kelly, And before we get out of here, I have
(16:04):
my final thought for the week. And I've been ruminating
over this for quite some time. And I don't know
if people know how sincere I am when I say
this about how I want more political competition in this state.
It's better for you, it's better for me, It's better
(16:24):
for both parties. When there's real competition and you can
turn on talk radio here in California, I mean beyond CAFI,
but it's inclusive of KFI, but not exclusive to KFI.
It could be some other station, and you will hear
the never ending complaints about how much is wrong with
the state of California, or the County of Los Angeles,
or the city of Los Angeles, or the combination of
(16:47):
all of them. I see it on social media, I
read your messages. I listen to talk radio. More broadly,
it's the same complaints over and over again, from homelessness,
to crime, to graffiti, cost of living, all of it,
and to some degree or varying degrees, they are all
legitimate issues. Do not get me wrong. They're legitimate issues.
(17:09):
I'm not so sure the complaints are sincere. What I
mean by that is, it's really disappointed me that we've
gotten to this place where the complaint seems to be
the point of it all.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
We're not happy unless we're unhappy.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
We would rather sit back and point and say, look
at that graffiti, look at that homelessness, look at this crime,
and not really be about the business of doing what
needs to be done to provide a viable alternative or
work towards solutions. It seems like the complaint is the
whole point, as if we really don't want any solutions,
(17:46):
we would just rather complain about the Democrat in office,
or how this is a one party state. It's a
cottage industry. You know what I'm talking about. You've probably
participated in it. You probably did it today. And I've
been begging, begging, this is really sincere I've been begging
for the Republican Party for the state of California to
get serious, for once, for once, put forth real candidates,
(18:10):
and that means developing talent, not just putting up a
tomato can or a potted plant four months before the
election and cosplays a real party. And then you say, oh, well,
you know the Democrats cheated. Oh well, people are two stupid,
low information voters and they voted Democrat.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Again.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
I guess we got the government we voted for. Not really,
not really. But we saw this with Steve Garvey when
he was running for senator. He was never serious, never
had a chance. Larry Elder saying, Rick Caruso ran as
a pseudo dim for mayor. He almost won, but he
(18:47):
ran as a Democrat basically trying to fool people, and
a Democratic party never embraced him. And I was musing
out loud about Mayor Bass, Karen Bass, who's been in
all sorts of trouble, political trouble of late. There's this
recall effort we talked about that, which is being organized
as we speak, multiple ongoing investigations as to the handling
of the fires back in January. I'm mused out loud,
(19:11):
Then when will the Republican Party at least act like
they want to govern and put up a legitimate candidate
to run against Bass in the June twenty twenty sixth election.
There is not a better time, and she is not
more vulnerable as mayor, but the Republicans have to be
willing to try in this majority minority, majority Democrat city.
(19:34):
Mayor Bass has already declared her candidacy for re election,
and so it got me thinking and I looked up
just to be sure to find out who else is
running as of right now, for about maybe fourteen fifteen
months out. This is the time that you declare, and
you know who else has declared their candidacy. Nobody, not
(19:56):
one person. That means not one Republican, not even one
other Democrat to oppose her. For all the hot air
about how horrible Maribas is or how she needs to
be recalled or how she needs to resign, there is
not one Republican even up for public consideration. There is
no alternative for us to consider, not one person who's
out there building bridges, not one building their profile, name, recognition, relationships, nothing,
(20:19):
Not one person, not one Republican. And with each passing
day it makes it even more likely there won't be
any serious challengers, even beyond Rick Caruso, who's still playing
the role of a Democrat, and he'll probably never be
genuinely embraced by the party, which limits his likelihood of
becoming mayor. We say we want a choice. We say
(20:46):
Democrats have run the city, the county, and the state
into the ground, but at no level is the Republican
Party even trying. They're just more content to complain and
maybe that sells. Maybe that's just better entertainment. Let's complain
about how bad the city, the state, the county is.
And thus just pointed the Democrats not actually trying to
offer up a solution or a better way, or even
(21:06):
a different way. And until the Republican Party specifically starts
trying to act as if it wants to do more
than complain and actually govern, then nothing will ever change,
and we'll get the same politicians and the same level
of governance. And maybe that's the whole point of it all.
Maybe it's just preferential to complain. For KF, I am
(21:29):
six forty. I'm Moe Keller.
Lad With.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
That's where I actually wanted to center my remarks from
my final thought tonight.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Because it's a political nerd.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
I watch all the State of the Unions, and tomorrow
is the State of the Union, and usually they are
boring as all get out, and they reveal very little
about the present or future of our nation. Usually they're
pretty pro forma and pretty predictable. Tomorrow, I'm sure that
the State of the Union will be absolutely none of that.
(00:43):
Given the moment we're in and the president we have.
This is the Trump administration two point zero. It's gonna
be very different than the first time around. You can
bet we're gonna hear about tariffs. We'll hear about the
pausing of aid to Ukraine and the process of slashing
supposed waste from the federal government. I don't have to
be psychic. You know that that's going to be a
part of the State of the Union. You can also
(01:05):
bet that Republicans will stand and applaud every single word
that President Trump offers, and Democrats will sit on their
hands accordingly. You know, one side of the House will
go up, the other side will sit down. There will
be zero unity or conciliation. We're going to be as
partisan as ever. Tomorrow will be no different. There will
also likely be insults and pass grievances in the speech.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
You can bet on that as well.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
You can also bet that Elon Musk will be in
the House, probably in a baseball cap and T shirt.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Hell, he might even take the podium and say a
few words. Who knows.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Maybe he'll even have his kid on his shoulders. Again,
probably whyite be more boogers on the furniture. Who knows?
He does have fourteen kids to choose from, so it
shouldn't be difficult to find at least one rug rat
to use as a prop.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
But that's a digression.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
But unlike the other joint sessions of Congress, this is
an exceptionally consequential moment. It will define our foreign policy,
which most likely will lead to the expansion of Russia.
Trump may even reaffirm his desire for the United States
to leave NATO, not joking, and in doing so, rendering
(02:14):
Article five moot. You know, that's the principle that an
attack on one is an attack on all, and if
we leave NATO that would mean we would no longer
be part of the all. It would also mean that
Russia could expand beyond Ukraine and into the Balkans or
into Poland without interference from the US. How better to
get the Soviet Union band back together. But here's the truth.
(02:35):
There is zero intersection of Russian and American geopolitical interests.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Zero.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Maybe in a Trump personal sense, but not in a
foreign policy America first sense. Russia sides with North Korea
and China for starters. That hasn't changed. They are by
definition our adversaries and have been for decades. Secretary of
Defense Pete Hegseth has called for Cyber Command to stand
down on all Russia operations. It's more than slightly odd
(03:08):
that in no way makes America safer or in alignment
with American interests. Who in the hell announces that we're
standing down on investigations. The President may even call tomorrow
night for easing of sanctions against Russia, just even despite
its invasion of Ukraine, which some people try to argue
(03:28):
Ukraine brought it on themselves is to dress they were wearing,
even despite its continued interference in American elections. This, combined
with the pause on Ukrainian aid, a reasonable person, and again,
I like dealing with reasonable people, But a reasonable person
would come to the conclusion that the president is putting
Russia first and not America. Who tells an adversary or
(03:49):
even an ally that they're lessening security in regard to
the country.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Publicly, who are you really protecting?
Speaker 1 (03:58):
But regardless, I expect fireworks because the president is promoting
the speech like an episode of The Apprentice, you know,
because ratings and entertainment seemingly are far more important in
twenty twenty five than governance. Tomorrow, Tuesday should be a
tumultuous day from the stock market to the state of
the Union.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
But here's the truth.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
None of this is a game or a TV show,
even though a game show host might be up there
speaking for KF. I am six forty, I'm o Kelly.
(04:39):
Everything a president does, everything be it by word or deed,
does one of two things. It either increases confidence or
it increases concern. It's hard to argue that anything a
president does is inherently neutral. It's not like a president
can do something and not have a ripple effect elsewhere. Granted,
(05:03):
not everything a president does is massively important, But I
would argue, and I am arguing tonight, that nothing a
president does is wholly unimportant. Even the little things matter.
One of the easiest ways to gauge confidence or concern
just look at the stock market. The president says something,
or signs an executive action, or makes a post on
(05:26):
social media, and what happens. The markets react, sometimes positively,
sometimes negatively. Over the past two days, the Dow has
dropped more than thirteen hundred points. That says the hell
of a lot. What the market does tomorrow after tonight's
joint session will say plenty as well, And it won't
be about whether they thought they liked the speech, whether
(05:49):
they thought that the speech was funny, or whether they
were mad at some of the insults to the speech.
You won't have anything to do with that. If it
instilled confidence, the markets will likely reach bound from that
thirteen hundred point drop in the past two days, It'll
likely rebound in a big way. If it freaked out
investors more than they're already freaked out, the drop will continue.
(06:11):
That's what I'm looking for, and that has nothing to
do with my analysis. I'm looking at how markets, how
countries will respond. Why, Because everything a president does, be
it by word or deed, either increases confidence or increases concern,
and this is an extremely precarious moment for our nation.
We are now in trade wars with not one, but
(06:33):
three different countries, and two of them, in theory are
our allies, or maybe were, maybe they used to be
our allies. Our economy was already fragile due to inflation.
You heard President Trump talk about that inflation is still
a real thing.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
You know what else is real? Bird flu that's also real.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
That's affecting our groceries, That's affecting our supply chains and
other factors. And I made mention of it earlier, but
I want to reiterate the sister of North Korea's Kim
John Ouhn. I don't know what her title is, but
she's influential. She threatened the US. Given the arrival of
a US aircraft carrier in South Korea on Sunday, that's
(07:15):
going to impact the markets. There's the uncertainty of the
Israel Kaza ceasefire. There is the uncertainty of Ukraine and
Russia the war, whether there'll be a mineral deal, whether
it'll be an actual ceasefire, whether they'll actually be peace,
what concessions are going to be made, And we've already
said that we're going to pause our aid to Ukraine,
(07:36):
which means probably ended all together. That is going to
send a message, and different countries are going to respond
in their own way, and our markets are going to respond.
And it doesn't really matter whether you like the speech.
It doesn't really matter whether you hated the speech, because
everything a president does, be it by word or deed,
either increases confidence or increases concern.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
And you don't have to take my word for it.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
I know with some of your things like MO, you
don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you
know what I may not. That's why tomorrow I'm going
to watch and see the response, because that says more
and carries far more weight than anything I have to say.
You don't have to take the word of anyone in
the spin room on cable news and they are spinning.
They're going to try to tell you everything they want
(08:21):
you to believe, not actually what you actually saw. The
President did one of two things. Either helped allay the
fears surrounding these issues that I just told you about,
or he made everything all the worse.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
And you'll see it in the stock market.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
And stock markets usually react negatively to uncertainty or negative
economic news like terrorists. You'll see it in our grocery
store prices. You'll see it in our future trade agreements.
You'll see it in our gas prices. The speech tonight
may or may not be memorable. In fact, I can't
remember half of it. The guy spoke for like an
(08:58):
hour and forty minutes. I remember aligne here or there.
You may remember two lines, but likely none of us
will remember what was said in the coming months. But
this is what we will remember. Tonight's joint speech was
not an olive branch. It was not a picture of
a unified America. It was basically a campaign speech for
a job you already had, relitigating the last election, assessing
(09:20):
blame for anything negative, and claiming credit for everything else,
both real and imaginary.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
And there's going to be a response to all of that.
And whether you like the speech, you may not like
the response. So I'm just saying, slow down.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
The impact of the speech tonight, I would say, more
so than other speeches, will be felt. It will be
real and really remarkable. It starts tomorrow. Because the response
is not just here. Canada will have a response, Mexico
will have a response, Europe will have a response, Ukraine
will have a response, and then from that the markets
(09:57):
and the world will give us a better sense of
the impact of that speech, because to me, that is
far more important than ratings, viewership, or dare I say
owning the libs or at least it used to be.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
For KFI AM six forty.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
I'm MO Kelly, Charles Barkley, NBA Hall of Famer. He
(10:34):
was on a podcast called The Stephen Room with Ernie
Johnson and if you know Inside the NBA, he's one
of the co hosts of Inside the NBA, one of
the most popular TV shows sports shows around and we've
talked about it here later with MO Kelly. But here's
what Charles Berkley had to say during this podcast quote,
I don't care who the president is. He's the President
(10:56):
of the United States. It's bothered me the last ten
years they're like, well, I'm not going as in visiting
the White House because this certain person as president dude
is the president of the United States. Even though I
disagree with President Trump on some things, if I met him,
I would still give him the respect and dignity he deserves.
We can disagree, but it bothers me when these teams
(11:18):
don't want to go to the White House. I'm just
disappointed we got so divided. Where do we get to
as a country when we're like, we're not going to
the White House, we don't like who is in there.
That's just stupid. Close quote. First, I think that's an oversimplification.
But I'm not going to disrespect Charles Barkley. He's a
friend of the show and he's been on with me.
(11:40):
I respect his approach to cultural and social issues. He's honest,
he's transparent, and he's definitely not a partisan. That is
if you've ever really talked to him and listened to him.
In fact, we've discussed this on various levels on my show.
But here is something I think Charles Barkley has missed
in this discussion. Whereas I personally agree with him, this
(12:03):
is not a personal decision in the context we're talking
about here, we're talking about teams, and they largely have
to agree as a team.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Good luck with that.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Dozens of athletes, all with the voice, all with the
say not a personal decision. Ultimately, it's a group one,
and it is most definitely a controversial one in today's world. Now,
we should live in a country and in time where
it's not a controversial stance to visit the White House
and shake hands with the president. It should be that way.
(12:38):
But this is not that country anymore, and this is
no longer that time. After arguably the most partisan speech
before a joint session of Congress in television history just
last night, whether you'd liked it or not, it was
severely and supremely partisan. I think it is fair for
an athlete to say, hey, you know what, I'd rather
(13:00):
opt out, and to say it's stupid to use Charles's word,
is to then put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders
of the player or players, and that is also unfair
to them. It shouldn't be on their shoulders solely. Now,
some of the onus is on the president too, and
(13:22):
that's true of any president. You can't say, on one hand,
the players need to be above the personal and petty politics,
and not also expect that of the president himself. Here's
why the president presidently and previously has directly involved himself
in the affairs of athletes. He's insulted athletes, he takes
(13:42):
stances on issues of sports from NASCAR drivers Confederate flags
in NASCAR, kneeling and football comments and very personal insults
of innumerable athletes from Lebron James on down. You can't
only put it on the shoulders of the athletes themselves.
And not only that, there are also social consequences attached.
(14:03):
Artists who have performed that either Trump inauguration, for example,
have been shunned. Careers like singer Chrissette Michelle have been
effectively ended she performed at the first inauguration. Artists like
Snoop Dogg have even been boycotted after his appearance at
the second inauguration. Visiting the White House is no longer
seen as some innocuous and apolitical decision, and I understand
(14:26):
why there are those who would rather not have to
deal with either the headache or the consequences. It's not fair,
but it's a fact where's the office of the president
is bigger than one person and transcends that one person.
That distinction is largely irrelevant to people.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
Now.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
The very fact that athletes are judged for either visiting
or not visiting is testament to that fact, and you
can find evidence of that in Charles Barkley's own remarks
and This goes back to my conversation with Jackie Ray
earlier in the week. It is more than slightly hypocritical
to hold athletes to a higher standard than the actual
president of the United States. Me personally, I would be
(15:05):
fine with it, and it would be an honor to
visit the White House regardless of president.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
But I understand why.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Those others may not feel the same way and feel
that it's an outdated practice more suited for a civil
time in America. We're going to have to make a
decision at some point if we really want to keep
politics out of sports. Hear me, now, if we really
want to keep politics out of sports, then we have to,
at the minimum, stop forcing athletes to engage in political
(15:33):
activities and stop ignoring presidents who insert themselves into pro sports.
Speaker 2 (15:41):
For k I am six forty, I'm mo.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Kelly, And before we get out of here, I have
(16:04):
my final thought for the week. And I've been ruminating
over this for quite some time. And I don't know
if people know how sincere I am when I say
this about how I want more political competition in this state.
It's better for you, it's better for me, It's better
(16:24):
for both parties. When there's real competition and you can
turn on talk radio here in California, I mean beyond CAFI,
but it's inclusive of KFI, but not exclusive to KFI.
It could be some other station, and you will hear
the never ending complaints about how much is wrong with
the state of California, or the County of Los Angeles,
or the city of Los Angeles, or the combination of
(16:47):
all of them. I see it on social media, I
read your messages. I listen to talk radio. More broadly,
it's the same complaints over and over again, from homelessness,
to crime, to graffiti, cost of living, all of it,
and to some degree or varying degrees, they are all
legitimate issues. Do not get me wrong. They're legitimate issues.
(17:09):
I'm not so sure the complaints are sincere. What I
mean by that is, it's really disappointed me that we've
gotten to this place where the complaint seems to be
the point of it all.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
We're not happy unless we're unhappy.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
We would rather sit back and point and say, look
at that graffiti, look at that homelessness, look at this crime,
and not really be about the business of doing what
needs to be done to provide a viable alternative or
work towards solutions. It seems like the complaint is the
whole point, as if we really don't want any solutions,
(17:46):
we would just rather complain about the Democrat in office,
or how this is a one party state. It's a
cottage industry. You know what I'm talking about. You've probably
participated in it. You probably did it today. And I've
been begging, begging, this is really sincere I've been begging
for the Republican Party for the state of California to
get serious, for once, for once, put forth real candidates,
(18:10):
and that means developing talent, not just putting up a
tomato can or a potted plant four months before the
election and cosplays a real party. And then you say, oh, well,
you know the Democrats cheated. Oh well, people are two stupid,
low information voters and they voted Democrat.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Again.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
I guess we got the government we voted for. Not really,
not really. But we saw this with Steve Garvey when
he was running for senator. He was never serious, never
had a chance. Larry Elder saying, Rick Caruso ran as
a pseudo dim for mayor. He almost won, but he
(18:47):
ran as a Democrat basically trying to fool people, and
a Democratic party never embraced him. And I was musing
out loud about Mayor Bass, Karen Bass, who's been in
all sorts of trouble, political trouble of late. There's this
recall effort we talked about that, which is being organized
as we speak, multiple ongoing investigations as to the handling
of the fires back in January. I'm mused out loud,
(19:11):
Then when will the Republican Party at least act like
they want to govern and put up a legitimate candidate
to run against Bass in the June twenty twenty sixth election.
There is not a better time, and she is not
more vulnerable as mayor, but the Republicans have to be
willing to try in this majority minority, majority Democrat city.
(19:34):
Mayor Bass has already declared her candidacy for re election,
and so it got me thinking and I looked up
just to be sure to find out who else is
running as of right now, for about maybe fourteen fifteen
months out. This is the time that you declare, and
you know who else has declared their candidacy. Nobody, not
(19:56):
one person. That means not one Republican, not even one
other Democrat to oppose her. For all the hot air
about how horrible Maribas is or how she needs to
be recalled or how she needs to resign, there is
not one Republican even up for public consideration. There is
no alternative for us to consider, not one person who's
out there building bridges, not one building their profile, name, recognition, relationships, nothing,
(20:19):
Not one person, not one Republican. And with each passing
day it makes it even more likely there won't be
any serious challengers, even beyond Rick Caruso, who's still playing
the role of a Democrat, and he'll probably never be
genuinely embraced by the party, which limits his likelihood of
becoming mayor. We say we want a choice. We say
(20:46):
Democrats have run the city, the county, and the state
into the ground, but at no level is the Republican
Party even trying. They're just more content to complain and
maybe that sells. Maybe that's just better entertainment. Let's complain
about how bad the city, the state, the county is.
And thus just pointed the Democrats not actually trying to
offer up a solution or a better way, or even
(21:06):
a different way. And until the Republican Party specifically starts
trying to act as if it wants to do more
than complain and actually govern, then nothing will ever change,
and we'll get the same politicians and the same level
of governance. And maybe that's the whole point of it all.
Maybe it's just preferential to complain. For KF, I am
(21:29):
six forty. I'm Moe Keller.
Later, with Mo'Kelly News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!