Will Trump Declare Victory and End the War, Or Push Forward, Possibly With a Risky Ground Offensive?

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Morning Meeting – April 1, 2026

Episode Theme and Purpose

This episode of “The Morning Meeting” on 2WAY, hosted by Mark Halperin with guest co-hosts Hogan Gidley and Kevin Walling (later joined by “Professor Kenny”), dives deep into a tension-filled day in American politics: President Trump is set to deliver a high-stakes evening speech amidst the ongoing Iran conflict, and speculation is rampant about whether he’ll declare victory and wind down the war or push toward further escalation—potentially including a risky ground offensive. The episode provides a behind-the-scenes “newsroom” discussion and analysis of breaking developments, military moves, political fallout, and (as always) audience Q&A.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Tense Anticipation: What Will Trump Announce?

[00:18–03:01]

• Uncertainty dominates: “Nobody knows what he’s going to say. At least nobody I know who’s talking knows what he’s going to say.” (Mark Halperin, 00:26)
• Both Gidley and Walling predict the war will last “two to three weeks,” mirroring Trump’s typical timeline claims.
• A White House visit and rare Supreme Court attendance by President Trump (on a key birthright citizenship case) are noted. There’s curiosity about details of the speech location, with the “Oval Office” likely but not certain.
• News cycles and network programming (notably CBS’s “Survivor”) are affected by the timing and possible length of the address.

2. War Status Update: Ceasefire Hints and Confusion

[10:47–17:57]

• Breaking Trump “Truth” post: Trump claims Iran’s president asked for a ceasefire; he responds, “We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion. Or as they say, back to the Stone Ages. President djt.” (Read live, 11:31)
  • Quote [11:31] (Trump via Truth Social):
    “Iran's new regime president, much less radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a ceasefire. We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion. Or as they say, back to the Stone Ages.”
• Panel uncertain about factual basis for Trump’s claim; media not confirming yet.
  • Kevin Walling: “I think the President is putting out expectations... And putting the onus now on the regime, whatever that is, Iran.” [13:11]
  • Gidley sees Trump’s statement as a flexible negotiating tactic—possibly baiting Iran or other international players.

3. The “Real” War Objectives: Ballistic Missiles (Not Nuclear)?

[18:08–25:53]

• Secretary Rubio (Sec. of State) and Israeli officials suggest war’s aim is not regime change or solely stopping Iran’s nuclear program, but to degrade its ability to launch massed ballistic missiles and drones.
  • “[Rubio] says... the goal of the war is to limit their naval capacity, their drone capacity, and most of all, their ballistic missile capacity.” (Halperin, 18:08)
  • Israeli ambassador privately shared that Iran's ballistic missile build-up made Israel uniquely vulnerable, prompting US-Israel war coordination. [19:57–21:59]
• Gidley and Walling highlight the “math/money” problem: It’s unsustainable to use $1M US missiles to shoot down $30k Iranian drones; pushes US to ramp up production of cheaper anti-drone technologies.
  • “We are using million-dollar missiles to take out $30,000 drones. They've got a whole lot more drones than we have missiles. I think the Pentagon is going, wait a minute, let's meet them where we are.” (Gidley, 23:51)

4. Military/Diplomatic Escalation, Not De-escalation

[25:53–29:13]

• Despite talk of a near-term end, many signs suggest escalation:
  • Strait of Hormuz remains closed.
  • UAE considering direct participation in the conflict for the first time.
  • US moving the USS George H.W. Bush carrier group to the region; Britain mobilizing assets.
  • Oil markets stable, not pressuring political actors.
• The hosts challenge the idea that Trump is “bluffing” about ending the war, noting historical precedent for him using mobilized force.

5. Cracks in US Alliances: NATO & Middle East

[29:13–35:16]

• Trump and Secretary Rubio’s visible frustration with NATO: Allies not contributing enough militarily or even refusing US overflight rights.
  • “If we're the only ones going into these things ... that's a one-way relationship that has to be at the very least examined and audited.” (Gidley, 33:23)
  • Kevin Walling notes only time Article 5 (mutual defense) was invoked was post-9/11 in support of the US, but now EU allies seem reticent.
• UK set to host coalition talks among 35 countries about reopening Strait of Hormuz.

6. Low Poll Numbers for Trump and Democrats

[35:16–40:25]

• New CNN poll: Trump’s overall job approval at 35%, economy approval at 31% (down several points since January).
  • “Trump's policies worsened economic conditions — 65% say yes now, up from 55% in January.” (Halperin, 36:25)
• Democrats in Congress also deeply unpopular: 74% say priorities are wrong.
  • Walling cautions Democrats not to be complacent: “We’ve got to make a concerted effort ... not just rest on our laurels.” [38:14]

7. Newsom’s “You’re Gay” Tactic Controversy

[40:25–41:26]

• NYT story highlights Gov. Newsom’s team using accusations of effeminacy or homosexuality as political insults against Republicans.
  • Walling: “Just not super helpful ... seems kind of silly to me.” (40:48)
  • Professor Kenny: “Yeah, it's offensive and it's not effective ... Gavin Newsom is not authentic.” (41:09)

8. Lighter Moment: Ballpark Food and Baseball Season

[41:26–43:46]

• Mark Halperin introduces the new $25 “drumstick-shaped ice cream” at Yankee Stadium as the “most American thing I’ve ever seen.” [42:07]
• Panel jokes about confusing it for chicken, cost, and expensability:
  • “In this economy?” (Professor Kenny, 43:16)
  • “You’re in charge. You approve our own expenses.” (Walling, 43:22)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “You can't interrupt Survivor with a just stay the course speech.”
  — Walling, [02:03]
• “Back to the Stone Ages. Not a far trip for Iran, let's be honest.”
  — Hogan Gidley, [11:58]
• “We are using million-dollar missiles to take out $30,000 drones. They've got a whole lot more drones than we have missiles.”
  — Hogan Gidley, [23:51]
• “If we're the only ones going into these things ... that's a one-way relationship that has to be at the very least examined and audited.”
  — Hogan Gidley, [33:23]
• “Trump's policies worsened, worsened economic conditions. 65% say yes now.”
  — Mark Halperin, [36:25]
• “Newsom’s new attack on political enemies: You’re gay... It’s offensive and it’s not effective. ... Gavin Newsom is not authentic.”
  — Professor Kenny, [41:09]
• “Baseball season than ballpark food. And I believe this is this season's finest innovation ... That is not chicken. It is a drumstick-shaped ice cream ...”
  — Mark Halperin, [41:26–42:25]

---

Audience Q&A Highlights

Vance vs. Rubio: Who Has the Presidential Advantage?

[43:46–49:21]

• Listeners ask if Vice President JD Vance or Secretary Rubio would have an advantage in a hypothetical GOP primary. Consensus: unlikely matchup, but Vance currently underrated, Rubio overrated.

Social Media Lawsuit Precedents

[51:14–55:44]

• Questions on the implications of major settlements for social media addiction and accountability:
  • Walling: “Money more than anything changes, especially in social media... It’s daily, your point, creates some strange bedfellows — not just a partisan issue.”
  • Professor Kenny: “If it [regulation] could be, that would be awesome. Maybe this is a step in the right direction.”

More on Swing State and Governor Races

[55:44–59:53]

• Pennsylvania listener reports Vance’s strong ground appeal, mentions Shapiro as a top Democratic contender in 2028; panel discusses gubernatorial prospects and Democratic party strategy.

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 00:18 – Episode theme, opening speculation on the Trump address, introduction of co-hosts
• 01:09–02:09 – Panel timeline predictions for war’s end
• 03:01–06:46 – Daybook rundown, Trump’s Supreme Court visit, and speech anticipation
• 10:47–17:57 – Trump’s Truth Social ceasefire claim and live reaction
• 18:08–25:53 – Shift in war objectives: Ballistic missiles cited as new primary danger
• 25:53–29:13 – Military developments, regional alliances, doubts about imminent peace
• 29:13–35:16 – NATO relationship: Support fraying, “one-way relationship” doubts
• 35:16–40:25 – Poll numbers: Trump and Democrats both underperforming
• 40:25–41:26 – Gavin Newsom’s controversial campaign tactics
• 41:26–43:46 – Lighter segment: “Chicken” ice cream at Yankee Stadium
• 43:46–49:21 – Q&A: Vance vs. Rubio in the GOP’s future
• 51:14–55:44 – Q&A: Social media regulation and precedent
• 55:44–59:53 – Q&A: Pennsylvania politics, gubernatorial races, and 2028 outlook

---

Overall Episode Tone

• Candid, fast-paced, occasionally humorous, and at times (especially on war and alliances) critical and urgent.
• Sharp banter among hosts, often referencing inside political knowledge, but balanced by clear explanations for broader listening audience.
• Audience participation is robust, allowing for cross-partisan and on-the-ground insights.

---

Summary Takeaway

If you missed the episode, the central storyline is the extreme uncertainty and high stakes surrounding Trump’s imminent national address: Will he pivot abruptly to peace—or push onward, deepening US engagement in Iran? The panel sifts through confusing signals, behind-the-scenes maneuvering, and new reporting to shed light on what may come next, with broader implications for America’s global role, alliances, and November’s political battles. All this—plus baseball oddities—makes for a jam-packed episode at the intersection of media, politics, and war.

Transcript

[A]

This is worth knowing. TikTok Shop helps you discover good value products and surprise deals fast. No endless searching, just smart finds. Download TikTok now,

[B]

Huh? Try to get stuff in before we go live, says Hogan Gidley, one of our two guest co hosts today, along with Kevin Walling. Gentlemen, welcome in. We are exactly 12 hours away from the president's speech this evening, and nobody knows what he's going to say. At least nobody I know who's talking knows what he's going to say. We'll talk a lot about the speech. We'll also talk about the various strands out there that some speak to the notion that the war could go on for a long time and some speak otherwise. And perhaps there's decoys. Perhaps they're trying to create an impression of something that's not happening or vice versa or whatever. Guys, just tell me quick and we'll, we'll dig back into all this. Kevin, you first. Are you, are you in the this thing's going to end soon camp or are you in this thing's going on for a long time camp?

[A]

I think, God, I mean, I'm of the two, two to three week camp. Even though the president uses that timeline to talk about pretty much everything.

[B]

Yeah. And of course, during this conflict, he said, he said on it five or six occasions. So the war is going to end soon, Hogan, if we take two or three weeks as the, as the baseline. Are you over. Under that for when it will actually end?

[C]

I'm right there.

[B]

Right there. Two to three weeks. Interesting. All right, we're going to take your questions later in the program if you want to. Yeah, go ahead.

[C]

I have been talking to people who will be in the White House today for this speech.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And again, I think you're right, Mark. I'm, I'm hearing both. This could escalate or this is just a, A, a de. Escalation speech. We're not sure. I doubt it's going to be just a here's how it's going speech. I do think he's going to give us something one way.

[A]

Yeah, you can't, you can't interrupt Survivor with a just stay the course speech.

[B]

There you go. We're going to get to all the, the day book and all the days news and our discussion and then to your questions and comments. Please raise your hand if you'd like to get in on the conversation. If you're watching on X or YouTube, please don't put smack in the chat, please. Peace, love and understanding. Express at least as much peace Love and understanding as if you were the Iranian foreign minister. Say, and maybe, maybe a good deal more. And, and I'll say this, there's a possibility that one of you, if you're a Republican, if you're a MAGA person or a Republican of some sort, it's possible you can guest co host parts of this program today. So if that's your, if that's your thing, if that's your identification, please put in the chat that you'd like to guest co host. Just volunteer in there. Just say, yes, I'd like to guest coast. Later in the program you'll maybe have an opportunity to do that.

[A]

This is the two way Star Search. You know, we call it the search for the program.

[B]

One of the original ideas of two ways we're gonna have the search for America's next great pundit. We're gonna find our own Donna Brazil, our own Coral Rove. And perhaps we will today. Okay, let me run through the day book. The President speaks tonight at 9 o'. Clock. Before then he's got executive time. Now he's doing an unusual thing for the second time. He'll go over to the Supreme Court and listen to the oral arguments on the case involving birthright citizenship at 10. I know I've told this story before, but I once had a case of mine argued before the Supreme Court and I got to go sit and you sit for, through two arguments. Typically, I'm sure the President's not going to do that. And I fell, mine was second. I fell asleep during the other one and they almost kicked me out. Apparently you're not allowed to know. Not off the President's easter lunch at 12:30. Hogan, do you know who's coming to that thing?

[C]

I don't.

[B]

Easter lunch. I don't remember the President doing Easter lunch before. Maybe I'm forgetting. So we'll look into that policy meeting at 3 and then his address the nation at 9 tonight, thanks to a note from CBS network to its affiliates. Kevin mentioned Survivor, so a lot of interest amongst the affiliates about how long this thing is going to be. According to information that CBS has 20 minutes from nine to nine, 20 Survivor airs from eight to nine, then a 20 minute break and then Survivor comes back. That's on CBS.

[A]

Mark and Hogan, do we know is this going to be from the Oval, the East east room? Do we have any indication the backdrop for this?

[B]

I thought Oval, but maybe I just made that up.

[C]

Okay, I thought, but it's just because I thought, yeah, the gravity Oval. But you know, he doesn't he doesn't like to use that necessarily. He likes other.

[A]

He likes that walk down the. The colony, down to the. Whatever the.

[C]

He.

[B]

Maybe I'll do it. Maybe I'll do it. From the construction site, standing in front of the construction of the ball.

[C]

You know, when Mariano Rivera was there getting his award, the relief picture for the Yankees.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

We were back there, and Trump says to me, now they're playing Hail to the Chief. I said, yeah. Goes, no, no. You go to the DJ over there, the person playing the music, you tell them, tell the band not to play. I want Inner Sandman for Mario Rivera. So sure enough, you go back and watch it. Here they come down the carpet and Metallica starts.

[B]

That's good. Save that for your memoirs. Trump again. I've said this again. I have something I've said many times, but I like to repeat myself. Is a huge and knowledgeable sports fan. People don't realize it, but he is a huge and knowledgeable sports fan fan. Like. Like Barack Obama and like George W. Bush. They can talk sports forever with. With great knowledge. Vice president, I assume, will be at the White House for the speech, but he's got no public schedule. As of now, House and Senate remain out, and all the problems that they have remain in place. And the Supreme Court is hearing Trump versus Barbera. Who is Barbera? Anybody know who the. Who the other person in that case is? I don't know.

[C]

Maybe the cartoons.

[B]

Yeah. Hanna Barbera. Yeah. Anyway, it's the constitutionality of the president's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. Widely expected that the justices will strike this down, saying the president's not authorized to do it, but who knows? And then tonight, 6:24pm Eastern Time, the Artemis II launch window opens at the Kennedy Space Center. Where's that mission going, Kevin?

[A]

Around the moon and back. It's gonna be the farthest we've traveled. A man's space program. The farthest we've traveled farthest.

[B]

Really?

[A]

Yeah. I mean, I think we're going farther out beyond the moon and then coming back around.

[C]

Wait, Kevin.

[A]

Farther than Apollo? Well, they all slingshot around for the most part to build up speed. I think this is the farthest. Yeah, this is the bigger, biggest.

[B]

Hogan, why are they calling this a honeymooners mission?

[A]

To the moon. To the moon.

[B]

The moon. To the moon. Send it to the moon. Alice, thank you.

[C]

I thought because they were going to plant.

[A]

I'm 47, so any. Any reference from that. I'm on it.

[B]

Thank you. Appreciate that. All right, a quick word from a Sponsor. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm your problem solver. I fix things for you. I make things better. I. I cut. I cut out your worry. How many of you need Mother's Day gifts? Probably most of you. Most of you need Mother's Day gifts. Well, get them right now at cozy earth. Cozyearth.com will give you 20% off everything on the site with the promo code Morning. Let me give you some other state gift ideas to create comfort design for the rhythm those women live in every day. Softness that greets her in the morning to the comfort that helps her unwind at night. Here's where you can get folks to care for your mom and get her a great gift. Bathrobe downtime at home should feel effortless. A quiet pause of Mom's Day. Slippers, special kind of comfort. And slipping into something soft and finally exhaling, which is what I do when I put my slippers on. And of course, the bubble cuddle blanket now. Bubble cuddle blanket, sure. Buy one for your mom, but also for Georgie, my friend Margie's new dog. Ladies and gentlemen, here is Georgie on a bubble cuddle blanket. If you're watching, if you're listening on the podcast version. I'm so sorry, Hogan. Just do your best to describe Georgie for the listeners of the podcast.

[C]

Georgie is. Looks like to be a Maltese of some kind. Small, white, fluffy, big, brown, black, doughy eyes.

[B]

Cuter than any dog you've ever seen. Maybe. Maybe it's up there.

[C]

It's a cute dog. These rankings aren't really official. A lot of dogs are cute. That's a really cute one.

[A]

Yeah, that's a.

[B]

All right. Anyway, go to cozyearth.com say hi to Georgie and use the promo code morning for 20% off. This is it. The world as you know it is over.

[D]

Completely done. It's not about to be over.

[B]

It's over. Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm.

[C]

I was selling AI as a great

[B]

thing for decades and I was wrong. I was wrong.

[E]

There's a longer term existential threat that will arise when we create digital beings that are more intelligent than ourselves. We have no idea whether we can stay in control.

[B]

While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that

[C]

it's gonna be the most important invention

[B]

that humanity will ever make.

[A]

This really will be a world of abundance.

[B]

And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get Your podcasts.

[F]

I started with one shop. No college degree, no big investors. It was just a willingness to work. Over time, that one shop turned into a multi billion dollar business called Crash Champions. All the lessons I learned along the way came from the grind. And that's what my show, Pod Crash is all about. We have real conversations with people who've built things the hard way. We talk to founders, athletes, and blue collar leaders who kept going when things got tough. You'll hear stories of grit, leadership and growth. Plus real world lessons you can take back to your team and your life tomorrow.

[B]

When you get momentum, you step on the gas. That's how you get separation from everybody else.

[C]

I was at Harvard Law School. I was. Blah, blah, blah. I looked up, Let me tell you something, there's kids in my neighborhood putting in Sheetrock that are smarter than you.

[B]

AI is going to disrupt a lot of stuff.

[C]

It is never going to disrupt physical

[B]

blue collar trade skill.

[A]

And the guy just looked at me

[B]

and he said, it's bloody impossible.

[A]

So I asked him this question, said it's impossible.

[F]

Unless that's. Podcast with me, Matt ebert. Watch on YouTube and listen wherever you get your podcasts.

[B]

All right, gentlemen, nobody, as I said before, nobody I know knows what the President's going to say. So this is a shot in the dark. But, Hogan, based on what you know, what you think, if, if the president, we said he's going to make some news, Is he going to announce. Well, is he going to say. Is he going to say we have to stop their nuclear program or not? That's one question I have. Is he going to say. Because Secretary Rubio is now saying the nuclear program is not the thing. The thing is the ballistic missiles and the Navy and the drones. So will the President say. Will the President say. Tonight is a factual question. Is this a new. Is this new? Yeah, this from the President. When was this? Moments ago. I've seen a timestamp on eight minutes.

[A]

Eight minutes ago.

[B]

Iran's regime president, much less radicalized and far more intelligent. Iran's new regime president, much less radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a ceasefire. We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion. Or as they say, back to the Stone Ages. President djt. Well, that's an interesting development. Let's talk about this, Hogan, what do you make of that?

[C]

First of all, back to the Stone Ages. Not a far trip for Iran, let's be honest. But I Think this is another message to the international community that there are a lot of if thens with this president. If you do this, then you will receive that. And it seems as though Iran largely incal refusing to have conversations for a long time, then started negotiations that appeared a week or so ago and the President mentioned it in the press. It seems as though they have someone that they're talking to and he's pointing to that someone as a person very reasonable or more reasonable than the previous regime known for. For killing their own citizens.

[B]

Hold on one sec, hold on a second. Sorry. Does anybody see this being reported on cable news? I don't see this on cable news. I see it on cnbc. Hogan, let me break it down and just ask you both a series of questions, if I could. Sure, Kevin. Kevin, first, do we think it's factually true that the Iranians made that offer? Yes or no? Do you think. You don't think it's true? You think the president mistake.

[A]

No, I think the President is putting out expectations. Right. And putting the onus now on the, the, the regime, whatever that is Iran.

[B]

Hold on, hold on. Put it back up, please. I'm curious.

[A]

Put it back up.

[B]

Put it back up. The President says that the President of Iran just offered a ceasefire.

[C]

Just asked.

[B]

President Iran has just asked the United States of America for a ceasefire. Now, that could have been a text to Witkoff. Mr. Witkoff. It could have been through the Pakistanis. It could be the. The Iranians accepted the Chinese, Pakistan. Five point proffer. But again, put it back up. Leave it up. Kevin, do you think that's true or do you think the President's lying or mistaken? Do you think that Iranians said we'd like a ceasefire? Because up until now they haven't.

[A]

Yeah, I think he could be using the COVID of the Pakistani, China, you know, five point proposal as the grounds to say this in terms of the ceasefire, this regime, I don't think is interested. This regime right now, seemingly in a lot of their minds and their heart and minds, their Shia cleric radical minds is winning this fight just by hanging on. So I doubt that they've actually put forward a ceasefire proposal.

[B]

Okay, Hogan, do you think they put. They've asked for a ceasefire?

[C]

It would appear so from this truth from the President. And I tend to believe him.

[B]

Okay, okay.

[C]

In these matters. Real quick, let me give you one option.

[B]

Yes. Yes, sir.

[C]

Again, given this information, what he could have received from Witkoff, from a Kushner, from Pete Hegseth, is a desire from the new person that they're talking to over there, hey, we really need a ceasefire here. And Donald Trump could be floating that in a manner that, you know, that tries to wag the dog a little bit where he goes, all right, I'm hearing rumblings of a ceasefire. I'll just put it out there and see if they want to play ball with this. And if they don't, then we'll just keep. Keep up our military operation.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Because the fact of the matter, too, is, Mark, that. That the Ayatollah, whatever his condition, is still the ultimate authority here. And the president saying Iran's new regime. President. That president, I don't believe is new. I think that president has survived all these attacks and is not new to the scene. And if that's the person he's referencing, I don't know if they're, you know, if he's elevated someone else that they're dealing with the head of the.

[B]

Right.

[A]

The assembly or something like that. But, like, the president is still the same one in place.

[B]

Hold on. I. I'm sorry to keep interrupting. Guys, could you check to see. I'm talking to my colleagues here. Can you take. See if the president just did an interview with Reuters, and if so, slap that up when you find it. I believe he did. Now, here's the part that's confusing to me about the president's post. We will consider a ceasefire when the strait is open free and clear. If the Iranians said, we'll take a ceasefire and we'll open the strait, the president couldn't take that, and the Israelis wouldn't take that, and the UAE wouldn't take that, and the Saudis wouldn't take that. Right. This is just kind of a. See what I'm saying? If the Iranians said, yeah, we'll stop trying to kill people and stop trying to destroy things and open the strait, that's not a good deal for us. Unless once they open the straight and we just break it. See, what I'm saying doesn't make any sense to me. This deal. Hogana.

[C]

No, no, I mean, but again, these things aren't necessarily in stone, so anything could disrupt that. If Donald Trump says, all right, we're. You guys open the straight free and clear. We'll consider this ceasefire. But if someone pops off, you know, in the future, someone pops off a rocket, someone makes a comment, he just turns the spigot back on. I mean, you know, let's not pretend as though these things are. These decisions are made and they just. They're ironclad in perpetuity I mean, they can always move and always change because that region is always moving and always changing. He wants some solidity there, and it looks like that's what he's asking for in this, in this truth post.

[B]

All right, here's the Reuters headline. Kevin, I want to hear what you think about the quote, unquote deal. But here, of course, he said we'll consider it. He didn't say we'd do it. Trump is the headline. Trump says US May exit Iran war soon and threatens to quit NATO as oil crisis escalates. Can you pull out the quote that they're relying on to say, may exit Iran war soon. Here we go. That's not it. Is that it? Is this an interview or not? Maybe not. We're looking for an interview. I was told he did an interview, but maybe not. Kevin, if the, if, if they open the straight, would that end the war? In other words, would. Is what the president's saying there is the war is over if they open the straight or just there'll be a ceasefire while they open the strait?

[A]

I think the latter. And again, it's moving the goalposts a little bit, with the focus obviously on the economic ramifications, the markets and stuff like that informing the president more than anything else, I think.

[B]

Okay, let's move to this. Secretary Rubio now, two days in a row, has seemed to suggest that the goal of the war is not regime change. It's not to open the strait, it's not to eliminate their nuclear capability. The goal of the war is to limit their. Their naval capacity, their drone capacity, and most of all, their ballistic missile capacity. He said this now in various places for the last couple days. And then the president last night during his photo op. Do we have the sound bite of the President talking about nuclear? It's not clear to me from my list here. Anyway, the President said last night, you know, it's all about new. It's all about. It's not about nuclear anymore. Put up 117. I think we have it here. And it's confusing because if you go back to the first night of the war and the President's taped address for Mar a Lago, he talked about nuclear. David Sanger, who follows these issues closer than anybody, says Trump says he halted nuclear threat from Iran despite evidence the contrary. For the second time in recent days, President Trump declared that one of the key objectives of the war had been accomplished. Now, the president suggesting nuclear is taken care of, but Secretary Rubio is not saying that now. A couple days ago, The US ambassador or the Israeli ambassador to the US did a pan. I did a fireside chat type event and here's what he said was the genesis of the U. S Israeli agreement to go to war against Iran. 119 please.

[A]

That their ballistic missiles can overcome the multi layered missile defense systems. And that's when they embarked on program to build three to 400 ballistic missiles a month. The idea was to get to a place where they'd have the ability to shoot hundreds of ballistic missiles at once. They wanted to have 7,000 ballistic missiles in two years.

[B]

He goes on to describe the meeting he was at in the Oval Office with the President of the United States, Bibi and the cabinet. And he says that that's the case that Bibi made. That the reason there had to be a war was not to get the enriched uranium, was not to do regime change. That the reason there had to they had to go to war was because Iran had now developed so many ballistic missiles. He said they, he said they were the equivalent in their, in their power of a mini nuclear weapon. That's the phrase he used I believe. And he said that the increase in quantity produced an increase in quality which is to say Israel can't stop 400 ballistic missiles at one time. They can stop 40, but that they can't stop 400. And that Iran now had so many ballistic missiles of so of such power that Israel was now vulnerable to mass attack. And the reason that that and that the President turned to his cabinet members and his advisors in the room after Bibi's presentation in January and said we have to do this not to get the nuclear material, not to do regime change but that their drone and and ballistic missile capacities had to be eliminated because there was a clear and present danger. That event as best we can tell has not been covered anywhere. It was brought to my attention by a smart person. It dovetails exactly with what Secretary Rubio has said. Now they still talk about nuclear weapons. But Kevin, what do you make of this? This new to my ear justification for a war of choice?

[A]

Yeah, it is new. And Mark, you point out that in Secretary Rubio's video statement like that two minute statement that was the first I really heard it in terms of the focus on ballistic missile. Obviously he talked about the nuclear issue as well and we're seeing the, the lethality of the ballistic missile program. Obviously they tried to target Diego Garcia or Joint base with the UK farther out of the range that we originally thought their, their capabilities were. Yesterday we saw you know, a successful attack by The Iranians again with missiles into Saudi Arabia targeting some of our assets there. I, I would have thought the administration would have put that out front and center because again, it speaks to the ability for Iran not just to target Israel, but to target our NATO allies based on the range of those missiles. And I think that is also, along with the nuclear capability question, a more compelling case for going in and taking out these capabilities.

[C]

I do think they should talk more about the range where Iran lied about the capabilities they had with their ballistic missile program. But there's a reason this administration struck, I think, what, four key ballistic missile sites, construction sites a few days ago, 29 missile launch bases, because the ballistic missile problem was a real one, a real threat that we were facing. But I will take some issue, Mark, with the, with the description of Rubio's comments about it in, in as much as he's talking about the ballistic missiles, getting rid of the Navy, getting rid of the Air Force, those things at the end of that quote, which is often deleted. I'm not saying you're doing it, but outlets do that. He says in context that getting rid of that prevents them from protecting their nuclear facilities.

[B]

Correct.

[C]

Prevents them from further building on their nuclear program, which is part and parcel of the whole thing. So for me, this is not a deviation, it's the same thing. I will point out one more issue that I think is not really being talked about that matters to this argument. There's a math money problem here in that when Iran, for example, is firing off these drones at 30,000, $50,000 a pop, we are using million dollar missiles to take out $30,000 drones. They've got a whole lot more drones than we have missiles. I think the Pentagon is going, wait a minute, let's meet them where we are. That's why you're seeing a ramp up of a lot of companies in the United States and elsewhere with their drone technologies, deploying them into certain regions, saying, hey, let's fight fire with fire at the same cost, as opposed to spending millions and millions of dollars defeating something that only costs tens of thousands of dollars.

[A]

And to Hogan's point, that's why the Ukrainians have been so key and that's why Zelensky's on a tour of the region talking specifically to Hogan's point about the drone, anti drone drone and anti drone technologies.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Just saw Keith Kellogg joined a board of the Ukraine company and they're going gangbusters because of the need to Hogan's point, because the money doesn't make sense when you're spending millions of dollars to take out tens of thousands of dollars that, you know, we're fine with deficits, clearly, as a country, but that's not a winning proposition in terms of longtime financial.

[C]

Right. And I worked with Keith in the first administration, worked with him at the America First Policy Institute. I may or may not be working with him now on some certain things, but he knows this issue. He knows those regions well, having served in the military. So it was a home run for that company, but also for the industry writ large to say, wait a minute, this is the future here. We need to kind of ramp up our production here at home.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

General. General Kellogg is a patriot of the first order. And it's great to see him doing this work.

[B]

Extremely.

[A]

And continuing to do this work. The nicest man.

[B]

All right, there's a lot to talk about. Let me just run through some things again. We're all trying to figure out if the president's going to announce an end to the war tonight. Some people think he might or. Or a pretty definitive conclusion or a truncated list of goals, some of which you could argue he might announce a bunch of goals that are met or largely met. But here are the things on my list and going on now that would suggest the war is not going to end anytime soon. Okay, first of all, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Second, the uae, according to Wall Street Journal is ready to get into the fight and to be part of armed attacks against Iran. That would be a first. The Iranians have not agreed to meet despite efforts at diplomacy and called the United States attempts at deploying there. And others said the diplomacy wasn't serious. The USS George Washington is now headed to the region to join three two other sister ships would put thousands more U.S. personnel in place.

[A]

H.W. bush.

[B]

H.W. bush. Did I say W? H.W.

[A]

thank you, said Washington. George Washington, which I. Oh, sorry.

[B]

George. H.W. bush. Thank you. My apologies. The Brits are moving assets the region for the first time. The White House, according to Politico, is still talking as they have since the beginning. The prospects at oil to go to 150. The Dow futures up again today. Six minutes from the open up again today. There's no market pressure, not a lot of market pressure for this to change. And I'll say again, in the school of. Is the President by saying the war is going to end soon? Is this a bluff? Is this a diversion, an April Fool's joke? He never moves stuff in place and doesn't use it. Why would we be moving to George H.W. bush there. Now, if he's planning to end the war in two weeks, I, I just,

[A]

I just, it's just, it marked your point. It'll take three weeks to get from Norfolk to the region.

[C]

Yeah, but he, he could be moving it too in order to work with our partners and allies, as you just said, with the straight and other things. If he has intelligence that if he's having conversations with other nations who are going to join the fight, he may be sending them there for backup. For all we know a lot of different moving parts here that we don't know the answer to that hopefully we'll get tonight.

[B]

Yeah. Do either of you feel like there could be negotiations? Does either of you feel bullish about the prospect? But between the United States and Iran?

[C]

Depends on who the leadership is.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

I really, I really don't. I mean, again, we're dealing with, this is not a sane partner in terms of running a country. This is a regime that through, you know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of children at the Iraqis in the 80s, you know, with no guns, 13, 14 year old with, with, with keys around their necks to enter heaven as martyrs. So this is not a reg. And again, anyone seen dealing with us is also a target inside.

[C]

Right?

[B]

Right.

[A]

Not likely by us or the Israelis, but targets within the regime to be taken out, which Trump has said many

[C]

times, like we don't even want to tell you who it is because then it'll put them under threat within their own country.

[A]

Exactly right.

[B]

Does the UAE saying they're going to get into the war, does that, is that a game changer? Does that make it harder for the US to end the war? Does it make it more likely the US would win? What's the significance if they get in? Hogan?

[C]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think it's, I think it's good all the way around. Again, when you're talking about partners and, or allies, there are a few key components. One, I think you share some sense of morality, some sense of moral code. Second is you would want to intel share with those different partners and allies. But third is you show up when you're called. That's a big key component of a strong ally. And it seems as though America has always shown up when we're called other nations kind of pussyfoot around if you will and don't move in. That's a problem. And if UAE is going to get in, you know that, that, that helps the, the case altogether.

[A]

We, we've also talked, Mark, on this program about some of the divergent goals of us and the Israelis. There's also some divergent goals with the Saudis and the UAE now in this fight. Obviously, you've reported a lot, Mark, that they want us to continue on to try and take out the regime potentially. And let's also not forget that they've been targets of countless drone and missile attacks, especially attacking their energy sectors and their energy exporting facilities. And the reporting that the UAE is not just looking at it from a bilateral perspective with us, but then also maybe pursuing this at the Security Council as well. They were a former member of the Security Council. They've rotated off, but you see them kind of stepping up their efforts both on the international stage in terms of New York and the U.N. but then also too in the region.

[B]

I have been a skeptic of all the people, the Chicken Littles, who have said the President wants to take the US out of NATO and that he's damaged the relationship in some, in some fundamental way. I've been a believer in that fact that he's strengthening the relationship overall. That's been my view. But I consider what's happened in the last 48 hours to potentially be. To make this different. I think, I think the clear anger on the part of Secretary Rubio, the President and others about how NATO has. NATO countries have failed to step up, I think may actually lead to a fundamental change. Kevin, thoughts on that?

[A]

Yeah, I think so. You know, I think the President is taking this personally. Obviously, there wasn't, you know, a lot of previewing of this operation with our NATO allies. So it was kind of a. We've done this, obviously in partnership with Israel, now have our backs. But the President has been complaining about our relationship with NATO defects, despite the fact that the Only time Article 5 has been called up in support of a NATO country was during, in the aftermath of 9 11, when NATO partners joined us in the fight to take on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But I do think the President, to your point, Mark, has done some good things with NATO in terms of actually getting them to spend more of their gdp. Right. That was one of the pressure points in the first term, obviously. We added Sweden, in Finland, in President Biden's term, looking at a more aggressive Russia. And again, I think this is more, hopefully a threat to get the NATO partners to be doing more. That's what the President often does, carrot and stick with our NATO partners. But I do think, at minimum, the problem is, you see France, Spain, others not even letting us use airspace not just using resources, but, but the airspace problem is a huge issue. And again, that's such a banal kind of thing. That's not again using personnel material, anything like that, base support for landings. But restricting airspace I think is really a miscalculation on some of our allies parts. Yeah.

[C]

And as you recall, I've told the story, but I was at NATO in the first term when Donald Trump said, hey, if you guys don't pony up the money here like America is doing, we're just going to pull out of this thing. That building went ballistic. Everyone, the beehive effect, the people swarming around, reporters going crazy. And then the head of NATO at the time, I think it was Stoltenberg, pulls him into it, pulls Donald Trump and a few staff into a room and says, hey, thank you for saying that these countries are not paying the money that they're obligated to pay. This is quite frustrating. Thank you for saying it. And then of course they did it. Same thing applies the second term where he wants more than the two and a half, he wants five. And now these kind of countries come in. But Kevin hit on something I think is very important here and that is time and time again as I laid out, kind of the necessity or the attributes, if you will, of a good ally if we're the only ones going into these things. But then when, as soon as they hit a speed bump, they call us in and we go, that's a one way relationship that has to be at the very least examined and audited to figure out is, is this juice worth the squeeze and it upsets the world order. And I understand that people are going to freak out and clutch pearls and, you know, rent their garments.

[B]

I get it.

[C]

But what do we get out of it if, if, if when push comes to shove there's not support there? I mean, my goodness, they're falling all over each other. As I've said, to go into, to, to Ukraine to help them against Russia. We have another geopolitical foe that is notoriously the world's largest state sponsor of terror, now has weaponry that they proved could reach capital cities in all of Europe. And they're not coming to help stop this regime, instead saying, hey, great job America. We're going to sit over and watch and save our missiles and save our money. I don't know that that's a relationship we should stay a part of.

[B]

I couldn't agree more. Well said for by both of you. I wonder.

[A]

I do think, though I do think Mark Rotte, the Secretary General is incredibly effective running this coalition at NATO. He is a Trump whisperer, has the president's, I think, affection and is the perfect person to be leading NATO right now. And he's very astute at managing the internal politics of NATO, as well as his relationship, obviously, with Washington.

[B]

Yes, sir. A few more topics. We've lost Hogan, unfortunately, at least for a little bit. So Kevin and I will walk through and again, we may replace Hogan with one of you. If you're a Trump voter, Republican, maga, anything in that variety and you want to be a guest co host, please be ready.

[A]

Star Search two WAY Edition Search for

[B]

America's next great political pundit, we call it. Here's one development. NATO related. The UK is going to host coalition talks is 126, I think this announced this morning. I'm pretty sure it was. Here it is from The Financial Times. UK to host coalition talks and securing the strait. The US UK will host talks this week between 35 countries aimed at forming a coalition to reopen the Strait of Hormuz as countries respond to Donald Trump's threat to wind down the conflict without securing the waterway. Starmer said Wednesday that the meeting of foreign ministers would discuss ways to, quote, make the strait accessible and safe after the fighting has stopped. Military planners will also meet this week to discuss naval options. Okay, new CNN poll out this morning. About two or three more topics sent to your questions. CNN poll. This is the president's job approval number 107, please. CNN has his overall job approval at 35%. Approval on the economy, 31%. These are, these are, this is yet another poll. And there are many now. And this is not fake news or fake polling because the private polling is the same on the Republican side that has the president at the lowest the organization has ever had him. Okay. Someone's going to have him in the 20s soon if things go even slightly worse. 31% approval on the economy. 35. Handling of the presidencies. Our economic conditions in the US poor 77% now. Oh, I see. I've been reading the whole poll wrong. The March numbers. There we go. Yeah. These are not approved, disapproved. These are the March numbers. So you can see his approval rating in January was 39 and now it's 35. His approval on the economy in January was 39. Now it's 31. Trump's policies worsened, worsened economic conditions. 55% said yes in January, 65% now. Now the same poll asks question about the Democrats. Do the Democrats in Congress have a, a good, have the Right priorities. And here's what the CNN poll and analyst said. There is little sign that Democrats are capitalizing on what America see is a Trump shortcoming. 74% of the public say Democrats in Congress have the wrong priorities. Now, Kevin, the reason that number is so high is every Republican is saying is saying they don't. And then a lot of Democrats and independents are saying to some Democrats, some Democrats are saying they have the wrong priorities because they don't think they're liberal enough. And some are saying it because they're too liberal. But thoughts on both the Trump numbers and the Democrat numbers?

[A]

Yeah, Mark, it's a good question. I think, you know, what we've talked about in the past too is we obviously these polls are just so siloed. Right. Nothing President Trump does Democrats will support. And the President is still maintaining strong support within his MAGA base. That's why his numbers are what they are. The key thing is looking at the end of that. The only thing I look at is the flow of independence in terms of where they're headed. And I think that's why you're seeing those numbers dip down both on the economy and overall job performance. But my caution to Democrats are the fact that the president's numbers are coming down, but they're not necessarily going to the Democrats. We've had some success in these special elections, off cycle elections, things like that. But we've got to make a concerted effort, not just rest on our laurels. And you have a lot of Democrats out there saying that that president's in bad shape, but the Democratic Party writ large is also in bad shape. And Ken Martin, the chair of the party has acknowledged that a lot, that we have a lot of work to do because again, it's not necessarily the case that those folks are flowing back to us necessarily come November. And again we'll see what the economic situation is come July and August when the vast majority of Americans are making up their mind in terms of what they're going to do in November.

[B]

Professor Kenny, you ready to co host? Yeah. Here we go.

[A]

Put me in coach.

[B]

Welcome.

[A]

There we go.

[B]

Thank you for being here. Here we go. Two more items. Gavin Newsom. This is not a news story, but the New York Times wrote it up today and I find it interesting. You put up, put up 1124 the Newsom very aggressive Newsom comps team has, has been going after Republicans accusing them of being effeminate or gay. Here's the headline. Newsom's new attack on political enemies. You're gay. Governor Gavin Newsom's aides say their online insults were meant to ridicule figures on the right, but some critics say they are homophobic. A lot of examples in the story, and some of them are aimed at people who may or may not be gay. I don't know in some of the cases whether they are or not. Kevin, thoughts on this out there strategy? Is it, is it, is it, is it something they shouldn't do? Is it nothing? Is it something fun? How would you just. How do you feel about it?

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I, I think Newsom is getting a lot of attention for taking these plays out of the Trump playbook. I don't think they're super effective in a Democratic primary in terms of, I think there were some attacks on Lindsey Graham and others and innuendo and things like that. You know, just not, not super helpful. There's plenty to critique the President on and use jokes to do that. But, you know, this, is, this seems kind of silly to me, but.

[B]

Is it silly or is it offensive?

[A]

I think it's offensive to a lot of people. I don't think it necessarily plays that well. Again, he's going to say, well, this is, you know, a new. Some HQ or whatever, you know, his war room operation, and not him. But I, I don't think it's, I don't think it's helpful in a Democratic primary.

[B]

Well, well, or they're going to say it's parody. It's not, it's not real. Professor?

[D]

Yeah, it's offensive and it's not effective. I mean, like, I agree with Kevin, there's so many other Newsom could go after Trump with, but, you know, this whole gate thing, it just, it's just, it's typical Newsom. He's not authentic.

[B]

All right. Lastly, baseball season underway. Ohtani had a great first outing on the mound and the, the, the. There's some good storylines, but nothing matters more, ladies and gentlemen, baseball season than ballpark food. And I believe this is this season's finest innovation. Put this up here. This is. What does that look like to you, Professor? What does that look like to you?

[D]

Chicken in a bucket. That's what it looks like.

[B]

Chicken in a bucket, Kevin. Chicken in a bucket. Right.

[A]

It looks like American. A bucket right there. I mean, that's the most patriotic. Forget our missile attacks and it's actually aircraft carriers. That's the most American thing I've ever seen.

[B]

It is. This is a new Yankee Stadium. Delectable, though, ladies and gentlemen. That is not chicken. It is A drumstick shaped ice cream with a chocolate covered cookie bone center, a coating of white chocolate and candied cornflakes, and Mark is $40.

[D]

How much is that?

[A]

Yeah, right.

[B]

Good question. We'll look that up. Ladies and gentlemen, as Haley says, only in New York, kids, kiddos. Only in New York. Is that, is that a good addition to the Yankee Stadium concession, Professor?

[D]

Sure, I think it's a. Yeah. Why not?

[B]

Yeah, Kev.

[A]

Kevin, it's, it's a good addition to the New York, New York healthcare infrastructure there. In terms of how that's gonna. I think they're taking some plays out of the Iowa State fair playbook in terms of.

[B]

It looks, it looks everything, it looks fantastic. But I feel like if I bit into it, I'd be expecting chicken, you know. But.

[A]

Yeah, well,

[B]

I'm going to a game relatively soon and I will be having that if I can, if I can find it. All right, that's, that's $25.

[D]

For that. For that 25 bucks.

[B]

How many, how many, how many pieces?

[A]

In this economy?

[D]

2.

[B]

Looks like 2,25 bucks. All right, Kevin, can I expense that?

[A]

Absolutely. You're in charge. You approve our own expenses, so. Absolutely.

[B]

All right. I think I've covered everything we're going to cover here. So let's go to your questions now. Please raise your hand if you want to be in on the conversation for our two great experts. And we'll start with Cal. Cal, welcome in. Thank you for being part of two Way Unmute. Let everybody know where you are and what's on your mind.

[E]

I'm in the great state of South Carolina.

[A]

Cal, we're in South Carolina.

[E]

Are you Sumter? Biggest city in the world, so love Sumter. And we're kind of the center, center of the South Carolina universe. So anyway, I have a lot of comments on Iran and everything, but I'm going to hold those because I think we talk, talk it to death all the time, but I enjoy it. But politically after 27. Here's a question for all three of you. My professor, thanks for subbing in.

[D]

Thank you.

[E]

So in the Republican side, you know, Rubio, I remember 16 when he ran.

[B]

Right.

[E]

And he had to go through the trials and tribulations. I remember, Mark, you covering him extensively in that, in that race. And you know, he had a kind of couple flubs in New Hampshire and everything, but that gave him valuable experience. You have vance, who in 24 campaign but was not the top of the ticket. Right. Do you think that Vance or Rubio, I'm going to Ask all three of you. Has a, has an intrinsic advantage on if they had to go in a contested primary against each other. Do you think that Vance, because he's been kind of more almost domestically focused in this administration, but Rubio has been more on the international scale. And I think. And if Americans come, I think in today's America, that that domestic part maybe gives Vance an advantage. But I kind of want to pull y'.

[B]

All.

[E]

What you think.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

Professor Cal, if I accept the, the premise of your question, Rubio versus Vance, I don't see that happening. But if I have to accept your premise, I still think Vance has an advantage.

[F]

Why?

[B]

Even. Even without Trump's endorsement?

[D]

Well, I don't know if Trump's going to endorse anybody. Trump's going to endorse himself.

[B]

So if they both run and they run to win and Trump doesn't endorse, explain to Cal why you the edge to Vance, please.

[D]

I think, I just think being the VP gives him a big advantage. We, he just got the, what was it, the CPAC nod. I just think. And plus, the way he's handling Rubio

[E]

went up 20 points.

[D]

Yeah, that's okay. That's okay. Listen, I like Rubio. I do. I, I just, like I said, I have to accept that your premise. So if it's one on one, I still say Vance because I just think being the VP and all his, his other associations, like, you know, tpusa and all of that stuff, I think that just in the long run will give him an advantage. And he's a. Listen, Vance is an excellent debater. You know, he's, he's, he's an excellent speaker. I don't know. I think Marco stumbles a lot when he, when he speaks, and he's losing credibility in this messaging going on with this Iran conflict.

[B]

Kevin?

[A]

Yeah, I mean, Professor Kennedy makes a lot of good points. When Air Force Two comes to town, you know, it's obviously more impactful than, you know, just flying commercial. But we also saw that not necessarily be the case in 88 with George H.W. bush, who, who struggled a bit, especially Cal, to your point, in New Hampshire and other places. And Cal, you're, you're in sumter. You know, Rubio's last stand was South Carolina in that primary, and he still has endorsement, got Nikki Haley endorsement, had some support on the ground. So he's run before. Obviously, there's, there's advantages to that. He still has a network of individuals in the, in our, our state of South Carolina, other states as well. In terms of early primary. But again, to Professor Kennedy's point, I doubt you're ever going to see them run against each other. They will likely potentially run on a ticket, but I can't imagine them, them running against one another.

[E]

But they would get a big jet.

[B]

The big jet. Yeah, right. Cal, I'm going to be a bit of a hypocrite because I normally demand people entertain my hypotheticals, but I agree with the press, Professor. I really don't see a scenario where they run against each other and I do believe the President will endorse.

[E]

I agree. I agree.

[B]

And now if you ask, I, I agree with the premise just in terms of political athletes. I'll say this. I think currently in the current trajectory, Vance is underrated and Rubio is overrated. As you pointed out, when Rubio ran, he, he was not that sure footed. I'm, I continued, I asked this question the other day. I took some heat from it. I don't quite get what all the raves are about. And again, I don't have anything against the guy. I think he's done a very good job. But people are acting like he's, you know, he's negotiated the surrender of North Korea, like he's not really done much except be good on TV and gave a great speech in Europe.

[E]

So, and execute policy from the President. So.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. Although again, even on that, I'm not saying he hasn't. I know he's done stuff in Venezuela, I know he's doing stuff on Cuba. I'm not saying he's done a bad job at all. I'm just saying what he's done to me is, is not, is not justify how gaga people have gone. But, but, and, but part of what's driving it is Vance rubbed some of the donors the wrong way and Rubio doesn't right now. But if, if Rubio was actually out there getting scrutiny and I mean, for instance, for instance, Rubio was for what we like to call, and when the professor and I played poker, we like to call amnesty, he was for amnesty, okay, and then, and then he got religion and suddenly became hawk on the border. But if he ever runs in a Republican primary, believe me, the videos you can show of him standing with Democrats talking about quote, unquote, amnesty, you know, he'll say I changed my mind, whatever. But I'm just saying I just don't think he's going to be an open field runner if he runs for president. The way people are treating it right

[E]

now in a sec state you can't get like you can't give the, the, the local graft out in the party.

[B]

Right? Yeah.

[E]

I think I've always thought that I met. That was my question because I think you guys basically confirmed what my thinking was, is what organization does this have guy have and why is there so much talk if there's really.

[B]

I'll tell you what he has. I'll tell you what he has. He's got a donor network that's pretty good, and he's got a stat, a staff in waiting that's very good, very experienced people. And he's run before. And running before is typically an advantage. You know, it just, it just, he knows how to run for president. And a lot of people who run and fail, fail in part because it's, it's overwhelming all the things that are involved because they're doing it for the first time. So he's got some real advantages, for sure.

[A]

Cal.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

Cal, hold on one second. Cal, who do you like in the, in the governor's race in South Carolina? We got our first debate coming up tonight.

[E]

I'm always asked, and it's hard because McMaster endorsed Evan.

[A]

Right.

[E]

But then, you know, she's not from south county, from Ohio, and that's being played up a lot locally, especially within the party.

[A]

Right.

[E]

And not saying that's a disqualifier, but I think, you know, Wilson and her run in the same lane, so it's kind of a hard, it's going to be a battle. But I don't think the other three have really any kind of juice. I will say on the local South Carolina party in its current vibe, I could tell you that Vance has a enormous, enormous advantage. Right.

[A]

Locally. So, yeah.

[B]

Kevin, who's, who's moderating the debate, you know.

[A]

Well, it's put on by the South Carolina party, Republican Party. I, I think it's local TV affiliates, wis.

[E]

I think. Student.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Is that the first one?

[B]

I wish, I wish I'd been invited. I'd love to moderate.

[A]

I, I think the lieutenant governor's running, running the best race, just speaking as the Democrat, you know, and I think she's got a lock on it. So, yeah.

[B]

Haley, welcome in unmute. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Kevin and Professor Kenny.

[G]

Hi, everybody. Professor, nice to see you like I see you every day. Happy Passover, everybody. I wanted to ask about trying to change topics about the social media case that happened a couple weeks ago, how basically social media companies were, you know, kind of made to pay for the first time. And I wanted to know, like, what kind of precedent might this set going forward in any, you know, lawsuits coming up, if this is going to change anything with the social media addiction, anything like that? What kind of precedent it might say?

[B]

That's a great question and has huge implications and variables. Kevin?

[A]

Yeah, Haley, it's a great question. Great to see you. And I think you're talking about that meta settlement of the I think it was just upwards of $300 million. Obviously, money more than anything changes, especially social media, their, their, their transparency, their, their controls in terms of children and things like that. So I think it will likely be a motivating factor. I think one of the interesting elements of what Rahm Emanuel is doing, and he's actually in South Carolina today as well, in Spartanburg, I think, is talking about, you know, greater restrictions on social media when it comes to our children and verification of that. And I think that's going to have a lane that's going to be very popular with a lot of, a lot of people and especially a lot of young parents. And he's doing a lot of intellectual kind of policymaking and thinking and speaking about it. And I think we're going to see more of that as we head towards 2028.

[G]

Do you think that most politicians on both sides are going to jump on the banning social media for 16 and under type legislation that they have in Australia?

[A]

Yeah, I was going to say you've seen that just now in Australia within the last year. I don't know if it's going to be an outright ban or even more pressure in terms of accountability on these, on these social media. I don't know if it's the sections, you know, whatever the number 301. Section 301, I think, is the, the indemnification of these companies in terms of social media and liability. And I don't know if that's going to be revisited, but it also is daily. Your point, you know, kind of creates some strange bedfellows where it's not just a partisan issue. You've got Republicans and Democrats on both sides that feel really strongly about this, especially, you know, parents of younger children or teenage children, presidents arrived at the

[B]

Supreme Court for the oral arguments and the birthright citizenship case. And there are no cameras in the courtroom, of course, so if he falls asleep, we'll have to rely on someone to tell us that.

[A]

This is Mark. I think this is the first time that we've seen a sitting president sit.

[B]

He went before was he did he go. Not as president.

[A]

He teased. He teased about it for the tariff, the chair.

[B]

He went. He said last night. He said last night. He went. Another time.

[A]

Oh, maybe before. Before the presidency. Okay.

[B]

What? What? Noah? He went in between presidencies for one

[A]

of his criminal cases.

[B]

All right, so it's the first time in American history a sitting president has attended an oral argument. That seems like a big deal. Professor, thoughts on the implications of the social media cases?

[D]

Yeah, I listen. We live in an information overload society. Parents give their kids phones at age 8. So I don't know how this can really be regulated, but if it could be, that would be awesome. So maybe this is a step in the right direction in terms of cutting down underage people engaging heavily in social media.

[G]

I think it could be a truly bipartisan issue, like one of the only ones left, basically.

[D]

I agree with you, Haley. That was a great question, by the way.

[B]

Thank you. And of course, there's parallels with what people are feeling about AI at least some of the aspects of AI we

[A]

do have an update. We do have an update for my South Carolina husband, Alex, that the Drumstick ice cream company is a Charleston company. So another plug for. They're not Carolina.

[B]

They're not homemade in the Bronx.

[A]

They are. It's a Charleston company.

[B]

Where else do they sell them?

[A]

We will get more. I will get more data for you.

[B]

More information, more information as it becomes available. Robert, welcome in. Robert's from Pennsylvania. Robert, thanks to be for being here. Tell everybody what's on your mind. For Kevin and Professor Kenny, again, thanks

[H]

again to the entire community about the Yankee drone sticks, that reminded me to take my statins this morning. I mean, it's really that I keep up with that, but appreciate you guys being here. I would just comment a little bit on the Vance Rubio discussion. You know, everybody in the party here and everybody knows I'm involved with, you know, the local Republican Party and such in Northampton county, one of the bellwether counties in the entire country. Here in Pennsylvania, I. Nobody's. It's.

[C]

It's J.D.

[H]

vance's race to get out of. If he wants to. I mean, it's. It's. He's the vice president. He does very well with everybody on the ground. He was here. He was in Bucks County. I've seen him. He's very well liked and respected. The only thing that I would say is, is as a family man, you know, that that might be a consideration. Sort of what Marcus talked about with the Gavin Newsom issue with, with his kids and everything. And, and he's got a very popular wife, JD does in, in Usha. So, you know, she comes off really fantastically as well. So I, I would have to say that the way that those two would run together and they would run together as a package, I think it would, it would really be a Vance Rubio package where you have an internationally focused Marco and you have a domestically focused JD in that regard. And I think that's the way it's going to wind up playing. The Democrats, on the other hand, are going to be real interesting. We have Josh Shapiro here. He's doing very well in running against Stacey Garrity. And again, I'm a partisan. I don't make any

[A]

quibble about that.

[H]

And so we're supporting Stacey Garrity, but Shapiro is very dominant here and I do think that he would have to track boards 28 if he would want it. I keep promoting Bashir just from a distance. It appears like kind of the, the calm Southern middle, whatever.

[A]

I know, Professor Kenny, I got you in that regard.

[H]

It's, it's, I'm an outlier there. But, but if it were Bashir and I could, I could find a poly market, I'd, I'd put a couple bucks on the 100 to 1 payoff on a Bashir ascendancy there. It'd be be very low cost of entry and a very low risk bet in that regard. But anyway, that's all I had to say.

[B]

All right, Robert, thank you. We talked about Vance and we appreciate you weighing in on the Vance and Rubio thing.

[D]

I'm on the Post show. Robert, we've been, I've been asking you forever. We could use.

[H]

I know, I know. Unfortunately, I've got my own kids running around.

[A]

I got businesses and everything else like that.

[H]

So I do appreciate it, though, and keep inviting. I may take you up on that soon.

[D]

All right, thanks.

[A]

But, but good insight from, from Robert on the ground in one of the key battleground states. The key Battleground State for 2020. Oh, yeah, sure.

[B]

Kevin, where are you on Bashir lately? He's been out and about late in the last week or so with some pretty prominent stuff.

[A]

He's been out and about. Obviously, he's, he's running the, the dga, you know, obviously making, you know, relationships on the, on the fundraising finance front. You've seen a lot of former, you know, current governors do that as a lead up to actually running for president, Martin o', Malley, others, and we'll see. I'm still, I'm still a Josh Shapiro guy, to Robert's point. I think he is going to win re election with double digits in that, in that key state and that'll propel him. I think he's also going to do well in terms of his efforts to flip a number of seats in the Commonwealth, too. And that's going to be a key part of his campaign, talking about coattails and his ability to actually deliver a more Democratic House in November.

[H]

Yeah, I mean, Harrisburg is really going to tilt blue this year. And I mean, we're fighting that as much as we possibly can. I mean, you know, truth be told.

[A]

But it's, and it's, it's a pendulum, it's a pendulum in Pennsylvania, as we know. It'll, it'll pivot back for sure. And you've got, you've got a good bench on the Republican side, too. But, but it's, I would have to

[H]

say for the first time, Pennsylvania, in the state races we have actually representation on the ballot where in prior years we, we haven't had anybody up for state rep or state senate.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Robert, thank you for being here. Later today in moments, I'll be on Sirius xm. Call me there if you want to be in on the conversation. We'll have a playback of today's episode and then take your calls. Noon today, Citizen McCain. We're very delighted to have Megan back.

[A]

Check Meghan is back.

[B]

Noon. Yes, Julie Grace Brufke of the Hill. Does she work for the Hill or she covers Capitol Hill?

[A]

She's a Capitol Hill reporter.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I don't know her publication, but okay.

[B]

All right. Well, she covers the Hill beyond with Megan. Join them at noon. I'm blessed, fortunate and delighted to tell you that Mark Caputo will be my guest on two Way tonight.

[A]

Big get. That's a big get right there.

[B]

Get to have him any day, but particularly on this busy Tuesday. And then tomorrow morning, Kevin will be back with Larry. And professor, thank you for sitting in.

[D]

Thank you, Mark, for having me.

[B]

Thank you all. Thank you all for being here. Turn over to SiriusXM now and see

[A]

you at 5 and and join Professor Kenny at 11 following the series.

[B]

Thanks, everybody. Have a great day.

[A]

Thanks, everybody.

[B]

See you in a.