4:20 pm: Billy Hesterman, President of the Utah Taxpayers Association, joins the program to discuss his op-ed in the Deseret News in which he says time is running out to save Social Security.
4:38 pm: Hugo Gurdon, Editor-in-Chief at the Washington Examiner, joins the show to discuss his piece about how America is less liked, but more respected, with Donald Trump in the White House.
6:05 pm: Lauren Green, Congressional Reporter for the Washington Examiner, joins Rod and Greg to discuss her piece on how Democrats in Washington, D.C. have turned to theatrics to get noticed since they’ve been voted out of power.
6:38 pm: Thaddeus G. McCotter, a contributor to American Greatness, joins the show to discuss his piece about how tell-all books have become detrimental to good American government.
4:38 pm: Hugo Gurdon, Editor-in-Chief at the Washington Examiner, joins the show to discuss his piece about how America is less liked, but more respected, with Donald Trump in the White House.
6:05 pm: Lauren Green, Congressional Reporter for the Washington Examiner, joins Rod and Greg to discuss her piece on how Democrats in Washington, D.C. have turned to theatrics to get noticed since they’ve been voted out of power.
6:38 pm: Thaddeus G. McCotter, a contributor to American Greatness, joins the show to discuss his piece about how tell-all books have become detrimental to good American government.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, summertime year it is. It is, It's fine. I
like I said, I'd rather be hot than cold with you.
I'm with you on that as well.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
All right, Well the Big Beautiful bill, Donald Trump's Big
beautiful bill.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
It was beautiful on what was it? It was, uh
four July. It was a beautiful ceremony. I did not
see it. I did, I watched it.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
No, it was.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
It was great also because Junior is out there after
they when they passed it. We were watching this thing.
Remember how we left on Wednesday and we were wondering
if they were going to get this thing done. And
they went through the night and the next day they
got up where they so they had like this big
moment and and they brought all the caucus together and
the present I think the president, No, he wasn't there.
He was watching this anyway, Like my son sends me
(00:48):
a picture where he got in the room where they
were having this. And then I saw a picture of
President Trump with Secretary of State Ruby watching on TV
that moment that my kid was in. So it was good,
it was. I was very I thought that the summer
of twenty five might be one of those historic summers
in terms of getting some things done, and it is
That's exactly what's happened. Did you just call your son junior? Yeah,
(01:10):
he is junior. Actually, is that what you call him? Well,
I don't. I call him his my middle name. His
middle name is Holden. We call him Holme Holden. I
go by greg My name is Gregory Holden, and he
goes by Holden Olden. But he is he is, he's deuced.
He's the second, he's number two.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
My father once kept on calling me through my teenagers
year teenage years.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Little Joe Joe because he was big Joe. No, No,
he was Bill. Yeah. I don't know that. I know
where he got it from. Bonanza. Oh didn't Michael. Wasn't
Michael Landon? Little Joe? Yeah, he might have been. I
remember Bonanza, but I don't remember all the names I got.
I don't know why my father. No, I call Holden
junior because he is junior. He is a junior. He
(01:56):
is a junior.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
All right, Well, let's talk about the answers takeing place
in Washington over the past several months, especially over the
you know, in leading up to the One Big Beautiful Bill,
there was plenty of plane going on wasn't there.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Oh yeah, it was. It was all performative. It was nauseating,
and even his own caucus hated it. So they didn't
know he was going to do it, so they had
to keep canceling their flights over the Fourth of July holiday.
They couldn't get out of town. They were they were
even mad. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Well, joining us on our Newsmaker line to talk about
some of these theatrics is Lauren Green. She is a
congressional reporter the Washington Examiner. Lauren, you've taken a look
at this. What kind of theatrics have we been seeing?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Jeff course, Well, thanks for having me on. I did
a little story. I was up there on the hill
all last week before the passage of the Big Beautiful
Bill when the Housemage House, MYORNI leader Hawking, Jeffries broke
the record for the longest fourth beach, which was previously
held by Kevin McCarthy during the Build Back Better Act,
which was President Biden's Reconciliation Act. I think that whenever
(02:58):
what we've seen with Jeffries breaking that record, with Corey
Booker giving the longest forced speech in the Senate, and
then I mean, how Republicans did hold the floor OGM
for the longest vote just due to attendance reasons on
I want to do it with Tuesday or Wednesday night.
But I think it's just an effort to push their
(03:19):
agenda and their message because they don't because Republicans have
a trifectors, so they're kind of they have their hands tied,
and they're trying to show that they're base, that they're
doing as much as they can with the little power
that they have.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Lauren, let me ask you. I find political performative politics
really to be deceptive at its heart. They're not trying
to pivot to a new policy position. They're not trying
to captivate American people's attention or support. They want to
trick them, and the way they trick is for these
marathon speeches, or they want to do something that is
more emotional I evokes emotion. Do you find the performative
(03:54):
politics from the left right now deceptive at its heart?
Speaker 3 (04:00):
I mean, I wouldn't say that it's just a Democrat
thing being deceptive. I can see where you're coming from,
where theatrics and politics is deceptive. I do think that
there was emotions behind it in the party, and I
do think that obviously, both parties do do that. The
previous four speech record was held by Kevin McCarthy, which
was the Republican in the previous Senate for speech was
also help our Republicans. So I think it's something that
(04:21):
we definitely see on both sides that's definitely used to
invigorate the base, which can be seen as a little
bit deceptive and which I can totally see. But I
do think that both sides definitely use this in times
when they don't have the power that they are wanting
to have.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
How much money do they make off of these theatrics
when when they show them and they sound out emails
or a social media Hey look what I've done. I'm
fighting for you. I mean, how much money is out
there for them to make when they do something like this?
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Lauren, Yeah, we.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Actually I looked a lot into this recently with Corey
Booker's speech and he second quarter fundraising has it come out,
So I think we'll have more clarity once that comes out,
because he when he did fundraise off of the speech,
it did come in quarter two. But I do know
that there's an ethics concern that was filed in the
Senate because of that, because technically you can't campaign off
(05:15):
of official business, and for speeches are technically official business.
So I think that that creates a little bit of
a barrier there. So I think that once YouTube funding
comes out, we'll see a little bit more there, and
once the Senate Ethics before.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Is done, you know, I think it's a fair observation
to say that, look, Republicans will do this. McCarthy held
the record before. I guess what got me thinking about
the deceptive part of it is Eric Swallwell. Someone showed
how many times he pops out of his office or
go somewhere, and there's just this It's supposed to look
like someone's just catching him in in a random moment,
Hey Congressman, oh hi, and then he answers a question,
(05:52):
and then if you see, they just they just string
it along to show how contrived it is and how
it's not actually real. And then anytime I see that,
and I've seen it actually some people on the right
as well. But it seems like in social media that's
the game. It's almost the game by itself, and the
clicks and the attention more than actually any of the substance.
(06:12):
Is there just another side gig going on amongst members
of Congress, and I see it with like the Swallwalls
and types that are just trying to get support fundraising
attention really doesn't have anything to do with the policy. They
just want to maybe entertain through their social media platform.
Is that happening. I'm an old head, so I don't know.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I mean, I do a lot of social media work
on the Hill and from that, I've kind of gained
a little bit of a different perspective on the way
that members use social media, and just in the day
and age in the rise of TikTok, I think that
those casual videos are really enticing to especially younger voters,
because it does like obviously, I don't think many of
these viewers that are viewing these tiktoks are going in
(06:53):
and watching all of Eric Swallow's tiktoks back to back
to back. I think that they see one and it
comes off natural to them. And I mean a bunch
of members do it, so it's not just him. But
I think that that is more enticing to the younger generation.
They're wanting to see this more like genuine man on
the street side of politicians, And so I think that
that's what a lot of their communications seem to have
started to pivot towards. I know that almost every office
(07:16):
has now hired a digital director along with their communications directors,
and I think that they're just trying to reach that
younger base. But I do think that the more that
you dive into each of their profiles, the more you
can see that it's not as natural as that first video.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
You see comes across, knowing the egos of many politicians
in that town. Do you see this stopping anytime soon?
Or someone I'm going to break this record because I
know it will get me attention. I don't see it
stopping soon, do you, Lauren?
Speaker 3 (07:45):
I mean, I don't think that it'll stop anytime soon. Obviously,
the midterms are quickly approaching, and I think that after
a reconciliation bill passes, that's when campaigns really kick off.
I think that both Democrats and Republicans are both going
to obviously campaign on this bill. And I mean there's
with the rise of social media, is that theatrics are
only getting more and more, especially just trying to get
(08:07):
clips from wherever they can, whether it's hearings or for speeches.
So no, I don't see that not happening anytime soon.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Axios came out with an interesting I hate quoting Axios,
but Acxios came out with an interesting report that members
of Democrat members of Congress are complaining that their constituents
want them to become more violent, They want to become
more confrontational, that they think that there should be blood,
that the being nice hasn't worked to some of the
performative rhetoric and the things that they say, calling Trump
(08:37):
Hitler and a fascist and Republicans the same. Does it
is it promote? Are they promoting those types of appetites
and expectations from their base by performative politics like this?
Speaker 3 (08:51):
I mean, I do think that there is definitely a
little bit of a switch, and maybe not the entire
Democratic Party, but definitely in a subset of the Democratic
Party where they do want to see that more aggressive
type approach. I think that a big complaint about the
Democratic Party from both Democrats and Republicans is that they
get their feelings hurt too easily. And I think that
(09:11):
in this more aggressive rhetoric, they're trying to kind of
distance themselves from that like pity party messaging that they
kind of established for themselves. But yeah, I'm not sure
exactly if that's a direct correlation with these record breaking things.
(09:33):
I think I would have to ask more memories about that.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
You know, the Democrats right now, they're just making fools
of themselves. Greg going to turn around.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Thank you Lauren Green for your insight and commentary, and
I hope you do ask some of those members, because
I don't know, I get tired of it. Even on
our side. We saw that a Republican member of Congress
show up for the big beautiful vote in our pajamas,
like that was real funny. I didn't think it was
funny at all. I thought it was disrespectful.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
You mentioned I think you mentioned this a while ago
where town halls. This story some Democrats at town halls
in their own districts and one on one meetings. Democratic
members of Congress are facing a growing thrum of demands
to break the rules, fight dirty, and not be afraid
to get hurt.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Yeah, no, no, it's it's called for violence if they
can't use just remember you know, whether it was walls,
you know, governor walls, it was you saw the troops
marching down suburban neighborhoods. That get in your house people.
You know, you had people with semi automatic rifles chasing
moms and kids out of parks and off of beaches.
(10:37):
The Democrats love heavy handed, you know, military law enforcement
action to satisfy you know, their COVID and their lockdowns
that they want, and even IDs for showing that you've
been vaccinated. But you want to remove criminal illegal alien
gang members, Well, then now you're doing something immoral. They
so this this whole thing they just they go to.
(10:59):
If they can't use the government levers to defeat their
political destroy their political opponents, if they're out of power,
they're going to go to violence.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
I mean, listened some of these comments. These are members
from Democrats from the House who went and held town
hall meetings. Right, that's what they're hearing. Here's what one
Democrat said, This idea that we're going to save every
norm and that we're not going to play the Republican game.
I don't think that's resonating with voters anymore. Here's another one.
There's a sense of fear and despair and anger among
(11:27):
our voters. Puts us in a different position where we
can't keep following norms of decorum. Wow, here's another Action
has asked more than two dozen House Democrats for their story.
Many are saying, we've got people saying, even if you
have to get shot, do it to stand up to
Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
It goes back to that poll. Remember the poll we
shared a while ago that said that people have left
of center will will resort to violence by a large,
like a scary percentage. They thought it and justifies the means. Yeah,
so when you started to say that Ice that they're
the bad guys and glossed over, not glossed. But we
haven't had time to talk about we had an assassin
(12:04):
someone who was there an ambush, planned to shoot an
ICE agent who was who shot, missed and then was
a return fire. But seven hundred percent. Violence against ICE officers,
men and women of ICE have gone up seven hundred
percent since that. That type of rhetoric that you just
read has been spreading amongst the left.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Or coming up on the Rowden greg Show on this
Monday on Utah's Talk Radio one O five to nine,
kayn rs is they aren't afraid of the legacy media. No, yeah,
they don't fear it at all. Case in point Traycury
Secretary Scott missing. He went on the Sunday morning talk
shows to defend the Reconciliation Bill. Of course, he had
a great time with our friend CNN's Dana Bash and
(12:44):
he and he was asked first of all about the
budget and the budget layoffs and the cuts that are
taking place, and about this study which said this bill
will now drive the deathficit up.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Let's tell how you responded.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
L Budget Lab says the richest Americans will see their
income rise by nearly two percent, the lowest learning Americans
will see their income drop by three percent when factoring
in cuts to Medicaid and food stamps. You argue that
the benefits will really be aimed at the middle class.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
How does that square.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Well, first, let's have a look at the l Budget Lab,
because I was looking at their findings and this week
I actually went on their website.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
They're all ex Biden.
Speaker 5 (13:29):
Officials, so I think we can discount everything they say.
I'd encourage all your viewers to look at the composition
of both the board and the staff.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Now, now, Dana Bash and her producers probably should have
looked at that study as well, Greg, but they didn't bother.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
They just start get a real budget lab opp of
all of the president's critics, go figure Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
Then she was asked. She asked gott Beson about small
business and their concerns. Here's how you responded.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
Talk to small business owners, both doing interviews with them,
just in and around in my life interacting with them.
I have not met one who has not said, it's
the uncertainty with the tariffs that is making it so
hard for them to do business because they're kind of
frozen in place. What do you say to those business owners, Well.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
I'd say two things.
Speaker 5 (14:20):
Is the other thing they would probably have been telling
you is it was the uncertainty around taxes. So we
with the one big, beautiful bill, they now have great
certainty on taxes.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
They've said tariffs no, no, but let me finish.
Speaker 5 (14:33):
When I'm out talking to businesses, they want trade and taxes,
So we have certainty on taxes. Now all businesses know
that they'll be getting one hundred percent expensing for new
plant and equipment on tariffs. Again, it is the eighteen
important trading relationships and we're moving through those.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
And then the question came up about Medicaid and work requirements.
Speaker 5 (14:58):
We've also wanted to put in work requirements, which somehow
that was very popular under Bill Clinton, was popular under
President Obama, and this Democratic Party blew out the depth
of set in twenty twenty, and you know, they never
want to bring it back. But work requirements even pull
well with the median Democratic voter, maybe not the fringe.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
I mean, what's funny and wasn't under Clinton and Obama
had to be thirty hours a week. Now how under
the new OBD it's twenty hours a week.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
It's twenty It was thirty first thing, if you had
two parents that were able body, it was thirty five hours.
That was a Clinton signed bill by a new king
rich Republican Congress. But this is only twenty hours. And
again that to the left is the equivalent of taking
away an able body, not disabled. That doesn't count for them,
an able bodied adult at a certain household income level
(15:49):
that's low enough for Medicaid expansion. They have to work
twenty hours, they have to work part time as able
bodied adults. That's you know, that's the equivalent of taking
it away from them. Actually it's not. It's actually, you know,
dignity to work. Yeah, and twenty hours isn't enough.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
In my mind, So all right, more coming up on
the Rod and Gregg Show in Utah's Talk Radio one
oh five nine knrs. Sure I had a lot to
talk about today. Of course we're still, you know, trying
to digest I think the tragedy there in Texas, Craig,
I mean the flash flooding. How quickly that water rose,
I mean went up to twenty nine thirty thirty five
feet in a matter of what forty six minutes, you know,
(16:27):
And I remember the Titan Dam. The water kind of
came in and slowly rose during the flood of nineteen
seventy six, not like this, I guess there was a
wall of water that really just came roaring through.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Well, legend has it that you when that flood happened,
you were at a radio station as addaster as a
young gun, hanging in there baby, and found yourself on
the roof, and then you were trapped on that roof
with a little young rodeo queen Queen Bee apparently not
Queen Bee, but Rodeo Queen, Rodeo queen. And then you know,
the rest is history, so to speak. Uh love that I.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Had a brand new car that I just purchased, like
three four weeks ago. Beautiful white camaro. Shoot, the water
takes it away.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
It takes took it away. Bill had I lost the camaro,
but you gained the rodeo queen and also got another camaro. Oh,
they go, so yeah, so yeah, that's good. Got a
better one. Remember the old Z twenty eight four on
the floor of E twenty eighth, those sixty five camaros,
they were great.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
It wasn't sixty five. Okay, you're brutal. You're brutal man.
All right, let's talk to our next guest. His name
is Thatius G. McCarter. We just called him Thattius, who
wrote a terrific article about you know, uh, you have
leaks and then you have the tell old books, right, yes,
and Thatius is joining us to talk about these. Satius,
(17:48):
thanks for joining us tonight. The leaks during the first
administration of Donald Trump and the second administration of Donald Trump. Boys,
really isn't isn't it that Satius?
Speaker 6 (17:58):
It has words of Ian Hunter, once bitten twice shy.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
What do you think has happened? That is what has changed.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
I think that President Trump learned from painful experience, he
knows and has surrounded himself with people. He has a
much more comfortable comfort comfort level, and it's a confidence
in them, and I think that that has led to
basically trusting them to oversee the stopping of leaks and
(18:30):
to prevent tell All books. And so far, so good.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
So one of the I thought what came to mind
when I was reading your article that I think epitomizes
your point is that you got this Jake Tapper with
his tell All book and all the people that were
willing to participate in the content of that book really
criticizing Biden. If that book was genuine in its purpose,
as Jake Tapper says, you know, we learn from our mistakes,
(18:55):
then you wouldn't see that them. Just as soon as
that book is he's making money from his book, tour
is over and he's back on the job. You saw
him parroting uh propaganda from Iran saying they first they
didn't have any nuclear capability, then they're going to get
it back in thirty minutes or thirty days or whatever
he was saying, just going back to taking without any
(19:15):
kind of journalistic integrity, what information they were hearing. It
seemed to contradict the very premise of the book. He
was selling and making money on does Jake is Jake
Tapper like the poster child for you know, tell all
books and how it's only about profit and has real
no substance behind it.
Speaker 6 (19:33):
Well, I think when you're talking about the Tap for book,
what you're looking at as an alibi market, as a.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Tone, good point and making money that's actually.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
Yeah, yeah, a little salt in the wound the public to.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Be a total phony and profit from it too. Yeah.
That's so.
Speaker 6 (19:56):
It worked very well for Bob Woodward too, didn't it. Yes,
when when you go ahead, now, when you look at it,
it made perfect sense for them to put that out.
It was unfortunate and regrettable and basically deceitful. But having
covered up the fact of Biden's mental decline for years,
(20:18):
they had to say something, and I guess that's kind
of what they did, And so it was masked as
a oh, now look at what happened and now we
can tell the truth. But the reality was indie what
they were doing at the time. It's like the Hunter
Biden laptop story. They knew what they were doing. It
wasn't rushing disinformation. They were trying to win an election,
and they and the fact that they couldn't admit it
(20:39):
at the time is not is not ameliorated by the
fact they admitted it later after they succeeded in lying
to the public.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Yea, is you painted some really interesting scenarios when you're
talking about these tell all books, like the President sitting
in a cabinet meeting and looking around the room and wondering, Okay,
if I say anything something, you know, just just to
spitball in idea, it will end up in a book.
Someday we're a member of the House or the Senate
trying to find a bipartisan piece of legislation. I mean,
(21:07):
it's got to be different for the difficult for these
guys in Washington to really say what they think for
fear of may end up in a tell all book.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Is that the case?
Speaker 6 (21:16):
Well, I think I think in many ways it is.
And especially the higher up you go, especially in the
cabinet level or the executive branch, you'll start to see that.
But think about it this way. A lot of people
will say, well, obviously people on other sides of the aisle,
different sides of the aisle will have trouble talking to
each other. Obviously, a Republican and a Democrat trying to
reach an a chord. If those types of conversations come
(21:39):
out to scuttle any opportunity to reach across the aisle.
But it also impacts internal debates within both parties. Republicans
say you're a Maga Republican or you're a modern Republican
and you're trying to find an accord. That makes it
much more difficult if you think the person across the
aisle is actually just engaging you so they can play
(22:00):
you and leak something out and hurts you down the road.
So it affects both parties. It affects them internally. Externally,
it affects all the branches of government. And it's kind
of funny because in a town where they measure everything
in money and very little and intelligence, I think what
you wind up seeing them pretending they have the inside
(22:21):
scoop for fun and profit, and it's detrimental to the
functioning of a free republic.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Let me tell you what that is. You're on a
roll today, Yes, so you're doing very well today. That
is I love it. So let me ask you this
the only place in that Trump administration where I think
the leaks come out more than you would expect, but
then when things get real, they seem to be pretty
tight lipped. Is the Pentagon there has been some real
tumult going on in the Pentagon. Secretary heg Seth has
(22:47):
let go people that were very high up that he
originally tapped to be chief of staff and other things.
There seems to be some chattering going on that's off
the record inside the Pentagon. But then when you see
what happened with I ran in those strikes, there was
there were no leaks at all. What's your take on
the Pentagon and is it keeping up to par with
the rest of the administration in terms of being tight
(23:08):
lipped and professional at what they're doing.
Speaker 6 (23:11):
I think Secretary of head Set is doing exactly what
you're supposed to do. When you're engaging in kinetic operations,
especially over overseas. The last thing you want or any
types of leaks so the enemy can have more knowledge
of what's going to happen. So I think he's done
a wonderful job. I think a lot of the places,
I think Secretary of Rubio has done a very good
job at State because when you look at it, the
(23:32):
problem with leaks is the very types of people who
leak to engage in policy disputed with the duly elected
president will come from people in the deep state bureaucracy
that are very difficult to fire, so they're almost insulated
and leaking because unless you're dealing with something that classified information,
(23:52):
which is an area where this secretary head set does
have a lot of leeway because classified information that comes
out of it into a lesser figure out of the
State Department are grounds for discipline, our grounds potential termination.
But other types of leagues such as Education Department or
others that are not classified, they almost leak with impunity
to wage their policy debates within the public forum and
(24:16):
behind the mask of anonymity, which is certainly not fair.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
As you pointed out in your article as well, that
he's a final question for you. It really comes down
to money. It's all about the money and the money
that these books make.
Speaker 6 (24:30):
Well, yes, everybody wants to golden parachute on the way
out the door, I guess. And with your proximity to power,
and given the fact that any elected official, certainly a
president of either party, is going to have friends and enemies,
you're going to be able to make money either praising
them or condemning them, or in some instances they walk
a fine line and try to do both, but it's
(24:50):
very unhelpful to having the candor and the frank discussions
that are necessary to move the policy ball down the field,
and it affect both parties. If that's the public more important.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Sattius mount Carter joining us on our any our newsmaker
line talking about leaps and tell all books? Were you
avery you know?
Speaker 1 (25:09):
Sadi? We talked to Sadi.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
It's where I mentioned you know, if you're a president
in a cabinet meeting and you're having a frank discussion
about something, do you worry that someday that frank discussion
may end up in a tell all book or.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
Your a member? Did you do you ever worry about that?
As a public service, Well, I'll tell you that we
used to have there's a lot of controversy about closed
caucuses where we would close our caucus from the media.
The Senate never opened theirs, but for some reason ours
were open, and then we would have to make a
motion to close them, and boy, the media would go crazy.
But the reason you did that is you still ran
the risk of people in a closed caucus going to
the press and say telling what you were speaking about.
(25:41):
But it is one hundred percent the case that you
are going to be a lot more careful in what
you said. You're not going to be as blunt, You're
not going to be as candid. If what you're going
to say could be you would run the risk of
it being misquoted, misunderstood, misrepresented. It does. It has a
chilling effect.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
Did you were you ever misquoted or or was there
a leak in a closed caucage that burned you?
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Mm hmm, oh yeah, yep, it it happened. We had
a we had a closed caucus on Medicaid expansion. It
was my birth It was during it was my birthday.
The Democrat minority caucus brought a cake in for me
for my birthday to be nice because but they didn't
agree with us on the Medicaid. We came out of
there and the headline in the press was Republicans eat
(26:23):
cake while taking away people's Medicaid. It was like, I
didn't even ask for the cake. It was my birthday.
The Democrats are the ones that brought it by, and
but it was they eat cake. Wow, while people's healthcare
is taken from them. You know, or while people die
something like that. So you know that's just one. I
go down the list, long list.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Yeah, all right, morey coming up? Oh you we had
we actually have good news for you from the TSA. Yes,
that's true.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
We'll share what they announced today. You'll love it.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Folks coming up on the Rod and Greg show in
Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Can ARUs. You're listening to Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine. Canter s. I am citizen Hughes. This ain't working.
This is the way you do it. You just you
just talk on the talk radio show.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
I know that one song by the way, welcome back,
final second.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
All right, remember when traveling used to be fun on
an airplane? Yes? Remember I was younger too, so it's
kind of exciting. It was exciting and over the years,
how just annoying. It has been became a strip tease show. Yeah,
and you have to go in that machine that looks
like you naked. That was that's that's awkward. Well, guess
what TSA announced today more disrobing. No, no, you will.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
No longer, as of today apparently be required to take
off your shoes when you go through TSA checkpoints.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Hall olujah. You believe that that is so good? What
good did it do us? Remember the shoe bomber?
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Yeah, they shoot one thing out a flight from like
Detroit or something. So they found bomb material.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
One of his soles. So they must have overcome I'm
sure they're not like conceding the shoe bomb, you know risk,
So they must have come up with something to kind
of weed that out without making us take all all
our shoes off. You know how disgusting that is. And
a lot of people that they were sandals, so they're
walking barefoot on that dirty floor. You have this thing.
Oh my goodness, it's just so unhygienic it is. It's
(28:20):
gross putting those grady shoes inside those bins. Yeah terrible? Yeah, yeah,
so gross. So you yes, their feet, their toes are
all hanging out.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Yeah, tsa pre proof? Do you even need that anymore?
If you don't have to take your shoes.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
It was one of the advantages. I have to take
my shoes and socks off.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Your shoes off, And why did I just pay eighty
dollars a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
You don't have to take your belt off. You have
to take your belt and you have to take you
don't take the stuff out of your bag either. Otherwise
you have to take your stuff, like if you have
toilet trees in your bang, take them out. So as
of today, I wonder if Fani has gone through the
airport notice that. Well, it wasn't the case yesterday. I
was at the airport yesterday when I did go into
effect yesterday. I went into effect today. Well that's exciting.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
The document basically said, due to technological advances and a
reevaluation of potential threats, you will no longer be required
to take off your shoes going through the airport checkpoints man.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
When I in ninety yeah, yeah, so they used to
let you just walk right up to the gate, you know,
come off. Yeah, and then then the Gulf War happens
in ninety one, they shut you down. They make you
have to go through TSA and if you don't have
a ticket, you aren't allowed to come through. And I'm
coming off of my church mission. I'm in Pittsburgh, and
my mother can see me down the long rout. She
(29:36):
just completely bursts through the TSA, violates the TSA thing,
runs right past him to come run to me, and
people didn't know. I'm like, he must be in the military. Look,
he must be. He must be in the military. Look
at his mom. And the people are chasing my mom
down and grabbing her because you're not allowed to run
past the TSA. There was like a turn there. Anyway,
I wasn't gonna do the running airport scene, so I
(29:57):
just kept walking, you know. And she's say, anyway, it
was a scene. It was a scene.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
I remember going to the gate. Loved ones could come
right to the gate with you. They could be there
at the gate to greet you.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Yeah, it was kind of a thing.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Anymore, not anymore. Donald Trump is all about putting America first.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Correct. Yep.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Well, now he's calling for fairness and national parks. He
wants to raise prices and national parks for foreign visitors.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
I do like I heard that. I like, I laughed.
I thought that was funny. Look, we have a lot
Zion National Park, has a lot of overseas a certain
part of the world, and uh and so yeah, so
I mean, if you want to, yeah, I got no
problem with it. I don't, I really don't. And I
don't think it'll have a chilling effect on tourism either.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Will, No, they'll, they'll, they'll pay for it one way.
Did you ever see the weird ads by Jaguar.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
Yes, there they are as creepy as you as it gets. Well,
it doesn't evengree They don't even advertise the car.
Speaker 6 (31:00):
No.
Speaker 2 (31:01):
Well, apparently the ads didn't work. You know why sales
of Jaguar plummeted by ninety seven and a half points.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
I mean, I guess, hi, Jaguar, I'm bud light. Let's
have let's start off. Let's start a let's start a
you know one of these support groups. Yeah, for me.
What's your name? She can help you with your advertising. Yeah,
the way to kill a brand. Good job.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
A drop of ninety seven zero point five percent in
their advertising as a result of that weird ad coming up.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
They deserve it. I'm still glad it's a weird ad.
I love when consumers speak. It's not it's not called canceling.
It's not it's not boycotting. It's just like gross, I'm
not gonna. I'm not kidding that. That turns me off.
I don't want to. That's the opposite of advertising. It's
repelling people. It's not supposed to do, that's for sure.
That's for sure. All right.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
Well, that does it for us tonight, as we say
eat and every night, head up, shoulders back. May God
bless you and your family. Thank you so much for
joining us on this Monday.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
We will be back tomorrow, won't we. Fare Well? Talk
cude for have a good evening.
Well, summertime year it is. It is, It's fine. I
like I said, I'd rather be hot than cold with you.
I'm with you on that as well.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
All right, Well the Big Beautiful bill, Donald Trump's Big
beautiful bill.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
It was beautiful on what was it? It was, uh
four July. It was a beautiful ceremony. I did not
see it. I did, I watched it.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
No, it was.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
It was great also because Junior is out there after
they when they passed it. We were watching this thing.
Remember how we left on Wednesday and we were wondering
if they were going to get this thing done. And
they went through the night and the next day they
got up where they so they had like this big
moment and and they brought all the caucus together and
the present I think the president, No, he wasn't there.
He was watching this anyway, Like my son sends me
(00:48):
a picture where he got in the room where they
were having this. And then I saw a picture of
President Trump with Secretary of State Ruby watching on TV
that moment that my kid was in. So it was good,
it was. I was very I thought that the summer
of twenty five might be one of those historic summers
in terms of getting some things done, and it is
That's exactly what's happened. Did you just call your son junior? Yeah,
(01:10):
he is junior. Actually, is that what you call him? Well,
I don't. I call him his my middle name. His
middle name is Holden. We call him Holme Holden. I
go by greg My name is Gregory Holden, and he
goes by Holden Olden. But he is he is, he's deuced.
He's the second, he's number two.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
My father once kept on calling me through my teenagers
year teenage years.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Little Joe Joe because he was big Joe. No, No,
he was Bill. Yeah. I don't know that. I know
where he got it from. Bonanza. Oh didn't Michael. Wasn't
Michael Landon? Little Joe? Yeah, he might have been. I
remember Bonanza, but I don't remember all the names I got.
I don't know why my father. No, I call Holden
junior because he is junior. He is a junior. He
(01:56):
is a junior.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
All right, Well, let's talk about the answers takeing place
in Washington over the past several months, especially over the
you know, in leading up to the One Big Beautiful Bill,
there was plenty of plane going on wasn't there.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Oh yeah, it was. It was all performative. It was nauseating,
and even his own caucus hated it. So they didn't
know he was going to do it, so they had
to keep canceling their flights over the Fourth of July holiday.
They couldn't get out of town. They were they were
even mad. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Well, joining us on our Newsmaker line to talk about
some of these theatrics is Lauren Green. She is a
congressional reporter the Washington Examiner. Lauren, you've taken a look
at this. What kind of theatrics have we been seeing?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Jeff course, Well, thanks for having me on. I did
a little story. I was up there on the hill
all last week before the passage of the Big Beautiful
Bill when the Housemage House, MYORNI leader Hawking, Jeffries broke
the record for the longest fourth beach, which was previously
held by Kevin McCarthy during the Build Back Better Act,
which was President Biden's Reconciliation Act. I think that whenever
(02:58):
what we've seen with Jeffries breaking that record, with Corey
Booker giving the longest forced speech in the Senate, and
then I mean, how Republicans did hold the floor OGM
for the longest vote just due to attendance reasons on
I want to do it with Tuesday or Wednesday night.
But I think it's just an effort to push their
(03:19):
agenda and their message because they don't because Republicans have
a trifectors, so they're kind of they have their hands tied,
and they're trying to show that they're base, that they're
doing as much as they can with the little power
that they have.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
Lauren, let me ask you. I find political performative politics
really to be deceptive at its heart. They're not trying
to pivot to a new policy position. They're not trying
to captivate American people's attention or support. They want to
trick them, and the way they trick is for these
marathon speeches, or they want to do something that is
more emotional I evokes emotion. Do you find the performative
(03:54):
politics from the left right now deceptive at its heart?
Speaker 3 (04:00):
I mean, I wouldn't say that it's just a Democrat
thing being deceptive. I can see where you're coming from,
where theatrics and politics is deceptive. I do think that
there was emotions behind it in the party, and I
do think that obviously, both parties do do that. The
previous four speech record was held by Kevin McCarthy, which
was the Republican in the previous Senate for speech was
also help our Republicans. So I think it's something that
(04:21):
we definitely see on both sides that's definitely used to
invigorate the base, which can be seen as a little
bit deceptive and which I can totally see. But I
do think that both sides definitely use this in times
when they don't have the power that they are wanting
to have.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
How much money do they make off of these theatrics
when when they show them and they sound out emails
or a social media Hey look what I've done. I'm
fighting for you. I mean, how much money is out
there for them to make when they do something like this?
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Lauren, Yeah, we.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
Actually I looked a lot into this recently with Corey
Booker's speech and he second quarter fundraising has it come out,
So I think we'll have more clarity once that comes out,
because he when he did fundraise off of the speech,
it did come in quarter two. But I do know
that there's an ethics concern that was filed in the
Senate because of that, because technically you can't campaign off
(05:15):
of official business, and for speeches are technically official business.
So I think that that creates a little bit of
a barrier there. So I think that once YouTube funding
comes out, we'll see a little bit more there, and
once the Senate Ethics before.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Is done, you know, I think it's a fair observation
to say that, look, Republicans will do this. McCarthy held
the record before. I guess what got me thinking about
the deceptive part of it is Eric Swallwell. Someone showed
how many times he pops out of his office or
go somewhere, and there's just this It's supposed to look
like someone's just catching him in in a random moment,
Hey Congressman, oh hi, and then he answers a question,
(05:52):
and then if you see, they just they just string
it along to show how contrived it is and how
it's not actually real. And then anytime I see that,
and I've seen it actually some people on the right
as well. But it seems like in social media that's
the game. It's almost the game by itself, and the
clicks and the attention more than actually any of the substance.
(06:12):
Is there just another side gig going on amongst members
of Congress, and I see it with like the Swallwalls
and types that are just trying to get support fundraising
attention really doesn't have anything to do with the policy. They
just want to maybe entertain through their social media platform.
Is that happening. I'm an old head, so I don't know.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I mean, I do a lot of social media work
on the Hill and from that, I've kind of gained
a little bit of a different perspective on the way
that members use social media, and just in the day
and age in the rise of TikTok, I think that
those casual videos are really enticing to especially younger voters,
because it does like obviously, I don't think many of
these viewers that are viewing these tiktoks are going in
(06:53):
and watching all of Eric Swallow's tiktoks back to back
to back. I think that they see one and it
comes off natural to them. And I mean a bunch
of members do it, so it's not just him. But
I think that that is more enticing to the younger generation.
They're wanting to see this more like genuine man on
the street side of politicians, And so I think that
that's what a lot of their communications seem to have
started to pivot towards. I know that almost every office
(07:16):
has now hired a digital director along with their communications directors,
and I think that they're just trying to reach that
younger base. But I do think that the more that
you dive into each of their profiles, the more you
can see that it's not as natural as that first video.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
You see comes across, knowing the egos of many politicians
in that town. Do you see this stopping anytime soon?
Or someone I'm going to break this record because I
know it will get me attention. I don't see it
stopping soon, do you, Lauren?
Speaker 3 (07:45):
I mean, I don't think that it'll stop anytime soon. Obviously,
the midterms are quickly approaching, and I think that after
a reconciliation bill passes, that's when campaigns really kick off.
I think that both Democrats and Republicans are both going
to obviously campaign on this bill. And I mean there's
with the rise of social media, is that theatrics are
only getting more and more, especially just trying to get
(08:07):
clips from wherever they can, whether it's hearings or for speeches.
So no, I don't see that not happening anytime soon.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Axios came out with an interesting I hate quoting Axios,
but Acxios came out with an interesting report that members
of Democrat members of Congress are complaining that their constituents
want them to become more violent, They want to become
more confrontational, that they think that there should be blood,
that the being nice hasn't worked to some of the
performative rhetoric and the things that they say, calling Trump
(08:37):
Hitler and a fascist and Republicans the same. Does it
is it promote? Are they promoting those types of appetites
and expectations from their base by performative politics like this?
Speaker 3 (08:51):
I mean, I do think that there is definitely a
little bit of a switch, and maybe not the entire
Democratic Party, but definitely in a subset of the Democratic
Party where they do want to see that more aggressive
type approach. I think that a big complaint about the
Democratic Party from both Democrats and Republicans is that they
get their feelings hurt too easily. And I think that
(09:11):
in this more aggressive rhetoric, they're trying to kind of
distance themselves from that like pity party messaging that they
kind of established for themselves. But yeah, I'm not sure
exactly if that's a direct correlation with these record breaking things.
(09:33):
I think I would have to ask more memories about that.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
You know, the Democrats right now, they're just making fools
of themselves. Greg going to turn around.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
Thank you Lauren Green for your insight and commentary, and
I hope you do ask some of those members, because
I don't know, I get tired of it. Even on
our side. We saw that a Republican member of Congress
show up for the big beautiful vote in our pajamas,
like that was real funny. I didn't think it was
funny at all. I thought it was disrespectful.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
You mentioned I think you mentioned this a while ago
where town halls. This story some Democrats at town halls
in their own districts and one on one meetings. Democratic
members of Congress are facing a growing thrum of demands
to break the rules, fight dirty, and not be afraid
to get hurt.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Yeah, no, no, it's it's called for violence if they
can't use just remember you know, whether it was walls,
you know, governor walls, it was you saw the troops
marching down suburban neighborhoods. That get in your house people.
You know, you had people with semi automatic rifles chasing
moms and kids out of parks and off of beaches.
(10:37):
The Democrats love heavy handed, you know, military law enforcement
action to satisfy you know, their COVID and their lockdowns
that they want, and even IDs for showing that you've
been vaccinated. But you want to remove criminal illegal alien
gang members, Well, then now you're doing something immoral. They
so this this whole thing they just they go to.
(10:59):
If they can't use the government levers to defeat their
political destroy their political opponents, if they're out of power,
they're going to go to violence.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
I mean, listened some of these comments. These are members
from Democrats from the House who went and held town
hall meetings. Right, that's what they're hearing. Here's what one
Democrat said, This idea that we're going to save every
norm and that we're not going to play the Republican game.
I don't think that's resonating with voters anymore. Here's another one.
There's a sense of fear and despair and anger among
(11:27):
our voters. Puts us in a different position where we
can't keep following norms of decorum. Wow, here's another Action
has asked more than two dozen House Democrats for their story.
Many are saying, we've got people saying, even if you
have to get shot, do it to stand up to
Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
It goes back to that poll. Remember the poll we
shared a while ago that said that people have left
of center will will resort to violence by a large,
like a scary percentage. They thought it and justifies the means. Yeah,
so when you started to say that Ice that they're
the bad guys and glossed over, not glossed. But we
haven't had time to talk about we had an assassin
(12:04):
someone who was there an ambush, planned to shoot an
ICE agent who was who shot, missed and then was
a return fire. But seven hundred percent. Violence against ICE officers,
men and women of ICE have gone up seven hundred
percent since that. That type of rhetoric that you just
read has been spreading amongst the left.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Or coming up on the Rowden greg Show on this
Monday on Utah's Talk Radio one O five to nine,
kayn rs is they aren't afraid of the legacy media. No, yeah,
they don't fear it at all. Case in point Traycury
Secretary Scott missing. He went on the Sunday morning talk
shows to defend the Reconciliation Bill. Of course, he had
a great time with our friend CNN's Dana Bash and
(12:44):
he and he was asked first of all about the
budget and the budget layoffs and the cuts that are
taking place, and about this study which said this bill
will now drive the deathficit up.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Let's tell how you responded.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
L Budget Lab says the richest Americans will see their
income rise by nearly two percent, the lowest learning Americans
will see their income drop by three percent when factoring
in cuts to Medicaid and food stamps. You argue that
the benefits will really be aimed at the middle class.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
How does that square.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Well, first, let's have a look at the l Budget Lab,
because I was looking at their findings and this week
I actually went on their website.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
They're all ex Biden.
Speaker 5 (13:29):
Officials, so I think we can discount everything they say.
I'd encourage all your viewers to look at the composition
of both the board and the staff.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Now, now, Dana Bash and her producers probably should have
looked at that study as well, Greg, but they didn't bother.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
They just start get a real budget lab opp of
all of the president's critics, go figure Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
Then she was asked. She asked gott Beson about small
business and their concerns. Here's how you responded.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
Talk to small business owners, both doing interviews with them,
just in and around in my life interacting with them.
I have not met one who has not said, it's
the uncertainty with the tariffs that is making it so
hard for them to do business because they're kind of
frozen in place. What do you say to those business owners, Well.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
I'd say two things.
Speaker 5 (14:20):
Is the other thing they would probably have been telling
you is it was the uncertainty around taxes. So we
with the one big, beautiful bill, they now have great
certainty on taxes.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
They've said tariffs no, no, but let me finish.
Speaker 5 (14:33):
When I'm out talking to businesses, they want trade and taxes,
So we have certainty on taxes. Now all businesses know
that they'll be getting one hundred percent expensing for new
plant and equipment on tariffs. Again, it is the eighteen
important trading relationships and we're moving through those.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
And then the question came up about Medicaid and work requirements.
Speaker 5 (14:58):
We've also wanted to put in work requirements, which somehow
that was very popular under Bill Clinton, was popular under
President Obama, and this Democratic Party blew out the depth
of set in twenty twenty, and you know, they never
want to bring it back. But work requirements even pull
well with the median Democratic voter, maybe not the fringe.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
I mean, what's funny and wasn't under Clinton and Obama
had to be thirty hours a week. Now how under
the new OBD it's twenty hours a week.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
It's twenty It was thirty first thing, if you had
two parents that were able body, it was thirty five hours.
That was a Clinton signed bill by a new king
rich Republican Congress. But this is only twenty hours. And
again that to the left is the equivalent of taking
away an able body, not disabled. That doesn't count for them,
an able bodied adult at a certain household income level
(15:49):
that's low enough for Medicaid expansion. They have to work
twenty hours, they have to work part time as able
bodied adults. That's you know, that's the equivalent of taking
it away from them. Actually it's not. It's actually, you know,
dignity to work. Yeah, and twenty hours isn't enough.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
In my mind, So all right, more coming up on
the Rod and Gregg Show in Utah's Talk Radio one
oh five nine knrs. Sure I had a lot to
talk about today. Of course we're still, you know, trying
to digest I think the tragedy there in Texas, Craig,
I mean the flash flooding. How quickly that water rose,
I mean went up to twenty nine thirty thirty five
feet in a matter of what forty six minutes, you know,
(16:27):
And I remember the Titan Dam. The water kind of
came in and slowly rose during the flood of nineteen
seventy six, not like this, I guess there was a
wall of water that really just came roaring through.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Well, legend has it that you when that flood happened,
you were at a radio station as addaster as a
young gun, hanging in there baby, and found yourself on
the roof, and then you were trapped on that roof
with a little young rodeo queen Queen Bee apparently not
Queen Bee, but Rodeo Queen, Rodeo queen. And then you know,
the rest is history, so to speak. Uh love that I.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Had a brand new car that I just purchased, like
three four weeks ago. Beautiful white camaro. Shoot, the water
takes it away.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
It takes took it away. Bill had I lost the camaro,
but you gained the rodeo queen and also got another camaro. Oh,
they go, so yeah, so yeah, that's good. Got a
better one. Remember the old Z twenty eight four on
the floor of E twenty eighth, those sixty five camaros,
they were great.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
It wasn't sixty five. Okay, you're brutal. You're brutal man.
All right, let's talk to our next guest. His name
is Thatius G. McCarter. We just called him Thattius, who
wrote a terrific article about you know, uh, you have
leaks and then you have the tell old books, right, yes,
and Thatius is joining us to talk about these. Satius,
(17:48):
thanks for joining us tonight. The leaks during the first
administration of Donald Trump and the second administration of Donald Trump. Boys,
really isn't isn't it that Satius?
Speaker 6 (17:58):
It has words of Ian Hunter, once bitten twice shy.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
What do you think has happened? That is what has changed.
Speaker 6 (18:10):
I think that President Trump learned from painful experience, he
knows and has surrounded himself with people. He has a
much more comfortable comfort comfort level, and it's a confidence
in them, and I think that that has led to
basically trusting them to oversee the stopping of leaks and
(18:30):
to prevent tell All books. And so far, so good.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
So one of the I thought what came to mind
when I was reading your article that I think epitomizes
your point is that you got this Jake Tapper with
his tell All book and all the people that were
willing to participate in the content of that book really
criticizing Biden. If that book was genuine in its purpose,
as Jake Tapper says, you know, we learn from our mistakes,
(18:55):
then you wouldn't see that them. Just as soon as
that book is he's making money from his book, tour
is over and he's back on the job. You saw
him parroting uh propaganda from Iran saying they first they
didn't have any nuclear capability, then they're going to get
it back in thirty minutes or thirty days or whatever
he was saying, just going back to taking without any
(19:15):
kind of journalistic integrity, what information they were hearing. It
seemed to contradict the very premise of the book. He
was selling and making money on does Jake is Jake
Tapper like the poster child for you know, tell all
books and how it's only about profit and has real
no substance behind it.
Speaker 6 (19:33):
Well, I think when you're talking about the Tap for book,
what you're looking at as an alibi market, as a.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Tone, good point and making money that's actually.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
Yeah, yeah, a little salt in the wound the public to.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Be a total phony and profit from it too. Yeah.
That's so.
Speaker 6 (19:56):
It worked very well for Bob Woodward too, didn't it. Yes,
when when you go ahead, now, when you look at it,
it made perfect sense for them to put that out.
It was unfortunate and regrettable and basically deceitful. But having
covered up the fact of Biden's mental decline for years,
(20:18):
they had to say something, and I guess that's kind
of what they did, And so it was masked as
a oh, now look at what happened and now we
can tell the truth. But the reality was indie what
they were doing at the time. It's like the Hunter
Biden laptop story. They knew what they were doing. It
wasn't rushing disinformation. They were trying to win an election,
and they and the fact that they couldn't admit it
(20:39):
at the time is not is not ameliorated by the
fact they admitted it later after they succeeded in lying
to the public.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Yea, is you painted some really interesting scenarios when you're
talking about these tell all books, like the President sitting
in a cabinet meeting and looking around the room and wondering, Okay,
if I say anything something, you know, just just to
spitball in idea, it will end up in a book.
Someday we're a member of the House or the Senate
trying to find a bipartisan piece of legislation. I mean,
(21:07):
it's got to be different for the difficult for these
guys in Washington to really say what they think for
fear of may end up in a tell all book.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Is that the case?
Speaker 6 (21:16):
Well, I think I think in many ways it is.
And especially the higher up you go, especially in the
cabinet level or the executive branch, you'll start to see that.
But think about it this way. A lot of people
will say, well, obviously people on other sides of the aisle,
different sides of the aisle will have trouble talking to
each other. Obviously, a Republican and a Democrat trying to
reach an a chord. If those types of conversations come
(21:39):
out to scuttle any opportunity to reach across the aisle.
But it also impacts internal debates within both parties. Republicans
say you're a Maga Republican or you're a modern Republican
and you're trying to find an accord. That makes it
much more difficult if you think the person across the
aisle is actually just engaging you so they can play
(22:00):
you and leak something out and hurts you down the road.
So it affects both parties. It affects them internally. Externally,
it affects all the branches of government. And it's kind
of funny because in a town where they measure everything
in money and very little and intelligence, I think what
you wind up seeing them pretending they have the inside
(22:21):
scoop for fun and profit, and it's detrimental to the
functioning of a free republic.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Let me tell you what that is. You're on a
roll today, Yes, so you're doing very well today. That
is I love it. So let me ask you this
the only place in that Trump administration where I think
the leaks come out more than you would expect, but
then when things get real, they seem to be pretty
tight lipped. Is the Pentagon there has been some real
tumult going on in the Pentagon. Secretary heg Seth has
(22:47):
let go people that were very high up that he
originally tapped to be chief of staff and other things.
There seems to be some chattering going on that's off
the record inside the Pentagon. But then when you see
what happened with I ran in those strikes, there was
there were no leaks at all. What's your take on
the Pentagon and is it keeping up to par with
the rest of the administration in terms of being tight
(23:08):
lipped and professional at what they're doing.
Speaker 6 (23:11):
I think Secretary of head Set is doing exactly what
you're supposed to do. When you're engaging in kinetic operations,
especially over overseas. The last thing you want or any
types of leaks so the enemy can have more knowledge
of what's going to happen. So I think he's done
a wonderful job. I think a lot of the places,
I think Secretary of Rubio has done a very good
job at State because when you look at it, the
(23:32):
problem with leaks is the very types of people who
leak to engage in policy disputed with the duly elected
president will come from people in the deep state bureaucracy
that are very difficult to fire, so they're almost insulated
and leaking because unless you're dealing with something that classified information,
(23:52):
which is an area where this secretary head set does
have a lot of leeway because classified information that comes
out of it into a lesser figure out of the
State Department are grounds for discipline, our grounds potential termination.
But other types of leagues such as Education Department or
others that are not classified, they almost leak with impunity
to wage their policy debates within the public forum and
(24:16):
behind the mask of anonymity, which is certainly not fair.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
As you pointed out in your article as well, that
he's a final question for you. It really comes down
to money. It's all about the money and the money
that these books make.
Speaker 6 (24:30):
Well, yes, everybody wants to golden parachute on the way
out the door, I guess. And with your proximity to power,
and given the fact that any elected official, certainly a
president of either party, is going to have friends and enemies,
you're going to be able to make money either praising
them or condemning them, or in some instances they walk
a fine line and try to do both, but it's
(24:50):
very unhelpful to having the candor and the frank discussions
that are necessary to move the policy ball down the field,
and it affect both parties. If that's the public more important.
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Sattius mount Carter joining us on our any our newsmaker
line talking about leaps and tell all books? Were you
avery you know?
Speaker 1 (25:09):
Sadi? We talked to Sadi.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
It's where I mentioned you know, if you're a president
in a cabinet meeting and you're having a frank discussion
about something, do you worry that someday that frank discussion
may end up in a tell all book or.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
Your a member? Did you do you ever worry about that?
As a public service, Well, I'll tell you that we
used to have there's a lot of controversy about closed
caucuses where we would close our caucus from the media.
The Senate never opened theirs, but for some reason ours
were open, and then we would have to make a
motion to close them, and boy, the media would go crazy.
But the reason you did that is you still ran
the risk of people in a closed caucus going to
the press and say telling what you were speaking about.
(25:41):
But it is one hundred percent the case that you
are going to be a lot more careful in what
you said. You're not going to be as blunt, You're
not going to be as candid. If what you're going
to say could be you would run the risk of
it being misquoted, misunderstood, misrepresented. It does. It has a
chilling effect.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
Did you were you ever misquoted or or was there
a leak in a closed caucage that burned you?
Speaker 1 (26:02):
Mm hmm, oh yeah, yep, it it happened. We had
a we had a closed caucus on Medicaid expansion. It
was my birth It was during it was my birthday.
The Democrat minority caucus brought a cake in for me
for my birthday to be nice because but they didn't
agree with us on the Medicaid. We came out of
there and the headline in the press was Republicans eat
(26:23):
cake while taking away people's Medicaid. It was like, I
didn't even ask for the cake. It was my birthday.
The Democrats are the ones that brought it by, and
but it was they eat cake. Wow, while people's healthcare
is taken from them. You know, or while people die
something like that. So you know that's just one. I
go down the list, long list.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Yeah, all right, morey coming up? Oh you we had
we actually have good news for you from the TSA. Yes,
that's true.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
We'll share what they announced today. You'll love it.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Folks coming up on the Rod and Greg show in
Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Can ARUs. You're listening to Utah's Talk Radio one oh
five nine. Canter s. I am citizen Hughes. This ain't working.
This is the way you do it. You just you
just talk on the talk radio show.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
I know that one song by the way, welcome back,
final second.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
All right, remember when traveling used to be fun on
an airplane? Yes? Remember I was younger too, so it's
kind of exciting. It was exciting and over the years,
how just annoying. It has been became a strip tease show. Yeah,
and you have to go in that machine that looks
like you naked. That was that's that's awkward. Well, guess
what TSA announced today more disrobing. No, no, you will.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
No longer, as of today apparently be required to take
off your shoes when you go through TSA checkpoints.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Hall olujah. You believe that that is so good? What
good did it do us? Remember the shoe bomber?
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Yeah, they shoot one thing out a flight from like
Detroit or something. So they found bomb material.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
One of his soles. So they must have overcome I'm
sure they're not like conceding the shoe bomb, you know risk,
So they must have come up with something to kind
of weed that out without making us take all all
our shoes off. You know how disgusting that is. And
a lot of people that they were sandals, so they're
walking barefoot on that dirty floor. You have this thing.
Oh my goodness, it's just so unhygienic it is. It's
(28:20):
gross putting those grady shoes inside those bins. Yeah terrible? Yeah, yeah,
so gross. So you yes, their feet, their toes are
all hanging out.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Yeah, tsa pre proof? Do you even need that anymore?
If you don't have to take your shoes.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
It was one of the advantages. I have to take
my shoes and socks off.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Your shoes off, And why did I just pay eighty
dollars a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
You don't have to take your belt off. You have
to take your belt and you have to take you
don't take the stuff out of your bag either. Otherwise
you have to take your stuff, like if you have
toilet trees in your bang, take them out. So as
of today, I wonder if Fani has gone through the
airport notice that. Well, it wasn't the case yesterday. I
was at the airport yesterday when I did go into
effect yesterday. I went into effect today. Well that's exciting.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
The document basically said, due to technological advances and a
reevaluation of potential threats, you will no longer be required
to take off your shoes going through the airport checkpoints man.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
When I in ninety yeah, yeah, so they used to
let you just walk right up to the gate, you know,
come off. Yeah, and then then the Gulf War happens
in ninety one, they shut you down. They make you
have to go through TSA and if you don't have
a ticket, you aren't allowed to come through. And I'm
coming off of my church mission. I'm in Pittsburgh, and
my mother can see me down the long rout. She
(29:36):
just completely bursts through the TSA, violates the TSA thing,
runs right past him to come run to me, and
people didn't know. I'm like, he must be in the military. Look,
he must be. He must be in the military. Look
at his mom. And the people are chasing my mom
down and grabbing her because you're not allowed to run
past the TSA. There was like a turn there. Anyway,
I wasn't gonna do the running airport scene, so I
(29:57):
just kept walking, you know. And she's say, anyway, it
was a scene. It was a scene.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
I remember going to the gate. Loved ones could come
right to the gate with you. They could be there
at the gate to greet you.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Yeah, it was kind of a thing.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Anymore, not anymore. Donald Trump is all about putting America first.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Correct. Yep.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Well, now he's calling for fairness and national parks. He
wants to raise prices and national parks for foreign visitors.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
I do like I heard that. I like, I laughed.
I thought that was funny. Look, we have a lot
Zion National Park, has a lot of overseas a certain
part of the world, and uh and so yeah, so
I mean, if you want to, yeah, I got no
problem with it. I don't, I really don't. And I
don't think it'll have a chilling effect on tourism either.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Will, No, they'll, they'll, they'll pay for it one way.
Did you ever see the weird ads by Jaguar.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
Yes, there they are as creepy as you as it gets. Well,
it doesn't evengree They don't even advertise the car.
Speaker 6 (31:00):
No.
Speaker 2 (31:01):
Well, apparently the ads didn't work. You know why sales
of Jaguar plummeted by ninety seven and a half points.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
I mean, I guess, hi, Jaguar, I'm bud light. Let's
have let's start off. Let's start a let's start a
you know one of these support groups. Yeah, for me.
What's your name? She can help you with your advertising. Yeah,
the way to kill a brand. Good job.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
A drop of ninety seven zero point five percent in
their advertising as a result of that weird ad coming up.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
They deserve it. I'm still glad it's a weird ad.
I love when consumers speak. It's not it's not called canceling.
It's not it's not boycotting. It's just like gross, I'm
not gonna. I'm not kidding that. That turns me off.
I don't want to. That's the opposite of advertising. It's
repelling people. It's not supposed to do, that's for sure.
That's for sure. All right.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
Well, that does it for us tonight, as we say
eat and every night, head up, shoulders back. May God
bless you and your family. Thank you so much for
joining us on this Monday.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
We will be back tomorrow, won't we. Fare Well? Talk
cude for have a good evening.
The Rod & Greg Show 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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.