← Straight Shooter with Stephen A.
Loading summary
Transcript208 lines
- [00:00]
A
Straight shooter with stephen a. What's up, everybody? Welcome to the latest edition of Straight Shooter with yours truly, Stephen A. Coming at you, as I love to do every Wednesday night from 6 to 8pm Eastern Standard Time over the airwaves of SiriusXM POTUS Radio Channel 124. Number to call up, as always is 866-967-6887 at 866-967-68 87. That's 86696, POTUS. I will get into Representative Jasmine Crockett losing her bid for the United States Senate seat based out of the great state of Texas in just a minute. But I think it's appropriate to start off today's show with some breaking news because it just came down like literally, literally minutes ago. And I think that everybody needs to know about exactly that. The United States Senate rejected bids to scale back Trump's power with the the war in Iran. In Iran, according to the news reports reading straight off of Politico right now, the Senate rejected an attempt to rein in the war in Iran, handing President Donald Trump what amounts to an endorsement of his five day military campaign. The 47 to 53 vote split largely along party lines, with Republican senators united to defeat a measure that would have required congressional approval to continue the operation. Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a co sponsor, was the only Republican who supported the resolution, while Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania broke with his party in support of, of the strike. So you had one Democratic senator in Fetterman who supported Trump, and we had one Republican senator in Rand Paul who obviously opposed Trump. Either way you slice it, here's the bottom line. We could slice it any way we want to. It's we're at war. We're at war. When you go about the business of destabilizing another nation, I mean, somebody put it simple and plain. And a lot of times I get really ticked off and I get frustrated because of the lack of focus, the questions and the probing that are necessary. Not all of this lip service that you're given to all the gun, you know, the president didn't consult with Congress. The president didn't consult with anybody. We're not supposed to be declaring wars. Congress only has the right to do that constitutionally. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Hell, even I was caught up in it. And then suddenly the news came down that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had actually informed the Gang of Eight that, listen, this is what we're intending to do and here is why. And by the way, that's constitutionally correct. And I have to make sure that I looked this up because I wanted to make sure that I was accurate. And it says, in the United States government, the gang of Eight refers to a small bipartisan group of senior members of Congress who are briefed on the most sensitive national security and intelligence matters, often issues so classified they are not shared with most lawmakers. And what does this gang of eight consist of exactly? Speak of the House minority House leader, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, ranking member, top minority member of the House Intelligence Committee. And in the Senate, the Senate majority leader, the Senate minority leader, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the vice chair, ranking minority member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. So essentially, the top four figures from each party, period, they were informed. And we're making all of this noise about what was constitutional or what's not constitutional. What you should be worried about is the fact that Trump is a bit loose, that Trump doesn't seem to have all his ducks in order. Because last time I checked, wasn't it just months ago, if not weeks ago, when he joined and collabed with Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear sites? Didn't he say they were obliterated? Didn't he say they were completely stripped of any power? We stopped them. Well, if you stopped them, why would you need to stop them again? What are we missing? So these are the kind of questions that you have to ask. Listen, this is what I'm talking about. This is what's so damn frustrating about all of this. And then on the Democratic side, you got everybody, you got pundits all over the place. You got everybody going up, you got Tim Kaine and everybody else talking about, hey, it's unconstitutional. Well, evidently it's not. Article 2 of the Constitution stipulates that the president does indeed have the right to act if he considers it a national security issue. So he was never really in any trouble. He was never really in any danger of being stripped of his potency as the commander in chief to make such a decision. Why are we acting like he isn't? Why shouldn't we instead have just focused on what are you doing? Why are you doing this? We should have focused on that, but we didn't do it. Now, needless to say, Trump has his interpretation of things while others have theirs. Listen to Trump.
- [05:28]
B
Listen.
- [05:29]
A
Go to cut A, please. With Trump talking about how out of control Iran is. Play that tape, please.
- [05:35]
B
You see the tremendous progress that's being made. Their missiles are being wiped out rapidly. Their launches are being wiped out, they're
- [05:43]
A
attacking their neighbors, they're attacking their, in
- [05:46]
B
some cases, allies or not so long ago, allies. And, you know, it's really a nation
- [05:52]
A
that was out of control and they would have used it on us if
- [05:55]
B
we let them, if we waited any longer.
- [05:58]
A
A big, a big factor was Soleimani,
- [06:00]
B
the killing of Soleimani in my first term. And maybe the biggest factor was the rebuilding of the military in my first term.
- [06:08]
A
And then the B2s hit the, and
- [06:13]
B
I use the word obliterate because it really was, it was a complete obliteration
- [06:16]
A
of their nuclear potential. And that set them back very, very seriously. If we didn't hit within two weeks,
- [06:25]
B
they would have had a nuclear weapon. If we didn't do the B2 attack a number of months ago, they would have a nuclear weapon. And when crazy people have nuclear weapons, bad things happen.
- [06:36]
A
You can't touch them. On this, ladies and gentlemen, Constitution Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution declares the President to be commander in chief of the army, Navy and state militia. Presidents often cite this power to justify unilateral military action without immediate congressional approval, specifically to defend U.S. citizens or respond to threats, Period. Period. Now, do I think that he's somebody that was looking for an excuse? Sure. They did try to kill him. After all, we're talking about Iran. They tried to kill him. We understand that. And we understood that they probably weren't going to stop trying to kill him. So he took out an enemy. The question is whether it was his enemy or was that of the United States of America. And everybody, including Democrats, have acknowledged that Iran was an existential threat and there's no way on earth that they should ever be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But then we go back to what Trump said when he said they were obliterated weeks ago. Weeks ago. So why do this? Go to cut. Go to cut seven, please, Trump. I won't put America in any wars. Listen to this.
- [07:55]
B
I will expel the warmongers from our
- [07:57]
A
national security state and carry out a
- [08:00]
B
much needed cleanup of the military industrial
- [08:03]
A
complex to stop the war profiteering and
- [08:05]
B
to put always America first. She said, look at him. Listen to him. He's going to start a war. Listen to his rhetoric. He's going to start a war. I said, no, no, no. My rhetoric is going to keep us out of wars.
- [08:21]
A
Really. We now know that was a lie. The problem is that even though it was a lie, flagrantly so, I might add, we've heard one politician after another on the left Especially the clips they play of Hillary Rodham Clinton when she was running for office talking about we will, we will, we will obliterate Iran because they're crazy and they're evil and they must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. You're not going to win this argument with Trump now. It doesn't help Trump, by the way, when you're always talking about fake news, fake news, fake news. And now you have a puppeteer, courtesy of the Secretary of Defense And Pete Hegseth, Mr. Fox News on the weekends saying stuff like this, Please play cut
- [09:09]
C
D sure Iran will still be able
- [09:11]
A
to shoot some missiles and still be able to launch one way attack drones at civilian targets. And their proxies will attempt to attack
- [09:18]
C
our embassies, bases and soft targets. They are terrorists after all, and they need to target civilians because they can't
- [09:28]
A
fight toe to toe. But we will find them and we will kill them.
- [09:34]
C
This is what the fake news misses. We've taken control of Iran's airspace and waterways.
- [09:40]
A
Without boots on the ground, we control their fate. But when a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it's front page news.
- [09:52]
C
I get it.
- [09:52]
A
The press only wants to make the President look bad. But try for once to report the reality.
- [09:58]
C
The terms of this war will be
- [10:00]
A
set by us at every step. So the country has attacked Iran and we all know how evil Iran is. We all know that they don't need to have a nuclear weapon. We're not talking about Iranian citizens. We're talking about the leadership, Ayatollah Khomeini, who was killed. According to numerous reports, he is dead and now his son is scheduled to take over. At least that's what the rumor mill is stating. We know that they have proxies all over the place, even though Hezbollah and Hamas and the Houthis and Yemen and others are perceived as being drastically compromised because of decisions made by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, along with President Trump. The bottom line is it's still a palpable fear that we all have to deal with. And because we all have to deal with that, that makes everything up for grabs. It puts everything in the air right now. Matter of fact, the only voice that you really, really want to hear from the Republican side at this particular moment in time is Secretary of State Ruby Marco Rubio, because he repeatedly seems to be the only adult in the room. We'll get into all of that as the show progresses. Right here. Straight Shooter with George Truly, Stephen A. Over the airwaves of Sirius XM potus radio channel 1-248-669-676887 is the number to call up. That's 866-967-6887. There's no way that I could go through an entire opening monologue without transitioning to Representative Jasmine Crockett. She lost. She lost her. Her pursuit for the United States Senate seats to James Telo 52.4% to 46.2%. She lost this election. This election bid trying to WIN the United one of those two U.S. senate seats in Texas where she would have gone from a representative representing about 766,000 constituents to over 31 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to discuss why it would have been nice to see Jasmine Crockett win. Personally, I would have liked to see her going up against the Republican candidate, whether it was John Cornyn, whether it was Ken Paxton, whomever. Wesley Hunt was a marvelous guest last week on this show. It would have been nice to see her go up against one of them for the U.S. senate seat. But that is not to be. She called earlier and sent out this tweet regarding James Tellarico, saying, this morning I called James and congratulated him on becoming the Senate nominee. Texas is primed to turn blue and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person. This is about the future of all 30 million Texans and getting America back on track. With the primary behind us, Democrats must rally around our nominees and win. I'm committed to doing my part and will continue working to elect Democrats up and down the ballot, end quote. That still doesn't get us to why she lost. Ladies and gentlemen, James Telomeres and Jasmine Crockett essentially were very, very similar in policies and their ideology, et cetera. One wanted to focus a little bit more on terrorists than the others. Both of them were opposed to Trump's immigration policies and tactics. We all know this. But why did Jasmine Crockett lose this election? They want to tell you that she lost because she didn't ingratiate herself with Hispanics, because they have over six and a half million Hispanic voters in the state of Texas. And she didn't endear herself to them nearly as well as she should have. She was criticized, you know, she's been criticized for commerce, perceived as alienating Hispanic voters leading into the election. Remarks stem Primarily from a 2024 Vanity Fair interview where she discussed Latino support for Donald Trump and immigration views. She described some Latino immigrants attitudes towards undocumented immigrants as reminiscent of, quote, unquote a slave mentality. She went on to say, it almost. Almost reminds me of what people would talk about when they would talk about the kind of, like, slave mentality and the hate that some slaves would have for themselves. In the full context, she elaborated, the immigration thing has always been something that has perplexed me about this community. It's basically like, I fought to get here, but I left y' all where I left y', all, and I want no more of y' all to come here. If I wanted to be with y', all, I would have stayed with y', all, but I don't want y' all coming to my new home. It's almost like a slave mentality that they have. It is wild to me when I hear how anti immigrant they are as immigrants, many of them. Perhaps the most damaging thing was when Jake Tapper questioned her about an exact quote that she gave. It was at a church event in April of 2025, and she received backlash for implying racial stereotypes about labor and immigration. Quote, so I had to go around the country educating people about what immigrants do to this country and the fact that we are a country of immigrants. The fact is, ain't none of y' all trying to go out, go and farm right now. You not. You not. We're done picking cotton. We are. You can't pay us enough to find a plantation. Critics, including Latinos, called it racist and dismissive. This is not about me. This is not about Jews, not about anybody. This is about the voters in Texas and what they're saying ultimately had an impact in deciding how this election went. You got a guy in James Telo who's a. Who's a seminarian and a teacher who believed in compromise and pulling folks over to his side and working across the aisle and doing stuff like that. That was his style. And he was focusing on Ken Paxton, a Republican candidate for the United States Senate, who's an attorney general in Texas, and was focusing on him because it's widely believed that he will beat John Cornyn eventually, particularly in their runoff where she was focused on Trump and not giving him an inch to breathe and being all up his. You know what, for every little thing that he did and what the Texas say. You see, this comes back to what I was trying to say months ago, weeks ago, days ago. That's Texas. It's a little bit different down there, ladies and gentlemen. I was in Austin, Texas, nearly two years ago, and I was watching an episode of Martin at 1 in the morning. And this has never happened to me in My life in the middle of the program, it shut down, it went to commercial. And the commercial was the American flag over the television screen and the national anthem was playing over the airwaves. That don't happen in New York, that don't happen in dc. It damn sure don't happen in la, but it happens in Texas. A little bit different. A little bit different. And when we talk about all of these things, what it came down to, to Tellarico versus Jasmine Crockett was style, nothing else. That woman, smart as a whip, licensed to practice law in the state of Texas, Arkansas and federally. She's been in the House of Representatives for years. Trump is spewing her name. She's got a national profile. She was far more known than James Tellarico. He had to be introduced by members of the Hispanic community weeks before the election. They didn't even know who he was. So Heidi Beater styles make fights and his style worked for Texans. Slice it any way you want to, it worked for Texans. Now, Jasmine Crockett has her own beliefs as to why she lost this election, but she was still class personified and congratulating James Telo and calling him and ultimately putting out that tweet. And she deserves a lot of credit for that. She also can't help the fact that James Telo was was on Stephen Colbert's show on CBS February 16th. And CBS, according to Stephen Colbert, wouldn't allow him to air that interview. So they put it on YouTube. It accumulated over over five and a half million viewers and bumped his campaign dollars up an additional $2.5 million in a 24 hour period following what he called his quote unquote censored interview. So understand there are certain things that transpired that were completely and totally out of her control. But in the end, what it came down to was strategy and tone. While he positioned himself as a teacher in the Senate, injecting progressive Christianity and focusing on education, compromise and building coalitions, she positioned herself as a street fighter who thrives on confrontation, viral clashes with Trump and other Republicans, etc. She emphasized her national name recognition from congressional fights and argued criticism of her was rooted in racism and sexism. No doubt it worked with a lot of black voters. No doubt it worked with some women. But in the end, was it enough to beat the fellow Democrat who was a novice compared to her for United States Senate seat representing 31 million people out of the great state of Texas? No, it was not. That is a fact. As I've said on many occasions, you don't have to be extra. When Trump gives you all the ammunition in the world, just sit around, you know, treat him like the Dallas Cowboys. Be patient, just wait for it. They won't let you down. Somehow, some way, Trump won't let you down. I was saying this, I was saying this countless times. And in the end, what it comes down to before I go to break is this. One could easily make the argument that Jasmine Crockett and frankly, Kamala Harris ran into similar issues, both leaning a lot, perhaps too heavily into emotional arguments and outrage over Donald Trump. Instead of focusing on a clear plan for the country. A plan. James Tellarico had a plan. You know what his plan, Part of his plan was? I barely need to mention Donald Trump. That ain't who I'm running against. I'm running against John Cornyn. I'm running again against Pen Ken Paxton. I'm going to have to run against one of those two for the United States Senate seat. I'll deal with Donald Trump when I get to the United States Senate. Right now, this is what I got to deal with. Had somebody tell me earlier that criticizing Trump might energize people who already agree with him or people already agree with you. And of course, that's to be expected because a lot of people don't agree with them. But when you're trying to win, you gotta strategize. James Telo learned pretty quickly what it took to win. Jasmine, who's a sensational political talent who has her share of supporters, She had a different strategy, one that could potentially work against Trump someday. The problem was that ain't who she was running against. It was James Tellarico. And that's why he's the Democratic nominee for the Senate seat for the great state of Texas. And she is not. 866-967-6887. That's 866-9669-676887-86696. POTUS, you're listening live to Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Right here on potus radio, channel 124. Up next, long time Democratic strategist, the one and only James Carville is coming up next. Can't wait to speak to him. It's a lot to discuss, no doubt, and he has a lot to say. James, don't cuss me out, man. I'm just a messenger, my brother. I'm just a messenger. He's up next with yours truly, right here on Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Back with more in a minute. 30 minutes past hour. Number one, I'm a straight shooter with Stephen A. Courtesy of SiriusXM Police Radio channel 124 with 868-6696 POTUS is the number to call up 86696 POTUS before James Carville comes on the show. Any minute now. I'm going to go to at least one call, possibly two. Let's go to Owen in Montana. You're live with Stephen A. Owen, good evening. How are you?
- [24:13]
D
Hey, Stephen A. I'm I want to ask you about the primaries in Texas. If you think the primary system is really the best way because I really think the guy you had on was the best candidate and it just didn't work out like that.
- [24:30]
A
Well, let me tell you what the problem is. I get where you're coming from. And we, we there, there, there's always modifications that need to kick in and obviously because of how people feel, Jasmine Crockett felt that, you know what, you know, to some degree that, you know, she had a problem with the results and how it came to be with folks not count having their votes counted after 9pm last night. Obviously, President Trump is always talking about the system is rigged. We see the push for voter ID and all of this other stuff. So we get that modifications are the order of the day. But in the end, Owen, here's the reason why I don't focus on it in a moment like this. Everybody knew what the rules were coming into the contest. You got to find a way around. It's almost the equivalent to me owing a folks complaining with the presidency about the electoral college vote. Well, did you know what the rules were when you entered the contest? Once you know what the rules are, you don't have an excuse if I'm playing a football game. Right, Owen. And it's snow and it's ice on the ground. Right. And we know ahead of time these are the conditions under which we have to play and both sides are subjected to the same conditions. What are we supposed to do?
- [25:41]
D
And it's fair. And then I wanted to ask you, do you how do you think the midterms are going to go? Because with also here in Montana, the representative Zinky just said yesterday that he was not going to run again.
- [25:57]
A
Well, let me tell you what I think is going to happen. Let me ask you a question. I think the Republicans are going to lose the House. I think they'll maintain the Senate and I think that's how it's going to go down. I think, I think the Democrats are going to regain some power in the House of Representatives. But not necessarily the Senate. That's what I think is going to happen. Oh, and I appreciate the call. Thank you. Ron in Ohio, you're live with Stephen A. Hello, Ron, how are you? Good evening.
- [26:26]
D
Good evening, Stephen. Great to be with you.
- [26:28]
A
Thank you.
- [26:30]
D
One thing, whenever he bombed the nuclear facilities.
- [26:38]
A
Yep.
- [26:38]
D
We trucks on, on the tarmac and he caught a bunch of slack for not getting rid of them trucks. Do you think they was the uranium and they was really a threat?
- [26:52]
A
I have no idea. Positively no idea. We don't know.
- [27:00]
D
You know, he was catching a. But Trump was catching a bunch of flack for not taking out. Why would you let them there before you got there?
- [27:10]
A
Well, listen, there's a lot of questions. There's a lot of questions that Trump has provoked. There's a lot of questions that he's provoked. But in the same breath, you know, the Democrats have to be on top of the game. Like, for example, you can't say in the same breath and you've been spewing for years that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. We can never allow that to happen. Their evil empire, we will obliterate them off the face of the earth if they do such a thing or whatever. And then you're hearing that again, they're accumulating this stuff. And oh, by the way, they're planning some kind of attack because they have terrorist cells all over the place, place proxies working under their, under their stewardship. And you, you might feel compelled to do something that's just the way that it is. I got to get ready to go. I appreciate the call. Thank you so much. On the line with us right now. I can't, I couldn't wait to talk to him. And I owe him a date on his podcast as well. He is a political commentator, a podcast host, and a Democratic strategist who helped Bill Clinton win the presidency in 1992. Please welcome to Straight Shooter with yours truly, the one and only Mr. James Carville. What's going on, James? How are you, man? How's everything?
- [28:13]
B
I'm good, brother. I'm in Manhattan and we had some meetings here and, you know, I'm fired up. We got, we had a good night in Texas. I think we got some good sports events coming up and getting excited about the NBA playoffs. We get to, you know, big tournaments.
- [28:31]
A
Well, listen, I always appreciate your time. Let's get right to it, though, because your time is precious. There's a lot at stake for Democrats in the state of Texas, so we're going to get to that. You saw James Tellarico beat Jasmine Crockett 52.8 to 45.9%. What did that race tell you and why did you term it a good night?
- [28:50]
B
Okay, so let's back up. The first thing is you should read tonight G. Elliot Marshall, and he'll tell you, walk through numbers. You know how these guys do in sports. You know, we know the old playing field. They know the arcane stuff. First of all, more Democrats voted in the Democratic primary and vote in the Republican primary. That does not happen in Texas, maybe not in this country. So that, that's a positive side. I think Jim is a, is a much better general election candidate than Congressman Crockett would have been because, well, she had, she had said that kind of made fun of the governor for being in a wheelchair.
- [29:31]
A
And.
- [29:32]
B
Yeah, she said that Hispanics called them
- [29:34]
A
Hot Wheels, but Trump.
- [29:35]
B
Yeah, and they said Hispanics voted. Trump had a slave mentality. That's probably not the best way to get these people back, wouldn't you think so? I mean, she's, she's smart. She's, she's definitely fearless. But I think that, that Jim was a, a better general election candidate, and I'm happy he won the primary. And I think he's going to be strong. I think he's got a good story.
- [29:59]
A
You just brought up how early voted for Democrats outpaced Republicans, which obviously don't happen in Texas. How do you keep that momentum going for the midterms in your estimation?
- [30:09]
B
Well, okay, so what I'm telling people, Steve, you got to look at the playing field is now tilted in the favor of Democrats because they have a runoff. And that runoff is not until May 26th. So you had this big election night. It was, I guess, March 3rd, and now you got to go all the way to May 26th. And they spent corn, spent $77 million, okay, in first round. So in a television, that they're going to be running against each other is going to be brutal. I mean, when I tell you Democrats don't know Republicans, they know, they know how to fight, okay? They bring a dirty weapon to a knife fight. They don't just bring a gun. And I'm telling people, send tail RICO money now. And if while they're killing each other out there, Jim can go home and say, look, I want to bring Texas together. I want people treat each other like good Christians and neighbors and just beat a goddamn nice guy for between now and May 26, and they're going to be killing each other. And you're going to beat a, you know, the soothing guy, the young guy or the faith based candidate. So I think there's, I think we got up between 9 May and I said, don't send the money in September, ship, send it now. And while we, you know, and you know this well enough to, you know, you know, sports ride political strategy. When you're in an advantageous position, you take advantage of the appetizers position. And we're at right. The Texas Democrats right now are in a position and not used to, but they in an appetitous position. And you got to, you got to make the best of it. You got to make.
- [31:50]
A
Do you believe that Telo could actually beat Cornyn or Paxton in a state like Texas, a red state like Texas? You think he could do that?
- [31:59]
B
Well, you know, Stephen, I, one of the things that people ask me and it's okay and I'm fine with that, to predict things. And I said, I'm not, you know, early in my career somebody said, you know, you don't try to predict things, you just try to affect things. Do I take it? Yes. But you say, well, that's James. He's kind of a rah rah, cheerleader Democrat guy. The betting markets, look at this. Go and predict it. I think they're close to 50, 50 Cal Rico was 85 cents on a dollar in the betting markets. All right. Even though the poll data was kind of inconclusive because it's hard to get into it too deep unless you want to. It's hard to poll a primary in a place like Texas.
- [32:41]
A
Okay.
- [32:42]
B
Betting markets are, I think they're 50, 50. I got to look predicted again. But you know, they're like any betting market. They're, they're big market and they're not going to generally not that far off. So yes, I did. The question is not only do I think that, that Tariq can win it, but the markets think he can too.
- [33:03]
A
Let me transition. And we're talking to James Carville, I mean the man himself, right here on Straight Shooter with yours truly. James, I want to talk to you about the other day. I saw you going off a little bit about Representative Omar where you just, I believe it was her. You just told her, leave the party. I mean, you know, I want to know where that came from. And when you speak in this, in this, with this level of frustration, can you enlighten us about what exactly it is that you're talking about and what got you so ticked off when it came to something like that?
- [33:37]
B
Thank you. And by the way I met her one time. And first of all, she's a very attractive, soft spoken lady. I have a lot of friends in Minneapolis and people think, a lot of people think well of her, but she saw it attacking white males. And I'm saying, wait a minute, let's stop. All right, in 19, in 2024, 72% of the people that voted were white. All right, that's just a fact. Of that, 72, probably 48%, 48 and a half were male. So it's somewhere around. I did the math on the thing. About 33% of the people that are going to vote are going to be white males. Well, it's stupid to attack 33% of the voters.
- [34:27]
A
Right?
- [34:28]
B
That's not. You don't want to start there. You know, what you try to do is you start and you build up. And so what I would say to Congressman Omar, why don't you be a Democratic socialist of America, do what AOC did. But if they win, the truth of that is, I say a lot of ideological issues in common with Congressman Omar, but maybe you should do like a parliamentary government. We'll let you in the governing coalition, but not the electoral coalition. I'm not being, I don't think she'd do that. But we cannot, we have to get this mentality out that we can win national elections with white people. Because you can't. Right. You know, if I was.
- [35:12]
A
Or without white people. Because you can't. Yes, you're right.
- [35:15]
B
We can somehow another win an election without white males. It's just insanity. It's literally mathematical insanity. Cultural insanity as anything else.
- [35:27]
A
But James Carville, what about those who will push back on you and say, okay, he's a Republican, he happens to be the President of the United States. And you certainly were recently going off on him. You went the hell off on him a hell of a lot harder than
- [35:41]
B
you went off on Representative.
- [35:43]
A
Now he's, I'm saying he has, he has white people. He has white males that love him. All right, what about that? What about people that will look at you and say, come on, James, because
- [35:53]
B
I'm a white male, I'm, I'm different than other people. This is his greatest thing is, is one of the great phases that people have that I find distasteful is a person of color. Well, that means that all non white people are the same. No, all white people are not the same. All black people are not the same. All Hispanic people are not the same. All right? And I don't like generalizing about someone's gender or their race or their sexual preference or anything else. All gay people are not the same. They're very different personalities, very different values, very different everything. And I just don't like, and I know when people say it that they're trying to be inclusive in their language, but I don't think they stop and think of what they're telling somebody. All right, that's my issue. I don't think if I'm going to vote for somebody, first of all, it's generally the Democrat. If it would have been Crockett, I would have been, no problem, more enthusiastic about being for Jim, but I would have been for her.
- [37:03]
A
James Carville, do you believe, considering the animus, disgust that the president evokes from so many people, do you believe there is such a thing on the left as Trump derangement syndrome, which is what the right accuses people of? Do you believe that exists?
- [37:19]
B
Can I say something to the people that accuse Democrats of having Trump derangements? No.
- [37:23]
A
No.
- [37:23]
B
I got it and I got it bad. And I don't want to get better. I just want to get worse.
- [37:29]
A
Okay, you want to get worse. Case,
- [37:33]
B
I don't think that I, I try to conjure up more detest for him than I have. When I wake up in the morning, it's really hard to do. But this is a condition that I'm not trying to get rid of. Why not make my disease worse?
- [37:49]
A
Why, James? Why do you want to make the disease worse? Trump derangement syndrome. Why do you want to make that worse?
- [37:55]
B
Because in my opinion, he doesn't like the United States. He doesn't like our laws, he doesn't like our allies. He doesn't like our treaties. He doesn't like the fact that we're inclusive country that is built in a large part on immigration. I don't think he, and I don't think, I think he's politicized the Justice Department. I think they're making money hand over foot like you couldn't believe. And I think I, I think the guy does not can't stand the country I love. And if, if you said, well, somebody's capital gains tax or somebody doesn't think that we should have a, I don't know, affirmative action, like, I disagree with you, but I'm not going to tell you that I think you hate America. I think you got some bad parties. I don't think Trump likes the United States. Okay, what I think, how do you
- [38:52]
A
feel about people who say the same thing about the left because of some of the stuff that we were seeing with woke culture, cancel culture, identity politics, et cetera. What about that?
- [39:05]
B
Well, you're not gonna find anybody more anti cancel culture than James Carville. And I thought I was the first person to speak a Democrat, to speak up of wokeness. And I was quickly corrected. It was my friend Al Sharpton. First time I said was April 27, 2021. And I said, this stuff is killing us. And I'm going to tell you what happened, Stephen, and you'll relate to this. Yeah, I live in New Orleans, and this was in the early part of 2021. You know, we still had kind of woke culture. We had a backup of the pandemic. So I was in the grocery store and they had a. And you know what I'm talking about a black church lady, you know, kind of years old, probably, you know, was a little overweight. And I gave her a fist bump. And she said, boy, don't give me no goddamn fist bump. Put your arm around and give me a hug. And I said to myself, you know, people, that's the way people want to live if they come up and they see you. And we were so scared to touch anybody because they go to HR and report us for her. And she said, well, don't put your goddamn shape. You know, fist bump, put your.
- [40:19]
C
Me.
- [40:21]
B
It dawned on me that's the way people want to live. You have. I see you, I want to shake your hand or grab your arm. You know, hey, man, how you doing? How you hammer hanging? What's going on? You know, that's the way people live. And they tried to make us live another way. And I thought it. I'm right. I said, but that's your party, though.
- [40:42]
A
That's your party.
- [40:43]
B
It was 15% of the Democratic Party.
- [40:47]
A
Well, that's what I mean, that's all. I mean, that's all I mean by that.
- [40:49]
B
Meaning I was on the left. Yeah. I can't. I can't. 65% of Republicans believe that January 6th was a tourist visit. It actually was a criminal act against the United States. This is a kind of naive. Some college professors were sitting around and said, you know, we're going to change the way people talk to each other, right? No, we're not going to do that, lady.
- [41:13]
A
James, let me. Let me transition, because while I got you on the subject of the president, I'm talking to you about both parties and how you're feeling. Let me transition to Trump's decision to bomb Iran in concert with Israel. What are your Thoughts about that decision? How are you feeling about it?
- [41:33]
B
So I'll walk you through it. So we had Max Boot on our podcast today. He's a big, was a big neocon, big Barack war, guys. Gazan, Iran war. And I said, you know my, our experience is about wars we grew up with. So I was in the Marine Corps during Vietnam, but while I was in there I figured out ain't nobody wanted to fight this war. And I, and when I knew it wasn't hopeless is when I was in the barracks and I actually didn't go to Vietnam. And the people that went to Vietnam considered me a hero because I didn't go. And I said, wait. The people that actually fought the war said, man, you don't want. Fuck you lucky son of a bitch. You stay right where you are. And so they called me out in February of 15th of 1968 and said, if you sign, we'll give you $1700 and make you assault, give you E5, give you another strike if you sign up for two more years. And I told the guard, so I said, gunny, I ain't signing shit. The guy looked at me, he was like a 23 year old Marine Corps veteran. And he said, I don't blame you, you asshole. Get out of here. I wouldn't sign nothing. That's where that war was in 1968. And I thought that the Iraq war was another civil war that we were getting in. We didn't have any interest, we didn't have an opponent. We were trying to change the regime which. Okay, that didn't work. So how do you feel now it's happening here? I think it's the same thing. How do you define winning? What is, what is winning? So they went in and they killed Khomeini, okay, Who cares? I mean, I'm not shed tears for him. They killed all the other people. They wanted to be a successor. So what did, what do they think is going to happen? The people around say, well, these people are bombing the shit of us. I think we'll elect Franklin Roosevelt or Martin Luther King our next. No, it's not the way it works.
- [43:24]
A
What about the argument that it can make China now checkmate? Because first you know what we did, what we did with Maduro in Venezuela and now we got Iran. So no more cheap oil for Russia. You might have to. Or China rather, you might have to deal with us.
- [43:38]
B
What about that notion you got to get an oil guy? It's an open world market, okay? It's a price on a world market. So you cut off 5% of the world supply, then the world will get supplied somewhere else. By the way, it's costing Americans right now at the gas pump. So we're paying you, the American consumer are paying for this on the hope that you might be able to restrict China's oil supply, which I don't think you're ever going to do, but that, so right now you're already paying for this war. Then when you pay for a war and you say, well, this war at Iraq war costs, it cost us trillions of dollars because you still paying the VA medical care, you're paying for psychiatric chair, you're paying for people that have been maimed, wounded. Wars are not things that you people should enter lightly. I'm not a pacifist, but I am definitely, I would call myself not a passive, but I have a very dovish view about war.
- [44:40]
A
We got to, we got to, we got to get ready to go. But I got to ask you this question. So moving forward, looking at the Democratic Party feeling how you're feeling about what transpired last night in Texas, right. From a national perspective, I've been making the case there's no definitive leader yet. There's a lot of qualified candidates, people that know politics, that would do a good job if they were in the presidency, but somebody that actually resonate with the masses out there and could beat a Marco Rubio or J.D. vance in 2028. That's not what I'm seeing from the Democratic Party. What are you seeing?
- [45:14]
B
Okay, so first of all, you're not going to say that until you have a presidential nomination because a political party without a president is not going to have a message. And by the way, I think the Democrats are going to take the House back. I would, I would think about not a great predictor. I would think they're probably going to take the Senate back, but that's not the question here. They're not going to be able to pass anything.
- [45:33]
A
Okay.
- [45:34]
B
But you have, you'll have eight candidates. And this is what I would say, like when you look at a draft class, NBA or NFL or something like that, draft class, and you say, man, this is a, they got five or six people in this thing. You know that that's going to, going to be impact players right out of the shoot. And then sometimes you look at the draft and you say, well, there's maybe there's one or two that are going to make an impact in their first year. There are seven first round all world draft picks in a Democratic Party running for president. And then underneath the presidential level, Tal Rico, you can see what kind of talent he got. Watch this guy Rob sand in Iowa when I tell you that he's got, if y' all look at that guy, to say, you know, that guy one day has a 5% chance to be a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Understand what I'm saying? That's pretty high praise. I mean, that that was like, you know, when Ted Williams heard Henry Aaron take batting practice and spring training and he said he got out, wanted to see it because he knew right away this guy's gonna be James.
- [46:40]
A
Yeah, James, I gotta get ready to run, man. I got a commercial break to get to. I thank you so much for your time and I appreciate it. And I promised I was coming on your podcast and I will be there.
- [46:49]
B
I will talk to you.
- [46:51]
A
All right. All right. My man, the one and only James Carver right here, Political commentator, podcast host, Democratic strategist extraordinaire, helped Bill Clinton win the presidency in 1992. By the way, right here with Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Triple 86696, POTUS, and number eight, 6696 POTUS, our number two. Up next. Don't go away. Your calls. Plus a former secretary of defense with us as well. Stick around. It's the Steve. It's the Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Back with more in a minute. Six minutes back. Hour number one back here on Straight Shooting with your student, Stephen A. Coming at you as I love to do every Wednesday night over the airwaves of SiriusXM POTUS radio channel 1248-6696. POTUS is the number to call up hour number two, we'll be talking to the former secretary, Secretary of defense, Mark T. Esper. He'll be on the show with us to talk about what's transpiring with Iran and the United States and Israel, all of that stuff. He'll be giving us a breakdown from his vantage point because he's an educated man in situations like this. So looking forward to hearing what he has to say. Thanks again to the one and only James Carville for coming on the show. He seems happy that, oh, actually, he did say he was happy that James Tellarico beat Jasmine Crockett. He thought that her comments about Hispanics, her comments about slave mentality, not to mention calling Texas Governor Abbott governor Hot wheels. You know, a year or two back, he thought those things came back to haunt her and he thought that that wasn't that's just not the way to go. So he's he's on a record stating that probably has something to do with it, I don't know. But it is what it is. James Telarico will be the Democratic nominee for the United States Senate seat in the great state of Texas, not Jasmine Crockett. That's the bottom line. We still got something to discuss involving Iran and the United States and Israel. Your calls and more coming up next as well. Do not go away. You're listening live to Straight Shooter with Stephen A. SiriusXM POTUS radio. Back with our number two in a minute. Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Welcome to our number two of Straight Shooter with yours truly, Stephen A. Coming at you, as I love to do, every Wednesday night from 6 to 8pm Eastern Standard Time over the airwaves of SiriusXM Polis Radio, channel 124. Number to call up, as always, is 86696 POTUS. That's 86696, POTUS. It is my honor and privilege to have my next guest with us right now. He served as the 27th United States Secretary of Defense from 2019 to 2020 and as Secretary of the army from 2017 to 2019 under President Donald Trump in his first term. He also served in the administration of President George W. Bush as deputy assistant secretary of Defense for negotiations policy. Please welcome for the first time to Straight Shooter with Stephen a Dr. Mark T. Esper. Mark Dr. Esper, how are you, sir? How's everything going? Good to see you.
- [50:15]
C
I'm doing well. Stephen, great to be with you tonight and with your audience. Thank you.
- [50:19]
A
Thank you. Thank you so much. Really honored to have you. Let's get right to it. What was your reaction to the US And Israel's bombing of Iran when you first learned of it?
- [50:27]
C
Sir Look, I think it's the right thing to do. I you know, I grew up with Iran since the revolution in 1979. It's been 47 years that they've been killing Americans, threatening the region, causing mayhem from, from Lebanon through Gaza, you know, the Arabian Peninsula, you name it. And these are bad guys. And, and as I said, they've been killing American service members, hundreds over the years. So I think there was a strategic opportunity in time to take this regime down or at least to degrade it significantly. And they've proved that they were unwilling to give up their ambitions to pursue nuclear enrichment leading to weapons. So, look, I think it's the right call.
- [51:07]
A
Educate us, please, sir, because where people like myself, novices like myself and others are absolutely, positively lost, and we defer to people like you is when we watch the President go on national television and tell us months ago, they've been completely obliterated, we've disarmed them, they're not a threat any longer. We were not going to allow them to have nuclear weapons. And they worked in concert with Israel and really decimated them. That's what we were told. So considering what we were told, why would this move be necessary?
- [51:35]
C
Yeah, well, I think if you go back to June of last year, which is what you're referring to, Operation Midnight Hammer, which is preceded of course by, by many Israeli attacks, the Israelis did do a fantastic job in terms of taking down their air defenses. Right. And that opened up the way then for the Israelis to attack ballistic missiles to take out other sites. And of course the Iranians responded and many of those missiles were shut down. But in the case of the nuclear program, we along with the Israelis did go after the core of their program, the enrichment sites and other sites, but at places called Isfahan, the Tanz and, and Fordeau. And look, the best you can do is set them back weeks, months or years in some cases. And I think we did do a significant setback to their nuclear program. But, you know, it just takes a matter of time, resources and will. And they will rebuild that. And so I think I'm. I guess I don't have the access to the intelligence anymore.
- [52:28]
A
Okay.
- [52:29]
C
That we saw or had indication they wanted to rebuild that program and they certainly were rebuilding their air defenses and missile defenses and capabilities.
- [52:36]
A
In your estimation, is this a war?
- [52:39]
C
Yeah, I think this is a war at this point in time. It's not a few day contingency like Operation just cause in 1989 or grenade in 1983. So my take is it's a war and the President has said it'll take several weeks, so I'd certainly put it in that category.
- [52:57]
A
Do you have any issue with the President's position, considering what the Democrats are saying on the opposite side of the aisle? He was supposed to consult with Congress. It's not constitutional. I read Article 2, Constitution. It gives him the right to make a move like this, it seems very clear to me. But nevertheless, they had a vote on it and it was struck down by the Senate today. I'm wondering what your take on all of that in terms of the Democrats coming at him the way that they did. What did you make of that?
- [53:27]
C
Yeah, no, you're right, Stephen. Look, there are a few ways to look at this. One of the things he has to do, others he should do, others that are nice to do. He certainly has the Authority under Article 2 of the Constitution as commander in chief to deploy the American forces to conduct operations like this. That's uncontested. Democrats and a few Republicans are saying, well, he's obligated under War Powers Resolution, which, you know, was passed in 1973 during the Nixon time. And consecutive presidents have rejected the War Powers Resolution as an encroachment upon their authority. But nonetheless, many at times have abided by it. And Obama, President Obama did not during Libya in 2011. This president, I think, from what I've read, has largely abided by the notifications so far to date with regard to notifying Congress. Now, look, then the bigger question is how do you really enhance your position here? Because the polls don't look favorable right now. And that is him coming out and speaking to the American people, getting his Cabinet out there and speaking to the American people, going to Congress, doing all those things that help build support, and if not support, at least understanding of what's at play here.
- [54:37]
A
What about the notion that he campaigned on no more wars? That's what he campaigned on, yet he's made this move. How should the American people feel about that? In your estimation? How would you feel as a member of his Cabinet if he said that and then something like this happened? What would be your position?
- [54:54]
C
Yeah, look, that's a fair question. I will tell you during my time in the Cabinet with him, he, he is averse to wars. He does not want to get involved in wars, particularly ones that involve, you know, some type of nuclear element. And so I think at this point in time, my sense would be that his, his counselors, his cabinet spoke to him and, and said, look, this is a strategic opportunity, at least as this is what I would have said to him. This is a strategic opportunity where a foe of 47 years is on its knees. They are unwilling to negotiate a serious end, a serious curtailment of their nuclear activities. And look, we can let them go and they'll build up their missile defenses and they'll build up the air defenses and they'll be more difficult to take down a year from now or two years from now, and maybe we'll pass this problem under to another administration or we can take care of it now. And I think everything lined up, the stars aligned and he saw the strategic opportunity to do so.
- [55:48]
A
What about the legitimacy, Dr. Esper? What level of legitimacy do you attach to the fears of American people when you think about Iran, who they are, the proxies that they have under their stewardship. You know, you've got the Houthis in Yemen, obviously Hamas and Hezbollah, it seems like they've been severely compromised. At the very least, that might be putting it kindly. But when you're a terrorist, when you're funding terrorists per se, and they're all over the world and you've gotten the money that you've gotten to do so, shouldn't that be something that the American people are incredibly concerned about due to this maneuver, this joint maneuver by Israel in the U.S. sure.
- [56:28]
C
Look, and these are things that need to be explained to the American people. And some, you know, like myself, maybe you remember this regime going back. It was this regime that stood up Hamas and stood up Hezbollah. Hezbollah who killed 241 service members in the Marine barracks explosion in 1983. If you go back that far, and we can go year by year and talk about Americans attacked and diplomats killed and whatnot. So look, this is an evil regime. They've sponsored terrorism throughout certainly the region for years. From Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis now in Yemen, Iraqi militias, they propped up the notorious Assad regime in Syria that used chemical weapons against its own people. So these are not good guys. And they spent billions and billions of dollars over the years, not just stirring the pot in the Middle east, but then repressing their own people. And it was just last month or two months ago now, in January, when the Iranian people came out fed up once again with the social repression, with the economic hardships, with what is a corrupt theocracy, and protested and at least 7,000 were killed in the streets, men, women, children. And some put the numbers at 32,000 people. So look, this is autocratic regime. The world's longest dictator, Ayatollah Hominy, was just killed three days ago and we shouldn't mourn at all his loss. But at this moment in time, it's worth pressing the advantages we have to see if we can topple this regime and push it over. Certainly we need to defang it.
- [57:55]
A
Dr. Marcus, we're right here with Stephen A. Straight shooter with Stephen A. You know, I want to be fair to everybody, so I want to make sure that I echo this correctly. A friend of mine just text me and reminded me Trump never said no more wars. He said no new wars. No new wars. I just want to make sure that I'm fair minded. It's good to be fair. Let me ask you this question. What about Israel and the role they play, if any at all, in influencing the actions of the United States of America. How legit is that in your mind? Or is that just folks whistling into the wind that don't know any better and they're just automatically assuming that Israel is culprit in all of this? Give us something. Give us some intel from your vantage point of how real or how insignificant that is.
- [58:39]
C
Well, you know, look, since the Israeli state was formed by the UN in the late 40s, it's been under pressure constantly from neighbors, and certainly since the Iranian regime has been their biggest foe since then. But they've suffered war and they are in a bad neighborhood. And this really all began. These dominoes began falling, Steve. Falling, Stephen, in October 7, 2023, when, when Hamas in Gaza sponsored, supported, funded, armed by Iran, killed, murdered 1200 innocent Israelis. And from there, of course, Israel went into Gaza to take care of them and eventually largely crushed Gaza. They took on Hezbollah, killed its leaders, took down Hezbollah, have gone against the Houthis. So for three, three years now, they set up the situation where we're in now. And so look, they are a country under constant threat. And their sense of vulnerability was broken on October 7, 2023. So we understand how they feel. Now, look, Bibi Netanyahu is a tough guy. I've known him for many years. He's quite the capable leader of that country and has led them through conflict. My interactions with him and really observing interactions between him and Donald Trump, I don't think he has any magic sway over President Trump. I. I think he understands the American position. There's been longstanding US Support from both parties, at least until a few years ago, for the Israeli people, the Israeli state, and I think they work as colleagues. But clearly the United States kind of calls these shots more than Israel does because Israel is dependent on the United States for diplomatic support, moral support, arms and ammunition, those types of things.
- [60:16]
A
You know, one of the interesting things as well is that we watched President Trump going on a tour through the Middle East, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, other places like that. And considering how Iran retaliated, I mean, even bombing a hotel in Dubai, we don't have any American bases there, but they did that. What do you believe their reaction, their act of reciprocation, what did that mean to you? How are we to interpret that? As American citizens watching the United States and Israel do what it did, and then watching Iran's response, what are we to make of that?
- [60:53]
C
I think it was a real mistake by the Ayatollah. I think those were instructions led to his Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to attack those sites. I think they realized, of course, that they would have no sway with the White House. And the Europeans were sitting things out. You know, for the most part, the best that Iran's friends China and Russia have done is is condemn US Action and protest. And so I think the Iranians were thinking, hey, look, we'll strike the Arab states. They'll react, they'll cower down. They'll press Washington to end this quickly. And it backfired on them. Rather than getting that reaction, what ended up is the Arabs said, hey, this is nonsense. Look, we told the Americans we were sitting this one out. We weren't allowing them to use our bases or airspace. And now you attack us. And so now they're moving into our column. They're saying, hey, we're going to support US and operations. So I think it was a strategic mistake by the I told. Or at least by his leadership to do that.
- [61:46]
A
Let me go to. Let me get a little personal with you here. How do you feel about the job Pete Hegseth is doing as the Secretary of War, the defense Secretary of the United States of America? What are your thoughts about the job that he's doing?
- [62:00]
C
You know, I kind of have a policy that my predecessors have followed as well. So, you know, my view is there are enough people. It's the job is difficult enough, and there are enough people criticizing. You don't need your successors criticizing and grading your homework as well. So I've never commented on Lloyd Austin during his four years and as SecDef, and I'm not gonna do the same with Pete Hegseth.
- [62:20]
A
People can make their own judgment, Secretary Esper, I totally respect that. I appreciate it. I had to ask the question. I appreciate your answer, and I respect that. And I respect that. What's the end goal in all of this, in your estimation?
- [62:31]
C
Well, you know, that's what people are asking right now, because there's been some lack of clarity, misalignment, if you will, coming from different voices from the government. But look, I begin here. I think General Dan Kain, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have enunciated very clearly military objectives of destroying their ballistic missiles and their missile production capability, number one. Number two, taking down their air defenses, degrading them severely, number three, destroying the Navy, and number four, making sure that we take out what's left of their nuclear complex. So to me, that's a core base of military objectives that are achievable, that are measurable. And we seem to be well on our way to that. Now, the next question Stephen, is, well, what's after that? Like, so if we want to do we want to bomb them long enough and push them so far that we get into the negotiation table so that they agree to never pursue enrichment again? I think that would be a good off ramp here, certainly no less than that, although I would argue that deal was on the table a week and a half ago, and that deal's gone. Now. The new deal would be no nukes, no ballistic missiles, no support to proxies. And then there's the long shot. I think the best option, which we have the hardest to accomplish and the least influence we have to do, is a complete regime change where the people rise up and they take over in some type of difference.
- [63:47]
A
Do we want to be a part of that, though, Secretary Esperan? Do we want to be a part of that, of being a part of a regime change that's very complicated, that that invites a level of hostility we might not want to deal with? Do we really want to engage in that way?
- [64:01]
C
I think it's too hard. I think that would involve some form of troops on the ground. It's, again, very difficult to do. That's why I say it's a long shot, right? If you can do it, if you can somehow support internal militias there. There's talk about supporting the Iranian Kurds and stuff like that. The Israelis are really pushing hard to do this. It's worth a shot, but I wouldn't put that up as. As my measure of success because it's so difficult to. To achieve without putting troops on the ground.
- [64:26]
A
Let me move on to additional, you know, a different area of this world because the Pentagon announced yesterday that the military is conducting operations in Ecuador targeting, quote, unquote, designated terrorist organizations in a Latin American country, marking a new front in efforts to curtail drug trafficking. Why is now the time for servicemen to deal with this, in your estimation?
- [64:49]
C
Well, you know, I saw that report. I didn't see much detail on what's happening, why that in particular, I will tell you, during my time in administration, the president was very serious about. About drug trafficking and killing. This coming up from. From Mexico, mostly the fentanyl, it was killing 100,000Americans or so. And I think. And we had taken some action to do that, but I think he came into the second administration kind of far more, with far more conviction to take this down. So I. My guess is this is part of that program where they've been going after the cartels, going after drug traffickers to rid this scourge, because, look, we all know people who've had their communities, their sons and daughters, family members affected by this. My wife and I raising our kids. Our biggest concern was somehow our kids would get hooked on drugs. And thankfully they didn't. But it's terrible. So I'm glad there's some focus on it. And if this is one way to do it, I think. Look, I think addressing this problem takes both a supply and demand approach. But, but if we can, if we can slow down the flow of drugs, I think that's a good thing.
- [65:51]
A
Absolutely. Before I let you get on out of here, I want to switch back to Iran in this regard. Four days into the war, the stock market has taken a hit. Oil prices have risen. There are threats to global shipping. I'm wondering what will the war's economic impact be on Americans? What, what are your comments about that?
- [66:09]
C
Well, you hit the nail on the head. The immediate impact are the energy shocks because 20% of energy, both oil and LNG, comes out of the region. It's largely stopped at this point in time. So you see both the oil markets prices going up and the futures markets going up as well. Look, I think it depends on how long this lasts. If it lasts for a few more weeks, at some point in time, the markets will settle back down. That's number one. Number two is not just how long it lasts, but are there any major curveballs that happen here that somebody else big gets involved, does Russia get involved, or something like that? And then maybe thirdly is what does the battlefield look like when we're all said and done right, we withdraw our forces, but what's left? Is it a new regime, not just a new regime made up of the old characters, but a new regime made up of new players? Or is it they've agreed to some type of condition, some type of inspection, stuff like that? So I think that'll have some impact down the road. But. But I think in the short term we're going to see these oil spikes and those things. Maybe there's a chance other commodities will be affected, but at this point in time, it seems focused on energy.
- [67:13]
A
How do we ensure that this isn't another Iraq or Afghanistan?
- [67:19]
C
Yeah, well, look, I think you start getting concerned about that. And I think if that were to happen, it's the injection of boots on the ground, troops on the ground in large numbers is where I think you gotta start getting concerned about being trapped in that type of, that type of dilemma. I think at that point in time, you'll see more calls come up to do War Powers Resolution, because Congress is going to want to say in that, but that becomes a really big commitment. And so I think that's what we got to watch for. And we have to be, again, careful in terms of telling and communicating and setting forth what our objectives are. Again, the objectives laid forth by General Dan Kaine at the Pentagon briefing are very clear, very attainable, and they'll do a lot in terms of limiting Iran's ability to project power outside that. And if we stick to that, then I think that the chances of this turning into a multi year war like Iraq or Afghanistan are very limited.
- [68:10]
A
Very last question to you, sir, and thank you for your time. I ask you this as somebody who worked under President Donald Trump in his first term, but you're watching him now. How is that Donald Trump different from this Donald Trump that you're seeing, if at all? And is there a reason to feel more concerned or more comforted by what we're seeing, the commander in chief from the first administration to his second administration?
- [68:40]
C
Yeah. You know, I get asked this question often. I wrote about it in my memoir. I will tell you that during my first experience, and I was in, in the first term, and I was there for four years, right. From 2017 to 2020, what I saw is the president evolve. And that's not unusual. Right? Presidents evolve, they get comfortable with the job, they get more knowledgeable. But what I saw him is evolve in terms of knowing DC Better, getting more comfortable with his positions, with how he interacted with people. He ended up was more inclined to choose people that were more aligned with him and get rid of others. As you know, I was fired by President Trump in late 2020. And so I think he came into this and I predicted this. He came into this second term with being much more comfortable with the job, knowing what he wanted to do. He had four years to prepare to think about his policy positions. But most importantly, he knew who he wanted and what he wanted and who he didn't want on his team. And so he came out with people who were far more loyal to him and his cause. And so what you see now is he comes into the second term with a lot more energy, a lot more, more focus, and a lot more willing to kind of stretch the boundaries of maybe what were previous conventional administrations.
- [69:50]
A
I do, I apologize, I do have one more question because you just said something that sparked something in my brain. Is it good for a president to have people who are fiercely loyal to him and will just follow him lockstep, or is it good or Is it better for him to have somebody who questions some things from time to time and say this is not advisable, this is not wise, you do not need to, to do this and pose some level of resistance. What's better for this country?
- [70:17]
C
You know, I tend to believe that a president is best served. We have people around him who are, who are able and willing and have the experience and knowledge to express their own views and feel comfortable enough expressing dissenting views to the president. And he can, he can then or she one day will take them all in and come up with the best judgment. So I think, you know, a team that again, has that knowledge, that background, that experience and credibility and is willing to articulate those to the president and dissent privately with him is a good thing. I think it ends up with better policymaking. I feel the same way, by the way, about the government writ large. I like divided government. I like when both parties work together. They have disagreements in a positive way and can come up with constructive solutions to Americans problems that will endure and that will be acceptable. And to me, that's what's lacking these days and has been for some time in our government between the, certainly the legislative branch and the executive branch. But I'd like to see us get back to that.
- [71:13]
A
Dr. Marker T Esper, former secretary of Defense for the United States of America right here on Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Really appreciate your time, sir. Thank you for the education. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule. Know that you're always welcome back anytime. Thank you so much.
- [71:26]
C
Thanks, David. Thank you.
- [71:27]
A
All right, marks the esper. That's an education right there, ladies and gentlemen. Let it sink in. Inhale what the man said because he knows what he's talking about. Make no mistake about it. 86696, POTUS. That's the number to call up. That's 866-967-6887. You're listening live to Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Back with your calls to end the show in a minute. Got plenty of time. Got some lines open, but a lot of lines filled as well. I'm not going anywhere. Don't you go anywhere either. Back with more Straight Shooter in a. 30 minutes past hour. Number two, back here on Straight Shooting with Stephen A. Coming at you as I love to do every Wednesday night from 6 to 8pm Eastern Standard Time over the airways of SiriusXM POTUS radio. Let's get back to the phones at 866-9676-8878-6696-7688, 7. That's 8, 6, 6, 9, 6. POTUS to the phones we go. Let's go to Greg in Michigan. You're live with Stephen A. What's up, Greg? How are you?
- [72:27]
D
Stephen a. Boom shakalaka. Mr. Positive.
- [72:30]
A
How you doing? What's going on, Greg?
- [72:32]
D
Oh, my God. Go Pistons. I gotta tell you, a great interview with Mr. Esper and Jimmy C. Fantastic questions with Esper. Especially. Especially that last question. That was fantastic. Mr. President, I've got to ask you, number one, I think Trump is way over his head when it comes to what's happening with Iran because of what you alluded to earlier about China oil with Iran. There are so many countries that hate Israel. This is going to turn into a quagmire. Okay, that is going to be so bad. How do we.
- [73:13]
A
Let me, let me say. Oh, go ahead and ask a question. I apologize. You was getting ready to say, how do we what? Go ahead.
- [73:17]
D
How do we exit this quagmire? How do we get out of it? We will make everyone happy.
- [73:22]
A
Well, we're not. First of all, in times of war, first of all, nobody's going to be happy. Three American soldiers lost their lives. I think it's four, actually, maybe it's a little bit more than that. Bottom line is, when death has occurred, nobody's going to ever be happy because we lost lives that otherwise we would not have lost had this not happened. So God bless their souls and their families, you know, and bless their family and their loved ones or whatever. It's a tremendous loss for us all. My condolences to everybody. Secondly, let me say this. I don't trust Trump as far as I could throw him. I don't trust him at all. I don't trust that his soul is in the right place. I don't trust that he's made the right decision. Here's the problem. I can't trust the Democrats on this either. And somebody's got to be the commander in chief. Somebody's got to make the call. And if enough people are saying and reminding us of Iran's leadership and how many American lives they took and all of this other stuff, you know, from, from the 80s when they bombed the Marine base to, to anything else that they've done over the years via their proxies with Hezbollah, Hamas or the Houthis in Yemen or whomever. The fact of the matter is, is that when you look at what is transpiring, one would easily argue something has to be done. And I think that it's unhealthy. For us as a nation to walk around with the level of cynicism that we have right now. You've got people saying, all right, he's bombing them because he's trying to. He's. He's engaging in regime change. He's trying to get their oil. He's trying to pad his own pockets. And then they say, well, you know what? He's in bed with Benjamin Netanyahu. This is what Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu wanted all along. It's just all of these conspiracies. And I'm not saying they're true or false. I'm saying, damn it, it's America, y'.
- [75:21]
B
All.
- [75:21]
A
Can we be together on something? Let me tell you something. 911 is the most tragic thing I've ever witnessed as an American citizen to this country in my lifetime. I was laying in my bed at my apartment in Voorhees, New Jersey, and I watched the first plane hit. And I was on the phone. I'll never forget as long as I live. And my sister Arlen was down there working on Wall street that day. And I was on the phone with my friend Kendra. And literally the words that came out of my mouth was, I can't believe that. That probably was probably drunk. I mean, what the hell is going on with this world? I mean, you can't even fly a plane right this morning. This is ridiculous. And then after I said that, a minute or two later, I saw a plane coming around, and I said, kendra, hold on. What's that. What's that plane doing? What's that plane doing right there? And it crashed into the second tower. And the first words out of my mouth was, oh, my God, we are under attack. They have attacked. Somebody has attacked the United States of America. And I will openly confess to you, all of y', all, over this phone, over this, over this show, all of you listening. I am a black man. In America, racism, prejudice, and all of that other stuff is usually on our minds. It is the only time in my life where that was the furthest thing in my mind. All I saw was red, white, and blue. America. We. We are under attack. We. It didn't matter. Your color, your ethnicity, your background, rich, poor, whatever. We are under attack. That's all I thought about. And we got to get their asses. To me, it would be nice that when it comes to global or geopolitical issues, if America was at least aligned with that. If you got stuff going on internally within the corridors and the barriers and the boundaries of our nation, I'm down for that. But when you go out on that world stage, it should be all about America. America, anybody? Nah. America. I don't see that. So even though I got my antennas up and I'm always suspicious about whatever motives the President may have, who the hell are any of us to say it? Because who can you point to that you don't say that about? In the world of politics, the answer is no one. Greg, I'll give you the last word real quick.
- [78:25]
D
Oh, my God, that was beautiful. Stephen A. Looking forward to you on Christopher Cuomo tonight. And keep that passion. Damn it, you rock.
- [78:34]
A
Take it easy. My man Amir in Michigan, you're live with Stephen A. Holla at me.
- [78:39]
D
Hey, Stephen A. I appreciate you for having me, my brother.
- [78:42]
A
Thank you. Thank you for calling. Go ahead.
- [78:44]
D
Listen, I wanted to ask you. We saw what happened with Jasmine Crockett last night. We saw her numbers so far. They're saying that she won the black boat 8 to 8 out of 10. But the Hispanic and the white boat, she lost 7 to 3.
- [78:57]
A
Yeah.
- [78:57]
D
I wanted to point out the hypocrisy from the Democratic side. Jasmine Crockett is one of their fire brands. She's one of the most highest earning or highest fundraising members of Congress they have on their side.
- [79:08]
A
Okay.
- [79:08]
D
However, when it comes to back her for a higher office, it seems like the machine jumped behind Talarico. Now, that's.
- [79:15]
A
Well, well, well. What happened was the whole Stephen Colbert thing generated an additional 2.5 million for him in 24 hours. That didn't help her cause at all.
- [79:28]
D
So when I'm looking at it from a different angle. So, transparency. I'm a Republican. I'm a conservative.
- [79:34]
A
Okay.
- [79:35]
D
But seeing the rise. But no, I'm saying it's the rise of the urban conservative movement. And I was wondering, have you seen. Have you understood or paid attention to the rise of the urban conservative movement?
- [79:48]
A
No, no, not that much. Here's what I would tell you. I'm not. Contrary to popular belief, I don't deem myself or view myself as a conservative. But I will tell you, I have been absolutely appalled for years at how black conservatives have been treated. Like, wait a minute. Do you have facts to refute? Their facts don't come with emotion. And then all of a sudden calling cats sellouts and all of this other stuff because they're black and they're supposed to be liberal. Who the hell are you to say that? I've always been appalled by that. That's why I make it a priority to make sure that I have just as many Republicans on my show as I do Democrats. And I am particularly sensitive to black conservatives because I find it appalling that folks think that because we're black, we are automatically supposed to think a certain way. Who the hell are you to tell anybody how to think? I'm a registered independent, bro. And let me tell you something, Amir, you going to always, if you know anything about me, you'll have just as much air time and your feelings could be expressed and your facts can be spewed just like I would do for the left. It ain't gonna be that favor. I can't stand that stuff that. That really pisses me off because you're ask, you're demanding that we be puppets that we don't think for ourselves. When you say meaning not you, I'm talking about them. When you say, hey, well, you know what? You're a black conservative. You ain't down with us. You a sellout. You ain't down for your community economically, immigration, safety in the streets, education, health care, et cetera. There's a plethora of issues to attack. And if we're being honest about the black household, there's a lot of stuff going on with the progressive left that most black households would never tolerate with us growing up. But all of a sudden we want to act like we forget that we engage in selective amnesia. Excuse my language.
- [81:43]
D
We.
- [81:44]
A
That's bullshit. And I'm not going for that. So, Amir, you ain't got no problems on this side. My brother. I haven't paid much attention to it, but I know it happens to be true. Because on far too many occasions, people just want black conservatives. Do you know you black? They want you to be a puppet and just think along one party line. And they don't want you to think for yourself. And I ain't down for that, bro. I'm not down for that.
- [82:07]
D
Listen, you hit the nail on head. I'm a Navy veteran, I'm retired federal law enforcement, and I am. I am the congressional candidate in Flint, Michigan, a place that's been for Democrat is. I am the Republican candidate here.
- [82:19]
A
So guess what? I'm going to have you back on and we going to talk. I'm going to interview you and we're going to talk about your issues and your game plan and what your vision is for the state of Michigan. Happy to have you on, bro. Happy to have you.
- [82:29]
D
I appreciate it, my brother.
- [82:31]
A
Take it easy.
- [82:31]
D
Thank you.
- [82:32]
A
No doubt. Gabrielle in Oregon. You're live at Stephen A. Good evening. How are you?
- [82:37]
D
Hi. I'm doing lovely. How are you?
- [82:39]
A
Is it. Is it Gabrielle or Gabriella?
- [82:42]
D
It's Gabrielle.
- [82:43]
A
Gabrielle, how are you? I'm doing fabulous.
- [82:46]
D
How are you?
- [82:47]
A
I'm doing all right. Floor is yours.
- [82:51]
D
Sorry, what was that?
- [82:53]
A
Yes, you're live on the air. Go ahead, make your point.
- [82:59]
D
We just wanted to know what you thought about the cost of the war in Iran.
- [83:04]
A
The cost of the war. I listen monetarily. I'm not even going there. You know, who knows what that's going to end up costing us? We better get some of that oil. We're going through all of this because it's certainly going to cost. But I would tell you, lives lost, obviously, that's a huge factor. They absolutely, positively cannot be. American boots on the ground. We cannot send American troops to Iran. Trump will never get away with saying that. He's not about war. As my boy Jeff said to me, no new wars, not no more wars. But the point is, American troops cannot be on the ground in Iran. That would be disastrous. Now, the people of Iran, in fairness, they seemed in a very celebratory mood once America and Israel did what it did. And Dyatoli Khomeini. Khomeini was killed. They seem to be joyous because there's a level of oppression that's been going on, and thousands of people were killed or incarcerated because they were posing resistance to the Iranian government. So we can't assume that people are going to be against America's involvement, particularly in this day and age. But the point is, we don't know. And we certainly have our share of enemies, and I don't think that we should be endorsing American boots on the ground. Absolutely, positively not. Outside of that, our weaponry, I imagine we have amassed plenty, and we'll be just. Okay, Gabrielle. All right.
- [84:31]
D
Yeah. Have you seen the list of, like, the 50 cities that are, like, under attack and, like.
- [84:37]
A
No, I haven't seen it. I haven't seen it, and I have to go. So I appreciate your call, but I'm imagining that there's plenty. When you. When you attack Dubai and we don't even have an American base there, you're hoping to rile up the Middle East. And as Secretary Esper pointed out, you have the Middle east that's turned against Iran because they saw it as a tactic that Iran was trying to employ to get them involved, to turn them against the United States of America, and they did no such thing. They didn't allow the United States to attack from any of their military bases or anything. Like that. So they're like, what you attacking us for? So the fact that they did this was definitely something that could come back to bite them if that is true. But that remains to be seen. I gotta go. I appreciate the call. Thank you so much, Gabrielle. Dave in California, you're live with Stephen. A. Talk to me, Dave, go ahead.
- [85:23]
D
Oh, my goodness. I tell you what, I was listening to C Span this morning and you know, I had somebody talking about the, the War Powers act and they said, well, it was somebody for the administration and they were saying, oh, it's nothing, it's nothing new. We've done this for 45 presidents. And I'm like, yeah, that's the whole point, you know, but we're tired of doing that with 45 presidents. You know, that doesn't mean I'm not a patriot, my friend.
- [85:57]
A
Okay?
- [85:58]
D
It means is I hate killing people. And I'm sick of us doing all this stuff we do and then leaving them hanging, you know, Makes sense.
- [86:07]
A
Makes sense. And that's a valid point. I'm not here to refute that. You're entitled to those feelings. Others would disagree with you. But you're coming from a humanitarian perspective, you understand that tells me that you're a God fearing individual that cares about your soul and you don't want to be associated with murdering civilians or anybody for that matter. That's to be respected, not, not condemned.
- [86:25]
D
Yeah. And I'm looking at the attitude if you listen to headsets and Trump. Yeah, I don't like like two chill. They're like two children going, look at how big our stuff is. We can bang everybody.
- [86:38]
A
You know, listen, listen, listen. Here's the deal. And I gotta go, sir. And I appreciate your call, Dave. Thank you so much. I will say this. Obviously you've heard me condemn Trump from the standpoint that he acts like a child on too many damn occasions. His style of leadership is just something I appall. And I've said that on many, many occasions. Pete Hegseth is another person who annoys the living hell out of me because I know, listen, I respect and I appreciate and am grateful for his service to our country. But this man went from a weekend host on Fox News, not even a daily host, a weekend host on Fox News, to be in the Secretary of Defense. And him and J.D. vance both rubbed me the wrong way because they both seem more interested in mimicking Trump than just doing their damn job. I just don't like it. I just don't like it at all. They don't make America feel comfortable with the things that they do and the decisions that they make and the rationale that they utilize in explaining why they do what they do. But it's just me, you know, what do I, I'm not here. My approval is not required. So it is what it is. 866-967-6887. That's 86696. POTUS back with your calls to close out the show. In a minute. Derek Li, John Kendall, I see y' all on the lines. I'm coming right to you. Don't go away. You listen live to the Stephen A. Smith show, Straight Shooter with Stephen A. Smith right here on potus radio, channel 124. Back with your calls to close out the show. In a minute. 48 minutes past hour. Number two. Back in here, Straight Shooter with yours truly, Stephen A. Smith. Let's get back to the phones. Got the, got the lines, a couple of lines open. But we're here for the next 10 minutes, so let's get right to it. Derek in New York, you're live with Stephen A. Talk to me. Derek, how are you?
- [88:24]
D
Good stuff. Do you think that Trump's gonna endorse King Baxter or John Cornyn?
- [88:29]
A
I'm sorry, you said, you said Trump
- [88:31]
D
is going to do what, Ken Paxton or John Corner in the United States Senate in Texas?
- [88:36]
A
I'm inclined to believe he's going to, he's going to back Paxton. I know that he's got some moral issues, to say the least. Corny has been around for a very, very long time. Got a lot of money backing him. Maybe it'll be Cornyn. But I just get the impression that Trump considers Cornyn part of the old guard and he knows that Texas is incredibly important. Bottom line is here's the deal. He's going to act in, like, who can beat Telorico because Telo is going to be formidable and who's going to beat him? And James Carville pointed out early on this show that it's going to be such a bloodbath in the primaries between Cornyn and Paxton. Paxton that the Democrat just get Telo. Rico just gets to sit back and just, just, just get fed all of this ammunition that Cornyn is going to put out there to try to save his seat. So it's hard to say who Trump's gonna pass. But I think that Paxton is a, Paxton is a guy that is, it's one of his guys. He's considers that one of his guys. More so than Cornyn, in my opinion.
- [89:43]
D
I don't know I just think he's. I think you're. I think you're right. I think that. That the Republicans may force him to force corners. But they may. They may. He may wants Paxton, though.
- [89:54]
A
Yeah, I got you. Who knows? We'll see what happens. But, Derek, I appreciate the call. Thank you so much. LJ In Texas. Shiv. Stephen A. What's up? Lj, how are you?
- [90:03]
D
Hey, I'm good, man.
- [90:04]
B
How are you?
- [90:05]
A
I'm doing all right. Thanks for calling. What's up? Great.
- [90:08]
D
Hey. Yeah, Stephen, I just wanted to just touch base on a couple things, like. J. Charville, probably one of the best political analysts in the history of our country, knows how to call it like it is. Like I said, I think Jasmine Crockett went through a period where she got. She kind of got caught up with these guys, you know, here in Texas. Because I'm here in Texas, and I know what I've seen. A lot of things have gone on about the name calling and all these kind of things about the hot wheel guy. But that, again, a lot of people don't know the backstory was. That was when after they call her the Queen of the Coons, a lot of that stuff didn't go unreported.
- [90:44]
A
Let me say this. Let me say this, and I'm glad you brought that up, because when I asked, and I got myself embroiled in some brouhaha months ago because I said, is calling the president a piece of shit over the airwaves gonna help your cause? I in no way was implying or negating to point out that, you know what? He instigate that stuff. And he talked about her and he's talked about others in ways that we should never condone or endorse or anything like that. You know, what I was saying was it's about winning. So I'm not paying attention to the person that's in office, but so much in terms of what they say and do, because what you gonna do about it until election time rolls around. And in his case, he's not running for office again unless he circumvents the 22nd Amendment and runs for a third term. So the point is that it's not about the other person. You're right, L.J. and there's plenty of people that have said degrading things about Jasmine Crockett that was absolutely false and very insulting, and one I would dare say borders on misogyny from time to time. Acting like this woman isn't a highly intelligent and accomplished woman. Respect that woman. But in the same breath. It's also about understanding you're not the incumbent, you're after a seat. And what it takes to get it involves you ingratiating yourself with a constituency out there that's going to hold stuff against you that they ain't going to hold against somebody else. And you got to know that. So the point is, that's the game. You got to know what you can get away with and what you can't when you're dependent on the voter to position you for power. You feel me?
- [92:32]
D
Feel you. But at the same time, like I said, Tellarico was going. I mean, a lot of people felt like he was going to win anyway just because the fact that he's been in the state of Texas for the last few years, where she's been in. And she's been in Texas dealing with a lot of state banks and dealing with Greg Abbott, one of the worst governors that you ever would ever come across, ever. As far as what she does. That's what.
- [92:58]
A
But, but lj, he's still in office. He's redistricting and he's taking care of business in the eyes of, of millions of Texans.
- [93:08]
D
Right.
- [93:09]
A
So what I'm saying is, what I'm saying is you feel that way about them, but most voters don't.
- [93:14]
D
Right, but that's. Again, that goes back to what we're trying to change here. I'm a registered independent, okay. Been a registered independent for 50 plus years. And so my thing is this. You. It what? We have something you said a while back, a couple, a couple months back, when you said something about at some point in time we got to stop the name calling, get down, get down to the goddamn business.
- [93:40]
A
That's right.
- [93:40]
D
I'm saying, and the business of hands is the American business, not all these billionaires ingratiating themselves with more money, the whole country.
- [93:50]
A
Well, I gotta go because I got a couple of callers to get to. But that is business, unfortunately, that's negative part of business that billionaires pad their own wallets. But it's almost like what you say about what I say about America. When white folks catch a cold, black folks catch pneumonia, it's going to always be worse. The system is designed where other folks are going to benefit more than us and we're going to suffer more than them or before them. That's a part of life that we have to deal with. We could lament it. We just can't act like we get to neglect it, like it doesn't exist, because that's not reality. And that's all I'm saying. Appreciate the call. John in Texas, you're live with Stephen A. Go ahead, John.
- [94:32]
D
Well, for one, this Iran war, it's all about Israel. They've been pushing this since the 90s. The government has no credibility. Not just this government, but any. But as far as Texas goes, you're just not winning a statewide election without a moderate. It's on unachievable. I'm an independent. I think Paxton will lose if he's the nominee, but if his corpsman, I mean, I think he, he has a good chance of winning against whoever runs. But that lady, I. What was her name? She just away a little bit too far to the left.
- [95:14]
A
Jasmine Crockett.
- [95:15]
D
It's Texas. Yeah, it's just Texas, man. It's. People are a little bit more conservative. They don't want open borders. I mean, all of this stuff, that just has an effect. We saw housing prices go up. You know, I have, I have teenage kids. They can't find jobs. I got you because there's an unlimited supply of cheap labor.
- [95:34]
A
I got you.
- [95:34]
D
Just doesn't work, man. I'm sorry.
- [95:36]
A
Understood. And listen, you don't really apologize. That's how you feel. You have children and you're saying your personal experience gives you that. That's. You're. You're a voter. You have, that's, that's your. Let's your life. You have a right to feel that way, and don't let anybody condemn you for feeling that way. But be open minded to hearing facts that might refute that from time to time, if that indeed occurs. Appreciate the call, John. Thank you so much. Kendall in South Dakota, you're live at Stephen A. Go ahead real quick. Kendall, floor is yours.
- [96:03]
D
Yeah, I'll make this real quick. You kind of hindered on it a little bit when, when Iran took our embassy and when they killed our Marines in Lebanon and all the other stuff Iran did. If every president since Carter would have done what Trump just did, how many millions of lives would still be people, still be alive? We were fighting basically a proxy war in Iraq. We were fighting Iran. They were supplying equipment and training the insurgents in Iraq. We, every one of those presidents said if we went to war with Iran, we would lose. That's the reason why we never did anything about Iran. In three days, we have air superiority and their navy's about gone.
- [96:41]
A
Well, what happened is. What happened is, is when Hamas, you know, invaded Israel on October 7, 2023, and kidnapped and, and, and killed the vast majority of 1200 Israelis, okay? When they did that, it opened the floodgates because it allowed you to target Hamas, it allowed you to target Hezbollah. The Houthis got involved in some capacity dealing with, you know, trying to. Trying to further damage Israel, which gave Israel further license to attack them in the United States. States jumped in. Saudi Arabia certainly didn't mind getting involved as well. So you have all of that stuff going on. And because your proxies were compromised, that opened the door to get at Iran in a way that never presented itself to that degree before. So it's not about blaming previous administrations. It's about the fact that Iran wasn't as vulnerable in years past as they were at this particular moment. The problem is the president isn't articulating it that way. Way, he's saying a whole bunch of other things too.
- [97:40]
D
What people are forgetting, and they're forgetting it very gradually, is the Shah was bad guy, no doubt about it. But not one good thing happened since the revolution. Not one good thing.
- [97:52]
A
Okay, gotta run. Gotta get on out of here. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Stephen A. Straight shooter with Stephen A. I gotta sign off, but I'll be back next Wednesday night, 6:00pm Eastern Standard Time. Until then, peace of love, everybody. Take care.