Dallas Bribers Club

0:00Today's presenting sponsor is simply safe home security. A break-in isn't just about what gets stolen. It's the feeling after. The sense that your home isn't safe anymore. Simply safe isn't just protecting your stuff. It stops intruders before they get to your door, protecting your family's ability to feel normal inside their own house. Unlike traditional security systems that only alert you after a break-in is already underway, simply safe is designed to help stop intruders before they get inside. They've got smart AI-powered outdoor cameras that detect suspicious activity at the perimeter in alert live US-based agents to step in. Simply safe agents assess the threat that intervened through the outdoor cameras to scare off the trespassers and they call 911 dispatch. RCEO recently had a simply safe system installed. She said that it was installed in like a couple hours. All the components were up and running seamlessly in no time. The system has outdoor cameras, got indoor cameras. There are temperature and water sensors. There are a bunch of motion and window and door sensors. All the exterior cameras run on solar chargers to minimize maintenance.

1:00She is a huge fan and says, you will be too. Right now, you can get 50% off a new simply safe system. Go to simplysafe.com slash crooked. That's simplysafe.com slash crooked for 50% off. And when you order, please write about PodSafe America and the how did you hear about a survey to let them know we sent you. Don't forget, there's no safe like simply safe. MUSIC Welcome to PodSafe America. I'm John Faber. I'm Dan Fyfer. On today's show, we recorded late. So we could bring you our analysis of every single minute of the unprecedented. First of its kind, world historic Republican midterm convention

2:00in Dallas, where Trump bribed voters with $5,000 checks. He can't deliver. JD Vance tried to both position himself as the heir to Trump's legacy, but also run away from it. Republicans marked the 25th anniversary of 9-11 by accusing Democrats of supporting terrorism. And even John Federman made a cameo. Then because this episode is dedicated to Republicans trying to sell themselves, you'll hear love its conversation with the Republican candidate for governor of California, Steve Hilton. That thing still happened? Not a joke. Reached out, we said sure. We'd love to chat. Javier Bessera, if you're out there, call us back maybe. We'd love to talk to you too. We've been trying. OK, Dan, let's get right into it. On the off chance that you all weren't glued to the special two-night run of Donnie does Dallas, here's a taste of what you missed.

3:03At on June 14, 1946, God looked down on his plan, Paradise, and said, I need a caretaker, so God gave us Trump. God bless the greatest president in the history of this nation, Donald J. Trump. I discovered as a self-effacing man of superior intelligence, of empathy and compassion, with an encyclopedia grasp of the issues and in molecular detail. Nobody knows that Dom has a bee at the end of it, most of it, mostly, but he is. Do you am? And that's fine. The Democrats, extreme candidates, won't rip that heart out of our chest. They hate our culture. They hate what it means to be American. Please, if you don't mind, don't anybody go to the bathroom. The Democrat party are advocates for evil. I am not going to be in the same form. He ran a campaign to beat me. He called it beat me.

4:04I don't know what the hell he meant by that. Mohammed Al-Fayant. It's never Mohammed Jones. I think we should call the Hormone Strait. We should call it the Trump Strait. I should get something out of it. The Trump Strait. Because you know Lake Ontario, we're going to call that now Lake America. New Mexico, we think it should be called New America. Someday there'll be a time when I don't get back to the original subject, and then you can say he's had it. These people are sick. So I'm asking you to pretend that I'm on the ballot. I'm on the ballot. Please pretend that I'm running and get out and vote on November 3rd or sooner. Because in actuality, I really am running. Now, I'm biased, but I think that was a fantastic representation of all the programming from both nights. That was mostly from the first night. If you're wondering what happened the second night, we watched same thing. Yeah, same thing.

5:05Same messages. Sometimes the same exact lines. Sometimes the same people. You see that super cut, you watch that super cut, you got the gist. You got the gist of the two day convention in Dallas. We saved you about 18 hours. Yeah, Fox News viewing. Yep, a lot of glazing of Donald Trump, a lot of scaring people about the terror, sympathizing, commie, Democrats, and his son, Piker. Love his son, Piker. Yes, yep, and that's about it. Dan, you were telling me earlier how much you loved those last couple rhetorical flourishes from Donald Trump in that super cut about how he is on the ballot, pretend he's on the ballot, I'm on the ballot, I'm actually running. He did it. He again, he repeated it. There was a refrain tonight. He reprised that in his speech where we're recording this Thursday night because we hate ourselves. But he repeated that tonight many times as well. So the message is clear. He wants everyone to pretend he's on the ballot.

6:05I think it's important to set the stage here for how all this happened, which is Trump gave a two hour speech last night. Who wasn't even on the schedule to begin with? Just shy of two hours. On Wednesday night, just shy of two hours. Tonight, JD's speech for a long time, we'll get into JD's Vance of Speech. And then Trump gets up there and says, I'm going to be brief, tired of speaking. I have invited this opera singer to perform for you and where I'm going to stand here, and you're going to listen to his music. And then he gave, I think, about 30 minutes of the same speech for the night before. Yeah, just a condensed version. And his mind condensed. We were watching it and we're like, should we add some clips from this to the supercut? We're like, no, because it's literally all the same shit, except for one part that we may play at the end. Yes, which is truly the final part. So now I think we have to play it. It's hard to take any of this seriously because it was so absurd and so bad. But the fact that Donald Trump stood up there at a time which is a proven rating is in the low 30s, at a time in which we are mired in a war and around this,

7:06cause oil prices went up $10 today during the Republican convention. Diesel hit its highest price ever. At many gas stations, they don't, it hit $9.99 a gallon and they can't go higher. They don't have another space to do. I don't know why I'm laughing. They never anticipated diesel this expensive. It's awful. It's going to make all lives more expensive. And the Houthis are out there just about to control another straight. And that Trump would say, go out there and say, I'm on the ballot, which is the Democratic message. That is what we want. We don't want this to be a race necessarily about Susan Collins or Mike Rogers or John Tusset. This is about whether you want Donald Trump and try to do everything else or you want to send a message on Trump and he's saying send a message to me. The 60 some percent of you who are unhappy with my presidency, I'm reminding you today that I am on the ballot, that it is about me. So if you're unhappy with me, you should vote.

8:09Now, some Republican candidates in tough races did attend the event. John Hustet was there, Mike Rogers was there. Many did not. There was no Susan Collins. A lot of House, frontline house Republican candidates were not there either. Do you think that skipping this event as a Republican candidate was duM? I'm trying to understand the strategic logic behind Mike Rogers and John Tusset going. Yeah, me too. Is it that you need money and all of the Republican money is in Dallas and so there are, there are gazillion fundraisers in and around this. Is it that you were afraid that if you didn't go, you would anger Trump? Yes. And that he would then take a doubt on you in some way, shape or form? I think that one. I think that's most logical, most logical answer there. Or is there some kind of calculation that swing voters are never gonna watch this anyway

9:13and that if you are, especially for Hustet, Rogers is a real head scratcher. But especially if you're John Hustet and you're in a state, the Trump won by double digits. That swing voters aren't gonna watch the speech or watch any of these speeches of this convention. But base voters who might be upset with you or might be thinking about staying home, they're not gonna vote for shared brown, but maybe they're not gonna vote for John Hustet and they voted for Trump in 2024. Maybe they're tuning in on Fox and now they see John Hustet at the convention or I don't know. Yeah, it's, I mean, I, to be honest, it doesn't hurt. Like so why wouldn't you go if it doesn't hurt? Yeah, I think that probably comes out. You're gonna get, they've stood next to Trump a thousand times. They've praised Trump. They have, right. Like the base themselves for Trump. So it was not like you need this moment to do it. But the whole, it kind of gets at the entire sort of idea behind the convention other than just Trump wanting to feed his own ravenous ego. But is, you know, I think the way that Republican

10:15strategists are like counting this is, our bases incredibly disenchanted. If you look at the CNN polls and Michigan and Maine that came out Democrats have a double digit enthusiasm, advantage, you see this across the board. We gotta get the Republican base fired up. Here's the fundamental problem with that logic is that the sort of the falsity and bargain of Donald Trump for Republicans always was, he fires up Democrats, be fires up Republicans. What is not true anymore is that Republicans are as enthusiastic about Trump as they used to be. His, the number to watch here is his strong approval among Republicans. That number is right now 20 points lower than it was the beginning of his presidency. 20 points lower than it was right around election day in 2024 and 20 points lower than it was in election day 2018. Yeah. And so now you're just, independence as we've written H2, Democrats are looking are fired up to run against you. And you don't have the same impact with the Republicans that you did before. And you cannot kind of feel that at the convention when Trump was speaking too. Yes, because even if you're not pissed at Trump,

11:17like this is why the, as you said, the strong approval is important. Even if you're not pissed at him, like the whole feeling I got from that convention and his speeches especially is like, man, they're just out of gas. It's over. Like that party, like our party right now is there are debates and there's the center left versus DSA and the progressives and old and young and everyone's having, but like at least everyone's like fighting about something. The Republicans are just like, there's nothing new there. We've been dealing, this we've been like 10 years of this now and it's like it is, it's glazing Trump and the Democrats are going to kill you. That's it. They don't write anything else to say about anything and like their culture worship that they sprinkle it. That is like also sounding extremely old and tired in all the lines we've heard before. In terms of like people actually tuning in, obviously, we're recording this Thursday night so we don't have the Thursday night ratings, but Wednesday night where Trump gave his two hour speech, I think it was two and a half million people. Yep. Which is flat over what Hannity gets normally

12:19at the exact same time on Fox. Right. So that's from Fox, because CNN and MS didn't carry it. The networks did not carry it. OAN and C-SPAN and Newsmax, I guess, you could probably catch it there, but you know, that's just kind of speaking to the choir. So it doesn't sound like this. And I was looking at that, you and I was like, that what's resonating newsletter? Yeah, what's happening online? Nothing, nothing about the convention was being discussed online today, at all. It's just, it's just, it's, it's, this gets to your point that just everyone can feel that the Trump era is essentially over. He's not gone. He's still very dangerous. You can do very, very bad things from the next two years. We're all living that, that's right. But his political relevance is over. He's less interesting to people. He's less frightening to people. He is, he has ability to dominate the conversation. He is, is greatly diminished. He's just, he's still talking fewer people are listening,

13:19fewer people care. And that just, you can feel that through the entire convention. Now, speaking of non-official party conventions, have you heard of any big gatherings coming up on the Democratic side? Perhaps the history-making, incredible gathering that's gonna come up in just a couple months. Well, I'd have some of the smartest strategists, some of the least boring politicians. And I would, be referring to the one, the only Cricket Con 26. I am, I am, I am referring to the one and only Cricket Con here in an organic plug. Yes. Because we love an organic plug. And to let everyone know that there are still tickets available, not many, but there's still tickets available. There's still discounted tickets available. If you become a Cricket subscriber, which is, and by the way, it is a perfect time to become a Cricket subscriber. There's no better time. There's no better time. The, because you get ad free episodes of all your favorite podcasts

14:23and you get to support all the great work we're doing here, to try to push back against right-wing media. And so you just have to go to Cricket.com, slash friends, and become a friend of the pot. I'm gonna add to this because we did not do a good enough job pitching this recently in Elijah Yildedis. Yeah, he did. But we are a new smash. Man, but that's neither here nor there. Oh, I'm ready. Yes. Look, we are 60-some days in the election. Polls are coming out every single day. Some are good, some are bad, some are frightening, some are hopeful. If you want to survive these, this next few months here, there's only one way to do it, John. Polar coaster with Dan Fyfer. How do you get Polar coaster with Dan Fyfer? You subscribe. Anyway, I think that was a good plug, Elijah. Yes, just so be Elijah. We'll get off our ass for a minute. Yeah! So believe it or not, Dan, buried around the one hour mark of Trump speech on Wednesday night. There was something of an announcement,

15:24probably too generous to call it a policy proposal. Let's listen. Only I can make this promise to you. And here is my promise. If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them, because of our economic, tremendous economic success, like in history, we've never had anything like what's happening. But because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000. Yeah, sure, pal. Even Trump's biggest fans didn't seem totally sold on this one, in part because it would cost an estimated $1.3 trillion and also it will never happen. Here's Fox's Laura Ingram asking Trump a pretty reasonable follow-up when she interviewed him on Thursday after the speech. Why don't you just give the money now if you have the money.

16:26Because they can't, I'll tell you what, because the Democrats can't do it, because with them it's negative growth, with us it's so positive. What? What? Uh, what do you think of this one? What do you think of this one? I was saying this to love it earlier, we did a YouTube thing. Like, it seems to me that the entire purpose of this was, there's a lot of people out there who don't pay a lot of attention to politics. And I'm gonna try to fool them because if they are scrolling through their phones or looking at a screen and they see Trump wants to give $5,000, maybe they will have no idea that I could have given them a dividend over the last two years. And in fact, promise to do so never did, even though I had a Republican Congress for the last two years. And maybe they'll just not know any of that and just think, oh, a vote Republican and get $5,000. And they're just counting on those low information voters who don't pay much attention to politics to just to fool them basically.

17:26No one is that dumb. What goes along with being a low information voter America. I'm confident there are people who are already in Trump's cult who will believe him. There is no one who is skeptical of Trump, who thinks he's going to give them $5,000 that they vote for Republicans. Yeah, it doesn't survive like one Google search. Yes. Well, it's not even that mean every person knows that paying someone for a vote is a crime. That's one. Two, Trump has already promised them a $5,000 doge dividend which he did not give. He also, this is already been giving out money to people from the tariffs, but not to people to corporations. Like it's so stupid. No, the people who he's trying to fool the people who are the most skeptical politicians making insane promises and insane promise. This is another example that everyone from Trump to his aid to the entire Republican Party are just fucking mailing it in. This is one of the stupidest, most embarrassing ideas that any politician has ever offered in United States history. It's so insane, it's so stupid.

18:27It can't be done. It costs basically the entire non-defense discretion, non-entitlement portion of the entire government budget for this. It would massively increase inflation. These are checks three times larger than the stimulus checks, which were limited to people who made $75,000 or less. So he's wants to give $5,000 the Elon Musk for voting for him. Like what a stupid fucking idea. This is not a, he's gonna give the $5,000 pretend to give the $5,000 to people who don't vote for him. Yeah, that's the other thing too. So everyone gets it. It's fair, this is fair, everyone gets the $5,000. The billionaire is the millionaires, everyone. But no one's getting it because when he wanted to give like a $1,000 dividend or a $2,000 dividend or less, reporters went and interviewed all the Republicans in Congress and they all said, no, we don't want to do this because it would increase the deficit and increase inflation because we are in still an inflationary environment thanks to Trump and his tariffs and his war.

19:27And so Republicans don't want to do it. And then he also said in an interview Thursday, oh well, I don't think I need the Republican Congress to do this. I can just cut the check and give the money, which is also not true at all, not legal. There's no money. There's no money. There's no money. There is the cost of, they said they pay for with tariff money. 300 billion. That's the cost of the revenues. Is an order of magnitude greater than all the tariff money that we have run it. About four times, about four times the amount. Yes. And we've already given that money away back to Amazon, Apple, Walmart, et cetera, because the tariffs were legal. Yeah, it has been enjoyable listening to various Republicans try to defend this or at least answer it. I think Ted Cruz was like, well, it depends on how it's structured. JD Vance was like, well, I think that maybe we could make it so that the rich people don't get the 5,000. And also, I think, oh, he said so. I think he just said, yeah, maybe the rich people

20:27won't get the 5,000 and then didn't mention it at all in his speech tonight. Just no one mentioned it in their speech, but Trump, I don't think. The time story about how Republicans were really super into this idea and this great line about how defending the policy was left to Trump's more intellectually versatile allies. Who were they? Ted Cruz. Oh, yeah, that's true. That is true. Yeah. Ingram did manage to get one clear definitive answer out of Trump on a related issue. Take a listen. Are you going to campaign smarter than you've ever campaigned in this month? But isn't this just as important, Mr. President? I mean, your whole legacy is on the line. It's never as important. Look, I'm campaigning for other people. When you say my legacy, I'll be a block. I'll end up being a blocker. I'll block all their bad stuff for two years. It won't be the same, but I'll be a blocker. What can I tell you? That's interesting. I didn't see the end of that before. He's kind of resigned to potentially losing this thing. It is, it was a great question from Laura Ingram. Is that the answer she expected?

21:28Well, that was going to say, yeah, it was not the answer she expected. More of a bad answer than a good question. But he got caught in his own trap there because it's like, pretend I'm on the ballot. It's all about me. It's all about me. She's like, okay, we'll talk about you. So are you going to campaign really hard? No. Well, the difference here is, what was on the ballot last time was not just his presidency, his freedom. Yeah, his freedom, his freedom. And he also is going to, I mean, he's going to loot, if he loses the midterms, he's just going to say the Republican sucked. They ran away from him. Yeah, they ran away from him and they weren't good candidates. And he tried his best and he campaigned as hard as he could. But like, what are you going to do? It's not Trump. I tried to make it Trump, but it wasn't the real thing. People are smart and they can see when it's, when it's the real thing on the ballot or when it's not. And I tried to say just pretend, but I guess people just can't pretend. They're smarter than you give them credit for. So that'll, that'll be that.

22:29The hot day America's brought you a AG one. Hey, remember summer's fucking dead is over. And that means it's time for what? It's time for fall. All right. And you know what autumn's all about? Getting shit done. All right. We're getting back to school. The war on Iran's happening again. Oh, yeah. All right. And you got to get your goddamn vitamins. All right. Get your greens in you. Yeah. You're all fucked up. You're fucked up without these goddamn vitamins. Look at you. Look at that powered skin of yours. Supposed to summers over, you didn't get a tan. You wasted it. You wasted it. It's done. Look forward. You got to get a scoop eight ounces of cold water every morning for the day starts. The day starts running you. Who's in charge of your life? You, if not, take some AG one. Get some goddamn control over yourself. AG one is a daily health drink with a multivitamin pre-improbiotic superfoods and antioxidants. One scoop eight ounces of water. It helps you stay in a routine and keep up with your wellness goals. High quality nutritional support every single day, no matter where you start your morning. The next gen formula that are 75 plus ingredients clinically shown to support good health. Real common nutrition caps and improve key nutrient levels within three months.

23:33AG one is great. It really fits into your routine. It's the easiest habit. You know, look every morning, you don't know what you're going to eat that day, but whatever. For me, whenever I have breakfast and I make sure I have my vitamins, I have AG one. I have something to make sure that I'm starting the day right. You should do that too because God knows your f***ing up everything else. For a limited time, say 20% on your first subscription order of AG one next gen or AG one pro at drinkagone.com. That's drinkagone.com slash crooked. Positive America is brought to you by Helix. If you're like me, sleep is very, very important to your life. If you get a good night's sleep, you're better at work. You're happier at home. You're more productive. You feel better. Your body feels better. And if you get a bad night's sleep, all bets are off. Real sleep starts with a right mattress. Upgrade your sleep quality with a Helix mattress. How do you know which mattress is right for you? Make the Helix sleep quiz and it'll match you with the perfect mattress based on your personal preferences and sleep needs. They have over 20 mattress models. You can find the perfect model just for you.

24:34Helix delivers your mattress right to your door with free shipping in the US. The happy with Helix guarantee offers a risk-free customer first experience designed to ensure you're completely satisfied with your new mattress so you can rest easy with seamless returns and exchanges. Plus, Helix offers a 120 night sleep trial in a limited lifetime warranty. I love our Helix mattress. It is super comfortable. We have one in our guest room. I've slept on it many times. Whenever guests come to our house, they say they love this mattress. They tell us how comfortable it is. It shows up really fast and easy. It's literally delivered right to your door. Just could not recommend it enough. Go to helixsleep.com slash crooked for 27% off-site wide. This offer is exclusive to PodSafe America listeners. That's helixsleep.com slash crooked for 27% off-site wide helixsleep.com slash crooked. Before Trump took the stage to close things out on Thursday night, JD Vance gave the keynote address. It was hard to cut down such a masterpiece to just a few highlights, but we tried.

25:37Let's listen. We just had a protestor interrupting us and waving the Mexican flag. Well, my friend, if you love Mexico so much, get your ass over there. I'll buy you the plane ticket. If you ever feel down about our country, ladies and gentlemen, just take a look at the beautiful ladies right behind me.

26:38Ladies, I'd like to know what you had to drink, because I'll take two over when I'm done. What do that mean, do you think? I drink it hard. I drink it hard. I drink it hard. I drink it hard. I didn't notice it until he said it. Then I was watching them for the rest of his speech, and they did seem a little boistress, perhaps. I don't want to accuse them. He was so surprised that people being excited. I don't want to be speechless. They assumed they were drunk. What do you think, Dan? Did he win you over with that speech? He did not win me over. I am very curious of your take as a speechwriter on this speech. I'm going to tell you right now what I think the reception is going to be. I think that the press and the establishment, the political establishment at large, is going to be very impressed with at least the reception to this speech and view it as the unofficial kickoff of the fanciest presidential campaign where he made his most compelling

27:41case for himself today. That's how I think it's going to be covered. I do think they'll definitely see it as the unofficial kickoff, and I can't tell how they'll receive it, but why do you think they will receive it well? Because people generally don't applaud when he speaks, and they applaud it here. I think he... How would you describe the case he made for himself? Not breaking, not stepping on a rake in the middle of it. I don't think he made a very good case for himself, but I don't think that people that sort of the figure skating judges who grade these things, pay a lot of attention to the consistency of the argument or how the message plays outside the room. I think in this room, he did a much better job of sounding kind of sort of sane and coherent compared to all the other speakers who sounded fucking bananas, most included. I think he's got a potentially unsolvable problem.

28:45Molyah. That's for sure. Which is... I'll start with your first point about how it gets judged. My favorite line from you has been the Democrats are reading the stage directions. It's like all I can think about now when I see Democratic politician. J.D. Vance, to me, is the Republican version of reading the stage directions. He's also the Republican version of another problem we have in our party, which is the too many front of the class students who are like, I'm going to study my way to the presidency and I'm going to make sure I listen to all my strategists and do all the things that I'm supposed to do and that pull well and I'm going to write the speech in the right way and I'm not going to be crazy like this one and I'm going to walk this tight rope and I think he is a smart person. I don't think J.D. Vance has done. And he's very smart. And so I think he is thinks that he is going to study his way to the presidency, write

29:51the speeches, work on the speeches, deliver the speeches that he's supposed to give, deliver the messages that he's supposed to give, and it is going to fall incredibly flat because it doesn't sound authentic. He sounds so phony. He doesn't have the problem of sounding crazy. That is absolutely right. But that is no longer, I think, how he is going to be judged as the 2028 race goes on. There is no other Trump, right? And Trump is crazy and then there's Republicans who sound crazy and all that kind of stuff. But I just think that his problem is not that he sounds too crazy. This problem is that he's too fucking boring and phony and smarty. And I just don't believe that he's sold any of those fine lines that I'm sure, I don't know if they pull well, but they're not crazy, right? But I just don't think it's going to wear well.

30:51Yeah, I don't think it's going to get any, I don't think it's going to get anyone excited and I don't think he's going to be able to elide the, I think he's not as smart as he thinks he is, which is he thinks that he had this whole part in the speech about, he talks about Charlie Kirk, right? This is the day that the first anniversary of Charlie Kirk's assassination. And he remembers Charlie and then he uses Charlie to talk about the war in Iran. He doesn't say Iran, but he says Charlie hated war. And I know that there are a lot of young men who love Charlie and we're big fans of Charlie are now are disillusioned. And if you're disillusioned and maybe it's about war, just know that like you can have a disagreement and be on a different side of one issue and still not throw out the baby with the bathwater and vote for the crazy Democrats vote for us. And if he thinks that he is going to solve the problem of Donald Trump breaking his

31:55promise to not get involved in more wars by like some rhetorical flourish where he's like using Charlie Kirk's death, like I just it's not going to work. It is too cute by half. I want to stipulate a few things here. Sure. I was speaking to how I think the press is going to receive it. And now we have all the question of low expectations. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Next slide. I think the next slide is a pretty terrible public speaker from a pure performance, right? How he sounded how he was received, how he filled the podium. This was probably one of his better moments and throwing a lot of good moments. So it's not saying a ton. I think I agree with you that JD Vance is not as smart as he thinks he is, but I think his bigger problem is that the voters are smarter than JD Vance thinks they are. Yeah. Because everything like you can listen to it and it is like he really is like a softest. Like it is, he is weaving these arguments together and in like each individual sentence makes sense. Then you step back, particularly if you ever knew a nightboat down the shoe, go back and read the speech afterwards and it makes no fucking sense.

32:56And it's like full of inherent contradictions. His problem is and this is nothing to do with the kind of species like how he delivers a speech even becomes great at giving speech is not going to solve the problem is the only good politicians or politicians who truly understand who they are. We've gone through some period of self discovery and JD Vance is no idea who he is. He is just he is a he is a shapeshifter, a code switcher for whatever works in the moment. He is one way what he's in at Ohio State, he's one way that I've really lost school. He is one way when it seems like Trump's going to lose. He's one way when he thinks Trump's going to win and he is just constantly trying to do what he thinks makes sense in that moment. There is no set of values or morals or personal code that dictates how he should respond in a moment. He is dict and so that inauthenticity is what that is like the core defining principle of every losing presidential candidate of this half century.

34:00It is it's what had killed Al Gore is what killed John Kerry. It is what destroyed Mitt Romney. It is what hurt Hillary Clinton like across the board. This is why people lose and he has all the makings of a losing presidential candidate. Now, Democrats have to dominate the right person because sometimes bad candidates do win, but he is very, very flawed candidate. But you could like I was watching that speech and every single line you're like I know what he's doing here. He was like hitting the maha notes at the top where he's talking about the boxes. Checking all the boxes there exactly and and then even the way he handled the Heckler seemed I mean, we were all joking false flags. False flag because it was so like there's the Heckler. I'm going to stop the speech and I wrote this whole speech, but now I'm going to have to do and he actually said this. Now I'm going to have to do something different and turn to the Heckler and go back to him and then he would be like so proud of himself. And it's like, you know, maybe it was just in the moment and it wasn't staged or whatever. I'm not going to fucking throw any conspiracies. But it was like even that which was potentially ad libbed seemed like it was staged

35:07and I mean, it's just it's so phony. It's so phony. You really saw that not just in the speech, but when he had been doing that interview a few weeks ago where he's like to science, he's like, this is the moment I'm going to defend Usha against Abdul El Sayed and it just seems like even that it seems the whole thing about his pop-all and Abdul it all seems so fake. And that part like that would work his whole, you know, retort to a duel. That would work if people didn't remember that he was the guy who went out there and said, yeah, we pushed these completely unproven false conspiracies that Haitian immigrants were eating pets because I disagree with Joe Biden's policy of allowing them to legally be in this country. And so I'm going to admit that we just pushed false conspiracies because we wanted to get attention to that fact. It's like, we all remember you said that. So you can't be all offended by accusations of racism now and xenophobia now when we all

36:13just remembered what was happening in that campaign and suddenly be so offended by all this. I mean, even his like, he had this line about Tel Rico, right? And he's doing the like, Tel Rico can't stop talking about transgender children, which is crazy. That's true. You know, right? It's like, there's one time a one interview where they were like, Tel Rico is like, I love transgender children because he just seen them that day and they've made a whole thing about it, right? And so his line is a guy that age who was so obsessed and focused on transgender children, I don't know about you, but I never want to see that guy's web browser history. It's not a good place. That is a line that also wouldn't survive one follow up question from a interviewer. It's like, oh, so you're saying that what evidence do you have that James Tel Rico like wants to fuck kids? Is that what you're, because you're talking about as web browser like, what are you talking about? I love to hear JD Vance answer that because he would follow apart because he, it's a line. He can't like Trump could handle that. You asked Trump that question. He would do his Trump thing and he would get past it and it would be like, oh, what's

37:14Trump? Whatever. JD Vance can't get away with that because there is no answer to why did you, why did you say that line? Yeah. Yeah. What did you make? Put aside Vance's performance. Like this was the clearest distillation. And one thing I'd say about the speech is just it was really a lot about him for just a midterm campaign speech. So he really was viewing this as sort of his introductory presidential election speech. But let's just put that aside for a second. This was the clearest distillation of what their campaign strategy is, which is the, even if you don't love the Republicans and the things we've done, it's not as good as you want. Christy, we're still high. We are at war. The Democrats are fucking crazy. Do you, like, do you think he did handle that part well? Is that strategy where are you at all? I don't think he handled it like again. He went through, you know, he went through the deleted tweets of many, many, many of Democrat. Well, that's what I'm saying though. It's like if I was trying to make that argument, I think there are maybe not like, okay,

38:15saying that, you know, he's talking about the deleted tweets from Will Lawrence and Michigan seven where he said like, fuck the nuclear family in a tweet, right? I think it is hard to pin that on the entire Democratic party since no one else has said anything close to that even in their deleted tweets. And so what she's again is something that's easy for someone to find out. And so if I was going to make that argument, there's plenty of other positions that Democrats have taken and maybe a lot of Democrats have taken that I would try to build an argument around about why those positions are out of step with the American people. Just like not picking a few tweets from like one house candidate here and one house candidate there, I just think that act is going to get old. The whole party has this problem, Trump had this problem especially in 2020, which is like JD Vance talks like he is so fucking online. Yeah, that's the reason we all get it and and probably the reporters too, I mean to your earlier point about how they judge it, like everyone who is super online and super

39:17engaged in politics and political fucking junkies who can't get up their phones, know all the things JD Vance was talking about. He's going to get out on that trail as a candidate for president and start saying some of this shit and most people are going to be like, what do you mean? What are you talking about? Yeah, this is that you've hit on his big like Trump is overly versed in his in the lore of magus stuff and right-wing media. That's because Nally Harp prints it on hands at home, but JD Vance is like in the dark quarters of the internet. His brain is is Trump's brain is not warped by the algorithm because he's not looking at the internet in that same way. JD Vance is is and he is emblematic of this much bigger problem that you see with Republican strategists, which is they their brains are all pickled too. And you know, whenever I'm doing political experts react and reviewing Republican ads, they're all two steps over the line because they require some sort they both require a belief in the world view of Fox News about what is actually happening out there that we

40:18all live in this dystopian world where MS 13 is killing everyone on the street corner. And you have to understand like chapter in verse of the lore of maga and like that JD Vance has it, but that speech had that problem. Like you and I were like, that's will Lawrence's tweet, but no one knows who will Lawrence is or that's his tweet or what the fuck he's talking about. Right. Like look, he's he is trying to put a like I think every vice president who's running probably has to look at the president and be like, okay, what what don't people like even in my party about the president that I served with and like, what's my, how am I going to differentiate myself mostly? Not everyone does that apparently. Not everyone does that, but the successful ones. And clearly in this speech, you could tell the JD Vance like there's so much talk about family and kids and he wants like a family friendly maga version. And that's what he's going to try to put forward. It's very like national conservatism. He wants to like sand the rough edges off that he doesn't want it to appear to mean. But like if he does have any kind of belief, it is the belief that he has espoused many

41:24times in speeches that we probably won't hear again where he talks about like it's blood and soil nationalism. Yeah. Like that's that is what he believes if he believes anything. And I think he's smart enough to know that that doesn't wear well with the general electorate at all. And so he's trying to sand down the rough edges on it, but it's just, I don't, it's going to be hard for him. It's going to be hard. But we'll see. Did you see Marco Rubio today asked about his potential plans to run for president in 2028 and he said, quote, I don't know what the future holds, but I have no plans at this time. At this time, did you take anything from at this time or do you think it's just reading too much into it? No, I think it took a very specifically at this time. I mean, he's keeping the door open. Yeah. It's going to be interesting to see how that friendship with Vance, that close friendship wears over time. And then if we can get a Vance Rubio, Higgs at Ted Cruz primary, oh my god, that's a deadly serious and he's talking, Ted Cruz is running.

42:25He hates Vance, you know, we make it. Wow. I'm trying to think of that. That's a quite a stage. I don't think Rubio and Vance both run together, right? My suspicion is Rubio does not run, but Vance obviously runs and maybe Cruz runs too. Yeah, I think that's probably right. Anyway, we have enough time to talk about that later. You're hearing this on the 25th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks and while Republicans chose not to align the convention with the day itself, the people on stage and on Fox News did take the opportunity to paint Democrats as terror sympathizers, particularly Muslim Democrats like Abdul Al-Sahed and Zoran Mamdani. Let's watch. I know what they're capable of. And I know what happens when America becomes afraid to call evil by its name. September 11th isn't something that we deserved no matter what Abdul's buddies say. Abdul's is funding his campaign with money from terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. He wants to represent Palestine, I want to represent Michigan.

43:26On 9-11, could anyone have imagined that Comrade Mandami would be the mayor of New York? When he goes down to 9-11, I hate to even say this Laura, but you know, it's a message to Osama Bin Laden that look, we conquered New York. It's going to be a tough message to deliver. Yeah, there's a lot of Osama Bin Laden. There's a lot of questions about what's coming on there. That crazy woman was a Izzy city council woman in New York. So that's not just elected official. That's cool. That's not just a fucking, you know, random guess box. Yeah, I had seen that clip a thousand times and it was until you told me that she was an elected official, paid for with taxpayer dollars. People in New York have voted for her. She has received some votes from people. There's just like we are afraid to call evil by its name. Is this name evil? Is that what Mike Ratchews is saying? Or have we stopped saying evil now? Like I'm not sure what he, what is going on there. It is true that no one on September 11th, 2001 could have imagined Mandani would be

44:28Mayor because he was nine. So that was surprising. I mean, what do you make of all of this? This has been a real drum beat that is now crescendoed here on the anniversary of 9-11 with, and mostly it's about Abdul and Michigan. I mean, they're still doing it to my subscribers. Is that a songpiker? It's about a songpiker. Well, it's, I think it's mostly about Abdul, but it's trying to, they're using a songpiker as the easiest way to try to stop Abdul from winning. I just am not sure. Like this is Fox has been doing this for 25 years now. This is, there is this, there's been this sense that after 9-11, like the way to win was to portray democracies on the side of Al Qaeda. And that worked in 2002 or 2004. It's not working 2006. It hasn't really worked since then. And with every passing year, it's less effective. And I just, there are a lot of things that they are going to do using. I'm not, that is just pure anti-Muslim bigotry.

45:30Nothing else. It's just incredibly offensive and just openly racist in every way, shape or form. There are a lot of things they're going to do to try to paint Abdul outside of sort of the mainstream American political conversation. All a lot of it is going to be racist. It is going to be quite offensive. I really don't think the one thing that Hassan Piker said, which he has a, apologize for about 9-11, is a particularly effective attack. Do you think it's even more effective when they spend a lot of time at the convention showing giant photos of Hassan and his speedo? That, I don't know how that would affect. Just the Republicans. I'd like to see their web browsers. All right, one last topic to touch on here. Reluctantly on Wednesday evening, John Federman made a surprise appearance by video to introduce his fellow Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick. Let's watch. The England Republicans in Dallas.

46:30Yes, I'm Senator Jack Federman, Pennsylvania. Yes, I'm a Democrat. Why am I here talking to you today? Because, well, I'm a common sense Democrat. I'm always going to stand with America. I'm always going to reject the extremes and socialism and that anti-American way of life. I have this opportunity to introduce this great American, a great Senator. And yes, he is in a different party, but I'm proud to count him as my great friend. So for everybody in Dallas, I'm here to introduce Dave McCormick. Commissioning of content, regardless of how you feel about his appearance. So this got a lot of attention. Of course, Democrats were already fuming at Federman for co-zing up to Republicans. Love and I talked about this on YouTube on Thursday, but would you like to weigh in on this? I find it very irksome that he did this. I think that the fact that John Federman today is the exact opposite of what John Federman

47:33ran on only four years ago. And that is incredibly frustrating and it is a real disservice in betrayal to the doors of Pennsylvania, but people don't let you in on the secret. We have one goal and one goal only. Keep John Federman in this party for the next two years until he loses his primary in 2028, but she will certainly lose because his approval for anyone, Democrats, is like 45 points underwater. Yeah. So it sucks. It is annoying. He still votes for this 90% of the time. He's mostly just trolling us all of the time by going on Fox News and doing very, very annoying things. And obviously the things he has said about Israel and about people who are of good faith, critics of Israel, incredibly offensive and terrible, but we're stuck. We're stuck with John Federman for two years because if he leaves, makes it that much harder to get the Senate majority. I thought it was irksome and then I saw he put out a statement right afterwards and said, I'm still a Democrat. And if we win and take back the Senate, I will be the 51st vote for Democrats.

48:35I promised I would be or something to that effect. Yeah. And so like, now he could change his mind, of course, but if that's where he is right now, then that's where he is right now. And yelling about it, flipping out about like what is it going to do? What is the purpose? What is the usefulness of this? Each individual person can be mad and should be mad. Particularly if you're a better Pennsylvania, should be mad. The people of power in influence from the party who are like, get out of the party. That's helpful. We need them in the party, unfortunately. No, and the reason we need him is, I said this before, but say it again, like having him as the 51st vote, if that's what he is, could be the difference between replacing Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas or God knows someone else with Eileen Cannon for 40 years on the Supreme Court or not.

49:39So it's like, you know, and yeah, he has broken, he has voted to confirm a lot of Trump's pointies, cabinet officials. He's broken with the Democrats on some like government shutdown stuff, but judges, 42 out of 46 Trump, Trump judges, he has voted against. And he is not voted for a single appellate court judge from Donald Trump. So even if it's just judges, that he's voting with Democrats on and just voting with Democrats to make a Democratic majority leader, leader of the Senate, that's good enough till 2028. It is good enough. It's not fun, but that's what we got. Yeah. All right, Dan, before we go, the Republican convention did wrap up with Trump's very similar condensed version of his Wednesday night speech. Given again, on Thursday night, there was one new part that we should leave you all with. Let's take a watch. Please raise your right hand. I pledge to the greatest president in the history of the United States.

50:50It loves her so much, she can't even breathe. That I will go out with my family, my friends. I'll do it anyway. I don't care if I'm registered or not, I'm going to try and cheat like hell like they do. And we are going to vote on November 3rd, or we are going to vote before that. You know what happens if you don't vote? You go to hell. I know that. Take it from that guy. That's what I'm taking. That's our best strongluster is to go vote. Go vote. Do register. But go vote. Yes, no cheating. I don't think you're going to help. No, I don't think so either. But go vote. Go vote. All right. When we come back, Republican candidate for governor of California, Steve Hilton.

51:51Potsy of America is brought to you by built. Here's a question. Are you getting rewarded for paying your rent or mortgage right now? If the answer is no, you need to check out built. Becoming a built member means earning points on every housing payment no matter where you live. Build points can be redeemed for flights, hotels, lyphurites, Amazon.com purchases, future housing payments and more. You can get all these great things. There's restaurants on there. You can get built home delivery powered by gopuff, gift cards, built new AI neighbor and concierge. Doesn't just answer questions. It executes tasks from paying your rent and handling a lift to booking dinner reservations across 50,000 plus partners. It handles your to-do list while automatically applying your membership benefits. First, download the built app. Second, link any credit or debit card to the app so purchases at your local spot become even more rewarding. And third, ask the neighborhood concierge in the app pretty much anything. And it'll alert you about exclusive member benefits near your home. Download the built app and join the membership for where you live at joinbuilt.com slash crooked. That's j-o-i-n-b-i-l-t dot com slash crooked.

52:51Use our link so they know. We sent you. He's the Republican nominee for governor in the state of California, Steve Hilton. Welcome to the pot. It's great to be here. So I want to start by saying that I appreciate that you reached out to the show to come and talk to us. I give you a lot of credit, especially when we have not been able to book Democratic candidate, Javier Bacera. Is that right? We tried in the primary. We are still trying. I believe we have not heard back from our most recent inquiry. Well, maybe he'll do it. Maybe the best service I can give you is like, finally, you'll get Javier now that I'm I think it's going to work actually. We actually do. Now, I want to start with this. What is your pitch to Democratic voters in this state? Yeah. Who may be frustrated with Democratic governance here, but cannot imagine voting for a candidate endorsed by Donald Trump. I totally get that just to be clear. I'm on the road the whole time in California and we're doing events up and down the state,

53:52town halls, hundreds of them now. And increasingly, Democrats are coming. And they ask questions about that. And so I really understand of most of my friends, a Democrats and most of my life, actually, my friends have been on the other side of the political divide. So I totally get it. That's the first point. And it's a totally reasonable question. And I think that the simple answer for me is that I'm not, first of all, I'm running for governor, not him. Secondly, I'm not an ideologue. I'm not particularly tribal, actually, when it comes to politics. Most of my career has been in business. I'm a pragmatic, kind of problem-solving kind of person. We can all see things are going wrong in California. I just want to fix what's wrong about this beautiful state that's so amazing in so many ways. You can see it's frustratingly off track. Everything's so expensive we can get into that. But you're not going to get someone who's trying to tell you how to live or what to do or impose any kind of, you know, world view in that sense.

54:55You're just going to get someone who wants to make it easier to live, to run a business, do something about some of the visible problems we have, like homelessness. That's the pitch, really. You don't have to, you can still be anti-Trump as many millions of Democrats in California are strongly so, and vote for me. You don't have to change your party. You don't have to change your politics. You just have to vote for change in this election. And there's one last thing I'll say, which is a very important way. You hear the word change, you know, better than most, in elections the whole time. Actually, in this instance in California, there's another word that I think is just as important and that is balance. So we've had 16 years now where one party's been running everything. And I just think most people would agree that's not healthy. Whoever it is, in history, when you've got that kind of political dominance by one party with us right or left, it ends badly. And I just think having a bit of balance in the mix, it's very likely that not just

55:56that Democrats will control the legislature after this year's elections, but they'll continue to have a supermajority. So we're just talking about, you know, this is not a mega takeover of California. This is just a bit of common sense balance in the mix. So I think that for me, and I assume for a lot of others, to be open to voting for someone who's not just endorsed by Trump, but supports you continue to support Donald Trump. You believe he's a good president? No, I don't agree with everything he's done, not at all. And I think that- But do you support Donald Trump right now as you're sitting here at this table? Well, would I vote for him again? I mean, he's not on the ballot. I don't, I haven't really thought about that as a sort of- You don't know right now. I'm calling, I'm saying, do you support Donald Trump? Donald Trump is the current president. Do you support him? Do you support- Would you order a question? I disagree with a lot of the things- Do you think he's a good president? He's doing. I think that- Again, I think these are too broad, right? See, I think it comes to specific things. And that's fine, but the reason I'm pushing on that, I'm sorry. I want to move off of Trump, but I think the problem right is that it'd be nice if we

56:59could separate what's happening in Washington, what's happening here. But I think there's, it matters, right? There's a threshold question for people who may be bothered by what they see as kind of feckless misrule that we have in California. I am, right? But I worry, right? That like I would love to vote for a change, right? I worry that Javier, Biserro doesn't represent that change. But there's threshold moral questions that anyone I could possibly support would have to pass. And I want to challenge you as to whether or not you pass those. That's why I'm asking this. It would cost me specifics. Let's do it. What do you worried about? You said recently that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Yes, right? However, in 2020, you said it wasn't a fair election right after. You said that you wanted McConnell to have a full Senate investigation into the 2020 election to be a majority leader. You said the FBI directly interfered in the 2020 election as recently as may. You're refused to answer us to whether Biden won. Now I understand why you would say now, and I'm glad in July, you did say Joe Biden won

58:02the election fine. I always said that. By the way, that may thing is weird. I know exactly what you're talking about. It was a classic kind of on the campaign trail thing. I was in, we were on the road. And it was, I think you're talking about the MS MS. Exactly. And I mean, I've always said that. I've always given that answer. I've never maintained anything. I've never said anything different. And so they kept going on about it. I said, I've already said it. I've said it. So I don't think I've ever, you haven't evolved on this issue. Not on that one. Now, the other thing, on the who won the election, no, I've never believed anything different. On those specific things, like immediately after the election, when there was a lot of conversation about what happened and so on, everyone was saying what I was saying then, which is, okay, let's say Biden was saying that. Mitt Romney was saying that. What were they saying? They're saying what? That we should have a, you know, that questions have been raised about the election. We've got to make sure, you know, those questions have put to rest and properly investigated.

59:05This is where I think you're very, you're very smooth. But that's what, you said what, Romney and Biden was saying. Very different than what you were saying. You were saying that the election is in dispute that America's becoming a banana republic. You've said, you've recently said our electoral system is a joke. Well, it is in California. Even the New York Times said that. We take too long to counter about it. Agreed. But what I'm hearing right is you're saying that, oh, I always believed that Joe Biden won the election. However, there have been times that I've been reluctant to say so. And I support someone who is lying about the outcome of something fundamentally sacred in a democracy. But I believe Donald Trump, I supported Donald Trump's election in 2024, even though, yeah, that's true. Even though he denied the results of an election that you're saying Joe Biden won fair and free in a democracy. Again, I think we've got to be really precise about it. I think everyone can see that the 2020 election was really messed up. It was in the COVID was going on. Yeah, very a large number of last minute changes were made to the voting system that were

1:00:07done in a bit of a rush driven by the need to accommodate COVID rules. And people couldn't, you know, like, okay, we got to do mail-in voting because people can't show up. All these things were done. But you've also, you see, this is what I mean. Now I think you're saying better. I think it was a uniquely messed up election. Did you also say it was because Democrats wanted to do, to boost democratic votes to have an unfair advantage in the election? I think the Democrats believed that more mail-in voting would help them. Yes, I still believe that. I think that's what, now, I think that's because of the sort of a once-in-a-century pandemic. You know, you think it was a crash lot of issues. I think there's no question that they believe. I think they still believe. You know, why did Democrats enact ballot harvesting? For example, in King California, all these different rules, the seven-day counting-off election day, I think that they believe because they're postmarked by election day. Well, but not necessarily postmarked. You can hand right it. You know, all these things that people just look at, look at, including the York Times, as I say, and say, look, come on. These things just don't pass the smell test in terms of what makes sense for making

1:01:12sure people, you have elections that people have confidence in. We get a result quickly. And I think 2020 was a uniquely messed-up election. And I think that the criticisms I made at the time and still have are totally reasonable. Now, in terms of the outcome, I mean, I've never challenged the outcome. I really haven't. But the points I make made then, I still would reiterate now that I think that there were problems with how those changes were made. They were rushed through. They were not meant that you had all this kind of swirl of, you know, complain and uncertainty and whatever. Well, you... I think that that's... But I think that's, you know, that was 2020. It was the middle of the pandemic. You try and running election in the middle of a pandemic. Changes were made to the system. And I think that they were done in a rush and in a way that undermined confidence in the election. And I really believe that today. And so when Donald Trump, if questions, the results in other elections, you think that

1:02:13is wrong and... Yeah, different from me. I said in relation to our elections here in California, you've just recently, for example. And you don't have... And... But you see, this is someone that is... For Democrats like me, it's like, we are trying to run a democracy. And one of the great important things about a democracy is you fight to the end, but you have some forbearance that if you lose, you go home and you lick your wounds and then you try to fight another day. Donald Trump doesn't agree with that, right? Right. And that's morally reprehensible. No, no. Is it reprehensible? Look, I want to... Yes, I am mad. But I just... Yes, but this is why it... But it matters. I speak for... This is a little bit like the MS now conversation, which is the reason that I find this conversation. I think it's an extreme view to take this particular issue and make it the determinant of an assessment about who you are and what you believe. I think it's one of things... Not one of many things. There's lots of reprehensible things about what politicians say and do.

1:03:17And so I just don't think it's... How I... I don't... It's not how I think about stuff, where you have a kind of litmus test that this is the one thing where you say... Because this or that person thinks that, says that, whatever. I'm not going to pay any attention to anything else. And I just... That's not how I think about it. So I'm reluctant to give these sweeping assessments of things. I disagree with what has been said about the 2020 election. Yeah, I've said that many times. I also disagree with how it was conducted. Both things can be true. Okay. So... You are... The son of Hungarian immigrants. And I think you've talked quite movingly about why your family left Hungary for the UK and ultimately for the United States. And you've also talked about what it was like to be detained because you had a... So probably your passport and there's a problem with it. I believe your son's visa. Oh, yes, I remember that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I'm... I think people would be interested to hear sort of...

1:04:19Like, why did your family leave Hungary? Right? And like, what are some of the ways in which... That has reflected in your politics? So there are three people involved, actually. My mother, my father, my stepfather also hung air in my parents' divorce when I was young. And England, my dad went back to Hungary. I really grew up with my stepfather. And so they came in different ways. My mom came... I don't remember the story now, but she was... I believe she was studying English at university in Hungary and then had an opportunity to go to England for a few months. I think this is right. I'm just about to check with her after this. And then met my dad who'd come to Hungary via Australia where he went. He was a famous sports guy in Hungary. And he was the goalie for the national hockey team, played in the Olympics, Winter Olympics.

1:05:21And then when he stopped playing, I remember that there's one story that... I really remember. I mean, he died when I was much younger as well. But I only spent like vacations with him. I do remember him telling me that after he stopped playing, he got into business, he had a paint factory. And I just remember that going... I didn't really understand what he meant. He went on and on about how the communists took his paint factory. And he was quite stride and anti-communist and he's quite well known. So he left it after 1956 when the revolution was crushed by the Soviet Union, went to Australia with his first wife. They split up, he went to England. And so they all came slightly different ways. I think then they met in London working in... I think they were both working in the restaurant that he threw airport. Then by stepfather grew up in a village in a rural... You know, setting in the west and side of Hungary. And then his story is different as well. So he was 14 years old.

1:06:22And he and his brother and his classmates heard on the radio that the Russians were coming. I was in the New York-Azor-Rosok in Hungarian. I remember him saying that phrase. And then they just ran. It's a... They would not far from the border with Austria. And they ran. And they literally climbed barbed-wire fences and whatever. And he says, I mean, again, he's probably... Doesn't know for sure, but he says that many of them were killed in the attempt, you know, getting out. And he ended up with his brother in a refugee camp in Austria. So they all had a slightly different pathway. So on immigration, you have sort of drawn, I think, a right distinction between illegal and legal immigration. And you've basically said some version of in many ways, many times, that there ought to be more cooperation with ICE because the lack of cooperation of what leads to this sort of the chaos and the targeting of people who are nonviolent offenders.

1:07:23Yeah, and this general kind of antagonistic toxic brew of hostility. Yeah. So the problem I have when you say that is, it would be nice if that were true, but the California may be attacked by Republicans for being a sanctuary state, but the sheriffs and police still notify ICE about rebels and make that point. Right. And ICE can still enforce removal orders here. And there doesn't seem to be a difference between cooperative and non-cooperative states. So if you're in Florida or Texas, huge number of deportations, same as in other places, we're still hitting about something in the 70s percent of which are sort of nonviolent offenders or no convictions, right? 5 percent violent. And that's true regardless of the level of cooperation. The cooperation just seems to increase the number of deportations, right? And if you accept that as true, would that change how you think about the role of California's governor?

1:08:28I think the number, the number one thing I believe is that we just got a lower the temperature. We've got to find ways of handling this better. And I think there are examples in the past of where this was handled better. Clearly, everyone is grappling with a situation where you've had 50 years of terrible broken immigration policy in loads of different ways. So that's just hard. You're dealing with a difficult problem because you've got a legacy of an unaddressed problem that everyone just passed the buck for years. And so I think that that's the, it's not easy, none of it's easy. But I think the way it's been so, you know, the confrontation and the demonization and all this rhetoric, I think it makes it even harder to deal with a hard problem. So my number one thing is can we just lower the temperature a bit and sit down and try and figure out how we handled this. First of all, of course, everyone knows federal immigration policy. You don't affect that.

1:09:29The question for the governor is like, how do you respond here? And that's my goal. It's like, let's find a way to work together, which Gavin already says he is doing. And if you look at California's sanctuary state law, SB 54 passed in 2017, there's a whole section in there, like which I've read, a long section, which lists all the different areas where you can have at the discretion of the state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. California's sanctuary state law was criticized by the left for being too accommodating on that front. But see, but this is the thing, it doesn't really just boil down to cooperation. It's well, what kind of immigration enforcement would you support as governor, right? Because the kind that doesn't, no, I don't like at all. If this is what you're getting at, just be direct about it. I really don't want to see raids into communities and to workplaces. Any of that, that is what I hate to see that.

1:10:30So you oppose that. Well, I don't, yes, okay, I oppose it, but I don't think I can do about it because you're not in charge of it. But if you can decide whether to coordinate, whether to, whether to, whether to, whether to, you can have state resources to coordinate in those enforcement actions, or you can do what the Gallup, California has done is that we're not going to break the law, but no, we're not going to participate in these actions. And then that is described as a lack of cooperation, which leads to the deployment of federal agents in a big kind of, uh, sweep. Yeah. So, so, so I know Tom Homan, well, I've known him for years. And I, you know, he's the, his argument, you can challenge it, but I'm just, you know, his argument is that we wouldn't need to do those kinds of enforcement actions if we had, more direct cooperation. And we see, and it's, and it's not true, actually, that, that the, the cooperation is as Gavin would have, would want you to have it because, or regularly in California, we see stories where that hasn't happened, where, where, where,

1:11:32where people who, and we just saw case in the Bay Area, just the other week, a brutal murder of, of, of a, of a elderly gentleman in the community who was just the life and solve the community's family bereft, the community's bereft by someone who everyone watching and listening would agree should not be in the country. In illegal immigrant, multiple violent crimes and was let out by a judge and was in the community. Now, it shouldn't have happened. And so, and I hear what they say that, well, actually, this is all bullshit from the Trump administration because we do cooperate on the cases where people agree, which is the violent criminals. That isn't the case because you see stories, regular, another one just, I think this week or last week, where you see examples of that not happening in California. Let's say those cases are wrong, but cooperation outside of those cases. Why would the lack of agreement between California and a federal government mean you need to do enforcement actions at home depots and, and work sites and other apps? Because they're looking for people that they, that they, they should have been able to, to be, that they, that they

1:12:35wouldn't need to look for because they would have been handed over by California, state and local law enforcement. And such the argument. And so, you would, would you, would you, would you sort of state resources as governor to support enforcement operations? Because here's a problem, right? Regardless of whether you would go after a criminal. I try to, I really want to see them. I, I don't like seeing and I would want to not have in California those kinds of operations. Correct. Absolutely. And so, I would, you know, my, what would I actually do? I would get on the phone with Tom, who I know, and say, right, how are we going to handle this? Because I don't want to see that. Californians don't want to see that. You know that. It's not, it's obvious that the Californians don't want to see that. You've got a job to do. I've got a job to do. How are we going to do this in a common reasonable way? That's, that's what I would actually do. Right. And then the current policy is to pursue a level of deportations that requires going after

1:13:37non-criminal. Well, I, I hit the numbers. You can't do the numbers that they want to hit. Well, I don't know if that's still the case. I totally accept that there's been a shift. You just the numbers, the data's clear. That in the early period of the first, of this Trump administration, the balance was mainly the, the, the, the, the, the kinds of people that the vast majority of, of Californians, Americans would accept shouldn't be here. And then that shifted. And the balance has gone in favor of those who don't aren't in that category. And I, but I sense that it's going back in that direction. You sense it. I, yes, because of the response to what happened in Minnesota. I think they're response to what happened in Maine. Well, they, they think they turned on the public temperature for sure. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest they've changed their enforcement priorities. They've certainly done less of the Kristi-Nome, a, a, a, a, Bavino kind of whatever shark and off. I'm glad that's gone. But they have not replaced that with a less draconian overall policy. Well, I've got, again, my, my, my

1:14:43right response would be to sit down and say, right, what's, what's the deal here? What are you doing in California with the biggest state with the highest population, very large immigrant population? What's the plan? And, and just tell me what you're trying to do. And, and I'm the governor. And I'm going to make sure that we don't have these scenes and we don't have this confrontation. And, yeah, we don't have those kinds of raids. I don't want to see that. Potsy America is brought you by policy genius. It's so annoying when you learn that those little things, everyone recommends you do to set yourself up for success like meal prepping, resetting your space or putting out your workout clothes before bed really do make life easier. A quick act of preparation can make all the difference. So before the season gets any busier, check off one to do that can save garbage or family's future quickly find free life insurance quotes tailored to your family's needs with policy genius. Searching for the right life insurance policy can be complicated and confusing. Policy genius makes it simple and straightforward. Policy genius is an

1:15:44online insurance marketplace that allows you to compare quotes from some of America's top insurers side by side for free. Their license team helps you get what you need fast so you can get on with your life easily find what you need coverage amounts prices terms no guesswork just clarity prioritize peace of mind lock in your life insurance today with policy genius you can find 20 year life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for $1 million in coverage head to policy genius.com slash crooked to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save that's policy genius.com slash crooked. So if you were the governor, you know, a lot of what you'd want to do, the tax break for people making under 150 is that the number? It's not a tax break. It's no tax. No income tax. And a number of other changes you'd have to work with the legislature. Have you thought about how you would do that? How you would approach that? Yeah, I mean, it's a huge question because I mean there's basically two questions, which is how are you going to win? And I do appreciate like you

1:16:46said you appreciate it me being here. I appreciate you having because I you know you've probably sitting there thinking why am I talking to this guy? He's got no chance of winning. But I think that there is a shot. I know it's an uphill battle, but I think that there's a level of frustration. And I think we can do this. But the second big question is, well, what can you get done in the context of a legislature that's pretty likely to continue to have a Democrat supermajority? The first point I'd make is that I'm used to that. People may know me from TV or whatever an Alves is a candidate. But while most of my career has actually been in business running small businesses doing startups and whatever, I did spend some time working in the government in the UK. I was senior advisor to the prime minister, David Cameron. He's a conservative prime minister, but it was a coalition government. It was two parties. There's a conservative party, the liberal Democrats. And I helped, I was part of the team that negotiated the coalition agreement. I shared an office in 10 Downing Street with my opposite number from another party, from the liberal Democrats.

1:17:46And so I actually temperamentally, I'm a, you know, I think that they'll find when I get there that I'm perhaps not the caricature that they've heard about. And I'm easy and constructive to work with. That's the first point. Attitude and Lee, I'm looking forward to working with them. The French call it cohabitation. You know, that's, it's normal. It's not that unusual in other systems. The second point in Washington, it's not, it's not unusual. You've had examples of presidents and legislatures of, you know, different parties. So it's just unusual in California. The second point is that in the primary, here in California for governor, there were many examples where the, some of the other, not the ones that made, not necessarily Bacera, but some of the others, we constantly were agreeing with each other. I was constantly agreeing with Matt Mayhan on housing policy, for example, Katie Porter actually said it, one of the debates we had

1:18:49that she adopted my tax plan. That's just to be clear, then it was your first hundred grand tax free. Now, one of the points of feedback we got in the primary was the given how expensive everything is in California. The fact that in many counties now, the official level for being low income is a hundred grand or higher. We raised it to 150 and reduced another, the, the, the flat rate tax above that to make the math work. But, you know, Katie Porter agreed that we've got to, you know, the quickest way to get more money in people's pockets, particularly working class people, just paying 9.3% income tax. That's higher than the top rate in most states is to, is to eliminate them from state income tax altogether. Katie Porter agreed with that principle. And so I think that actually there will be things where we can work together. Well, the other point is that you do run the executive branch and doesn't mean you can do everything, but on the regulatory front, there's a lot you can do through appointments and giving you direction to some of these

1:19:51agencies that are making everything so expensive and complicated in California. Um, are there any specific new, some executive orders on, say, sort of abortion access that you would repeal? No, there'll be no change to any of that. And you support, would you be, there's obviously the looming threat of the trouble administration trying to crack down on access to abortion, abortion care? Yeah, but it's in the California, no, you're not in California because it's in the state constitution. I mean, that was proposed by a referendum very, very overwhelmingly. Right, but there's all kinds of mechanisms the federal government can use to try to claim certain Medicaid funding can't go towards help providers that provide abortion care or family planning. Would you say clearly that you will stand up to the Trump administration to protect the access to abortion in California if they try to undermine it? Yes, no, but I'm not sure.

1:20:56Yeah, in principle, yeah, I mean, I'm seeing the specific things you're talking about. And do you support the right of Californians to make decisions about gender affirming care? Adults, yes, I don't know children. So you don't, if a parent and a doctor and a teenager come to a difficult decision that a transition is in their best interest, you believe the state can stop that. So I think that the most important work that's been done on this was actually in the UK and the National Health Service, a model that the Democrats, well, certainly the one that left want to see here, universal health care, taxpayer funded, Medicare for all. And it was the longest study, the most detailed and in-depth study is the cast review two years plus because there's a lot of concern about it in the UK. And Hillary Cash is a very, very respected doctor in the field and just, just, that report is very thorough and impressive. And it says very clearly and strongly, and this is now

1:21:58the policy in the UK with the National Health Service that up till, you know, for children, gender dysphoria should be treated through therapy and so on, but not through irreversible surgical procedures. That's the policy now in the UK and I think that's right. So regardless of what the sort of, that's a policy around access to state funded care, right? Yes. So that would be the UK, yes. Right. And so what I'm saying is in the United States where we have a different, different sort of sense of freedom, right? And part, that's why people oppose universal health care. They don't want the government making those kinds of decisions. You would say that regardless of who's paying for it, do you believe doctors, parents have the right to make these decisions or can the state come in and tell them the kind of care they can't provide? Just to take an extreme example, you know, we don't, we have freedom is not unconstrained. Of course, free for all. But there's obviously a place to disagree, man. Of course, we have many policies and laws

1:23:02pretend laws protecting children, including protecting them from things their parents might want to do. Of course, of course. And this is what that category is for me. Okay. If you were a governor, would you have signed or vetoed SB 79, which for my housing on transics? I actually don't, I can't find you having a clear position on the law. Yes. You would have signed it. I was strongly against it. I would not have signed it and I campaigned against it. You would have vetoed it. Yeah. You don't believe in building more in forcing states that are forcing municipalities that are refusing to approve more housing at a time when we have a massive housing shortage. You would not support forcing them to do. So just to be clear, look, we got to build more. I just did a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago called a new decade of building. And we absolutely have to build more because we have the highest housing

1:24:02cost in the country, the lowest time on issues, absolute crisis. But I think right now the attitude to that and this bill for 79 falls into exactly what we've seen. So the Turner centrum, Berkeley, the real source of expertise on housing in California. This is when I, it's actually the first issue that got me involved in this whole era of politics in California. I didn't tend it to run for governor, but I could see that this was such a massive issue. It's the number one reason people are leaving California housing costs. And so I worked on a ballot initiative. This is going about more than four years or so now. And the components of it were to cap, developer, I don't need to go into the details. The point is the, although we should because that actually gets into why housing expense, but I want to answer your question first. At that time, there were there had this is like four years ago, there have been a hundred plus bills passed and enacted in the last in the previous five years trying to encourage more housing to be built.

1:25:03And they'd barely move the needle. Things like the ADU bill and so on. Just all these things. Well, one of the reasons because of abstinence at the local level, preventing building, which is why this law was meant to address it. Exactly. And it won't. Because what it's got fundamentally the wrong approach, which is that we're trying to, because of this argument about density, I completely disagree with the density argument. I think rather than trying that I think we should be expansive and open up building in places where people actually want things to be built. And I travel all of this state. There are many, many areas where people and communities and councils want to build housing, but they're prevented from doing so because of the density argument, which says the current development boundary is perfect and we can't go any further. Now, if you look at the actual numbers on that, the proportion of our land area in California that's developed at all is about 6%. In terms of where that's puts us nationally, we're about the middle, we're about sort of 20 if something like that. So we are not a,

1:26:07we're already pretty dense in terms of the small, the relatively small proportion of our land mass that's actually developed. There's so much space that we could use to build the housing. What I've said, I've said I want to see Newtowns and cities built. I'm a swine supporter of California forever, for example. And that would mean we could build on a much greater scale, much more quickly, including the kind of housing that people want, especially when they want to start and raise a family, which is single family homes. That's what actually the research shows people want. And therefore, this attitude of saying the only acceptable form of housing construction is apartment buildings shoved into suburban neighborhoods. I think that's very limiting. And I think that's not what that's what the law doesn't deny. The law doesn't ban building anywhere else. Part of the reason, other rules do. But part of the reason there's so much pressure to expand the footprint of where we can build. And I'm not against that is because we have so thoroughly failed to build the housing required in the places where people want to work in. But if you,

1:27:11if you, if you are housing, the housing that demand would suggest is, by market forces. No, I'm stunned. But I mean, if you buy a single family home in a suburban neighborhood, you've made an investment in that particular lifestyle. And to be told that that's just going to be upended, and you're going to have apartment buildings at the end of your street with no provision for extra parking, there's going to make traffic and nightmare. There's going to completely change the character of your neighbor. I disagree with that. So the law right was written to address that. And so in so far as cities can make their own plan to avoid violating the kind of character or neighbor. Yes. 179 is very aggressive. It's like within one mile of transit of any kind of transit. There's a buy right to build up to seven story apartment building. If cities and states fail, if cities and municipalities fail to create plans, what I mean, city of Los Angeles, that's the reason that law has an ultra Los Angeles currently has an alternate plan right now. They've voted to do an alternate plan to build against is like joins me in opposing this. Of course,

1:28:14doesn't that make you nervous? No, you think you're right. You think that's great. You think, good for her because she understands that the infrastructure, everything, but not just transportation, but utilities and so on. It's a massive expansion of the numbers of people that need to be supported by the existing infrastructure, which can't easily and quickly be adapted. You can just throw up an apartment building, but you can't change the whole traffic plan and utilities and sewage and all that. There's a massive issue in California, which is the state, the state level and Sacramento, imposing things on local communities that don't want them and I disagree with that. One of the main ideas that I've championed throughout my business, actually, as well as in government and in all the things in the books I've written, is the decentralization of power. I've always believed in that. I strongly believe it in that in this case. I completely disagree with that whole direction of policy. The arena numbers,

1:29:19that's the regional housing needs assessment, the way that they're aggressively going after places that don't build enough. The simple way I put it is instead of forcing housing into places that don't want it, that's allow housing to be built and the places that do want it. Who wants it as it sort of matters? The vast majority of people in Los Angeles have said very clearly they want lots of new houses, lots of new housing built. They want more apartment buildings, they want more housing of all kinds, single family, multi-unit apartments, they want all that kind of housing. The problem right is that California has a bunch of onerous rules, regulations, systems. That's true. You prevent that kind of building, right? What just prevent any kind of building? Exactly. It's just the delays. So while this is one, I think, relatively small part of the store in housing, the bill you talked about, the much bigger point is that we need to make it easier to build affordably. That does take us back to the ballot initiative that I tried to make happen, which then had two components. Number one is dealing with Matthew Mayhann, that Mayor of San Jose,

1:30:22who ran for governor, didn't make it into the top two. He and I totally agreed on this, which is impact fees, developer impact fees, it's like a hidden tax on housing. The Turner Centre in Berkeley estimates that in many cases up to 20% of the cost of a new home is trade up fees. These developer impact fees used to be a couple of grand. Now it's like way more than that, and we need to cap them. That's one part of it. Sorry, they look at this housing thing, they say, it's all about the nimbis and the imbis. It's so much more than that. Let me give you a second example, which is in terms of the the seek work process. Seek was the California Environmental Quality Act passed in 1970 or so, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson wrote about it in abundance. It's a massive obstacle to getting anything done in California. But one of the main reasons that that's the case is not just the act itself and the rules and process contained within it, but the fact that over the years it's been a private right of action has been attached to it. So anyone can file a lawsuit using sequa as a pretext to block anything. 70% of sequa

1:31:26lawsuits are filed to block housing. Most of those are actually filed by unions to negotiate what they call project labor agreements in order to extract benefits like what they call skilled and trained workforce, which means union members only prevailing wage, which is two or three times market rate wages. So there's a whole kind of system here that has, you know, over the years has built up that makes housing impossible to build affordably. Yes, agreed. I don't, and it's an emergency. It's an emergency in this. Yes, I agree. Yeah. And yet this bill that would not stop anyone from building single-family units or new towns, which should hopefully begin to address the mass shortage that exists inside of places like Los Angeles and San Francisco, right? And where we have not built enough housing to keep up with the population, you're opposing it. And I don't want to force housing into places that don't want to build. But what are you saying that? But we do want it, right? It's a small subset. Wait, it's a small subset of people that take advantage of these processes, which you're criticizing, to prevent action, right? You will have,

1:32:27right now there's a housing development that's meant to be built in Woodland Hills, California, on a golf course that's going to be housing, right? That's infill housing, technically. And they are suing to stop it with the help of a city council member because they're claiming it might be a habitat for mountain lions. Now that's bullshit, right? Now the state might have to come in. And the state may have to come in to force them to do this. I think that's right because I think they are not serving the city or the state of California. Now that's top down for sure. And regrettably so. But to address an emergency, don't we need to have the state come in and say, hey, it's taken local concerns, but we need to build to prevent California from losing more people to taxis. Yeah, I agree it's an emergency, but there's so many. But I also don't think that we should completely ignore the people who live here already and violate their property rights. And also the kind of lifestyle that they've invested in. And I think that we don't need to.

1:33:29But I think this is where I think that's right. I think it's a antagonistic attitude, which is that the only way we get housing is by sticking it to their imbi. I'm not trying to say that any of my friends don't agree with it. I don't think it's necessary because there's so much space we could be building in in California. But you look at what happens in a neighborhood where they preserve the character of the neighborhood. And then the housing prices go up year after year after year and slowly but surely the middle class and working class families that used to live there are priced out and wealthier people come in. And the buildings don't change but the character does. Yeah, but that also happens when you do the apartment approach where you've got gentrification through these luxury apartments that get built in working class neighborhoods and that whole hipster gentrification process. You see it all over the world, by the way, not just California. That's another version of it. And that's a version of it that the people who are going to pro-forcing housing into neighborhoods agree with. And I just think that I think the whole conversation has just become very ideological and I think that rather than practical.

1:34:33And I just think there's a much simpler solution which is to free up more of our land for building, including in the form which is what we used to do in California when we were like the bill, bill, build and the suburbs of Southern California, the UC campuses, the state water project, with the amazing things we used to build. We can do that again. And that's why I've said a lot that we I'm excited about the potential if we can just get people to buy into it, have new towns, new cities, new university campuses. You know, we've got to be much more expansive in our attitude right now. It feels very narrow and pinched and kind of antagonistic. And I don't think it's necessary to do it like that. And I and by the way, I find, but you understand that building those new developments also puts strain on highways and resources. We have sure. Let's say we can't. The I really am a business is what we should be going for. But in the same way that we have to improve our infrastructure inside. Yes, but it's much easier in a green field site. It's easy. A quick look. We can just like the way they do. I mean,

1:35:38that's what they're doing in Texas building, which is why a lot of it. There is a lot of, well, there yes, there's a lot of reasons people are moving to Texas, which I would agree with you on. But a lot of times when you build these single build a community and highways and roads, the tax base ultimately can cannot support the long term maintenance of these kind of less dense areas. That's just a fact of what happens in some of these sort of sprawling. A lot of time in parts of San Diego County, Orange County, in the Empire where that's kind of development has worked fine. There are trade-offs that go along with this. That's all. All right. You said voters shouldn't decide the election based on who they hate in Washington. Okay. One role of the governor is filling Senate vacancies. Oh my goodness. So Adam Schiff is frog marched to Guantanamo. Yes. There's an unexpected vacancy in the Senate. Would you pledge to nominate a Democrat given that the two seats currently held were voted for?

1:36:39You would. Yeah. I pledged to nominate a Democrat. Yeah. That's crazy. I mean, I just think you've got to honor the vote that people took. You said your friends with half of Trump's cabinet, which half? Well, it's okay. There's a form of speech. How many in the cabinet? I don't know. Maybe half. I don't know. So I can tell you the number on which right time. So Rollins, the Ag Secretary, Exotherlian, I know obviously from, you know, we're colleagues at Fox Bobby Kennedy, Doug Burgham. Talsies no longer. Was she in the cabinet? I don't know if that can happen. Is D&I technically cabinet? I don't know. Anyway, she's not there anymore. Who else? I don't know. I'm hearing from a producer. There's 16 members of the cabinet. Okay. So maybe half is just slightly. The point I'm making is that I was Sean Doffey. Transportation, big role for us. I guess it's a Fox News thing. A lot of friends. Well, a couple of them were actually Fox News. And then, and then I'm just trying to think probably the people I, I mean, Bobby Kennedy, I've gotten to know since the, since I left Fox, but some of them I probably would have met

1:37:41there and interviewing them and that kind of thing. You are. You told me, Gabby, actually, I tell you when I met Talsie was when I ran my, my startup crowd pack, which was a platform for trying to get big money out of politics. Great job, by the way. I'm kidding. Exactly. Well, you know, you got to try these things. And we met. It was at a conference in New Orleans, a kind of, what was called, it was great. Jennifer Lawrence was the keynote speaker. It was a very, and I met Talsie and who else is, oh, Mike Gallagher, they had a Democrat and a Republican talking about the problem of money and politics. Yeah. So we go back quite a long way. Have you talked to RFK about vaccines? Not about vaccines. No. You would support encouraged Californians to get vaccinated. Yeah. I think, I mean, Jay Bata-Char is a very good friend of mine. And I, and I trust what he says about this. And that's, that's basically my position.

1:38:46I try, whatever he, you know, I have a lot of confidence in his approach. I mean, I've, I really, you know, work, for example, on the COVID vaccine, you know, I was very struck by what he said about that, which seems to be a very common sense position. And so yeah, because you got that. Favorite sandwiches in California? Oh, well, the thing that comes to mind, because I just had some really good ones lately of the Bar Me, the Vietnamese. I was in Lil Saigon in San Jose, and it was just unbelievably good. This play, I did an amazing event there. It was fun, very real crazy event. It was great. And then we had lunch afterwards. And I do love, I love, I love Bar Me. And I've always loved them. But that was particularly good. And that's the one that comes to mind. So you talked about how you want to sort of change people's caricature of you. And I don't know, but I want to change. I'm just saying, I think that we're fine. Yeah. I have to say, yeah, it was interesting watching the way you've been campaigning versus

1:39:53sort of the way you were as a host. And I'm wondering if your caricature of Democrats has changed based on what it's been like in California campaigning sort of outside of a yeah, interesting. Cable news environment. So the thing I was, I mean, it's not the whole answer, but what I think of when you say that is that, and I say this all the time, because I got a lot of people say, love, what's this fox, fox news thing? You know, we remember you as something completely different when you're in the UK. You were the one that tried to, you know, make the the conservative party, you know, I mean, I'd ever used this term actually, but it's going to modernise it and so on. And you know, I wrote a book in 2015 called More Human Designing a World Where People Come First. Actually, the big theme of that is decentralising power and so on. And I would always say, look, I, I, I, what I've never said anything on my fox news show that I didn't believe or don't believe, but I didn't say everything I believe. Right. And so that was,

1:40:53that's how I saw that. It's a particular job. And I think that, you know, to be fair, I would be pretty, I don't, I want to say it's not true to that even handed, but I would attack Republicans on that show. I had a segment on that show called Swamp Watch, which was, which was really, you know, going after corruption and so on. I had a huge amount of blowback when I would go after Republicans, which I did regularly. Man, you know, an unpromative one, you know, Ted Cruz or Kevin McCarthy or whatever. And so I think that, I don't like to wear anything, what else, but I definitely made an effort to not be tribal. Well, because I do mean about Democrats. Well, I, you, I think that there is a, there is something about fox news, which I think exists in many ways to assuage uncomfortable thoughts out of people's minds. That's, that's, I think, part of its function. And, and that is especially important when it comes to, sincere objections to Donald Trump,

1:41:55which is where we started. We can end here. You know, when you were talking about the Trump, Trump's first impeachment, you said of Democrats, they hate the president, they hate his supporters, they hate how they think they hate their faith, they even hate their food. They hate the fact that this president is delivering concrete results and they're terrified that they can't beat him. Now, I'm a Democrat. I think my view on his first impeachment is sincerely held and that it was deserved that even right now, he should be impeached and removed for a set of, for, for high crimes and misdemeanors, corruption, abuse of office. That is a sincerely held view. I certainly don't hate people's food and religion. In fact, I was just the Minnesota state fair and I, I eat like a Republican. So, but I do think it matters because I think what that is is trying to tell people that supporting Donald Trump doesn't say anything bad about you. That these people don't really believe these moral critiques. And then you embrace someone immoral and you're asking us

1:42:56to say, oh, don't let that bother you. But it's something fundamentally broken about a politics that can embrace someone as unfit as Donald Trump. And so, do you appreciate that a lot of Democrats in this state genuinely believe he's a threat to this country and you would be representing them? Yeah, I can, I know because we talk about it. I hear it very clearly and I disagree with that. Like I said, there's many examples starting with Trump, but you know, like all the time, I'm seeing things that they're, and I think about it very narrowly now in terms of California, where I don't agree with that. I really hate that. I wouldn't, you know, I'd argue strongly against that if I were there now, everything from UC funding to, I don't know, the business with your sanity, I'm going to have looked into it, but seems pretty bad to me. So, I think that on a case by case basis, I'm very happy to say that I wouldn't be at all reluctant to disagree and challenge

1:43:58them. I hear what you're saying on that. I think what I was channeling there is a very strong sense that there really was, and it was captured by Hillary's deplorables comment. I mean, that was a real clarifying moment, I think, for a lot of people. And I don't want to suggest that it was representative of every Democrat. Of course, I don't. But, you know, there was something to that that was visceral. And I feel like that is what a lot of Republicans feel. They feel look down on. They really do. And they feel look down on partly because of who they are and all those things I listed the faith and the food and whatever. And you see it in some of the commentary that people make. And I don't know, you'll say which examples. I mean, just I'm just 10 years now. You've said, well, no, but I would say, I'll, you know, sure, she said deplorables, dumb thing to say,

1:44:59apologize for it. Yeah, I know. I know how to decade. A decade. I'm not saying some of the most heinous, vicious things, not just about politicians, but about California, about our people, about about a place we love that you're trying to run. And I appreciate you trying to strike this balance. Okay. But I don't, but it's not, doesn't seem to be as much what you did on, I get why you'd be doing it while running to lead California. But yeah, but for a lot of us, it's not a balancing question. It's a moral question. I understand that. But I guess I've been, I guess I've done a lot of different things in my career. I left Oxford in, in 1990, 30, 60 years. I actually, you know, added it up because when you run for a, I'd never run for office before you get three words to describe yourself on the ballot. So I think, okay, what I've done different things. I've taught at Stanford, done a startup, run, run restaurants, written books, been on TV, worked in the government, a bunch of different things. So I, I actually added it up. Most of my career has been

1:46:01in business in the private sector. Most of those years, starting and running my own businesses. However, in, to spurs in that 36 year period, I've been in and around politics and the media a lot. And I guess what, including my, you know, my first job, my first real job was project manager for a construction company. But my first job out of college was, I took a gap here and did that, but was working at the conservative party. I've been around a long time in and around politics. And I guess I just, I've seen a lot of things that you could say are reprehensible. I don't think that anything I've seen is uniquely bad. And I think, you know, things just, you know, things seem from in the moment to have particular kind of, you know, significance attached to them. And I think increasingly with everything's out top in a way it wasn't before, because of social media. But then things move on and you're onto the next thing. I remember it like, for example, back in the day, in, in the, in Europe, the first, there's George W. Bush was unbelievably

1:47:06unpopular in Europe. Everyone now thinks, oh, Trump, and it's so embarrassing because everyone in Europe thinks we're so, you know, you go there and everyone's talking about Trump and how could you elect Trump? What up? That was exactly the same with George W. Bush. And so I just think that I tend to not get, I don't know, I just try and focus on the stuff that you can control and things that are practical. Honestly, that's truly how I see it. So I don't know, I mean, I don't, I try not to get amped up about stuff. Well, that's all I do. Steve Hilton, good talking to you. Thank you for coming on. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. It's good luck on the campaign trail. Thank you. That's our show for today. Thanks to Steve Hilton for coming on. Field correspondent Tommy Vittor will be back in the feed on Sunday with a conversation with Abdul El Sayed. He was in Michigan today. Tommy, obviously Abdul as well, but Tommy was in Michigan. And he'll also give us an update on how things are feeling on the ground there with just two months until election day. Have a good weekend. Bye everyone. Paz in America is a cricket media

1:48:09production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts and Ferris Safari with Reed Churland, Elijah Cohn and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Heffco, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, David Tolls, Mia Kelman, Brian Young and Naomi Sengal. Our staff is probably unionized with the writer's guild of America East.