Rachel Bovard Joins To Roast Josh, WAPO Slashes 1/3rd of Paper, And Kamala is Back

And we're live. We're having some technical difficulties. Let's see if we can pull this one off. Welcome to the show. Happy Friday show. What a whirlwind that was. Rachel Bovard, current guest of the program, finally back, vice president of the Conservative Partnership Institute. Very happy to have you. We have Erika gone today. She's giving a spiritual talk in Phoenix, which makes a lot of sense. So, we've got to bring in some of the flamethrowers. We have Rachel and Josh. There's a lot of political news going on.

And we're really looking forward to getting your insider take on a lot of this. So, today, up top, we're going to be starting with what we're looking at in terms of the backdoors of Congress, specifically what may seem like a technical debate with the filibuster, but actually has much larger implications for what could happen after 2026 and what we're looking at for the landscape. The second we have here is the Washington Post has laid off about a third of its employees, a very significant number, and that just sparked a lot of behind-the-scenes talks about future media.

Obviously, you get some of their greatest hits of what they've been producing as of late, but where does the future go for That was like a perfect birthday gift for me. I figured I wouldn't be getting too much sympathy.

From Josh on that one, but of course, we have good news. We have Twilight Zone, everything you'd expect from the show, and thanks again, Rachel, for you joining today. We're looking forward to getting your perspective. So, I think what started this conversation, we'll just get right into it here, was last show, we kind of hinted at it, winked at it. Ross, do that.

You gave his two cents on Trump has lost the Republican Party here, and Josh, you even said that you're really expecting the House to go back the other way. This is kind of a standard thing that happens in the cycle, but... Ross said, you know, this is a little bit preventable at this point. I'll share his tweet, and it'd be interesting to get your two cents, Rachel, is just what you see of the state of play going forward, and we can get into a little bit of the weeds with the politics behind it.

So, here we go. Since a few have asked, here's a quick list of big and small things the Trump administration could do differently over the next eight months to improve its political position. One, don't flood the capital of a purple state with thousands of under-trained federal agents as a flex against political rivals. Pressure allies by all means, but don't threaten to use the U.S. military to seize their territory.

Don't issue any more gross pardons. Put forward at least one piece of legislation linked to jobs and wages and cost of living issues, family policy, industrial policy, middle class tax cut, and talk a lot about it, even if it won't pass. Five, talk publicly about AI in a way that's key to public anxiety about its downsides. Six, since Trump will always be abnormal, aim for extreme normalcy. ...in public engagement offered by staff, cabinet officials, etc.

Seven, but at the same time, in places where Trump has better instincts than some of his allies, let Trump take down the temperature, as he seems to be trying to do with ICE. Eight, don't post edgelord memes on social media accounts. None of these suggestions are likely to save the House from Republicans, but an administration that followed them would stabilize its position and have a better chance of keeping the Senate and put any potential Trump successor in a better position. Rachel, you get guest privileges today.

What are your first thoughts on these suggestions? It should be football. She should decide whether or not she wants to go first or not, right? Okay. Yeah, go ahead. You can punt if you want. Take your pick. No, it's fine. I'll take it. But, you know, you've probably already covered this. Historically, midterm challenges always exist for incumbent parties, so I think you're already dealing with those traditional headwinds. But I think what is...

Interesting about this particular midterm is that the Trump administration has been transformative on a number of fronts, right? You know, we saw massive executive orders. We're seeing immigration laws being enforced. The southern borders effectively shut down at this point. Like, we are seeing a lot of the things that they promised, but the problem is they came in in force in the beginning and did everything so fast that, you know, the American people who have goldfish memories are just like, well, what have you done for me lately?

I think they rightly can claim a lot of campaign promises kept, but it was last year. And we do not remember that far back, and I think we are focused on the chaos of today. I will say, though, I do agree with the critique that, you know, one of the reasons I voted for Donald Trump was to make foreign policy boring again, right? I do not want to hear about it. I do not want to see armadas off the coast of anywhere.

Like, I am not interested, and that is all we have been given, right? The last, you know, two or three months, it has just been effectively like, you know, restructuring of the global order, which I am not... Completely opposed to. I'm happy that some of it is bearing fruit. Europe, for the first time, is actually producing munitions in its own defense. We are seeing sort of the domino effects happening that Trump was looking for, but I'm not here for creating resource colonies in Venezuela, or I personally don't care about Greenland.

I know a lot of people think it's meme-worthy, but... That, to me, is a little bit of a flashing red light, because you need base turnout, right? You need to give people a reason to go to the polls, and I think that isn't it, right? I think it's I'm curious for a lot of people. A lot of people tune into foreign policy stuff, but that's not going to get them to vote in a midterm election. So, I do think hammering on affordability, you know, the real focus on, like, what are you doing for me?

And I think this is not just the president's problem. Congress has to step into this breach, too. And I think that's been the real struggle. And if, you know, if we get to this idea of a talking filibuster, a lot of the impetus behind that is to say, Congress, show us that you're fighting for something.

Like, show us that you give a crap about something. Because right now, this Congress really suffers from, well, we passed the one big, beautiful bill. Well, nobody even knows what's in it. I live in Washington, and I study this for a living, and it's hard for me to articulate what's in it. Yeah. So, that's the real challenge, I think. And I think some people try to make you feel dumb because you don't know what's in it, and those people are benefiting from not doing a good enough job, full court press, like delivering it to the American people.

If you don't know, Rachel, if you don't know, I really largely have not heard about it either. Well, I'd like to know who's the genius. Who put in the provision in the beautiful, one big, beautiful bill that had ICE funding for three years. Like, that is an enormously brilliant move, as far as I'm concerned. So, all the squawking that Schumer and the Democrats are doing about, like, oh, this is terrible ICE and stuff like that, it's like, brother.

You can't do anything about it. They're going to have funding for the next three years, and in fact, even if you take the House, you know, which, yeah, I'm saying, what, 85% chance they'll take the House? I mean, you can't cut off the funding price. So, Trump has got the opportunity for four years to try to not only fix the border, which he did within a month or two.

Right, lock that down, but also to remove millions of immigrants that came into the country illegally during the Biden years. So, he's not going to have his hands tied on any of this stuff. The Democrats are powerless to do anything. So, if that was the only thing that was done in the big, beautiful bill, that would have been awesome. Now, I also happen to like the fact We kept the Trump taxes, which were done in 2017. Those were kept low. We expanded the child tax credit.

I think that's great. We also saw a reconfiguring of certain things about college loans. Next year, I will have a second person, a second kid in college. One of the things that they have done, though, is that they are starting to place some sort of common sense limits on the total amount of money you can borrow, which some parents are upset about, but it is like, you know what? Actually, families need to make some economic decisions here, and there is a college now, like we mentioned this before, like Santa Clara School of Law, like they kept just jacking up the rates every year, and all of a sudden, they brought it back down to $50,000.

Because that was the maximum amount that people would actually be able to borrow, and we're seeing this. There was another scholarship. Another college yesterday came out with this. I forget the name of it. It said, hey, if you can't afford it now that the federal government's gotten rid of the PLUS loans, we're going to make this new scholarship available, giving need-based grants to the kids who want to go to the school. I'm like, this is good. This is the kind of stuff we need.

Yeah, if I could synthesize your argument, I mean, essentially what Ross is, he just Pointed out all of the most sensational pressure point problems, the aggressive ice raids, the overseas threats, everything like that. What you are describing to me is not heard by people, but you're also not the administration.

So, step away from that. Well, I'm trying to let people know about the good things. Right, right, right. But clearly, that's not come across. I mean, I guess you would say Ross's point is generally true, is stay away from the most inflammatory, sensational action abroad and then inside, and then maybe calm down for the midterms. I mean, his advice is largely good. I mean, the first one, though, I disagree with him, and I think more border enforcement and more ICE enforcement is good, although Trump already made the change I wanted.

He is a lot less of the Ice Barbie, Kristi Noem press conference stuff, cosplaying, and actually Tom Holman, who gets the job done, and I think that he de-escalated the situation without doing a retreat. He is still doing border immigration enforcement in Minneapolis. So, I think, largely, I am very happy with how Trump has made that adjustment. Some of the other stuff that Ross recommended, I think, is all good. I mean, sure, go ahead. I think those are good advice. I still think, again, you're headwinds.

This is always the case. You know, what was it, Clinton's impeachment in 98, where Republicans overplayed their hand, and the economy was phenomenal in 1998. So, we didn't win, Republicans didn't win seats that year, and then right after 9-11, a year later, 2002, George W. Bush gained seats. Other than that, You're going to lose seats, and with a four-seat majority, yeah, you're going to lose the House, probably. So, buckle up and prepare for it. Yeah, and speaking of seats. What I like to tell people is, if you're an old judge, whether you're on the Supreme Court or on any of the other federal courts, maybe consider retiring and giving the United States Senate a chance to pick a replacement.

Yeah. Rachel, do you have a wish list for Supreme Court replacements? It's an interesting question. I refuse to acknowledge the possibility that we might lose any of them. Clarence Thomas is going to serve forever. I'm sorry. It's blasphemy. He'll live to 200, yeah. He'll live biblically long, hopefully. But yeah, no, I think on that one, because we actually, I pressed Josh and Eric on that one. We didn't have any thoughts. It might be time to start thinking about it. But I guess we talk about the seat problem, and it gets to this debate that I was hoping to have today.

Virginia Democrat lawmakers are seeking to pass a 10 Democrat, 1 Republican 2026 congressional map. I mean, if you take a look at this, it's what if Indiana Republicans don't want to do it, it's because we don't want to submit to pressure, national pressures, or whatever garbage excuse they came up with, and then Virginia gleefully draws up only one seat for a Republican. About 55-45.

You know, Democrat, and they're going to now have 10 of the 11 congressional seats, and this is a state that just, what was it, 18 months ago, voted to approve the voters by 67% saying, we want a commission so we don't have any of this gerrymandering garbage going on. And so, Democrats, who are always so big on democracy, and we need to end gerrymandering, they're the ones who always push for these commissions, you know, and they got it in Virginia, and then they decided to throw it right out the window because they want to maximize their thing.

And by the way, This just proves, this is wonderful. You know why this is so great? They've taken all the black voters in Arlington and Alexandria and sliced them into Fairfax County and put them into five different congressional districts. So, now we can say, oh, so it's not about diluting black power. You, in fact, want to be able to use that to make a whole bunch of Republican districts into becoming Democrats. So, it's not about race at all. You guys are all full of crap.

It's all hogwash, and you were right to mention Indiana, but it's also Ohio. There was an opportunity for Republicans in Ohio and in Indiana to maximize their advantage when it came to gerrymandering, and a lot of conservatives are saying, you should probably do this because they have been doing this in California, they are probably going to do it in Virginia, and now we know they are. Republicans in Indiana and in Ohio were hoping to de-escalate this fight, this arms race. They obviously were unsuccessful in that attempt, and this is the lesson.

So, it's power politics, right? Like, everything else that the people are talking about, oh, Trump, you know, is fascist, Trump wants to do all this stuff, this is power politics. And if Republicans, like, are unwilling or unable to dive into it, then what are we doing here? Right. We're just going to get our lunch eaten. Yeah, I just, I just wish we kind of, like, With this whole conversation, no matter how unseemly, I guess, you think it or feel it is, it's like, can we put on our big boy pants here?

Like, clearly, this is what's going on, and if you're unwilling to engage in the reality and actually play on the new rules, then, I mean, what are we doing? But that's actually kind of why I'm happier here, Rachel. We're having the discussion about the filibuster because we're kind of setting the scenes for, historically, the House would go back to Democrats, but even potentially the Senate at this point, which opens up a lot of different things. But one thing that's on the table right now being the SAVE Act.

It's gotten a lot of play. Really, I mean, all it would do is require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for individuals registering to vote in federal elections. Seems like pretty table stakes. Apparently, it's not. 14 different states. You don't have to provide any identification to vote, which is insane. It's an 80-20 issue. Many people agree you should have to provide some type of documentation to vote. And so, Congress, the House has passed it now twice. It's reached the Senate, and we get this debate about the filibuster.

And it's a little bit kind of the same conversation, maybe power politics. Not sure how you'd couch it, Rachel, but there's a debate over a talking filibuster, and it's a little bit technical, so if I could just pass it to you, why are you urging, say, Republicans to engage in this talking filibuster, even when there's a lot of people that are skeptical to do that, Josh including?

So, the first thing people have to understand is that, you know, I think people know what the filibuster is, right? It's the ability of the minority to, in historical context, speak for an endless amount of time, thereby delaying a vote from happening. The Senate has always provided two ways to break a filibuster. The first is what people are probably most familiar with, the 60 votes to what we call in vote cloture, which is just end debate, right? That's the easy way.

But the second way is the more traditional Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Oh, you want to delay the vote? Then you have to show up on the floor and you have to talk. That's existed in the Senate's rules since its inception. People don't use it traditionally because it's hard. It takes a lot of time, and you never really know when you're going to break the filibustering minority, but it's based on the principle of exhaustion.

Right? Trent Lott used to say there are actually only two rules in the United States Senate, unanimous consent and exhaustion, and you only get to the first when you've reached the second. This is the principle of the talking filibuster. You make, you exhaust, you impose a physical cost of the obstruction.

Because right now, Democrats can just go vote no on cloture and nothing happens to them. They don't have to explain it. The news cycle moves on. You move on to the next thing. They all go home at night to happy hour or whatever. A talking filibuster says, okay, fine, you can oppose it. That's your right, but you have to work for it. And I laid out in an essay in The Federalist last week, there are political advantages to this scenario. Especially when it comes to the Save America Act.

It includes some new provisions. You're forcing Democrats to explain to the world. You know, why they oppose voter ID, why they think illegals should be able to vote in elections. This is a 24-7 campaign ad for Republicans on an 80-20 issue, and Democrats are also incapable of behaving rationally, so these speeches are going to be unhinged, right? They're going to go crazy, and they're talking to their, like, blue-haired audience of The View, and so they cannot contain themselves, which is fantastic.

Right, or they don't want to talk, and they'll just, you know, filibuster procedurally. Oh, you're too cowardly to debate this issue? Great, let me tell everyone. Right, so that's the theory behind what we're talking about. It's a political exercise. Yes, maybe it results in passing a bill, that would be great, but the process of doing it is really important for two reasons. One, which I just said, which is it forces the opposition to defend themselves, right, which is right now they don't have to do.

Second, it forces the opposition to defend themselves, right, which is right now they don't have to do. It shows the American people, hey, we hear you on an issue that you care about, and we Senate Republicans are going to do everything we can to get it done.

So much of establishment Washington is only focused on outcomes. They say, oh, we don't want to do a strategy unless it's 100% guarantee of success. Well, that's not traditionally how the Senate has ever operated. You never start with 60 votes. You never start with 51 votes. The deliberative process, the politics, the ebb and flow of the debate, the news cycle, this is all what goes into whipping these issues and, again, showing the base that you're muscular and powerful instead of weak and pathetic in the face of Democratic opposition.

So, that is like a very, very high-level view. We can get into some of the specifics, but that is like an elevator pitch. Rachel, what happened last show was Josh filibustered me. Wait, Josh filibustered me last show, literally, and then said he would not be in favor of it. And so, Josh, in your defense, why should we not make our senators work? Why should we not do a talking filibuster in this instance? Well, I mean, I guess it just gets back to the point of, like, right now we have a situation where it is extremely difficult to get any legislation.

Near impossible to get any legislation passed the Senate unless you have 60 votes or a three-fifths majority, and neither Rachel nor I want to move to pure majoritarian. Sorry, I'm tripping on my words here. Neither of us want to go to 51 votes, can do whatever they want. The question just is, do you allow this process?

Where you do a talking filibuster, we make it a little bit more easy, but there's still some pain, because you have to, you know, it's a talking filibuster, it takes a lot more time, it gums up the works a little bit, slows things down, in order to pass some legislation without having to require 60 votes. I understand Rachel's arguments. I think she makes great arguments. My only point would be, like, in general, I actually am coming around more and more to liking the fact that it takes three-fifths to get most...

To get most anything done, precisely because I'm not optimistic about the Republicans we have right now, period. I mean, like, we have 53 Republicans, but when it comes to, you know, getting anything done, there are several people in the Senate among those 53 who are complete whiners, rhinos. I mean, not just Collins and Murkowski, who we think of the pro-abortion ones. You've got Tillis. I know he's on the way out the door. You've got Curtis, or whatever his name is, out of Utah.

These guys are just a bunch of... I mean, they're terrible. So, you might be able to get one bill, voter ID, let's say. Yes, I'd like that. Yes, but... But no one, Josh, I don't under... Okay, wow, he literally left.

I don't know what's going on today. Isn't that God saying I won the argument? Yeah, I think you won. But, sorry, just to put your feet to the fire here. No one is saying that we would end the filibuster. I'm not even sure how enforcing a talking filibuster changes the character of the filibuster at all. It's always been the case. So, are you not arguing against that? And if you aren't arguing against that, I understand. No one wants to get rid of the filibuster.

We just want our senators to work, would be my perspective. So, I see Lindsey Graham is against doing this talking filibuster because it would disrupt business, quote, change the Senate. I'm really not sure. That just seems kind of garbage to me. There's nothing backing that it would actually change anything. Other than just make them work. Are you against the timing of this? Are you against gumming up the works to get other things done? Like, what is your legitimate reason to be against the talk filibuster?

I think my biggest thing is, you know, the present circumstance, what we have right now, like, is thought to be completely, totally dysfunctional, but it does have the advantage to making it very hard to get legislation passed on the federal level, and I, in general, really like that.

So, I would just say this. What I am proposing does not change the character of the Senate. It has always been the case, since the inception of the Senate, that you could do a talking filibuster. This is not new. It's actually old, right? But nobody does it because it's hard and it's difficult to sustain. That doesn't change, right? If the Republicans do a talking filibuster on the SAVE Act, it doesn't change the fact that it would be extremely hard for anyone else to do it, including Republicans on a different bill, including Democrats on a different bill.

This has always been available to both parties. They don't do it again because it's, they cannot, they could not sustain or survive in a world. Where they launched a talking filibuster on every single piece of legislation. They are too old, candidly. They could not physically sustain it, and that's always, but this is the character of the Senate, right? That's why it's called the world's greatest deliberative body. This is actually deliberation. It is extremely difficult to sustain, but this, up until 1917, this was all the Senate had.

It was in 1917 when they instituted cloture, which is the 60-vote requirement. They did it to make it easier on themselves. Woodrow Wilson forced them to do it because he was sick of the filibuster. He's like, there's got to be a faster way to end debate. So, cloture became instituted in Rule 22. It was actually at 67 votes in 1917. Later on, in the 70s, they reduced the threshold to 60. What people, I think, don't understand is that, and I don't blame them because this is very sort of People have better things to do than worry about how the Senate operates.

Not me. But, fair enough. The world we live in now, where every single debatable motion is filibustered, that is unique. If you go back to even the early 90s... So, routinely, appropriations bills were not filibustered because every member, you know, had their say. They offered a lot of amendments. They got up or down votes. At the end of the day, it was considered ungentlemanly at that point to filibuster once you had your say, right? The Senate decided to accept your amendment, or they didn't.

That's just the process. If you're going to filibuster after that, you're kind of seen as a jerk. So, legislation would routinely pass at simple majority because there was no filibuster, so you didn't need cloture. It doesn't work like that now, right? 60 votes is almost seen, and I think if you polled the regular American, they think legislation passes the Senate at 60 votes, because every single thing is filibustered.

It has always been the case that we can lean into that environment and say, no, we're going to do it the hard way, we're going to do it the old-fashioned way. I don't think, just based on the character of the senators and who they are, that doing a filibuster on the SAVE Act, a talking filibuster, means every single piece of legislation after this will be in a talking filibuster. I agree with you on that, but basically, what I'm saying is it wouldn't mean that You would be able to get a ton of legislation passed.

You would have to basically pick your poison. You'd have to pick, this is the bullet we're going to try to push through. We're going to do this type of filibuster to get the SAVE Act, and we're not going to be able to do it on everything that we want. We basically got to pick one or two a year or whatever to really take our time, talk it out, and get it through. I agree that that's what you're saying, and I'm saying, ah.

Look, President Biden was calling for the talking filibuster. He was saying, let's get it done. Let's have a talking filibuster. He embraced it because he wanted to, when he was president, he wanted the Democrats in the Senate to go ahead and pass the DREAM Act. And if they would have done that, if Democrats would do, you know, Republicans would have gone along with that.

Then we would have had a situation where the DREAM Act would surely have passed into law, and you've got a pathway to amnesty. I don't think you can say that. I don't think you can say that, because so much of legislation that's been blocked in the Senate, let me give you an example. You don't know what's going to happen until you fight something all the way to the floor. You don't.

That is the process of deliberation. You are dealing with politics. You are dealing with dealmaking. Everything is exposed at that point. So, for example, in 2007, if you remember the Bush amnesty bill, this is like the Z visa bill, the Bush McCain bill, this thing was set to sail in the Senate. It got 67 votes on cloture on the motion to proceed. It was ready to go.

Did not look at that. They could have and said, well, there is nothing more we can do. This is definitely going to pass. They fought it all the way to the floor, and in a mix of procedural strategies, completely defeated it. In no one's mind was that the outcome that was supposed to be done. But the Bush amnesty bill was more ambitious than just the simple DREAM Act, which that would have been, I mean, if you have a talking filibuster.

The DREAM Act gets passed. I don't agree with that, but I think before I ever get to that point again, going back to what you were saying earlier that this is about prioritization is true, and I think that's actually the debate that you see playing out right now. John Thune has said, oh yeah, we could do a talking filibuster, but we just don't want to spend the time. It's not important enough to us. That's basically what he said. It would take up too much floor time, it would prevent us from doing other things, like the highway bill, the farm bill, Russia sanctions, permitting reform.

These are the real priorities of the United States Senate. So, in that sense, this is a clarifying exercise. Well, certainly, confirming judges, which is what I'm hoping that they'll spend a little bit more time on. Well, the talking filibuster doesn't prevent that. When you're in a legislative session, you can bounce back and forth between the executive calendar and legislative session. You could keep doing that during a talking filibuster.

Like, there are just, people keep throwing up all these objections that can be dealt with, but I think, to your point, I don't think you can say, oh, suddenly, if we... We will pass the DREAM Act if we launch a talking filibuster. It is not just a lever you pull. That requires Democrats to sustain it. It requires Republicans to show up. Like, there is a ton of things between A and B, right? People are right now saying, oh, a talking filibuster won't pass the SAVE Act.

Well, then why would you then turn around and say, oh, if we have a talking filibuster, we will pass the DREAM Act? No, I think you could pass the SAVE Act with the target filibuster. I agree with that. I mean, I think that would happen if you did target filibuster, yes. Well, because I've been dealing with a lot of people saying you won't pass it for all of these procedural reasons. Democrats could do endless amendments. Democrats could do this. Well, why couldn't the same also be true on the DREAM Act side?

No, I mean, if we got rid of, if we implemented, you know, if we started using the Taki filibuster, I absolutely think we would get the SAVE Act passed into law. I also think... You know, once you get the Democratic trifecta again, which is, you know, not totally crazy uncommon, given that we're a very polarized country. We just had it in 2021. I think, yeah, they passed the DREAM Act. I mean, so, in other words, I prefer the situation where it's basically three-fifths to get stuff passed the Senate.

You can get some stuff like the Lake and Riley Act, but it's really hard. Like, in general, I... So, I guess I'm frustrated with the status quo because everyone likes to opine about how Congress does nothing. They get jet fumes. They go back home. You look at the approval rating of Senate Democrats right now, if you want to look into it, and they all just basically become social media celebrities. They're two cents on the latest event on Twitter, and Ted Cruz talking about how great Israel is, and it's like, I thought we sent you to Congress to do a job.

And to put yourself on the floor and to argue on behalf of why this is best for my constituents, I don't even understand why we even allow this status quo of sending in people to do nothing to take the laziest possible option, all because we have too many octogenarian senators, because they can't handle doing their job and being there. I just don't understand. This makes no sense from a populist perspective. I'm like, we have the most ineffectual. So, you're happy with an ineffectual Senate.

Based on the same reason why presidents previously under the Republican Party did nothing, because they were scared of the other side doing something. And you talk about how much you love that for Trump, how he doesn't do stuff. Previous presidents wouldn't do something because Democrats would go do it again. Look what just happened in Virginia. So, I don't know. I guess I would rather have. I know you say you don't like some of the Republicans there. That's fine. They're squishy. But at least put them to the floor and make them talk, and then you can at least judge them upon the talking they do on the floor instead of the tweeting they do about whatever common issues.

Am I missing this? Under the current status quo. Both, you know, this bill can come up to the Senate, and both sides will talk about it and debate it, and then there's not 60 votes for cloture, so they don't advance to a final vote, and it's frustrating. I get that, but it's not like they're not talking about the bills. It's just a very truncated time, and then they move on to the next thing or whatever. In general, there's certain populist arguments.

I'm not suggesting this is what Rachel's saying, but it sounds like what you're saying, Tom, is like, we need them to do more stuff. It's like, I'd rather... I mean, if you could ask me, like, hey, we're thinking about having the United States Senate only in session for, like, two, three months a year, I'd be like, that's awesome. A whole lot less ways to gum up things. I mean, come on. Like, to me, it's like the more time they're spent in Washington, more chances they're going to spend more of our money anyway.

So, you just prefer to be done through executive order and then nothing to really stick? Well, look, you can talk about, like, we can make, you know, like, right now. A lot of times what they do is, when it comes to legislation, they craft it in a committee or behind closed doors, and then they bring it to the Senate in a way that they don't want a lot of amendments. But, you know, look, the senators from both parties have said they kind of want to prefer it that way, where there's fewer amendments on legislation, because they don't like casting tough votes.

So, to me, I would rather focus putting the energy on that. Why don't we have more... Did you just give the game away? Well, I'm just saying, I would rather have them have more debates on the floor and more amendments than to have a situation where you get rid of the, not get rid of the filibuster, but use the talking filibuster. Okay, I think, as just a point of clarification, whether or not Republicans do a talking filibuster on the SAVE Act...

Is immaterial to whether Democrats could or could not do one in the future. They can. They have always been able to do it. Right? Whether we do it or not does not somehow give them permission that they don't already have. They can do this whenever they want. So, the argument that, like, they might do it to us, or they might do it on issues that we care about, they have always been able to do it. The reason both parties don't do it is because it's really hard.

It's physically hard. It goes back to that theory of exhaustion. And these guys, the things that the senators like most are predictability in voting. They like to know exactly when they're going to have to vote. They like to be able to work two and a half days a week. Leave Thursday at noon. Right. No, I'm not joking. Like, this is the Senate schedule. I know. Yeah, and anything that disrupts that, and to Josh's point, they hate taking votes on anything, and you have this, and a talking filibuster is inherently unpredictable.

It's completely fluid because the Senate floor is set up that way, and so it terrifies them for all of these reasons. But to simply say, oh, if we do it to them, they're going to do it to us, they already can, and they may, but they are inhibited by the same factors that we are. Which is, it's very physically hard to sustain, and they don't like it.

I like it on principle because it's physically hard to sustain, because I'm tired of 80-year-olds running the country. Seriously. They just want to work two days a week. Is that crazy? Democrats had the opportunity to do this in 2022, and they chose not to.

No, they chose to nuke the filibuster. They tried to nuke the filibuster. Right, that is what they, the whole, oh, we're going to do a talking filibuster. They had the ability to nuke it, they could have done it. It was a lead up to, this is too hard, so we're just going to put in a vote to nuke the filibuster. That's what happened, right? And yes, that's my point. It is so difficult that they chose not to do it then, so I don't think it's logical at all for you to say, well, they're all automatically, we're definitely going to get the DREAM Act because they're going to do this.

It is, what we are looking for right now is a conference that is courageous and brave, and yes, physically virile enough to actually do the thing that the Senate is set up to do. Because again, it's like, we're not even asking for victory, right? That would be great, obviously, and that's possible here. But this strategy is also about just showing them that you're fighting for something, showing that you care. Because to your point, well, I don't want the Senate, whenever the They're going to do those things anyway.

Right now, they spend a ton of time doing stuff that they prioritize. Corporate tax cuts, the defense base, you know, war, right? Campaign finance. These are the things the Senate cares about, and honestly, I'm completely speculating here, but if this was Ukraine supplemental, if the SAVE Act dressed up as a tank and was going to the front lines of Ukraine, they would do a talking filibuster, because that's what they care about. And now we lose time. This cracks me up. Oh, no.

This is hilarious. Do you think Mitch McConnell is hacking into our stream? It is possible. I guess my point is, Republicans warned against the talking filibuster when President Biden was suggesting that Senate Democrats do it. They were also proposing a bunch of rules changes in addition, so it was not just the talking filibuster. I guess my point is that The Democrats in the Senate at the time could have, if they wanted to, right, they could have gone forward with that path.

They could have either nuked the entire filibuster, or they could have said, well, let's not nuke it, let's do the talking filibuster. And at the end of the day, the Democrats not meeting any Republicans, truly. decided against doing this. They walked back from the cliff and said, I don't think I want to do this. Walked back from what cliff? And just because Democrats are too lazy, why do Republicans have to be? I mean, it could be a desire to keep this, I mean, you can assign laziness to it, and that's certainly what the AOCs of the world were like, why aren't you doing this?

You should show you're tough. And ultimately, they realized that Yes, actually, maybe it is better, the better scenario, that we have the rules as they are right now, because it makes it tougher to pass legislation. The rules aren't changing. You always have this as an option. 60 votes will still be in the rules. I just think conflating them is accepting a premise I'm unwilling to accept. Yes, okay, so I take back that word, but like, this, you know, they decided to keep the business as usual.

Yes, where everybody protects each other. And people hate businesses. This is the uniparty. I hate business as usual. Yes. This is literally both sides protecting each other. The effectiveness of keeping it under this way and not exercising the talking filibuster is to require, for the most part, right, three-fifths majority for something to pass the Senate. And I'm saying largely as a conservative, I think that's not the worst thing in the world.

Everything passes the Senate at simple majority. The question is, do you break a filibuster the easy way with requiring 60 votes to end debate, or do you break it the old-fashioned way? Do you force them to talk? This has always been the case in the Senate. This is nothing new. This option remains.

Yes, so you're recommending that Republicans exercise this option, and I'm like, I could see why they would not. Okay, we'll end on that. I guess we fundamentally disagree. We'll see what the Republicans end up taking. My guess is they're going to take the lazy way out, as they have all the time, and then go pass another resolution to give money to some foreign country that has nothing to do with me or Indiana. So, it's just so frustrating even talking about the Senate.

And that's why people are mad at them, by the way, is because they don't do their job, and their jobs are so easy. And it's like, they get the coziest job in D.C. Anyway, I'll just be mad and rant, but Rachel, I wanted to get your two cents here. The Washington Post laid off about a third of its staff, and you get two answers on this, right? The one answer would be that Jeff Bezos, in his massive fortune, could keep this afloat for all these years, and by tanking the endorsement of Kamala Harris, it caused the subscriber lapse, and they're definitely in the tank.

The other... Your group would say that the headlines and the journalism, quote, end quote, that they provide are a little more than kind of partisan hackmanship. I know that they were started as like a Democratic newspaper, so that's not entirely surprising.

But I found from Catherine Boyle, she actually was an alumni of the Post, and I thought this was interesting to think about, but I want to get your two cents on what's going on there and then the future of media. So, she said, The newsroom had already been cut. The newsroom had dwindled to 600 or 700 reporters. After many buyouts, the Graham family strategy was to become a local paper, free from the cost of international bureaus and expensive teams. Marty Barron was brought on to execute this local strategy.

We called it managed decline. Before the surprise Bezos purchase changed everything, Bezos did the opposite of what the newsroom assumed he would do. He poured obscene amounts of money into a cash incinerator. He gave the post. A fancy new building, he subsidized every section of the paper, even the ones with no readers. He expanded international, he financed experiments in video and podcasting. He gave the newsroom a blank check for over a decade. Rather than pursuing a strategy based in reality, the Post newsroom became very accustomed to a billionaire patron, giving them everything they wanted in perpetuity.

In retrospect, this was a terrible business decision because it made the young reporters and editors delusional, the old ones who remembered the cuts and the pain of business before Bezos. When they finally took the free coffee away, they had all been fired or left the industry.

The for and about Washington strategy was also a loser because it retained the most expensive parts of the newsroom while diminishing its reach. Sports is expensive. Metro News is expensive. And, as pretty much every other local newspaper in the country has learned, that old local paper model is broken and has been since the internet arrived.

The Post brand was and is Washington politics. It's the seat of American power. It should be focused on covering politics from its premier perch in D.C. It should have never been distracted by anything else. It only ever needed this product. It lost sports to The Athletic. It lost international to The Times. There's no reason to compete on those products. I thought that was kind of an interesting inside look. Rachel, do you have any theories as to why these cuts came, and is this kind of a...

The death knell for large institutional newspapers in America. I mean, I think it's a complicated question, but I do think she hones in on something that's particularly accurate, which is, like, focus on what you're good at. Right? I think these newspapers have just become accustomed. They're still operating in this model of consensus media environments. Well, everybody subscribed to the Post because it was the only, you know, paper around, or there were like three, right? But now, people don't get their information from newspapers.

Our media environment is completely fractured. It's the nichification of media, right? We all get our information from different sources. There's not one consensus, like, you know, everybody watches 60 Minutes on Sundays or whatever it is. That just doesn't exist anymore, but... All of these newspapers act like that's where we still exist, while simultaneously, right, their identity is so incoherent that they're acting like they're speaking to the country, while simultaneously having to speak to this ever more progressive and limited subscriber base who only want to hear a certain type of news.

And so, I just think it's created this complete incoherence for once national brands that they just haven't been able to effectively think through. Which is only amplified by these billionaires coming in, pouring all this money in, protecting them from the market forces that would otherwise force that conversation.

So, I do think there is a crack-up coming, but I think the media environment has already moved on. Like, this should have happened 20 years ago, and it is happening now, and nobody cares. Yes. Well, the Washington Post's biggest mistake was to try to compete and become a national paper like the New York Times. I totally agree with that. And yes, they should have done this like 10, 15 years ago. But what they should have done... It's taking a page from the playbook of Disney.

So, Disney, I'm not a fan, okay, but the Disney movies, the CEO was at... A parade, I think it was, I don't know if it was in Japan or where it was, and he looked at all the floats that were going by that all the kids were loving, and these are the floats that were the most popular ones, and he started going, wait a minute now, that one, this one, and he realized that all the floats practically were Pixar, and he's like, hmm.

So, he goes, I should probably buy a Pixar. And so, Disney just says, you know, the animation king, they go buy a Pixar and say, what is it going to take to get in this car? And they buy them out. That is exactly what the Washington Post should have done like 10 years ago. They should have gone to Politico and said, I am buying you. And that should have been the beginning of what their rebrand was, which was to focus on Capitol Hill, and you should have completely owned it.

And let the Washington Times or something like that do crime stories in the district. Who cares? Not that people do actually care, but I'm like, who cares what I don't care about? Focus on where you have an obvious comparative advantage over your rivals, and that was a totally missed opportunity. And actually, if you wanted to be like that, you would also have to realize you should probably get the other half, which is conservatives and Republicans. Even if you don't like them, bring them in.

You should have bought some conservative news outlet. Bring them all underneath the roof. Find out people who can actually talk to these crazy creatures that are called Republicans. Then you would completely own politics. You could have had the chance to do it, and they just fumbled it. And I'm happy for it, because I think the Washington Post is... Absolutely reprehensible. Their biggest news story they ever got was, you know, Watergate, and that was just because somebody was bummed that he didn't get promoted.

So, that speaks to another element of this. Here is a tweet. It said, Laid off normal people. Well, this sucks. And then, laid off journos. Low wrath and ruin. Thou hath wrought murder against the very animating justice of the world. Just a long thing. I am seeing, like, protests outside of the building.

They remind me of kind of theatrical protest footage. Yeah, the crowd is. I mean, it is hilarious. So, I have a couple of questions on that, because there's kind of a reflexive discuss, especially if you see people online with the kind of woe-is-me journalists being like, you know, democracy is going to die, I can't do my job anymore.

It's hard, I guess it's hard for me to feel bad for these people, especially because so many other people have been laid off and less dramatic. Is this a... Is journalism covering other journalists to try to keep themselves like a float type thing where they wouldn't cover other elements? And then my second point, and I guess, Rachel, I'm curious your thoughts on this. It seems to me like you said 20 years ago people observed this, and I look at places that are kind of like small band of pirates outlets where maybe they have like 10 employees, 20 employees, and they're actively searching to break news.

That is like go and get leaks, tell things that are not going to make people happy. Like, a good example of, I'd say, like, my generation, like, a lot of people have been giving a lot of attention to drop site news, and part of it is because drop site news is like a small outfit, but they're actually trying to present something that would be uncomfortable or give you a look behind the curtain that people don't want to hear, and it feels like places like Washington Post have kind of been fences, maybe, for political parties or political candidates where it's like, here's our little propaganda that we want you to get out.

We're going to frame it in a way that's pretty favorable to you, let's put it that way. So, it's expensive to sustain, obviously, But it just feels to me that a small journalist could make a living posting a big break on Substack, right? And they only do that one or two times a year. And I can't remember the last thing from the Washington Post where I'd be like, wow, this is actually genuinely interesting investigative journalism. So, I guess, where are you looking now, Rachel, and why is there this kind of blood-curdling scream you hear from people that weren't doing much before?

Yeah, you know, it... People treat these jobs, and they treat these sort of dinosaur media outlets that should have gone the way of the dinosaurs 20 years ago like an entitlement. Like, somehow you are, and a lot of young journalism students feel this way, like, I am owed a job in news, and if I am not given, like, a job at one of these blue-chip publications, you know, somehow democracy is dying, and this is reflected in their coverage, right? They're not the ones out hustling because we're the Post, and people are just supposed to come to us.

You see the same attitude with the White House trying to reshuffle the newsroom? Like, the White House Donald Trump, arguably, part of his huge re-election strategy, and a successful one, was to understand that the media environment had changed, to go to new media, to go where the subscribers and the base is, and he's trying to actually democratize the newsroom to reflect this, and the mainstream outlets are just like the huffing and puffing. It's unbelievable. I saw this tweet.

From one of the reporters, you know, I am not celebrating layoffs, but like again, a lot of people in America get laid off, and they do not get this kind of like rending of teeth and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. Maybe they are less eloquent with their resignation letters. Well, this tweet was like, I have been laid off. I have no words. And I was like, well, maybe that is why you got laid off, because you are a journalist and your job is worse.

It is really hard to feel bad. No, I know, you know, but... Again, it's just this entitlement. And to your point, there are now dozens of outlets, Substack being one, the podcast environment being one, streamers that are getting tons of eyeballs off just doing basic shoe leather journalism, and they're scooping these outlets left and right. Totally. So, that's where people are going, naturally.

Yeah. It was like the Nick Shirley guy. It literally just showed up to Minnesota and was like, hey, this is weird. And then, and imagine that, you know, someone going somewhere, not being invited, seeing something weird, reporting on it, and, you know, say what you want about his creds or whatever. At least he's manning the arena. He's there, right? Like, he's there on the ground asking people. It's almost like, I think we've gotten so accustomed to a definition of journalism that is not actual journalism.

Maybe because, like, the premier institutions, like the big J journalist schools, they kind of feed people. Into these legacy environments, and then just get so comfortable, comfortable, comfortable, comfortable, to where just over time, you're like, this is almost unrecognizable, like not what journalism actually used to be.

Sorry, Josh, I want to give you your opportunity to talk on it, too, and I actually have Kamala Harris' back, so I want to make sure we hit that before the hour, because I want to get Rachel's thoughts on that. Well, I totally agree with this idea that when certain people got fired in the economy, the journalists would be like, learn to code. They had no mercy, and then when they lose it, it's like, oh my gosh, democracy is dying. It's like...

Oh my gosh, you're so full of yourself. And the thing is, the media, they are just so full of themselves when this kind of stuff happens. So, I wish there would be a little humility. How are you not understanding the moment? The Trump movement, populism, you're like, this is totally crazy. I don't get it. And it's like that Simpsons character. What's going on? What's wrong? Nah, it must be the kids. It can't be me. Maybe it is you, actually. Maybe you're not understanding what's going on.

What's going on in the environment? So, you know, again, they're so self-absorbed, you know, and the approval rating for them, it's right up there with, you know, not appealing lawyers, you know. Yeah, speaking of not understanding the media environment, I got to get this in before the hour, because Kamala Harris has announced that her account is back. It is at headquarters, well, it was 6-7.

And they got bullied into changing it within a day, so now it is at Headquarters 6-8. So, it didn't even take that long, but I'll just give a little insight in, and Rachel, let's see what you think on this comeback tour. Stay engaged.

I'm glad you asked. I have good news. So, Kamala HQ is turning into Headquarters, and it's where you can go online to get basically the latest of what's going on. Also, to meet and revisit with some of our great, courageous leaders, be they elected leaders, community leaders, civic leaders, faith leaders, young leaders. I'm really excited about it. So, stay engaged, and I'll see you out there. Thank you.

Welcome back, Kamala. We've missed you. I mean, another birthday present this week. The 6-7 thing was insane, too, because they got bullied because they were trying to make a dumb, like, Gen Z or Gen Alpha joke, and then they immediately caved and changed it.

And then the other element to this, too, is Biden comms people are kind of fighting over it right now publicly on X, which has also been kind of a fun insider baseball thing. Here is Stephanie Feldman. She was on the team, said, here's my favorite example of something the Biden 2020 digital team wanted to tweet out from the Biden campaign account. I vetoed it because it is such an outrageously unserious reaction to a serious moment and not Biden brand. Lots of digi people were upset with me, and it is.

Justice for George Floyd going from comms to need VP approval, policy, legal, research, final comms, if necessary. Audio listeners, it is literally just, you know, it is not a picture. It is like this drawing with ASCII tape, like typed up, like a goofy cartoon thing. It looks silly.

And so, they think it is dumb, and the Biden comps people are fighting, and then they are trying to get into the new environment that Gavin Newsom adopted, I would say, two years ago, and Trump adopted four or five years ago, of just being really aggressive on Twitter, and one of their first contributions was literally a video of Trump announcing how he is slashing the cost of GLP-1s for the American people. I think they're making fun of Trump-confused popular weight loss drugs known as GLP-1s, and they made fun of his stutter, I guess, which is also kind of an insane thing to do after the previous four years, so it's not off to a hot start.

What I just love about this is like... Losing in the way that she did, and it's the same Hillary Clinton problem. You've lost to Donald Trump. That's humiliating for you, but it should foment some self-reflection. There should be some deep introspection going on. There has been none. She has learned nothing, and I am here for it. Actually, she has learned something. The fact that, first of all, I think it is a super huge mistake to post that video they did of Trump.

Trump intentionally does a little bit of a mistake, and so that Democrat senator goes, what an idiot, he said it wrong, and you are just sharing his video message with all your followers about how he is making prescription drugs cheaper. You guys are idiots. Don't you understand? Again, very dumb, so keep doing that. I love that. But, no, Kamala, what she's learned from this is that I only had 110 days to run for president, and if you give me a chance to get more than 110 days, I can do it, and so I do think she is going to run, and I think Republicans go, oh, yeah, she's got no chance, because she failed so spectacularly the last time.

She dropped out before even the first contest, right? But she's now the first woman to ever be elected vice president, and she can say, I came close, and I only had 100 days. I think she could do, actually, kind of well, because the first state in the Democratic primary is South Carolina. More than half the voters there are Black. I think she's got a great opportunity to say, no, vote for me instead of this Gavin Newsom, slick-haired guy. I wouldn't be surprised if she does better than people expect.

I'm not saying she'll be the nominee, but it's not uncommon. Speaking of, did you see the Vogue write-up on Gavin Newsom? Describing him as, like, breathtakingly handsome and suave, and it almost made me throw up a little bit. Yes, the reporter, she was, like, getting all, it was crazy.

Oh, man. Was it the Atlantic or something? It was something, and it made me uncomfortable. I'm like, whoa. Yeah. Rachel, just while we have you, it feels like. I hate to even use these words, but media environment fractured. It feels like there's a lot of people blackpilling. I tend to find the Epstein stuff more interesting than other people on this program. Is there anything that we should absolutely be focused on right now that maybe is not getting enough attention outside of filibuster debates?

I mean, I do think it's easy, especially because we live in this environment where everything is made to feel like chaos all the time. Right, and I think that that amplifies actually more chaos than actually exists. And I do think the white pill take is, I am getting a lot of what I voted for at the end of the day, right? Like, the southern border is secure. I would like deportations to continue to be executed competently, right, and without the fanfare, and I think we're going to get that.

The universities are struggling. Trump really took it to them on DEI, took away their grants. We riffed a bunch of people in the federal government. The bureaucracy has actually shrunk. So, on a lot of these issues, we are now seeing the trans agenda sort of fall apart in court if the first domino has fallen with a successful settlement against medical professionals for doing trans surgeries on kids. The media will and the partisans everywhere will make you feel like everything's on fire.

There still are really high-stakes issues facing this country, but I do think Trump has managed to deliver on so much of what we voted for, so that's the white pill I take every morning. Okay, so I would like to talk. I agree with all that. I agree with 100% of that. I think that's phenomenal, and I think part of the reason that, you know, there are a lot of conservatives who are still kind of like despondent, and they feel like it's going to be the end of the republic because Democrats do cheat.

And they are ruthless. I get that, and I think that is what is fueling a lot of the debate behind the SAVE Act. I absolutely love the legislation. I would vote in favor of it. Okay, but I think that is what is fueling some of it, because people are so worried, like, we are going to have the end of the republic. I mean, no, actually, I think we are in better shape than we were, like, 30 years ago, when Pat Buchanan was, like, the only guy saying, hello, do you see what is going on, like, the West, like, we are drunk on neocon stuff, we are bombing other countries, and, you know.

While our working class are being decimated, and we don't care about the social issues at all, like, we are so much better off. Are there way too many rhinos in Washington? Of course. But we are so much better off, and I feel like we're going the right direction. I mean, Trump and Vance, I mean, I am very white-pilled. It's still the golden age.

I guess we shall see, Rachel. Thank you. I know that we're getting low on time here, Rachel. Thank you. If people want to follow you, your work, and support your work, where can they go? You can usually find me in The Federalist and also on X at Rachel Bovard. Awesome. Good luck in Miami.

Thank you. Awesome. Okay, Josh. So, guys, the Washington Post thing, I just have to make sure we make the point. In 2022, they had 30 journalists that were only focused on climate change. 30 journalists. 30. Just think about that. I, yeah, the one element to that story that...

I mean, we talk about the entitlement. It's just so true, and anyone that knows someone from the D.C. area that's kind of in the water out there a little bit, but the argument that because Bezos has a lot of money that he can just sustain a paper out of his own goodwill with a bad business strategy is kind of insane. I actually just think, in general, most people with gumption and that want to get after it, that want to hustle. You can succeed now more than ever.

Like, everything's open to you. The internet's open to you. We all have cameras in our pockets. You can get microphones, podcast equipment super cheap. Like, if you really want to go and be a force, you can. And so, the only people not doing that, it feels like it's a little bit out of safety, you know, or they care about the title more or something. These people are so immune to price. The situations, you know, how much everything costs, it's, I remember one of my friends saying, you know, the average reporter who's been at the Chicago Tribune for like 30 years, and he writes like three articles a year, think of how much dollars you're paying per word for this guy.

Now, it might be a great story, but like, man, you're really just getting killed. So, anyway, so I want to go on to good news here. Yeah, let's do it. The Idaho Supreme Court just upheld the parental choice tax credit program. So, These are like these little good, this is actually, that's what I was getting at with like Rachel, like there are a lot of good things that are going on behind the scenes. I mean, it used to be school choice, you know, Milton Friedman talked about it in the 1970s and 80s.

It took forever to get it passed, but now we're getting so many red states to pass it, and they're surviving court challenges, and so students in Idaho, and not just Florida, in Texas, all across the country, Iowa, are getting school choice. And I am absolutely here for it, because the mainstream, you know, government schools have been You know, not only are they pushing trans stuff, they're pushing all this garbage, but they're just mediocre.

That's another crime that we just sort of wash over. Like, I love our schools to morally form people, and so, look. But that is a part of an excellent education. Like, it almost says people feel like it's two different things, like to just not have the crazy, destructive stuff to the human being, but also a true education.

It is an excellent one, where there's high standards and good instruction, and it just robs everyone of that opportunity through creating a cartel on public education. It's been that way forever. You should be able to make teaching more interesting than their phone.

And you can do it if you know the subject and know it well. Yeah, absolutely. Good professor. So, yeah, I think that that's great news, and I have some good news, too. So, I had, man, we've been sourcing her a lot, but yeah, shout out to Diane Montagna.

She just reported, Pope Leo met today with the leaders and members of Courage International, a Catholic apostolate for men and women who experience same-sex attraction and who strive for chastity and holiness according to the teachings of the Church. I have asked Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni if the Holy Father's address will be made public. As of this post, the Vatican has not released it.

I feel like a lot of people are looking at, like, who Pope Leo meets with and who he doesn't meet with, and people have kind of always done that, and trying to say, like, okay, what are his ideological stance based on this?

I guess, you know, I think the Pope should really meet with just about everyone, but I want to use this as an opportunity to shout out Courage International. They're a fantastic organization because Like, I was just talking about this with someone. I genuinely have a lot of sympathy for people that experience same-sex attraction in some way and really strive to live, like, a Catholic life. It's a hard environment just in general to do it in secular society, but also in a Catholic environment.

Like, it's really challenging, and I think Courage International is the, you know, silver bullet approach as opposed to some other forces in the church that call themselves Catholic or whatever that would want you to live. A sinful lifestyle. So, Courage does a great job. I just want to give him a shout-out. I'm glad they're meeting with Pope Leo. They're fantastic. They're a work of angels.

Totally, and I think there really needs to be ministry to people in this situation, and they need the help, so shout-out to Courage. The other one I have is Super Bowl coming up. Maybe we can get our predictions here. So, born without a heartbeat at just 23 weeks and given only a 1% chance to survive, Derek Hall defied all the odds thanks to his mother's relentless fight for his life. Now, 24 years later, the Seattle Seahawks linebacker is suiting up for the Super Bowl on Sunday.

He is the founder of the Derek Hall 1% Foundation, which supports preemies and their families. Pretty amazing story. That's awesome. Yeah, it just makes you smile. It's so crazy. It really is amazing what modern medicine can do, because I know some people that have been preemies, and it's like, how could they possibly... They just wouldn't have survived in many other eras, so that's great news. Shout out to Derek Hall. What an awesome foundation, and good luck in the Super Bowl. I'm predicting Seahawks, but Eric is gone.

That would be the most just situation because, of course, my Minnesota Vikings let Sam Darnold go. And then he would win the Super Bowl the next year. Of course, that would be. That's how it's going to be. It's the most Vikings way possible. Totally. Oh, my gosh. Yes. We had a part of today's show like a bitter Vikings fan being bitter about not identifying. Oh, yeah. They fired the GM, too. That was crazy, although probably well-deserved. Okay. And then Twilight Zone.

I mean, mine was just Kamala Harris, but I saw you had one slip in there, Josh. You want to hit it? Yeah, this is a video of a Presbyterian minister. She gave a lecture in which she said that if Jesus Sorry, is this a female? This is a female minister? Disregarded. No, I understand this, but she said, I still want to combat this. She said, if Jesus were here, he would have said, blessed are those who end their pregnancies. So, this is about the most evil thing you could possibly imagine.

If Jesus were here today, he would be a clinic escort, distracting women from the hatred of the protesters, or an abortion doula, holding women's hands and offering support and love as they end their pregnancies. This is wickedness from... You know, I am not saying that she is satanic, but the words just absolutely make the devil smile. And I have to say, Father Thomas Petrie responded to this, and I thought he did a very well, he did a great job, so I just want to give credit to Father Petrie.

He said, when he saw this lecture of this woman invoking Jesus to support the killing of babies, Father Petrie said, This is the Jesus you made up. He thinks like you, talks like you, and never, ever corrects you.

Others, yes, but not you. Unfortunately, that's not the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The true Christ makes definite demands and teaches us hard truths. He calls for a response. And that is true of all of our lives. We need to make sure we are not doing that either. We are not invoking Jesus as our own little personal ego in favor of everything we ever had. If Jesus Christ is not challenging you, then you are not following him.

Yeah. Here is James Tallarico. He is actually going to have a Super Bowl ad. I think I referenced this on the show. Maybe I talked about it privately, but here you go. But I say all this in context of who he is. All right. James Tallarico, he is running for that Senate seat in Texas, right?

Oh, my gosh. What is her name? Ed Cruz. So, this guy, James Telerico, is, or no, I am sorry, I guess John Cornyn. John Cornyn, yeah. But this guy, James Telerico, is a Democrat who has been invoking Christianity for all this stuff. You know, most Democratic candidates run away from religion. He is trying to embrace it.

So, he has gotten play on Joe Rogan. He has gotten play on Ezra Klein. Like, he is kind of the darling, like, oh, this is going to be our Christian opening for the Democratic Party. This is how we can finally win Texas. Exactly, which, you know, conveniently fits. A white whale. Right, a white whale. Let us see what he has got. But I say all this in terms of, in context of abortion, because before God comes over Mary, and we have the incarnation, God asks for Mary's consent.

Which is remarkable. I mean, go back and read this in Luke. I mean, the angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do, and she says, if it is God's will, let it be done. Let it be. Let it happen. So, to me, that is an affirmation in one of our most central stories that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. Creation is one of the most sacred acts that we engage in as human beings, but that has to be done with consent, it has to be done with freedom, and to me, that is absolutely consistent with the ministry and life and death of Jesus.

And so, that's how I come down on that side of the issue. Yeah, again, I mean, that is like, that is truly, I almost got to give him credit for that one. I have never heard anyone use the, oh my gosh, the levels of blasphemy here, but the enunciation as an excuse for promoting abortion on a political level is so, it's so shameless that I almost have to give it credit, but it is disgusting, but it is.

It is novel. I've not heard that one before. Yeah, so the idea that our Heavenly Father would ask Mary, hey, would you like to be a part of this important part, this crucial role in salvation history that, you know, God asked? That's nice that he asked. Does that mean that God's like, okay, by the way, because she has a choice in this matter, we should allow other women to kill their babies?

What? How does that follow? No. Again, that is a lie from the pit of hell, and Democrats... You know, like, it is just amazing to me. Like, they used to have this Mario Cuomo kind of stuff back in the 80s. Like, well, I mean, I am personally against it, but if you want to do it, whatever. Like, that kind of, you know, relativism stuff. But this stuff, where you are trying to transform the Bible into, and this, this most amazing moment of salvation history, into a pro-abortion talking point.

I actually truly mean this. I do worry for this man's soul. Yeah, totally. I mean, yeah. Like, election or not, dude. It's beyond. It's so beyond. I mean, this is just, like, collapsing. Could you imagine having to go up to the pearly gates and see our Heavenly Father and try to explain that one?

No, although he is in a little bit of trouble because I think there was a leak of him calling James Tallarico a mediocre black man, and Colin Allred came out and called him a racist. He worked for himself that way? No, no, no. Tallarico called Colin Allred a mediocre black man, and then he came out and now endorsed Jasmine Crockett, calling him a racist, which is like, you know, the ultimate sin for Democrats, so it's not looking great.

It was a good run while it lasted, but yeah, I don't even know what to say about that one. But anyway, fun show. We made it through the technical difficulties. I've gotten some cool emails for Time Across America. Shout out to you guys. If you have a good idea for me, I'm excited to get it out to you. Again, you can get it now on zeal.co slash timeacrossamerica. You go over to shows, you can find the forum episode that I did.

Very fun. More stuff coming, too. More stuff coming. More stuff going. And then, secondly, we did an episode of The Deep that I'm really proud of. It was about the pill. So, Erika did a fantastic episode about the pill, the shifting politics of it, the reality of it. It's always cool to do The Deep and then read some of the comments of, like, in 2022, I kind of discovered I was on the pill, or I discovered Catholic sexual morality. It completely changed my life, changed my relationship with my husband.

My family, it's really beautiful. So, Erika, of course, super eloquent. She is giving a talk in Phoenix, so pray for her safety. I'm sure it's going fantastic, but we missed her. She'll be back on Monday. But, you know, special thanks to Rachel for coming on the show. Yes. She does such a great job, and, you know, she handled her positions very well.

I promised to roast in the title. I was like, I basically, I wanted someone to come on and give Josh a hard time, and she was chomping at the bit. So, Josh, you handled it well. The bell dinged, and we can all walk away, dab each other up, you know, shake hands afterwards.

But we're going to end with our daily prayer, send you guys off to a great weekend, and then also shout out the United States of America and the Olympics. We just beat Canada. We just beat Canada in curling, so take that, and soon you'll be the 51st state anyway, so it won't even matter. I didn't even talk about that, but no, I'm on it. We just kicked your butt in curling. That's like, someone said it's like beating Argentina in soccer, so shout out to the boys.

Yeah, that's when we really got to get it. Shout out to the boys. So, good luck in the Olympics to all of our Olympians. Did you see Lindsey Vonn is skiing after tearing her ACL a year ago? Tough, tough.

Crazy, dude. So crazy. Anyway, I do love... I was talking to my parents about that. It was so funny. My dad was like, oh, she's cute, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, she's been around forever. She's been at it for so long, but anyway, yeah, shout out to the Olympics. I do love the Olympics. Enjoy the Super Bowl. Okay, so we are going to end with our daily prayer.

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. We pray, O Lord, for the United States of America. We pray for our leaders, that they will be inspired to lead according to your will. Most especially, we pray that every Catholic in America will be inspired to live out the truths of our faith in public life, and that it will lead to the renewal of our church and country. St. Thomas More, pray for us. St. Fidelis, pray for us. Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us. Amen. Amen, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, amen. Thanks for joining, guys. Have a great weekend. And we will catch you on Monday. Peace.