← Federalist Radio Hour
Federalist Radio Hour
‘You're Wrong' With Mollie Hemingway And David Harsanyi, Ep. 188: The State Of The Union
01:13:52
Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they analyze President Donald Trump's State of the Union address and Democrats' reaction and response, examine whether Congress will pass the SAVE...
Loading summary
Transcript119 lines
- [00:00]
Molly Hemingway
Foreign. Welcome back everyone to new episode of you're Wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of the Federalist and David Arsani, senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Just as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please do so at radio the federalist.com we'd love to hear from you, Molly. It's nice to see you. You look like you're somewhere that is
- [00:36]
David Arsenault
not at home, not my home office. I am in the middle of a hotel lobby waiting for my room to open up. So I'm just going to do my best and if you hear people screaming in the background or anything like that, just let's all deal with it together.
- [00:55]
Molly Hemingway
Great. We will do anything for this podcast. Well, you will do anything for this podcast. Let's start with Donald Trump's State of the Union speech, which was last night. Did you get to watch it?
- [01:09]
David Arsenault
Oh, I did not 100% of it. I had some family stuff I was taking care of right at the beginning, but I, I locked in pretty quickly.
- [01:19]
Molly Hemingway
Right.
- [01:19]
David Arsenault
I don't know how many minutes I missed, but it was like a two hour speech.
- [01:22]
Molly Hemingway
So I, well, there were many minutes, two hours almost.
- [01:26]
David Arsenault
What about you? Did you watch it?
- [01:28]
Molly Hemingway
Yeah, I did. Sadly, as part of my job for many, many years, I have to watch the State of the Union. I find them generally tedious and annoying. The listing of and exaggerations and all that. I have to say, out of all the presidents who give them, Donald Trump is, is mostly, you know, is the most speeches are more raucous, they're more entertaining, there's more going on. I still don't love them, but I think there were some good moments. What I mean, did you like it? Would you rank it?
- [02:00]
David Arsenault
So first off, I was over at FOX before the State of the Union and they were telling us to be ready for a two hour speech. And I just thought, well, that sounds like the most miserable thing I've ever heard. You know, that's like Clinton level of length. And I was shocked at how quickly it went by. I will say I tend to like political speech speeches probably more than you do. I like convention speeches, I like some State of the Union speeches. But like you, I hate the way that they devolve into a laundry list of just oh, I did this and I did that and we're going to spend this much money and we're going to spend that much money and all the people clapping and cheering. I thought this one. So my, my previous favorite Trump State of the Union or address to Congress was in 2020. That was right after he had beaten the first impeachment. So the first impeachment was over the Ukraine situation, where the Binman brothers orchestrated with Adam Schiff, an impeachment effort over Trump asking Zelensky to look into what is now pretty well established about Biden family corruption. That impeach was bad and it took a lot of time. And he had just beaten it like a day before the State of the Union. He'd also beaten the Russia collusion hoax he had beaten, which was shocking that he was able to do that. He had a pretty good economy. He had a great economy, actually. He had a lot of foreign policy successes. And he was just. He just knew that he was about to win re election. And then Covid hit. But it was a great speech. It was the one where Rush Limbaugh had been given the award by Melania. And then this one, though, seemed almost like completely different than a normal State of the Union. It had some of that stuff, like the laundry list of items and claimed successes. But this seemed much more ideological and big picture. In writing, they always say you should show, not tell. He did a lot of showing. And what he showed seemed to me to be like, there are two visions of America, and I'm going to show you the one by highlighting what's happening to America, using these people that are selected to tell that story that are sitting in the gallery. And then the other side are the people who are going to sit there and do nothing while. While we talk about what it means to be American. And so it worked really well for him. It was pretty obvious it was what he was going to do. And yet still, the Democrats couldn't figure a way out of it. Some of them tried to not show up to the speech. Others tried to just sit down or to scowl or to yell. And in the end, no matter what they did, it kind of played into his big narrative.
- [05:16]
Molly Hemingway
Well, Trump used the bully pulpit to his advantage, for sure. Casting Democrats as crazy people, which they are for the most part. I mean, the inability of them to stand for the victim, the mother of a victim who was killed by illegal aliens, it's just outrageous. The inability for them to stand and, and applaud the murder rate falling is outrageous. The inability of them to. The inability of them to stand with Donald Trump against the idea of bureaucrats grabbing children, implying them with puberty blockers and hormones and who knows what else is outrageous. So anyway, that's. That. Those are. That's how I felt about it. I just don't think These speeches are remembered by normal people very much in the long run. I don't know.
- [06:14]
David Arsenault
They, they never have as much of an effect as people in D.C. wish that they did, which is not the same thing as saying they have no effect. A few of the things that I want to talk about here would be one, the, the siloing of information, the way people receive information and news. One of the reasons why the State of the Union is important is because it remains the only political speech to get this level of interest. So it's, it's important. People who get their news from ABC and NBC and cnn, some of them will watch that and they will get a completely different set of information than what they've been getting by reading the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post. This is going to be like rad. And that is important. And it's not good that we have such siloed information systems. And I think partly what you saw there with Democrats, like sitting down is a reflection of those different ways that people receive information. Let's just talk really quickly though, about that moment, which to me was the big moment of what happened. It was when Trump said, I'm going to ask people to stand up if they agree that the first job of any elected official is to defend American rights over those of illegal aliens. It wasn't in the prepared text. It was something he apparently ad libbed and it was so effective. It's, I never like it when people do that. Like in a debate when people say, raise your hand if you think illegals should get, you know, free health care or whatever. Usually people have more nuanced answers than can be indicated by standing up or raising your hand. In this case, I would have recommended to the Democrats that they had stood up and politely just stood and then sat down. Once he got into specifics about his vision, you could say, oh, well, of course I agree with that. We just have a different vision about how to accomplish that. Or of course we agree with that. We just think that ICE needs to be destroyed or something. And they didn't do it. And it was just, it was sobering as a, just as an American to watch that, to watch people sitting there saying that they do not agree that elected officials should care more about American citizens than criminal illegal aliens. It was, it was kind of crazy to watch. Did you see it?
- [09:02]
Molly Hemingway
Yeah, I saw it. I think that will be the defining moment of this speech and the thing people remember probably the most. Obviously. I also, I agree with you. I'll preface this by saying it's a fact. It was very effective, especially when you couple it with or connect it to the other things. They wouldn't stand for, you know, but I too would have given them the advice. But they didn't see it coming. But I, I too would have given them the advice that they should just stand up. They look like weirdos. Not standing up there. They look like just that. They're out of touch with the reality of American life. Yes, it's cheap stunt. Yes, it's a false choice. I hate when journalists are like, raise your hand. Like you point out, raise your hand if you want to do this or that. Most thing, most positions aren't that simple. I also, just to be pedantic, think the first he said, what is the first duty of an American government is to actually defend the Constitution. That's what it said. That's what the oath that they take is. But I understand his point and, and they look terrible, you know, so if I were them, I would maybe not show up. I mean, I suspect that in the long run the speech will become less important because people will stop showing up in larger numbers and, you know, because they don't want to be put in that sort of position. I already think it's not as important as it used to be because when I was young, at least, you know, you rarely got to see the dynamics of Washington in this way. It was a spectacle you would rarely see. But now we see these people quite often on television speaking and giving speeches. So it's a little bit different. Remember when. Yeah.
- [10:34]
David Arsenault
Don't you think it'll just be less important in a couple. So there, there are only two more State of the Unions to be given by Trump and after that it's going to be someone else. And I don't care who it is, if it's Rubio or Vance or Gavin Newsom or whomever it is, even as talented of politicians as those men are, it's just not going to be, it's not going to be what we saw last night.
- [11:02]
Molly Hemingway
No, they'll never be any. Never is a strong word. But there it will be a long time before we have someone like Donald Trump giving a State of the Union. I laugh when I, when he gives these speeches because he's reading prepared text and then he like kind of comments on the prepared text. His voice changes. It's very funny. You can tell when, you know he's just ad libbing and he can be funny. And I thought he was, you know, there were, I didn't like the speech as much as you. I thought it actually dragged on a bit too long. I think he could have cut maybe 20 minutes of it.
- [11:33]
David Arsenault
But where in the hour and 48 minutes could he have cut? Just kidding. Go ahead.
- [11:38]
Molly Hemingway
But there. There were a lot of funny moments, and he's always just entertaining to watch, you know, just pure entertainment value. Donald Trump's a lot of fun. People who don't think he's funny are just missing the point or have no sense of humor. He's a funny dude. And. And he. When he said, look at these people who aren't standing, they're crazy, he was speaking a language that a normal American can understand. Again, I think there's a shrinking number of persuadable voters. I think these speeches mean less than they used to in that sense. But how often does Donald Trump really get to go out and speak? I don't know how many people watch a speech. 30 million or something. I mean, how often does he get to just tell them what, you know, his perception of what's going on without it being filtered through some media, either either boosting him or just destroying him or taking him out of context?
- [12:32]
David Arsenault
So I was talking to a friend who is very smart and savvy about politics and asked him what did he think of the State of the Union? And he explained that he had a family situation, so he hadn't been able to watch it, that he had DVR'd it, and he would be watching it later. So I was like, oh, you missed out. It was a great speech. It was really, you know, transformative and different. And he's like, will the Republicans be passing the law requiring voter id? And I said, no. And he goes, it just doesn't matter. Like, nothing he said matters, because Congress is not going to do anything other than hand over Congress to the Democrats in November. They're just. They don't have it in them. I don't know if it's laziness or just that Congress as an institution is broken and it's too hard to do things, but they're not going to do anything, and so nothing really matters. It was a depressing but probably accurate take on how little it matters, because you can't have a party where only one person is doing the work. And unfortunately, the Republican Party just doesn't have a lot of people who. Who agree with their voters that we are at a moment of great inflection, where there are a lot of Americans who don't want those people who were sitting down when he asked people to stand if they agreed that the first duty of an American elected official was to defend Americans and not illegal aliens. Those people are about to return to power. And that terrifies a lot of Americans. But for some reason, it doesn't really seem to bother people in Washington, D.C. and they're not going to do anything to stop what's coming, probably. I don't mean to be so. That was a very depressing thing I just said.
- [14:23]
Molly Hemingway
I disagree. I mean, I just don't think the SAVE Act's that important for as far as losing this midterm or not. I think people who care about the SAVE act are Republicans. They'll vote Republican. I think the economy is increasing far more important in how people view their specific personal situations. And if the SAVE act can't be passed, it's because it's not that simple for Republicans to pass bills in a divided country with a very, very slim margin. It's easy to say they're being lazy and this and that, but it's frustrating. But I just think that's reality on the ground. And this is why making grandiose promises that you can't actually fulfill or keep is a problem in politics. And it disappoints a lot of people. You know, every two year to four years. I don't know, am I. Where am I wrong there?
- [15:12]
David Arsenault
So I. I almost want to talk about that issue separately, because you're wrong on a lot of stuff. But I wanted to just not forget another thing about the State of the Union. If I can just go back to that really quickly. You know, Reagan was the brilliant communicator who started the practice that had, frankly, become a little annoy of using people sitting in the gallery of the chamber where the joint session of Congress takes place to highlight heroism or to highlight good things about different Americans. It had grown really, really cold. Trump has done a good job with that, as did Clinton. I thought Clinton always did a really good job with using people in the gallery. But there was something about last night where it was just amazing, the heroism of the people in play, the stories they told. That Coast Guard guy who saved more than 150 people from the floods in Texas, the Korean War veteran, The World War II veteran, the. The amazing story that I can't wait to learn much more about of the helicopter pilot who was shot while doing the Venezuelan mission. It was a really appropriate for the 250th anniversary to have people with such courage on display. And it was just the best I'd seen since that, like the first Time I remember or that I've reviewed would be when there was a flight that hit the 14th Street Bridge in D.C. and crashed into the Potomac River. And some people, even though it was a frozen, icy river, some people got out of their cars to go rescue people from the plane. And one of them was like, I want to say, like a Congressional Budget Office guy or a Government Accountability Office guy. And he just dove in and helped rescue a bunch of people who were about to die. And Reagan highlighted him. And it was just, it was a good story, but like I said, it had grown stale. You saw with this that all of these people were unified by being the victims of bad, like either left wing terrorism, like Erica Kirk, whose husband was assassinated by a guy who accepted radical trans ideology and other left wing causes and had grown increasingly embittered and hateful toward Trump and his supporters, or Arena Zarutska's mom, who sat there sobbing, which was very emotional because of these soft on crime policies that have been a major goal of the Democrat Party in cities and states across the country. Other people who are victims of illegal immigration, and the girl who had been secretly transed by educators and nearly taken and taken away from her parents. We wrote about it at the Federalist at the time, by the way. Did you notice? She did. She was the first to ever clock it in a State of the Union.
- [18:23]
Molly Hemingway
No.
- [18:24]
David Arsenault
Do you ever see the kids? I know you have people these, this age, they do this or they snap their fingers to show they agree with something.
- [18:33]
Molly Hemingway
Oh, no, I've not noticed that. I'm sure it has happened.
- [18:36]
David Arsenault
And she clocked it. And I was like, well, that's a first. I've never seen that. Oh, the hockey team, which I'm sure we'll talk about later, like, all of that was so. It just made you proud to be an American in a time when many people in the media and other powerful institutions are trying to keep you from being proud to be an American.
- [18:56]
Molly Hemingway
I love unfettered patriotism. Like, I hate that so many Americans feel uncomfortable being flag waivers and just loving Americans saying that we're the best. I think it's true. I love to do it. Reagan had this really big. Or. Reagan was the first person, probably not the first, but he, he could fuse that unfettered patriotism into his own political positioning and make it seem like it was the same. And I think Trump does a great job of going from celebrating the hockey team to making it about himself in some way, you know, so that you feel like the patriotism bleeds into whatever he's trying to do. And most of the time, you know, his goals are, I think, patriotic.
- [19:40]
David Arsenault
Well, and all of these issues are 80, 20 issues. So when the Democrats were sitting there and he said, and you, you already said that, this was like the line of the night when he said, these people are crazy. They're just crazy. Also, did you like how when, when they sat down, when he asked everybody to stand, he just put his hands out like, look at these people. You know, he just kind of just not pointing at them, but just kind of like saying, here they are, look at, look. Drinking.
- [20:07]
Molly Hemingway
Nobody stands up. Yeah, these people are crazy. I, I think that's a very crazy. That's the thing. They are crazy. Democrats are crazy.
- [20:19]
Chris Markowski
Does New York City officially have their first free grocery store under Mamdani? Watched out on Wall street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day, Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet. Gambling website Poly Market opens a free grocery store to enamor itself. With the Mamdani administration really paying for this free grocery store, whether it's happening in D.C. or down on Wall street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed. Check out the Watchdog on Wall street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcast.
- [20:52]
Molly Hemingway
So let's talk about some of the. So. So you mentioned. I just want, given their names, Buddy Taggart who fought on the Pacific front. The guy at the Korean War was Royce Williams. I think they're both 100, right?
- [21:01]
David Arsenault
Or 99. Also, did you notice that the. So both of them looked great. They both looked great. I have a 90 year old father in law. He also looks great and is also an American badass. But the first one who's turning a 100 on July 4, 2026, he had
- [21:20]
Molly Hemingway
some trouble standing up because of all the medals on his little jacket.
- [21:24]
David Arsenault
But he didn't look like he was about to be 100. He looked like he was about to be 75. Or. Yeah, I don't know.
- [21:30]
Molly Hemingway
They both look good. Yeah. Scott Ruskin's the Coast Guard guy who saved like 200 people. I love those stories. Yeah.
- [21:37]
David Arsenault
I just want to say something. I think he's very handsome.
- [21:40]
Molly Hemingway
I know you were going on on Twitter on and on about.
- [21:43]
David Arsenault
And I tweeted that and everyone was like, is what does Mark Hemingway think about you thinking this guy's handsome? And I'm like, it never occurred to me like Mark and I will comment on people being attractive and we don't view it as a As a threat.
- [22:00]
Molly Hemingway
You know, I'm a little careful on that front. You can't be walking around saying, this one's hot or beautiful and stuff like that.
- [22:07]
David Arsenault
Acknowledge that Sydney Sweeney has excellent assets.
- [22:12]
Molly Hemingway
Yes. I would not say it. I would not say that. I would not say that.
- [22:18]
David Arsenault
Probably wise. Okay.
- [22:20]
Molly Hemingway
Yeah. Why, why? That's a rookie mistake. Why chance something like that? It's just not necessary. It's unspoken. Everyone knows. What did I want to say? Oh. So, yeah, I mean, they, they, they are crazy. And the, the, the, the woman, the young woman's name, who, with the transitioning in Virginia was Sage Blair. Right. Which actually, I want to get into something else. I don't know if you want to go back and tell me why I'm wrong about a bunch of stuff, but I wanted to mention the, the State of the Union rebuttal, which was given in Colonial Williamsburg by Abigail Spanberger. I found for this reason, they picked Colonial Williamsburg because it's a, you know, it's, it's a well known traditional American tourist spot that, that inspires. You know, it's a patriotic place to go. And they pick that spot and they picked her because they know that they look crazy and that they're trying to create the perception that they're similar to Trump in the sense that they are patriotic as well, and they just view things differently, but they just simply are not anymore. And there's no way around that. So even if Trump, even if Republicans lose in the midterms, even if Trump loses, even if you disagree with Trump and you don't like or you think he's boorish or whatever it is, in the end, Democrats have a massive problem that they're weirdos. They're a bunch of weirdos. They're captured by weirdos. Like, let me say this, a bunch of Democrats won't stand up when you're talking about this transitioning stuff. I don't even believe that they believe that it's normal what's going on. Like, I think they're just captured by the fringe of their party. There's just no, a lot of these politicians live very conservative lives. If their own children came to them and said, I want to be called by the different gender or I want to be injected with or I want to ingest all kinds of drugs that destroy my body moving forward, I think they would be distressed. On the personal level, I think they're captured by fringe, and it's crazy to let that fringe capture your party. Am I wrong about that? What do you think of these People. I mean, I. I just can't believe most people believe their kids can pick their gender. Am I fooling myself?
- [24:40]
David Arsenault
No. But to get back to the Abigail Spanberger point, the whole game right now is to be as radical as possible while using your control of the media to put forward seemingly moderate people to affect the change that your increasingly radical base desires. This is an old, tried and true trick. I mean, it. You think about how one of the reasons why Clinton was not loved. Bill Clinton was not loved by a lot of people in his party is because they worried that he was too moderate for real. Not just. Not just using their normal method of pretending to be like a Joe Biden or a Barack Obama. Obama, who did a very good job of sounding like they were moderate and then doing everything in the most radical way possible. And it has worked out really well. You can do a lot when you control the media and when you have the information silos that we have here. Abigail Spanberger, let's just. If we can just talk just about her speech. You watched it. Sorry, you said you did.
- [25:50]
Molly Hemingway
I.
- [25:50]
David Arsenault
Some of was only 15 minutes, but it definitely. I started being like, how much more of this can I endure? Right around the time she ended. I didn't really hit that point with Trump. For an hour and 48 minutes with her, I was like, she's repeating herself. The speech seemed very poorly written. And I don't think it's a big deal. Like, we talked about State of the Union. However much people wish it were a big deal is not a big deal. That goes quadruple for the response. Oh, yeah, it's a thankless rule. If you don't set your hair on fire, you're probably going to be okay. And she met that standard. But I would now like to say they did put American flags behind her to pretend that they don't hate America. That was good. They had a small, little audience that was told to clap loudly but briefly for what she said, which helped take care of some of that dead air that happens in State of the Union responses. Other than that. Oh, and then she definitely conveyed the message that she hates Trump, which I think is the big campaign message for Democrats going into their midterms. And I'm not begrudging them that. That seems to work really well on their voters. But the rest of it, I was like, very poorly written speech. I was. I was sad for whoever wrote that because it was very poorly written. It was very poorly delivered. She seemed to be rushing, and when people rush, it makes it seem like it's going longer and it was very negative. And I'm not even getting into, like, how factually untrue it was. So I was not impressed with her response.
- [27:33]
Molly Hemingway
But the rebuttal. The rebuttal to the State of the Union is inherently awkward and a thankless job. I mean, there. I don't know why anyone does it. I don't know why they do it. I think it's ineffective. It's, oh, I can't remember any. Any rebuttal for a good reason. I can only remember Marco Rubio drinking or Bobby Jindal looking ridiculous or whatever. Like, there's no upside. What they should do is, and it's difficult is to fact check, maybe the speech specifically.
- [28:09]
David Arsenault
How do you do that so quickly when you win it right after.
- [28:13]
Molly Hemingway
Yeah. So I don't really see why they do it. I guess they have to do it. But how many people really watch that? It can't be many, right?
- [28:22]
David Arsenault
So I did have a realization about her. She, you know, she is my governor, apparently, and yours, and she ran against one of the least capable politicians I've encountered. And so the fact that she won, she looked so good by comparison to what she was up against in debates. And she does have some, you know, she's not like a complete bumbling idiot on camera. But I just realized that some people have political skill and some people don't. And that lady is, I do not think, going far. I mean, she might be nominated to be a vice presidential person like Tim Kaine was. Oh, true story. I was at this event for martyrs, the Coptic martyrs. And this guy goes on screen to give a taped, like, taped remarks to the group. And I leaned over to my husband, husband, and I said, is that our senator? And he said, yes. And he was also the vice presidential nominee. But he's so forgettable that I forget that Tim Kaine is my senator all the time. She has that kind of like, she could be a vice presidential nominee. But I realized, like Mark said, she seems very Hillary. Like Larry. Larry o' Connor on WMAL this morning, I think, referred to her as Hillary 2.0. And I do see that. But I think she's kind of like those women in British spy dramas who run their spy agency. They're always the bad guy. They're always, like, getting people killed. And they, they might even kill people themselves, but they're definitely ordering people killed or allowing people to get killed. And does she not seem like the woman in the Night manager, even like certain seasons of Slow Horses, she seems
- [30:19]
Molly Hemingway
like one of those women oh, that woman? Yeah, like maybe Judy benches m in James Bond movies. I don't know if you've seen.
- [30:26]
David Arsenault
No, because she's so evil. She's someone getting people killed. Not a good person, a bad person. And you kind of get that feeling with Abigail, like, like if you heard she had aborted some of her unborn children you would be like, seems plausible. You know, I'm not saying she has, but she just seems cold.
- [30:45]
Molly Hemingway
Like that Hillary, huh? I don't even think she is that bright. The problem with her is she ran this campaign against a hapless Republican here in Virginia, but also a hapless Republican Party. Right. And they which this is a important state, you think that the Republican Party would be more competent here. They were running the state, they had a popular governor and this is how it ends up. But anyway, I detest people who are frauds. Like I don't like mum Donnie. I don't like a lot about mom Donnie. I think he's a bad guy and all that, but he's an honest guy about what he wants to accomplish and do. Spamberger was never ever put into position where she had to actually had to explain her ideology or her positions in any way. She still hasn't answered the question of whether she thinks that boys should be able to play in girls sports and that she didn't have to answer any questions. And to me like she just got to run this pretend moderate campaign and now we see we're going to pay the price in Virginia. She's going to, you know, help destroy the state probably. I would say she's amongst the most left wing governors in, in the country right now. Right. I mean I don't see anything that she wouldn't do that they're not doing in California for instance, or in Maryland or, or places like that. Gun control, environmental stuff. Kicking, not kicking ICE out, but refusing to help ICE with illegal immigration. I mean I can't think of a single area where she's not just a full blown leftist.
- [32:19]
David Arsenault
And a year ago we did have a Republican governor, Lieutenant governor and Attorney General. And under Abigail Spanberger's leadership and the Democrat super majority in Virginia, they're about to redistrict the state to have 10 Democrat seats and one Republican seat in Congress. This is a state that last year was controlled by Republicans. This is a good segue. David, back to the SAVE Act. Yes, passing the SAVE act would be difficult. That's true. It is frustrating to Republican voters that when faced with difficulty, their elected leaders seem to just say hey, it's difficult. We can't do this. And then they look over at like Virginia and they see that Democrats, like they might be completely down and out a year ago. And then they do what it takes to kind of get into a position to actually do something with their power. I think Republicans think that when you have power, your job is to do as little as possible and go unnoticed in the hopes that maybe people will re elect you. And there's a different vision that you actually should try to at the very least debate the underlying issues and debate. You might lose, but you also will help educate the people. And what's frustrating for a lot of people is that the Senate is supposed to be the debating body and the SAVE act is a great thing to debate. It is an 80, 20 issue. You might be in the 20 side of things there. But the act, which involves all sorts of like cleaning up of time and manner of elections, is strongly supported by American people, but will probably not pass the Republican Senate for a variety of reasons, including the difficulty of passing the bill. Now, John Thune said today they will be having a vote on it, but I'm not sure if he was clear on whether they're going to really vote on it or if they're going to just do a cloture vote and let things continue as they happen without actual debate.
- [34:36]
Molly Hemingway
I liked how you snuck in that I was on maybe on the 20 side of this debate and I don't know actually. Well, I, I think so. I'm always were. I am always worried about any kind of nationalized laws having to do with elections for, for reasons of. Because I just don't know that it's the right or constitutional thing to do. I'm kind of torn on this one, honestly. So I don't know. But I do know that any bill that weakens the filibuster as it is, the zombie filibuster I do not support at all. I think the Senate should always have to get 60 votes to do any kind of national reform that doesn't have to do with fiscal matters. So not against IDs. I think IDs are the bare minimum a person should have to have to vote in this country.
- [35:29]
David Arsenault
Yeah, I think there are two separate things here. One's the substance of the SAVE act and this. The other thing is the procedure for the SAVE Act. So on the substance issues, I actually agree with you that states are constitutionally the bodies that should be setting almost all issues related to elections. There are some exceptions that have already long been legislated I mean, you have military ballots in every state in the union, you have overseas ballots coming into every state in the union, and you have citizenship issues affecting every state in the union for federal office. Right. And so SAVE ACT deals with those types of things which are and have long been considered federal issues as opposed to how states should have some, you know, just constitutionally speaking, they have some leeway in how they set elections. And then this, the. The issue of how to pass it. The thing that I have been so confused by is that you say that if the Senate were forced to actually engage in a filibuster, that that would be killing the filibuster.
- [36:50]
Molly Hemingway
Correct.
- [36:52]
David Arsenault
That seems. These people are crazy. That seems crazy. No, it.
- [36:58]
Molly Hemingway
It kills the filibuster. Compelling people to speak is fine. Compelling people to speak because, you know, it will make the situation, it will create a situation where, you know that the filibuster will have to die because nothing else can get done or, you know, that it will exhaust itself at some point. So you can circumvent the need to get 60 vot votes to stop debate is going to kill the filibuster. Other people, other mechanisms have had this idea. Joe Biden had this idea. Not a single Republican supported him years ago. I forget which senator in 2011, I think had the same idea using different means, but like, you know, mechanisms. But in the end, the point is, or no Republican would want to do it, is to circumvent getting to 60. And I think in the long run that is going to be something that Republicans will greatly, greatly regret. Now let me ask you this quickly, and you can talk about that as well. Do you think that passing the SAVE act will change a single election victory or loss in the entire country? Do you think that there are enough illegal. Listen, I told you I'm for it. I no illegal should vote. But do you think that there's actual elections that Republicans have lost because there are enough illegals to. To change the results of an election? I mean, a lot of people seem to believe that, and I just have never seen a district where that's ever happened.
- [38:36]
David Arsenault
So the number one issue affecting the country because of the influx of illegal aliens as it relates to voting is actually the allocation of congressional districts. I actually think I was on live telev when I learned that we allocate districts according to how many people live there. Legal, illegal alien, criminal, whatever. Like it's just bodies on the ground.
- [39:01]
Molly Hemingway
I agree.
- [39:02]
David Arsenault
This gives a huge structural advantage to Democrats in elections that they have been able to Use, you know, quite strongly as far as how many people are illegal voting. I do think that Trump and others overstate how many illegal aliens are voting. But I only say that because he says things like, you know, tens of thousands of illegals voting. What I wish people understood is that election fraud is almost never investigated and that there are strong restrictions on how to investigate that fraud. Almost everything is in the game is about how you set up the system on the front end. In certain places it's actually illegal to investigate fraud. There are certain communities that you're not allowed to investigate or you lose your own ability to do like get out the boat operations or election day oversight. So the after the fact is a loser's game. And we don't really know how many problems there are in part because it's very difficult to determine once ballots have been separated from the voter, which is early and often. Election administration has been a game run by the Democrat party for decades. And the Republican Party is starting to finally say, oh wait, we have let things get out of control. You have a lot of insecure balloting operations and insecure voter registration operations. So a bigger issue could be, for example, 10% of the American population moves in a given year. And that means that if you are registered at one place and then you move, you're supposed to register at the new place, but you're probably still considered active at the old place. There is a certain percentage of people that will just vote in both places, but that's pretty small. The bigger issue is when you have rampant, uncontrolled mail out ballots. So a lot of the people who move a lot tend to be in areas that are in Democrat controlled areas. And so let's say there's like an apartment building in Vegas or Philadelphia and people are moving a lot. And one, you know, one apartment building could get that has like, let's say it has a hundred units, might get 400 ballots and you're counting on people to not be filling out some of those ballots. Particularly people might have a financial incentive to fill out some of those ballots, to file them. And again, very difficult to, to determine fraud. Just very, very difficult. Cleaning up some of these things, making sure that people have proper ID to be registered to vote is a great way to just kind of rein in some of the problems that are happening with rampant mail out balloting. Does that make sense?
- [42:04]
Molly Hemingway
I agree, yes. And I agree with all of that.
- [42:08]
David Arsenault
Usually you only find out election fraud in Democrat on Democrat violence, which. So like there'll be a contested primary in Philadelphia or New Jersey or Massachusetts and there's ballot stuffing going on in the primary. It would be insane to think there's ballot stuffing going on in a primary and not that the same people doing that are not doing it in a general for a different cause. And we usually only detect it for intraparty violence. But because Republicans tend not to control, it's not because Republicans are better people than Democrats per se. They just tend to be less in control of high density areas where fraud is easier to make happen.
- [42:50]
Molly Hemingway
I, I'm a radical on voting. I don't believe that we should have any mail in ballots except for the elderly and infirmed. I think there should be a day where we go vote. I don't believe in early voting. I think that you should have to prove citizenship. If you can't perform that basic level of, or show that basic level of competence, you shouldn't be making decisions for the rest of us. I am, I, I think people should take tests to vote. I mean everyone. And so I am with you on. I mean, I'm not saying you're, you agree with all that. I do think though that some Republicans, Donald Trump leading the charge, have convinced a lot of people that, that every election where we, you know, is, is that they lose is stolen or people are cheap, have cheated them in some way. So the number one reason I do believe that we should have a citizen, you know, proof of ID before voting is so that the American people can believe that they've had an election that that was, you know, that matters, that is real, that no one cheated in that the people who run the country were elected fairly. That's the most important thing. So that's why I'm on the fence about the SAVE act as far as the nationalization part of it. But I agree with everything you said. Obviously Democrats want this because in the long run they want them, they want districts to be counted with illegals in them. They believe those illegals will one day be able to vote and they, they don't mind a little cheating. I get all that. But there are also other issues why Republicans can't pass bills sometimes. And it seems like just calling them a bunch of cowards every time you don't get your way. Not you General. It's just not really dealing in reality. I think it's just frustration at the system quite often, which we see a lot of. And
- [44:40]
David Arsenault
okay, I feel like I would be repeating if I kept saying that I don't think that filibustering something would kill the filibuster. I don't have a strong opinion on how to get things done, but I see no problem with actually letting the Senate debate. They should debate so much more. Ben Sasse, who's been talking a lot about his pancreatic cancer diagnosis and how he will be dying sooner than he expected, had talked a lot about this. The importance of actually letting the Senate debate issues, having people be forced to explain their position, it's even sad to me. I will say again, Mitch McConnell did a very good job with his floor speeches of explaining his position. Chuck Schumer does a ridiculously poor job. It's an embarrassment to the body that you don't have more people being thoughtful in how they argue or try to persuade their colleagues. And I wish we saw much more of it. But there was another topic we were going to talk about that I felt like was could be segued too from there.
- [45:45]
Molly Hemingway
Do you believe that a filibuster in whatever form should be able to go on infinitely without any end?
- [45:54]
David Arsenault
No. So like if the people who want it to, who want to actually say, okay, if you're going to filibuster, you have to filibuster. It doesn't go on without end, it goes on. Everyone has an opportunity to give two speeches and then it ends. Yeah. And that seems fair. Like if you're gonna make, if you're gonna make it difficult, like that's okay. But at the end we will vote.
- [46:14]
Molly Hemingway
Yeah, I completely, I think putting your
- [46:16]
David Arsenault
body on the line, you know, like we're gonna actually be there, we're gonna have to do it.
- [46:22]
Molly Hemingway
So you're just, you're working around, you're working around the filibuster. In the end they'll do that. You'll wait a month.
- [46:29]
David Arsenault
Can I say something, David? More than, more than anything, more than a filibuster or a 60 vote threshold or anything, I just care and I want America to be saved. And I'm very worried about the brokenness of Congress. I worry that people are protecting like things that don't matter so much. And I'm not saying that like that these procedures and whatnot aren't important and don't matter. Although I think most of the people who are trying to avoid forcing an actual filibuster are really just more trying to work on legislation that they would prefer be passed or appointments that they would prefer.
- [47:10]
Molly Hemingway
I would say I love America. And for me there are almost, there's almost nothing more important than keeping the anti majoritarian Senate intact so that it cannot do Obamacares over and over. The instability that will come from that, from huge reforms back and forth every time someone wins the presidency or the Senate. The filibuster is virtually the zombie filibuster is virtually the only thing preserving federalism in this country. We are headed towards an incredibly destructive path. You keep saying that you want them. There is a time limit on that filibuster. It will exhaust itself and then people will pass by mere majority, massive reforms. You don't think Democrats will do that? If they can, using the same, why would you allow and create.
- [48:03]
David Arsenault
Oh, actually, I assume Democrats will get. I assume Democrats will get rid of the filibuster the moment they're in power.
- [48:09]
Molly Hemingway
But I heard this before and they couldn't. I don't know what they're going to do. We can't tell the future. You may be right. But even if you were right, they would immediately overturn the Save Act. That's like the first thing they would do. So why, why set, set the parameters for them? It doesn't make any sense to me. I know. People get so mad when I say this. I am a zombie filibuster fan. It should go on. I want 60 people.
- [48:34]
David Arsenault
Real filibuster. Real filibuster is better.
- [48:37]
Molly Hemingway
I, I would like. If there was some way to preserve it in the sense that people would have to debate and it would not ever exhaust itself, that would be fine by me. I just don't. I don't want the Senate. Oh, yeah, but the SAVE act won't pass then. And listen, I get it. I get why, why, why Republicans feel like Democrats do whatever they want and break all the rules all the time. And why should they have to follow the same sorts of rules? They're going to get screwed over in the end. And maybe it's true, maybe it's not. History is not that simple. Democrats had both houses, Democrats had the presidency, and they had a really hard time getting anything done. There's a political price to pay for, for, for destroying the filibuster. Zombie filibuster, in my view. I don't know why Republicans should pay that price and let Democrats do it if they want to. I don't know that. Maybe they'll have to moderate themselves because they're not winning states in other ways. I, I don't know what the future holds, and neither does anyone else. That's all I'm saying. Molly, what else do we have? Oh, you want to talk a little bit about the Supreme. You want to talk a little bit about the Supreme? Court striking down some, many of the presidents tariffs in learning resources versus Trump. It was, it was a, a decision that saw Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett side with the lib justices. I should say adversely. The lib justices will always side with whatever they think hurts the President, Donald Trump, the conservative, just so called conservative justices will, in my view, typically give good faith, faith readings of the Constitution as they see it. I have a hard time saying that this time I have to be honest with you. But whenever Clarence Thomas takes a position that I disagree with, I feel like I have to take that very seriously. I loved Gorsuch's opinion and I'm, I, I feel like the Constitution in some sense was upheld here. I think you disagree with me.
- [50:44]
David Arsenault
Not entirely. I was expecting the Supreme Court to rule against Trump's tariffs, but when the case was first brought, people thought it would be like a, they were acting like it was just an insane idea that these might withstand Supreme Court scrutiny. And as it took, you know, month after month after month for the case to finally be, for the decision to be handed down, I think it did show how complicated things are. It was a mess of a, of an opinion from the court in that you had, it was kind of a three, three, three thing. But two of the threes agreed in the judgment. So the, there was a coalition of three, mostly a coalition of three conservatives. Roberts, Barrett and Gorsuch. And then there were the three libs. And then, and Roberts wrote the opinion for the court, but there were a ton of concurrences. And then Kavanaugh wrote the dissent and Thomas wrote a concurrence. And I think the complicated nature of the decision shows there's just, it's a complicated issue. I mean, take Thomas's concurrence to the dissent. However you say that he was, he had some really interesting things to say in there about how the framers understood duties and tariffs as being separate from taxes, how he, how and exactly why he disagreed with the majority opinion. A lot of people said, oh well, Alito and Thomas, they just side with Trump because that's what they do. And you know, Thomas pointed out that he was arguing the same thing he had argued in 2015 on one of the issues that he brought to light. So say what you want about Thomas. He's, he tends to be extremely consistent in how he judges these things. I did not, I found Gorsuch's argument the most compelling of the, of the mess in the majority, but he kind of did it alone. And that also speaks to the. How persuasive he was in what he was saying. And I find his attitude to be a little peacocky, but I don't hate it. I just wonder if he wouldn't be more persuasive if he were. I just wish. I wish maybe he would try to be more persuasive. I think he. I think that would work well for him on the court going forward.
- [53:33]
Molly Hemingway
I. I loved his opinion so much. I mean, I just think he's a fantastic writer. I don't know if you agree.
- [53:37]
David Arsenault
He's very clear. He's very clear. Yes.
- [53:39]
Molly Hemingway
In his little section there where he actually speaks to voters directly about the frustration of the deliberative process of governance and all of that. I thought it was. Maybe it's peacocky. I don't know. I, I liked it a lot. I wish, I wish people would read that. I guess there are two things. There is the narrow question of whether ever whether the emergency law allows Trump to do what he did. And then there was what Kavanaugh did, which I'm not an expert, I'm not a lawyer, but it was my least favorite opinion of his. I mean, I just think he got the economics of it all wrong. And
- [54:18]
David Arsenault
he didn't argue the economics.
- [54:20]
Molly Hemingway
He took his contention that. I wish I had it in front of me. But Donald Trump, he simply took whatever Donald Trump or the administration said tariffs were for emergencies and so on, which were clearly not. Now, I know that's not what they ruled on, but the basis of his understanding of why we're using tariffs was fictional. I mean, the idea that we're, you know, Donald Trump only a few weeks ago said he raised tariffs on Switzerland because he didn't like the tone of the, of the former president.
- [54:49]
David Arsenault
President.
- [54:50]
Molly Hemingway
I mean, his claim that we are in some kind of economic emergency or his acceptance of that claim was totally, I think, nuts. And Thomas's thing, I don't think his history was right. I'm not a historian either, but I just don't think that his history of tariffs are right. But anyway, just above all that, I want to say this, that there is no conception of the founding. I don't think where they envision the President of the United States unilaterally putting tariffs on every single country on the planet for whatever reason he came up with, with, without any input from Congress ever, in perpetuity, that is simply not comport with the view of the founders. I don't really care what anyone else tells me.
- [55:33]
David Arsenault
So I think you should actually care. When Clarence Thomas tells you otherwise. Let me just first off, say, if Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito disagree, then you are allowed to take a position different from them. When they agree, they just, they're just right. That much of the time they have, like, I trust a Thomas and an Alito together more than I trust any two other justices together. Now, if you read Thomas's, you did read Thomas's thing. So he emphasizes how from the founding, according to the definitions that were used at the time of the founding, absolutely, tariffs would be separate from taxation. I also thought it was really interesting how he talked about, you know, the delegation of legislative authority and how to distinguish, again, using the understanding at the founding between core legislative duties and things that Congress does that are more executive in nature. That was tremendously interesting history, I thought there. And then Kavanaugh, I thought, wrote, wrote like it's not a constitutional opinion so much as an understanding of statute and precedent. And he did a really good job of showing how at the time that that law was passed, immediately on the heels of Nixon doing some stuff with tariffs, what the understanding would have been at the time. And he flat out says, I may not agree with this as a matter of policy, but just as a matter of statute and history and precedent, Trump had the right to do this. Now, you can disagree with that, but it was a solid argument, and I thought it was like a really masterful dissection of the majority opinion. And also, I don't think there's anything wrong with deferring to the president on what is an emergency in a foreign policy context. And that, of course, is a major contention of the dissenting justices. We defer to the president on foreign policy issues. By definition, tariffs are a foreign policy issue. And so there's just a different approach. Now, I liked what Sarah Isger said in the New York Times about how the vision of the Roberts court is to return the executive branch to the authority of the President, but to make that branch smaller and less significant. And that that's a way to understand a lot of the different rulings over the recent years under Trump. I think that's also like, it's a. It's a logical approach and argument as well. And it was an interesting, interesting, but long decision. And I did think it was funny that neither Sotomayor nor Alito weighed in, but everyone else did.
- [58:30]
Molly Hemingway
Jayce, you said a lot, and I forget what I wanted to.
- [58:32]
David Arsenault
Okay, sorry.
- [58:32]
Molly Hemingway
No, no, I. I mean, it's not clearly a foreign policy question because the import taxes are collected from American companies. That' of all but moreover, there's the, what's it called, the major questions doctrine, that tariff. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. It's, it's clear as day that's, it's literally one of its main jobs along with taxation and is taxation. So you know, how could someone one want to shut down, you know, want to get rid of Chevron doctrine, but then say the president can do whatever he wants when it comes to other taxes or other regulations? Just mind boggling to me that anyone would, would do that. Can we. But you're right. I mean, I think that that was Gorsuch's point. Right. That we want to have Congress do its job. Yeah. And the executive, I like that a lot.
- [59:32]
David Arsenault
I mean, I do worry about the la la land nature of it. Meaning. Yes, I agree. I am a, I am, an article one enthusiast and I really wish Congress were the dominant branch of government and they are not even functioning right now. I mean, it's a disaster. And I love the Supreme Court jurisprudence that is telling Congress, hey, we're giving this all back to you after you willingly gave it all away to the executive branch and we're saying no constitutionally, this is more your purview. And I worry that they're doing absolutely nothing with this very helpful recent jurisprudence. I'm not talking about the tariffs decision that, that just happened, but in recent years they've done this with quite a lot of removing Chevron deference and all that. And Congress seems to not really care. And it makes me sad. But I agree with Gorsuch on that they should.
- [60:34]
Molly Hemingway
I agree that the Congress has abdicated its responsibility, but part of that abdication is that they're always like, yeah, cheering on whatever the President wants to do, like they take an oath to protect the Constitution. And part of the Constitution is protecting your or defending the, your institution. Congress is the institution. Yes, Mike Johnson should support the President and it's part of his party. But if he feels like the president is incur, you know, there's an incursion on, on the power of Congress, he should say something about that. But I'm not blaming just him. Chuck Schum, you know, supporting Biden in, when he was dealing when he was trying to forgive student loans or when he was putting amendments into the Constitution via tweet. So, you know, I just want to say
- [61:20]
David Arsenault
my own view on tariffs is that there is a difference between whether you think they're a good idea and whether you think the President has the right to set them. And on the issue of whether the President has the right to set them. I am pretty strongly in favor of the President setting them. They are the type of thing that can be like, like implemented and pulled back and used as leverage. And we have so many problems globally dealing with trade situations where foreign countries are, have made their markets very hostile to American businesses, and very little has been done to address that. And I love the idea of using tariffs as leverage. And I know that Trump can do it under all sorts of other authorities, parties than the one that he, he went with, and he says he will. But I would prefer that we defer to presidents, even if they're bad presidents, even if they're making bad decisions. I still think it's better for the executive than Congress to set these because they're foreign policy.
- [62:24]
Molly Hemingway
But, but he can do that in a different way. First of all, every, I think everyone admits that the, what was it called, the International Emergency Economics power Act of 1977, which was used here for many of the tariffs. Not all is a poorly written law. The law should be like, we give you this amount of time. Actually put it this way. Donald Trump can threaten whoever he wants and he can negotiate new deals, and then he could send them to Congress for passage like he would with anything else.
- [62:53]
David Arsenault
You watched the hockey game on Sunday?
- [62:56]
Molly Hemingway
Oh, hell yeah, I watched it. As you know, I love hockey. I'm a big fan of the New York Rangers. I probably miss the, like, 12 games in 40 years or something like that. And watching the American team win was just great. Just because, because we won, but because we beat Canada, you know, it was just amazing. And they're sore. Do you see how sore what sore losers they are talking about how they were the better team and the goalie won it for us, as if the goalie wasn't part of the team. Like, I, I, I liken it to saying you only won because of your ace pitcher. You only won because of Tom Brady. Brady. Well, yeah, that's part of my team. That person.
- [63:39]
David Arsenault
I was, I just last week talking about how I'm alone in my dislike of Canada. But last year or whenever it was, when they did the Four nations tournament and the Canadians booed the American anthem, I was like, oh, it's on. It's on. Like, I will love America even if we lose in horrific fashion at the Olympics. But I really wanted to beat Canada because they're so smug. They also are really good at hockey. They, they send all these players to NHL teams. The entire Avalanche team is comprised of Canadians. And then sort of related Hockey is all Canada hats. They have comedians who become Americans. They have Molson beer year and they have hockey and that's it. So they needed that win desperately and they have been really asking for a beating. And so I thought the game, what I saw about it, excited church on Sunday morning. So I was monitoring it and then Mark and I watched re. Watched highlights. I thought it was just amazing. A very good game. Canada is a very good team.
- [64:50]
Molly Hemingway
Oh, yeah. I mean, Canada still have the premier. Your players, right? I come from Canada. It's their national sport. It's cold all over the place there. The winter. They have a great tradition. I, you know, but it is interesting someone. Someone pointed this out to me that most Canadian superstars in the United States who play for US Teams have no trade clauses in their contract where they do not want to go to any Canadian team. Taxes are so high up there that they. You essentially lose half your salary. No one wants to go to Edmonton or cash Calgary if they don't have to. They want to go to Florida, Miami, they want to go to Denver. They want to go to New York. But. But you mentioned the four. So I hate these international tournaments in the middle of a season because I don't want my players to get hurt. I think, you know, it's like too many games, but then whenever it starts, I get really into it. So you mentioned four nations. Like they booed the American national anthem and three Americans came out and started fights with Canadians.
- [65:49]
David Arsenault
I loved that immediately.
- [65:50]
Molly Hemingway
It was the tkachuk brothers and J.T. miller. I, you know, those guys are great. So I, I loved it. Did you see Jack Hughes lost his tooth, right? He had been hitting thing and he came out and scored that goal. Wrapped himself in the American flag. There's blood all over the. Handing them, you know, those stupid teddy bears. The. And then just the unbridled, like I said, unfettered patriotism of these guys. So anyway, they're in the locker room. Cash Patel's there drinking. Out of all the abuses of power I've ever seen. Pretending you have a meeting in Italy to attend the Olympics gold medal game with the United States and then celebrating with the team after is the abuse of power I most relate to and would 100% engage in myself if it is an abuse of power. But the president called. He made an innocuous joke about having to invite the women's team as well to the White House, who also won the gold. An amazing, beautiful goal. You know, game winning goal. Great game also. And the entire left all the sports Writers, who are a bunch of left wingers most of the time, all turned on the American team because they went to the White House because they laughed at Trump's dumb joke. It's another sign of what a bunch of weirdos they are. Like these school moms scolding you for laughing at a dumb joke. And, you know, it's just so out of touch.
- [67:20]
David Arsenault
So Alyssa Liu is this American figure skater whose dad was a Chinese dissident who came to America, then quite bizarrely, used a bunch of surrogates to create like a. Like a team of children. So that's a little weird, but one of the children is Alyssa Liu, and she is this really great figure skater. And. And she was so bubbly and happy and great, and her performance was amazing. So everyone just kind of like fell in love with her. And all these lefties were like, well, these MAGA people won't like her once we tell them that she's actually like a bisexual woke person or whatever. And everyone was like, no, we just liked her because she was really good and bubbly. And also she didn't, like, shove that down everybody's throat every two seconds. Americans. And then the next day, the same people who are like you people are bad. Because you wouldn't like Alyssa Lou if you knew what she really thought politically decided to turn on the American hockey team because they talked to Trump.
- [68:31]
Molly Hemingway
It's because it's pure projection on their part.
- [68:34]
David Arsenault
100 projection.
- [68:35]
Molly Hemingway
They're the ones who want to turn every single event in America into a political struggle session. It's so insufferable. And I don't think normal American who's watching the Olympics wants that. I couldn't care less as long as they're not bringing it to the Olympics. Like, you know, if you're going to the Olympics and badmouthing, I don't care who the President is or badmouthing America to foreign press. Yeah, I have a problem with that. If you're just going there and winning and celebrating. She's. I don't know if this is demeaning. I'm not supposed to say it, but that skater, she's so cute and full of life and life relatable and just. She seems like a nice person. I don't know what her opinions are. I don't even care. Yeah, so great. She's going to come and she can march and she could say stuff about Trump, whatever, but she didn't do it at the Olympics. She put a flag around herself and she celebrated winning, and that's all we care about. I'm sure not everyone, every hockey player loves Trump. But if I won the gold and Joe Biden or Barack Obama invited me to go to the White House, I would go. They're the president. I don't like them, but they're the president. And I would be respectful because that's not the place for politics. But they can't understand this. I forgot who said this, but they were talking about how everyone thinks totalitarian. I've mentioned this quote, but everyone thinks totalitarian as a means that you're not allowed to participate in politics when it really means they make you. Everything about politics, totalitarian nations, everything is politics. And we don't want that here. People want to live their lives free of that. It's only culture. I had.
- [70:08]
David Arsenault
Well, that's good culture. I did watch with Mark the end of the Night Agent. No, it's not the Night Agent. Sorry. I like Night Agent. Never mind. It's Night Manager. I am so sorry.
- [70:29]
Molly Hemingway
I was gonna watch that John le Carre. I think I talked about it with Mark. Yeah.
- [70:33]
David Arsenault
So Mark claims that we watched season one, like, 10 or 15 years ago, and then it took 10 or 15 years for season two to come out. I have no recollection of season one one. I'm not saying he's wrong, because sometimes I, you know, had young kids at that time, and you're not getting a lot of sleep, but I was willing to do this. Night Managing Manager. Yeah, Night Manager. Why is it called that? And I. I remember that TV show, the Westworld or something like that. I thought it was so good, and then the ending was so stupid that I was angry. Angry that I had watched any of it. Like, I. I just assumed there was going to be payoff, and then there was no payoff. And let's just say this had a similar disappointing ending. And I was like, I. If I had had food to throw at the television, I would have thrown it at the television. I was like, oh, please.
- [71:33]
Molly Hemingway
I. There is a show called the Night Agent on Netflix, which I started to watch, which has, like, super bad acting and a very bad story. Story. But I like it. But I watch it and I'm like. And I keep watching it. It's like a sugar addiction or something.
- [71:50]
David Arsenault
So let me say what the Night Manager had that I liked. Was that a really hot chick who was in Daisy Jones and the Six. Do you know who I'm talking about? I don't know what her name is.
- [72:05]
Molly Hemingway
I see her face.
- [72:06]
David Arsenault
Camille Morrone. She's very pretty. I'm not saying she's the world's best actress, but she's very pretty. And I think being pretty can cover a host of sins.
- [72:16]
Molly Hemingway
Yeah. Who cares?
- [72:17]
David Arsenault
Weaknesses. And then it also has like, Hugh Laurie and Tom Hiddleston, but the. The.
- [72:25]
Molly Hemingway
Is Hugh Laurie in the second season too.
- [72:28]
David Arsenault
He is.
- [72:29]
Molly Hemingway
Okay.
- [72:30]
David Arsenault
Am I giving too much away?
- [72:32]
Molly Hemingway
Probably.
- [72:33]
David Arsenault
Anyway, the. The gay subtext of everything, I was like, this is. This is. I'm a woman, so I can tolerate it more. But I was like, this is getting too gay.
- [72:49]
Molly Hemingway
I. There is a 10 year gap between the seasons or something of that nature. And I. Sometimes when I watch a show and, you know, I'll binge it, but sometimes I won't watch for a week and I can't even remember what happened the week before. And I wonder, in the old days, how did we remember, like, what had happened on a show we were watching when we wouldn't see another episode for six months? I don't even know how I would. How I would tackle that, you know? Yeah, I tried to watch Night Manager like a few times and I just. It did not stick. So maybe I'll give it another shot. But now you're saying that doesn't end well. So we'll see.
- [73:26]
David Arsenault
Okay.
- [73:27]
Molly Hemingway
We need better. Yeah. Please send your emails to radiofederalist.com we love to hear from you. And we'll be back next week. Till then, be lovers of freedom.