Well, whiskey coming thing, my pain the moneys all right, oh whiskey, don't you let me? From Powerline blog dot com and produced by Ricochet dot Com, this is the three Whiskey Happy Hour with your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You and power Lines International Woman of Mystery Lucretia. Thank gotta giving let that whiskey bloon when you're feel in low down and low. Hello everybody, and welcome to the three Whiskey Happy Hour. We're so excited to be
here with you tonight. You have no idea. In fact, we're gonna we're so excited. We're gonna start by telling John that as good as he thought McDonald's could be, it's going to get better. They are going to make their burgers juicier, ruined. Yes, they're going They're not going to sacrifice let's see. Safety. That's an important one, I guess, but also speed because five Guys has its own entirely new method for cooking their burgers
and making them juicy and exciting and quality and still doing it quickly. So McDonald's is going to follow suit, and they are going to instead of cooking eight patties at one time on their auto cooker thinger, they're going to cook six and somehow this is going to make burgers more juicy. You know, we have Culver's here, John, Sometimes someday you have to come visit me. Culvers. It's a Midwest company. It's a Midwest company. There they
have. They're famous for three things. One is there they're butter burgers. So they cook one hundred percent real beef on a grill in butter. Okay, it's not cheating, it's delicious. It's anything of butter, and it's going to be yes, exactly, why doesn't everybody instead of cooking it in some sort of nasty fake uh polly whatever oil No butter burgers. Then the second thing is they make it's soft or ice cream, but it's not.
It's custard. It's a real custard, real custard, frozen custard. It's just the problem is the reason I can't go there is I don't want to go there unless I'm gonna get custard, and you know that's not really good for the waistline. And then the third thing is fried cheese curds. Well, you know, Lucretia, having seen you eat your way through Milan. I'm surprised to hear that you worry about the fat. Not only that, but that I don't weigh four hundred pounds. Yeah, no, no,
she's a freak of nature. John, I don't get it. I think that the effort to improve McDonald's is what's great about America. We're never satisfied when I'm just disappointed in their their options. They're gonna rehydrate their onions sooner. They're going to put their pickles in there. Let us into smaller containers so they're fresher when they're put on the burgers. They're gonna go ahead.
I actually I went to McDonald's for lunch today and missed my train because I thought that the McDonald's and Union station to get a McRib because they haven't seen one in California. So I saw to Washington got in line to get one. Of course, it takes so long to make the perfection as the McRib that I actually missed my train. I had to take this the next one later. Later, I will send you a photo of twenty minutes. They
had another game. It was worth it. What I want to know is how is it that five guys has become the standard of excellence in the Hamburger world. And why aren't they being accused like Chick fil A? I mean, there aren't they sexist? It's five guys. It's not five people. It's not five guys in gals, it's five guys. How is there no campaign against the obvious sexism of five guys going on? All the truth?
John, people understand guys are better at this than girls are. Girls are better at a lot of baking and cooking, but not when it comes to cooking burgers. Guys know what they're doing. I can be sexist if I want to about it. Yeah, absolutely, No listeners are tuned in hoping, hoping for whiskey reviews, and serious news are getting you know burgers. I do have to say, it is a strange news today, you know.
I thought when they picked up the Wall Street Journal this morning, I thought that the feel good headline of the day was the first one Israel plans to kill hamas leaders around the world after war. But Dan, you scroll down on the page and there was no more dry burgers. McDonald's overhauls its biggest item. I thought, Man, it's a two per day for good news indlines. We'll see how that all works out. You have to let us know. I think I told you John that I don't actually go to
McDonald's very often. Nothing against it. I'm just not a fast food eater, Okay. But I stopped on the way to from my house to Phoenix. Couple three hour drivers so one time, and I hadn't eaten all day, and I stopped and I got a double quarter pounder with cheese, and it was the best hamburger I've ever had in my life. And it's never been duplicated, but it was wonderful that time. Yeah, no, I've actually started. I just skipped the fries. But do we get the double
quarter pound of cheese a lot these days? Well you should know. Let's see a little update and gossip for you. But you, Lucretia, get credit for me having a conversation this week with Christopher Scalia, the late Chief Justices Son. There's about the tweet you forwarded to me. I should mention to you and the listeners that you know hear me our Friday night. I'm back in California, Johnson, Philadelphia. You're at your undisclosed location in Arizona.
Last night, John and I were dining together in Georgetown, you know, one of those different hata. Will you guys go places without me? We were fulfilling our best right wing conspiracy obligations, right plotting and scheming for organizations which will be unnamed and never known, never know. I hope you did good work, though, promise you did. Oh we did. But uh, it was fun because I don't I don't know if you saw this, John, and I think you don't look on Twitter, but there's this
wonderful Twitter exchange. In other day there's left wing alone named Eric Segal, and he had this tweet and said, to believe originalism is a good thing, you must think these people are wrong. Irwin Chemerinsky, Adrian vermu Lead, Richard Fallon, Dick Posner, Eric Posner, Pam Carter, and he goes on and mentioned an under a bunch of names. So Christopher Scalia tweeted back, your terms are acceptable, and the seagull guy who's so utterly humorous,
just went off on a rant and he just disgraced himself. And so uh, I brought it up with Christmas. We were chatting at AEI and had a good long conversation with him about it. That was great fun did you was a big man that who that was that? I know his brother? I say, well, I didn't want to one of the brothers because there's like nine of them. Yeah, there's a bunch of them, one of them stationed here. That's how Chris. Chris is a wonderful guy.
I just for people who don't know him. He is not a lawyer. He is an English who was an English professor and then came over to run academic programs at AI and now is a full time scholar. But he is an expert a Shakespeare and is from that perspective a big believer in originalism. Yeah, oh of course. Occasional listener of this show, so be careful about your school. A remark on the creation, I say, nice thing that I'm actually what I want to ask really quickly. This is so off
what we said we were going to talk about. But I had the occasion, as deaned, to have to look up and find Shakespeare's scholars to be on a tenure review committee across the country. But the particular professor who was up for tenure was a Shakespeare scholar with in the modern technological world, in other words, technology and Shakespeare. I don't even know what the hell that
means. It's so stupid. But anyway, that but the point is that I would say that ninety nine percent of the Shakespeare scholars that I found were pathetic and awful, and I feel sorry for him to have to be in that field because originalism has nothing to do with the way most modern English researchers scare quotes approach Shakespeare. It's all, of course critical race theory, and you know Shakespeare's I can't even say it. This is a family show.
I'll I'll just leave it at that. But tell him if you see him that I'm very proud of him for his originalist approach to Shakespeare. Yeah. Oh, I don't know if some actually applies originalism to Shakespeare. But he as a literary you know, a person who writes about literature and meaning of words. He thinks originalism is the proper way to interpret the Constitution. Oh I see, Yeah, yeah, I would imagine. And there's crossover, John, I would imagine, there really is. There's so much to be
learned from an originalist approach to Shakespeare. Believe it or not. I have some no expertise, but at least some times spent studying that with some really smart people. And yes, you can learn a lot from studying Shakespeare from an originalist point of view, the meaning of words and how they're were together and so on. Well, I wasn't going to do this, but it's worth an under thirty seconds at least. Yeah, I have soh my goodness,
I provoked. I crossed a big fight once ten years ago at the University of Colorado by talking about how things dropping shakeheay, showing up, by showing up right, but also by pointing out all the English departments that were dropping Shakespeare as requirement, and I think weren't doing that. They were reading it in these tandentiest modernist ways, you know, Shakespeare and feminist theory and this queer theory in Shakespeare and all that kind of backward. And I've read
a few of these articles and I posted a couple of excerpts. I'm just awful, turgid, you know, jargon laden pro and then I dropped in and here's where Lucretia has the experience in this too. So you know, it's an interesting thing if you go to political science departments around the country where there's some conservatives, I don't mean Hellsdale I mean Boston College, Virginia,
Notre Dame, University of Dallas. I ticked off several Claremont. You will find in the political science department usually a class on Shakespeare and politics, and the classes are always hugely popular. And what does it say that political scientists of a certain bent find Shakespeare relevant for understanding political life at any time in all time? And all you people in English can do is try and overlay the latest fad on him and write incoherently about him. And boy, people
don't like to hear that, you know. Actually I love the Shakespeare's politics classes, right, I think Shakespeare in the Law is a popular class. And actually lawyers in a lot of cities what they like to do in these different societies is reenact to the trials from Sakespeare. Wow, there did that. But I did actually have a community M and R. I guess, I don't know what you call it, some sort of community thing with a judge on Shakespeare's law, and we looked up measure for measure and the Merchant
of Venice. It was fun. We go, yeah, yeah, A lot to be said about that that we won't say tonight because we have so much to cover. We made a promise that we're probably not keeping to our loyal listeners, that we would re enact the cage match from last week between John and me. We might get to one aspect of the cage match. I'm hoping, maybe the whole question about Ukraine and realism versus Neo Khans and et cetera. We'll see, we'll see how it goes, and next week
we'll take up January sixth. I got a lot of comments, and so did you, John. Quite frankly, people took sides, which is always fun between you and me, and so we owe them that. But whether we'll get to it with all the news we have this week to I'm hoping to cure you didn't. I'm sorry, I rapt. I'm hoping you didn't see the commenter on Ricochet who said why is Lucretia repeating Russian propaganda? And I thought, oh, dude, I didn't see that because I hadn't gotten
back to it. Yeah, but on Powerline I got called a pro putin and she accused me of oh yeah, because I called the Ukrainians Nazis, I was pro putin. And so anyway, okay, let's hold it off till later we got that be Okay, you brought it up, not me. I know, I know I'm bad. I don't know exactly the order the best order for this, Maybe John, we start with sandradale'connor, because Steve says he has a lot to say about Sandradal O'Connor. I'm just going
to say this and then I'm going to be quiet about it. I told Steve I don't really care about Sandradale O'Connor. She was kind of a mediocre at best jurist. There were lots and lots and lots and lots of mediocre jurists responsible for a lot of stupid opinions on the Supreme Court over the last two hundred x number of years. Why is she famous because she was the first woman on the Supreme Court? How sexist and stupid can you be?
Who cares that she was a woman. I just went, yeah, well, I want to bait Lucretia and just say that our great teacher that we revered, Leondard Levy, really liked Sandrade O'Connor liked her. Yeah. It was a liberal. I love him, but he was a literal I know, I know, but I couldn't resist saying that, I mean, yeah,
of course you probably love her too moderate that you are. Steve actually said he should moderate the cage match because he was the only person in the middle who on earth would brag about being in the middle on important political questions except Steve, I had to get there. I guess that means I'm embarrassing. What's the old statement about who's in the only middle? Things in the middle of the road or did did armadillos dead rabbits? I guess I'm an
Armadillo, not a Ryan, better than being a Riyals. Well, look, I mean, first, we're talking about for a bit, because I think there are some important lessons here. But also John, I think you know you met her Simon, you know, dealt with her a little bit during year. I mean Arizona, she used to come here, right Well anyway, well, all right, what to say? I think, first of all, she's an object lesson in the old fashion problem of people who
go NATed when they go to Washington. You know, they grow in office, grow in office. Is that media euphemism for moved to the left? Because I think that, you know, Reagan said in his diary during the controversy over appointment. I should back up. By the way, Reagan promised to appoint him women. Okay, maybe a foolish promise, but he was. You know's a campaign a week with women, and yeah, how much
as much fun of him as they did Biden. By the way, Yeah well, okay, some people did criticize it, and George will did for example, saying, why aren't we just getting it over with an appointing? Bork and do stop. One of the problems in nineteen eighty one is that there were very few women with significant judicial experience who were Republicans. I mean you could probably find count them on the fingers of one hand and have a couple left over. And I was pretty young. Yeah, well, I
don't know. I didn't see that coming. I should have. And you know, Goldwater liked her, and of course, you know, Goldwater was starting his drift and the left on social issues around that time. But Reagan, you know, got a lot of flak and he wrote in his diary and called a lot of evangelical leaders and he said, look, I've talked to her. She assures me that abortion is an area entirely legitimate for legislative control intervention, and by the way. The first case upon abortion on the
Court when she was on it was nineteen eighty four. It was Akron versus City of Columbus or something like that, the six or three votes striking down an attempt to regulate late term abortions, you know, case she voted with Rehnquist and Byron White, who were the two no votes in ROW against striking it down. In other words, her first ruling was on the pro life side. So you know, you go fast forward. Sorry, sorry,
I have to interrupt on that. You know what, if the best you can do is stand on the principle of late term abortions, that does not make you pro life, Steve, I'm sorry, No, wait a minute, this look there's strategy. Wait a minute, well, yes, because Eric Savage pross practice. However, in the effort to bring a line of cases to finally unravel ROW, the pro life movements legal strate. Just our friend Hadley arcis, let's start with late term abortions. That's the hardest thing
to defend, and the court botched it in nineteen eighty four. But O'Connor is on the right side of that at the very least, and it's later
she becomes completely fully pro choice. She was also the two cases that have always baffled me and John, you may or may not want to sort us out on this is her two major positions on property rights cases, the Midkiff versus Wahi Housing Authority in nineteen eighty four and then her descent in Keiloh and what two thousand and five right, Well, she I bet they they're not
exactly the same cases, but there's some parallels between them. In Hawaii, the housing authority Hawaii is this weird land tenure system unlike any other state. Most of the private land was owned by a tiny handful of landowners that went back to colonial days, I guess, and people who owned homes actually had
them on ninety nine year leases. And the initial argument was we need to exercise them a domain to take their property and then sell it to the homeowners at a reasonable price, so they essentially a feat simple ownership like the rest of us do in America. And she wrote the opinion upholding that there were other mischief involved that wanted to do affordable housing. There's a lot of social
engineering involved. But the point is she wrote the opinion in that case upholding the exercise of domain to transfer property from one private owner to a set of another private owners, which I think is completely illegitimate in the Fifth Amendments taking claws. I think our pale Richard Epstein agrees with that. That was certainly said. Seventeen ninety eight case that called the versus Bull lays that out.
And then Keilow, which involved the similar principle at work transferring private property from one private owner to in this case of big corporation, violated the same principle. And that case, again, that was an Anthony Kennedy special, as I recall, he voted with the majority of liberals, so five four. But O'Connor wrote a fabulous descent. I think this was all wrong. And
on the surface, John, it looks to me like contradictory opinions. I can make out a consistency of why she got there, why she ended up the way she did on those two cases that look contradictory, except it's actually a bad lesson out of it, which is she's for the little guy, oh the big guy, And in Midkiff, you're taking property from the big guy and giving the little guy, And in Keiloh, you were taking property from the little guy and giving the big guy, and I think that explains
her difference in those two cases. And I think that's a terrible jurisprudential principle. And then that's we haven't even got to grut her yet. But I'll just say that, Oh, look before John, because I want to let hear John's you know, intelligent commentary about that woos to what I'm about to say, which is, oh okay, about you were attacking me. I never thought I thought I would be sort of the robin Hood kind of take
from the rich, give to the poor until today. And so you know, the whole idea that actually taking the side of the poor and the little guy against the big guy may actually be a principle that needs to be embraced this way. So all I'm gonna say, I'm going to defer to John now. So I think these two statements are consistent, are both true.
We might think they're inconsistent. One is I think when she was on the court, playing this role of the fifth vote and doing things like that Stein's been criticizing her for, like ultimately upholding the right to abortion in Casey or upholding affirmative action in Right Gruder, she was I don't know what Lynda's going to say about this. I think she was the most powerful woman in American
politics. Her vote set the nation policy on the most controversial She also issued a lot of important decisions on religion, right, establishment clause and religion that I think that was true. Who else in that time period, right from the late eighties through to the early two thousands was as important a woman important a woman, right, unless you're saying something about Kennedy. I know that's what I'm saying. But she was I think, Okay. And then at
the same I don't disagree with that. I told you I didn't, John, But and remember what the second thing you said was as a jurist, she was, Yes, this is the thing. The second thing is that her power sprung from the fact that she had no judicial philosophy or ideology. She was always the fifth vote because she always wanted to be in the middle. She was a politician who never wanted to finally decide things. And so I think she was really moved to in her voting based on the way the
facts came to her. As Steve says in Kilo, the house that's condemned by the City of New London to give to urban redevelopment is a little old grandma who's been living in that house for a long time and doesn't want to move. Whereas in Hawaii it's right as you said, rich landowners, and the taking is for to engage in social redistribution, which she sympathized with in Hawaii. But so I think that her she had no philosophy, said she
would try to decide everything on the facts and circumstances. She was a classic like common law lawyer. She would have been a much better state judge state state judge. She was a state judging authorized to make policy under their constitutions. But because she had no philosophy, like a Scullia or a Thomas, for example, you knew how they were going to vote basically in most cases because of their flow. She was always in play. That indeterminacy is what
was the root of her power. She was always the vote that could be won by either side if they appealed to her in the right way. So that is why I was curious what Lucucia was going to say. I thought you might agree there, because her power came from a lack of principle. This is very strange combination, and I think Kennedy was like that too. Kennedy kind of took that and it was like that. But power came from
a lack of principle. And because what I said was she had opportunities to write opinions in some of those cases that I think were handed to her because she was a woman. Why give her that god awful casey, the you know, the abortion case casey, she sees it. She didn't get it, she didn't receive it. She sees that with Kennedy and suitor and she the opinion. No. No, she because a politician, and her wanted to have control in a way I think some judges do, some judges don't.
But the politician in her liked being in the middle and start definitively controlling certain issues. Well, you know what a terrible legacy from that point of view, right, I mean, well, you know that's fine. She was a politician, you know she actually she was appointed to the Arizona Senate way back when supposedly she couldn't get a job as with any law firm when she graduated from law school. She got one offer as a legal secretary.
Right, by the way, my first job out in college was as a legal secretary just so you know, well, wait a minute, find me. But anyway, she went to Stanford Law School in the same class with William Rehnquist and my late father in law. Totally, but here's the point. So, so, okay, trailblazer whatever. I hate that stuff. But but here's so so she gets opportunities. But back to your politician's comment,
John, I think it's right on. It's absolutely right on. Because she was appointed to the Arizona Senate and within sixty years rose to be the majority leader in the Senate. She had to have some pretty significant political skills to do that, I would think, you know, and yeah, normally I think what you said is absolutely right. That's great when you want a
politician. That's not what you want on the Supreme Court. And between her and Kennedy, there's just so much bad jurisprudence during that period that had so much that damaged the country. You're right about it being powerful. I don't dispute that, but so much damage was done. Think if she hadn't decided grutterer with that ridiculously stupid, unprincipled Yeah, you know, well it's okay
for now, But I hope it's come on in twenty five years. You know, you're saying that the most powerful woman in America, and you were saying, oh my god, yeah right. But I was just going to offer the comment that the Grutter case, I think you know this John was brought by our friend Michael Grieve when he ran in the Center for Individual Rights.
And after they lost that case, I remember him saying, in his usual very splendidly snarky way, he says, God help us when the constitution of the country depends upon the opinion of some befuddled grandmother was really cranky about it, So I'm sorry. Another thing is this is not a partisan thing or a jurisprudential thing, because she also issued decisions which are very good concern for conservatives. I think she was pretty much responsible for the revival of federalism
at the Supreme Court. I mean, she really was the one who pushed and pushed and pushed to give states more of a role in the constitutional system. She did not. This is the other weird thing about Grudery. She voted the wrong way in Cruder, but she also wrote this case Crocin that knocked out affirmative a ration base affirm of action in most other government programs contracting, government hiring. Even though this ignored by the garment, it's an unconstitutional
because of a con So this is I agree with all the criticisms. I just want to make sure the listeners know it's not because we happen to agree with her end result some all the time or not. It's a way she got there, had no principle to it. It always makes me happy that the first woman appointed was actually appointed by Ronald Reagan. That that's true. I mean, I guess, I guess sure women were discriminated against. Okay, but even back then, you couldn't afford to if a woman was smart,
if she was capable, people couldn't afford to ignore them. That's always been the case. You know, look at your mom. Look at your mom, John, I know we don't want you can tell her what a fan of him. I mean, she's like me. She doesn't glorify being the first woman doctor this or first woman that this other interesting thing. Look at the difference between the way she's treated and the way Ruth Bader Ginsburg is, Sir glory. Yeah, going to be my next point, Yeah,
because I think some of it. You're right in this sense. Also, though, is that the sort of feminists did not really embrace O'Connor. They didn't give her a lot of credit for being the first woman. And look at all for the test, Yeah, look at all the you know, the love they show Ruth Bader Ginsburg because she's really, you know, in their mind, the kind of trailblazer. I think it's one of the one
other thing to say about her. A plus a bit of trivia. You John, you man know the answer this at Lucretia, You don't do you know who was the Justice Department lawyer who sort of dreaded, dredged her up, that's too, sort of found her and vented her and promoted her for the appointment. It was a guy named Ken Starr a lot. Yeah. Well, my understanding is that the idea came from red Quest actually, because
as you said, yes, school's right and re Quist. We forget before school how big a deal Redquist was in the Conservative and he came out and I tell one charming story about that shows Justice O'Connor's great political skills that come from my personal interaction with her. Sure, so I don't think it's ever been reported this story. I mean I've told it. I don't think I've told it in public. But so I clerked for Justice Thomas in the early
nineties. And one thing about Justice Thomas is that he gets a lot of visitors, and I'm sure other justices don't get So the year I was clerking was around Christmas time, Charles Barkley came to see Justice Thomas. Now I'm from Philadelphia, so when I saw that on sketchs like, Justice, just please let me greet him and take him on a tour of the court.
You've got to. I mean, this is the most important thing other than like a Philadelphia Eagles or somebody coming or you know, a Philadelphia come on, come on. So Justice is like, okay, you can. So at this time, Barkley had left the seventies Xers and was playing for the Phoenix Suns of Arizona. Right eventually got them to the finals, I think, but they lost. And so even though it was my job to greet
Charles Barkley, he doesn't. He's not where he supposed to be at the nine am where I'm supposed to meet him at the court and take him up to see Justice Thomas. Looking all over. I'm looking all over for him. Somehow, it's not hard to miss, right, that's true the story.
Somehow Justice O'Connor had heard he was coming, I don't know how she felt, and intercepted him and dragged him to her chambers to take a picture, which in the very next day showed up on the front page of the Arizona Republic of Phoenix's number one basketball politician with Pultic with no matter just on his you know, six foot nine frame or whatever, six foot seven. I think he is putting the star on top of her Christmas tree in her ey. I think when I saw it, like, damn that woman,
it was a great he is a great politician. Well, I think I got just to finish the story. I got to take Charles Barkley on a tour of the Supreme Court. And there's a basketball court above the courtroom, which is called the highest court in the land. And so, being you know, twenty five years old or whatever I was, and Charles Barkley being a notoriously bad shooter, I challenged him to a game of horse. Oh
my god, I did, of course I did. And uh, well, let's just say he didn't get a single letter, because what I didn't realize is, yes, he's a bad shooter in the NBA, but when there's no one defending you, an NBA player can hit from everywhere without even looking. He made the most unbelievash like the ones where you bounce it and it goes in the net and over the court and no looking. I mean, did you make any I don't think I ever got one. I don't.
I think he just won the whole like immediately, like that, in five minutes. It was amazing. He was hitting shots from half quarter. Yeah, and then here's one more story about Charles Barkley. Then I'll stop before I get sued for defamation. So he asked me, could you explain the death penalty to me? So I said, okay. So there's a stupid complicated system for that. First you have to find they committed a capital
murder, which is only certain kinds of murder. And then there's a second trial about whether to give a death penalty or lifeline lifelong uh, you know, life without parole. And he goes, no, no, some not, That's not what I'm interested. I don't understand why we don't use a death penalty much more often. I said, I said, I said, sir, Charles, you should run for governor of Alabama, which is what he was thinking about at the time. I believe, Well, I think
that's my brush with O'Connor and Charles Barkley. Yeah. Yeah, I think two things say about her, one political and one also cultural. You know, she did she was a loyal Republican. And here's why that's important. You know, David Souter, appointed by George H. W. Bush in one of his biggest blunders, he resigned a stepped down from the court went under Obama, so that Obama got tough appoint his replacement, and it was either Kagan or so to my or O'Connor waited for the Republican movements did the
same thing. Stephen did the same thing, right, and whereas O'Connor waited. And I've heard a couple of stories about this. I'd heard she wanted to get off the court in the late nineties because he was getting older, husband was was ill, but didn't want Clinton to replace her. And then you know when the two thousand elections turned out to be such a mess, And the story is that Robert Strauss still then well respected the new the Bush
family very well. Went to George W. Bush and said, look, you know, because of this mess, you don't want any Supreme Court appointments in your first term. If you're elected, fine, but you know, and the story I've heard secondhand a couple of times is that, you know, after the election of Justice O'Connor was saying to people, Dang, I guess I got to stick around another four years till I can get off the court, and which in two thousand and five, right, and you know
that that's uh, that's that's not unimportant. He'll put it that way. Well about it, you know. Oh, can I say one thing about that precious point about how history might have been different is the kind of core we have now could be completely different too because of that. Remember when O'Connor retired, Bush appointed John Roberts, and I think John Roberts would have been
a much better Associate Justice. It's been his chief Justice. But because O'Connor waited so long to retire, Renquist died the same year and then Roberts was just elevated to chief nomine function replaced. So this is what happened. So after Roberts was okay, yeah, and then then Alito was put into the O'Connor. I think how different things could have been if John Roberts had just taken O'Connor's position and could just vote the way he thinks it should really come
out based on the merits, and someone else has made chief justice. Well, that's an interesting in point. I think that's probably right. And then there is I don't know if you know this story, Johnny. It might have been a little before your time, but I think it was after the
eighty four or eighty five Super Bowl with the Redskins won. Yes, John, believe or not, the Redskins used to win super Bowls, and O'Connor was seated next to the running back John Riggans at the White House Correspondence dinner and it became a big story because somehow he said he burns out to her, Oh, loosen up, Sandy Baby, which yeah, that's a famous story. And you know, and later on she in some one of the grid Iron Dinners something a few years later, she got back at him saying,
loosen up, Johnny guy or something like that. So she could roll that, right, She didn't. She didn't make a big femini's defense about it or anything like that. It was mostly the media freaking out, but he must have been freaking whatever. Anyway, funny story. We're don Lucretia a great story. It's okay, you guys. I'm sure somebody's going to find all that interesting. I'm kidding, I actually did. I hope said
the others find it interesting. Before we move on to the subject that might take us into our halfcage match, I want to talk a little bit about what happened. We're recording this on Friday night at the debate between Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida, and Gavin Newsom, governor of California. And I told Steve, I asked you. We kind of texted back and forth in real time as it was going on. I said, I don't have Fox
News anymore. Should I go in my car and listen to it? And he said, no, What did you say it was a train wreck something like that. I mean, it was actually pretty good. I sort of the process said, I thought it was pretty good. The problem was the the best presidential debate we've had all year, and maybe last year too. So I want to I want to frame it. I want to frame this discussion not just as a wild go anywhere you want, Gavin Newsom said,
and you know he intended to be an insult to Ronda Santis. He said, we talk about all the great insults. Ronda Santis got off, but let me start here, he said to Ronda Santis. Gavin Newsen did that neither one of us on stage will be the twenty twenty four nominees. Now I find Gavin Newson appalling, despicable. Every bad adjective you could come up with. You need to learn some good, long ones like alligitius that one. But he's still universes ahead of just in sort of the superficial stuff,
Joe Biden. Yeah, Ronda Santis, I know he's been the subject of so much. You know, I think you said it last week, Steve Trump, when it looked like he might have a chance of beating Trump, they really took after him. He's been the subject of almost as much anti liberal, anti whatever a Trump has and so that's really pushed him down. You know, now they're championing that woman from wherever it is she's from, who is the UN ambassador and didn't call for defunding it. That's my big
problem. Whether anyway, back to DeSantis, So we got too pretty articulate. I mean, I know, it's hard for me to say anything good about Newsom. I'm trying two pretty articulate, fairly young, somewhat accomplished. I mean, Desanta, excuse me. Newsom is only just a pretty boy, a rich pretty boy who you know, everything he has was handed to him really on a silver platter. But still governor of a big state, governor of a big state. Younger guys. Some accomplishments in both cases.
Whether you consider what Newsom did as an accomplishment, he's proud of it. Supposedly you have right and left. You have the two visions for the future of this country embodied in these two men in a debate, and yet what are we going to face in twenty twenty four? So let's go thinking about that as context. Let's go back to the debate. Tell me what you thought you want to go first, Sean or me? There you go ahead,
Well, yeah, that I think. By the way, the preface Lucretia was he said there's one thing, the governor we can't agree on. That was otherwise we just were in everything that neither one of us will be the nominated depart That was a dig at DeSantis for trailing Trump so badly. When I said that, it was initially as a train wreck because early on they were sort of talking over each other and they wouldn't shut up, and Sean Handy didn't put his foot down hard enough to stop that. I mean.
The contrast is is you can find this now on YouTube. The fan was debated and it was done by TV, but it was between Ronald Reagan and Robert F. Kennedy Senior, you know, back in nineteen sixty seven, and there that let each other finish. They didn't interrupt, they didn't
you know, throw down the way. But that's very typical of our debates these days, because we've kind of wrecked presidential debate when they weren't talking over each other, well, when they weren't talking over each other and yelling at each other, the substance of it, I thought, for the most part, Desanta's Clabert Newsom, I mean, I mean, my favorite one was is Newsom kept trying to Sanna's had all kinds of facts and figures and a
couple of zingers, like you know, there's this one guy moved to California, to California to Florida and saying, I just love Florida. It's a free state. It's better governed. And then the Santa Sads. Oh, by the way, that person is covernor of Newsom's father in law. I thought that was a real But he also had facts and figures are very good, and Newsom never had any facts and figures in rebuttal. It was all
generalities. He says, we're the free state of California. You get an abortion here, oh joy, And we don't ban books, and of course the Sancy that's not true, that's a lie. But he had receipts. I mean, at one point he held up a little piece of one of these books that he says, I can't even show this right now on Fox News. I've had the blackout parts of it because it's so pornographic, because
we just don't want these in the schools. They're not anyway. I thought that was very effective, holding up the you know, an actual piece paper, right, yeah, the held up the San Francisco that had to be a you know, and so I mean, we're not to walk those were available, they all, yeah, are they're supposed to be so you can report, you know, locations of put it that way report deposits to the terrible We're going down the brain already and it's not even half hour of the
show. Okay, Anyway, my verdict is I thought the Santa's outpointed Newsome uh Hannity promised to be non biased, but clearly tilted towards the Santas and had very tough questions produce him. That's fine with me. Oh one way, I think you know the Santas one is Newsom's complaining about it today. He was saying, well, did you hear you know it's lightning story about the wife, about Newsom's wife, did you guys hear about that? The
story going out? And you know the Newsom is denying it. But both DeSantis and Newsom agreed to go over time because you know, we were still doing it, and DeSantis's wife, who was backstage and there was no media there, said absolutely not marched out on stage and stopped the debate from going any further because DeSantis was getting creamed, I mean, not to sant excuse
me, Newsom was getting creams. Newsom was getting yeah, yeah, no, I mean there was some square by saw today where Newsom said to somebody, well, yeah, I'd be like trying to some write when you're trying to debate Jane Fonda at Berkeley on MSNBC. But I think it's important. We got to go to these forums where they are and you know, try and come back to it. I thought that was a concession that, uh, he had been overmatched. Yeah, I like that the best line,
John, did you catch the best line of the whole night? Which one I thought. Actually, Desanta's got a lot of good ones on them. I liked that about the father in law. Yeah, I like them about the father in law. Just in case anybody to tell him, Oh, Steve just mentioned it clearly, Okay, but I think but I think that well, yeah, so Desanta said, oh, I met this guy who just came from California, so I love the low taxes, low crime. And it turned out to be Newsome's father in law. Did it right?
No, But that's what pissed off the White supposedly. I mean, I think, actually it's a really interesting study in contrast, because DeSantis is clearly a master of substance. Right if if you if you want to, you want someone to run the government, you would put it in his hands. He knows how to get things done. But he's getting clobbered in the primaries because he doesn't have what Newsom I think has an abundance, which is style. I think Newsom is a perfect made for TV, made for TikTok candidate.
Right. He just speaks, and you know, if you say he denies facts, he doesn't think. He refuses to answer question. He loves Yeah. He just has this kind of pre programmed latitudes. Right, Oh, where the state of freedom? You know, where we don't do this? We don't. But so that was one thing. The other thing I think was interesting about the debate was I think it really was the most substantive debate we're going to see. I would Biden and Trump debate if they both
want. I bet it's not going to get it to this level of detail of facts and real policy differences. It'll be a lot of name calling and claims of corruption and tax on democracy. I thought it was really interesting when they had a debate about what to do about immigration. They're right about abortion.
It's really interesting Newsom refused to answer questions on abortion at all because I think I mean DeSantis in hanned he did gang up on them, but they did say where would you say what point in the pregnancy are you not allowed to have an abortion? And Newsom would not actually answer, and so I think was it DeSantis basically said, althose you know they're talking at Richard.
He said, oh, so you're allowing abortion all the way up to the point of delivery, and knew some could have easily denied that, and he didn't. And he didn't because how his substance that the current the current position of the left that you just I mean, he was willing to say things
about the Biden administration that were so false, so so obviously untrue. He was willing to say all that, and yet he was unwilling to buck the pro abortion till they're thirteen years old left and say, yeah, that there should be some limits. I mean that that was I think you're right, John. It was a really telling moment about in the crime. I mean, you know, he knew some had no answers. Yeah, he basically just said, oh no, the you know, the census is wrong or
crime statistics are wrong. He had no answer on crime, He had no answer on economic growth, no answer of population movement. But he I bet if you did a all of the people who watched I think knew. Some people say knew something did better than they thought he was going to do because he never lost his cool. He was very smooth. He seemed in command, even though he's a you know, as you said, he's an empty
suit. Yeah. Well, I've been saying for a while that people shouldn't underestimate Newsome, but they shouldn't overestimate I think there are limits to I'm not sure how well that would hold up. I mean, you know, Obama did have that sort of charisma about him, and you know the novelty of what Obama was, and you knew someone I don't look and get away with that for very long. Yeah, yeah, especially because he's a white male
that really really does look like the penguin? Is it the one of those one of those characters from Batman that you keep seeing the images on Twitter? I mean, it's perfect. He He may be, you know, in sort of formal terms, good looking, but he's just got that slimy look about out him. And and when he smiles, it's an evil smile. There's no if you outlaw fossil fuels, how is he going to get his
hair cream? I mean, doesn't he know that that's one person I saw on Twitter said that that's actually what that map is for for him to collect. Sorry, I'm going to change the subject because we're not obviously going to get to the cage match today. We're actually very close to Steve's limit of
an hour. And I know, so you know, but I do want to ask you guys about about just a few comments about Henry Kissinger, and only I believe it or not, what I saw most today just sort of perusing the commentary at is, everybody wanted to give their own personal reflections and the when they had dinner with Kissinger and Buckley and when they went you know, da da da da da da da. Oh, who cares whatever,
I'm so impressed about you. But he did have a tremendous impact on the United States, on the Nixon and Ford administrations that people still return to him for advice even up till his you know, ninety nine and a half birthday.
And so i'd like, I'm gonna start with John, because John, you spent a long time in the foreign policy world, and even though I think you're wrong about almost everything, I'll bet your opinions about Kissinger are interested well you, Kissinger would have been a good touchstone for our cage match because he I think shared some of your view and some of my view, because if I remember, he thought that the EU and NATO should not expand too
far east, that it was going to provoke Russia. And I remember he particularly mentioned Ukraine and some op eds as going too far, as really starting to interfere with what Russia thought of its historical sphere of interest, and we would provoke some kind of reaction. That said, after Russia invaded Ukraine, Kissinger was pretty strong on giving all aid that we could, and he wanted
Ukraine to win. Now, maybe he thought Ukraine might end up like a Finland or somehow like Austria was during the Cold War, more neutral than an ally, but he really thought that our stake, and it was our national interest, was to help Ukraine win. So I think that's very interesting actually to have both of those views at the same time. The other thing about Kissinger is I think people are overstating that he was the greatest Secretary of State
of the twentieth century or even after World War Two. I think that's clearly George Marshall and the Marshall Plan. I mean, that's like I don't even think that's really close. But I think what and I think Kissinger might have gotten something's wrong. I mean, Steve's expert on Reagan, but we recall Reagan and the Conservatives who eventually won after Kennedy. I'm sorry Carter campaigned against the detent of Kissinger and Nixon that uh, you know what, and what
Kissinger did is something a student of diplocmatic history would try to do. He went try to achieve victory as Reagan right. Reagan said, we're going to you know, we win, they lose. Kissinger wanted stability. That's what he wanted more than everything, and to have stability meant to he wanted to reach a modus vivendi with the Soviet Union, so you have assault agreements and you have these ABM trees. He tried to stabilize the relationship so we weren't
competing against each other. I think that was a mistake, but I do think the brilliant insight he had, and I think Nixon deserves equal credit, was the opening to China. Now, Conservatives today, I've been hearing them criticize the Kissinger for the opening for China in forty years, but then open the opening to China. Did how help us beat the Soviet Union? And that was that was the more and I think the Soviet Union even then was
a greater threat to us in China is now. We had to win that one first, until we ever got to the point of worrying about what to do about China. Sylvie Union had you know, just as many, if not more nuclear weapons that we did, and they were pursuing an aggressive foreign policy all around the world. So I don't blame Kissinger and Nixon for trying to solve the Soviet Union challenge first and deferring until many, many years later
what to do if China ever turned that way too. And then lastly, let me say, the unfortunate thing about this effort to have stability and so on is that, as many people point out, it can lead people to think that he was callous about human life. You had the you know, the withdrawal from Saigon and Vietnam. There's a terrible humiliation for the United States accused of overthrowing you know, Les Alunde Allende in Chile and so on, you know, to you know, get allies against the Soviets and communism,
rather than fostering democracy and human rights. But I actually think he was right and Kirkpatrick were right to say, you know, we had to alle with some unpleasant regimes to beat the Soviets, and that was the major issue of their day. And I don't blame I actually don't blame them for it.
I don't. You know. This is another odd thing I've read people say, which I think is actually backwards, As people have said, oh, he was almost more influential, more important for what he did after he was Secretary of State and this advising role of CRECIA mentioned and writing all these books about China. He just had a book about Ai. But I actually think I'm not sure his advice was always so good after he was Secretary of State.
I think he did okay as Secretary of State and his post post government career trying to influence presidents. You know, people kept saying, oh, we advised so many presidents, a quarter of all presidents who've ever been in office. I'm not sure that was so so one mistake I think he made, and I think Margaret Thatcher made it. They didn't want necessary to have quick unification of Germany. They didn't want Eastern Europe to fall into our lap,
so quickly. They were so overly worried about Russia and the Sovietian and the need for stability, they wouldn't they wouldn't run. They let the table run when it was to our advantage, right, didn't liked it when the revolution was on our side. That was a big mistake. And I'm glad, like Reagan and George H. W. Bush took a full advantage actually of the change to make sure that Europe became democratic and capitalists and on our side. Yeah, so, oh gosh, we're to start here. I'll
start with the longevity question that you and Lucasia mentioned. Has there ever been another Secretary of State who so compelled the attention of leaders around the world for fifty years after he was out of office. No, not one. I can't. I mean you mentioned Marshall to be talking about it in another forty years. No, he's gonna go back to being one of the reindeer.
Wasn't blinking one of the Okay, I mean that part of that is Kissinger's genius for self promotion, which he had before he was Secretary of State, before Nixon. You know, Rockefeller and Nixon, Sorry, it was Rockefeller and Bill Buckley. You both said to Nixon. First, Nixon familiar with him, you should hire this guy. But so there's that part of that. Part of it too is another superficial thing. Uh. He was so
hated by the left for some of the reasons you mentioned. It seemed to go beyond criticisms of his handling of the war and the role in the overstated role in the Pinochet coup against the end in seventy three. You know he should be tried as a human I don't know. Rich Christopher Hitchins wrote a whole book about how it should be tried by international tribunal. Ridiculous stuff that almost wants you to make you defend him, right for the same reason you
kind of rally behind Nixon because the enemies he had were deranged. It's a certain way, but it is important gild your point, John. In nineteen seventy six, both Reagan and Jimmy Carter ran against Kissinger, you kissing at the cost of detent and especially abandoning an emphasis on human rights. And then of course the famous Helsinkia or you'll talk about that if we want. Perhaps it gave Carter an opening to attack Kissinger from the right, and that was
part of what made Jimmy Carter appealing to even some conservatives. By the way, if you go back to a lot of conservatives saying, hey, this Carter guy might be pretty good, and you know they were disabused later. But and in nineteen eighty when Reagan wins, it was you know, I don't know how much does ever in the press, but I know for my own researches, and you know, people, I know a lot of people wanted Kissinger, and Kissinger wanted to be brought back to Secretary of State.
And you know the word came down from a lot of important conservatives. No way know how he's never getting near the State Department ever again. And my mentor Stan Evans, he said, I've got a long account this in my book that I only met Henry Kissinger three times and he lied to me every time and did a transcript. Yeah, well, I found a transcript of when when the conservatives were after Nixon seventy one and Kissinger you know this academic.
But I'll meet with all these conservatives, some a few of whom are still alive, like I think Neil Freeman was there at the meeting, and most of them were passed away. But Stan was the ringleader at this meeting. And I found a transcript of you know, sort of an aid memoir of from Kissinger's office that are in the archives, and it's like fifteen pages long. It's very verbatim, and I'm thinking, damn that sob tape that meeting, because it's just too good to have been from a note taker.
Right. So and so there's you know, Kissinger, and there's Stan Evans just laying into him. It was that's great stuff. Oh sorry, yeah, well I will say finally, last point. Here's the real difficulty about Kissinger that you say he wants stability, John true, why do you want stability? And let's try to await conflict. That's because people think, deep down he was a pessimistic Splierian person who thought the West was going to lose the Soviet Union in our job. His job was to try and stave it
off and preserve our viability as long as possible. There's a lot of evidence to this going back to the fifties. I have that in my first Reagan book about some people who heard him when he was a young academic at Harvard, very impressed with a guy and you know, being very pessimistic about the progress of democracy. So the point is Dayton was a strategy of losing slowly. Whereas Angelo Codevilla put it, Dayton wasn't was the attempt to bribe the
Soviet Union not to use their weapons against us. And oh and then finally I guild that point is Kissinger is great to read, and I did read all three of his volumes of his White House Years. The interesting thing is the first they're great book. The first two came out in what the seventies and the eighties, and the third one came out around two thousand and two
thousand and one, at which point the Cold War was over. And the first two it was like, by the way, I think Kissinger's the guy who says, nobody ever comes out second best in their account of you know, some episode. And so a lot of it is how brilliant he was. Okay, you discount all that. That's still great reading. And I'm
sure he's right about a lot of things. But that third volume his theme, his subtle theme, but it's unmistakable was you know, Reagan was great, we won the Cold War, and boy things were tough for us under Nixon. Proof But and so we saw our job really is holding the line until someone like Reagan could come along and build on our work to win the Cold War. I'm thinking, oh, come on, Henry, that was just okay, five Hans, Joe, okay, go ahead. That was
told about Kissinger. I'm not even going to wear Kissinger, it seems, obtained a length of top quality tweed cloth that he wished to have made into a suit. Taylor's in Washington and New York, after measuring him, said there was insufficient material for trousers and a jacket that would fit. In London, France, and Germany, where he went on diplomatic mission, the same
morning was repeated by the best tailors in these countries. Then he came to Jerusalem and was told by a Jewish tailor to leave the material and return in ten days. When Kissinger came back after meetings in Egypt, Arabia, Syria, and Iran, he was astonished to find not only a suit that fit him perfectly, but a vest an, additional jacket, and two extra pairs
of trousers, all made from that same length of material. How is it possible, asked Henry Kissinger that in New York, Washington, London, Paris, in Germany, I was told there was not enough material for even a suit. And here in Israel you were able to make so much because here in Israel, said the Jewish tailor, you are not such a big man.
There's my contribution to the Kissinger stuff today that we kind of hoped that it might lead us into taking up the discussion that John and I just barely had a time to start last week when John was confused about whether he should call me. I don't know about Steve. Steve who knows the moderate that he is, Steve me a neo khon or a realist, and we were
going to take that up along with a larger discussion of Ukraine. I do want to point out that, you know that big meeting at the and Seemi Valley today hosted by the Reagan Library people, where you know Lloyd Austin is there, and this, and that they came out with this. Does does the Reagan Library the Foundation have some sort of polling meccan polling company polling your unis anyway, So every year they take a poll and this, among other
things. Their poll indicated that something on the order of seventy one percent of Americans favored additional money for the Ukrainian effort, additional for Congress to pass more and slow and behold, this poll came out right out before all of these you know, Lloyd Austin, all these important people came to decide how, you know, how we're going to go forward on the question of Ukraine and
China and this and that. What crap. But anyway, because every other polse is just the opposite, right that we don't know we have to solve. Sorry, John, but it's actually everywhere solve our border crisis before you solve Ukraine's border crisis, right anyway, And that's you know, that's a fight in Congress right now, right, fair enough, right, I mean, I'm not even making that up, John, it's the fight in Congress. But I'm kind of think, well, don't the polls also show that
a majority of Americans want to continue supporting Ukraine. Actually, the majority of polls don't show that, but this one did. Well. I've seen different results, and you know I won't repeat them. Now. You know my views on issue polling and how bad that is and how valueless it really is. I do think though, here's my sense of it is there's a bit of a paradox right now, which is, I do think that all the
polls show pretty much the same thing. I think this is true. There's overwhelming American public support for Israel, except among college campus crazy kids and the faculty, and that has kind of put the Ukrainian war on the back burner, right. It's you know, it's not the first thing we're talking about now. The thing we're talking about now is the Israeli Gaza war. And at the same time, I'll bet there's an undertow from that. I'll bet
there are a lot of people. And of course the other thing in Lucretia is that a lot of opinions are weekly held, and so you know, you don't want to take these to the banks when maybe accurate. But the point, well, that's right, But the point is, well, you well know, I won't go through my progression of how to think about these things. But the point is is that there may be an undertow where people
say, yeah, and actually, I guess I'm for Ukraine too. I wouldn't be all surprised to see rising support for Ukrainian aid as as sort of a you know, an undertow or I don't know what you put it a collateral sentiment with the Israeli war. I think if you ask the Mary, my hunch is if you did a really serious serve of Americans, they'd say Israel's more important. Ukraine. Yeah, I don't like Russia, but Israel's really important. That should be prior to one. This is what I don't
get about this question. So one thing is I don't think it's a binary or tri trinitarian choice. I don't want to get back into this council argument with you guys. No, but it's you could secure the border and give a to Ukraine and give a to Israel. I think they're all well worth The amount of money roots the return to the country of one hundred billion to each of those is well worth it. In fact, I don't think a to Israel or securing the border require that much. So I don't think it's
like a either or choice. Why can't we do No, that's a that's a very clever way, John of driving Lucretia into Paul Ryan's arms to be a death of the talk. Oh my gosh, I didn't even know I
was doing that. But I'll try to do more in the future. Well, no, I mean it's a serious point now that our spending is so out of control that even one hundred billion dollars A yeah, I mean that's that's the problem that the conversation goes in that direction though, I don't mean inew but understand how awful things are for you to say when we're how many
trillion dollars in debt, what's another one hundred billion? Right, that's what everybody says, what's another I think of it as budget dust, right, I think of it as the return on the expenditure. Are we getting good value for them? And look, the budget is not going to be cured or not based on stopping ad in Ukraine or Israel or the border. It's
going to be fixing titlements. Right. You could just change the inflation the CPI adjustment for social cure payments and you can easily pay for all this. Right, this is this is not a lot of money, because this is not the real threat being caught. Look, and I think Lucasian and I would agree we should measure each one in terms of national interest, right. I'm not saying we should fight European wars for Europeans or Middle Eastern World wars
for Israelis, we got to fight them when they're in our interest. So let me ask you this, why is Israel more important than Ukraine? So here in Ukraine, let meus lay that the strategy has been. We had to go to war twice over there, lost lots of American lives, destroyed billions of trillions of dollars in American wealth to restore order in Europe, we got dragged into two world wars. I think one of the great achievements of the Cold War is that we made Europe free market based and all the way
up to Ukraine members of NATO and the EU. It's an incredible achievement. Europe has been the center of fighting in the modern history system for five hundred years. They've been killing each other and dragging us into it. I think you just answered young question. But to me, it seems to me that Ukraine and Europe maintaining a piece there is far more important to our national and
trusts actually than israel Is. Unless and this is why accused the Crucia of being a neocona at heart, is unless you care about the regime you're saving, right, you like Israel? I like Israel because it's a democ it's a Western democracy, it's a lot like America, and so we're going to go to greater lengths to save them than Ukraine. Eve, though, I think from a strategic perspective, the Middle East is just not as important as Europe to our security. There's not time to pick that one up today,
Steve. I hate to say it. I think I got a bar next time. It's just fair question, John, It's an absolutely fair question. But I don't I have a whole week to get your remarks ready. No,
I've got plenty of remarks. I can I just try a very brief plant, a very brief flag in the way of response, which is this is not a question that should be answered primarily materially, which I think is what you just did, John. And it's not that it's invalid, but I will repair to Winston Churchill's single sentence in the last volumes of World War Two Memoirs, which how's that go? The crease? It was like all
that is best in Western civilization comes to us from Jerusalem and Athens. Athens, if you want to say that as a traditional reason, is under assault at home in our universities, et cetera. But Jerusalem, however, you can sive it, and certainly Jerusalem today still stands for that proposition, and so as an idea and as a vindication of the essence of Western civilization.
That's why Israel is more important than Ukraine. That's all. We have to protect Jerusalem and Athens because they gave birth to doesn't matter what saying, but it's very Yeah, the ideas, the idea, those places. Okay, so I'm going to the auto control both of those places. I'm going to give you this simple answer. If I'm sorry, my dogs, If I'm a human being, especially quite frankly, okay, I'll be. I'll be a feminist here for a moment. I'll be a feel I have a female.
I may not be a feminist, but I am a female. If I have a choice of living in Ukraine versus Russia, no difference to me. Corrupt the backward societies to some extent, Okay, maybe neither one of them are so terrible. I don't see a clash of civilizations there. I see a clash of just mirror petty. From a grand point of view, interest the clash of civilizations between the Muslim world a lie a raid against Israel.
I don't want to live in a Muslim country. It will never even go to a Muslim country unless I can be guaranteed that I can live exactly the way I want that I live here. I would go to Israel. I would go to Israel to live. It would be a place that I believe is consistent with the way human beings ought to live in civilizes. I understand, I did. I understand your points, and I didn't get it
until this Athens drew some stuff. Now I understand what you mean. But then you really are like a neocon because Neokons really did care about the nature of the regime they were helping. They did not want to be bigger help John. No. But but that's the point is you want to help Israel because it is like a free Western market democracy. You don't want to help
Ukraine because, as you said, the regime is just like Russia. You don't care about the strategy right like which one is like war in our national They do care about the ideology of national interest terms, national security interest terms. There are all sorts of second and third order effects that follow from that. From my silly, oversimplified way of expressing it in national security terms.
There are in fact many many second and third order effects that have a very significant impact on how this country is able to govern, live in the world, and so on, and we don't have time to get into it today. Yeah, well it was really interesting conversation. Well, I want to put a pin on this point and come back to it, John, because I do think that we need to add in what I think Lucretian I do agree about, which is well from our perspective. What is the defects of
the neo cons and the way the way you characterize them. I'll just stop there. I'm not going to say efective. I'm just saying you, guys, actually we think it is defective. See well, except that we certain very much more fundamental ways I think we don't and that we need to try and explain to you and the listeners and maybe vain in your case, but
listeners. But okay, we got to move out of here to Lucretia really quickly, Babylon B. I sent Steve a whole bunch of stuff this week, and unfortunately we're not going to get to and we didn't even just discuss elon Musk and his You know people all over the world actually actually diverted one hundred thousand dollars of advertising to Twitter. That's a story for next time. But that that's been so great, we don't but child grooming content on x
reduced by eighty three percent after Disney pulls ads. Okay, there's that one. Chinese state media proclaims Gavin Newsome winner of debate. Or how about this one? There's two more on that. One nation in shock after Gavin Newsom murdered on live TV and Newsome sorry, Newsome Desanti's debate to be sponsored by you Haul. I have many more, but go ahead. It's your guys's turn. By the way, I don't know if you don't have a camalism, John, because you and I have both been traveling. There was one
of a debate last night. I was gonna say, I don't have a camalism, but I have a mention of her in the debate De Santa's Newsom, which is that De Santislake many of us is not really sure how to pronounce our current vice president's first name until they hear Lucretia's pronunciation, and then they are schooled. So I think, actually I thought the Santis pronounced it much low way Lucretia did to which you might called new sum snapback, that's
madam, vice President to you. I didn't even send that to you, John. I just thought to myself, that's what John should talk about to great minds and all that. All right, John, I'm going that's mad that's my I'm gonna have my Lafreud neat here while you start sending us out. Yeah. Actually I was. By the way, listeners, Costco has some very good low prices on the Freud right now, I mean shockingly low. Yeah. I bought that because it's shockingly awful. Sorry. You know
what. They also have really good low price on GluN liver right now. Yeah, yeah, for like twenty nine yeah, when all the other scotches are wildly overpriced. Anyway, as we've just been discussing, always drink your whiskey, neat. Let's go Brandon and Steve God save the Queen man. Many Hm Ricochet joined the conversation