The Republic Ain’t Over Yet

by stamps dot Com. If you're looking for ways to skip the trip to the post office and dodge all that hectic holiday shopping traffic, why not save time and money with stamps dot Com. Stamps dot Com lets you compare rates, print labels, and access exclusive discounts on ups and USPS services all year long. Here at Soundfront, we use stamps dot Com Send you Suite merch like that cactus hat to do business on the road and to

save time and money. It just makes sense, especially if your business sends more mail and packages during the holidays. Whether you're selling online or running an office or a side hustle stamps dot Com can save you so much time, money, and stress during the holidays and get discounts on postoffice and UPS shipping services without making the trip. Discounts you can't find anywhere else, like up to forty percent off

USPS rates and seventy six percent off UPS. Going to the post office instead of using stamps dot Com is kind of like taking the stairs instead of the elevator. So save time and money this holiday season with stamps dot Com. Sign up with promo code Verdict for a special offer that includes a four week trial, free postage, and a digital scale, no long term commitments or contracts. Just go to stamps dot com, click the microphone at the top of the page and enter code Verdict. You know,

I was already on cloud nine. I was already feeling pretty good after that victory last night, and now I'm I'm feeling even better and equally disoriented because we've been doing this show now for two years and that is the first time that we've ever made any money on this show. That's the first time I've ever heard from a sponsor. This just coming off of our wonderful Verdict Live tour in Wisconsin and Texas and Washington, DC, where

we were joined by our friend Liz Wheeler. And Liz, now you're reading ads for us, and what are you doing? Are you actually putting the show on sustainable financial footing? Yes, Michael, I like to think of myself as the breadwinner here in this situations. It's my honor and my privilege to be here. Thank you for inviting me to join you. You may notice something different about the pod, which is

we just finished our campus tour. Liz was part of the tour and and was fantastic and by popular demand, people really enjoyed Liz being part of the conversation. So she's now formerly part of the podcast. And so Liz, thank you for being on the road with us with Verdict, but thank you for being part of the pod going forward as well. Oh it's my pleasure, Senator, it's actually an honor to be here having these conversations with you and with Michael. So thank you for including me, Thank

you for the invite. And you know, Liz, you picked up pretty good time to join the show because this is your first sort of official episode here, you know, not as part of one of these live events, and it happens to be the greatest day for Republicans in recent memory. And Senator, I know that that you were there last night. You were at the Young and Victory party.

You you called this early on. I remember you had been providing quite a bit of help to the young in campaign, very very early on when people said there's no way that the Republicans are going to take back Virginia. And then what happened last night, we all got a little bit of hope. Yeah. Look, last night was fantastic. It was a big damn deal for the country. It was a big damn deal for Virginia, but for the whole country. And Glenn Yuncan is somewhat I've known a

long time. I've known a number of years. He's a friend end his wife, Suzanne's a friend. Uh. They actually have a ranch in Texas. Heidi and I have state on their ranch in Texas. And floated in the river on inner tubes with a cold beer and a hot summer summer's day. Um. And and Glenn is someone I endorsed Glenn early in this race. I endorsed him in the primary. It was a big contested primary, and went out in campaign for Glen. I spent two days on

the road. In fact, the last two days of the primary, I was on the road barnstorming the state of Virginia with Glen and we did rallies all over the state. Uh. It's a little bit crazy. Uh. There were in that primary. About fifty thousand people voted in that primary. We did the math. About five thousand of those people came to our rallies those last two days, So about ten percent of the actual voters in the primaries came and saw us at our rallies in person. And he ended up

winning winning the primary. Big part of the reason I backed him as is that I believed he was by far the strong candidate to win in November. We needed to win in November. Last night, Heidie and I were

both at the election party. It was awesome. The room was rocking, uh, and it was fairly beautiful seeing the kind of dazed stupor and rage from the Terry mccauliffe camp as they realized that that that that the monarchy to which he wanted to resume ruling his subjects in the Commonwealth of Virginia, that that that that somehow a funny thing happened on the way to the election booth, which is the voters said no and hell no, and Virginia now has a Republican governor, which is a powerful

Canarian the coal mine it. It really shows I think what's to come November of next year in twenty twenty two. Liz, I know you like me, were waiting up until after midnight last night because I don't know, I call it cynical. I had this fear that around three in the morning there would be an undisclosed number of ballots that suddenly appeared in Fairfax County or something like that. But no, they called it by the end of the night, and we finally got to go to bed we did, which

was amazing. But I mean, I don't know about you, but make no mistake, it seemed like the Democrats were teeing something up in Fairfax County. Glenn Yunken just pulled out such an enormous victory that they knew that they didn't stand a chance even with perhaps rescanning ballots. But here's the thing. Here's the thing. I think the biggest

takeaway about this election is the strength of parents. I mean, you had Barack Obama, you had Kamala Harris, you had Stacy Abram's all campaigning for mccalliff, and yet parents in the state of Virginia still defeated him. The strength of parents is stronger than the strength of the entire Democratic Party. Well,

that is a wonderful thing. And I know, I know that we're going to be hearing more from some of the Verdict Plus members a little bit later, So you're going to be fielding questions for them, and then we'll have you back on to from all the wonderful people who are who are supporting this show. Yes, I've been looking around on Verdict Plus and there are some great questions. I'm looking forward to hearing both of your answers a

little bit later on. Anybody who's listening to this or watching this who wants to participate in Verdict Plus, go to Verdict with Ted Cruz dot com slash plus, submit your question. We'll try to get as many answered as we can. That is Verdict with Ted Cruz dot Com slash Plus. Michael, Senator, I will see you in a few minutes. Oh Axon, we'll see you a little bit later. Senator.

You bring up an aspect of this race that I know a lot of conservatives sometimes they don't really seem to understand, which is call it the Buckley rule, that you vote for the most right viable candidate. And you said you felt not only is Glen Yonkin a good guy, but that he was the kind of candidate who could win in Virginia. Yeah. Look, I mean we need candidates who can win. And you look at Glenn. The campaign they ran, and by the way, Glenn's political team was

my political team. It was my senior people that were running his campaign. And Glenn is pro life, he's pro Second Amendment. He ran on secure in the Border, he ran a conservative campaign, and he ran on school choice. He leaned in aggressively on school choice. You know Ralph Northam, the Democrat who's one of the most radically pro abortion governors in the country in fact, who and we've talked

about this on the pod before. You know, Ralph Northam has talked about post birth abortion, which which is horrifying at a whole different level in terms of where the left is on these issues. Yunkin ran a disciplined campaign that number one, he didn't get drawn into to personality politics. So the whole attack of the Terry mcculliffe crew was that Glenn Yunkin is Donald Trump. That that that was sort of their one card, and their other card was

He's a racist because all Republicans are racist. That that was it. That's all they had to say. And and I think mcculliffe was shocked that the race was competitive. He assumed it would just be a cake walk at

a coronation and no Republican could win in Virginia. And I think what mcculliffe did he really focused on issues that that mattered to people across the state and he got you know, Biden won Virginia by double digits, and that means there were a whole bunch of voters who in twenty twenty pulled the lever for Joe Biden, who in twenty twenty one pulled the lever for Glen Yonkan That that's a big deal. And I think their lessons to be learned about about how Yuncan did that and

he focused on issues that matter. It turns out that that suburban moms don't like it when you abolish the police. They don't like it when you endanger their families, when you endanger their kids. And it turns out that suburban moms like it even less when you treat parents as as domestic terrorists, when when you say, as as Cliff did, that that that that that parents should have no role in deciding what their kids are taught in schools, and it you know the old joke that a gaff is

when a politician tells you what he actually thinks. Look, mcculliff said that in a debate, and the Juncan campaign did a great job of jumping on it and running with it. And you know, at the victory party last night, I mean it was rocking, But but there were signs all over the place. They were signs women for Trump, for women for Yunkin. There were signs Democrats for Junkin. Uh,

there were signs parents for Younkins. And I think they did a very good job in particular of mobilizing moms who don't want critical race theory taught to their kids, who don't want school boards that cover up sexual assaults and rapes in the bathrooms, and and and who don't want arrogant politicians that view the moms and dads as domestic terrorists. And that that that I think decided the race and won the race last night. You know, people are going to be fighting now over what the big

issue was. Some people are saying it's because Trump wasn't involved. Some people are saying it's because Trump was involved. Some people are saying it's because of critical race theories. Some people are saying it's because of the COVID lockdowns. Some people are saying it you know this, that and the other thing. People with their own interests in politics and

on the right are trying to claim the victory. Do you have a sense, being so close as you were to the race, what the number one issue was really? Was it really education? Was it just a reaction against Joe Biden? Do you have any sense? So? I think it varied as the campaign moved forward, and so early on, I think the COVID lockdowns were a big issue. People

didn't like the COVID lockdowns. They didn't like small businesses being shutdown, they didn't like schools being shut down, and so Glenn was campaigning on let's reopen businesses, reopen schools.

That resonated. I think people didn't like Ralph Northam was dumbing down the schools, was dumbing down at danced education for students and was saying we're not going to teach it advanced education anymore in Virginia schools, and in Glen campaigned on yes, we are our kids deserved to have advanced courses and the ability to learn and achieve excellence. That was powerful Glen campaign on school choice that he did so early on. I think school choice is a

winning issue for Republicans. I think it is a powerful issue. If you look at Yuncan's numbers. He went up with African Americans, he went up with Hispanics, he went up with Democrats, he went up with women. I mean he went up across the board. The media want to make it all about Trump. I think Yuncan did a good job. Trump endorsed him. Yuncan welcome the Trump endorsement, was glad to have it, but didn't want to make the entire

election about the personality of Donald J. Trump. There are many people you and I included, who are supporters of the president who recognize that he did extraordinarily good things as president. But to win, Yunkin needed some voters in Virginia, in particular suburban women in Virginia who voted against Trump. Yunkin needed them to switch their votes to him, and I think he did that. You know, the campaign did

a very smart job of the first several months. They focused on Glenn's story, on who he was and defining him, telling his story. You know, he grew up in Virginia, grew up in modest circumstances. He went to Rice and Andy, played basketball four years at Rice, and met his wife Suzanne as a Texan. She went to smu M and then he had a career in business and an incredibly

successful career in business where he was a CEO. And I think the campaign did a good job of defining who Glenn was, so that when Terry mcculloff came in at the back end and said he's Donald Trump. He's Donald Trump, people were like, well, no, he's not, He's he's that guy. Yeah, And that was that was valuable to to to define his own life story, what he believes, and to certainly welcome and embrace the support from Trump's supporters, but not make it just a personality referendum. I think

that was smart. I then think the second phase of the election really shifted hard to parents and schools, and I think Loudon County played a pivotal part in this victory. Had the horrific events that transpired in Loudon County, not happened. I think the odds are very good. Terry mcculliff would be the next governor of Virginia. That that Loudon mccuny, And we've talked about it before on the pod, we

talked about it on our campus tour. But in terms of Virginia, I think a lot of parents were offended to be treated as domestic terrorists, to be dismissed, to be to be ridiculed, to have their concerns just sidelines. And and I think the arrogance of the far left what was was parents are you guys don't matter? And I think there were a lot of parents, in particular moms in Virginia that didn't appreciate it. And last night's

election that played a really pivotal partner. Yeah, you know this, this actually brings up another aspect of the past few weeks. And I'd like to bring Liz in for this because I do I do want to get to our mail bag, but I would ask Senator, we're talking about law and order and the supposed moderates out there. You grilled Merrick Garland, the supposedly moderate judges, the the Attorney General. Now for Joe Biden. You grilled him, and I think we would

be very remiss if we didn't talk about it. So, yeah, Michael, that's right. Last week Merritt Garland testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I took the opportunity to question him for very gently but but but but to really hold him to account for what I think is

the politicization of the Department of Justice. You know, at his confirmation here in Garland said that he would not allow dj to become wanted to become under Barack Obama, which was a political weapon used to target the enemies of the White House. And in this instance, in particular, I think that's exactly what Garland allowed it to happen.

And so you know, I began with this letter from then Association of school Boards and I said, look, dude, you know, General Garland, do you know how many instances are cited in this letter? The letter was the basis of his direction to the FBI and his memo. He said, no, I don't know how many. And I said, well, I just did a quick count right here. There are twenty of them. Do you know how many of them are violent? Or arguably violent on their face. He said, no, I

don't know that either. I said, well, there's a reason you don't know that, because you didn't give a damn to check. You didn't look, your staff didn't look, No one investigated. From my quick examination of the letter, here it appears five of them, on their face may have been violent. That means fifteen of them were not. Now, fifteen of them were expressing speech, sometimes parents who were mad, who were expressing vigorous speech, but they were engaged in

activity protected by the First Amendment. And I put it. I said, look, DJ, senators, we've sent letters to DJ that for months. You ignore. You don't care what we have to say. You just utterly ignore when we write the Department of Justice. And yet when these well connected democrats who were working with the White House demand that you go after parents and target them, five days later, you snap your fingers and you direct the FBI to

do it. And the heat on the National Association of school Boards was so great they actually withdrew the letter. They apologized for it. They're having you know, local chapters resigned from their organization, and that they said they were embarrassed by the letter. They withdrew it, and I asked the Attorney General, well, are you embarrassed? Do you have any Do you have the same integrity, the same sense of shame that the n Association of school Boards did.

And Garland's like, no, no, no, no, no, I apologize for nothing. There was nothing that intimidated parents. And it's like, really, really, you think sending the FBI to go after parents, that that's not intimidating, that doesn't chill their speech, that doesn't frustrate our democratic process. And it really was striking. I think both the arrogance that Garland conveyed, but simultaneously the cluelessness and one component of that. Look, Garland has been

a judge for twenty four years. He hasn't had anybody questioned him in twenty four years. He's not faced a single difficult question. He's not had anyone scrutinize what he says or does. To be honest, he probably hasn't had anyone say an unkind word to him in twenty four years. Federal judges, particularly judges on the DC Circuit, the second highest court in the land, everybody who interacts with them

kisses their behinds all day long. And I think Garland was willing to play the political hack and give the White House what they wanted, and it never even occurred to him that he would face scrutiny or oversight from anyone else. And he said, well, lawyers who would read this memo would understand the Supreme Court case law of this case. In the other case, I'm like, I'm sorry, Mom doesn't understand that parents aren't reading Supreme Court cases.

You're the attorney general. You don't think sending a memo to the FBI, to the men in black, the g men to go target parents's intimidation, then you are being clueless, you're not doing your job as attorney general, and you're allowing DJ to be politicized. And I think that it was shameful, but it was also it played a real role in the victory in Virginia last night. Now with that, Liz, you're you're back. Now, do we do we have any questions from the mail bag from Verdict Plus? We do?

And by the way, I think you're exactly correct on how serious uh Merrick Garland's behavior, how much of an impact it had in Virginia. It's almost inarguable that it didn't. And you played a really big role in that. So I know that our our country appreciates that, especially parents of young children who don't want their kids indoctrinated. So, anybody who's not part of Verdict plus, I invite you to join us over there at Verdict with Ted Cruise dot com slash plus, who got exclusive access to the

Senator himself. A lot of your questions will be answered, just like right now, there are some great questions. While I t these up, I do want to skip the line and ask you a question myself, and that is there's a rumor in the United States Senate that you lost a wager on the floor of the Senate. Can you confirm, Senator, whether this is true or false? Oh

that's painful. It is very painful. So tragically, my astros lost the World Series and we lost last night, and I will say you know so Tuesday night, I truly was bittersweet because I was at the younke In election party. We were celebrating the victory. It looked like a victory all night long, but on my phone, I was watching the live stream of Game six of the World Series and the Braves were just whipping our asses. It wasn't

even close. First couple innings were pretty good. Then we were down three nothing, then we were down six nothing, then we were down seven nothing. And so I'm miserable watching it, but really happy for Virginia in the country. But it gets even worse because I had a wager with John Assaff, the new senator from Georgia, over who would win the World Series, and the stakes of the wager.

Now that I've lost, sadly, I'm going to have to deliver Texas barbecue and scheinerback beer to his entire staff and so we'll we'll treat them to lunch and give him Texas barbecue and beer. Um. And it's okay because they don't really have barbecue in Georgia. I'll get some grief for that comment. Um. But even worse, I'm going to have to wear a Braves jersey, which which which it'd already burns. I can feel the pain from doing so. Um.

This is my third World Series wager. Two years ago in twenty nineteen, I had a bet with with Tim Caine over the Astros and the national Sadly I lost that one, and so I delivered to Tim the barbecue the beer, and I wore a Nats Jersey. But two years before that, in twenty seventeen, I had a wager with Kamala Harris, and Kamala delivered California wine and Sees chocolate and she live streamed it as as she was

wearing Astro's gear. And so I got to say, winning the bet is a lot more fun than losing the bet. And and so I'm not looking forward to paying up to aus Off. I will do so, And I talked to him tonight about it. I said, look, I'll do so, and I'll do so cheery, but but be forewarned I'm going to be bitching about it. At the same time, Well, we look forward to seeing, you know, at least images,

if not videos of this over on Verdict. Plus, I know we're sorry that you lost the wager, but we do want a little peek into this, a little peek into this tradition that you've set. And Liz, I do have to say, there is something exquisite that the World Series was between Texas and Georgia, two states that passed voter integrity laws. After Major League Baseball yanked the All Star Game out of Atlanta because Georgia passed Georgia voter

integrity laws. I love the fact that the World Series Trophy that Major League Baseball had to present it in Atlanta. They have, they had to, they had to go to the commissioner, had to go to games in Houston and Atlanta, and and it is all I can say is karma is a bitch. And it really is a beautiful, beautiful thing. It is it is. I mean, that's poetic justice if I ever heard it. Okay, we have a lot of

great questions tonight. I want to it's to Nancy's question first, and this I think speaks a little bit to the demographic that won the election for Glen Yonkin and Virginia. Nancy asks, please explain the difference between suburban voters and working class voters. She says, she's both. Yeah. So that's a very good question, and it goes right to the heart of two demographic trends that are playing out in the country, that have played out for the last several years.

One is working class voters, the blue collar voters who have been moving right, and those are truck drivers, steel workers, construction workers, cops, firefighters, the men and women with callouses on their hands, the people that work at factories union members. They've been moving right. That's moved Midwestern states more Republican.

As a consequence, simultaneously, you have suburban voters, voters who live not in the inner cities, but who live in the suburb surrounding big cities, and in particular, suburban women. You have you know, they used to be called soccer moms and and women who live in the suburbs. Historically,

the suburbs have been Republican. In Texas, for example, the suburbs around our cities the way Texas has historically voted, the big cities are bright blue, the suburbs have been red donuts surrounding the big cities, and then the rural areas voted Republican as well, and that that combination kept Texas reliably Republican. Well in the last few years, the suburbs have turned purple. They're not blue, but they've turned purple.

That a number of suburban voters, particularly suburban women, had begun voting Democrat, and a number of suburban women were not fans of President Trump, and it was really a personality referendum with some suburban women voters. What we saw in Virginia is the working class voters stayed with Junken, But at the same time he brought some of those suburban women who had shifted Democrat. He brought them back to the Republican tally. And if we bring both of

those together, that's really a winning coalition, it is. And if only we could continue this sweet, sweet victory that we've been reveling in all day on the Republican side, I think that would be great. Okay, the next question is the user name of this individual's software nugget who asks, I was just watching some of clips of you, Senator Cruz on YouTube and wondering why you use the terms biological male and biological female, as if there are other

types instead of just male and female. Yeah, looks it's a good question, and I guess I would say it is a nod towards modern discussion. That you've got the left who bizarrely insists that if I say I'm a woman, i am a woman, and just the act of declaring I am woman, hear me, roar, transforms me into being a woman. And there's so much language police today that when you refer to a male or female, given how the media covers it, given the sort of bizarre language

games that we play, there is arguably some ambiguity. And so when I use the phrase a biological male, I mean someone that's got a Y chromosome and has has got the the the equipment that makes a male. A biological female. You got two X chromosomes, you have the equipment that makes you female. I'm just trying to describe the hardware and the genes. I'm not speaking necessarily about what you believe, what you want to be, what gender, whether male, female, or any of the what is it?

Facebook has fifty seven different genders. I don't even understand all the different worlds of genders people say they are. I get the point, but it but for me, at least, it's the clearest way to convey in this bizarre language Orwellian world we live in, what it is I'm trying to convey. I do not use the term biological male or biological female because I do fear that it grants

the premise that there are other kinds of males. You know, you're a spiritual mail or psychological mail or something like that. But I do understand the prudential reason that people are doing it. It is to draw this distinction First of all, it is to meet people where they are. It is to sometimes to avoid certain bands on big tech platforms that will forbid you from referring to a man who thinks that he's a woman as a man. I mean, there are all of these prudential and instrumental reasons to

do that. But yes, I do think ultimately the way we're going to win is by watching that language very very closely and recognizing that even when we appear to be opposing the new politically correct jargons, sometimes we can inadvertently be accepting some of their premises. And so you know, they say it's it's good to be blunt and straight talking and call a spade a spade, and yes, I think we ought to call a man a man and

a woman a woman. Well, there you go. And for anybody who wants to submit questions for our next episode, for the mailbag on that episode, please go over to Verdict with Ted Cruise dot com. Slash plus supporters exclusively have the option to submit questions for Michael Knowles and Senator Ted Cruise. All right, this next question is actually one of my favorite questions. I'm very excited to hear your answer this is what they ask Senor what three

government agencies would you most like to abolish? Number one the IRS. I think the IRS is a tool of oppression. I think it is a tool of intrusion into privacy. You can see with the Bernie Sanders budgets the Democrats are trying to use the IRS to monitor every financial transaction any American engages in over six hundred dollars. I would shut down the IRS. I would padlock it. I think we ought to have a simple flat tax, where

you fill out your taxes on a postcard. I've introduced, I've laid out the details of a flat tax and how you could operate it. That would be incredibly simple that virtually the entirety of the IRS would become irrelevant and unnecessary. So that would be number one. Very close

second would be the Federal Department of Education. I think the Federal Department of Education has been used to try to impose national curriculum standards, to try to violate and trample upon the authority of local jurisdictions to run their own schools. I don't think we need a federal government trying to set local curricula. As for the third ones that there are a number of different ones you can you can point to. I'd probably point to the Department

of Commerce's third. The Department of Commerce is a big grab bag of all sorts of different whether it is corporate welfare and ony ism, are all sorts of different components. There's some elements of the Department of Commerce that are necessary. For example, the Census Bureau Constitution actually requires the federal government to conduct a census every ten years. We still need a census bureau, So you could move the Census Bureau somewhere else. You don't need the whole Commerce Department

to do it. There are other elements of the Commerce Department. There are some essential functions in it. You know. I gotta say, Liz, I think back to nineteen ninety five. So nineteen ninety five, I just graduated from law school and I was a law clerk in Northern Virginia, was clerking for Judge Michael Ludig, who was at the time

the strongest conservative Federal Pellet judge in the country. And it was at the time of the newt Gingrich the Republican Revolution had just happened, and then you remember there was a government shutdown at the time and only essential workers federal workers were allowed to go to work. And I remember the Department of Commerce at the time put out a press release that they said, seventy percent of

our workers did not come into work. Only thirty percent came in, but they said fear not all essential functions were carried out. And I remember laughing at the time and saying, great, you've just put out a press release saying you only need thirty percent of your staff. That seventy percent can be dismissed tomorrow. If all the essential functions can be done with thirty percent of your staff,

we can save some real money. So that So that's that's in an initial stabs at three agencies, and listen, I'll like any answer that essentially encompasses the idea of abolishing the administrative state once and for all. And I think those answers are pretty good. All right, Michael, Now, same question to you, what three government agencies would you most like to abolish? Well, these days, I'd like to

go after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. I don't really like that this sort of little known agency that is now enforcing this draconian vaccine mandate on everybody. That would be one that I think should go. The people often will say, you know, the Energy Department, and that's all well and good, but I'd like to get rid of some of these more obscure offices, you know. I'd like to get rid of the within each office. I would like to get rid of the deputy assistant, deputy

director or assistant of diversity and inclusion and equity. I'd like to get into that. And then really even beyond

abolishing these agencies and departments, I want to take them over. Okay, we've been talking about cutting all these agencies for a long time, but I think that assuming we're not going to be able to do that all that successfully, I want to go in, get our own guys in there, and then start wielding the government on the happy occasions that the people give us political power, two ends that are good and just and moral and right and more

favorable to conservatives. Well, that that may be easier said than done, although I certainly agree with you. All right, I'm looking on Verdict plus now all of the great people over on Verdict plus. I've been submitting questions, and here's a question, Michael, for you. This is the question, is the quote unquote common good branch of conservatism, actually conservative. Is it constitutional? This question comes from Nancy. Oh, yes,

of course it is. By definition. You know, a republic comes from the rest res publica right, the things we have together, the things that are in common. The Constitution is pretty clear it's to provide the blessings of liberty for the American people, to provide for the general welfare. And the whole point of self government is that we are going to exercise our judgment and our prudence to

have a better country for all of us. We don't just live as these individualized atoms floating in free space. We have a country together, and so we need to have things in common. And you know, this didn't used to be controversial. I mean, this was the understanding of not just the founding fathers, but of statesmen from time immemorial. And I think one thing that we've made a mistake in recent decades is we have put the cart before the horse. That phrase blessings of liberty here, I think

is pretty important. Liberty is wonderful, true liberty, especially as wonderful and individual liberty and the liberty of localities is all wonderful, but it's an instrument. It's not an end

unto itself. It is an instrument towards something. When the framers of the Constitution tell us that they are trying to give us the blessings of liberty, that they are acknowledging something that we all used to know, which is that our liberty is not just so that we can sit at home and say, by Golly, I'm free, but so that we can have a good country, so that we ourselves can flourish, our families can flourish, our communities

can flourish, and ultimately our nation can flourish. It's it's deeply, deeply conservative, and the denial of the common good, or of the good, or this hyper focus on emancipation and liberation or whatever that really historically comes from the left much more than it comes from the right or from conservatives. This is almost part two. I think of the great conversation that we had at Catholic University that spoke to the definition of liberty and how that is inherently I

guess you positive that it includes the common good. It was a great debate. Okay, So one more question that we have here is a very good question, very pertinent to the time that we are in right now, and this comes also from Verdict plus from the user name McCracklin. He says, should government leaders be making decisions about mandates that they or their family will heavily profit from, is

that a legal or ethical conflict of interest? Certainly it would be if a government official stands to reap a huge sum of money because of some policy that he's foisting onto the public, that would be a major conflict of interest. And it relates to another problem we have in Washington, DC, which is people legislators in Washington DC forcing mandates on their constituents that they do not abide

by themselves. And the Senator Curtis has alluded to this number of times with some of his Democrat colleagues over there, and pro mass and pro mandate Democrats throughout our politics, who demand one thing of all of us, and then when you catch them at a party, or catch them at a restaurant, or catch them out on the street, or even when they think the cameras are off, they

will not be following that themselves. And so I think there needs to be a lot of accountability, a lot of the debate that we've had here on the lockdown mandates and the rest of it have focused on ideology, philosophy, the science, and all of these ideas, but there is just a basic level of corruption you've got to watch out for. Two. You do not want your politicians of any party being crooked, corrupt, and abusing the public trust

for their own private game. And so it's something we absolutely need to watch out for, especially during this massive power grab of the last five hundred ninety two some odd days of fifteen days to slow this right, and I think maybe the last twenty months, since the beginning of COVID, more Americans than ever before have understood have firsthand tangible knowledge of what it means when government officials are corrupt. All right, this question is just for the Senator.

Andrew John asks, after the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, just how tense is the air among Senate Democrats from your perspective, you know, it's interesting. They ought to be freaking out. I think it varies. The hard left. Their response to the elections is doubling down. Their response, whether it's Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or AOC. They say the reason they lost Virginia is they weren't radical enough. They needed to be even more extreme. They needed to

ram through Bernie Sanders socialist budget. They needed to be more spend more money, be more radical, be more crazy. That that's why they didn't win. I've got to think there's some Democrats that realize that's crazy talk, but if

they do, they're not saying it. I will say this morning in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I went round and round with Bob Menendez from New Jersey and Tim Kine from Virginia, and we were fighting on the State Department in foreign policy, and in particular, the Biden administration is withholding one hundred and thirty million dollars of military aid to Egypt in order to try to force Egypt to release sixteen prisoners who are currently incarcerated, and they

won't publicly identify who those sixteen prisoners are. And so I'm trying to force the administration to name the sixteen prisoners to make it public. And I've asked them, are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they terrorists? Are they anti Semites? Are they are they anti American? What's

their history? And the Biden administration doesn't want to because I think they can't defend the radicals that they're trying to get released, and and so we were going back and forth, and at the hearing, you know, Tim Kaine made a reference to accountability, and I laughed and said, you know, Senator from Virginia referenced accountability while I was in his state last night. And we had some accountability

because the voters of Virginia elected a Republican governor. And I would note the chairman of the committee, Senator Menendez, his state right now is basically tied in the gubernatorial race and they've they've since narrowly called it for the Democrat. But that's some real accountability. It's accountability for the extreme policies of this administration. And at least and that hearing, boy, they did not like it. You could see the fury

and rage. And there's nothing Democrats like less than when the voters hold them accountable. And I will be shocked if they're not some moderate Democrats right now behind closed doors just freaking out, But at least publicly, they're not

expressing it all that much. Well, I think we've all seen the of Kamala Harris, Vice President Harris, while she was on the campaign trail for Terry mcculiffe saying that the state of Virginia, this gubernatorial race was going to be a bell weather, not just for twenty twenty two, but for twenty twenty four. My question to you is, do you believe that this is accurate? Is the victory for Republicans in Virginia a bell weather of what's to come?

Very much? So? I think that's why Virginia matters so much. When I was barnstorming the state of Virginia, when I was campaigning with Glen Yungkan, That's something I said at every rally we did, I said, listen, Virginia is a bell weather. And I pointed out the last time we had something like this was was two thousand and nine. Barack Obama became president. He was a radical leftist. He ran through Obamacare, he ran through Dodd Frank and it

was he went far to left. And the very next election that occurred was two thousand, was two thousand and ten, and it was the Virginia Gubnor two thousand and nine, the Virginia gubernatorial election. It's the off cycle year and and New Jersey, and in that year Bob McDonald won a Republican in Virginia and Chris Christi one, a Republican in New Jersey. Republicans won both of those elections, and it pressaged the two thousand and ten Republican title wave

that was coming, and it really set that up. I think last night was similar that the victory in Virginia shows twenty twenty two is going to be a very very good election, and if Democrats keep doubling down on radical leftist policies, I think it also pressages twenty twenty four, which I believe is going to be a very very

good election. Again. Michael, same question. Do you you know it was a great relief last night when the Republicans won this election and did very well elsewhere outside of Virginia as well, because I think so many of us were so depressed. We thought the system is just rigged, and they're going to be ballot drops at three o'clock in the morning and a water pipe is going to burst, and we're just not going to win any elections again.

And this has this reinforcing effect because if you think that it's not possible for you to win elections, then you're less likely to turn out, you're less likely to register, you're less likely to do those things, and so it'll become a self fulfilling prophecy. So I do think it reminded us the Republic's not dead yet. There is still a chance Republicans can still win. It's really I totally agree. I don't think this vodes well for Democrats in twenty

twenty two or twenty twenty four either. Now we've got we've got two things ahead of us. One, we've got to make sure the Republicans we just elected actually do something and have a record of accomplishment. And as Senator Cruz knows well, sometimes his squishier colleagues out there are not so good at that, and it's really the stalwarts who hold firms. So we've got to do that. We got to keep up the focus, we've got to keep up the excitement. And I think this is so strange

for Concernervatives. We actually might have a whole lot to look forward to in the coming elections. Liz, it is so wonderful for you to join us, for you to join us obviously on the tour in person and digitally as well. Now we've got to leave it there, but before we go, since we so enjoyed being on the road for a Verdict Live and seeing all of you all around the country. We're doing it again. We are partnering with YAF again next semester for the Verdict Live

Spring Tour. If you want us to come to your school, then apply at YAF dot org slash Verdict. You can submit an application there, whether you are at some nice, wonderful conservative Christian school or maybe you're among the Purple Hairs at UC Berkeley. Wherever you are applied today. We look forward to seeing you next time. We look forward to seeing you in person. But until then, 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.