The Rod and Greg Show: The Dems AOC Problem; Economist Steve Moore

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Powerful people playing golf with us today.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
Yes, very very very very powerful. Let's to be honest.
They want to play golf with us. You know, they
were invited us. They wanted they wanted to hear from us.
They need to know they invited us. They need to see,
they need to know what the listeners know. They need
to hear what.

Speaker 1 (00:17):
Utah's thought leaders really think about what's going on in
America today. And in Utah we shared, We shared our
thoughts with them.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
And by that thought leaders, I mean our listeners mean
we we are symbiotic on this. We are except the trolls.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
Yeah, well that's okay. Well, how are you Everyboddy. Welcome
to the Rod and Greg Show on this Thursday afternoon.
I'm Rod Arquette, I'm citizen Greg Hughes and it's great
to be with you. Make sure you uh check us out.
You can take us wherever you go with the iHeartRadio app.
Just go to our website at Canterrest dot com and
you can download it there and it has been upgraded, improved.

(00:51):
It is absolutely fantastic, So you need to check it
out today. That's the way you can stay with can
Arrests any hour of any day with that brand new
app and it's great.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
It is. Yeah, I check it out. It's free free
never felt so good. Not the tagline, Yeah, something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:06):
All right, We've got a lot to get today. The
President held a cabinet meetiing today, had a lot to say.
We'll talk about that. Inflation numbers are out, we'll talk
about that. Pete Hagsath, the Secretary Defense, a big announcement
today on the Panama Canal. Huge announcement today on the
Panama Canal. We'll tell you what that's all about. We'll
talk to a Utah lawmaker concerned about Medicaid cuts and

(01:29):
there was an interesting would you call this a confession
or an analysis as to why the US has lost
trust in the news media. Yes, now we'll get into that.
We'll let you hear what this individual has to say.
He's a very prominent journalist out there. We'll let you
hear what he had to say as to why he

(01:49):
thinks the public has lost trust in the media, and
then get your reaction to it. It's kind of interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:54):
Has it reminds me of you know, this is a
media member that it's like I'm so and so, and
I'm an alcoholic at the AA meeting. And this is
a media member saying, I'm a member of the media,
and we have been unbelievably biased.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
We have been wrong. And we'll let you hear what
he had to say. But first let's start off today.
Of course, a lot to talk about the economy, the tariffs,
the stock market today, market down today again after a
big surge yesterday. I think it all comes down to
uncertainty out there, and they've just they've got they got
quit panicking, in my opinion, but I get it. That's
the way the market rolls.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
We're not going to realign this entire global partnership, but
you know, inside of four or five, six business days,
they just say to chill out that market.

Speaker 3 (02:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
By the way, most of the people that own the
market at stocks, they're all the rich folks. Anyway, fifty
percent of this country doesn't known a single stock, and
everybody's getting it's harder to get into a home and
everything else. So gas prices are coming down.

Speaker 4 (02:46):
Baby.

Speaker 2 (02:46):
We got other indicators. Forget the market, we got indicators
about main Street that you want to hear about it.

Speaker 1 (02:51):
Well, let's talk about inflation first, because the big story
of the day. On the inflation front, it was lower
than expected in March, despite President Trump's law bunch of
some sweeping tax reforms. Guess what. Some experts warned that
higher prices are likely in the coming months, but right now,
the consumer price index rose two point four percent over
the past twelve months through March, below expectations of two

(03:15):
point six percent, and even CNN had to respond on.

Speaker 5 (03:18):
This consumer prices month over month, So this was actually
a drop of point one percent, negative point one percent.
That's the first time we've.

Speaker 4 (03:25):
Seen that since COVID.

Speaker 5 (03:28):
Year over year, the annual inflation rate was at two
point four percent. This was also better than expected and
a six month low, moving in the right direction. As
far as why this happened, there's a few drivers. One
thing that really played a role here, as you can
see the trend here at the inflation rate dipping a
little bit.

Speaker 6 (03:46):
One of the.

Speaker 2 (03:46):
Drivers was energy.

Speaker 5 (03:48):
The fact that gasoline prices did not move up like
they usually do in the month of March.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
Now, isn't that interesting, Greg, gasoline prices, energy prices are
down and what does that do to inflation? Bring it down?

Speaker 7 (04:01):
Right?

Speaker 3 (04:02):
Hmmm?

Speaker 7 (04:03):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (04:03):
And you know, Queen Bee will tell you that she's
not feeling this. Every time she hears about eggs are
coming down, gasoline's coming down, she's still waiting. I mean,
you tell un a lag and I don't understand why
I keep telling. I keep being told that when prices
go up, we don't go up as quick. We only
notice that we don't go down as quick. But it
is true if we if we're on a lag on
the on, the prices are going up and we're still

(04:25):
enjoying cheaper prices. I haven't noticed that, but I do
notice that everything seems to be going down and we're
not there yet. Well, that's where that seems to be
the direction I'd like.

Speaker 1 (04:32):
To know about egg prices. My wife said, they're not
a little bit, but not a.

Speaker 2 (04:38):
Whole, not like other places. I mean, there are people
that are that are saying they've come down substantially sixty
percent in some areas of the country. But we haven't
seen that here yet here yet, but I believe that's
what's coming.

Speaker 1 (04:49):
Maybe our chickens are just slow. Yeah, it could be.
You know, it takes a little bit longer here than
it does another places.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
Yeah, this isn't the pony express. It isn't like that
the price has to be run by some horse, the
horses across the country to let us know what the
what the price is? Why is it taking us long?

Speaker 1 (05:04):
So a lot on the economy today. Larry Kudlow weighed
in today on the economy and the Treasury Secretary.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
So here, yeah, here, he's kind of trying to frame
to everybody. You know, this is why people love this
administration and specifically our secretary, our Treasury secretary.

Speaker 8 (05:21):
The elevated role of Scott Besson, the Treasury Secretary, is
very reassuring to markets. He's a he's a market favorite.
He himself was a market guy. He's a brilliant market strategist.
So I think the best in factor is very real.

Speaker 7 (05:36):
But the level of transparency they're offering by you know,
opening up the cap meeting.

Speaker 2 (05:40):
Passing around the table. We heard from Bessett and.

Speaker 1 (05:42):
The well here's here's Bessett, of course, addressing the group
of bankers I believe in Washington yesterday, and I loved
what he said. It's main Street's turn to restore the
American dream. Let's do what he had to say.

Speaker 9 (05:54):
For the last four decades. Basically, since I begame my
career on Wall Street. Street has grown wealthier than ever before,
and it can continue to grow and do well. But
for the next four years, the Trump agenda is focused
on Main Street. It's main streets turn, it's main streets
turn to hire workers, it's main streets turn to drive investment,

(06:18):
and it's main streets turn to restore the American dream.

Speaker 1 (06:21):
I love the main streets turn to restore the American dream.
And what he said prior to this greg was he
was talking to a group of bankers and he said,
the bigger, the big banks in this country have become
even more powerful. We're going to remove many of the
regulations that small or medium sized banks are facing right now.
The bank's on Main Street to let them grow and

(06:42):
prosper as well. So when he said it's Main Street's
turn to live the American dream, I love it because
that's what I think the President is trying to do.

Speaker 2 (06:51):
Yeah, and it is something that you don't hear focused
on enough. I mean, I just love how we've suffered
through Bidenomics for four years and the media didn't want
to even acknowledge it existed. And then you have you
have these down days in the in the market, and
the media just loses their minds, collective minds, while you know,
inflation is not going up, while gas prices are coming

(07:13):
down and other costs are coming down. So I do
think a president that is committed to the main street.
And also again there was a mention of transparency. We
got to see another cabinet meeting today. Were there where
they're presenting to the president their collective you know, what
they've done, what they're still working on, what they're going
to do, and it's it's not it's not performative politics,

(07:35):
it's actual substance and we get to be come along
for the ride. I think this is I don't remember
a time where we would understand the president's agenda as
closely as we do with this president.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
You know, it's going to be real challenging for presidents
in the future to be able to match his transparency
and his willingness to talk to the media, because they're
all guarded, you know, don't you know, they're handled by
the handlers. Don't say this, don't do that. Donald Trump
doesn't hear. He knows who he is, he knows what
he believes in, he knows what he wants, and he's

(08:07):
not afraid to share it with the American people.

Speaker 4 (08:09):
You're not.

Speaker 2 (08:10):
And I don't think there'll be a repeat of this.
I think you're seeing some I think it's a unicorn.
I think unicorn is just walking right through the room
right now. It's it's I don't think it's it's a
safer play for people in politics to you know, close
mouths drawn, no flies. They're just gonna stay quiet. They will.
That's the that's the high percentage shot sat. I mean,
I love it, but I just I think we are

(08:32):
living through an incredibly unique time and I don't think
people are going to be able to follow him in
terms of how he does it. I a few people
could speak off the cuff with such detail as he does,
so I think they wouldn't be able to do it.

Speaker 1 (08:46):
All Right, We've got some big news coming out of
the Defense Secretary today on the issue of Panama and
the Panama Canal that's coming up right here on the
Rotten Gregg Show. I can't remember how long ago it was,
but when Donald Trump mentioned Panama, everyone went, huh, what's
going on in Panama. Well, the more we've looked at it,
we now realize what Panama is all about and why

(09:07):
the United States needs control. And Pete Haigseth, who's been negotiating,
he's been down there, he's been negotiating with the Panamanian government,
announced today, I guess during the cabinet meeting or maybe
before then today that the US US military US warships
will be first through the canal if they need to be,
and we'll go through it absolutely free. It should be right, yeah.

Speaker 2 (09:29):
And I gotta imagine that Panama was like, yes, of course, sure,
that's what we're saying. We're just about to say that.
It's funny you should say that's what we're going to say.

Speaker 1 (09:35):
Well, isn't it interesting that apparently somebody is finally getting
the message about the Panama Canal and to talk more
about that as our next newsmaker, Frank Meinley. Frank is
a columnist at Real Clear Politics. Frank, how are you
welcome to the rod In Greg Show. Thanks for joining us, Frank.

Speaker 10 (09:52):
Thank you.

Speaker 7 (09:53):
I appreciate the introduction.

Speaker 1 (09:55):
Frank, Let's talk about this. I mean, why did it
take Donald Trump to finally tell the am people we
better pay attention to what's going on with the Panama Canal.

Speaker 7 (10:06):
You know, it's it clearly is the symptom of the
establishment viewpoint that you know, has dominated in Washington, d c.
For fifty years. And the more you think about it,
the more worried you get about, you know, how our

(10:28):
government has been run. And Trump came in. You know,
he was the bull in the china shop the first term.
Not so much this term. He's actually you know, taking
it seriously the power he has, and for at least
since the nineteen seventies, when Jimmy Carter negotiated the return

(10:50):
of the Panama Canal, it was there was something very
upsetting about it to you know.

Speaker 6 (10:57):
People who.

Speaker 7 (10:59):
Saw the the United States as this, you know, superpower.

Speaker 6 (11:02):
Why are we.

Speaker 7 (11:05):
Catering to the little country of Panama in Central America?
And the reason was.

Speaker 3 (11:13):
Because of this.

Speaker 7 (11:14):
You know, what we now have learned is wokeism, that
you know, everything has to be done so everybody gets happy,
everybody has a piece of the pie. Well that's not
the way the reward works. And the United States built
the Panama Canal at a great expense and great loss
of life. And Donald Trump has been watching it ever since.

(11:37):
It was turned over by Jimmy Carter and then by
Bill Clinton in the actual turnover in the year at
the end of nineteen ninety nine, and he's been frustrated.
A lot of people out here have been frustrated. And
the reason I wrote the column not just to celebrate
the taking back of the Panama Canal effectively by Donald Trump,

(11:59):
but to celebrate a reader of mine who in the
nineteen nineties and two thousands spent many many hours composing
letters to the editor when I was the editor of
the Daily Interlake in Kallis Bell, Montana, and his main
goal was to wake people up that the Red Chinese

(12:24):
as he called them, were coming into the United to
America and dominating the Panama Canal, which was a vital
security loss when the Panamanians turned virtual control of the
of the canal over to the Chinese. And he saw
it twenty five years ago. He's been dead many years now,

(12:47):
but I wanted to write a love letter I who
wrote those letters to the editor, and so that's how
the column came about.

Speaker 2 (12:55):
You know, Frank, I appreciate the article. And this is
the transparency about the second term with President Trump. Is
it you feel like you're along for the ride, understanding
issues that you didn't really were not on your radar screen.
I I wasn't aware of, you know, whether it's Greenland
or whether it was who Thi's I'd never been heard
of who'sies before we started doing something about that. But

(13:16):
but the China, we would always hear, oh, there's there,
they're growing, there's a threat there. Then they have a
surveillance balloon that flies across our country. I find out
recently that they own Holy GNC, which is inside our
military bases, which doesn't sound very comforting to me. But
the Panama Canal, I had no idea, and I feel
like I'm a news junkie that that they had such

(13:36):
control over that canal and and the and you know,
and how it's operated. If President Trump had not been
elected and did not put the Panama Canal in this
issue on a front burner where we're learning in real
time about it, and now the military's role in Pete
Secretary of Access uh, you know, announcements today. What would
have happened, uh, with China's role in the Panama Canal

(13:58):
if uninterrupted? What would what would it have looked like
in the next four years, five years from now?

Speaker 7 (14:04):
Well, we have to assume that they wouldn't have done anything, you.

Speaker 6 (14:09):
Know, to rattle our cage.

Speaker 7 (14:12):
If if there was never a conflict between the two countries,
but if the you know, Chinese had attacked Taiwan and
the United States came to you know, the aid of
Taiwan and some shooting war started, then the Chinese, with
their control of two of the main ports on either

(14:35):
end of the Panama Canal, would be in prime position
to sabotage it and essentially shut it down, forcing you know,
the United States naval responses to take you know, weeks longer,
days long. I don't know how long it takes to
go around the bottom of South America instead of going
through the middle of America, but it would be a

(14:57):
devastating national security problem. So yeah, we don't know what
would have happened. But and you know, I think what's
interesting to see is Haig Seth and Trump. They came
in from a position of strength that Trump talked about
we will use the military if we need to to
take the canal back, and then they use that position

(15:21):
of strength to essentially reach a negotiated agreement with Panama that,
as Greg said, would allow our ships to go through
free and first and would essentially guarantee that the United
States would have would be able to maintain the security level.

(15:43):
And apparently we're you know, eg Seth is talking about
we're going to reopen some of the bases that we
closed during the handover in nineteen ninety nine, and that's
going to be hugely important. I mean, Panama is you know,
it's one of the main pathways that people have been
using to cross from South America Venezuela up through the

(16:08):
Darien Gap up through Mexico to get here.

Speaker 3 (16:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (16:11):
So we right now we got Trump controlling the border
and we don't have to worry about it too much.
But let's say another president comes in who doesn't have
the best interest in the United States. It will be
really hard for the next guy to come along and say,
you know what, I'm going to surrender the again. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (16:27):
I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

Speaker 2 (16:29):
Frank Trump Trump's.

Speaker 7 (16:31):
Thinking in the long term, and it's it's really a
great thing to behold. It is.

Speaker 1 (16:35):
Frank has always great conversation this afternoon. We appreciate a
few minutes of your time.

Speaker 7 (16:41):
Of course, thanks you for calling all ranks.

Speaker 1 (16:43):
More coming up on the Rod and Greg show in
Utah's Talk Radio one O five dine K and r Ask. Now,
one thing before we go to our next guest. I
wonder what this is.

Speaker 4 (16:51):
Greg.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
This was mentioned by the President and by Carolyn Levitt yesterday,
a horrible discovery made by DOGE. Didn't tell what it
is and what they've found that they're teasing us with
this horrible discovery. Not sure what it is and said anything.

Speaker 2 (17:07):
What makes that worrisome is that every discovery of those
seems to be a bit horrifying to me. I mean,
they found unemployment benefits for people that aren't alive or
haven't been born yet. They have dates in the future
they're going to be born. They've got I mean, they've
got thirteen million people on Social Security that don't get it.
So if it's above and beyond that, here's what'll be interesting.

Speaker 1 (17:27):
He said. We have found hundreds think of it, just
hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud and abuse and waste.
They're still going strong. They found something that is horrible.
Those are the words for the president. So we don't
know what it is. They won't tell us yet.

Speaker 2 (17:41):
We'll find out, Yes, we will, Okay, joining us on
the program right now is a former colleague of mine
in the House. He's now a senator, so he's in
the House of Lords. Yeah right, well you call him sleepy.
Yeah yeah, Well I just say it's the it's the
House of It's the House of Lords, the old and slow.
Now I'm kidding, Senator Evan Vickers. You're my dear friend, Senator,

(18:02):
how are you.

Speaker 11 (18:04):
I'm good, you know, mister speaker, I'm fortunately, I'm starting
to resemble that.

Speaker 2 (18:09):
You know, I've always bragged by every House member that
goes to the Senate can run the place, just run it,
because we were in a shark tank and they're like
shamous over there. So it's so good to have you
on the show. What our listeners should know is that
you're also a pharmacist in a community in Cedar City.
You know, you're the local guy that people go to
get their medications filled, so you know a little bit

(18:30):
about healthcare. So the reason we've asked you to join
us on the program is there's an open letter from
lawmakers to our Washington delegation a little worried about Medicaid
cuts and what that might mean. Having spent time serving
with you and going back ten years. The one thing
that we were always worried about, and this is back
in twenty fifteen, was the easiest way for the federal
government to cut Medicaid or Medicaid expansion programs would be

(18:52):
to just simply cut their match. They wouldn't even have
to get into the budget. They wouldn't have to say
what they want to cut. They would just say for
the portion that they mat of a state, they're just
going to make that a smaller percentage. Is that you're
you're there, is that happening or you worried that that
would happen. What are you seeing by way of medicaid
that's concerning you right now?

Speaker 11 (19:11):
Well, you're absolutely right, of course, you know, during the
COVID years, you know, and some of those things, the
enticement was they reduced the match, you know, down to
ten percent some cases five percent. Our traditional match, I
think is still thirty percent in the state of Utah,
which means the state pays thirty percent, the federal government
pays seventy percent. And anytime you add a new program,

(19:33):
there's there's a portion of match that the state has
to come up with, and then you have to take
that out of your state dollars and not you know,
not accounting for you know, the federal dollars. So the
eventual reality is that if the federal government's going to
do anything serious about reducing budget, they're going to have
to get into some of these entitlement type programs, which

(19:55):
is Medicaid is won you got, you know, Medicare, social Security,
and if they start doing those types of cuts, you know,
we as lawmakers, what we want to say is, look,
let's just make sure that we keep the core basic
healthcare program. What medicaid was intended to do is to
provide healthcare for the poor. Because those people, if we

(20:17):
can keep them, especially the primary care and those types
of things, whether it be medical care or dental care
and other types of things, behavioral healthcare. If we can
keep those basic things, you can prevent it from escalating
into something that becomes very very expensive later on. And
so we're just saying, look, if you're going to do
make some cuts, you know, use a scalpel, don't use

(20:40):
a sledgehammer, you know, and do this kind of things
where you But there are programs out there, and now
Utah is pretty good about this. We haven't adopted some
of those programs. But there are programs out there that
provide cell phones and other things to patients through medicaid,
and we have never adopted those kind of things. But
you know, just be careful. Yeah, I'm going forward as.

Speaker 1 (20:59):
Senator at this point. Are you seeing any signs whatsoever
that they are looking at some of those core concerns
that you may have. Are there any signs there yet?

Speaker 2 (21:08):
No?

Speaker 11 (21:09):
But wait forty eight hours.

Speaker 2 (21:12):
That's true.

Speaker 11 (21:14):
That's what Congresswoman Maloy thought me. She says, Look, if
you're upset about something, wait forty eight hours and then
call me. Backer's still upset because it's probably changed by then. So, yeah,
those things, you know, And I think, and Greg, I'd
like to know what you think. But I really think
on all these things, whether it be education, if we
get rid of the Education Department, or if we do
some things in medicaid, let the federal government determine how

(21:37):
much money they're going to spend and then give it
back to the states and the form of block grants.
We'll figure it out what's best for the state. And
we've already proven that. I mean, you know, a couple
of the quick examples, one hidden in the Social Service
appropriation budget this year is a twenty three million dollars
savings in Medicaid. And we looked at the ACO program.
You remember that Greg when we started with dan lllllan

(21:58):
quest and its successful. But in a relooking at the
pharmacy reimbursement, we found a way to save twenty three
million bucks to the state at state dollars and also
increase the reimbursement to the providers. And we also through
the affiliation with Medicaid and the Dental School up at
the University of Utah, we're now providing dental care to

(22:20):
medici patients across the state through a network that they've
been able to work with and cover the match and
so it doesn't cost the state of dime. So those
are things. Those are some examples that state can do.
State of Utah can do well if we have that
opportunity center.

Speaker 2 (22:34):
You're exactly right. If they block grant the money, whether
it be the Department of Education you're in, that money
would be block granted to Utah or in this case Medicaid.
You're proving and this is what I want listeners to
know that there was a tailor made Medicaid program that
the state really got to put structures. It wasn't they
weren't taking the cell phones, they weren't taking all this.

(22:55):
To give you a snapshot, we have about three hundred
and forty thousand utons that are on it now. Ten
years ago when I was on the clock. My biggest
fear is you'd see over a million. You'd see that
number just continue to grow. It be like socialized medicine.
I'm happy to report that Utah has the least number
of people on Medicaid benefits in the nation, and half
of that number are children. So I think it's I

(23:15):
think you guys have been making sure that it's not
been a you know, it's pigs at the trough. So
have you had any communications with I know, I know
that things have changed in forty eight hours, but because
I think Utah leads out and how they've really have
a responsible it hasn't grown out of control type of program.
Are their best case best practices? I should say that

(23:37):
you can really protect or ask to be block granted
so that you could you could even make more efficient
Are there are those discussions happening at all?

Speaker 11 (23:45):
Senator, Well, we're I think the only discussion we're really
having is that. Look, it's on the list. You know,
we've got to We're they're going to systematically work through
everything in the in the in the government, so we
know that that is likely to happen in the few Sure,
we're just trying to establish it, you know, communication up
front and early so that we can, if nothing else,

(24:06):
be part of the solution, part of the problem.

Speaker 1 (24:09):
Sender Vickers, We appreciate a few minutes of your time.
Keep them awake and moving in the Senate, would you
crack the weapon?

Speaker 11 (24:16):
Do her best? And you know the good thing about
the new House members that have come over to the Senator,
all younger guys.

Speaker 1 (24:21):
Yeah, there you go.

Speaker 2 (24:22):
Well, I think there might be a ghastly kind have chamber,
So you might want to get one of those detectors. Okay,
I'm thinking that everybody's the little docile over there.

Speaker 1 (24:30):
All right, sender, Thank you, Sendor. Evan Vickers from Cedar City,
a pharmacist also a member of the Utah Senate, talking
about Medicaid cuts mare coming up right here on the
Rodd and Greg Show Talk Radio one oh five Dying knrs.
Someone on social media picked this up. Apparently years ago,
there was an episode of Seinfeld talking about low water.

Speaker 2 (24:51):
Bruce, We've been suffering with this problem for quite some time,
you know, Seinfeld is a show of the seventh or
the nineties. We've been dealing with this low flow, you know. Yeah,
get me key stuffed for a while.

Speaker 1 (25:01):
Yeah, well he picked it up. They did a little
episode on this. You may enjoy that. Hey, the super's
in my bathroom changing my shower head.

Speaker 4 (25:09):
Have they changed your showy?

Speaker 1 (25:10):
No, he's doing my next They're a low flowing, a
low flow. I don't like the sound of that.

Speaker 6 (25:19):
Cherry.

Speaker 1 (25:21):
Now they're showing flat hair.

Speaker 2 (25:24):
You too, Yeah, these showers are horrible.

Speaker 1 (25:29):
There's no pressure.

Speaker 11 (25:30):
I can't get the shampoo out of my head either.

Speaker 1 (25:33):
If I don't have a good shower, I am not myself.

Speaker 4 (25:35):
I feel weak and an effectual.

Speaker 11 (25:37):
I'm not Kramer.

Speaker 1 (25:38):
You what about me? I got the tonight show? Tonight?
How about have a shower in the dressing room? Where
are you going?

Speaker 2 (25:45):
Well, I gotta find another shower.

Speaker 1 (25:48):
I mean that was so funny. Their hair was flat,
Framer was going crazy and the president yesterday, what do
you say yesterday? I eat now, I can wash my hair.
I gotta take care of my beautiful hair once again,
My hair look beautiful.

Speaker 2 (26:00):
Yeah, flow I I it's such a false economy. You
just have to use more water because you don't get
enough of it the amount that you need. Yes, it's
it's or you can. It's an absolute scam. Yeah, yeah,
I'm so happy. I just really we I don't know
what has to happen, but we're getting all this common
sense and all these all these messy things that we've

(26:22):
been inflicted with over years kind of sorted out. How
do we keep it? Like, I don't want to get
ahead of myself, but you know, we got a great
president changing a lot of things the right way. But
you know, one one Democrat, give them, you know, give
them one term and a zillion executive orders, he can
unwind it all. And so I just I don't know.
I'd love to see us some staying power here.

Speaker 1 (26:41):
Well, that is the concern Greg got about executive orders.
The next guy in can change everything back. We saw
Biden do it when he got in replacing Donald Trump.
So that's why some of Congress has got to get
it back together and pass some legislation that protects some
of the you know, if they that's right, I agree,
all right, the media. Trust in the media, when did

(27:04):
it start falling off? We'll talk about that. We'll get
your reaction to that as well. Some of your thoughts coming.

Speaker 2 (27:09):
Out this media. I'm not so sure this. They're calling
balls and strikes out here. I think these guys might
have an agenda. When did that moment happen?

Speaker 3 (27:21):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (27:21):
Yeah, yeah, Well I'm talking. Well, the co founder of
Axios No Axios is a liberal is a Washington based website,
all right, and and Washington loved it. That tells you something, right, Well,
the co founder of Axios, his name is Jim vander High,
finally has come up with what he says are the

(27:42):
three reasons that cause trust in journalism to collapse. There
are three reasons. Now, Chuck Todd on a different social
media plus not a reason, Chuck, he's not one of
the reasons. All right, But Chuck Todd on a another
network talked about trust in the media and where he

(28:03):
thinks journalists have failed as if he's an expert on
so we thought we'd play with. Jim vnder Hyde had
to say, there are three reasons. Listen to these reasons.
I think there are more than just these three, but
I want you to listen to these three because Greg
and I are going to open up the phones to
you and we want to ask you, when did you
lose trust in the media? Does it go way way

(28:24):
back in just the last ten to fifteen years? When
did you lose trust? But here is Jim vendor Hyde.
He is with Axios talking about the three phases of
when trust in journalism collapsed.

Speaker 12 (28:37):
I feel like the trust really started to shatter over
the last decade, and I look at it as in
three phases. The first was the creation of Twitter. What
happened with Twitter is people forget like now. It's a
lot of conservative voices, a lot of independent voices. It
was a hot bed of liberal group think for a

(28:57):
long time. And it was the first time since I've
been in this business that I would get on a
feed and I would see reporters who I had trusted,
who I had admired, making it crystal clear what their
views were, what side they were on. You could tell
in what they were tweeting, and you could tell in
who they were following and who was following them. So
I thought that was stage one because at least before

(29:21):
any bias people had they hid from the public. Now
it was in a somewhat full view. Then came along
kind of the COVID, defund the police, word policing, where
I think a lot of Americans were looking around and
being like, it don't sit right with me, and it
doesn't in the way it's being covered didn't sit right

(29:43):
with them. And then I think the final straw really
was the coverage of Joe Biden, when people were saying, hey,
I could see with my own two eyes that the
guy seems pretty old, probably doesn't seem capable of of
of being the president in the next term, and yet
there's not a whole hell of a lot of coverage
of it.

Speaker 1 (29:58):
So they're the three reasons, according to Jim vander Hyde,
where he believes that trust in America media collapsed. He
brought up Twitter and the fact there were reporters getting
on Twitter expressing their opinion so you knew where they
stood on issues. Second was coverage of COVID and defund
police that did not sit well with a large number

(30:19):
of the American people. I think you and I would
agree on that. And the last one was the lack
of coverage of Joe Biden and his decline. I mean,
we could see it in front of us. You cannot
see what you've already seen, as they say, and we
saw that. I think there are more. Now I want
to play one other sound bite. This is with Chuck Todd.
We all love Chuck Todd, right, Well, he's even admitted

(30:40):
that the media helped cover up what was going on
with In fact, Joe Biden.

Speaker 13 (30:45):
List to this, plenty of individual people questioning whether he
should run. I certainly questioned whether he should run.

Speaker 1 (30:51):
No, you didn't.

Speaker 13 (30:51):
You didn't understand, you know, there were some of that,
But I understand the argument about the collective on that front.

Speaker 2 (30:58):
The only thing I can chalk it.

Speaker 13 (30:59):
Up up to is this whatever you want to call it,
this fear that some members of the media had sometimes
that they would be perceived as helping Trump if they
somehow diminished Biden, right, that it was some sort of
zero some game. And I think this has been the
fundamental mistake that many members of the traditional press have done.

Speaker 1 (31:18):
So so I don't understand they had a fear of
telling the truth because they thought if they told the
truth it would benefit Donald Trump. Yeah, what kind of
an excuse is that?

Speaker 2 (31:26):
And it's not. So it just shows how deep they
are into their bias by saying that not calling fairly
or reporting fairly, that you know that he had a
cognitive decline and he wasn't ready because they were afraid
that it would help Trump. It says that you're pretty biased.
You don't want Trump to win so much so you
would keep something like that quiet. That's that's a you

(31:49):
know that that is biased. Remember when was that jim
Who was it? Who's that late night guy? Not Jimmy Kimmel,
what's the other clown's name?

Speaker 3 (31:57):
Not?

Speaker 2 (31:57):
And not not Colbert the third one? What's that guy's
name on NBC? Jimmy or Jimmy Fallon Fallon?

Speaker 1 (32:04):
Ye, Jimmy he.

Speaker 2 (32:05):
Grabbed in sixteen, he grabbed Trump's Harry wanted to see
if it was real, and everybody laughed. He took so
much after Trump won, He took so much grief for
that moment and was told, look, you helped him humanize him.
You were a terrible person because you did this. You
you grabbed his hair like that and made him human.
You're one of the reasons he won, and he took
some grief for it. I tell you what, I think

(32:26):
the best point that was made there was that is
Twitter did make it absolutely official that these reporters were
not even interested in having trying to look at things
fairly and report both sides. They had a bias, and
Twitter did expose it. But I knew they were biased.
I suspected. I didn't have the proof like Twitter. I
think that Twitter moment is a significant one. But I
used to call Dan rather biased. I'd say Dan rather biased.

(32:49):
I mean we used to. I had nineteen ninety two,
you know, make the media mad re elect George Herbert
Walker Bush, you know, I mean there was always this bias.
But I think that's I think the social media when
it emerged and all these so called reporters not opinion
sharing their personal opinion, sharing their personal opinions and their bias.
I think that's when the bloom came off the roads totally.

Speaker 7 (33:10):
You know.

Speaker 1 (33:10):
And I wonder what news departments around the country face
Greg on this, because if you're if you're a news director, right,
you want your reporters to be seen by the public
as impartial journalists, right. Yes, So are there rules that
say do not have do not go on Twitter, do
not go on Facebook and express your personal opinion because

(33:31):
social media is so prevalent nowadays that people are going
to findance. Ah, now I know where they come from.
Now I see what they're doing.

Speaker 2 (33:39):
And look, I mean it's even ESPN, it's a sports channel.
They had to tell them to stay away from the
social media and on the politics because they were just
getting sucked into the politics and pushing it into their
sports report.

Speaker 1 (33:49):
And I think ESPN has been hurt very badly by
all of that. All Right, we want to open up
the phones to you today eight eight eight five seven
eight zero one zero on your cell phone dial pound
two fifty and say, hey, Ron, when did you start
losing your trust in the media or is it always
been there for you? Your calls and cummings. You're on the
Running Greg Show.

Speaker 2 (34:07):
Let's go to our smart smart listeners. Let's go to
Ron and Syracuse. Ron, thank you for holding. Welcome to
the Rotting Greg Show.

Speaker 3 (34:15):
Well, thank you for taking my call. So wadys are
absolutely awesome.

Speaker 2 (34:19):
Oh, thank you. So what did did Bloom ever come
off the roads with you, Ron about the media or
if it did when.

Speaker 3 (34:27):
Well, in nineteen sixty six, Vietnam War was going on
and I went in the United States Air Force and
I ended up being a survival instructor for the Air Force.
And I was in the Philippines for sixty nine and
seventy and in and out of Vietnam and flying missions
over there. But we had three magazines in our day room, Time,

(34:53):
Newsweek and US News and World Report. And I would
be in Vietnam and I would see things that happen,
and then I would read about it in Time magazine
and it was total one bull wow. They they were
the false media. And Newsweek was was so close that

(35:15):
you could not depend on anything that you read in
Time magazine or Newsweek. And so I always thought, hey,
if if I know about this one and I know
this is false, then how about this one over here?
Is it false too? Probably so, because if you know
one thing, you lose your trust. US News and the
Row Report was always spot on.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
Wow. So there was a good one. There was one
actually that it was reporting it in your mind accurately.
That's but that's all the way back to would you say,
nineteen sixty six, sixty six Vietnam?

Speaker 1 (35:48):
Yeah, real debate in this country over at Vietnam.

Speaker 3 (35:52):
Sixty nine.

Speaker 1 (35:53):
All right, Ron, thank you appreciate your phone call. Back
to the phones. We go, let's talk with Jerome in Layton,
see what he has to say about this, and he
works his way home tonight. Jerome, how are you thanks
for joining us?

Speaker 6 (36:05):
Well, pretty good, great show and the bloom came off
the rose from me big time. In June nineteen sixty eight,
when Walter Cronkite said, what a defeat we had in
ted Vietnam, and this is why Lyndon Johnson was withdrawing
from the race. I was in Vietnam at the time,

(36:29):
and the Vietnamese Marines went down to Taigon relieved. The
US Marines cleaned out the Footo racetrack and a number
of other things like that. The viet Cong and Pavin

(36:52):
took a beating.

Speaker 2 (36:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (36:55):
And the Vnamese leader at the time, that is a
north of the leader. Yeah, no, no, no, it's his.

Speaker 1 (37:06):
Military his military leader, Okay.

Speaker 6 (37:10):
And anyway, he thought that he lost until he saw
the media reports from the United States and said we
got him.

Speaker 1 (37:23):
Interesting, Jerome, I remember, I remember that because Kronkite, as
I recall, Kronkite spent about a week in Vietnam reporting
on what was going on in Vietnam, and he came
back and the only time he ever did this on
his broadcast, but he basically said, after being in Vietnam
for a week and looking at the stories, it is
time for America to get out. And that kind of

(37:46):
turned and Jerome Wards White LBJ saw that that I'm
not gonna win with this. I'm out of here, and
he was out of there. I mean, I remember that time,
so it started even back then, and I remember the
Watergate days. We can get into that as well.

Speaker 3 (38:00):
Else.

Speaker 1 (38:00):
All right, more of your calls and comments coming up.
When did you start losing trust in the media? Eight
eight eight five seven oh eight zero one zero. If
you're just joining us now, we're talking about comments made
by the co founder of Axios that is a liberal
website based in the nation's capital, and he highlighted what
he says, or he believes are the three reasons that

(38:20):
cause trust and trust in journalism to collapse. Okay, Number one,
Twitter exposed the political bias of objective journalist objective journalists,
so called objective journalists. I don't know if you, I
don't know if you can be a non objective journalist
to be real or an objective journalist purely, purely. Well,

(38:42):
we all have our opinions, and those are going to
seep into whatever you write or whatever your report. It's
just good and it's often done so greg by the words.
I mean, if you listen or read stories, see a
television report, pay attention to the words that they use
and how they describe an individual. And we were talking

(39:02):
about this during the break. How often is someone like
Yale Ruska, president of ego Form, is called a staunch conservative,
our far right wing conservative?

Speaker 4 (39:12):
Yep?

Speaker 1 (39:12):
How often does Aaron Mendenhall ever get called a staunch
liberal or far left?

Speaker 2 (39:19):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (39:19):
Now you know, crazy never happens. So there there's an
indication where you just listen to the words and how
they describe people, I think is oftentimes indication as to
what they think of them.

Speaker 7 (39:29):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (39:29):
And then even in describing organizations, if it's a right
of center organization, it is the right wing dot dot
dot whatever. Alliance for a Better Utah is funded by leftists, Okay,
then it is part of progress now out of headquartered
dot Colorado. They have affiliate states all over this country
and it's Utah affiliate is Alliance for a Better Utah.

(39:50):
There's an Alliance for a Better Montana that you also
use like Progress, Pennsylvania Progress, and they'll use the state's name.
I'm telling you that here that for a while they
were describing Alliance for a Better Utah as a watchdog
or watch yeah, a watchdog organization and just looking out
for the taxpayer, looking out for people. They're just watchdogs,
not saying they're a leftist or a liberal organization, which

(40:14):
they are, and so they would be quick to do
it for right of center, but if it was left
of center, they're just they're just citizen watchdog groups and
they're just in it, you know, just for the cast,
you know, just to do good. They're on the side
of angels. But you know, I think there was an era,
there was a time where where a journal where all
of us have our biases, and that's fine, but if
you were reporting news and you were not a columnist,

(40:36):
you were not in this opinion section. I believe that
the journalists were at least trying their level best to
call it straight. Even if they had a bias. They
were going to ask questions, They're going to try and
get the story out. I think when when Twitter came
out and these journalists began to become peers and see
each other comment and out themselves as being left of center. True,

(40:58):
I think they became very very comfortable with that, staying
in that that left of center perspective and not trying
to be objective, not even attempting to be Because when
I was first elected, we didn't have Twitter, we didn't
have media, and i'd have a I have a journalist
that was a beat reporter. He's just covering the news
or trying to and I would see something that was
reported that I thought was biased, and so I would

(41:18):
go to that reporter and I'd say, look, you said
it this way, but really I think it's it's a
little bit you're kind of putt your thumb on the
scale a little bit here the way you said it,
And to his credit, he would say, you know what,
I actually think you're right now. I didn't correct it,
but the way he would report going forward, at least
on that topic and what we brought up, you would
see a little bit more of an even handed reporting
of it. And I and there were other journalists where

(41:40):
I would I could reach out to and do that.
So I think that used to be the environment. I
don't think it. I think that environment. I think they
just strengthened each other.

Speaker 1 (41:47):
Up and existing more. Or let's go to Tim and
Dowila who wants to say something and weigh in on
this tonight? Tim, how are you welcome to the Rod
and Gregg Show.

Speaker 14 (41:55):
Thanks guys at great job. I appreciate it. I remember
well back U probably about ten years ago, when I
was seeing media and they brought it up and they
made exactly the same statement on what was going on,
and it was I don't know, twenty thirty forty to
fifty medias saying exactly the same thing. And they could
put them all together and say the same thing. So

(42:17):
I was always like, well, who's controlling the media? So
you've only got like a couple owners of the media
controlling society. Yeah, and that just threw me off.

Speaker 1 (42:28):
Yeah, well it happens. It happens, doesn't it. Tim. You
can see it today. I mean, story comes up, especially
on the democratic side. They all have the same talking
point and you're right, use the same word, which I
find very very yeah, very interesting.

Speaker 2 (42:41):
They've they've made they can marck it now because they
can almost put them all in unison saying the same stuff.
They get the same talking points. It's so obvious now.
And I think you also pointed out that Donald Trump
kind of put words saying fake news. He kind of really,
in the most diccinct way, said what we're hearing in
our suspicions are confirmed. It really is fake. It's not real.
It's not real news to people.

Speaker 1 (43:03):
All Right, we'll get more of your phone calls coming
up here on the Rod and Greg Show on Talk
Radio one O five to nine K and R as
it's gonna.

Speaker 2 (43:09):
Be cold again, Yes we can, you.

Speaker 1 (43:11):
Go drop down into the fifties. No, see is this
I'm just sharing with you information. Don't get mad at me.

Speaker 2 (43:18):
Well, you know what, sharing eighties a little high for
a spring day, so I didn't have to be eighty.
He can we have some spring days and not keep
dropping it back down to cold weather. I just want
to stay warm.

Speaker 1 (43:30):
I'm with you on that. I love getting a warm car.

Speaker 2 (43:32):
I do too, Yeah, I love it.

Speaker 7 (43:34):
All right.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
If you're just joining us now, we're getting your comments
on trust in the media. The co founder of Axios,
which is a liberal website based in Washington, highlighted what
he says are the three reasons that cause trust in
journalism to collapse. He mentioned Twitter, and exposing the political

(43:55):
bias of objective journalists, so called objective journalist coverage of
COVID and the defund police movement. Merika's just felt nothing's
right in that, and I think we all agreed on that.
And then the lack of coverage of Joe Biden's demise,
and you know, I'm gonna you and I we mentioned
this before the break. I think another factor is Donald Trump.

(44:16):
I think ten years ago, well, yeah, it was about
ten years ago now when he came down that escalator
and he was willing to challenge journalists and as you
heard the term fake news that people long before that
have always had this, well, is that really news? What
did he mean by fake news? Well, as the time
went on with his campaign and into his first administration,

(44:37):
we started understanding what he meant by fake news, and
I think that exposed the journalist again, and that's why
the trust in journalism has. I think it's near as
low as level ever.

Speaker 2 (44:48):
I'm trying to tell you too, though, that you got
guys like Rush Limbaugh that were really calling out to
drive by media and they were really really putting, you know,
they were really framing it. But yet even when you
had you know, just thought leaders like a Arcel Limbaugh,
who was just a trailblazer on all fronts, really bring
America together to list in the largest radio show at
the time, especially when his show grew it when Clinton

(45:10):
was elected, you started to hear we're all hearing the
same going, ah, yes, that's right, I'm not crazy that
we're all thinking that. But you still didn't hear the
elected officials themselves really go there. And then Trump just
started calling them out. And I think that because he's
looking right at him, he's looking at my eyeball, eyeball,
telling him your face and yes. And I think that

(45:32):
that is where there became a deeper appreciation for him,
because he was willing to have that confrontational moment where
he would call it out for what it is. And
then it became more comfortable to really almost mock it
and laugh at it because it was and they just
doubled down on that. They could not stand him or
for other things too.

Speaker 1 (45:51):
And I think followers of Trump, members of the new right,
so to speak, whatever that is, whatever that means, I
think they picked up on the same thing.

Speaker 2 (45:59):
Greg.

Speaker 1 (45:59):
I think you see conservative politicians who are not afraid
now to call out the media, and I think Donald
Trump set the example for him.

Speaker 2 (46:07):
He did, He has set the mold for so many things. Again,
I go back to this, this this cabinet meeting we
saw remember when Joe Biden doctor fake doctor Jill Biden.
What Joe Biden was running the cabinet meetings that they
hadn't had for a year. You didn't get, you weren't inside.
He's opening these meetings up and you're hearing these secretaries,
these cabinet secretaries, talk about what they've done, what they're doing,

(46:28):
what's coming. And it's it's not it's not fluff. It's real.
And we are we are living through a presidency right
now where we understand what the priorities are, what the
objectives are. It's I think it is unprecedented any party, well,
any any any president.

Speaker 1 (46:44):
My question now is Greg you have the proliferation of
news sources. I mean you've got you know, you've got
your legacy media, you've got social media. Now, I think
you have talk radio, and talk radio for the most
part is conservative, Yes, willing to demercial commercially, very very successful,
very successful. Liberal talk radio fails. It failed. They've never

(47:06):
figured it out now really.

Speaker 2 (47:08):
Because they're humorless angry people. That's why.

Speaker 1 (47:12):
So my question would be, Greg, do you think the
media will ever be able to regain the American trust,
the trust of the American I don't know if they will.

Speaker 2 (47:20):
Well, I think we have a canary in the coal
mine happening in real time right now, and that's this.
You have the La Times, the guy that owns the
La Times. You've got bezos who owns the Washington Post.
At least those two papers by themselves would like to
be more objective. Yes, and they have cleaned house to
try and get there. They've taken their editorial board, they've
revamped it, fired everyone started or new. They've done a
lot to try and get to objective objectivity. I think

(47:45):
they're losing subscribers by doing that. I think that there
was a little amen corner and an echo chamber that
we're still reading the LA Times and the Washington Post,
and you can add the New York Times to that.
But the two that are trying, I think are the
Washington Post and the LA Times. I don't if they're
commercially successful, then I think that yeah, you might be
able to get back to an objective or at least

(48:06):
a media that's trying endeavoring to be objective. But I
don't think they're going to get there. I think that
they're that the and when they try to do that,
they alienate the small crowd they already had. And I
think the other I don't think there's enough trust out
there from the everyday American to read the Washington Post
or the La Times. I don't think anyone thinks they're
they're special.

Speaker 1 (48:26):
Anyway, years ago, a colleague and I were having a
discussion about this, this this very same thing, Greg, and
he writes a question, why don't and we kind of
already know this, right, but why doesn't an MSNBC or
a CNN just come out and say, yeah, we're a
liberal news n work. Yeah we can tell, but they're
almost afraid to admit it. And what would harm them

(48:48):
if they admit it? We all know it.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
Who was it that was interviewing? They said that Jake
Jake Tapper, well, you're you're a liberal or whatever he
said you're and he's like, I'm not liberally.

Speaker 1 (48:58):
It's just admit it. And you know, I don't think
there's anything wrong with Fox News saying we're a conservative
or a right leaning network.

Speaker 2 (49:08):
And even then I think their news they do. I
think they they do seek objectivity in the news. The
commentary is certainly conservative and unapologetically but I think that
you see I see, I think you see the presentation
of news I do think is a lot fairer than
you see from CNN, MSNBC, NBC regime media types, certainly

(49:31):
the Post, New York Post or New York Times, in
the Washington Post. But I'll tell you this, Roger als
he'd been he ran George Herbert walker Bush's campaign. He's
the one that broke the mold and created Fox News
and said, look, we need we need, we need something
here that can be admittedly conservative on the editorial side,
and fair and balanced, as they said, on the news

(49:52):
side on the presentation of news. And they were a
grand commercial success, never tried before, and a grand success.
My lingering quest, uh in the back of my head
for the decades I've been involved in politics and lived
in Utah, is how on earth is the largest news
source in this state? Not the conservative paper of record
like you have with a with a Christian Science Monitor

(50:14):
or an Epic Times. You have some papers that have
embraced it. As you've said, left never embraces it. But
there are news papers of record or news age news
sources of record who've embraced a conservative commentary and and
they're successful for it. Why on earth with this state
and it's not dominant news news source be proud of

(50:39):
and promote that right of center approach. I'll never understand.
In fact, they're the opposite in my.

Speaker 1 (50:45):
Mind and to a lot of people. We get asked
that question all the time. All Right, more coming up.
We've got some calls coming in eight eight eight five
seven eight zero one zero. We'll get to your calls
and comments coming up. On the Roden Gregg Show, we
talk about trust in journalism. Why is it collapsed? Arlie's
that orum tonight? Joining us was his thoughts. Charlie, thanks
for joining us.

Speaker 15 (51:05):
Yeah, Hi, guys, I was just going to say that,
you know, these guys are never going to admit that
they're liberal because that would put in jeopardy either belief
that they actually stew the truth, which we know as
a you know, since since Doge has been around now
and and we have people who are actually trying to
find the truth that that's not the case. I mean,
you know, the lives that have been skewed by the press,

(51:27):
you know, since the first Trump administration at least, but
you know, going back, maybe even to as far back
as the Gulf for when we actually believed CNN. You know,
it's they they will not uh, they will never admit
that they're liberal because it'll put that in jeopardy.

Speaker 2 (51:45):
Yeah, we're absolutely right, Charlie. And here's the thing is this,
and it's it is the telltale of a of a leftist.
They there is no room, there's no daylight. They their
worldview is the only view. It's as he said, it's
not I'm liberal. I'm right, I'm correct. They believe that
they are right. If you do not see the world

(52:05):
or issues the way they do, then you suffer from
a moral failing or an intellectual failing. But there's no
other opinion other than their own. That's it. That's all
there is.

Speaker 1 (52:15):
Well, Greg, and many journalists out there believe they're telling
the truth, believe they're being objective. Yes, they honestly believe that.
But I'll go back look at how they approach a story,
the words that they use in the story, and that
will give you an indication as to where they're coming from. Yeah,
because they no matter what they do, some of their

(52:36):
own personal feelings are going to seep into a story
and they can't they can't help it.

Speaker 2 (52:41):
So I stopped watching CN in so long, Like in
the late teens, you're watching it all the time. No,
I can't thank you. Good as we have clips now
where we can just get nice little sound bites where
we can laugh at it, or see Scott Jennings or
someone on there or Harry Anton now. But I was
overseas and I was the only state, the only channel
I could get that had English on it with CNN,

(53:02):
So I hadn't watched CNN for so long. In this Christina,
I'm impoor has a. She was doing a promo for
some weekly, some weekend news show she was doing, and
she said something that I'll never forget. She said, I
don't have an obligation to tell both sides. I have
an obligation to tell the truths. And I remember thinking
to myself, that's scary, that's somewhat. That's it's it's the

(53:24):
truth that she knows it or thinks it. That's what
she thinks. That's it.

Speaker 1 (53:28):
Taras inflation squeezing China. We'll talk about all of it
with Steve Moore, Jack E. Ponomus coming up next on
the Rodin Great Show and stay with us.

Speaker 2 (53:38):
People were coming home and they're not even hearing us
right now because they got wherever they were going the evening.
They're not listening to this last hour. This next guest,
Stephen Moore, who's on TV all the time. I mean
every time I turn around on our monitor in the studio,
he's on Fox, He's on He's even on all the
other channel start solmon it on CNN, but he is.

(53:59):
He's even told us that he's doing interviews from other
countries around the world. Anyway, the podcast, you can listen,
you can listen to this interview that we're going to
have because this is one that you don't want to miss.

Speaker 1 (54:13):
Steve, great to have you back on the show. There
has been so much going on. We can talk about
inflation today. We can talk about the tariffs, what Donald
Trump is trying to do with China, but let's start
off with inflation today. Steve, good numbers out there, in
fact that it went down a little bit. What's your take?

Speaker 10 (54:28):
Numbers were good and you know it didn't take Trump long,
did it. Inflation? I mean, he's only been in office
for three months, and basically in each month he's been
in office, the inflation rate has come down. We're still
seeing a little bit of the residual effect of all
that massive spending that Biden did, and so it's going
to take a while to get back, you know, well

(54:49):
below the two percent level we want. But inflation is
not our problem right now. It's it's it's basically it's
basically been conquered by by Trump because we're finally getting
control of government spending.

Speaker 2 (55:03):
So you know, this is where I've been looking forward
to speaking with you for some time. Look, we're we
have a president that, in my opinion, is really trying
to realign the United States, and it's and it's trading
partnerships with all nations, not you know, whether they're allies,
whether they're not. We have a robust trading relationship, but
many will argue that it's not a two way street.

(55:25):
So you saw this big reset, and you saw the
markets react, and then you're seeing these negotiations and it
looks like it appears that there are that China might
be the only antagonist. It looks like everybody wants to
come around a table and do some smart things and
problem solve. My question to you is I have been

(55:45):
a little frustrated in that people have pointed to a
trade imbalance or an unfair trade environment for a long time.
But as we saw this roll out within two to
three days, everybody was looking for the rip court. Everybody wanted,
everybody was scared out of their mind. Everybody is upset.
Was this supposed to be a forty eight a three
business day solution? Is this a two week solution? I mean,

(56:06):
do we have any amount of time to let this
thing play out and let this man cook? Or should
we already know that it's all roses or we shouldn't
do it at all?

Speaker 10 (56:15):
Well, look, I believe in free trade. I think you know,
trade has been at the very essence of what economics
is about. If you and I trade together and voluntarily,
that by definition we're both better off. And that's true
of people and it's true of countries as well. But
you're also right that it has not been a level
playing field. And Trump has been saying that now for
eight years that you know, what is the word he used?

(56:36):
They're ripping us off, and so it's been it's been
that that's going to change. You know, American people have decided,
we can't live with us anymore where you know, these
these terrorists are three to four times higher in other
countries than they are in terms of what we charge
you know, foreign countries when they bring in goods to
the United States. And so at the end of the day,

(56:58):
if Trump prevails here, I believe we will have freer trade.
I think, well, these countries will be forced to lower
their terrorists. And I got to tell you, I do
I've been cheating on you guys because I do a
lot of like BBC and Britain, and I'm doing all
these you know, European countries and some of the Asian countries,
you know, whether it's TV or radio there, because they're
fascinated with what's going on here, and they're so sanctimonious

(57:20):
and they're so realius and they're they're oh my gosh.
Trump has tried to start trading, is going to start
a trade war here, and it's so terrible.

Speaker 14 (57:29):
And I say, well, wait a minute.

Speaker 10 (57:30):
First of all, all he's asking you to do is
lower the terriffs, your terrorists to the level that we charge.
And I said, number two, you know, those terrorists are
two to three to four times higher. You're saying Trump's
trading starting trade war. I'm saying, you've started the trade
war because your terrorists are so high. And then they
don't even answer the question. They just you know, they
they run for the for the exits because they don't

(57:53):
want to, uh, you know, they don't want to acknowledge
that they are the prowb It's in other words, what
I'm saying is Trump isn't starting as we're here, They
already started the trade wark.

Speaker 1 (58:02):
Yeah, that's for sure, Steve. There's no doubt I think
in a lot of people's opinion that China is probably
target number one. Steve, how much, how tightly can we
squeeze China?

Speaker 10 (58:14):
Well, that's a great question. And the fact is we
do have enormous leverage over China, because if we have
China cannot trade with the United States, their economy goes
into a nineteen thirty style Great depression. Their economy will
collapse because they need access to our twenty trillion dollar
consumer market. And look, we benefit from some trade with

(58:36):
China too. They give us a lot of cheap stuff.
And that brings prices down here. But they must trade
with US, and that's the leverage that Trump is using.

Speaker 7 (58:45):
Now.

Speaker 10 (58:45):
I kind of like this new strategy that Trump announced
the other day, which is to say, we're going to
give a pause on the tear US on all these
other countries like Canada and Europe and so on in Japan,
but we're gonna be very tough on China. And I
think that's the right approach. If I have any criticism
with Trump's tariff approach, so far, it's been too spread

(59:06):
out all over the place. You got to pick your targets,
you got to pick your moments, and now he's starting
to do that. He's staying to the rest of the world.
China is the evil umpire. They are the new Soviet Union.
They're dangerous, they cheat, they steal, they're building up their military,
and we're going to focus on getting very tough with China.
Now this is important, guys, because now we're going to

(59:27):
find out who are real allies now around the world
because some of these countries are well, we're going to
in back China. In that case, well, you know what
if these countries, you know, how much of money have
we spent on NATO a trillion dollars over the last
fifty years. How much money have we spent, you know,
winning two World Wars to liberate Europe. And now they're
gonna they're gonna ally themselves with China. I mean, I

(59:49):
think that's a very dangerous situation. I think they would
be crazy to do that. And even Japan is saying, well,
maybe we'll lie. Why would Japan align themselves with China.
China wants to take over. So this is a big
moment for the world, and Trump is I think he's
going to in the end.

Speaker 2 (01:00:06):
Of the day.

Speaker 10 (01:00:06):
I think these countries are going to side with us.
I think we're going to get real concessions from China,
and I think, frankly, we're gonna get concessions for the
rest of the world. I mean, my friend Kevin Hassen
says they're over sixty countries now that it is called
Trump saying let's make a deal, and that's what Trump
loves to hear. So just all I want is these
four leaders to get on the phone and call Trump up.

Speaker 2 (01:00:28):
So on Monday the seventh, so the New York Times
had a graph and they showed the countries who had
signaled that they want to work this out with the
United States and work you look at trying to negotiate,
and those that were looking to retaliate, they had China,
EU and Canada and the retaliate column own and everybody
else around the world in the let's negotiate and do
something that's a problem, that's a problem solving. So since then,

(01:00:51):
and I think announced yesterday, it looks like the Canada
and EU have come around to some degree, because it
looked like China had been isolated out there on their own.
Do we with six with the just the volume of
countries it would like to sit down and work with
Secretary Best and and just is a ninety day pause?
Is that going to re align our global trade? Is

(01:01:12):
ninety days? Is that too bullish? Or can it happen?
Is what do you? What's your sense of things?

Speaker 3 (01:01:18):
Well?

Speaker 10 (01:01:18):
I think what the markets want to see And today
was a lousy day for the markets, the hours down
about a thousand points and we were up three thousand
points yesterday. I think what the markets want to see
is a resolution here. They want to see a light
at the end of the tunnel. So, by the way,
how in the world is Canada retaliating with US? I
mean Canada, I mean, how in the world are they
doing now? They're charging our you know, our lumber and

(01:01:41):
our agricultural products, our dairy products fifty seventy undred percent terrorists.
How is that free trade? So again, I don't I
don't understand the logic of some of these countries, but
we've got to you know, the game, remember that game
he used to play when your kid called musical chairs.

Speaker 1 (01:01:59):
The music playing and.

Speaker 10 (01:02:00):
There's twelve chairs and there's thirteen people walking around the
chairs and somebody gets left out. That's what Trump is doing.
He's basically saying, this is musical chairs, and you know
somebody's gonna get left away from the table and you're
gonna be left standing. So you better get in now
before you're that. And that's all the countries are panicings
there if everybody else is negotiating. I don't want to
be the odd man out. So I think, you know,

(01:02:22):
by the time we start talking again, you know, next
week or the week before, you're going to see that
fifty countries but one hundred countries coming hat in hand
to say let's make a deal.

Speaker 1 (01:02:31):
Econdom and Steve Moore Steeve, thanks for joining us on
the Rod and Greg show. You know it's all about China, Greg,
And if Donald Trump can get China now, did you
notice yesterday Canada, Oh maybe we should have an agreement,
So Canada has bent the knee. Look, they all have
except for China. I hear that everyone but China. Yeah,
it's China, so you know. And I'm wondering, Greg, if

(01:02:55):
if the CCP leaders there in China are positioning this
against the United States, saying we are now involved in
a war.

Speaker 2 (01:03:04):
Let them try.

Speaker 1 (01:03:05):
I think that, you know, because their economy and the
advancements that they've been able to make over the year
is great. How much patent information have they stolen from
us over the years, all you.

Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
Get their hands on.

Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
But if they're positioning it to their population like America
is coming after us and what was the story yesterday?
I think they're now producing more products, cheaper crop products,
just to try and deal with the United States right now.
So my perception would be that China is looking at
this like we're in a figurative war, not a literal war,

(01:03:39):
but a figurative war on trade.

Speaker 2 (01:03:41):
So but this is where I think they're gonna. I
we'll see if they can, if they'll come to the
table or not. But I don't think their position is
as strong as they'd like you to believe, because I'm
staring at a story here where they reached out. China
reached out to Australia to join hands with them against
the bullies that are America. They called them. It's the
only way to stop the hegemonic bullying behavior of the US. Anyway,

(01:04:07):
Christralia is like, no, thank you, thanks, but no things
we're not We'll take a pass China. Thanks. So they're
actually trying to proactively reach out to countries to join them,
and there's no takers. And I think that's and I
can think of nothing stronger, better, safer than weiting ourselves
off of the imports of China and having stronger relationships

(01:04:29):
in Vietnam and Malaysia, in India and these other countries.
Because some of the products like clothing, textiles, shoes, we
may never have those big operations in the United States.
It might not happen. But if you are going to import,
to import it with a country who wants to have
a fair trade agreement with you, isn't going to steal
all your intellectual property isn't trying to you know, isn't

(01:04:52):
as aggressive as China is. I mean, China doesn't go
into a country and trade. China goes into a country
and buys and owns, and they only want to own.
They don't want to trade, they want to own, and
we've got we cannot be dependent on. I still go
back to this, ninety six percent of all rare minerals
are mined and processed in China. That's your batteries to

(01:05:13):
your phones, tablets, computers, cars, you name it. It is
not a stat that sits well with me, or should
sit well with any of us an American And so
I just think this realignment of trade has to happen,
and I think it's happening faster than I thought it would.
And I've been a little, I've been more than a little.
I've been frustrated with the some of our conservative thought leaders,

(01:05:35):
national ones that are being clutching their pearls and crying,
Ben Shapiro.

Speaker 1 (01:05:40):
Sky is falling, Sky is falling. All Right, We've got
a lot more to get to. On this Thursday edition
of The Rod and Greg Show and Talk Radio one
O five to nine knrs.

Speaker 2 (01:05:49):
I'm citizen in Hughes and.

Speaker 1 (01:05:50):
I'm brought our kids. Just a great day on the outside.
Hope you've been able to get out and enjoy a
couple of stories.

Speaker 2 (01:05:56):
Greg.

Speaker 1 (01:05:56):
The House Republicans last night pass ledis I love this
and I know you'll like this as well, aimed at
limiting the reach of so called rogue judges.

Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
Yeah. Yeah, like that's not overdue.

Speaker 1 (01:06:10):
Yeah yeah. The New Rogue Ruling Act as it is called,
cleared the Lower Chamber and at two nineteen to two
thirteen vote right along party line. There was one Republican representative,
Michael Turner, joining the Democrats and opposing the legislation, but
basically says, hey, look, you know judges out there, stay
in your own sandbox.

Speaker 7 (01:06:31):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:06:31):
I was trying to quit trying to be in everybody's sadbox.

Speaker 2 (01:06:34):
So the problem with this, folks, is that that's great,
You've got it in a narrow majority in the House.
You got to pass. But if you don't have sixty
votes in the Senate, it's not worth it's not going anywhere.

Speaker 1 (01:06:44):
No, that's true.

Speaker 2 (01:06:45):
It doesn't go anywhere. You need sixty You need sixty votes. Now,
some of these things I think They just passed the
Save Act that requires an ID to vote that you
have to be It says you have to be an
American citizen, and that's already the law, but this is
like saying you really really have to be an American citizen.
I would love to believe that there's at least a
handful of republic Democrats that don't want to be in

(01:07:08):
a mid term if they're looking at an election here
in less than two years, want to be on the
side of not wanting to have a stronger, more secure
election process. So maybe you could find a Democrat senator
or a few of them. You need more than a
you need more than three, but maybe you can find
a sixty vote threshold on something like election integrity because
those senators that are going to face, you know, elections,

(01:07:31):
that's a vulnerable place to be. I think with where
the American people are right now.

Speaker 1 (01:07:35):
Really scary survey greg The study found researchers find that
there has been developed an assassination culture on the side
of the far left. Yes, absolutely, and their targets are
two people, Elon Musk, Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:07:51):
Yeah, and I'll tell you assassination. That sounds extreme, but
here's here's the proof in the pudding. They love this
Luigi guy.

Speaker 1 (01:07:57):
Oh they do.

Speaker 2 (01:07:58):
Yeah, this guy that shot that healthcare executive, he's a
healthcare executive, a United Healthcare and cold Blood. Now, look,
health care is a tough issue. But to actually say
free Luigi or actually condone what that man did, that
man as a father of young children, I mean, but
they're good with it. They're good with hamas, they're good

(01:08:18):
with killing in the streets of New York City, killing
this executive, cold blood, and they and they're they're making
this kid out to be a hero. And now they're
saying that, yeah, we think it justifies and justify the
means if you kill Trump and Elon Musk. And remember
these are the people that were saying, oh insurrection, Oh
look at the violent violence. There's no the violence. The
political violence in this country comes from the left always.

(01:08:42):
And if there's a moment where they want to say
it's the right doing it. You got someone, you got
a false flag, and there's somewhere ginning up some of
the right to do something like that, I'm killing you.
They riot, they destroy, they tear down, they condone not
only just violence, but even death. And I'm telling you
that is not an over statement, but it's sad.

Speaker 1 (01:09:01):
An assassination culture. Yes, that that there are those on
the left who fully support the assassination of people like
Trump and and Musk. And you're right, and this man,
Gione guy is a hero. How much money is he raised?

Speaker 2 (01:09:15):
It's pathetic. It really is bad.

Speaker 1 (01:09:17):
Money is raised that he has raised. It's staggering.

Speaker 2 (01:09:20):
Going back to our topic in the last hour, this
is where our media should be hammering these people because
this is this is they condone assassination murder. That that
should be so that should be so bad and it
should really be shameful to those who are pulling this way.
That yeah, that's fine, but no, the media is quiet.
The media is quiet about the destruction of the Tesla

(01:09:41):
takedown and burning of all the dealerships and people's cars,
and defacing and destroying people's individual cars. They don't have
a thing to say about it. They embrace violence, they
embrace chaos, they embrace even death. I mean, it's when
I say it, I hear myself. I think I sound extreme.
It's just true. I've seen the polling, I've I've seen

(01:10:03):
them talk about it.

Speaker 1 (01:10:04):
I have not heard a lot last couple of days,
and this may have changed a lot about attacks on
Tesla cars. Now, didn't Pambondy issue a very stern warning.
You get caught doing this, folks, you're going to be
in trouble. And I haven't seen too many attacks maybe
in the last forty eight hours, maybe seventy two hours
of attacks on Tesla's.

Speaker 2 (01:10:23):
Well, I hope, I hope it's starting to center down
with you.

Speaker 1 (01:10:26):
I don't want it to continue, but I think Pam
Bondi came out and said, don't don't do that, because
we will get you. And there have been some arrest
being made as a result of that, so hopefully that's stilliness.

Speaker 2 (01:10:37):
I imagine this if it's not the physical destruction of
your car. They're still getting flipped off, they're still getting
cut off, they're still getting harassed. It's insane. They don't
even know the politics of the person driving it, but
that's what they're doing. And just so you know, the
fact that they none of them want to own an
electric car anymore and they're going to gasoline cars means
that the entire electric car movement was paper thin. It

(01:11:00):
had it had everything to do with a political agenda
and nothing to do with good stewardship of the environment.

Speaker 1 (01:11:05):
By the way, I understand, there is a plethora of
used teslas now for sale. If you're looking to bind one,
get a U yeah, just for the cause alone. Then
you can scratch it up and do whatever you want.
It wasn't really into electric cars, but now maybe I
should be. They're American made those teslas. All right, guess
who's coming to town. We'll tell you who coming up

(01:11:26):
right here on the Rod and Greg Show and Talk
Radio one h five nine k n R S. We
do not miss a thing.

Speaker 2 (01:11:33):
We really don't. I mean, if you, like I said,
we're tracking it and there's just so much to dissect.
I mean, there's just so much that happens again, and
I think we're getting spoiled. It's like, what we're going
to re We're going to realign all of global trade
and we're going to have fair trade agreements with all
of the world's you know, all the countries of this
planet's partners of the United States. And it's been three days.

(01:11:54):
Why hasn't it finished? Why why hasn't this all been
worked out yet? What you did, it's a it's a
big it's what you just described if Trump pulls this off,
he's better than halfway there.

Speaker 1 (01:12:05):
I still will be absolutely amazing.

Speaker 2 (01:12:08):
I think he's better than halfway there. I'm not kid
you not. He gave a little taste of if you
want to go the hard route, this is what we
can look at. But we're ready to go there because
we're buying everything. So he says we're the buyers. We
get to actually say no, thanks. You don't have anywhere
to go because you've already tariffed us. You can make
the tariff higher, but you already had it. We don't
have any tariffs, so we can put them there. You

(01:12:29):
can go the hard way, we can go the easy way.
All but China have said, uh, mister President, we'll take
the Well, we'd like a way that's actually kind of
friendly and that we kind of get along. And so
I think the guy has made so much progress on
a topic that we have just talked to death about
without anyone really believing could we actually change it. I

(01:12:49):
think we're seeing some big change. So anyway, that goes
back to this show. Our appetite for change is so fast,
it's so fast and furious, but we're tracking it.

Speaker 1 (01:12:57):
We are. We just mentioned we're here to tell you
the truth. If you'll listen to us, you will know. Now,
rumor has it, yes, that Bernie Sanders will be in
town on Sunday for his you know, oligarchy tour and
uh and a certain a certain Democratic woman will be
with him.

Speaker 2 (01:13:17):
Yes, a potential leader of the Democrat Party National.

Speaker 1 (01:13:21):
Yeah, A Cossio Cortes. Yes, Alexandra A. Cossio Cortez, otherwise
known as AOC. She could be here on Sunday. So
should we show up with the bottle of shampoo? I
know there's instructions on that. I would think you that today.
What if we encourage our listeners to go to the
event and I'll carry a bottle of shampoo and all that? Now,

(01:13:42):
why we're saying that, If you haven't heard, John Kennedy,
the Republican from Louisiana, said she's the reason they put
instructions on shampoo bottles.

Speaker 2 (01:13:50):
Yes, I think that's why he believes those instructions are
on there is because of a Yeah, you know, I
think there's been some counter protests are actually celebrations, Trump
parades and things around some of these things. But but yeah,
I think they're going to come and look fulfill the Housers.
There's always people always had Bernie Bros. They were around there,
they're probably still around there.

Speaker 1 (01:14:09):
They're loyal, they're loyal.

Speaker 9 (01:14:10):
Well.

Speaker 1 (01:14:11):
Joining us on our Newsmaker line to talk about a
OC is Shane here is He is the editor in
chief of AMAC news line.

Speaker 2 (01:14:19):
Shane.

Speaker 1 (01:14:19):
Thanks for joining us, Shane. A lot of people are
pointing to her as the new leader of the Democratic Party.
What say you on that?

Speaker 4 (01:14:27):
Well, I mean, to be frank, she's not so crazy
in thinking.

Speaker 3 (01:14:31):
So.

Speaker 16 (01:14:31):
I mean, we have a poll out this week that's
saying she's leading Chuck Schumer fifty five percent to thirty
six percent, and a hypothetical primary poll for twenty twenty eight. Now,
I know that's a long way away, but that has
to be concerning to a lot of Democrats because if
AOC is being steen as a new leader of the party,
that means the party has done something really wrong.

Speaker 10 (01:14:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:14:51):
I agree. And here's the thing that is just so
shocking to me, and maybe I shouldn't be shocked, but
they always seem to be the tent the big tent party,
meaning that they we could get the long haul trucker
who depends on his combustible engine in his truck to
align with those that want to get rid of engines
to attack Republicans. It seemed like the tent included so
many different, even contradicting public policy pursuits, but they really

(01:15:15):
voted as a block. I don't see that from them anymore.
I don't know that that party can exist under the
same tent. There seems to be a lot of animosity
between the MAAS side, the pro Homa side, and the
pro Israel side within their own party. Is it, am
I wrong? Or is it no longer a big tent
over there with the Democrats.

Speaker 16 (01:15:36):
No, I think that's exactly right. And really, you know
what we're seeing with the AOC presidential talk, it's a
sign of where the party is. When AOC came into
the party in twenty eighteen, she was celebrated on the
left as this progressive icon of far left figure, but
she was considered to be in the far left wing
of the party.

Speaker 4 (01:15:55):
If you would have told.

Speaker 16 (01:15:56):
Mainstream Democrats in twenty eighteen that AOC would be being
seriously talked about as a presidential contender just ten years later,
they would have called you crazy. But now that is
what we're seeing, and her progressive wing was so called squad.
They are the ideological center of the party, and it
speaks to how far left the party has gone. And

(01:16:17):
when we see that, it's no surprise that the party
has record low approval ratings, something like twenty seven percent.
And that is a direct result of the fact that
the party establishment they brought people like in, like her in,
and they appeased her for way too long, and now
they are coming to regret it because she's taken the
party in a very scary direction from an electoral perspective.

Speaker 1 (01:16:38):
Shane, what is the attractiveness factor with AOC to the Democrats?
Why is she such an attractive candidate as some within
that party and maybe a lot within that party? What
is she got?

Speaker 16 (01:16:49):
Well, in some sense, she's the anti Joe Biden, right,
I mean Joe Biden. He was the president, but he
never got people excited. He wasn't packing rallies like President
Trump and AOC. For all her faults, she has been
able to get kind of a small radical base of
Democrat active is very excited.

Speaker 4 (01:17:08):
And I mean that's what we're seeing.

Speaker 16 (01:17:09):
I mean, the fact that she's come into Utah not
exactly a liberal stronghold.

Speaker 4 (01:17:13):
But I'm sure she'll she'll she'll fill out whatever venue
she's in. Her and Bernie Sanders, and so I think
that's something that Democrats are just desperate for. They're desperate
for anybody who can get their base excited. But while
she might be able to get the base excited, she's
very polarizing and she turns off essentially everyone who's outside

(01:17:34):
of that Democrat base.

Speaker 7 (01:17:36):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:17:36):
I side with Louisiana Senator Kennedy, who John kender You says,
I hope she is the leader of their party, and
I think we should assume the operation letter speak, which
I actually think is true. But I look at the
Democrats and I remember after Ducaucus lost president or Bill Clinton,
there was a pivot, you know, and he was that

(01:17:56):
he looked to be more mainstream. Is there do you
see any one in the ranks, because I think one
of the things that Casio Cortes has is youth. I
mean everybody else, I mean everybody else. The Democrat parties
we've seen him are pretty old advance in age. Is
there any young guns out there? I think about it
like a Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro, But he's Jewish. I don't know.
I mean maybe that's a deal killer nowadays with Democrats.

(01:18:19):
But who out there is the potentially the reasonable alternative
or maybe the more mainstream or would have that chance
of attracting a mainstream voter block, if not, if to
challenge an AOC.

Speaker 16 (01:18:32):
Yeah, I think that's that's the big question. And the
answer is, we haven't seen anybody yet. That being said,
we're still a long way off from twenty twenty eight.
I mean, if you look historically at this point in
two thousand and eight, nobody had really heard not two
thousand eight, but two thousand and five. Before the two
thousand and eight election, nobody had really heard the name
Barack Obama. And in the same vein in twenty thirteen,

(01:18:53):
before twenty sixteen, nobody would have thought that Donald Trump
would come out of basically nowhere to seize the Republican nomination. Yeah,
and so there could still be somebody that burst onto
the scene. But really, you know, Democrats had this same
problem in twenty twenty. They didn't have a bench, they
had to go with Joe Biden, and you know, five
years later, they still haven't solved that problem. So might

(01:19:15):
somebody emerge who could really be a strong contender challenge AOC.
Be a younger voice maybe, but it hasn't happened yet.
And Democrats, you know, really need to get something going
in this direction or they're going to be in some
real trouble.

Speaker 1 (01:19:28):
Shane didn't Kamala Harris illustrate that large crowds doesn't mean
you're going to be elected. I mean she had large crowds.
Well look what happened to her.

Speaker 10 (01:19:39):
Yeah.

Speaker 16 (01:19:39):
Absolutely, And you know that's that's part of the problem
that AOC represents is the Democrat Party. You know, we've
talked a lot about in our country in recent years,
this whole notion of DEI diversity, equity and inclusion and
the fact that people aren't being selected for jobs or
to admission to schools based on their qualification and their merit,

(01:20:01):
but based on their identity, and that identity politics is
now coming back to buy the Democrat Party. You know,
Joe Biden said in twenty twenty, well, well I'm going
to pick a woman as my running mate. Well look
how that turned out. Democrats ended up with probably their
weakest candidate this century running last year. And so with AOC,
you know, she does has some good qualities, but obviously

(01:20:22):
being a Latino woman really helps her with that identity
politics factor. And so unless Democrats can get away from that,
they're really going to struggle to nominate some high quality candidates.
You mentioned Joshapiro, that's a perfect example. He's young, he's charismatic,
he's done a you know, I don't agree with a
lot of the stuff he's done in Pennsylvania, but he's

(01:20:42):
relative posit for a swing state governor, and they couldn't
nominate him, They couldn't even consider him for vice president
because of that identity politics.

Speaker 1 (01:20:52):
Democratic Party, Shane, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
Democratic Party, Craig is they're lost. They're trying to figure
out you know, like he pointed out, their campaign right
now is anti anti anti anti anti Trump. Well, they
have no vision for the future.

Speaker 2 (01:21:08):
So I think I would argue that that's all they've
ever been. But what they could do before is they
could argue about Republicans that were in power, so they
could just be. All they had to do is bet
that's how they kept their big tent together because they
just had a common enemy and they could just rip
on them because they were either the executive branch or.
They were in power somewhere. Once Biden got elected and
they had the House in the Senate, they were on
the clock. They couldn't complain that it was someone else's

(01:21:30):
fault anymore. It was time for them to do something.
And what did they do?

Speaker 7 (01:21:33):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:21:34):
They This is why they can't have nice things. Hey,
they cannot do this ever again. We can never live
through that again.

Speaker 1 (01:21:41):
All right? Oh yeah, yeah, were coming up on the
Rotten Great Show.

Speaker 2 (01:21:46):
I'm citizen Hughes and.

Speaker 1 (01:21:47):
I'm brought our cat Jesse Kelly coming away And just
a matter of a minute, a couple of final notes
before we call it quits for tonight. The Kennedy Center.
Remember all the hullabaloo?

Speaker 2 (01:21:56):
Oh remember how dare he politicize it all?

Speaker 1 (01:22:01):
Well, it broke an all time attendance record for a
public event in March, despite boycotts from the Democrats. This
past March, the Kennedy Center Earth to Space Arts breaking
the Sky fireworks show, so over elevendees, What would you.

Speaker 2 (01:22:17):
Should bet that to? I think I think they have
a lot of repairs are making, But I think maybe
everyday folks think they can go now, not just the
Hody tody Well.

Speaker 1 (01:22:25):
Trump called it a dump.

Speaker 2 (01:22:26):
It was. It was in disrepair.

Speaker 1 (01:22:28):
Yeah, needs to be fixed up. So so. And by
the way, weight watchers filing for bankruptcy in the country.

Speaker 2 (01:22:35):
No, they were, they were the they were the old,
the ogs.

Speaker 1 (01:22:38):
The impact of ozempic and drugs like that. I think, Wow,
people aren't. People aren't doing it anymore.

Speaker 2 (01:22:44):
Weight watchers going away.

Speaker 1 (01:22:45):
Going away? Wait, watchers, do you do weight watchers?

Speaker 2 (01:22:48):
No, you're okay. They've been around, they've had a presence.

Speaker 7 (01:22:53):
It is.

Speaker 1 (01:22:54):
Thank Ronning Grey gets Friday tomorrow, head up, shoulders back.
May God bless you and your family. Thank you so
much for joining us. We'll talk to you tomorrow at
four

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: The Dems AOC Problem; Economist Steve Moore

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News .css-1q01m3q{margin:0 0 -2px 0;}

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes