C (9:25)

America needs strong and consistent leadership.

B (9:28)

And the strength and resilience of the presidency are vital.

D (9:32)

The United States has the opportunity, and.

C (9:35)

I would argue, the solemn responsibility to.

B (9:39)

Shape a more peaceful, prosperous, democratic world in the 21st century.

D (9:45)

In the six years since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement and military action to do our duty to find these enemies and to protect the American people.

B (10:08)

I believe that the United States military can achieve any mission that we are and must remain the strongest fighting force the world has ever known. I believe that we must never hesitate to act when necessary, including unilaterally when necessary, against any imminent threats to our people. Four very different presidents, four very solemn guys there. But the through line is a very specific, very focused belief that America is indispensable in the world, that American safety and security and prosperity at home require robust presence around the world. Now, circumstances have changed, as I said, attitudes have changed. Americans are far less inclined to engage in these kinds of military, diplomatic and economic adventures around the world. But the focus of all four of those guys in their second term was heavily towards foreign policy. President Reagan was dealing with the end of the Cold War, winding down the Cold War. So he was dealing a lot with the Soviet Union transitioning into Russia, dealing with Gorbachev, dealing with nuclear weapons issues. And of course, he also got embroiled in Iran Contra, that scandal, but lots of foreign policy stuff. Bill Clinton was dealing with NATO expansion and how to manage the decline of Russia and the need for Europe to still have security. He also dealt with the Balkans and the Dayton accords and Kosovo. George W. Bush, of course, was dealing with the aftermath of 911 and dealing with Iraq, where the initial efforts to secure the country failed dramatically. But in his second term, he was dealing with trying to counter terrorism activities and surging troops into Iran, into Iraq to try to end the conflict there. Barack Obama was dealing with Iran and the nuclear deal that he negotiated there. A lot of issues with climate change, the Paris climate agreement, and also dealt with Cuba in his second term. Those guys all believed that foreign policy was important, but it's always important. And America's role, from Reagan to now to Trump's second term, always is important. So nobody's saying America doesn't have a role in the world. But what causes a second term president, including before their midterm election or when they're worried about making sure they're succeeded by someone of their own party, what causes them to focus here? Here are the reasons that people I talk to in both parties who serve presidents of both parties. Here are the reasons they say presidents emphasize foreign policy, national security in many ways and many times over, domestic policy in their second term, okay, first is they know more. They know more about how to conduct foreign policy. Even if you're someone like a Ronald Reagan who'd been on the national stage for a year. Reagan was a governor, Clinton was a governor, Bush was a governor, Obama was a senator, but hadn't been one for very long. In your first term, you're focused on your domestic agenda and you don't really know how to do foreign policy all that well. But by your second term, you know it and it's a more attractive thing to engage in because you know how to do it well. And you know more foreign leaders, right? You come in as a governor or as a new senator like, and all four of those guys, you don't know the people in your first term. The second term. Now, some of them transition out, but a lot of them are around still. You know their names, you know how to deal with them on good terms and bad. You know where the leverage points are. Makes a big difference. It makes it more attractive to do foreign policy. You're more confident. Every one of these presidents, according to the folks I talked to, had a more confidence, in part because they were more experienced, in part because they knew more folks, but they just understood how to be a great foreign policy president or an engagement foreign policy president. And all that adds up to a capacity to, to feel like you can get stuff done. And to some extent that's the, that's the heart of this, right? Domestic policy is hard in the second term, you don't have the momentum. People talk about the first hundred days now. It's really, in reality it's the whole first year plus if you look at the, if you look at the history of two term presidents and one term presidents, you get a lot done in the first hundred days, a lot done in the first year and a few months domestically. But after that the honeymoon's over, the first midterm comes around, then you're running for reelection. Getting big stuff done domestically after that first year and a half, year and a few months, very difficult. Look at what they accomplished in the domestic column in their second terms. In all these cases now, there's not nothing but, and it's not quite a self fulfilling prophecy. It's just if you got two buckets of, in your inbox, two, two inboxes on your desk and one is filled with stuff that you look at and you say I'm never going to get that done. Chances are long. And then the other box is filled with stuff and you say, well I, I know how to get that stuff done. And it's easier. Don't need 60 votes in the Senate, don't need input from a lot of people to develop policy, don't need to deal with the chaos of Congress. And in that other inbox you just do it. And since Nixon through now, you've seen presidents take more and more power away from Congress on foreign policy. You're seeing it now in most extreme case with Donald Trump where you're not relying on Congress, you can launch missiles, you can send American forces around the world, you can sign agreements, got to get treaties ratified by the Senate. But presidents bypassed that now by doing it without that. So one inbox is filled with complicated stuff that's difficult to do to formulate a plan to get it done and requires a lot of input from a lot of people, including Congress. And the other inbox is stuff you just do. Okay. Another reason they're looking for legacy. And again all these kind of fit together. First term presidents assume they're going to be second term presidents. So they say this is an eight year project. But when you get to the fifth year, you can see the end of the story. You know, you don't need to run for election again. You can Focus just on governing. And you know that history will be watching, history will be judging, and you want to start racking up victories. You want to start doing things that will get you on Rushmore, doing things that will be the lead in your Wikipedia and encyclopedia entry. Doing things where people say, well, who were the greatest presidents of all time? Well, it was President X. Well, what President X do you, you need a meaty list there of really big accomplishments. And in years 5, 6, 7 and 8, those accomplishments are more likely to come from foreign policy and national security for the reasons I stated, than they are from domestic. In foreign policy, again, folks told me presidents don't have rivals that can stop them. In domestic policy, you got the Congress and members of your own party and other parties within your government. You've got bureaucracies that you have to think about getting the policy process going. Foreign policy, you don't. You know, you can work with one or two or three or four advisors and, and just say, hey, let's, let's call the Prime Minister of Country X and let's, let's try to make a deal on something. To watch Donald Trump this week in Davos was to see a guy where all the factors I just laid out are right there. They're just present. So, for instance, the President formed this thing, this Board of Peace. People are saying, although the White House plays it down, that this is meant to rival the United Nations. The United Nations, a anti American bureaucratic place in the view of so many conservatives, where China and Russia, permanent members of the Security Council, can veto anything that America wants to do. So the President's forming this Board of Peace to primarily deal with the Middle east, to deal with rebuilding Gaza, but again, the UN Would normally play a role there. The President's, he's putting up a rival organization. Here's the President entering the first meeting of the Board of Peace, made up of a lot of world leaders. This is, this is S4. Please, please welcome the Chairman of the Board of Peace, the President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump. So if you're listening to the podcast, there's a group of foreign leaders. They all happen to be men in suits and they stand as the President, this is at Davos, enters and they're, you know, paying homage to him. And this is, this is a group of people whose countries would like to say they're not beholden to the United States and dependent on the United States, but to some extent they are. So here's if this works. There's one, one female leader there. If this works, if the Board of Peace rebuilds Gaza under the auspices of Chairman Donald J. Trump, that's a historic accomplishment. I was struck this morning while I was watching coverage of the whole thing in Davos that a commentator for the BBC, one of their security reporters, he said what other analysts have said, including some who hold no brief for Donald Trump. This guy is, this guy is getting stuff done. You may not agree with his tactics, his strategy, you may not even agree with his goals, but he is moving stuff out of that foreign policy, that national security. Inbox. And the president has always been a good talker, but you can see his sure footedness on all this stuff. He knows the leaders, he knows the issues, he knows the organizations, he knows what the traffic will bear. A second term president knows what the traffic will bear. And I remember watching, I didn't cover, I didn't cover Reagan day to day. I was there for the last year. That's when I started my career, President Reagan's last year. But I covered Clinton, Bush and Obama. And I can tell you the change in their level of confidence in talking about national security from term one to term two. Was pronounced. Was pronounced. Here's President Trump in Davos today getting a question about Ukraine. Listen to this level of confidence that he has. This is S3, please. What's your plan for Ukraine, sir? What is your plan for Ukraine? What will you say to Vladimir Zelensky today? As you know, today I meet with the president and will be discussing it. We're meeting with President Putin today or tomorrow and some people are going over and I think they're getting close. A lot of people are being killed. We got to get it done. We don't get that done.

D (21:23)

But you have failed so far.

B (21:27)

I don't know if you hear the confidence in his voice. I do because I remember how he answered questions on this stuff the first term. Same with Bush, same with Clinton, same with Obama. And the president surrounded now on national security by Marco Rubio, by Jared Kushner, his son in law by Steve Witkoff, one of his closest friends, by Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff. Others, a team that he trusts, a team that he's in league with, in sync with about executing on his foreign policy goals. And that doesn't mean he'll succeed, just as Reagan and Clinton and Bush 43 and Obama. They didn't necessarily succeed in foreign policy, including in those last four years, but they put a lot of focus there for the reasons I've said. And yet there's going to be this pull, particularly in the next 10 months before the midterms, when there is going to be domestic travel. But part of what is true about of the five two termers, three of them were not the hardest workers in the world. They tell you they were. But, but Reagan, Obama and Bush 43, you know, they like to watch TV, they like to spend time with their families. In the case of Bush and Obama, they didn't stay up till one in the morning, two in the morning. Clinton and Trump, they're, they're night owls. And now they'll work a lot, they'll work a long day. So what Trump will tell you, and one of his advisors said this to me, is sure, he's doing a lot on foreign policy, but he's doing a lot on domestic policy, too. He talked about housing in Davos, for instance, because he's burning the candle at both ends. But this tension in terms of his schedule, his emphasis, what he's talking about, the biggest thing that, that brings us back both politically and substantively is can you explain to the American people why the foreign policy is important? Can you link it up to their lives? And one thing that some people around this president would like to see him do is explain that more. Why is Venezuela taking Maduro? Why is that good for the United States? Why is rebuilding Gaza good for the United States? Why is solving Russia, Ukraine good for the United States? Why is the Greenland situation good for the United States? They'd like to see more of that. You can do the foreign policy stuff, but if it appears it's just a bunch of elites doing stuff with each other, for each other, that's going to, that's going to drive your poll numbers to a bad place. Look at this poll from New York Times came out today. Are you better off under in the last year than you were a year ago? And of course, that's the year Donald Trump was president. Only 32% say they're generally better off than they were a year ago. Almost 50, 49% in this poll say they're not. And this matches other data. If you don't like the New York Times and think their polls are biased, this matches other public and private data. And to some extent, every day the President's out talking about foreign policy and not linking the projects on foreign policy up to why it's good for the American people, I don't know that those numbers are going to get better. And if those numbers don't get better, his party is going to be shellacked in the midterms this is going to be fascinating to watch as the President no doubt continues to work on foreign policy and national security, traveling the world at times spending a lot of time greeting foreign leaders in the United States. He wants to do it for all the reasons otherwise. Two termers wants to want to do it, but it's going to be an interesting struggle and including with his own team, is he really going to have time to spend a day on the week, a day every week on the road domestically? We shall see. All right, that's my report on two term presidents and foreign policy, national security. Want to hear what you think about all these issues and whether it's a good idea for presidents to put their focus there. Seriously. Send me an email with your thoughts on today's report. Send it to nextup alperino@gmail.com. if you're watching this or listening to this and you've never subscribed, let's fix that. Figure out how to do it depending on the platform, but subscribe Share Like Let everybody in your life know that you're next or proud next year and you'd like them to be. To build up the audience for this program is is what we're all about. Subscribe now on the YouTube channel of next Up. You can see all the full episodes, bonus clips and get everything as immediately when it drops. Go to YouTube and if you like the audio version you want to listen to us at the gym or taking a walk or wherever you listen to your audio, hit follow. Whether you're listening on Apple or Spotify or wherever you get your podcast, make sure you got downloads turned on so you can get everything automatically and in a timely way. The minute all our stuff goes live. No searching, no scrolling, no missing it because you forgot all about our episodes drop on Tuesdays and Thursdays. All right, thank you all. Take a quick break and then next up when we come back, Democratic strategist Melissa DeRosa. Republican Mark Bednar will be here there next stop. Are you being lied to? They tell you to max out your 401k and your IRA and then make you beg for permission to use your own money. It's time to get the truth and discover a better way to grow and protect your money. Bank on yourself is the proven retirement plan alternative that banks and Wall street desperately hope you never hear about. It gives you guaranteed growth and retirement income that never goes backward. When markets tumble, your principal and growth are locked in with tax free retirement income and a zero tax rate under current law. Access your money anytime for emergencies or or for opportunities. No penalties, no restrictions and it keeps growing like you never touched it. Built in inflation protection means your savings grow every year, good times or bad. Plus you'll always know the minimum guaranteed value of your retirement savings when you need them. You can get a free report that reveals how you can bank on yourself and enjoy tax free retirement income, guaranteed growth and control of your own money. Just go to bankonyourself.com mark and get your free report again. That's bankonyourself.com mark bankonyourself.com mark this is.

A (27:39)

A Monday.com ad, the same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one the same Monday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Feeling heavy and depleted after the holidays, Prolon's five day Fasting mimicking diet makes it easy to reset your body habits and energy heading into the new year. Developed with USC's Longevity Institute, Prolon is a nutrition program that works at the cellular level to rejuvenate you from within, supporting fat loss, glowing skin and sharper focus when paired with proper diet and exercise. It's a simple, science backed way to turn intentions into action. No injections, no guesswork, just real results. Get 15% off plus a bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com PandoraPROM prolonlife.com Pandora promo these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. See site for details.

B (28:42)

Next up Joining me now, Melissa DeRosa, Democratic strategist, and Mark Bednar, a Republican and principal at Monument Advocacy. Mark, is that a good name for a company? Monument Advocacy. Great name for a company, I have to say. Yes, absolutely. Okay, I want to pick up with what my monologue was about this question of whether the President's focus on foreign policy in an election year is good. Typically voters don't care much about foreign policy and I'm wondering if you think because it's going to work on foreign policy because second term presidents do, that the solution, as some said to me as I was reporting this out, that the solution, Melissa, is for him to connect foreign policy, work up more with the lives of the American people. So say here's why Greenland will make your lives better, here's why Venezuela will make your lives better. Is that the solution or is the only solution to not be spending so much time on that stuff?

A (29:35)

Look, I think that Trump can walk in, chew gum, certainly. But the headlines in the last several months have all been dominated by foreign policy. And I don't know how you're going to connect Greenland to the fact that it costs people more money when they go to the grocery store. And that continues to be the number one issue is affordability and people's lived experience in the economy. And so I think that as much time as he's spending on foreign policy, he needs to spend the same amount or more time on the economy and putting forth real solutions that are going to connect to people's actual lives and stopping with the just global domination, which is what it feels like he's focused on.

B (30:17)

Mark is, do you agree with Melissa that you can't no way to make people say, well, this is why Greenland will make my life better?

C (30:25)

Well, there's kind of two points to this one. Thus far it seems like a lot of these foreign policy moves, the administration, they've done a really kind of succinct Occam's razor. Like there wasn't a build up to getting Maduro. It's just, let's go get him. It wasn't a, you know, there's geopolitical concerns about Russia, China, energy, security, all that sort of stuff. They just went and got them. So feeling a palpable win out of that, that gets kind of lost in the minutia. But then also kind of to Melissa's point, it's, there's an attention economy here, right? There's only so much room of cable news, headlines, press conferences, etc. And if that is being dominated by, we got Maduro versus GDP numbers or unemployment numbers, people, you know, economic sentiment is exactly that. It's sentiment. How do you feel about it? And so if you're not being told or if you're not being kind of surrounded as a voter with important news about the economy, then the sentiment gets lost. So there's, there's absolutely a, there's an attention chasm here. But in terms of the actual wins, I don't think that the president has anything to be concerned about with that.

A (31:41)

No. And I agree with what Mark is saying. And like it was like one morning we all just woke up and we had taken over Venezuela. And it didn't feel like while like all of us who pay attention to every single beat that occurs, like most Americans, it felt like it sort of came out of nowhere. And then very quickly the narrative became it was about oil and it was about the US coming in and taking over their oil. And so There was a sinister motivation on top of it. And then with Greenland, it just seems like this is him flexing and what does he actually want to do from this other than build out like the Trump brand and continue to take things over. And so I think there's a disconnect to the extent that there are real reasons that he wants to go and do these things that are morally grounded or security grounded or whatever. He's not communicating that either. So I think, think it's a two step problem. I think it's the attention issue and people are really frustrated with the economy and feeling like they're struggling here at home and that that's not being dealt with. And also like just these random things that are occurring that don't feel like there's either a buildup or a follow through on. And it just seems like it's Trump like, you know, thumping his chest.

C (32:53)

But I kind of reject the notion of that the oil component is sinister per se, but that I totally agree with the fact that like, let's say it is about oil, which like, that's important, energy prices are important, just geopolitically, etc. But make that case and like bear hug it. And you know, that has been, I think notably for, for as strong of a communicator and you know, ever present as President Trump is like that portion has kind of been lacking, which is, you know, I wish that they would just lean into that more.

B (33:28)

No.

A (33:28)

And I don't want to agree that the dysfunction in Venezuela and the lack of oil that's been produced is a, is a problem. But I'm saying more that like the perception I feel like became he made up an excuse to go in and take over this country because we want to take over their oil reserves or we want. And so that feels not appropriate. Right. It doesn't feel like we should be invading countries because we want their oil. And I'm obviously, it's all much more nuanced than this, but I'm saying for the average American, I think a lot of people took that away. And so.

B (34:01)

All right, I'm going to try, cross your fingers. I'm going to try to ask a question that's complicated and the answer is complicated, but I think it's important. And I just was thinking about this yesterday when, when Secretary Rubio goes out and talks about the connection between the real lives of real Americans and some of these foreign policy things, I think he does a pretty good job of making that link. In the olden days when the media ecosystem was A little, at least a little bit different. That's what a White House would do. They'd send talking points, their allies on Capitol Hill and in the media and they'd say here's what we're saying. We're saying taking over Greenland is going to make Americans safer. It's going to get us access to these rare earth minerals that we put in your computer chips. And here's why it's going to be better. This White House by itself is a monster communicator. Not just the president but his allies, the White House com staff, they're doing a lot. Is the solution to this more what I call student body. Right. Which is they're not, I don't, I don't hear their allies in politics and in media making that case. Is that something that still a White House should do? And, and if so, why aren't they doing that? On this question of justifying the President's focus on foreign policy, Mark, I mean.

C (35:18)

That, that has been kind of a case going forward. Like you have a very loyal House and Senate Republican conference that will don't if you lead them to water, they're going to drink. And like they will, they will reiterate whatever points that they want to make but just get them there and then they'll be supportive. But you know, if to the literally waking up Maduro is a perfect example, Melissa literally waking up on a Saturday morning only to find out that it had occurred and then to kind of scramble for ex post facto answers here like these, these Republicans and the allies, you know, around the ecosystem, they want to be supportive. Just give them the ammo and they'll do it.

B (35:59)

But, but do you think that's still something both parties like that that works, that that's a way to kind of condition people to think what they, what they want them to think or that's old, old school.

C (36:11)

I think it's always going to, you're always going to need that. That is like fundamental art, you know, red versus.

B (36:17)

But if you have either of you heard any member of Congress or any talk show host on the right make the case for this, it just seems like they're, they're not talking about it.

A (36:27)

Well again I think that part of the problem was it was sort of like a one day story and then everyone moved on from it. Right. Which is also a product of this world that we live in where it's nine news cycles a day. And so it's like the whiplash. And I mean you didn't ask this question but I Think that like a deeper problem the President has right now and the Republican Party has is that there's this fatigue in America where people are so exhausted by like waking up to find out we took over Venezuela that like, it's like you're not even prepared to listen to the explanation and then you're on to the next. But I think that, I think that of course there's always going to be a place for amplifying your message and message discipline and trying to use the apparatuses to the extent they still exist to keep everybody on message and to explain things to the American public in a discipline, disciplined way. I actually think generally speaking the Republicans are better than it, at it than the Democrats, although I think that, you know, both sides always think the other side is better at something.

B (37:22)

Yes.

A (37:22)

Because the Democratic Party is in such disarray right now and there's such a power vacuum. I think that Trump thinks that he himself can control the message. You know, his press secretary has a press conference, he takes it over. He speaks for an hour and 45 minutes. That's what network news or cable news shows for an hour and 45 minutes. And I think he thinks he's got it. But I don't think they understand the fundamental disconnect between what's landing and insiders here.

B (37:46)

Mark, do you ever get talking points from the White House?

C (37:50)

We, we do, you know, and like talking to different administration officials and you know, comms people and people on the Hill like what, what is in the foreign policy place, it's a much different lead up. So take, compare that to vis a vis one big beautiful bill. There was a buildup. It's we need to do this because.

B (38:09)

Right.

C (38:09)

And lay out the five economic reasons and that's, you know, things that require congressional a role. Like you need to get all the horses lined up right with these situations, like they've been able to go it alone. And that's okay from an Article 2 standpoint, whatever, that's fine. Go deliver these wins. But also if you want the surround sound from congressional allies, you know that that needs to be a two way street. And I hear from a lot of Hill folks that like especially in the foreign policy space, in the intel armed services space, they want to be supportive of a lot of these moves in Iran, Israel, Venezuela, but that the feedback that they just need, they need more of it. And like they're, they're just clamoring for it. And so I think that that will be something that is an ongoing challenge. But I think the administration, they can get there.

B (38:57)

All right, I want to change to a different topic related to politics. It's one of the most important developments in politics in the last quarter century, the advent of online fundraising. It's important for insiders and mechanical. If you're working on a campaign and you have an opportunity to raise money online, everybody in the campaign logs in and watches the kaching and see how it goes. And if something happens and you raise a lot of money, everybody says, well, how do we do that again? Right. How do we replicate that? And the reason it's so important, of course, is it's much cheaper to raise money that way. People who give money have skin in the game. They, you get their email address, they can keep giving money. And we've seen some candidates raise an enormous amount of money. The example I always give, Jamie Harrison, who ran against Lindsey Graham, Senate in North Carolina, raised like $120 million, almost all of it in small dollars online. Had no chance to win, lost by double digits, but raised probably more than 10 times what Marco Rubio raised when he ran for president online. So the capacity to raise money online is massive, whether you're running for House or Senate or governor, whether you're a nonprofit organization, pac. And then also it's, it's, it's vitally important to momentum and again to grassroots. What this new story in the Hill says, and put that up this a2 is there's a recession of $10 donors. Why grassroots haven't rebounded. This writer says that campaign giving These low dollar givings, 5, 10, $20 is not something people do when they're feeling stretched. And so since the inflation started under Biden, has continued at a lower level under Donald Trump, that people in both parties have scaled back how much they're giving online. And it's always been a little bit of a mystery to me. I keep telling people who know more about it to do more investigation on it. Who's a good online fundraiser and who's not. Some, some politicians can raise a lot online, others can't. I haven't figured out what the sort of secret there is. So with that wind up, Melissa, is, is what will this mean for 2026 and 2028 presidential if, if, if there's a this big decline in people's propensity to give low dollar donations online, I.

A (41:16)

Honestly don't know that it matters. I mean, in the, in the important.

B (41:19)

After all that build up, you say it doesn't matter. All right, well, why doesn't it matter?

A (41:23)

Well, look, first of all, it still does exist. Right. Like, AOC has an incredible ability to raise money online. Bernie Sanders, you know, like Tish James, who I can't stand. There was a story the other day about the fact that, like, she has, like a massive donor base, although 85 of it comes from outside of New York state. Because every donation appeal she sends is about how she took on Trump and now Trump after her.

B (41:49)

But those, but those three are great online fundraisers and they're kind of recession proof.

A (41:55)

Yes.

B (41:55)

So it doesn't, doesn't necessarily matter to them. But for your run of the mill candidate who's trying to raise money, if they can't raise money that way, isn't that a problem?

A (42:05)

I don't know that it matters. Look, like I worked for Andrew Cuomo. We were never a low dollar fundraising operation and it never mattered. We were able to put together $20 million. Like you could do it. And also in important races, you're always going to have these super PACs that come in, and the DCCC and the Republican Party, their apparatus is their PACs. And so I think because you can spend unlimited amounts of money and people can give unlimited amounts of money through super PACs and IES, at the end of the day, in important races in marginal seats, it's not, I don't think it really matters.

B (42:37)

All right, Mark. Melissa says my whole thesis doesn't matter. What do you say?

C (42:41)

Well, it's also interesting too, because there's always the perception that basically, aside from President Trump, that Democrats have been way better for like more than a decade at small dollar online funding than Republicans.

B (42:53)

Yeah.

C (42:53)

So it's, I'm actually kind of, kind of surprised to hear that, frankly. But I, you know, the fact that like, online fundraising now is so stretched around the idea of moments like you need a political moment. And it's been interesting the last decade or so. When Democrats get mad, they get a solicitation, donate a dollar today, and ActBlue will just send it out into the ether. And then when Republicans get mad, they write an angry Facebook comment. That's just generally been a small dollar dynamic that the Republican Party's had to deal with. So the fact that like this is there's a kind of a slowdown right now. I think this gears up as political moments occur on the campaign trail. We just went through a brutal, long stretch of an election where we saw Democrats change out their candidate. President Trump had attempts on his life. And so now to be in the other side of that, are people kind of worn out from kind of like the political horse race, like maybe it's just, we can chalk it up to that. But I think it's always going to be around and, you know, both parties have to figure out how they can outmaneuver each other on it.

B (44:07)

So.

C (44:07)

But I, you know, I do think like the fact that like, there's big dollar money involvement in campaigns, like, of course that's the case, but, you know, I don't think we can discount the, the importance of small dollar donors.

B (44:18)

All right, one more topic. I'm moving on from this one because Melissa rejected it and. Hold on, you rejected it in part. No, no, no, we're moving on. Gavin Newsom at Davos. I can't think of an analog of any situation quite like this. This guy's the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. He's been making hay and including low dollar donors by basically saying, I am the resistance leader, I am standing up to Donald Trump on social media, on tv, in redistricting. And then he goes to Davos and on foreign soil, urges European leaders to stand up to the President of the United States, makes hay out of, beyond it being not invited or uninvited from one of his appearances at a US Pavilion, goes to Donald Trump's event and stands behind the Trump cabinet and then does a bunch of interviews and gaggles in which he's just super aggressive about going after Donald Trump. So if, if, if someday Gavin Newsom runs for president this cycle, Melissa, will this Davos week have been a major step along the way? Did we learn things about him? What, where does Gavin Newsom's three days at Davos fit into how we think about him as a presidential candidate?

A (45:32)

Look, I've never been as high on Gavin Newsom as you have. We've had this conversation on camera and off camera. I think he's made a fool of himself this week. I don't understand, like, I don't know who's advising him. I don't know why he thought it was a good idea to do that. I'm a Democrat. I disagree with the idea that we were going to take over Greenland. I always predicted we would end up with some half baked deal when the market tanked, which is exactly what happened. But for him to go there and undermine the President of the United States on foreign soil and say that international leaders should stand up to the United States, you don't do that. And going and standing there and making hay out of being uninvited and saying it's Trump, it makes you look small and petty. And it just, I thought he made a fool of himself this week.

C (46:18)

He had not gone at all.

B (46:19)

Yeah, I don't know.

A (46:22)

To be there. Like, was anyone clamoring for Gavin Newsom's presence at Davos? Like, I just, I thought the whole thing. And by the way, California isn't exactly a picture of a perfectly run state with cities that are completely in control and a booming economy. And, you know, he's got a lot of issues at home that he could be focused on trying to clean up if you want to prepare to run for president. I just, I thought this whole week was ridiculous. Ridiculous for him.

B (46:47)

Mark, I know many people who agree with Melissa. Exactly. But I also know people who thought that this, once again showed that Gavin Newsom was head and shoulders above the others in terms of taking on Donald Trump, in terms of having the stature to be invited to Davos and to be given all these platforms. Do you agree with Melissa or do you agree with those who say this was net positive for Newsom?

C (47:08)

More agree with Melissa, but for different reasons. So when you're a governor and you want to run for president, you get very few opportunities to show foreign policy chops. Like, that's, that's kind of your, the biggest Achilles heel for any governor. How can I figure out a way to be viable and interesting and, you know, seen on the world stage, and so even just go there and be diplomatic and be slightly regal and deferential and respectful, and you fight Trump all the other days of the year, that's fine if you're, if you're Newsom, but that was a really missed opportunity for, you know, someone who does not get out, get outside of Sacramento or outside of, like, the territory of the United States. So, yeah, I totally blown opportunity, totally misplayed it for what could have been a really, really smart thing for him to set himself apart from the rest of the field.

B (48:00)

All right, we'll see. Maybe history will record that's when he won the Oval Office. I don't know. Could be very grateful to you both for being here and like having you back regularly. Melissa Duros and Mark Bednar, thank you both. Take a quick break. And next up, the great Michael Knowles will be here, the host, the Michael Knowles show on the Daily Wire. Michael Knowles is next up. All right, this sponsor always makes me hungry. If you've ever taken a look at the nutrition label on any bag of chips, what you're going to see is a chemical cocktail, stuff like seed oils, msg, artificial dyes, vague references to some sort of natural flavors and ingredients that sound more like something that we come in a science kit rather than in a snack. Masa is redefining snacking with real food. Their chips have just three ingredients organic corn that's good, sea salt yummy and 100% grass fed beef Tallow. Clean, simple and tasty. Master chips leave you satisfied and feeling energized without any risk of crash, bloat or sluggishness. No binging, no lingering hunger. Just a snack that feels good and tastes good. Personally, my favorite flavor is the blue ones, but I like lime, I like the white, I like the original. They're all delicious. And if you do love Masa already, then you're going to love Vandy Crisps. Vandy is Mazda's sister company and it makes the most delicious three ingredient potato chips that I've ever had. I like the plain original ones there too, but there's French Onion, Smokehouse Barbecue. Lots of flavors for every taste. If you're ready to give Masa or Vandy or both a try, use the code mark. For 25% off your first order, go to Massachips.com or VandyKrisp.com both are the real deal. Give them a try. Or you can simply click in the video description or scan the QR code to claim this delicious offer. And if you don't want to order them online, they're available now. Go to your spreads supermarket, Vandy and Masa, both available. There you can stop by and pick up a couple bags, maybe a couple bags of each, before somebody else buys them.

D (50:01)

The new year brings new health goals and wealth goals.

B (50:04)

Protecting your identity is an important step. Your info is in endless places that.

D (50:09)

Could expose you to identity theft leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second.

B (50:15)

If your identity is stolen, our restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back.

D (50:21)

Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New Year's goals with Lifelock.

B (50:25)

Save up to 40% your first year.

D (50:27)

Visit lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.

A (50:31)

This is a Monday.com ad, the same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built in AI for scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.comwith an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free.

B (50:50)

Next up Joining me now, the luckiest man in the world. I say that because he's got a lovely family, a successful career and by coincidence he was hired to host the Michael Knowles show with the name Michael Knowles. Very blessed. Joining me now, Michael Knowles, the Daily Wire. Michael, welcome back. Thank you for being here.

D (51:07)

Good to see you, sir. Thank you for having me. I thought you were going to say I was so blessed because I get to come on your show now.

B (51:13)

We'd have you on every week if your schedule allowed, but, you know, you've got a phalanx of bookers and handlers and factotums who say, michael's very, very busy.

D (51:22)

They're like. They carry me around the office, actually, on a nice little couch.

B (51:27)

What they often say is, ben Shapiro is free. Would you like Ben Shapiro?

D (51:31)

And we say, say no.

B (51:32)

He was on Gavin Newsom show. Spoiled product.

D (51:35)

He's tainted. Yeah, that's right.

B (51:36)

Anyway, grateful to you for being here. And what's the best thing that's happened to you in 2026 so far?

D (51:42)

The best thing so far, I think it might be happening tomorrow, which is we're going to be inundated with snow in Nashville. And then I'm going to have a week of working from home with those aforementioned children who will be probably imprisoning me in my office and otherwise tormenting me.

B (52:00)

Are you going to go to the Piggly Wiggly or the Publix and stock up on chicken fingers?

D (52:04)

Too late. Way too late.

B (52:06)

Too late.

D (52:06)

Bare bones. It is like late stage Soviet Russia right now. There is not a piece of bread to be found.

B (52:13)

You go there. Just like the heart of COVID You know my favorite Covid shortage joke? It's not really a joke. It's like a witticism. Somebody said before COVID when you'd go for the toilet paper, you'd spin it like you were on Wheel of Fortune. And during COVID Yeah. You would dole it out like you were a safecracker. I find that to be.

D (52:35)

It's very true.

B (52:36)

That to be a good joke and maybe the storm related. All right, snap out of the levity because I want to ask you about something serious.

D (52:43)

Okay.

B (52:43)

And solemn, which is. I was at an event last night, and a guy came up to me who. Who knew that I knew Charlie a little bit, and Charlie Kirk. And he said. He said, in my household, we still feel his loss. He said we didn't know him, but he's got two kids, two sons in the 20s. He'd never heard of Charlie Kirk until he was killed. And he said his sons still talk about it almost every day. He said how much they miss him, and they talk a lot about what his loss means to the movement. And so he and I talked a lot about the dimensions of Charlie there's the political dimensions of all the things Charlie did politically for maga, for the White House. But then the one we talked about was the way he talked, the way as a person of faith, he engaged in the political arena. So I want to talk about some of this stuff with you because. Because I know you think about it as well. First of all, anyone who deals with someone who dies always has this feeling of, well, they're going to come back like that. You sort of assume that you're going to get a text, whatever. How are you experiencing, you know, now after all this time? How are you experiencing the loss of Charlie in your life?

D (53:57)

It's pretty strange because now that you mention it, I realize I probably talk about Charlie most days. In fact, I was talking about him to my wife last night, and I was just at America Fest right before Christmas, and I walked in right past security in the garage and the speaker entrance, and the first thing you see is a big poster board of Charlie. And it hit me again, not as if I hadn't thought about it before. Obviously, Charlie and I were supposed to do an event together at the University of Minneapolis, Actually, Minneapolis now being such a hotspot 12 days after he was killed. And I went. I did it alone with an empty chair. And so, you know, I had processed it. I kind of shook out of it. I was a little off for a few weeks after that, but I shook out of it. And then I see this poster board of him. It's this very same thought you describe. You think, wait, how is he not here? Like, oh, this isn't just a show. I mean, we're in political media, so there's a lot of show business to that. But it's not just a show. And he's not really gonna enter from stage right anytime soon. That, personally, is really difficult to process because also, as you point out, he was a good guy, and he dealt very respectfully with people, and he was all for open dialogue. And so there's the personal aspect of that, the injustice, obviously, for Erica and the kids, but then there's even the political aspect, which is, man, if they would kill him and if they would cheer on his death, you know, not just the one, you know, sexually deviant leftist activist who actually shot him, but the left, broadly excused, justified, in some cases, celebrated to a shockingly large scale his death, you say, man, they would do that for any of us. And, you know, that built on the multiple assassination attempts on Trump, one of which almost worked. And you think, man, this country is really in A rocky spot. Now, the point you mentioned about the conservative coalition, this I think about frequently, because everyone focused on how Charlie was a great debater. He did become a great debater, how he was a great fundraiser. He was a terrific fundraiser. He helped out the White House. He did all these great things, probably staffed half the administration. But his key, singular gift was that he kept the coalition together. Groups within the coalition that didn't like each other, personalities who didn't like each other, all this stuff. He kept the ones that he wanted together, and he kept the bad people that he didn't want out. And he, you know, he just. He was an amazing maintainer and builder of a coalition. And that has frayed since he died. And this is the political reality that a lot of people don't want to admit, especially on the right. Assassinations work. That's why people keep doing them. And we like to say, I think it was a form of coping and grieving. After Charlie was killed, we said, well, you know what? You've struck down this great leader, but we're gonna be 10 times stronger because of it, actually. Cause we're not going to let him die in Vayner. You know, all of these comments. But the fact is, it was a victory for his enemies to kill Charlie Kirk. Assassinations do really work. It has led to some fractures within the conservative movement. I've done my very best to try to prevent that from totally destroying the movement. I know others have as well, but it's a massive challenge. If these things didn't work, they wouldn't keep doing them.

B (57:19)

I say this with respect for you and appreciation. The way you just said it was perfect. I mean, you just described it perfectly. As a. As an analyst and as someone who feels the emotion of it. I couldn't agree more. And I couldn't have said it the way you said it. That was the most important thing he was doing. And we see that in the affirmative. Erica and others at the organization are keeping the organization going. And that was a big part of what he did. And I'm not saying it's easy, but it's doable. I just don't think that the thing you described, I just don't think it's doable. He was singular in his relationships and his judgment about when to be tough, when to be sweet, when to threaten, when to delay. He just. The guy was. The guy was extremely high human intelligence and. And everybody liked him. And as we're seeing now, not everybody likes everybody else.

D (58:09)

Yes. The problem also is the timing, because Charlie was assassinated in September. So we're just before the year, before the big midterm elections, as everyone starts to say, okay, I guess the Trump era might come to an end now, 22nd amendment probably is not going to be repealed. So there's an error apparent in J.D. vance, who had Charlie's support wholeheartedly, obviously, and close friendship. So there is a path for the Republican Party and the nomination and all of this. But that factional infighting was always going to burst out after President Trump, having dominated the right for 10 years, begins to exit the stage a little bit. And so the timing couldn't have possibly been worse for the Republican Party. It was going to be a major challenge, even with Charlie and all of his expertise and all of his friendships and all of his skills. But in his absence, it seems like a free for all.

B (59:05)

Yeah, I'm not asking to speak on his behalf, but what do you think he would have thought about what's going on in Minnesota?

D (59:11)

Well, there is a kind of coincidence to even that particular question, because the last thing that I had said to Charlie on air was he said to me, all right, Michael, well, I'll see you up in Mogadishu. We'll be at the University of Minneapolis. So he understood the significance even of Minneapolis as a major political issue, especially after the George Floyd riots, and obviously because of the Somali issue, which then burst into the fore months after he died. But again, I'm very loath to speak on Charlie's behalf, especially on controversial issues where sometimes he had nuanced views and sometimes his views changed a little bit. On this issue, there is no nuance. Charlie's views are clear as day. I think everyone who ever met the guy or even heard the guy speak would agree he would strongly support the enforcement of the law, the protection of American immigration law and American sovereignty. And certainly in what just happened hours ago in Minneapolis, the protection of churches, you know, Charlie said, the thing I want to be remembered for is my faith more than anything else. He was maybe more famous for politics, but I want to be remembered for my faith. And what the leftist mob did in Minneapolis is such a threat, an expected threat, but a shocking threat nonetheless, to freedom of religion in America. It's a violation of federal law, and I am quite confident Charlie would be cheering the admin on wholeheartedly.

B (60:37)

Yeah. If you put aside the ways in which people in your business and from your point of view can make political hay out of the way. The left in Minnesota is reacting to, not the government, the scandal of the rip Offs. But the ICE operation, how would you explain to people on the left how people like you feel about the way they're treating the presence of ice? How would you, in a thoughtful kind of, you know, bridge building way, how would you explain to them why people are so troubled in many quarters by the way they're receiving the presence of ice in their community?

D (61:17)

Well, I would go back to the incident that kicked off the latest stream of protests and riots, which is the shooting of Renee Goode. And I would establish common ground in total sincerity. And, you know, I think any reasonable moral person would come to this conclusion. It's a sad thing that that lady died. It's very sad. It shouldn't have had to happen that way. The officer was entirely in the right. The woman, Renee Goode, was entirely in the wrong. And nevertheless, it's a very sad thing. How did we get to the point as a country where people would think that it is acceptable and without consequences to drive a car into a cop, furthermore, to resist the orders of a cop when, you know it's a provocative situation, furthermore, to block traffic and to obstruct law enforcement, furthermore, to do so on behalf of, in some cases serious violent criminals and more broadly, people who have no right to be in this country. It's all terribly sad. And this woman probably did not expect any consequences. No wonder the politicians in Minneapolis and Minnesota and around the country, almost entirely on the left, have let people get off the hook with all of this stuff for years. So I sympathize with her greatly. But the point I would try to make to the people on the left is that is not a sustainable and certainly a, not a just way to operate a country. If a country doesn't have borders, if a country is not allowed to enforce basic immigration law, if a country is not allowed to deport, at the very least, murderers, rapists, you know, serious violent criminals who are being caught up in at least some of these ICE raids, then a country is not in any meaningful sense a country. You must have law and order. That is what the civil authority is there for. This is the kind of thing that Democrats and Republicans agreed upon until what, 10 years ago? I'd say, generously, 15 years ago. If you listen to Bill Clinton's speeches about immigration, he sounds to the right of Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. I know he was president 30 years ago, but Bill Clinton is still a major figure in Democrat politics and his wife was almost president somewhat more recently. So that's what I would say is I don't take glee in the shooting of Renee Good. But what was the cop supposed to do? She was driving her car into him after she had been obstructing law enforcement and blocking traffic in a dangerous way for a long period of time. I just. I guess I would ask them, what is the alternative? And I think they would say, well, just let these people stay in America and ignore the immigration law and don't, don't, you know, try to arrest criminals. But I would say that's not acceptable to people. And the majority of Americans voted against that at the ballot box. And so even just from the perspective of American democracy and having people make their voices heard, this was one of the major issues last November and the previous November, and the American people voted for this. They voted for mass deportations. How do you slice it in any way that cuts against ice? I just don't see it.

B (64:25)

Let me ask you about another aspect of it, and I'm not on the ground there. I'm not doing very much of my own reporting on these individual cases, but it does seem that in some instances, ICE has taken into custody American citizens and not released them immediately. Is that, from your point of view, a grave violation of American tradition and steps should be taken to keep it from being repeated? Or just if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time and they happen to take you and then they release you, no harm, no foul.

D (64:56)

I would begin in exactly the same way if I were speaking to this hypothetical leftist. I would begin in exactly the same way that I begin when I talk about Renee Goode. I would say, yes, it's very sad. We don't want American citizens to be arrested or detained for a day or two or however long it is. That's a terrible situation. What's the alternative? Because it seems to me that the framing of the question presumes that the illegal aliens are holding up signs saying, hey, Tom Holman over here. I don't have my papers. That's not how it works.

B (65:24)

Well, but let me give you a parallel. We say in our justice system that we'd rather some number of guilty people go free rather than having a single innocent person convicted. That's. That's been part of how many people view American legal tradition and the right way to do it. You say, well, they're not holding up signs.

D (65:45)

Would you.

B (65:46)

And I'm asking hypothetically, and devil's advocate, I'm not. I'm not really sure exactly how I feel about it, but. But wouldn't it be okay if a couple people got away rather than detain Americans improperly. In other words, be more cautious, err on the side of being sure that you're detaining people who should be legally detained, rather than saying, well, it's unfortunate that an American was. A citizen, was detained by ice.

D (66:11)

Well, I would question both premises because the, the first premise, I agree with you. Yeah, we, we don't want the, the innocent to be found guilty. Now, by the way, in any justice system, that will be, that will happen. That's, you know, this is a fallen world and that's inevitable. But yes, we obviously want to minimize that. But what we're talking about here is not American citizens being deported. We're not talking about American citizens being held indefinitely or tortured by Bukele or something like that. What we're talking about is American citizens in some small number, in some cases being arrested or detained or questioned and then being let go. So that happened. Yes, innocent people will be investigated and in some cases arrested in basically any criminal proceeding. That's just part of the system. Then to the second point, well, maybe we'll let a couple of the guilty people get away. The problem here is there is no way to conduct these investigations and make these arrests and enforce the law if you are not also arresting and investigating some people who are not going to be guilty because they're not carrying these signs. So in the case of illegal immigration, we have, by the absolute Most conservative estimates, 11 to 16 million illegal aliens in this country. The real number is much higher, really, just because of the latter days of the Biden administration, where he's letting in 3 million illegals a year. So the numbers are much higher. We don't know what the numbers are because it's very difficult to track because they're illegal aliens. And so I would say if it is a priority of the United States to maintain and enforce any basic immigration law. Yeah, you're gonna arrest some people based on the neighborhoods they're in, the people they're hanging out with, maybe other interactions with law enforcement. Yeah, maybe the accent they have or just the way they look. Because generally we're not looking at illegal aliens from Norway or Denmark, though we have our own problems with Denmark. Now, that's a matter for another time. Regardless, that's gonna happen. We want it to be done efficiently. We want the people who are innocent to get off, you know, quickly. But I lament, yes, I'm sorry that we're in this situation. Had I been king, I would not have let tens of millions of illegal aliens into the country. Our political Opponents did that and we need to attempt to restore justice in a prudent way. I think that's what Trump's doing and that's what people specifically elected him to do.

B (68:20)

Right. All right, close with a rapid round peg to the one year anniversary of President Trump starting his second term. I'm going to name some folks, you tell me something you've learned about them in the last year that you didn't know when the Trump administration started. I don't want a factual thing like, oh, it turns out they like mahjong. I want something like, they're funnier than I thought. They're smarter than I thought. They're, they're better at politics than I thought. Ready? Here we go. Rapid round, short answers. Scott Besson.

D (68:45)

I'm so glad. I was hoping that you would mention him first. Scott Besson, greatest Treasury secretary since Alexander Hamilton. I didn't know. I worried he might be a little squishy and liberal. Because he worked for George Soros? No, the guy is as intelligent as I thought he would be. I always thought he would be intelligent. Much funnier and much tougher. That guy is brutal. That guy knows how to twist. And he's a beast.

B (69:09)

I love. He's a funny beast. We didn't know he was a funny beast.

D (69:13)

Yes.

B (69:13)

Okay. Marco Rubio.

D (69:16)

Rubio, brilliant at politics. I thought he was an okay politician. Brilliant at politics, by which I mean he can evolve his positions in ways that are not hypocritical, they're not flip flops. But he responds as I think politics ought to be. He responds to constantly changing circumstances with eternal truths. But unbelievably competent. He has. I've been watching Marco Rubio pretty closely since 2012. He has leveled up to a degree that he's one of the most sophisticated politicians in the country. I would not have said that a year ago.

B (69:51)

So far, you and I, two for two, agree. Stephen Miller.

D (69:55)

Miller is dead serious. And I always knew he was a serious thinker, but because he started in politics so young, he made his first national appearance when he was in college. Cause of Duke lacrosse. I thought, oh, you know, he's just like. It kind of comes out of the activist circles and all. No, this is a big boy. This is a grown, mature, prudent, hard line guy. He is not just out there to get clicks on cable news. He's very good on cable news. But this guy is moving the wheels of government in ways that are surprising for someone who came up doing five minute hits on cultural issues.

B (70:34)

Again, three for Three, JD Vance.

D (70:36)

JD Vance. Much more capable of coalitional politics than I would have maybe previously guessed when he made a splash. Look, I always knew he was extremely intelligent. I always knew he had a great story, which helped launch him as the darling of Hollywood and the literati and then obviously into the Senate. But he's a much subtler thinker. So whenever people try to peg him as, I don't know, whatever they say he's an isolationist or a post liberal radical or this thing or that thing. No, he's not. He's just fluent in all of these languages and is able to communicate between different factions. He's probably the most online guy in the administration, but he can also sit at the spaghetti dinner with ordinary voters who are not constantly logged into Twitter. I think he's much more difficult to peg into a corner than a lot of his opponents have thought.

B (71:31)

Four for four, Gavin Newsom.

D (71:34)

He's slick, and now. I always knew he was slick. There's no question about that.

B (71:40)

Are you using slick as a pejorative?

D (71:42)

Yes, except that it's a necessity for the occupation of politics. So his slickness is a little higher even than I thought it was. I thought he did very well in his conversation with my friend and colleague Ben Shapiro. Shapiro, I think, still won it, but Newsom was able to slip out of some of the traps. But the slipperiness leads to a surprise of him from the last year that is gonna hurt him, which is he really can't be all things to all men. You saw hints of this in that Desantis debate. He didn't really. He didn't quite pull it off. And then bringing it back to Charlie, he wants to be Bill Clinton, New Democrat, moderate kind of guy. Friends with Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon. And then the next day, his press team is calling Stephen Miller a fascist, and he says he wants to see more trans kids. He's relying on his slipperiness to be all things to all people in the way that Bill Clinton was. It's just not working. Maybe it's because the aperture's too wide right now on the Democrat side, but he's gonna have to pick a lane at some point or he's just gonna fizzle.

B (72:43)

The mind meld continues. Let's see if you can close it out. Donald John Trump.

D (72:50)

He is a subtler thinker than I thought he was. I previously thought that Trump had just a great political gut. Obviously, he won the biggest office in the world on his first real try, and he's dominated politics for 10 years. And the accolades go on and on and on. But he's a subtler thinker. This occurred to me even in Davos the other day when he was describing the need for America to defend Greenland. And how did he do it? And he wasn't just reading from a script. He was going a little off the cuff, too. He said, look, we already controlled Greenland. He's establishing the predicate for it. And he's establishing it on the basis of. For which he's asking for it. Now he's saying we took it over in the Second World War precisely because you could not defend it. Denmark. And then we defeated. He didn't say we defeated Hitler, we defeated the Nazis. He said we defeated Germany and Italy and Japan. He's calling out the people who are in Davos. He's saying we have to maintain the world order. And so you get all of this bombast and all of the funny clips, and he's saying, you know, Canada. He's talking to Canada like he's Don Corleone. But I think there's a subtlety to his thinking that in the first year or two you could deny. I think 10 years in, he just keeps getting what he wants and it slips out between the bombast every so often. At this point, I think it's undeniable.

B (74:02)

Michael Knowles, with the exception of your dripping contempt for the Danes, I loved everything you said. Very grateful to you coming on. We should co author a piece about that because you stole all my ideas. What have we learned about key figures in the Trump administration? Michael Knowles. Acedemal. Michael. Grateful to you for that and for coming on and making the time. And if we can't get Ben Shapiro, we always like having you. Oh, no, the opposite.

D (74:25)

Wait, hold on. Yeah. And Mark, by the way, I would love to. Co authoring a piece with Mark Halperin would be great because you can write the whole thing and I'll get all those great ideas laid out and then I just put my name on it, get credit.

B (74:35)

Where should we publish. Where should we publish it? Wall Street Journal, editorial page.

D (74:39)

That sounds great. Maybe. Hey, let's. Let's shoot for the New York Times at this point. Why not? Why not? Get well again is good.

B (74:45)

All right, let me call my agent and I'll call your agent. We'll form a committee. We'll get it done. Great. Good to see you. Thank you, Michael Knowles. Thanks to Melissa DeRosa and Mark Bednar for being on earlier. Tuesday brings another new episode. Have a great weekend. Share this episode with all your friends. And then tune back in on Tuesday. Make sure you subscribed on our YouTube channel and wherever you get your podcasts so you don't have to remember when new episodes drop. They'll just pop right up for you. And again tell everybody you know about next up. Love having you on and as as part of the Nexter community and hope that you will share so the audience grows exponentially. Have a great weekend. We'll see on Tuesday so you always will see right here what's happening. Next up.

A (75:35)

Try angel stuff for your tushy. It's made by Angels Soft and strong. Budget friendly. The choice is simple. Pick up a pack today. Angel Soft Soft and strong. This is a Monday.com ad. The same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work work from day one. The same Monday.comwith an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free.