Loading summary
Transcript96 lines
- [00:00]
A
Is there a bespoke glp? One that primarily deals with melting the fat in your brain? Because that's basically the only explanation I can have for it. Truly does look like this is. This is. This is mental illness. Like, this is not.
- [00:20]
B
You know what? If you're going to surf those waves, you got to surf hard, man. You gotta. You gotta surf those waves. All right, so, okay, we can sit here and we can make fun of our competitors, or we can start Friendly Fire. So here.
- [00:31]
C
I love it.
- [00:31]
B
All righty, folks, welcome to Friendly Fire. As you can see, we've murdered my usual compatriots and we've replaced them with replicants. We have Ben Domenech, and obviously Isabel Brown is here as well. And, you know, it'll be fun. It'll be fun, guys, because I have no idea what we're talking about, but we'll make something up as we go along. And again, don't panic. Our friends Michael, Matt, and Andrew are all dead. No, they all had conflicts today, actually, Michael is traveling to the uk. He was not banned from the uk, we think. I mean, at least as long as they didn't pick up my phone call. So, first of all, welcome to both of you.
- [01:11]
C
Thank you so much. Excited.
- [01:12]
A
It's good to be with you. And I think, Isabel, I think we have to start off with our tribute to Scott Pelley by just, you know, chewing the edge of our. Our glasses very, very pensively. Pour one out. Pour one out. For the end of. The pompous Democrat would be anchor newsman who has apparently been in combat. Who knew. You know, and when he.
- [01:34]
B
That was great. When he. Did you see that, Isabel? Did you see that? He actually, like, in his letter, he was like, I've been in. He literally said he was in combat. Which, like. Like firing a weapon in anger or. You mean that you were just a war correspondent? Like, what are we talking about?
- [01:47]
A
Shades of Hillary Clinton saying that they fired at her plane in Bosnia or whatever that was.
- [01:50]
B
And Brian Williams. Brian Williams, Literally, yes.
- [01:54]
A
The only thing I can think of when it comes to Peli, and I've thought this for years, and I should preface this by saying that I did work for my sins for CBS News way back in the day. It was a very Fun Night in 2016, very memorable. I had an argument with Jamelle Bouie that made him leave the Bureau and he had to walk around the city. And then he wrote about it for Slate. The thing that I remember the most from the time there is that every time I talked to Scott Pelley, he reminded me of the doofy anchor from Die Hard who. You know, they had that scene where the, like, psychologist is talking about Helsinki syndrome, and he says, helsinki, Sweden. And he says, Finland. And it's. It's just like. It's. That is who he is. It's like it's pompous, but with confidence. Like, the confidence is. Is. Is the thing that matters the most, not actually getting the news right. And I just find this whole thing very hilarious that people are now saying, this is such a loss to the industry and 60 Minutes is dead. You know, the ghost of Andy Rooney is rolling in his grave. It's. It's terrible.
- [02:55]
B
Isabel, I have a question for you because you're now a member of the younger generation. The two bends are old people now. And so I did want to ask Isabel about whether she's heard of a show called 60 Minutes, whether it exists in her opinion, and if so, whether it is indeed relevant to you that Scott Pelley has been defenestrated as the. As the anchor of 60 Minutes, or whether you're like, why is this old man jabbering at me? And I don't mean me. I mean Scott Pelley.
- [03:17]
C
Hey, Ben. Yeah, I can hear you. Sorry, my camera's having some issues, so we're working through that. Gotta Love real time TV for the Internet here. Is 60 Minutes remotely relevant to me in any way? No. Except for maybe the butt of a few great jokes on hit sitcom TV shows. I have zero opinion whatsoever about who hosts it, because turns out no one under the age of, like, 67 watches 60 Minutes. But little do people remember in the realm of integrity journalism who are so outraged by all of this, that it was literally just a few months ago that 60 Minutes deceptively edited the entire interview with Kamala Harris right before the election. Like, our standards for journalistic integrity are in the frigging toilet. Probably is why the Daily Wire is so important and so necessary in our culture today. But I'm really excited to see Bari Weiss clean house and bring in a new standard of journalistic integrity again.
- [04:08]
B
Yeah.
- [04:08]
A
So, other.
- [04:09]
B
Ben, I do have to ask you about it.
- [04:11]
A
It's very sad that Isabel Brown is not familiar with the great works of Morley Saf.
- [04:16]
B
Yeah, I mean, in the. In the ranks. I mean, if we have to do, like, top five douchey anchors and we have to exempt present company, then who exactly would we put on that list of Duchenne? I mean, Scott Pelly ranks really high. Like, the smarm factor on Scott Pelley was really, really, really high. And so him going like he may
- [04:36]
A
be Apex, you know, in terms of the ones that. That got, that have gotten taken out, I mean, I still think it's hard to beat Dan Rather. I mean, you know, just. Just the entire experience. We're old enough. We lived through that. The. The pompousness around Rathergate, having a movie come out about it that, you know, entirely. You know, it's tried to spin what happened there with a scandal that I'm sure happened probably when Isabel wasn't even alive. But one of the things that I think we can take away from this, you know, whatever. I don't know if what Barry is doing will work. I don't know if it'll work as tv. But the truth is that these properties have all been so defunct for so long, and the only reason that people watched 60 Minutes in this day and age is that they fell asleep during a particularly bad NFL game on CBS and then just left their TV on. So that's.
- [05:24]
C
That's.
- [05:25]
A
I think that's the only thing got that kind of.
- [05:28]
B
I mean, I think that's true. I also think that this bizarre kind of false narrative that 60 Minutes was somehow objective Journalism Center. I. Obviously not true. And I said right at the beginning when Barry took over CBS News, that were it, I. I would have just canned everyone who is the deep state CBS News, because those people were definitely there. And I'm glad that. I think retroactively she. She's having to clean house, and I'm glad that she's doing it. Okay, so I want to move on from a person who is not relevant to most of our lives, Scott Pelley, to the situation over in Iran. So obviously a lot of heartburn on, I think all sides over what exactly the US Strategy is over in Iran right now. Do we have a strategy? What the hell is going on? Yeah, I have to admit that I am a little bit bewildered by the Trump administration strategy right now. I'm not sure exactly what they are trying to do. It seems like there are a few outcomes here. There could be a really bad outcome. To me, the worst outcome, what an L actually looks like is we relieve all the sanctions. We don't get the nuclear dust. We don't get an end to the nuclear program. They use all that money to rebuild their ballistic missiles and their terror apparatus. And we link a stop to Israel's actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon to the reopening of the strait, because that would basically put Iran in a better position than they started the war. If that were to happen, if the sanctions get released, that that is the worst case scenario. And then there to me is like the best case scenario, which I don't think that we're going to get, which would be the United States bombing Harg island and the oil facilities and basically putting the regime on its last legs and then basically saying, okay, we'll call it a day, we're done here. You want to handle the Strait of Hormuz, uae, Qatar, Saudi, go for it. I don't think that's what's going to happen. And then there's sort of the third case scenario, which is we do that stuff, but we don't bomb the oil fields, which I think is probably the most plausible at this point. No deal. Let's be clear. Every time the Trump administration says a deal is forthcoming, the Iranians try to dunk on him. And so there is no deal that is forthcoming that will be anything good. And I think that when people say, was this a good idea? Was it a bad idea like every other war? You only know whether it was a good idea or a bad idea in retrospect. Some wars that start off bad and well, some wars that start off well and poorly, but we're not going to know until we hit the end game here. But I don't know where you're at on this, man.
- [07:35]
A
So in the interest of adding some fire to the friendly fire, let me give the case from kind of the other side, even though I don't agree with it. The case from basically Republicans on Capitol Hill is that the Trump administration kind of went into this believing that they had plans that could deal with, with Iran doing, basically playing the cards that it's played with mining the strait, that they expected more help from the Europeans, who obviously the ballistic missile program that the Iranians have can reach into basically every major city in Europe, particularly in Western Europe, which I think was a shock to people when they saw those concentric circles and the like, and that they for some reason have been surprised by the way that the Iranians have approached this in a way that they shouldn't have been. I don't know that that's true or not, but that's basically the message that you hear when you talk to Republicans on Capitol Hill. And so they're just trying to save their asses. They're trying to basically say, you know, if we lose in November, then it's just going to be another impeachment and more investigations and all these other things. And so the president needs to wrap this up as quickly as possible so that we're going to have cheap gas prices in the summer. I don't think the President buys that at all. I think the President is basically saying no, as he explicitly said this this past week. You know, he doesn't care. He's not thinking about the midterms. He's thinking about the long term. He's thinking about Iran with a nuclear weapon. He's thinking about, you know, the future, essentially, and his legacy. And that does not necessarily matter when it comes to the plight of Republicans in the House of Representatives who spend more time just kind of picking at each other and fighting than they do actually doing anything functional. So from, from my perspective, that's basically what this tug of war has been. And Republicans on Capitol Hill are ticked off at him anyway because of the things that he's done when it came to Senate endorsements, the Cassidy thing, the Cornyn thing, you know, all this other stuff. And so I think they're just looking out for their, you know, they're just engaged in cya and the administration is being affected by that. And that's why I think that they're kind of playing this in the way that, as you say, and I agree it doesn't make a lot of sense and doesn't really deal with the problem as it stands and could ultimately end up being just a bad deal. I think the one thing that we can have in terms of some confidence, though, is that the President doesn't want to be remembered for making a bad deal. He hated the Iran deal. He hated Barack Obama over it. And so, you know, the degree of confidence that you have in Donald Trump to kind of cut a good deal on this is basically the test here.
- [10:08]
B
Yeah. So, Isabel, where, where are you at on all this? Obviously, you know, it didn't go, I think, so far as, as well as I would have wanted it to go, because I think, frankly, the President shouldn't have cease fired in, in late April, early May. I think that it hasn't gone nearly as poorly as critics of the war are suggesting, where they say it's a catastrophic failure for the United States. I just don't, I don't see any evidence at all that this is a, quote, unquote, catastrophic failure. But that in between space is definitely an awkward space.
- [10:33]
C
Yeah. I don't think it's a secret that people are upset over this, Ben, in particular people under the age of 40 or 35. This qu. Poor young conservative voter base that did decisively deliver a victory to the Trump administration in November of 2024 and cited no more involvement in foreign wars as one of the primary reasons for electing Donald Trump and J.D. vance at the time. A lot of that came from people like Charlie Kirk, who regularly spoke out about this on his show leading up to the 2024 election, and certainly was a key advisor to the Trump administration in those early months before his assassination last year. This seems to me to be one of the primary things that voters are paying attention to going into the midterm elections and certainly in deciding who the heir apparent and the next king will be going into 2028. Although no kings, I gotta be careful. No kings. No kings in America. That said, I wonder, even if everything were to come to an end tomorrow, if that really would help the Republican Party going into the midterm elections. I don't know. And if I'm putting my Trump administration hat on, I'm probably betting on the fact that only once, I believe, in American history has the party that won the White House and a full sweep of Congress held onto that majority during the midterm elections. The status quo has always been that you can pretty much expect to lose at least the House, if not the House and Senate together, come midterms. And it's a totally different realm of the presidency in those last two years in office. So I'm guessing he's probably thinking a lot more legacy rather than chances for the Republican Party at the midterms.
- [11:58]
B
Yeah, I mean, if you look at the midterms right now, I will say that obviously the polls are not good for Republicans. They weren't good before, as you say, it's kind of a normal pattern for the party in power to lose seats in the midterm election. And I think that, you know, people pre gaming that that if the Republicans lose, it's because of Iran as opposed to because of, say, the tariffs or because of the bad staffing decisions or because of these sort of bizarre, you know, slush funds or because of the corruption source. There are a lot of factors that go into a bad election cycle for sure. The biggest one being just sort of the systemic way that our elections work off your elections don't go for the party in power. I will say that to me, that points of vulnerability for The Republicans in 2026 have very little to do with foreign policy and have a lot more to do with some of the candidates that are getting picked. So I think that if the Republicans were to lose the Senate, they're almost certainly going to lose North Carolina. One of the reasons they're going to lose North Carolina is because the President decided to go to war with Thom Tillis. The Republicans, you know, could win in Michigan, where they normally would lose because the Democrats have picked a cycle over there. Susan Collins is suddenly looking like a more robust candidate in Maine than she would have probably in this particular election cycle because the Democrats picked a psycho. It's possible that the Republicans lose Iowa because it turns out that Republicans in Iowa in the primaries are selecting some candidates who are sort of not the Joni Ernst traditionalist Republicans of Iowa. They're a little more out of the box and they could lose that. So in the end, all these elections come down to sort of the, these, the sort of secular spirit of the election, the broad spirit of the election. And then they come down to candidate equality always. And I will say that there's some pretty differential candidate equality across the board here. If Republicans somehow lose the seat and in Texas, for example, that, that will, that will be both of those factors coming into play. I think that the Iran war, let's put this way, if the Iran were happening and the oil prices were not up, it wouldn't be about the Iran war. It's really about the oil prices. And so if the oil prices are down by the time of the election, then I think everybody basically is going to attribute the loss to other factors, if indeed there is an L for the Republicans.
- [13:54]
C
Well, and I also don't think we can discount the bad policy happening in Congress right now, too. I'm hearing more and more, especially in the social media realm from young voters, how disillusioned they are with Republican leadership in Congress, which often gets lumped in with this larger anger toward the Trump administration or falling approval rates toward the right at large. But make no mistake about it, one of the biggest things young voters are angry about right now is a bill introduced by a Republican in the House of Representatives from your home state of Florida, Ben, and that's offering mass amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants, including some who have already been deported from the United States under this Digni Dodd status when there are 10 million unemployed gen zers living in America right now. So I think you're seeing a lot of this by the mainstream media and the 60 Minutes and CNNs of the world being conflated with failures of the Trump administration, when in reality the Trump administration is really putting the gas to Congress here in Washington D.C. but Congress is failing to act or acting completely, not in their own self interest, really losing the election for themselves up front.
- [14:57]
A
I just don't know why For a Republican, like, I just, I, I don't hear their vocalization of like what they would actually offer us, what they would do. They don't seem to be doing much with the power that they do have other than basically being a block for the Democrats. And you know, the fact that the Senate can't get its act together on so many different things, the fact that, you know, you've got this Republican leadership that just sort of seems like they're asleep at the wheel, I don't think they're doing themselves any favors either. So, you know, a lot of this, everybody says that all of this revolves around Trump, but like the anti Trump base of the Democratic Party is going to be activated anyway. They're going to be completely, you know, dedicated to this. And we've seen that, you know, ever since this era began. But I just don't see a lot of Republican arguments for why they should keep their jobs, why they should be sent back that are really taking hold. And know, as Isabelle said, the, the concerns about the, the economy and, and energy prices are the driving actual issue here. There are fewer people who are complaining about the Iran war even, you know, whatever the polls sort of say it's more about how is this affecting me. And I don't see or hear Republicans talking about that at all in, in many cases, I think because they don't know how to talk about it. And they've become so devoted to, to the Trump approach to politics that they're just kind of standing around waiting for him to say something so that they can all agree, which is not right.
- [16:21]
B
I also think that when it comes to the Iran war, particularly the President keeps saying that basically you're not going to experience pain.
- [16:27]
A
Right?
- [16:27]
B
He's saying that with regard to the oil prices. Right. He's trying to talk the oil markets down. And the reality is that if you want to actually get the outcome that is the best outcome here, you will need to see a temporary price spike in oil. If he hits the oil facilities in Iran because he wants to get out and make it faster, then you will see a temporary spike and then it will come down. And that was sort of the original promise here was that this thing would be quick, it would be fast, it would be over. And instead if it seems to drag out, then even if the price spike is only moderate, like from $70 a barrel to $98 a barrel and not to $150 a barrel, people don't like slow moving disasters. Actually the American people can take a fast moving problem that Solves itself fairly quickly a lot easier than they can take this kind of slow feeling of stagnation, which is what you got under Joe Biden. And I think that's the thing that Trump is running up against. By the way, speaking of Susan Collins in Maine running against an actual Nazi, you know, the guy with the Nazi. I don't know. I feel like it's fair. John Fetterman said it. He's right. If you have a Nazi tattoo, I feel like I can call you a Nazi. I feel like that's like, fair enough. What are our standards at this point?
- [17:24]
A
In any case, something. But, but wait, Ben, isn't now, like, particularly after what we've seen in the last couple of weeks, isn't the Nazi tattoo kind of like, not even in the top five things to be worried about with this guy? Like, he had a kick account, you know, that he signed up for and took a picture of himself shirtless with an open toilet behind him, like in a towel. Like, it's, it's like this guy seems like, I'm not, I'm going to put myself in a position of defending a Totenko. I can't pull up. I'm just saying it's like.
- [17:55]
B
I knew it, Ben. I knew I knew it. Just waiting here. We were waiting to see who's going to be the crypto Nazi on the show.
- [18:00]
A
The real question, the real question is, did he just get the tattoo so that Tucker would endorse him? No. To main voter Tucker Carlson, I can't
- [18:08]
B
imagine that you will not end up as a guest on that, on that program at some point. But Kelsey Marcus, by the way, suggests that Susan Collins, Cal, she's one of our sponsors. That Susan Collins, I believe, is at 46% to, to win Nazi. But you can see the massive drop there from just a couple of weeks ago. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Democrats were up near like, 70%. And now the Democrats are down in the, in the 54% range and dropping quickly because it turns out that Susan Collins, by the way, is a survivor and she survived a thousand elections at this point. So, I mean, if you had to, if you had to game out the Senate right now, I would say that the Republicans win Maine. I think that the Republicans win Texas because it's very difficult to win Texas if you're a Democrat, even if you are a bizarre pretend Bible teacher like James Talarico. I think the Republicans are. I think they'll win Michigan because I think that the people of Michigan are not super hot on terrorism. But we'll find out. We might have our first actual full on terrorist supporter in the, in the actual Senate, which would be surprising. But that'll, that'll make up for some losses in some of the other areas. Well, you know, all of this. Listen, I think that the big thing for Republicans is that they should not sleep on the possibility that things, you know, could get even worse. Because things can always get worse. But you should sleep on your Helix sleep mattress. That's the reality. Your Helix sleep mattress is the thing that will allow you to sleep better at night. And that Helix sleep mattress allows me to sleep through all of the chaos and all of the insanity. Helix, of course, is the mattress sponsor that allows you to take a sleep quiz and that personalized sleep quiz allows you to pick your actual best mattress. I did this, I've done this with my wife. It is great. It allows me to rest comfortably even when the world's an uncomfortable place. Helix has over 20 mattress models. So whether you run hot, sleep on your side or need extra support, there's one built for you. They even have cooling upgrades which are great for those summer nights. Helix is the most awarded mattress brand tested and reviewed by experts like Forbes and Wired. Free shipping right to your door in the US a 120 night sleep trial and a limited lifetime warranty so you can try it completely risk free. They call it the Happy with Helix guarantee. Again, summer. It's very easy during the summer to get on one of those mattresses that like it just retains heat and it's just terrible. That's not going to happen with Helix because you're going to get a mattress that is great for you, is made for you. Go to helixleep.com daily wire for 20% off site wide. That's helixsleep.com daily wire for 20% off site wide. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you. That's helixleep.com daily wire. Alrighty. So I believe any moment here we are going to have Jesse Arm from Manhattan Institute to discuss the situation just more broadly with we have a bunch of election results that are coming out and later on in the program Steve Hilton is going to be stopping by as well. But Jesse is here at the moment. Jesse, you've been hearing us discuss the prospects for the Republicans in the midterm elections. So on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being we lose and 1 being we lose like really, really badly, how badly are these election cycles going to go for Republicans in 2026.
- [21:01]
D
That's a little bit of a complicated scale. What if I think we're going to win? Is that not available to me as an unavailable answer?
- [21:08]
B
I mean, if you believe we're going to win, then I want, I want some of what you're having. Because, you know, again, I don't think 2026 is, is prime for. But make us the optimistic case.
- [21:18]
D
No, I mean, I'll be frank with you, Ben. I do think that the Republican chances of controlling the Senate and possibly even maintaining control over the House are somewhat underrated. There's been a lot of redistricting that has happened at the House level, and that has not gone the way that Democrats anticipated the gerrymandering wars would go for them. And time remains on the clock. We took. We still could have a significant amount of action in Iran. In the Middle east, the situation is very fluid. None of these ceasefires seem to be sticking to a particularly long amount of time. It may be the case that the President drops some big bombs between now and November. There's still a fair bit of time to go. I agree with your assessment that the situation in Maine and Texas looks pretty good for the Republicans as of today. Where I would push back a little bit. Is that it in Michigan? I think it is dangerously close. That is my home state. And I am less convinced, perhaps, than you are that my home state could possibly send a terrorist to the United States Senate. And that's why I'm actually holding out some hope that this Democratic primary goes in such a way where we don't send a terrorist sympathizer in my home state to be the Democratic nominee for Senate. I don't care if it marginally improves Mike Rogers chances of making his way to the United States Senate. That's the Republican running in Michigan. I'm deeply worried about that seat, and I'm hoping that there is enough sanity left together among Michigan Democrats that we can prevent that outcome.
- [22:50]
B
And, Jesse, I want to ask you about Iowa, because there was, there was a. There was a big race in Iowa last night that a lot of people are using as a bellwether for the possibility that Republicans could unexpectedly lose a Senate seat in Iowa in this, in this election cycle because Joni Ernst stepped out. So, you know, that election seat was a. It was a GOP primary for governor in which President Trump had endorsed Randy Feenstra, who was, I believe, originally he had replaced. Who was it, Steve, I forget the name of the very controversial Republican, Steve King. Steve King had been replaced by Randy Feenstra. Feenstra was then running for governor. He had been endorsed by a lot of sort of the more establishment and President Trump figures he was defeated by a sort of Maha Republican who is, you know, friendly with kind of the kooky wing of the Republican Party, shall we say. And they, and there are some indicators that right now, for example, Cook Political just move that gubernatorial race into toss up area and the Kalshee markets are suggesting that the Republicans could lose the Ohio governorship or the Iowa governorship rather, if they it looks right now like there's a real possibility that Republicans get clocked in Iowa if that happens. The map is opening pretty wide for Democrats in the Senate because again, North Carolina looks not great. If you, as you say, Michigan looks not great, Iowa looks not great. They gotta pick off one more and they're in control of the Senate. What do you make of what's going on in Iowa?
- [24:07]
D
Well, Michigan wouldn't be a pickoff.
- [24:10]
B
Right.
- [24:10]
D
That's one where the Republicans actually have the opportunity to have the pickup. But I'm concerned about Iowa. I'm really concerned that President Trump's endorsee did not win that race. I think if the President's pick had gotten across the finish line in Iowa, Republicans would be in a much stronger position right now. So that's not great. And we also have to look at the Senate election in that state where Democrats nominated the better option from their standpoint, Josh Juarek and not the other candidate who was the Elizabeth Warren endorsed kooky leftist. So yeah, Iowa Democrats have the right candidates in the right position and they may break through. Iowa's not as red a state as some of these other places that we've been talking about. But I do think some of these other red states where Democrats think they can have a shot at making some ground, I don't really buy it. Ohio, as one example, I think Vivek Ramaswamy is going to come through and secure the gubernatorial election there. John Husted, who's the Republican nominee for Senate, is a very solid guy inoffensive by to pretty much everybody. And the Democratic candidate, Sherrod Brown, I mean, at one point would have been a pretty strong candidate when he was an incumbent. But it's a lot harder to pick yourself up off the mat once you've already lost and you're running from the outside. And then there's Nebraska where Democrats seem to think they have a chance because they've nominated. Well, they haven't actually nominated him. They're throwing their support behind an Independent named Dan Osborne, who is part and parcel with the Democratic Party, everything. You look down his issue priority list. He is a progressive, far left Democrat. He's got the, you know, Israel obsessive gene. And they think this is what Democrats are deluding themselves into thinking. They think that Graham Platner and this guy in Nebraska, that they can fool white male voters into thinking that there's something different about them without any kind of ideological moderation. Republicans are actually doing the opposite. The President is allowing Susan Collins a little bit of wiggle room to maneuver politically and buck the party when necessary. And I think that's a good thing, and it says good things about Donald Trump's political instincts.
- [26:25]
A
I wanted to follow up on one of the things that you mentioned. So you, Sorry, you've been paying attention to and concerned about your home state of Michigan nominating somebody who's pro terrorist. That's not the only pro terrorist person that we saw having some success lately. You know, you saw this situation in New Jersey. You saw, you know, some of these, these candidates who've percolated up. You know, one of the things that we talk about on this show and what we talk about at the Daily Wire regularly is how much the Democrats versus the Republicans is a fight between podcasters on the right of center side and actual candidates and politicians on the left. Talk to me about why these people are passing muster with even the likes of Chuck Schumer coming out and saying, you know, Platner's gonna win and we're gonna beat Susan Collins, as if, you know, depicting Susan Collins as if she's some kind of right wing, you know, figure, as opposed to somebody who crosses the party aisle, you know, constantly to work with Democrats. Why do you think that these candidates who are not just anti, you know, sending money to Israel, which is something that we've seen happen, you know, on both the right and the left as being something that percolates up. But they're, they go far beyond that. They're actually friends with terrorists. They embrace that side of things. And then if you come after them, they say you're being Islamophobic or something along those lines. We. Why is that success being found? What do you see in your polling data?
- [27:51]
D
Well, I think it's deeply disturbing, and I'm going to do something that maybe cuts against the grain of what those podcasters have to say about the Daily Wire. And I'm going to say some pretty choice, critical words for aipac. AIPAC spent a lot of money in New Jersey congressional elections this Cycle, but they spent it in the wrong one. They were spending big in the New Jersey 11 special election earlier this year on behalf of. It's very complicated. They had a pro Israel sort of Democrat who they didn't like so much, who they were spending against, but they ended up benefiting and building up the hardcore, viciously anti Israel far left candidate instead. And it was sort of a cluster F. Okay, and then there's this New Jersey 12 congressional primary that happens yesterday where we've got Adam Hammaway. Pardon me if I'm not pronouncing his name correctly, but this is somebody who volunteered for an Al Qaeda front group, lied under oath in court, and defended a the blind sheikh who was a terrorist involved in the first World Trade center bombing. And AIPAC didn't spend a nickel against that candidate neither.
- [29:04]
A
The transcript is pretty hilarious too. He's basically like, yeah, he's like a friendly guy from the neighborhood, you know, it's the most hilarious.
- [29:12]
D
So I'm totally befuddled by that. And the guy. I'm totally confused by that. And this notion that AIPAC is this all powerful, all knowing super force in American politics that can take out anybody they want. It's like, no. They're one PAC among many operating within our political environment. Okay? There are a lot of moneyed interests. There are a lot of Americans who hate Israel. There are a lot of Americans who like Israel. There are a lot of Americans who hate guns, who love guns, who hate abortion, who loves, love abortion. And they're all spending big money to try and affect these races. Okay? And this is a pretty clear indication. I saw Ilhan Omar tweeted just before I got on this podcast that last night Adam Hammaway winning in this New Jersey 12th congressional district is an indication that the special interest groups lost. No, quite the opposite. There were a lot of special interest groups that spent really big on trying to get that candidate over the finish line. There's now anti AIPAC money that is coming together. Millions of dollars are being spent to propel candidates who adopt this pseudo pro terrorist line. And that is a disturbing phenomenon in our politics. It's a lot more disturbing than a bunch of people spending money who think we should have a positive relationship with Jewish Wakanda over in the Middle east inventing super weapons for us.
- [30:33]
C
Outside of all these special interest groups. I'm curious to get your take on these redistricting efforts that are happening across the country right now. It looks like that probably will tip favorite in the side of the Republicans, but there's a lot that could change between now and then. What can we expect from that?
- [30:48]
D
Well, I think the big story with redistricting is that both sides have kind of fought this to a draw. It's not clear that either one is going to come out the big winner. But Democrats really screwed up by kind of upping the ante at every opportunity that they got. Why is that? Because if there's no clear winner from the gerrymandering wars in this election, then we have to look a little bit further out to like 2030 or 2040. What happens in those years? Reapportionment. We have a census and all of the states get their congressional seats. Okay. And what's happening more macro nationwide right now, people are moving out of blue America and into red America, where Ben lives. Okay. And where the Daily Wire is based. Daily Wire is an example of this. And Americans are voting with their feet, moving into these red states. So what's going to happen when that census rolls around? All of the Republican states are going to have more people living them, which means they're going to have more congressional seats. And if everybody is gerrymandering all day long until the crows come home, that's going to mean there's going to be more Republicans in Congress moving forward. And that is not so good for the Democrats. So they are really the ones incentivized to be coming to the table, calling for a truce to taking whatever they can get, because at the end of the day, Americans again are voting with their feet and going to red America. And that is bad news for them in the context of these gerrymandering wars.
- [32:15]
B
Well, Jesse Arm, I know that you have to run to really appreciate the time and all of the.
- [32:19]
A
Can I ask him one quick question before he goes?
- [32:21]
B
Sure, go for it.
- [32:23]
A
Should we root for the Knicks because President Trump likes the Knicks or against the Knicks because Timothee Chalamet hasn't done enough in life to deserve a life this charmed?
- [32:34]
D
I'm a pretty hardcore Detroit Pistons fan, so I'm still holding a bit of a grudge for the Knicks beating us last year and betraying his employer.
- [32:45]
A
Yeah, you gotta ask him.
- [32:47]
D
I don't like seeing. I don't like seeing all those celebrities in the front row.
- [32:50]
A
Happy.
- [32:51]
D
Root against.
- [32:51]
B
Well, we can't have Mom Donnie be happy. We get the ones.
- [32:58]
D
We don't have to pay much attention to LeBron anymore. So that's why I'm rooting for the Spurs.
- [33:02]
A
Yes, that is the argument. That's the.
- [33:04]
B
Actually, we actually we actually have, I think, unanimous support, unless Isabelle is a Knicks fan. I think we actually have unanimous support for the San Antonio Spurs. Amen.
- [33:11]
C
Y.
- [33:13]
B
So, yeah, by the way, like, that's. That's what. That's. I'll be watching that with my son tonight. But speaking of my children, I have to make sure that they are taken care of in case, God forbid, something should happen to me. And you have to do the same thing for your family. And this is why you need to go to Policy Genius. June marks the first days of summer, and somehow all of us are still here, which seems like a miracle given how these conversations sometimes go. And we have big plans this summer. I know, but, Ben, you doing anything fun this summer?
- [33:39]
A
Yes, we do. Our annual trip to. We celebrate the Fourth of July by, you know, celebrating our nation by blowing up a small part of it in rural Arizona. And looking forward to it because it'll be my new son's first sojourn into the desert. And it'll be fun.
- [33:58]
B
Isabel, you doing anything fun this summer at all?
- [34:01]
C
Lots of fun things. My sister's getting married in Alaska in three weeks, so we're taking a big family vacation up there and then spending a 250 here in our nation's capital. I'm so excited.
- [34:11]
B
Yeah, we're having a baby because I don't have enough stress in my life. So we're having another baby in about a month and a half here.
- [34:20]
A
Having a baby in the 2 50th anniversary. That's awesome.
- [34:23]
B
Yeah, very cool. There's a not insignificant shot that this is a July 4th baby, which would be awesome because I've made a deal with my wife, which is that if the. If the baby is born on July 4th, I get to name the baby John Adam. Like that is the thing that. I made that deal with her. But listen, we're all going to be busy this summer. What none of us have the time for is waiting through confusing insurance websites trying to figure out if we're getting a good deal. And that's where Policy Genius comes in. Most people know they need life insurance. They just keep putting it off because it feels complicated. Policy Genius makes it simple. It's an online marketplace where you compare quotes from America's top insurers side by side for free coverage. Amounts, prices, terms, all laid out, clearly, no guesswork. Their license team handles the paperwork, answers your questions, and advocates for you throughout the entire process. They're not trying to upsell you. They're working to get you the right policy. At the most Affordable price. Protecting your family financially is not a someday task, it's a priority. With thousands of five star reviews on Google and trustpilot, people are finding great policies and checking this off their list for good. So just get it done in minutes and then get on with your summer. Protect your family with a policy that grows with your life. With policy genius, you can see if you can find a 20 year life insurance policy starting at just 276 bucks a year for $1 million in coverage. Head on over to policygenius.com/fire to compare life insurance quotes from top companies. See how much you could save that policygenius.com/fire okay, so speaking of, you know, our great country's birth and breaking away from the British. The UK is in the news because they decided they were going to ban a couple of American terror supporters from their shores. And, and so they put out some sort of statement and they said that Chenk Uyghur and Hasan Piker, who are their family, Hasan's anepo baby. They said, you're not allowed to come to the UK and go to Oxford Union because you guys are a. Essentially you create the conditions for the possibility of violence. Which I think is a terrible excuse. By the way. I don't like the heckler's veto because that basically says that, you know, Ben or Isabel, if any of us decided to go to Britain and people decided to protest us and create violence, then they could just ban us from Britain. I don't like the excuse. I do, however, like them banning Hasan and Schenck. And the reason is I do not think that any country has the obligation to bring into its country people who love terrorism or China or Cuba. I think that we should apply that same rule in America. I think that people who come here to spout a bunch of anti American bullshit, those people should not be allowed in our country. And, and frankly, if people came here and they immigrated and they lied on their immigration forms, I think they should be booted out. So I know this, this summit, there's kind of a weird thing that's broken out on the right where some people like no libertarian free speech concerns for the UK which is a foreign country. But I'm not sure where you guys are on this. Isabel, where are you on it?
- [36:52]
C
Yeah. You know, Ben, I was really surprised to see this story break through the headlines the other day because just a few weeks before all of this, the UK banned my friend Ava Vlaardinger Brook from coming into the UK to give a speech for a more Conservative wing of British politics. And their reasoning for that is because she directly inspires violence all over Europe by promoting this re migration movement of Europeans having more babies to counteract the crazy, horrible, horrifying, devastating effects of mass migration. And honestly, I'm interested a little bit to see the UK applying this across the board to people on the left and the right. But I just find it rich that all of a sudden the UK government and Keir Starmer seem so excited that about stopping the proliferation of violence in the United Kingdom, when in reality they themselves are directly responsible for mass importing millions upon millions of people who are literally raping teenage girls in broad daylight on the street, who are normalizing mass violence in the name of eradicating British culture for this Islamic takeover of their society. And you're not allowed to talk about that. In fact, if you're a British citizen and you tweet about that, they'll throw you in prison for 20 years. But they won't actually stop violence. So I don't really know where this is coming from. It certainly isn't in line with their political agenda that they've been enacting domestically, but I am curious to see how they keep applying it. And I'm supposed to go to the UK in August, so we'll see if they let.
- [38:15]
B
We'll see if that works or not.
- [38:18]
A
I think that Britain just loves banning things in this kind of nation of decline that they represent. Now they're banning things willy nilly. You know, you can't have a cigarette if you're under a certain age. I mean, this is where Duncan Hill is from, which is what I smoke. But that just that it's the kind of thing that is so infuriating to me. It's like, can't you like, I don't know, rebuild your navy? It used to run the world. Couldn't you have like a functional, you know, number of ships that we could depend on, maybe ask you to help with some things like the Strait of Hormuz? No, we can't. That's the kind of thing that I think a nation does when it just kind of spirals into itself and becomes this, this, this nation that basically just says no, we have to ban tweets, we have to ban people, we have to ban messages. We have to. Because all of these things, they just accept that leftist idea that words are violence at the same time. Does it have to do I have to have sympathies for Hassan Piker in this moment. I feel bad just to taking this
- [39:16]
B
position I'll tell you why you don't.
- [39:19]
A
You are right about one. You are right about one thing, Ben, which is that this actually brings to mind Cheeky Chesterton's a long essay about. He doesn't have short ones about what he saw in America a little over a hundred years ago when he came here. And he, and he talked about. That's where the line comes from, of America being the only nation founded in a creed. He talked about the, the, the, this sort of optimistic, hopeful idea that one of the questions he had to ask on his immigration form was, are you an anarchist? Question mark. And like you have to the nation that believes that you should ask that question, believing you're going to get an honest answer, that there's something charming about that. We should be able to keep people out of this country who hate our country and mean it ill and want to support terrorism. And that should extend, by the way, to candidates, Congress.
- [40:09]
B
Yeah. You know, one of the things, there's this tweet so people, we've all been on Twitter for a long time for no good mental health reason. And every so often, somebody will bring up a Tweet that's like 15, 20 years old at this point. And one of the tweets that I get thrown back in my face a lot is a tweet that I wrote, I don't know, it must have been 10 years ago or something, where I say, I don't care about the browning of America. I only care about the ideologies of the people in America. And for some reason, this is used as some sort of a dunk, which I really don't understand, frankly, because I don't judge people on the basis of their skin color, but I do judge them very harshly on the basis of their ideology.
- [40:40]
A
Your dunk is so much less damaging than mine, which is what does it take to go on a date with Meghan McCain and me responding to it? Do not want.
- [40:54]
B
Yeah, that would age like sour milk for Ben. But
- [40:59]
A
I don't think you have a more owned tweet than that. There is nothing you have ever said that. It's my wife. Occasionally my wife will bring it up, and she says, but it turned out you did one. So anyway.
- [41:16]
B
Oh, my gosh. I, I, I have a similar thing. Not a public tweet like that. But I remember I was on my fourth date with my wife, and I turned to her and I said, I really like you. And she s, she said to me, I like things about you. And I was like, wow, that's that's that I was like that. And so.
- [41:29]
A
So now that we have solo Princess Leia stuff right there.
- [41:32]
B
I know exactly. We were at Disneyland at the time. We're actually at Disneyland at the. At the time. And I. And I every so often, we've been married almost 20 years at this point. I do turn to her every so often, and I'll be like, well, that's the fifth baby right there in your stomach. So in your belly is our fifth child. So I win, you lose. Like that's the way that this works anyway. But that tweet, the sort of Browning of America tweet, I will say it is kind of astonishing to me that that was ever a controversial tweet or remains one, because the merit, obviously, of human beings doesn't lie in their melanin level. It lies in the ideas that they bring forth. Which is why, you know, I'm very much of the view that if we were legally capable, we should expel people who hate the country from the country. I understand that we can't do that legally because obviously if you're born in America, you have legal rights to say and do pretty much whatever you want. It's one of the great things about America. But that does mean we have to be pretty selective about who we let into this place. And one of the gigantic mistakes made by Europe and by the United States that we are not selective at all for the past several decades, no. About who we let into our houses. And now we turn around and every spray painting the walls and pissing in the corners, and we're all supposed to be shocked by this.
- [42:38]
A
The other thing is, the other thing is. And this is what I mean, this is kind of a key to. Just quickly. This is the key to kind of Luke Rosiak's reporting over the last several weeks, you know, and obviously over months that led up to it, is this clash between low trust societies and high trust societies. People who come here who want to be Americans and become Americans, and people who come here essentially as outposts in our society, trying to extract as much money out of our government systems, use them to their benefit. Calling people racist for questioning it and then sending it back home, it's obscene. It's horrible. It damages the interests of Americans themselves, particularly working class Americans. And the fact that the Republican Party was so unwilling, the coalition of the right was so unwilling to embrace this, or even depicting people who did, you know, talk about this as being racist or on the outskirts or something like that, accepting this leftist argument for so many years that laid the foundation for why Donald Trump won in the first place. And it's still, I think, a lesson that these Republicans haven't learned. They still talk about this stuff just naturally, as if we're in, like, 2002 and it's George W. Bush and we have to figure out things for guest workers and the like. This is a completely different population that you've imported over the last 20 years, and it's very different from the kind of people that you just talked about in the past who are workers who are going to come here and then go back home. That does not happen. They extract as much as they can from our taxpayers and they send it wherever they want.
- [44:04]
C
Well, and I'm just curious to throw out to the group here, feel free to agree or disagree or take this any way you want. I generally agree with the sentiment of that tweet, Ben, that anyone can make up their mind about anything. And certainly your skin color is not indicative of your intelligence level or your ability to have your own opinion formed independently from what you look like. That said, there is a really interesting and I think important cultural conversation happening in America right now, led by mostly young people, about certain cultures being incompatible with that of Western civilization. And largely I'm thinking of Islam and those imported from the Islamic world, which does involve, to some degree, ethnicity involved in there as well. What's your take on that?
- [44:44]
B
Well, I mean, I think that Thomas Sowell does a really great job of breaking down. He has a great book called Discrimination and Disparities. And one of the things that he talks about in there is sort of a typology of discrimination. He says that there is normal discrimination where we discriminate by making choices every single day. When you go to a restaurant, if you pick one dish, you are discriminating against the other dishes. That's what it means to have, say, discriminating taste. And then there is discrimination in the sense that you look at a group of people and based on the group data, you make an informed sort of judgment about the likelihood that a person is going to act in a particular way. And we do that all the time. If we see a group of people and they're wearing white coats in a hospital, you're going to make the informed decision that that person is likely to be a doctor. You look at the outward indicators that suggest behavior, and you make that decision. And then there's hard discrimination, hard discrimination. The kind of discrimination that he says is wrong is the discrimination where you actually know the individual in question and you let the Group data trump the individual data. So in the absence of individual data, making a group judgment is just a natural thing that we all do, because obviously, how else are you going to make judgments? But when you have individual data, then you can allow that individual data, and you should allow that individual data to trump the group data. And so there are two separate questions, say, about Muslim immigration to the United States. Some people say, so you're saying that no Muslim can come to the United States and be a good citizen. No, that's not what we're saying. It is quite possible that there can be a Muslim or some Muslims or many Muslims who could come and be good citizens if they actually demonstrate specifically and individually that they are going to be good citizens. But if you look at Islamic culture in say, Pakistan, the idea that you could mass migrate a million Pakistanis to the United States and on average, that is going to work out well for the United States, that is a really ridiculous proposition. And the same thing, of course, you can have cultural distinctions. I think that what you've seen from the, some parts of the fringe, right, is the inability to distinguish between cultural differentiation, racial differentiation, right. The idea will be, and that's where you get into actual discrimination, where it's like, okay, I know that guy. He lives next to me. I know him really, really well. He's a good American citizen. And I wouldn't let him in even knowing him, because there's a group data that on average people are like this. And that is a bit of a, of a, of a different thing. That's, that's how I would kind of break down, I think. So we does a really good job of breaking down, breaking down that typology. But again, I think that, you know, there's been a couple of false binaries that have been injected into the right on these politics. You see it all the time where it's like, I get the feeling these days that basically all politics has been depixelated, right? We've sort of made everything very blunt and stupid and not nuanced. And so to take an example of sort of the free speech debate, right, there's this idea that you see from somebody like Britain is not doing free speech. When they won't allow Tanker or, or Hassan into their country. They're not doing free speech. And it's like, free speech is not the proposition, that you get to go to every foreign country that you want and spew whatever malignity that you want in a foreign country. That is not the proposition. And free speech is not Even the proposition that anything that you can say is morally equivalent to anything else that you can say. You see that one pop up a lot where it's like, well, you question somebody's view and they say is not
- [47:36]
C
even free speech is not even remotely a value of the United Kingdom. So you're having a pointless argument at that point too.
- [47:42]
B
Right, Exactly. But everything just gets depixillated all the time. And so. So I feel the same thing about this sort of. What is an American debate? The what is an American debate? The answer is like, all of the above, Right? Yes, of course. We have specific people who came here at a specific time and evolved in a particular way. Yeah.
- [47:56]
A
Can I ask you a question prompted by the social media expressions that we've seen over the past couple of weeks? Do you think that these people who rail about, like, how much this country has changed and fallen away from values that they only recently discovered, let's say, do you think that they want to import all of Moscow into America? Because it sure seems like that over the past last week, the way that they've been talking about the glorious, you know, Christianity that they find on their paid trips to Russia, I mean, it's. It's just insane. Some of the stuff that they've been saying.
- [48:29]
B
Oh, that. That's an astonishing, laughable.
- [48:31]
A
I, I find it laughable because I actually. So I love, like, the. One of the things that I, you know, have a disagreement about with, with certain people and certain family members is occasionally when they, when, when there's an anti Russian thing, I just point out they have a phenomenal literature, they have phenomenal music. There's all this tragedy that has birthed wonderful things that came out of Russia. No, it hasn't come out of Russia. Actual appreciation for Christianity that is endorsed by the Kremlin. And like, it's, it's absurd the kind of things that we're seeing this playing out in front of us. But it's like, okay, so do you want to, like, import those people here? Is that, like, the way that this is supposed to work? Or are we supposed to become more like them in some kind of embrace of this KGB approach to governance way? None of this makes any sense to me on any real level other than I'm just being paid to say this.
- [49:22]
B
Oh, man, I can't even speak to how stupid I think you have to be to fall for the op that's currently taking place in Moscow. I mean, truly, like, it's. If you don't understand that it's an op I don't know. You're the mark. Like, it is that obvious. If you're literally going over to a country that is enemies with the United States. And make no mistake, I mean, Vladimir Putin is not oblique about this, and neither is Alexander Dugan, who's sort of his outreach master. They are not oblique about their intent for the United States. And it is not good. If you're going over there and you're going to a country that has one of the highest abortion rates on planet Earth, a country that has essentially no birth rate, a country that has legitimately no religious observance for the vast majority of its population, they have something like 10% church attendance rate. And the only real legal church that is promoted is just a propagandistic outlet for the Russian government, which is why it was banned in Ukraine. It's not because they don't believe in Eastern Orthodoxy. It's because they said that the Russian Orthodox Church is actually just a tool of the government in Russia. That's the real thing that's happening. And if the thing that's being promoted by like, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker and Candace and Andrew Tate, first of all, if you're buying into the Andrew Tate is a good Christian thing, Andrew Tate is somehow less Christian than I am. Like, that's like, I actually believe people should go to church. I also am not guilty or has it ever been alleged sexual harassment or sexual abuse of any kind. So I'm, I'm fairly certain that even I have more credibility on this matter than Andrew Tate. But if, like, you're trotting out these people as like, Andrew Tate is desperate for you to go back to church and be a good Christian, I don't know how dumb you have to be to believe this. I, like, I, I don't like to insult members of the audience who believe things, but I mean, honestly, at a certain point, at a certain point, the word retarded was invented for this kind of op. It really is insane.
- [50:56]
C
What a wild time we live in.
- [50:59]
B
Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
- [51:01]
A
I. Look, look, we're old Isabel, so we grew up injected with like, anti communism, just like, was part of the deal, you know, like it's, it just sort of was, was there from, from our inception, you know, and I, and I still, I mean, you know, I, I'll, I'll admit to getting teary eyed every time I go back and just randomly watch the Miracle on Ice again, you know, but it's one of these things
- [51:25]
B
I thought you're gonna say Rocky 4. I thought you say Rocky 4. Rocky 4 every time you watch Rocky 4.
- [51:32]
A
Yeah. No, the crack in Al Michael's voice is always just what gets me anyway. But the thing that is so infuriating about this is the OP is so obvious. It's just like it's. Who wants you to see this? Why are they putting this in front of you? Why are they pretending like there isn't a hammer and sickle in the stained glass of this church that they're describing is beautiful and wonderful and an indication of Christian culture. It is absolutely absurd. Anyone who buys into it is an idiot. And please, like, you know, go back and read some Turgennet. Go back and read some, some, you know, Russian literature is great. What it will teach you is to hate communism and hate everything that it produced within, within the Russian culture.
- [52:17]
C
To put this into perspective for my generation and God forbid our children who are going to have a whole heck of a time growing up like this. Even Russian oriented literature or warnings about, I don't know, the implications of Stalinism like Animal Farm are now being turned into cartoon movies for children that actually dunk on capitalism as the source of all evil in society now. And somehow George Orwell is rolling over in his grave over all of this. So I think it's really fashionable right now to just be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, even if it flies in the face of objective reality. And that certainly generates a whole lot of clicks and engagement on social media. But I am also starting to see young people realize that not everything is a conspiracy just because a whole lot of big important things happened to be a conspiracy in the last several years. And I found a really interesting corner of the Internet from so many young people who are just tired of all the noise. They're tired of the ops, they're tired of the clickbait, they're tired of the attack wars of the podcast realm. And they want real solutions. They want suggestions for what they can actually do to safeguard their culture from an individual decision making perspective. I think the answer is really easy in America for how you fight the demographic shift. It's not to mass import people who hate your country and want to destroy it. It certainly isn't to mass import people from other cultures that do not share our foundational values of Christianity, like the faux Christianity that we see in Russia. I think it's really simple. Make more babies and go to church and exercise your civic duty and voting and understand how our society works. When you can reframe all of this away from the click engagement and the disgusting stuff that you see on X. And you actually can tell young people you can be the solution to this. I think it's really meaningful and there's not a lot of people doing that.
- [54:01]
B
Well, on that positive note, once again, I just want to remind you that, you know, you should support us here at Daily Wire plus, because we may be the last bastion of sanity in this cruel, cruel, dark world. But again, you will only be able to see content like this if you subscribe. You'll get to see all of our wonderful hosts back on the next episode of Friendly Fire. And in the meantime, for Isabel and for the other Ben, we bid you a good evening.