How Screwed Are We?

Some of them are brilliant, some of them are funny, some of them are extremely irreverent, and we will hit all of those questions. Please be sure to like and subscribe before the overlords in Big Tech take us all out. For now, I am Michael Knowles. This is Verdict with Ted Cruise. Welcome back to Verdict with Ted Cruz. I'm going to jump right in. I'm not going to allow myself to say one extra word from Eddie. First question, Senator, what was your least favorite part of Joe Biden's terrible

State of the Union speech? Well, it disturbed my nap. That was irritating, but but look the part I hated the boast was a line that he had where he said we the people and then he said that's us, that's the government, and that just pissed me off because I'm sorry, that is utter and complete crap. That. Look, I know that Joe Biden was not a very good law student, but he needs to go back and take con law again, because we the people, which is how

the Constitution begins, means us the people. Damn it, It's not government. It's the opposite of government. And you know, this is Joe Biden being a totalitarian and like justifying massive government power by saying, you know, I am we the people. I mean, you know, it reminded me of Louis the fourteenth LAMI LETI okay, And you did actually get me to to to mangle French on the podcast. So we I've been hanging around with Gayle's too much. It's clearly clearly a problem. It's far into But but

you know, Joe Biden thinks he's the sun God. I mean, I mean, it is the arrogance and ignorance of that statement, and it is what big government democrats believe. But I think a lot of people think this, Senator, and I will try to refrain from ascribing to malice that which is equally explained by stupidity. True enough, Barack Obama said this. Do you remember Barack Obama said, the government, that's that's

what we do together, That's that is us. It was what Joe Biden said was basically a plagiarized line from Obama and Joe Biden. Biden. Biden would never plagiarized. No could come on. Joe would not do that, not him, not him. What do you say to people who say, look, yeah, the government is when we all get together, you know, we the people get together, and then the thing that we do that expresses our unity together is the government. And you you're just some crazy conservative who has an

irrational fear of government. So we the people is the boss of government. Look, for most of human history, government was the monarch, was the ruler, and the power of government came from God Almighty and and and it was a top down vision. And when the Framers rested sovereignty with the people and the people lent government power to officeholders for a temporary period of time, that transformed the face of the planet. I mean that was a revolutionary idea.

You know. Thomas Jefferson put it really well when he said that the Constitution serves as chains to bind the mischief of government. Yeah, it's all about restraining government. Now. We want a government strong enough to defend the nation, to do the essential functions that the government needs to do. But the Constitution and Bill of Bright are all about protecting we the people from the Joe Biden's of the

world that want to take our freedom's away. And there seems to be this total blurring of the distinction between the different parts of the government. I'm no con law expert, but I have read the document once or twice, and it seems to me you have the people, and you have the states, and you have the federal government, and you have a separation of powers, and you have checks and balances, and you have federalism. And yet when you hear Joe Biden talk about it, it's all just kind

of the same blob. And we got to do whatever it tells us to do. Yeah. Look, the modern left, it is openly socialist. The people driving the agenda in the Biden administration are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren an AOC. Bernie an AOC explicitly or socialists, and Warren is not too far behind that, and that means they believe their solution to everything is government and government power. Now, one of the consequences, I will say, the Biden guys, they

came in on January twentieth. They immediately fire everyone connected with the Trump administration. They immediately start rescinding rules. And they are frankly much more effective at doing this, yeah, than Republicans are. But but for them, this is religion. Government is religion, it is faith, It is what they do. You know, too often Republicans treat treat politics like a game of croquet at the back lawn, and the differential

and seriousness is it's a problem. So speaking of the differential and seriousness between the Republicans and the Democrats, this question comes from Jonathan Caitlyn twenty twenty one. Are you with her? Um? Look, I think it will be interesting to see see how California resolves that. UM. I find it wonderfully beautiful that Gavin Newsom is getting recalled. UM. I mean it. You know, karma has a way of

coming back on you. You know, it says something that his shut everything down policies were so extreme that even the people California said enough of this nonsense. Um, that's good, that's good. That's actually good for hope in America. So I don't know Caitlyn. I I met Caitlin back oh

twenty thirteen. I think it was when I came out to LA to speak to the Friends of ABE, the conservative group in Hollywood, and and then Caitlyn was Bruce, and Bruce Jenner was openly conservative, which was a really risky position to take in Hollywood. People don't know this, but but Bruce Jenner would go to conservative events. It's not exactly hiding this sort of thing. It Bruce had

demonstrated real courage. Now Caitlyn is running. You know, in twenty sixteen, when I was running for president, Caitlyn Jenner publicly said that she wanted to be my trans ambassador, the trans ambassador for Ted Cruz, which which caused a lot of the LBGT world to lose their minds that that Caitlyn said such a thing listen to. I don't know. I don't know who all's going to run and what's going to happen, but but I think it's great. Democracy is all about standing up for what you believe in.

And if the people of California choose anybody who is more protective of liberty than Gavin Newsom. That's a step in the right direction. There is a real world because obviously it would raise lots of questions about and just the pronouns. What pronouns do you use? What does this mean for these broader issues of gender and sex? But it may simply be the case that in California that's

about as conservative as you get. And so yes, I suppose we all have to wait and see a lot of other people are going to be part of this race as well. We have a question, Senator, that is that just cuts right to the point from the Panda Tribune when no one is watching or any members of Congress actually productive public servants, Yeah, I would say there there are. Look, there are actually a number of members of Congress who work pretty hard. It varies, and there's

a wide variance. You know. I remember when I was first elected to the Senate's probably I don't know, twenty thirteen, twenty fourteen, first couple of years I'm up there, and I went out to dinner with John McCain and John McCain he and I had a famously combative relationship. Was that the time he I believe he called you a wacko bird. That was that the phrase he did. He publicly called me a wacco bird. And actually when he called me a wacco bird, I went to the Senate

floor and I gave a speech praising John McCain. And it so happened. It was the fortieth anniversary of his release from the Hanoi Hilton, and so I gave a speech just unambiguously praising him. He served our nation, he was shot down, he was a prisoner of war, and most incredibly, he was offered early release, and he said no because he thought it would be dishonorable. And I said, you know, genuinely and from the heart, that I admire and revere that service and sacrifice. I hope in the

same situation I would do the same thing. Ye, But you and I we've never been tortured, we've never been in prisoned. I don't know what I would do in that circumstance. And so every word I said praising him in that speech was heartfelt. I didn't praise him for the terrible liberal policies he supports. There's lots of things John McCain did that I and like, but I praised

him for that, which was praiseworthy. But I also meant it to be a statement that if you go low road, if you go nasty and personal and in the gutter, yeah, I'm not going to respond in kind. And so I didn't. But anyway, the story I was going to tell, because this is a digression from the very good question. Some months later, John and I went out and had had dinner and we're talking just about the Senate, and he

made a point to me. Then he said, you know, in the Senate, like in most places in life, the eighty twenty rule applies, which is that eighty percent of the work is done by twenty percent of the people. That the Senate is a place where if you really want to roll up your sleeves and you want to lead and you want to engage, that you can and you can very quickly lead. You don't have to. You know, the House can be tougher. The House. Seniority matters a lot.

They're four hundred and thirty five members. Take it can take a while to have an impact in the House. You know, in the Senate there only one hundred senators. It's not that big a place. Right now, they're fifty Republicans. If you care about an issue, you can stand up and lead and make a difference. So there are number of Senators that make a big difference. Mike Lee. I adore Mike Lee. He is a constitutionalist, he is passionate, he works hard. You know someone who had just retired,

Lamar Alexander. Lamar a lot more moderate than I am. But actually Lamar and I got along very well. He was a hard working, He delved into details, he delved into substance, and he would drive a legislative agenda. There are other Senators that frankly just go to cocktail parties. Yeah, like it is a job. I mean, the eighty twenty rule means also that eighty percent of the folks are not working that hard. But you know what, that's true.

That's true most places you go. That's true in most companies. And if you resolve. So when I'm talking to potential candidates who are thinking of running for Senate, and I talked to a fair number of peopleho are looking at Senate seats, and they'll ask They'll be like, well, can you make a difference in the Senate? Can you do anything? And with the right person, I'm very encouraging because I say, look, if you want to, if you're willing to do the work,

this is to a significant part self directed. How many issues are you going to lead on? What are you going to do? Are you gonna you know, how hard are you going to work? But if you're willing to work and lead and you've got courage, can you can make a big difference? Yes? And I actually can attest to your complement of Senator Alexander because just about a month ago, my newborn son was baptized in Lamar Alexander's

punch bowl. This was a very strange circumstance. It said Lamar Alexander, Businessman of the Year nineteen eighty or something. Somehow a Catholic church in Nashville fell into this sort of thing. And so Lamar Alexander is still doing good work, including bringing my son into the body of Christ that I'm almost speechless on that. I will say, Lamar owns something that that is a unique connection between your new home and my longtime home, which is that Lamar has

a walking stick that was owned by Sam Houston. And Sam Houston was governor of Tennessee and was governor of Texas. The only person in US history to be governor of two different states. And so it's a very cool walking stick that Sam Houston had. By the way, on the question of senators doing things productive, I'll give you an example that might surprise folks, which is a Democrat. Okay,

Kirston Gillibrand. So I like Kirston. She and I are friends, We get along and and actually just today I did a press conference with Kirston Gillibrand on an issue that she has been relentlessly leading on and that I've been working with her for about eight years. And it's sexual assault the military. It's a real problem. The numbers are very discouraging that far too many servicewomen and even some

servicemen are subjected to sexual assault in the military. And you know, I twenty thirteen I started on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She was on it, and she's passionate her. She has legislation that would move the decision about whether to prosecute sexual assault from the commanding officer to a military prosecutor who is outside the chain of command. And the top brass that the Pentagon hate this idea and

they argue vehemently against it. And so I'm brand new on the Armed Services Committee and I go to a hearing and you know, sometimes you think, well, debate doesn't make a difference, that's all just play acting and everyone knows what they think. Yeah. Well, I went into that hearing genuinely not knowing what I thought and wanting to listen to the arguments on both sides, and the brass say, well, moving the prosecuting decision out of the chain of command,

it would undermine good order and discipline. It would make it harder for the commanders to lead their troops. Kirsten came back with a number of facts, one of which is that multiple of our allies have done exactly this reform. So Canada has done it, the United Kingdom has done it, Israel has done it, and they studied it and it has not had an effective undermining good order and discipline.

And the real challenge is that the rates of reporting in the military are very very low, that when someone is a victim of assault, they are far too frequently unwilling to come forward and report it. And one of the biggest reasons is they don't believe the commanding officer will be fired and partial that they're worried that the commanding officer may be buddies with the guy who committed

the assault and will be reluctant to bring charges. And so I listened to those arguments and was persuaded by them, and so back in twenty thirteen signed I signed up and co sponsored the legislation with Kirsten and have been fighting. And she's been fighting for eight years and I've been fighting. And so we sit down with whiplists, where she goes and looks for Democrats to support it, I go and look for Republicans to support it. We just did a

press conference this morning. I think the bill is likely to pass in the next two years, that we're seeing really growing momentum. But I use that as an example where she has, I mean just tirelessly bird dogged this issue. And I think if we can reduce the incidents of sexual assault in the military and do a better job protecting our servicemen and women, that's very worthwhile. Certainly, next question comes from Pancake Robot. I assume this is mister

Robot's Christian name after Saint Pancake of Alexandria. Question is I want to hear Senator Cruz's take on the paradox of Republican power. We elect Republicans to make the federal government less powerful, but in practice that just means that Republicans are reluctant to wield power to achieve that objective. It's a very insightful question. How do we resolve that? I think there are a couple of things that drive at one we mentioned just just earlier in the pod.

Democrats are ruthlessly serious. Government is life or death to them. They spend every waking moment thinking about how to be effective. Republicans often politics, if they do it it's a hobby, it's not It doesn't have the same seriousness. So when it comes to wielding power, you don't get people that are nearly as serious about moving a policy agenda because they don't necessarily have the same passion to it. There are a couple full of different challenges. Let me only

up break this down a couple of ways. Number one, how do you run a federal agency? And so a challenge that Republican appointees having an agency is if you're in an agency that you think should be abolished, that can be a real problem for running it. You know, you remember Rick Perry famously at the debate, you know, forgot one of the agencies that he wanted to abolish and said, oops, the irony is the agency he forgot was the Department of Energy, which he later became Trump's

Secretary of Energy. So he literally led the department that he forgot that he wanted to abolish, undermining it from within. One of my first jobs in politics was in the George W. Bush administration, where I was at the Federal Trade Commission. And my boss was a guy named Tim Muris, who was the chairman of the FTCs of brilliant guys the lawyers would economist, and he recruited me in to be the head of policy at the FTC. And this is two thousand, two thousand one to two thousand and three.

And what Tim understood if you go into an agency as a Republican political appointee and you tell every person at the agency your job is meaningless. Everything you've done with your life is worthless. I hate the mission of this agency and you suck. Now follow me. They're going to fight back. They're going to resist you at every turn. What Tim understood instead, a government bureaucracy is like a fire, and you can direct the fire in a positive direction. But if you if you just try to kill it,

it will try to kill you. And so, for example, at the FTC, my office, the FTEC is charged by statute with defending competition and defending consumers. They're seventy five

PhD economist at the FTC. And so one of the things that I led is something called competition advocacy where we would study a state legislature or a state regulatory body would request our views on particular and a competitive bill they were considering that was typically restricting competition, favoring big business and hurting consumers, and we would study it.

The PhD economists would study it, and then we would go and provide testimony or provide expert guidance on if you do this, prices will rise twenty percent for consumers. And the competition advocacy people were eager to do it. It was beneficial, but it was expanding freedom and it was reducing the footprint of government. Another example class action lawsuits.

There were plaintiffs lawyers that were bringing abusive class action lawsuits where they'd have a big class, they'd negotiate what's called a coupon settlement, which is you know, anyone who ever bought a bag of Doritos gets a coupon for ten cents off Doritos. And but you know, as fifty million people, so everyone gets a ten cent coupon, and

the lawyers take home seventy million dollars. And the coupon settlements, frankly, are a croc many times because they're designed to make lawyers fees and not actually to help the ostensible clients. And so what we did in the FTC is we began intervening in cases that involved coupon settlements and arguing to the judge that the judge ought to chop down the lawyer's fees and give the money to the consumers.

And you know, Michael, on the question of the Republican paradox, I like that the way that was put it also sometimes is a conservative paradox. And I'll give an example. Many times moderates in government have been much better than the conservatives. They've been better prepared, they've taken it more seriously, and they've won bureaucratic battle. So I'll give an example.

One of my favorite books in politics is Jim Baker's book his autobiography, and it's called work, hard, study, and stat of politics, which was actually the advice his grandfather gave him. And you know, you think about it. So Baker was the campaign manager of five presidential campaigns, I mean, pause and like you know, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State. I mean, the guy had an extraordinary career. In nineteen eighty, Baker was the campaign manager of George

Herbert Walker Bush's campaign running against Ronald Reagan. And that was a bitter primary. That's where Bush accused Reagan of voodoo economics. I mean, they were pounding the heck out of each other. Reagan wins, and Jim Baker becomes Reagan's chief of staff in the White House. I mean that's I don't know of any other circumstance where the campaign manager for your primary opponent becomes your chief of staff

when you win. That that is an extraordinary thing. And so Baker recounts in his book, right at the beginning of the Reagan White House, he sits down with Ed Meese. Now, Ed mess is someone who's a dear friend. He was a longtime confident of Reagan's. It's this principal conservative. When I first ran for Senate, Ed Meese was the chairman

of my national leadership team. He's an extraordinary guy. Baker recounts how he sat down with Mee to divide responsibilities in the White House, and he pulls out a yellow notepad and he draws a line down the middle and so on, and he says, all right, Ed, let's let's divide responsibilities. And he says, look, Ed, you've been with the president for so long. You have his trust, you have his confidence, you know his heart. Ed, you need to drive the substance. You need to drive the meat.

You need to drive really the important stuff that we're doing. So you need to lead the Domestic Policy Council, you need to lead the National Economic Council. All of the substance you should be in charge of. And Baker says, look, I'll just do the admin stuff. And he said, I'll tell the schedule, and I'll take personnel, and I'll take budget, and I'll take ledge affairs and so Actually, in his book he reproduces he has a xerox copy of the actual yellow pad that says Ed and Jim, and it

has that on there. And in his autobiography Baker admits he says, look, I knew I was eating niece's lunch. Because, all right, if he controls the schedule, he controls every minute of the president's time. That's a big deal. If you decide how the president spends every day, all day long. If he controls personnel, there's an old saying that I think is very true that personnel is policy. If Baker is picking the people that are throughout the administration, he

controls the administration. On budget, everything that happens in government happens through budget. If he controls budget, the dollars drive

the substance. And then finally on ledge affairs. The way he put it, he said, listen, if I'm the one sitting in the room with the Senate Majority leader and the Speaker of the House, and I'm negotiating the bill, ed can have whatever he wants and his cute little policy counsel, and they can write as many white papers as they want, but I get to decide what gets done. And Jim Baker extraordinarily capable guy, but not a conservative, very much a moderate, and conservatives suffered because he was

so good. Dick Darman, who worked for Baker, likewise not a conservative, but ruthlessly effective, really understood the machinery of government. And I'm a big believer that conservatives need to be just as effective as the other guys. That we need conservatives who are as good as Jim Baker, who understand how to drive an agenda and actually get it accomplished. You know, there is a lot to be said for the philosophical debate among conservatives. You can throw a hundred

conservatives into a room. They would somehow find a way to disagree with every single other one and how much they've read, and how much they think, No, they wouldn't, No, they wouldn't and there. But you know, actually you've proven this too, not just the philosophical aspect. There is a basic competence question here to politics as well. And you have gotten things done. There have been conservatives who haven't

gotten things done. You have why because it's not enough to just sit in the Freshman bull session, Yeah, and argue about philosophy all day. You actually have to know how to wield the levers of power and accomplish the tangible aspect of the job. No, that's exactly right. And if you want to change the trajectory of the country, you look at Ronald Reagan did a phenomenal job of it because he understood, he understood the power of vision, he understood the power of personnel, and and he understood

how to drive that vision throughout. And so you know, Reagan ran on winning the Cold War, defeating the Soviet Union. He ran on cutting taxes and bringing the economy back, and he ran on cutting government spending. He achieved two of those three. So he was successful in winning the Cold War, defeating the Soviet Union. He rebuilt the military and bankrupted the Soviet Union. No one thought that was possible. He was successful in cutting taxes and reducing regulations that

produced enormous economic growth. Where he wasn't successful was reigning in government spending. And frankly, his own party fought him on that. Democrats fought him on that, and he at times slowed the rate of growth of spending. But that was about it. Yeah, not two out of three ain't so bad. Let's say, you know, it could be we could we could try to get the rest now, which actually leads into my final question, A quick question in

our last moments here. This is from Ben. How screwed are we very very, very very But I believe not permanently And let me break into a couple of things. Taxes are going up. They're going up a ton every tax, every tax is going up by trillions of dollars, and there's nothing Republicans can do to stop it because they will use budget reconciliation that can't be filibustered to raise taxes. The only question is how massive will the tax increase be, and that will be decided by the fifty Democrats in

the Senate. They won't talk to Republicans, they won't care what we have to say, and it's going to be in the trillions. The only question is how big. Regulations are going to be horrific. They're going to be terrible. They're going to kill jobs, They're gonna be really harmful. Foreign policy, I think, is going to be a mess. Biden is going to kiss up to our enemies and alienate and antagonize our friends. This is the worst motivational speech I've ever heard. But no, go on, I want

the truth. I want the truth. Looks it's bad. There there are consequences when you elect Biden, Pelosian Schumer and you give the Democrats control of all three of the elected parts of government. Really bad Stuff's gonna happen. We're gonna see some terrible judges put on the bench, terrible judges who are radical leftist, who will consistently vote to undermine our constitutional rights. All of that's going to happen. The big unknown to me is whether they end the filibuster.

If they end the filibuster, we might be permanently screwed. That's actually what frightens me. If they end the filibuster and they have forty eight votes that there are two Democrats who say they won't don't, won't end the filibuster Joe Mansion from West Virginia Kirsten Cinema from Arizona. If they hold the line, everything I just said there is bad, but it can be undone. It can be undone when

we win the next elections and take over. If they end the filibuster, what they will try to do as structural changes to make it so you can never unwind it. So if they end the filibuster, they'll add DC as a state, and they'll add Puerto Rico as a state. They believe that will elect four new Democratic senators. DC

certainly will Puerto Rico might. The Democrats believe it definitely will actually think Republicans could compete in Puerto Rico, but at a minimum its two new Democratic senators from DC. If they end the filibuster, they will pass hr one, the Corrupt Politicians Act, that will federalize elections, that will massively expand voter fraud, that will register millions of elial aliens and felons. That's designed that will weaponize the Federal

Election Commission to target Republicans. That's designed to keep Democrats in power for a hundred years. And if they end the filibuster, they'll pack the Supreme Court. They'll grow the Supreme courts from nine justices to thirteen justices. That is the greatest threat to our constitutional liberties we're facing. So on the question of how screwed we are it the biggest thing that hinges on that, in my mind, is whether the filibuster goes or not. I'm worried. I think

the filibuster they might end it. But if you're a person of faith, pray for spinal fortitude for mansion and cinema. But let me you know, you said this was a lousy pep talk, so let me try to take it around. I'm actually very optimistic. The crazier they get politics always has a pendulum to it. When one side gets in power and they go too far, the country moves back the other direction. These guys are bat crap crazy like like they are. They're not just going left, They're going

off the charts extreme left. Every time they do something like that, I think that makes it more likely that we have a very good election in twenty twenty two and a very good election in twenty twenty four. And the analogy that I draw often is it took Jimmy Carter to give us Reagan, and I think Biden going radically left sets us up to move back in the direction of freedom, back in the direction of the Constitution

in twenty twenty two and in twenty twenty four. Senator, I'm relieved to hear that, because when you said that you had some hope and you said I'm an optimist, I feared you were going to say, I'm an optimist. I think things can get much much worse than they are right now. You know, I think I absolutely do. So I'm pleased to hear a little glimmer of hope. Many more questions to get too. We will have to hold them until the next episode of Verdict. I'm Michael Knowles.

This is Verdict with Ted Cruz. This episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz is being brought to you by Jobs, Freedom and Security Pack, a political action committee dedicated to supporting conservative causes, organizations, and candidates across the country. In twenty twenty two, Jobs Freedom and Security Pack plans to donate to conservative candidates running for Congress and help the Republican Party across the nation.