October 31, 2025 • 31 mins
Join Jim and Greg for the Friday 3 Martini Lunch as they wrap up the week with some nuclear-grade political stories, including Trump’s push to restart nuclear testing, his call for Republicans to eliminate the filibuster, and a sharp debate over conservative criticism of Tucker Carlson.
First, they dig into President Trump’s call to resume U.S. nuclear testing, which hasn’t occurred since 1992 and is banned under international agreements. But Jim says there is reason to believe other nations are already doing it and threatening to do it ourselves might get them to change course.
Next, they react to Trump's call for an end to the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government and move his agenda forward. Even if the GOP had the votes to do this, would it be a wise move or simply set the stage for a lot of horrible things to become law whenever Democrats control Congress and the White House again?
Finally, Jim sounds off on Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts publicly demanding an end to criticism from the right for Tucker Carlson's friendly platforming of odious figures like Nick Fuentes others. Roberts says the criticism amounts to "the slander of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda."
Please visit our great sponsors:
Cancel unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money at https://RocketMoney.com/MARTINI
Build your fall sanctuary of comfort with Boll and Branch. Save 20% plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at https://BollAndBranch.com/THREEMARTINI —offer ends soon, exclusions apply.
First, they dig into President Trump’s call to resume U.S. nuclear testing, which hasn’t occurred since 1992 and is banned under international agreements. But Jim says there is reason to believe other nations are already doing it and threatening to do it ourselves might get them to change course.
Next, they react to Trump's call for an end to the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government and move his agenda forward. Even if the GOP had the votes to do this, would it be a wise move or simply set the stage for a lot of horrible things to become law whenever Democrats control Congress and the White House again?
Finally, Jim sounds off on Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts publicly demanding an end to criticism from the right for Tucker Carlson's friendly platforming of odious figures like Nick Fuentes others. Roberts says the criticism amounts to "the slander of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda."
Please visit our great sponsors:
Cancel unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money at https://RocketMoney.com/MARTINI
Build your fall sanctuary of comfort with Boll and Branch. Save 20% plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at https://BollAndBranch.com/THREEMARTINI —offer ends soon, exclusions apply.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to the Three Martini Lunch.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Grab A Stoll next to Greg Corumbus of Radio America
and Jim Garrity of National Review.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Free Martini's coming up.
Speaker 4 (00:13):
Hey, so glad you're with us for the Friday edition
of the three mar teeny Lunch. It's been a long
week and it's going to be a long day today
because we've got a lot to talk about. We're talking
about the Heritage Foundation and their president, Kevin Roberts and
what he had to say about Tucker Carlson. There's a
lot to get to there, the whole debate over Israel,
who Tucker Carlson is platforming, and so forth, a lot
(00:35):
of different dimensions to that. Also, late last night, President
Trump saying it's time for the GOP to nuke the
Senate filibuster, not only to get the government back open,
but to get a whole lot of other things going,
including nominations that Democrats have been stalling. But we begin
with comments the President said, actually a little bit earlier
(00:55):
in the week after his meeting or in conjunction with
his meeting with Hijinping in South Korea, and that is
that the President this according to NPR, said that the
US would begin testing nuclear weapons again for the first
time in decades, as quotas we've halted many years ago,
but with others doing testing, I think it's appropriate to
do so, the President told reporters aboard Air Force One.
(01:19):
And so the article goes on to point out that
the US has not tested a nuclear weapons since nineteen
ninety two. There are treaties about these things, whether it's underground,
above ground, outer space, underwater, you're not supposed to be
doing it. There's a question though, of whether other countries
are doing it somehow secretly, China in particular, but possibly
others as well. Jim My issue here, less than geopolitical strategizing,
(01:44):
is our nuclear arsenal's really old. I think most of
it's from the seventies or earlier, and it might be
good to figure out if it works. But I know
there's a lot of other complications if we were to
go down this road. So what do you think?
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Yeah, So, first of all, it seems like a you're coincidence.
This is bubbling up and on the President's attention right
around the time. Is this new movie that's come out,
House of Dynamite. I haven't seen it. Some people I do.
Some people love it, some people don't. Basically, it goes
through what would happen if someone launched a submarine of
(02:17):
unknown country origin launched a nuclear missile at Chicago, and
what happens in that time period. Basically a very skeptical
look at our ability to intercept incoming nuclear weapons. I
know some people have argued that they are missile defense
has a better shot than the movie portrays have. Other
people arguing, look, you never have one hundred percent guarantee.
It's trying to hit a bullet with a bullet, all
(02:37):
that kind of stuff. But I just think it's interesting
that this is front and center in people's minds when
most people don't think about nuclear weapons because they're a
very unpleasant thing to think about. I had the reaction
that I suspect a lot of people had, But I
feel like, why we haven't done this in decades? Why
do we feel the need to do this? Is this Trump?
And then you read into it and you know, unsurprisingly
the president has a point to this. You mentioned the
(02:59):
possibility that Russia has been violating this rough the belief
that China has been violating this. Now this is not
above ground nuclear testing. You know, I know you feel.
I know there are people who have doubts about the
US intelligence community, but they tend to notice when a
nuclear bomb goes off that that's really kind of high hard. Oh,
that was a door slamming, relaxed, it was nothing to
worry about. No, no, And even underground nuclear testing shows
(03:24):
up as a large unexpected earthquake, and that would be
hard to hide. But what there is is one we've
seen a lot of movement and activity at nuclear test
sites of Russia and China, and there's been a question
about whether you're going through simulations and whether there's something
called a zero yield threshold. It's a point of contention
between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. By the way, if you
(03:44):
really want to get into the weeds of this, the
Center of Strategic and National Studies just came out with
a new report yesterday, well timed. Can the US immediately
return to nuclear testing? By the way, The answer for
that one is it really depends on how you're defining testing.
But the answer is no, It's very difficult to do
this stuff immediately. That said, if our i'll say adversaries,
I think you could probably characterize Russia and China's enemies.
(04:05):
But some people get you know, if we don't want
them to do this, then I think at minimum it
is a good idea for the president to say, if
you guys don't knock it off, then we're going to
do the exact same thing. This is, you know, a
form of deterrence, I would argue, And if they are
doing these sorts of things, then yes, I think we
have no choice but to make sure that our nuclear
weapons still function. Their variety of tests the can do.
(04:27):
You don't have to do above ground nuclear testing. I
think everybody left, right and center would say, we don't
like that radiation goes up in the air and then
it eventually comes down somewhere else. And you know, we
used to do this back in the fifties, and somebody
once actually did where they used to shoot westerns out
out in the Great Midwest. Apparently it wasn't terribly far
from where the fallout generally came. And you look at
(04:48):
the number of Hollywood stars, including John Wayne who eventually
died of cancer. A lot of people think that there's
some sort of connection there. Just kind of putting that
out there, like generally we don't want nuclear bombs going off,
even if it's on remote at in the Pacific, even
if you know you can do underground testing that keeps
the radiation inside and FID that's a little bit better,
a little bit easier. Again, would we rather not have
to do this?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Correct?
Speaker 3 (05:09):
But I think also the fact that we can't live
in a world in which Russia and China see these
rules is optional, and we honor our rules, and so
I have no problem. I if nothing else, I have
no problem with Trump's saying we're going to do this
if you guys, don't you know, cease operations that you're
doing that violate our Nuclear test Ban treaties, which was
signed in seventy four. By the way, so again I'm
(05:31):
sorry the nineteen ninety seven CTBT band all nuclear testing.
So you know, a band is a band. If you
guys an't going to honor it, we're not going to
honor it. Balls in your court, Moscow and Beijing.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
No kidding.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Now, Officially, Jim, officially a nuke has not gone off
in the United States since nineteen ninety two, but you
and I both know that there was one in the
Mojave Desert in two thousand and two, and then also
a suitcase nuke that went off I believe in Valencia
just a few years later, and CTU wasn't quite able
to stopped them from going off, but at least the
first one didn't go off in downtown Los Angeles. That
(06:03):
was a huge win for the CAP.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
We could say that, but I would point out ever
since then, I have liked the fact that it's the
middle of the night. I go into the kitchen, I
can see the Valencia orange is glowing kind of to
let me know where everything is.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
I don't trip over my own feet. So there's that
and the Majave.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
You know, very few hikers have become mutants since then,
so you know, just just a couple of ninja turtles, so.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
Seems pretty safe. And the CTU agent who successfully took
it out of out of Los Angeles, I hid behind
a rock.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
He was fine.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
That's easily as safety as the desks of baby boomers
that were designed to handle all. I also remember, I
had always believed that these were nuclear weapons, but it
was only because of that heroic C Tou agent that
I learned that they were nuclear weapons. And it's that
third syllable that makes them particularly dangerous.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
That is Perhaps one of the legacies of George W.
Bush is that he could not say nuclear, so much
so that his own wife at a White House correspondencetender
made fun of him for it.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
People said he was wrong, and then Jack Bauer said, now,
and then I think that settles it. That's that's the
last last word, because if you don't like it, you
argue with Jack Bauer.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Okay, that's right, that's right, All right, Well, let's talk
about money. Hopefully your money is in good shape, but
there's always different ways you can save, and sometimes you're
spending money on stuff you don't even know you're spending
money on. And so if you ever feel like your
money just disappears every month and you've got this spreadsheet,
you've got this plan, and for some reason the savings
(07:28):
aren't showing up, well maybe it's time to let Rocket
Money help you track every dollar and uncover hidden spending
and really help you take control of your finances. Because
Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find
and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors you're spending, and helps
you lower your bills so you can actually grow your savings.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Make sure that your personal finances don't get nuked, or
that if you go on a terrible spending binge that
you can live with the fallout. Rocket Money is a
personal finance app that will help you find and cancel
your unwanted subscriptions, monitor you're spending, and help lower your
bills so that you can grow your savings. Rocket Money
shows you all your expenses in one place, including subscriptions
(08:08):
you might have forgotten about, So if you see a
subscription you don't want, Rocket Money will help you cancel
it and even try to negotiate lower bills for you.
The app automatically scans your bills for opportunities to save,
and they'll even talk to customer service so that you
don't have.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
To Rocket money a saved users more than two and
a half billion dollars, including more than eight hundred and
eighty million dollars and cancel subscriptions alone. They're ten million
members save up to seven hundred and forty dollars per
year when they use all of the app's premium features.
So cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals
faster with rocket Money. Go to rocket money dot com
slash Martini today, that's rocket Money dot com slash Martini.
(08:50):
All right, Jim, as mentioned in the open, President Trump
now back from his trip to Asia where those comments
were made about nuclear testing and so forth. But yeah,
he also says in a very long post on truth
Social last night that he got all these questions, why
is the powerful Republican party letting the Democrats shut down
the United States? Well, shut down the government anyway, And
(09:12):
then he says that the Democrats tried to with President
Barack Hussein Obama and former Majority Leader Harry Reid and
the Senate to take advantage of Republicans to nuke the filibuster.
Harry Reid, they did take it away for everything except
Supreme Court nominations. On the nomination side, they left the
legislative philibuster in place. Then Republicans nuked the philibuster for
(09:33):
Supreme Court justices, so only the legislative philibuster is still
in place. Then he says that the Democrats tried to
do it under Biden when the Democrats controlled the Senate
and they came fairly close, And he says, so why
not have Republicans do it so they can take advantage
of it, get their nominations through, get the government open,
get US attorneys confirmed and on. Here is the ABC
(09:56):
News report on Trump's tweet this morning.
Speaker 5 (10:00):
President Trump is calling on Republicans to change the rules
in the Senate to reopen the government, Trump posting overnight,
it is now time for the Republicans to play their
Trump card and go for what is called the nuclear option.
Get rid of the filibuster and get rid of it now.
The move would allow Republicans to pass a bill to
fund the government with a simple majority instead of the
sixty votes currently needed. But Senate Majority Leader John Soon
(10:22):
has warned against this move, saying it could come back
to bite Republicans whenever Democrats take power back.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Well, that's certainly the case. And if Democrats do take
power back, they probably would try to new the filibuster
like they did before. So there's a couple of different
things here, Jim. First of all, you've got that problem
looming out there in the future. But also you've had
a lot of Democrats, or at least enough to notice
on social media and beyond, some more prominent than others,
basically baiting Republicans to do this, knowing that in the
(10:51):
end they would take advantage of it down the road.
But it's also suggesting that Republicans are then responsible for
the shot if they're not doing it right now.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
The entire messaging from Chuck Schumer and a whole bunch
of Senate Democrats is basically a Jedi mind trick to
try to convince Americans there's no thing as the filibuster.
You know, republic all you need is fifty votes to pass.
And I'm kind of wondering if, like passing the big
beautiful bill through reconciliation, maybe they're kind of hoping that
that confuses people on how many votes you need to
(11:22):
pass legislation. You need fifty votes plus the vice president,
or fifty one votes or more than that. However, to
bring a bill to the floor, you need to cut
off debate, and to do that you need sixty votes.
And sometimes it's not much of an issue at all,
But the filibuster, if you know, that gives the minority
party a way to block something from coming to the floor.
(11:42):
Thirteen times over the course of the month of October,
the US Senate has tried to bring it a continuing
resolution to the floor thirteen times. It has failed. Every
single time. Republican, every Republican has voted for it. Sometimes
John Foon changes his vote so that he can bring
it back later on. Every Democrat has voted no, except
for Fetterman.
Speaker 4 (12:01):
Cortes Masto, thank you from Nevada.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
This is why Great Corumbus is the best podcast partner
in the world. And Angus King of Maine. And that's
that we've been in a logerheads for the entirety of
the month. Nobody's really budged, nobody's really moved. I can
understand the president's frustration, but I also understand why Senate
Republicans have not gotten rid of the filibuster. But this
time that they've had the majority, and the last time
(12:25):
they had the majority, and there are people who argued
about so. And I remember talking to Ted Cruz way
back in I probably was before you know, it probably
was like Trump's first the first two years of Trump's
first term, I said, you know, or actually they didn't
have a majority. But like at some point there was
this question of like, well, they're just gonna fillibuster everything.
What's the point is the day going to come? And
the thinking was, well, if we don't get rid of it,
Democrats will get rid of it when they are the majority.
(12:49):
They didn't do that, but almost all of them wanted
to do that, and they were prevented from doing that
by Joe Mansion of West Virginia and Arizona Senator to say,
look out of office, out of mind. You know, Irish
Alzheimer's you forget everything except a grudge, so you have that.
(13:09):
So the Democrats did not, But it was not because
they hesitated. They really wanted to, they just didn't have
the votes to do so. I think, you know, this
is a matter of short term thinking versus long term thinking. Yeah,
I get why you're if you're a Senate Republican right now,
you're really frustrated. But if you give up the filibuster,
it doesn't come back unduring, you know, when when you're
(13:30):
in the minority again. So this is basically feut and
but you know, while we're Democrats going to control the
Senate after the midterms, probably not, they'd have to win
four but you never know how midterms go. Usually they
go badly for the president's party. And here's the thing,
if they don't win it back in the midterms, we
don't know what this political environment in twenty twenty eight.
It's going to be like we don't know what the
political environment in twenty thirty is going to be like, Like,
(13:51):
at some point there will be a Democratic majority again,
and if you get rid of the filibuster now, then
the next time Democrats have a Senate majority, they can
do everything you did without the filibuster real easy, and
they can pass whatever bad ideas they want, and they
can ram it through and you and the minority will
have no opportunity to stop them. So you know this
keeping the filibuster now is long term thinking. It is like, look,
(14:14):
I'm you know, decline. I'm giving up a little bit
of my power to get stuff done now so that
I have the power to stop really bad stuff down
the road. And I think most of us look at
that and say, Okay. The other thing I'm going to
point out, my colleague Charlie Cook likes to really get
you know, I irked about this last time they are
when the Democrats are arguing about getting rid of the philibuster,
I said, well, we might as well do it, because
the moment Republicans are in power, they're gonna get rid
(14:37):
of the filibuster. That wasn't a crazy thing to say,
but you notice they have not and here we are,
you know, at the end of October and Republicans Senate majority,
and they've not gotten rid of it. And the other
thing Charlie remembers is that he says that everybody told
him you're going to switch your position the moment Republicans
are in the majority again, and Charlie's like, no, I
have not. I think keeping the filibuster is a good idea.
It is a good check on a runaway majority power
(15:00):
change my opinion. You haven't changed your whole bunch of people.
But you know who else hasn't changed his opinion, John Thoon.
So this idea that Republicans are the Senate Republicans with
these you know, no principal opportunists who have no standards
and will just alter their positions to give them the
most product. That is not the case. This is being
proven wrong every single day. So I think it's pretty
(15:21):
obvious keep the filibuster. Yeah, it's a pain in the neck,
but you'd rather have it than not have it.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Now. Donald Trump, when.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
He leaves office, I don't know how worried he is
going to be about this stuff. So I understand why
in the year and now he wants it, But it
is short term thinking.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
It is.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
You know, there was this wonderful experiment about how long
children could resist eating a cookie, and you know, they
were told, if you know, if you wait, we'll give
you two cookies, or you could eat this cookie now. Unsurprisingly,
the kids who had less impulse control, they tracked him
for like thirty years. The kids who had the most
impulse control, surprise, surprise, had good a lot of things.
Good things happened to him in life. Kids with less
(15:55):
impulse control, unsurprisingly, some things went wrong. Right, Impulse control
is an important thing to have, mister President, and as
a result of it, we need to not you know, like,
I know you want to get rid of the filibuster now,
but it will come back to bite you in the
in the in the end. So Senate Republicans stand strong.
I think they're actually winning the debate on the government
shutdown right now. Getting rid of the filibuster would be
(16:18):
giving the Democrats a huge win and someday down the road,
in exchange for getting rid of them. You know, it
seems like a minor headache right now.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
The Senate's supposed to be the place where bad ideas
go to die.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Let's keep it that way, you're gonna lose some good
skill to bad ideas. Kill the bad ideas for people.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
Who detected the nuclear weapon nuclear option theme today's podcast,
You get a gold Star.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
All right, let's talk about sheets. Though I don't think
there's anything nuclear but about your betting. But nonetheless, if
you want the best betting, Ball and Branch is the
way to go. I love these sheets. They are so comfortable.
They are clearly superior to other brands of sheets that
we own. They're very soft, and as you wash them
they get softer and so and softer. So Bowl and
(17:01):
Branch you really can't go wrong.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
You know, no one wants to be up all night
tossing and turning, unable to sleep because they're thinking about
nuclear war or the nuclear option. Getting rid of the filibuster.
We want you to sleep soundly. And Bowl and Branch's
signature sheets, so the perfect way to start building your
sanctuary of comfort a lot. You know in your underground
nuclear bunker. They're buttery soft Bowlin Branch sheets, or they
(17:24):
start out soft and they get softer with every wash.
They're breathable to sleep in. So you can add more
layers about making your bed feel heavy or hot, and
they're made with the highest quality one hunred percent organic cotton,
endurable designs.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
So start building your sanctuary of comfort this fall with
Bowl and Branch. For a limited time, get twenty percent
off your first set of sheets plus free shipping at
Bowlinbranch dot com. Slash three Martini. Spell all of that
out three martini. That's Bowlin Branch b O L L
A N D Branch dot com. Slash three Martini to
save twenty percent and unlock free shipping. Exclusions do apply,
(18:03):
all right, Jim, This one's got a lot of layers.
But we're gonna be talking now about the Heritage Foundation.
It's president Kevin Robertson is specifically his reaction to Tucker
Carlson and the blowback Tucker Carlson is getting for having
Nick Fwent Days on the program. Nick Fwent Days is
a raging anti semite. I don't think he would even
disagree with that particular statement. I watched one video of
(18:25):
his in the last couple of days in preparation for
this story, and it's it's it's disturbing, to say the least.
But so Tucker Carlson had Nick Fwent Day. Son didn't
really challenge fwent days on anything that he mentioned, fwent
Dace mentioning he's a fan of Stalin, not something the
Heritage Foundation is usually known for is backing Joseph Stalin.
(18:46):
But the issue at hand was how we should approach
Israel politically. Tucker Carlson, among others, has been very critical
of Israel and wanting the US to have much less
support and connection with Israel on national security affairs and
anything else. So Kevin Roberts, after the criticism of Tucker Carlson,
(19:06):
issues statement. Here is the first part of it, specifically
as it relates to Israel policy.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
I'll have more to say on this in the coming days,
but today I want to be clear about one thing.
Christians can critique the state of Israel without being anti Semitic,
and of course anti Semitism should be condemned. My loyalty
as a Christian and as an American is to christ
first and to America always. When it serves the interests
to the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies,
(19:32):
we should do so with partnerships on security, intelligence, and technology.
But when it doesn't, Conservatives should feel no obligation to
reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the
pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces
in Washington.
Speaker 4 (19:46):
Then he also got into the whole debate over Tucker.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
The Heritage Foundation didn't become the intellectual backbone of the
conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the
consciences of Christians, and we won't start doing that now.
We will always defend truth, we will always defend America,
and we will always defend our friends against the slander
of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda. That includes
(20:10):
Tucker Carlson, who remains and as I have said before,
always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.
The venomous coalition attacking him or sowing division, their attempt
to cancel him will fail. Most importantly, the American people
expect us to be focusing on our political adversaries on
the left, not attacking our friends on the right. I
(20:32):
disagree with and even a poor things that Nick Flint
has says, but canceling him is not the answer either.
When we disagree with the person's thoughts and opinions, we
challenge those ideas and debate, and we have seen success
in this approach, as we continue to dismantle the vile
ideas of the left.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
Well, I think we should be confronting vile ideas no
matter where they're coming from. And Nick Fuentes is certainly
full of vile ideas. But the other thing there is,
of course, him suggesting that any criticism of Tuck or
Carlson must mean that the person being critical is engaging
in slander, doing the bidding of someone else's agenda.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
I hate to live down to the cliche, but Greg,
there really is a lot to unpack here. I think
if you ask Nick Fuentes, are you and anti Semite?
I think the answer he would give you is Corumbus.
What kind of name is that? That is futhy southeastern European. Look,
Nick fuent Is is notorious.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
He's you know, he's not. It's not like like, here's
the thing.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
We are used to having alt right graper weirdos say
that they love Hitler.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Say that they love Stalin.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
Right, that's now you're just like I like anybody who
pit people in concentration camps. Now now you're just general
all across the board. I like dictators, I like people.
I like history's greatest monsters and so you know, it's
a it's a free country. Nick Fuentes can say whatever
he wants. What's really intriguing is the degree to which
Kevin Roberts genuinely seems to believe everybody who is criticizing
(22:00):
Fuentes is attempting.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
To cancel him. Now, what is canceling you know? Nick
went Is? He's got a podcast.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
I have no idea if Nick fuent Is, you know,
like makes enough money from that podcast, you.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
Know, to support himself.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
But you know, like, is not having Nick fuent Is
on your podcast a form of canceling him? And what
threshold does someone have to rise to before you say, yes,
this is someone who we know we we should counter
in the public debate because, for example, this deep thinker
Nick Fuents has said that non Christians should be executed
(22:32):
after he and his ilk take power. Now I think
that's a bad I like, so, so do we need
to have the Oxford Debating Society to discuss should all
don Christians be put to death?
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Is that? Is? That?
Speaker 5 (22:44):
Is that?
Speaker 1 (22:44):
You know?
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Because because I feel pretty clear on that one, But
I also kind of feel like this is not just hmmm,
I don't think your tax rate suggestions to the right. No,
this is like a really like maniacal, genocidal thing from
some snot nosed punk. It's one part trolling, one part
in Santa you know, So I go fwents Is who
he is? Tucker Carlson. The interesting thing, like, I'm not
(23:06):
one hundred percent sure Greg that that Nick fwent Is
is the worst person Tucker Carlson has interviewed this year.
There's a lot of competition for that title, for the
historian who said World War Two was all Churchill's fault
and Hitler was. But you notice this recurring theme, but
Hitler's not such a bad guy, and oh he's misunderstood
and all that stuff. There's the Iranian president, there was
the Russian president. So then there's like, so you have
(23:27):
the fwent Is, You've got Carlson who, in the course
of his two hour and fifteen minute conversation with Fwentez,
in which there was really no pushback, Tucker Carlson said,
Christian Zionists, I dislike them more, dislike them more than
anybody really really in a world full of so many
people you could hate, you know, justifiably, Christian zion Is
(23:47):
are the ones that bother you the most, you know,
and I finished, Morty Joel. I go down the list
of not just like foreign dictators and terrorist groups and
domestic terrorist groups, everybody who laughed at Charlie Kirk's murder.
You hate Christian Zionist more than them, really, okay, you
hate them more than the Luigi Mangioni fan club, really okay,
you know. And I go down the list of all
(24:09):
the worst people, and then I get if you have
the sillier of the Kanashians, Megan Markle Red Sox fans,
sorry Red Sox fans, you know, like he's gonna you know,
of course Adam Gase right, atheists, vegetarians, crossfitters who have
to tell you that they're atheists, vegetarians, and corossfitters upon
meeting you, like you know, Kathleen Kennedy, right, you could
just get all really, I'm all, Christian Zionists are the
(24:30):
group that you can't stand the most. I'm a Christian
supporter of Israel. Well that fits into the Zionist category
and not I'll leave that up to you. But like
you know, he goes to he names some names, and
Greg the only person on his list you could remotely
consider to be a threat to the United States and
it's national security. Is John Bolton eight billion people and
this is the person. So Tuck mccarlson, you know, clearly
(24:51):
has gone off the deep end. He's going off the
deep end in these sings the praises of like every
government that'shustled to us on this planet. Loves the Qatar.
I don't know what say, I'm man, that's you know,
he loves them. Can't stand Israel, can't stand Ukraine, can't
stand all these other countries, you know, But that's Tucker.
But here's the thing Tucker interviews Nick fwent is Kevin
(25:13):
Roberts doesn't have to put out a defense of Tucker Carlson.
Clearly he wanted maybe you know, he's got a lot
of people saying, hey, did you hear this?
Speaker 1 (25:20):
In this interview?
Speaker 3 (25:21):
Tucker did what is the Heritage positions position on this?
But the first he says, you know he's putting out
on the tweet or on the post on x it says,
there there are rumors that we're going to distance ourselves
from Tucker Carlson, and Kevin Roberts chose this moment to
give Tucker Carlson the biggest bear hug possible and to say,
I am totally with you on this, which really really
(25:44):
you didn't see any And I'm glad he says that
he has some disagreements with Nick fwent is good. That's
a very low bar to clear. But I'm glad you
mentioned that. But you really treat Fuentes as a as
somebody who's worth engaging in debate, and you can make
the argument that Tucker didn't really even debate with the
very much. Now if you don't think, oh, you're like, oh,
let you know, Tucker Carlson is a very deferential interviewer. Yeah,
(26:05):
tell that to Ted Cruz. Right when when Tucker Carlson
wants to disagree with you, he will disagree with you loudly, clearly.
There will be no confusion over where he stands. There's
none of that in the interview talk with Nick foent Is,
and I just go platforming is this very big argument about,
you know, should this person have a platform? Should this
person be deep deplatform Look, you're Tucker Carlson. You can
(26:28):
interview anybody in the world, and you pick Nick Fuentes,
Like I said, he's interviewed a whole bunch of peopleho
I think are terrible human beings. You and I we
very rarely have guests on this podcast. When we do,
it's always it's almost always someone. I guess every time
it's been somebody we like a great deal, and it's
somebody would like to share their thoughts with us. We
could do adversarial interviews, but you would know they were
adversarial interviews. There are whole bunch of people on this
(26:49):
planet who we are never going to get a friendly
interview on the three Martine Lunch podcasts, starting with Adam
Case but that so I you know, and so continuing
the our podcast, we've discussed nuclear weapons, the nuclear option,
and I guess this is like Kevin Roberts making the
Heritage Foundation radioactive, because there are a whole bunch of
(27:10):
traditional conservatives who are like, well, I've loved this place.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
It's Reagan.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
I was just an event less than a year ago
at this place. I think highly of their Does this
guy really speak on behalf of the organization? Is this
really where the Heritage Foundation wants to plant its flag?
Speaker 1 (27:23):
It's very strange.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
And by the way, just you know, I happened to
notice this was on Kevin Roberts' X account. As of
this morning, it was not on the X account of
the Heritage Foundation itself, it was not on the Heritage
Foundation homepage, and it was not on the Heritage Foundation
YouTube page. Now, maybe they don't put everything Kevin Roberts
says on these things all the time, but it certainly
(27:44):
feels like Kevin Roberts wants the world to know that
he loves Tucker Carlson and doesn't feel that Tucker Carlson
did anything particularly wrong in this case. And I just
noticed these official Heritage accounts are not quite chopping at
the bit to put out that same message there. So
maybe there's more dissension in the ranks over at the
Heritage Foundation than you think. But I don't like, why
(28:05):
are we defending these guys and then this whole well,
we don't attack people on the right. Does Ben Shapiro
get that treatment, Does Jaye Nordlinger get it? You know, dude,
pro Ukraine Republicans get that. I don't feel like I
see that same attitude. So whenever somebody who's alt right
friendly goes out on a limb and says something really
stupid and obnoxious and mildly mildly. The considerably genocidal people
(28:27):
like us give them grief, and it's like, well, well,
let's not fight amongst ourselves. But when somebody on the
right says something we should help the Ukrainians, everybody unsheaths
their swords and goes at them, and there's none of this. Oh,
we're all on the same team here, so it's very
convenient when we're told we all have to unify and
oppose the left. So I know, I really wonder what
the conversations are inside the Heritage Foundation building today because
(28:50):
certainly feels like Roberts took their reputation into a direction
that I have a hard time believing people in that
building are really excited about.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
I mean, the argument is that you want the big
ten possible, and these people vote for you, so therefore
you shouldn't publicly go after them go after their ideas.
You should definitely go after the ideas. But National Review
has a pretty good legacy on this front, with William F.
Buckley going after the head of the John Birch Society.
I think it was in the late fifties, maybe even
early sixties, when he started claiming that President Eisenhower was
(29:20):
a communist and there were a lot of other factors
there well as well. And Buckley could have said nothing.
He didn't say nothing. He basically shuffled them off to
the side. In the end, if we want Conservatism to
get to a majority status, we can't let these people
have a pretty strong microphone in the process.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Yeah, Greg, just three closing thoughts. One, the argument is
if you don't ally with these people, you can't win.
And I very seriously doubt the political analysis that work there.
I don't think that neo Nazis are a significant portion
of the electorate and that Republicans cannot win without without
courting them, without making a winker a nod, without kind
of hinting or alluding to all that stuff.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Two.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
If let's say you somebody said, yes, the only way
you can win this election is by playing foot sea.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
With neo Nazis, well, what do you win?
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Then?
Speaker 3 (30:07):
What do you get if you have to make that
kind of a compromise with that kind of evil?
Speaker 1 (30:10):
Did you win? Is it? Like?
Speaker 3 (30:12):
What?
Speaker 1 (30:12):
At that point? What is the point? You know?
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Is it worthwhile being participating in politics when you have
to not just make peace with it with evil, you
have to basically act like.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
Evil is good.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
And here's the third thing, and this is, like, I think,
the single most tragic part of this entire controversy. This week, Greg,
I still have a whole bunch of grand Platinner jokes.
I still have questions about whether he feels confused when
he watches the sound of music and kind of relates
to Wolf the Nazi the Nazi telegram boy. Yes he's young,
he's seventeen going on eighteen. But nonetheless, you know, we
(30:43):
all have our youth ludel like, how can we whack
around Graham Platner if we're.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
Going to play, you know, foot see with these guys.
So get it together.
Speaker 4 (30:50):
Heritage Foundation auditioned by subtraction. There's a reason in that
phrase exists sometimes. So, Jim, I'm so glad it's the weekend.
Happy Halloween. See you on Monday. Monday, Greg, Jim Garretty
of National Review. I'm Greg Corumbus of Radio America. Thanks
so much for being with us today. Please subscribe to
the podcast if you don't already, tell your friends about
us as well. Love to have them listening. Thanks for
your five star ratings and your kind reviews. Please keep
(31:12):
those coming. Get us on your home devices. All you
have to say is play Three Martini Lunch podcast. Follow
us both on x He's at Jim Garritty, I'm at
Greg Corumbus and coming soon. You can follow us on
Facebook and Instagram. How about that. Have a great weekend.
Join us on Monday for the next three Martini Lunch
Welcome to the Three Martini Lunch.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Grab A Stoll next to Greg Corumbus of Radio America
and Jim Garrity of National Review.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Free Martini's coming up.
Speaker 4 (00:13):
Hey, so glad you're with us for the Friday edition
of the three mar teeny Lunch. It's been a long
week and it's going to be a long day today
because we've got a lot to talk about. We're talking
about the Heritage Foundation and their president, Kevin Roberts and
what he had to say about Tucker Carlson. There's a
lot to get to there, the whole debate over Israel,
who Tucker Carlson is platforming, and so forth, a lot
(00:35):
of different dimensions to that. Also, late last night, President
Trump saying it's time for the GOP to nuke the
Senate filibuster, not only to get the government back open,
but to get a whole lot of other things going,
including nominations that Democrats have been stalling. But we begin
with comments the President said, actually a little bit earlier
(00:55):
in the week after his meeting or in conjunction with
his meeting with Hijinping in South Korea, and that is
that the President this according to NPR, said that the
US would begin testing nuclear weapons again for the first
time in decades, as quotas we've halted many years ago,
but with others doing testing, I think it's appropriate to
do so, the President told reporters aboard Air Force One.
(01:19):
And so the article goes on to point out that
the US has not tested a nuclear weapons since nineteen
ninety two. There are treaties about these things, whether it's underground,
above ground, outer space, underwater, you're not supposed to be
doing it. There's a question though, of whether other countries
are doing it somehow secretly, China in particular, but possibly
others as well. Jim My issue here, less than geopolitical strategizing,
(01:44):
is our nuclear arsenal's really old. I think most of
it's from the seventies or earlier, and it might be
good to figure out if it works. But I know
there's a lot of other complications if we were to
go down this road. So what do you think?
Speaker 3 (01:57):
Yeah, So, first of all, it seems like a you're coincidence.
This is bubbling up and on the President's attention right
around the time. Is this new movie that's come out,
House of Dynamite. I haven't seen it. Some people I do.
Some people love it, some people don't. Basically, it goes
through what would happen if someone launched a submarine of
(02:17):
unknown country origin launched a nuclear missile at Chicago, and
what happens in that time period. Basically a very skeptical
look at our ability to intercept incoming nuclear weapons. I
know some people have argued that they are missile defense
has a better shot than the movie portrays have. Other
people arguing, look, you never have one hundred percent guarantee.
It's trying to hit a bullet with a bullet, all
(02:37):
that kind of stuff. But I just think it's interesting
that this is front and center in people's minds when
most people don't think about nuclear weapons because they're a
very unpleasant thing to think about. I had the reaction
that I suspect a lot of people had, But I
feel like, why we haven't done this in decades? Why
do we feel the need to do this? Is this Trump?
And then you read into it and you know, unsurprisingly
the president has a point to this. You mentioned the
(02:59):
possibility that Russia has been violating this rough the belief
that China has been violating this. Now this is not
above ground nuclear testing. You know, I know you feel.
I know there are people who have doubts about the
US intelligence community, but they tend to notice when a
nuclear bomb goes off that that's really kind of high hard. Oh,
that was a door slamming, relaxed, it was nothing to
worry about. No, no, And even underground nuclear testing shows
(03:24):
up as a large unexpected earthquake, and that would be
hard to hide. But what there is is one we've
seen a lot of movement and activity at nuclear test
sites of Russia and China, and there's been a question
about whether you're going through simulations and whether there's something
called a zero yield threshold. It's a point of contention
between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. By the way, if you
(03:44):
really want to get into the weeds of this, the
Center of Strategic and National Studies just came out with
a new report yesterday, well timed. Can the US immediately
return to nuclear testing? By the way, The answer for
that one is it really depends on how you're defining testing.
But the answer is no, It's very difficult to do
this stuff immediately. That said, if our i'll say adversaries,
I think you could probably characterize Russia and China's enemies.
(04:05):
But some people get you know, if we don't want
them to do this, then I think at minimum it
is a good idea for the president to say, if
you guys don't knock it off, then we're going to
do the exact same thing. This is, you know, a
form of deterrence, I would argue, And if they are
doing these sorts of things, then yes, I think we
have no choice but to make sure that our nuclear
weapons still function. Their variety of tests the can do.
(04:27):
You don't have to do above ground nuclear testing. I
think everybody left, right and center would say, we don't
like that radiation goes up in the air and then
it eventually comes down somewhere else. And you know, we
used to do this back in the fifties, and somebody
once actually did where they used to shoot westerns out
out in the Great Midwest. Apparently it wasn't terribly far
from where the fallout generally came. And you look at
(04:48):
the number of Hollywood stars, including John Wayne who eventually
died of cancer. A lot of people think that there's
some sort of connection there. Just kind of putting that
out there, like generally we don't want nuclear bombs going off,
even if it's on remote at in the Pacific, even
if you know you can do underground testing that keeps
the radiation inside and FID that's a little bit better,
a little bit easier. Again, would we rather not have
to do this?
Speaker 1 (05:09):
Correct?
Speaker 3 (05:09):
But I think also the fact that we can't live
in a world in which Russia and China see these
rules is optional, and we honor our rules, and so
I have no problem. I if nothing else, I have
no problem with Trump's saying we're going to do this
if you guys, don't you know, cease operations that you're
doing that violate our Nuclear test Ban treaties, which was
signed in seventy four. By the way, so again I'm
(05:31):
sorry the nineteen ninety seven CTBT band all nuclear testing.
So you know, a band is a band. If you
guys an't going to honor it, we're not going to
honor it. Balls in your court, Moscow and Beijing.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
No kidding.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Now, Officially, Jim, officially a nuke has not gone off
in the United States since nineteen ninety two, but you
and I both know that there was one in the
Mojave Desert in two thousand and two, and then also
a suitcase nuke that went off I believe in Valencia
just a few years later, and CTU wasn't quite able
to stopped them from going off, but at least the
first one didn't go off in downtown Los Angeles. That
(06:03):
was a huge win for the CAP.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
We could say that, but I would point out ever
since then, I have liked the fact that it's the
middle of the night. I go into the kitchen, I
can see the Valencia orange is glowing kind of to
let me know where everything is.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
I don't trip over my own feet. So there's that
and the Majave.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
You know, very few hikers have become mutants since then,
so you know, just just a couple of ninja turtles, so.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
Seems pretty safe. And the CTU agent who successfully took
it out of out of Los Angeles, I hid behind
a rock.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
He was fine.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
That's easily as safety as the desks of baby boomers
that were designed to handle all. I also remember, I
had always believed that these were nuclear weapons, but it
was only because of that heroic C Tou agent that
I learned that they were nuclear weapons. And it's that
third syllable that makes them particularly dangerous.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
That is Perhaps one of the legacies of George W.
Bush is that he could not say nuclear, so much
so that his own wife at a White House correspondencetender
made fun of him for it.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
People said he was wrong, and then Jack Bauer said, now,
and then I think that settles it. That's that's the
last last word, because if you don't like it, you
argue with Jack Bauer.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
Okay, that's right, that's right, All right, Well, let's talk
about money. Hopefully your money is in good shape, but
there's always different ways you can save, and sometimes you're
spending money on stuff you don't even know you're spending
money on. And so if you ever feel like your
money just disappears every month and you've got this spreadsheet,
you've got this plan, and for some reason the savings
(07:28):
aren't showing up, well maybe it's time to let Rocket
Money help you track every dollar and uncover hidden spending
and really help you take control of your finances. Because
Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find
and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors you're spending, and helps
you lower your bills so you can actually grow your savings.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Make sure that your personal finances don't get nuked, or
that if you go on a terrible spending binge that
you can live with the fallout. Rocket Money is a
personal finance app that will help you find and cancel
your unwanted subscriptions, monitor you're spending, and help lower your
bills so that you can grow your savings. Rocket Money
shows you all your expenses in one place, including subscriptions
(08:08):
you might have forgotten about, So if you see a
subscription you don't want, Rocket Money will help you cancel
it and even try to negotiate lower bills for you.
The app automatically scans your bills for opportunities to save,
and they'll even talk to customer service so that you
don't have.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
To Rocket money a saved users more than two and
a half billion dollars, including more than eight hundred and
eighty million dollars and cancel subscriptions alone. They're ten million
members save up to seven hundred and forty dollars per
year when they use all of the app's premium features.
So cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals
faster with rocket Money. Go to rocket money dot com
slash Martini today, that's rocket Money dot com slash Martini.
(08:50):
All right, Jim, as mentioned in the open, President Trump
now back from his trip to Asia where those comments
were made about nuclear testing and so forth. But yeah,
he also says in a very long post on truth
Social last night that he got all these questions, why
is the powerful Republican party letting the Democrats shut down
the United States? Well, shut down the government anyway, And
(09:12):
then he says that the Democrats tried to with President
Barack Hussein Obama and former Majority Leader Harry Reid and
the Senate to take advantage of Republicans to nuke the filibuster.
Harry Reid, they did take it away for everything except
Supreme Court nominations. On the nomination side, they left the
legislative philibuster in place. Then Republicans nuked the philibuster for
(09:33):
Supreme Court justices, so only the legislative philibuster is still
in place. Then he says that the Democrats tried to
do it under Biden when the Democrats controlled the Senate
and they came fairly close, And he says, so why
not have Republicans do it so they can take advantage
of it, get their nominations through, get the government open,
get US attorneys confirmed and on. Here is the ABC
(09:56):
News report on Trump's tweet this morning.
Speaker 5 (10:00):
President Trump is calling on Republicans to change the rules
in the Senate to reopen the government, Trump posting overnight,
it is now time for the Republicans to play their
Trump card and go for what is called the nuclear option.
Get rid of the filibuster and get rid of it now.
The move would allow Republicans to pass a bill to
fund the government with a simple majority instead of the
sixty votes currently needed. But Senate Majority Leader John Soon
(10:22):
has warned against this move, saying it could come back
to bite Republicans whenever Democrats take power back.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Well, that's certainly the case. And if Democrats do take
power back, they probably would try to new the filibuster
like they did before. So there's a couple of different
things here, Jim. First of all, you've got that problem
looming out there in the future. But also you've had
a lot of Democrats, or at least enough to notice
on social media and beyond, some more prominent than others,
basically baiting Republicans to do this, knowing that in the
(10:51):
end they would take advantage of it down the road.
But it's also suggesting that Republicans are then responsible for
the shot if they're not doing it right now.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
The entire messaging from Chuck Schumer and a whole bunch
of Senate Democrats is basically a Jedi mind trick to
try to convince Americans there's no thing as the filibuster.
You know, republic all you need is fifty votes to pass.
And I'm kind of wondering if, like passing the big
beautiful bill through reconciliation, maybe they're kind of hoping that
that confuses people on how many votes you need to
(11:22):
pass legislation. You need fifty votes plus the vice president,
or fifty one votes or more than that. However, to
bring a bill to the floor, you need to cut
off debate, and to do that you need sixty votes.
And sometimes it's not much of an issue at all,
But the filibuster, if you know, that gives the minority
party a way to block something from coming to the floor.
(11:42):
Thirteen times over the course of the month of October,
the US Senate has tried to bring it a continuing
resolution to the floor thirteen times. It has failed. Every
single time. Republican, every Republican has voted for it. Sometimes
John Foon changes his vote so that he can bring
it back later on. Every Democrat has voted no, except
for Fetterman.
Speaker 4 (12:01):
Cortes Masto, thank you from Nevada.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
This is why Great Corumbus is the best podcast partner
in the world. And Angus King of Maine. And that's
that we've been in a logerheads for the entirety of
the month. Nobody's really budged, nobody's really moved. I can
understand the president's frustration, but I also understand why Senate
Republicans have not gotten rid of the filibuster. But this
time that they've had the majority, and the last time
(12:25):
they had the majority, and there are people who argued
about so. And I remember talking to Ted Cruz way
back in I probably was before you know, it probably
was like Trump's first the first two years of Trump's
first term, I said, you know, or actually they didn't
have a majority. But like at some point there was
this question of like, well, they're just gonna fillibuster everything.
What's the point is the day going to come? And
the thinking was, well, if we don't get rid of it,
Democrats will get rid of it when they are the majority.
(12:49):
They didn't do that, but almost all of them wanted
to do that, and they were prevented from doing that
by Joe Mansion of West Virginia and Arizona Senator to say,
look out of office, out of mind. You know, Irish
Alzheimer's you forget everything except a grudge, so you have that.
(13:09):
So the Democrats did not, But it was not because
they hesitated. They really wanted to, they just didn't have
the votes to do so. I think, you know, this
is a matter of short term thinking versus long term thinking. Yeah,
I get why you're if you're a Senate Republican right now,
you're really frustrated. But if you give up the filibuster,
it doesn't come back unduring, you know, when when you're
(13:30):
in the minority again. So this is basically feut and
but you know, while we're Democrats going to control the
Senate after the midterms, probably not, they'd have to win
four but you never know how midterms go. Usually they
go badly for the president's party. And here's the thing,
if they don't win it back in the midterms, we
don't know what this political environment in twenty twenty eight.
It's going to be like we don't know what the
political environment in twenty thirty is going to be like, Like,
(13:51):
at some point there will be a Democratic majority again,
and if you get rid of the filibuster now, then
the next time Democrats have a Senate majority, they can
do everything you did without the filibuster real easy, and
they can pass whatever bad ideas they want, and they
can ram it through and you and the minority will
have no opportunity to stop them. So you know this
keeping the filibuster now is long term thinking. It is like, look,
(14:14):
I'm you know, decline. I'm giving up a little bit
of my power to get stuff done now so that
I have the power to stop really bad stuff down
the road. And I think most of us look at
that and say, Okay. The other thing I'm going to
point out, my colleague Charlie Cook likes to really get
you know, I irked about this last time they are
when the Democrats are arguing about getting rid of the philibuster,
I said, well, we might as well do it, because
the moment Republicans are in power, they're gonna get rid
(14:37):
of the filibuster. That wasn't a crazy thing to say,
but you notice they have not and here we are,
you know, at the end of October and Republicans Senate majority,
and they've not gotten rid of it. And the other
thing Charlie remembers is that he says that everybody told
him you're going to switch your position the moment Republicans
are in the majority again, and Charlie's like, no, I
have not. I think keeping the filibuster is a good idea.
It is a good check on a runaway majority power
(15:00):
change my opinion. You haven't changed your whole bunch of people.
But you know who else hasn't changed his opinion, John Thoon.
So this idea that Republicans are the Senate Republicans with
these you know, no principal opportunists who have no standards
and will just alter their positions to give them the
most product. That is not the case. This is being
proven wrong every single day. So I think it's pretty
(15:21):
obvious keep the filibuster. Yeah, it's a pain in the neck,
but you'd rather have it than not have it.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Now. Donald Trump, when.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
He leaves office, I don't know how worried he is
going to be about this stuff. So I understand why
in the year and now he wants it, But it
is short term thinking.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
It is.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
You know, there was this wonderful experiment about how long
children could resist eating a cookie, and you know, they
were told, if you know, if you wait, we'll give
you two cookies, or you could eat this cookie now. Unsurprisingly,
the kids who had less impulse control, they tracked him
for like thirty years. The kids who had the most
impulse control, surprise, surprise, had good a lot of things.
Good things happened to him in life. Kids with less
(15:55):
impulse control, unsurprisingly, some things went wrong. Right, Impulse control
is an important thing to have, mister President, and as
a result of it, we need to not you know, like,
I know you want to get rid of the filibuster now,
but it will come back to bite you in the
in the in the end. So Senate Republicans stand strong.
I think they're actually winning the debate on the government
shutdown right now. Getting rid of the filibuster would be
(16:18):
giving the Democrats a huge win and someday down the road,
in exchange for getting rid of them. You know, it
seems like a minor headache right now.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
The Senate's supposed to be the place where bad ideas
go to die.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Let's keep it that way, you're gonna lose some good
skill to bad ideas. Kill the bad ideas for people.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
Who detected the nuclear weapon nuclear option theme today's podcast,
You get a gold Star.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
All right, let's talk about sheets. Though I don't think
there's anything nuclear but about your betting. But nonetheless, if
you want the best betting, Ball and Branch is the
way to go. I love these sheets. They are so comfortable.
They are clearly superior to other brands of sheets that
we own. They're very soft, and as you wash them
they get softer and so and softer. So Bowl and
(17:01):
Branch you really can't go wrong.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
You know, no one wants to be up all night
tossing and turning, unable to sleep because they're thinking about
nuclear war or the nuclear option. Getting rid of the filibuster.
We want you to sleep soundly. And Bowl and Branch's
signature sheets, so the perfect way to start building your
sanctuary of comfort a lot. You know in your underground
nuclear bunker. They're buttery soft Bowlin Branch sheets, or they
(17:24):
start out soft and they get softer with every wash.
They're breathable to sleep in. So you can add more
layers about making your bed feel heavy or hot, and
they're made with the highest quality one hunred percent organic cotton,
endurable designs.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
So start building your sanctuary of comfort this fall with
Bowl and Branch. For a limited time, get twenty percent
off your first set of sheets plus free shipping at
Bowlinbranch dot com. Slash three Martini. Spell all of that
out three martini. That's Bowlin Branch b O L L
A N D Branch dot com. Slash three Martini to
save twenty percent and unlock free shipping. Exclusions do apply,
(18:03):
all right, Jim, This one's got a lot of layers.
But we're gonna be talking now about the Heritage Foundation.
It's president Kevin Robertson is specifically his reaction to Tucker
Carlson and the blowback Tucker Carlson is getting for having
Nick Fwent Days on the program. Nick Fwent Days is
a raging anti semite. I don't think he would even
disagree with that particular statement. I watched one video of
(18:25):
his in the last couple of days in preparation for
this story, and it's it's it's disturbing, to say the least.
But so Tucker Carlson had Nick Fwent Day. Son didn't
really challenge fwent days on anything that he mentioned, fwent
Dace mentioning he's a fan of Stalin, not something the
Heritage Foundation is usually known for is backing Joseph Stalin.
(18:46):
But the issue at hand was how we should approach
Israel politically. Tucker Carlson, among others, has been very critical
of Israel and wanting the US to have much less
support and connection with Israel on national security affairs and
anything else. So Kevin Roberts, after the criticism of Tucker Carlson,
(19:06):
issues statement. Here is the first part of it, specifically
as it relates to Israel policy.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
I'll have more to say on this in the coming days,
but today I want to be clear about one thing.
Christians can critique the state of Israel without being anti Semitic,
and of course anti Semitism should be condemned. My loyalty
as a Christian and as an American is to christ
first and to America always. When it serves the interests
to the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies,
(19:32):
we should do so with partnerships on security, intelligence, and technology.
But when it doesn't, Conservatives should feel no obligation to
reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the
pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces
in Washington.
Speaker 4 (19:46):
Then he also got into the whole debate over Tucker.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
The Heritage Foundation didn't become the intellectual backbone of the
conservative movement by canceling our own people or policing the
consciences of Christians, and we won't start doing that now.
We will always defend truth, we will always defend America,
and we will always defend our friends against the slander
of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda. That includes
(20:10):
Tucker Carlson, who remains and as I have said before,
always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.
The venomous coalition attacking him or sowing division, their attempt
to cancel him will fail. Most importantly, the American people
expect us to be focusing on our political adversaries on
the left, not attacking our friends on the right. I
(20:32):
disagree with and even a poor things that Nick Flint
has says, but canceling him is not the answer either.
When we disagree with the person's thoughts and opinions, we
challenge those ideas and debate, and we have seen success
in this approach, as we continue to dismantle the vile
ideas of the left.
Speaker 4 (20:49):
Well, I think we should be confronting vile ideas no
matter where they're coming from. And Nick Fuentes is certainly
full of vile ideas. But the other thing there is,
of course, him suggesting that any criticism of Tuck or
Carlson must mean that the person being critical is engaging
in slander, doing the bidding of someone else's agenda.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
I hate to live down to the cliche, but Greg,
there really is a lot to unpack here. I think
if you ask Nick Fuentes, are you and anti Semite?
I think the answer he would give you is Corumbus.
What kind of name is that? That is futhy southeastern European. Look,
Nick fuent Is is notorious.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
He's you know, he's not. It's not like like, here's
the thing.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
We are used to having alt right graper weirdos say
that they love Hitler.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Say that they love Stalin.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
Right, that's now you're just like I like anybody who
pit people in concentration camps. Now now you're just general
all across the board. I like dictators, I like people.
I like history's greatest monsters and so you know, it's
a it's a free country. Nick Fuentes can say whatever
he wants. What's really intriguing is the degree to which
Kevin Roberts genuinely seems to believe everybody who is criticizing
(22:00):
Fuentes is attempting.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
To cancel him. Now, what is canceling you know? Nick
went Is? He's got a podcast.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
I have no idea if Nick fuent Is, you know,
like makes enough money from that podcast, you.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
Know, to support himself.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
But you know, like, is not having Nick fuent Is
on your podcast a form of canceling him? And what
threshold does someone have to rise to before you say, yes,
this is someone who we know we we should counter
in the public debate because, for example, this deep thinker
Nick Fuents has said that non Christians should be executed
(22:32):
after he and his ilk take power. Now I think
that's a bad I like, so, so do we need
to have the Oxford Debating Society to discuss should all
don Christians be put to death?
Speaker 1 (22:43):
Is that? Is? That?
Speaker 5 (22:44):
Is that?
Speaker 1 (22:44):
You know?
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Because because I feel pretty clear on that one, But
I also kind of feel like this is not just hmmm,
I don't think your tax rate suggestions to the right. No,
this is like a really like maniacal, genocidal thing from
some snot nosed punk. It's one part trolling, one part
in Santa you know, So I go fwents Is who
he is? Tucker Carlson. The interesting thing, like, I'm not
(23:06):
one hundred percent sure Greg that that Nick fwent Is
is the worst person Tucker Carlson has interviewed this year.
There's a lot of competition for that title, for the
historian who said World War Two was all Churchill's fault
and Hitler was. But you notice this recurring theme, but
Hitler's not such a bad guy, and oh he's misunderstood
and all that stuff. There's the Iranian president, there was
the Russian president. So then there's like, so you have
(23:27):
the fwent Is, You've got Carlson who, in the course
of his two hour and fifteen minute conversation with Fwentez,
in which there was really no pushback, Tucker Carlson said,
Christian Zionists, I dislike them more, dislike them more than
anybody really really in a world full of so many
people you could hate, you know, justifiably, Christian zion Is
(23:47):
are the ones that bother you the most, you know,
and I finished, Morty Joel. I go down the list
of not just like foreign dictators and terrorist groups and
domestic terrorist groups, everybody who laughed at Charlie Kirk's murder.
You hate Christian Zionist more than them, really, okay, you
hate them more than the Luigi Mangioni fan club, really okay,
you know. And I go down the list of all
(24:09):
the worst people, and then I get if you have
the sillier of the Kanashians, Megan Markle Red Sox fans,
sorry Red Sox fans, you know, like he's gonna you know,
of course Adam Gase right, atheists, vegetarians, crossfitters who have
to tell you that they're atheists, vegetarians, and corossfitters upon
meeting you, like you know, Kathleen Kennedy, right, you could
just get all really, I'm all, Christian Zionists are the
(24:30):
group that you can't stand the most. I'm a Christian
supporter of Israel. Well that fits into the Zionist category
and not I'll leave that up to you. But like
you know, he goes to he names some names, and
Greg the only person on his list you could remotely
consider to be a threat to the United States and
it's national security. Is John Bolton eight billion people and
this is the person. So Tuck mccarlson, you know, clearly
(24:51):
has gone off the deep end. He's going off the
deep end in these sings the praises of like every
government that'shustled to us on this planet. Loves the Qatar.
I don't know what say, I'm man, that's you know,
he loves them. Can't stand Israel, can't stand Ukraine, can't
stand all these other countries, you know, But that's Tucker.
But here's the thing Tucker interviews Nick fwent is Kevin
(25:13):
Roberts doesn't have to put out a defense of Tucker Carlson.
Clearly he wanted maybe you know, he's got a lot
of people saying, hey, did you hear this?
Speaker 1 (25:20):
In this interview?
Speaker 3 (25:21):
Tucker did what is the Heritage positions position on this?
But the first he says, you know he's putting out
on the tweet or on the post on x it says,
there there are rumors that we're going to distance ourselves
from Tucker Carlson, and Kevin Roberts chose this moment to
give Tucker Carlson the biggest bear hug possible and to say,
I am totally with you on this, which really really
(25:44):
you didn't see any And I'm glad he says that
he has some disagreements with Nick fwent is good. That's
a very low bar to clear. But I'm glad you
mentioned that. But you really treat Fuentes as a as
somebody who's worth engaging in debate, and you can make
the argument that Tucker didn't really even debate with the
very much. Now if you don't think, oh, you're like, oh,
let you know, Tucker Carlson is a very deferential interviewer. Yeah,
(26:05):
tell that to Ted Cruz. Right when when Tucker Carlson
wants to disagree with you, he will disagree with you loudly, clearly.
There will be no confusion over where he stands. There's
none of that in the interview talk with Nick foent Is,
and I just go platforming is this very big argument about,
you know, should this person have a platform? Should this
person be deep deplatform Look, you're Tucker Carlson. You can
(26:28):
interview anybody in the world, and you pick Nick Fuentes,
Like I said, he's interviewed a whole bunch of peopleho
I think are terrible human beings. You and I we
very rarely have guests on this podcast. When we do,
it's always it's almost always someone. I guess every time
it's been somebody we like a great deal, and it's
somebody would like to share their thoughts with us. We
could do adversarial interviews, but you would know they were
adversarial interviews. There are whole bunch of people on this
(26:49):
planet who we are never going to get a friendly
interview on the three Martine Lunch podcasts, starting with Adam
Case but that so I you know, and so continuing
the our podcast, we've discussed nuclear weapons, the nuclear option,
and I guess this is like Kevin Roberts making the
Heritage Foundation radioactive, because there are a whole bunch of
(27:10):
traditional conservatives who are like, well, I've loved this place.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
It's Reagan.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
I was just an event less than a year ago
at this place. I think highly of their Does this
guy really speak on behalf of the organization? Is this
really where the Heritage Foundation wants to plant its flag?
Speaker 1 (27:23):
It's very strange.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
And by the way, just you know, I happened to
notice this was on Kevin Roberts' X account. As of
this morning, it was not on the X account of
the Heritage Foundation itself, it was not on the Heritage
Foundation homepage, and it was not on the Heritage Foundation
YouTube page. Now, maybe they don't put everything Kevin Roberts
says on these things all the time, but it certainly
(27:44):
feels like Kevin Roberts wants the world to know that
he loves Tucker Carlson and doesn't feel that Tucker Carlson
did anything particularly wrong in this case. And I just
noticed these official Heritage accounts are not quite chopping at
the bit to put out that same message there. So
maybe there's more dissension in the ranks over at the
Heritage Foundation than you think. But I don't like, why
(28:05):
are we defending these guys and then this whole well,
we don't attack people on the right. Does Ben Shapiro
get that treatment, Does Jaye Nordlinger get it? You know, dude,
pro Ukraine Republicans get that. I don't feel like I
see that same attitude. So whenever somebody who's alt right
friendly goes out on a limb and says something really
stupid and obnoxious and mildly mildly. The considerably genocidal people
(28:27):
like us give them grief, and it's like, well, well,
let's not fight amongst ourselves. But when somebody on the
right says something we should help the Ukrainians, everybody unsheaths
their swords and goes at them, and there's none of this. Oh,
we're all on the same team here, so it's very
convenient when we're told we all have to unify and
oppose the left. So I know, I really wonder what
the conversations are inside the Heritage Foundation building today because
(28:50):
certainly feels like Roberts took their reputation into a direction
that I have a hard time believing people in that
building are really excited about.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
I mean, the argument is that you want the big
ten possible, and these people vote for you, so therefore
you shouldn't publicly go after them go after their ideas.
You should definitely go after the ideas. But National Review
has a pretty good legacy on this front, with William F.
Buckley going after the head of the John Birch Society.
I think it was in the late fifties, maybe even
early sixties, when he started claiming that President Eisenhower was
(29:20):
a communist and there were a lot of other factors
there well as well. And Buckley could have said nothing.
He didn't say nothing. He basically shuffled them off to
the side. In the end, if we want Conservatism to
get to a majority status, we can't let these people
have a pretty strong microphone in the process.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Yeah, Greg, just three closing thoughts. One, the argument is
if you don't ally with these people, you can't win.
And I very seriously doubt the political analysis that work there.
I don't think that neo Nazis are a significant portion
of the electorate and that Republicans cannot win without without
courting them, without making a winker a nod, without kind
of hinting or alluding to all that stuff.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Two.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
If let's say you somebody said, yes, the only way
you can win this election is by playing foot sea.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
With neo Nazis, well, what do you win?
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Then?
Speaker 3 (30:07):
What do you get if you have to make that
kind of a compromise with that kind of evil?
Speaker 1 (30:10):
Did you win? Is it? Like?
Speaker 3 (30:12):
What?
Speaker 1 (30:12):
At that point? What is the point? You know?
Speaker 3 (30:14):
Is it worthwhile being participating in politics when you have
to not just make peace with it with evil, you
have to basically act like.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
Evil is good.
Speaker 3 (30:22):
And here's the third thing, and this is, like, I think,
the single most tragic part of this entire controversy. This week, Greg,
I still have a whole bunch of grand Platinner jokes.
I still have questions about whether he feels confused when
he watches the sound of music and kind of relates
to Wolf the Nazi the Nazi telegram boy. Yes he's young,
he's seventeen going on eighteen. But nonetheless, you know, we
(30:43):
all have our youth ludel like, how can we whack
around Graham Platner if we're.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
Going to play, you know, foot see with these guys.
So get it together.
Speaker 4 (30:50):
Heritage Foundation auditioned by subtraction. There's a reason in that
phrase exists sometimes. So, Jim, I'm so glad it's the weekend.
Happy Halloween. See you on Monday. Monday, Greg, Jim Garretty
of National Review. I'm Greg Corumbus of Radio America. Thanks
so much for being with us today. Please subscribe to
the podcast if you don't already, tell your friends about
us as well. Love to have them listening. Thanks for
your five star ratings and your kind reviews. Please keep
(31:12):
those coming. Get us on your home devices. All you
have to say is play Three Martini Lunch podcast. Follow
us both on x He's at Jim Garritty, I'm at
Greg Corumbus and coming soon. You can follow us on
Facebook and Instagram. How about that. Have a great weekend.
Join us on Monday for the next three Martini Lunch
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.