play_arrow
The CRUSADE Radio Network CRUSADE Radio Network
play_arrow
The Mike Church Show-Radio Would Have Thwarted The Trump Assassination Attempt The KingDude
play_arrow
Audio Post Format TheKingDude
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – The question that Michael raises in terms of with Rand Paul endorsing Mitch McConnell for reelection in Kentucky, we do have the conflict that arises and the question in terms of: Do we want politicians that we elect to work within the inside political gamesmanship of DC? Is that what Senator Paul is doing? Or is that viewed as a capitulation of their ideals because they are then becoming a part of the problem? Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: Michael in North Carolina, you’re next. How you doing?
Caller Michael: Good morning, Michael.
Mike: Yes, sir.
Caller Michael: I think I’m going to take you to the conservative woodshed this morning. If you’ll give me just a minute, I’ll say what I was going to say, then I’m going to ask a question. Before your head explodes, I have one more statement to make and then I’ll get out of your way.
Mike: Am I supposed to be excited about this prospect here, my head exploding, being taken to the woodshed and being beaten like a child who has earned discipline? Am I supposed to be happy about this?
Caller Michael: Let’s start by saying I’m a huge fan. I’ve been listening to you for a long time. I’ll make this as quick as possible.
Mike: Please.
Caller Michael: I think I heard this morning that you don’t have a problem with Ted Cruz’s voting record. Am I correct?
Mike: That’s what I said. Well, for the most part, not completely but for the most part.
Caller Michael: I think the problems you and AG have is his senatorial decorum, his delivery. We’ll agree on that, right?
Mike: X gets the square. Go ahead.
Caller Michael: I was listening to David Webb about six weeks ago. I heard him say something — well, to start with, I don’t think it’s a leap to put you in the Ron / Rand Paul camp. I was listening to David Webb and he said, and I didn’t hear Rand Paul say it, but he said that Rand Paul had endorsed Mitch McConnell. Michael, if that’s true — to start with, I wonder, is your criticism of Ted Cruz coming from your heart or your head? Is that a fair question?
Mike: Michael, really, in all seriousness, I really do not need nor do I care to discuss the fountain from which my criticism of Ted Cruz comes from. You didn’t ask me where my criticism for Nancy Pelosi came from. You don’t care. You didn’t ask me where my criticism for Barack Obama came from because you don’t care. You only want to know about the golden boy Ted Cruz. I’m going to decline the question because I think it’s immaterial and irrelevant. What difference does it make?
Caller Michael: That’s fair enough. I will say, Michael, that we have very few candidates to choose from.
Mike: What’s with this “we” business again? Here we go with the “we.” Who’s “we”? We, Republicans, just ahead and say it, Republicans, the GOP.
For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
[private FP-Yearly|FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]
Caller Michael: I am not a Republican.
Mike: Then who is we?
Caller Michael: I know a few conservatives.
Mike: So do I.
Caller Michael: There is very few candidates I can choose from. If Rand Paul in fact did endorse Mitch McConnell, that tells me he has Potomac Fever and there’s a cure.
Mike: Maybe he’s just a shrewd politician. He also endorsed Mitt Romney.
Caller Michael: Do you think we need another shrewd politician, Michael?
Mike: Michael, politicians are politicians. Let me answer the question this way. Would you be happy with a king?
Caller Michael: Well, that’s what the hell we have, isn’t it?
Mike: No. Well, not by name yet. Would you be happy with a king? Let’s pick a family, maybe the Bushes, maybe the Obamas, maybe the Pauls. Pick a family and they will be the new House of Windsor and we’ll make them royalty. Whoever their descendants are will be the next royalty. We’ll have a House of Commons, which we currently have now, and they can meet and yell and scream at each other and kind of pretend they run the show, but really it’s the king who gets his way. That way we’re not really worried about the politicians and the shrewd politicians. I have news for you, sir. James Monroe was a shrewd politician. James Madison may have been the craftiest and shrewdest of all shrewd politicians of his era. Should I demonstrably turn my back on the legacy of Madison because he was a shrewd politician? That just means he’s good at the ancient art of politics, which is the world’s second-oldest profession, not by coincidence. Is the interrogation over now?
Caller Michael: I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Mike: I answered your question about shrewdness. Yes, you will need more and more shrewd politicians. I will answer in the affirmative, yes.
Caller Michael: And I don’t. I don’t want a shrewd politician.
Mike: What do you want him to be? Do you want him to be limp? You want him to be weak? You want him to be impotent? You want him to be inept? What do you want him to be then?
Caller Michael: Before Chris Christie had sex with Obama on the beach, people really loved —
Mike: [laughing] What did you say, before Chris Christie did what?
Caller Michael: Before he had sex with Obama on the beach . . .
Mike: Oh, my goodness. [laughing] I must say, I’ve never heard it put that way before. Was that a drink, a cocktail drink, sex on the beach?
Caller Michael: Maybe that’s what the drink was named after. He had me fooled, too.
AG: The question that Michael raises in terms of with Rand Paul endorsing Mitch McConnell for reelection in Kentucky, we do have the conflict that arises and the question in terms of: Do we want politicians that we elect to work within the inside political gamesmanship of DC? Is that what Senator Paul is doing? Or is that viewed as a capitulation of their ideals because they are then becoming a part of the problem? I don’t necessarily think there’s a right answer to that question. I think it’s an internal struggle. If you just want to stand off to the side and stick to your principles continually and not give yourself a chance to get into the conversation, then you can obviously do that. The tangible effect you’re going to have is probably less than if you then enter into the conversations and are a part of different budget committees and different conferences, that sort of thing. It is a conflict of: What do we want our politicians to accomplish when they go to DC, stand on principle and not enter into negotiations, or do they get to enter into the negotiations and then hopefully swing the conversation and the policy making more towards what they had talked about doing when they were running for political office?
Mike: In other words, the sport — I think you can compare it to a sport — of politicking is what Americans, by and large, claim that they want nothing to do with, want no part of. You want to be able to just go to your particular legislative body and just go and do your job, cast your votes, debate with your fellow legislators, and then go home. Then you go back and seek reelection or defer to the next guy or gal who is in line who may seek the seat. This, in abstract, works perfectly. If we had [r]epublican societies dotting the American landscape, which would mean we would have somewhere on the order of 300,000 to 500,000 of these entities, then we would be doing very little governing and very little politicking in the one city on the one coast that purports to make law for all the other cities regardless of their geographical location.
Dealing with the reality of it today is that’s not happening, that’s not the case. You have now power unfortunately concentrated inside Mordor on the Potomac River. The question is, Andrew, to answer whether or not Rand Paul ought to be endorsing Mitch McConnell, or anyone for that matter, is to ask the question: For what purpose does Paul yield the endorsement? If we can get to the bottom of why he yielded the endorsement, then we have a lot better chance of objectively answering the question. I think I know the answer to this. Why do you think he yielded the endorsement?
AG: So that he has a stronger likelihood of his voice being heard on a number of policy debates being pushed forward by the minority leader, it’s somewhat guaranteed because of the endorsement of McConnell.
Mike: It could also be that he’s willing to yield the endorsement of McConnell because he will need the endorsement and support of McConnell and the State of Kentucky’s GOP establishment in order to try to secure the Republican nomination in 2016. Do you view the candidacy of potential president Rand Paul as a net good? If you do, then you would say the endorsement of or the move to endorse McConnell, looking into the future and saying he’s going to need McConnell’s support, is what? A shrewd move.
AG: If we start down this path, the question then becomes: What happens in a state like Texas where Cornyn is running for reelection? If Senator Cruz were to endorse Cornyn while there are other more Tea Party-esque candidates running against Cornyn in the primary, would you level the same criticism at Cruz that is leveled at Paul for endorsing McConnell?
Mike: I doubt anyone that’s listening right now that’s been yelling at you and I for the last two days would level that criticism at Cruz.
AG: You just start down a slippery slope into that kind of discussion when you look at these endorsements, if these politicians are doing it strictly to have a larger voice at the table. I just think it’s a conflict that you’re not going to get the perfect solution when you seek an answer for.
Mike: That’s okay that you don’t have a perfect solution because we’re humans and we’re not perfect. There’s only one thing that’s perfect in this world and that is God. God is perfection. Man will never be perfect. Pursuing perfection is pursuing idolatry. You’re never going to have perfection. To say that your solution is adequate I think is okay. Let’s look at this from one more perspective. Let’s just say for a moment that you made it either unpalatable or unacceptable, depending on your choice of adjectives, or illegal to have one member of the elected political class endorse another potential member of the elected political class because we don’t want conflicts of interest brewing. Let’s just say you made it illegal and you were not then allowed to do it. Would there be mighty protestation and great vainglorious debates over whether or not [mocking] “That was a violation of the First Amendment. He’s got his First Amendment rights and you can’t do that!” In other words, I don’t think you can win this argument.
It would be up to the individual. Does Senator Paul have to yield the endorsement? Of course he doesn’t. You’re basing this on the fact that there are political concerns that are in play here. They are politicians after all. We like to think of them as not being politicians, but dealing with reality should tell us and inform us that they are indeed politicians. They’re going to act all politiciany. That’s exactly what Senator Paul is doing. He’s playing the game.
End Mike Church Show Transcript
[/private]
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – "Abortion, and even contraception, even in the prevention of pregnancy, is verboten in church teaching. This goes all the way back prior – this is taken directly from the gospels, directly from the Old Testament, and then passed on traditionally." Check out today’s transcript […]
Post comments (0)