Ep. 293 exposes how a former Obama aide’s admission on Morning Joe—revealing the White House illegally leaked unmasked surveillance on Michael Flynn—exposes partisan weaponization of intelligence, yet media like CNN buried it while hyping Trump-Russia collusion. The episode contrasts leftist "intersubjective truth" with conservative empiricism, mocks performative language shifts, and frames Senate hearings as a partisan circus. Meanwhile, the healthcare bill’s failure is blamed on media bias and tactical missteps, with conservatives urged to embrace pragmatism over purity—even if it means supporting flawed but consequential wins like Obamacare repeal. The takeaway: power thrives on selective narratives, and the only way to counter it is by controlling the story—or canceling the cable. [Automatically generated summary]
I can't help but notice that there's a big difference between the way conservatives and leftists present their points of view.
This, I think, is indicative of a central difference in our philosophies.
Conservatives believe there is such a thing as truth, that the truth is based on reality and reality is made up of facts.
This is why you often see conservatives pointing at charts and discussing the latest research just before a large angry crowd attacks them with clubs and beats them into a bleeding mass of pulpy flesh.
and then pours alcohol over the still quivering pile of gore and sets it aflame and then votes the smoldering ashes out of office.
Leftists have another point of view, sometimes called relativism, postmodernism, or lying.
You see, leftists believe there is no such thing as objective truth.
As American philosopher Richard Rorty wrote, quote, and this is a real quote, objectivity is a matter of intersubjective consensus among human beings, not of accurate representation of something non-human.
Rorty then called for another whiskey, but he couldn't get an intersubjective consensus that whiskey existed, so he was forced to settle for a beer before stumbling to the empty space where he could have sworn he'd parked his car.
Essentially, leftists believe the truth is a story that we tell.
This makes language very important because language creates the story that creates the truth.
Leftists, therefore, are very concerned with what things are called.
If someone who can't walk is called crippled, for instance, that's prejudicial because it creates the impression that he can't walk.
Instead, we should refer to him as handicapped.
Then, when people start to realize that handicapped is actually a euphemism for crippled, we should call him differently abled.
And when that comes to mean crippled, we should call him special, and so on, until he leaps out of his wheelchair and shouts, hallelujah, I can walk, and falls on his face because he's crippled.
And because leftists believe the truth is just a story we tell, they are very good at telling stories.
That's why leftists are very successful at creating fiction, as they do in Hollywood and in the New York Times.
While conservatives are pointing at charts and facts and figures to show that, for instance, American police officers do not shoot black people for no reason, leftists seize on a story about one black person shot by one police officer and use that story to make black people so angry that they become violent and are shot by the police.
Finally, because leftists believe the truth is just a story, they have to make sure that stories they disagree with don't get told.
This explains why leftists blacklist conservatives in Hollywood, why they commit acts of violence when conservative speakers come to universities, and why Brian Stelter still has a job on CNN when by all rights he should be standing at the corner of Hollywood and Vine, dressed as Spider-Man, and taking pictures with tourists.
You see, leftists believe their story is a great one.
It's a story of equality and peace and universal love.
So if you disagree with it, they'll destroy you.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
Movement Watches Promo00:03:32
I'm the hunky-dunky.
Life is to give you boo.
Birds are ringing, also singing, hunky-dunky-hunky.
Ship-shaped ipsy-topsy, the world is a bibby-zing.
It's a wonderful day, hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing!
Oh, hurrah, hooray!
Oh, hooray, hoorah!
All right, that was my opening was based on an op-ed by Crispin Sartwell in the Wall Street Journal of Philosophy Professor.
And I found it, it was a very serious op-ed, but I found it hilarious.
So I just drove it in.
All right, we have another new sponsor.
I'm so happy to have them, Movement, although they left out all the vowels for some reason.
It's M-V-M-T, and if we find the vowels, we'll put them back.
But it's pronounced movement, and it is movement watches.
And I am, this is a great sponsor for me because I'm a watch fanatic.
I'll tell you the only time I ever broke a promise to my wife was about a watch.
I'll tell you, this is true.
I love watches.
I love watches and clocks.
And I saw a watch when we were kind of, we had stopped struggling, but we were just kind of coming out and starting, I was starting to establish my career as a novelist.
And I saw a watch, and I can't remember the name of the brand because it was an obscure brand, but I saw a Swiss watch that I wanted so much.
It was $6,000.
And my wife said to me, well, you know, we're starting to make some money.
I said, no, no way I'm spending $6,000.
She said, well, promise me that when they start to make your books into movies, you'll buy the watch.
So I said, okay, you know, because who thought that was ever going to happen, right?
But they did.
They started making my books into movies, and I went to buy the watch, and I couldn't do it.
I could not bring myself to spend $6,000 on a watch because it's too much.
It's too much to spend on a watch.
And that is why we have movement.
That is what this is.
This is a company started by two college kids who, like me, they love these watches.
And they just didn't want to spend that incredible amount of money.
So if you go on their website, I have one, and it's beautiful, but I couldn't wear it today because I still have to get the band shortened.
The band is still a little too long, but I will wear it next time we talk about this.
And you can see it.
It really is beautiful.
They're fashionable.
They have that kind of minimalist thing that a lot of the really nicest watches have.
But little difference, they start at $95.
I mean, look, if you go into even a department store and just to buy a reasonably decent, nice-looking watch, you were looking at a $400 to $500 price tag.
But these start at $95 and they are really, really beautiful.
They have classic designs, quality construction, and this kind of, like I said, this minimalism thing.
They've sold over a million watches now.
These two kids just trying to fill this need for people like me who love watches but don't want to spend the money.
You can get 15% off the price today with free shipping and free returns by going to movementwatches.com slash Andrew, right?
That's me.
Movementwatches.com slash Andrew.
And that helps our show too because then they know we sent you and that you're responding to us.
And this watch just has a beautiful, clean design.
They're really nice.
You just go on the website.
You can see them and it's a really easy website to maneuver.
It's the time to step up your watch game.
Go to movementwatches.com slash Andrew.
M-V-M-T.
Join the movement.
Good stuff.
All right.
We have the Noltenator, John Nolton, will come on later and talk to us about the media and this stuff we're seeing, this crazy, crazy stuff that's going on.
Russian Connection Debacle00:16:00
I mean, half of the news is being, I feel like, is it just an invention at this point?
You know, if you actually look at what's happening, things are a little bit quiet right now, you know.
But now then we're going into the, after that, we go into the Clavenless weekend.
Last Clavenless weekend, we lost the health care bill.
Paul Ryan was on TV this morning just before I came in.
This is not what I was going to talk about, but just before I came in, I saw Paul Ryan on TV saying, we're really close to bringing this back.
Now, I don't know how true that is, but meanwhile, Donald Trump is kind of bullying the Freedom Caucus and saying, you know, come on, get on board, get on board.
He's kind of slapping them around.
And, you know, you have to remember that when you're listening to conservatives like me, you know, but like all the conservatives on talk radio and all this stuff, you get the impression that we live in this conservative world, you know, so that like it's really mean of Donald Trump to bully these guys.
But you have to remember to a lot of people on the right, on the right, the conservatives look like they're getting in the way.
And so Donald Trump is softening them up, hoping he can get this bill back.
If they did resurrect this bill, it would, I mean, a bill that they all agreed on.
It would be awesome.
Just to see Chuck Schumer stop laughing, just to see him cry again.
It would be like another thing.
The Statue of Liberty is crying because we, you know, I would just love it, it would be awesome.
So let's see if they can do it.
That would be amazing.
One more thing before I start on my main topic.
I just want to issue a clarification because somebody asked me a question yesterday.
I was talking about the historical Jesus and how I had abandoned the idea that history could really discover who Jesus was.
And he asked me, don't you think the gospels are historical?
And of course, I do.
If you mean, do I think they really happened?
I do.
But I was saying that historians do not have the tools to deal with things like miracles and resurrection.
It's not what they're there for.
It's like asking a mathematician to invent a formula to prove your girlfriend or boyfriend loves you.
He would say, well, that's not math.
That's not a subject that I can do.
Historians have a certain tool set, like everybody, and it's not equipped to deal with that.
That's what I was trying to get at.
And I think when you hear scientists talk about God, it's the mistake they make.
They don't have the equipment to deal with that either.
They don't have the equipment to deal with spiritual things.
So when they say, you know, 3%, you know, only 40% of scientists believe in God, it doesn't mean anything.
It means no more than any other survey of anybody else because whether you believe in God or not, he's there.
So you're stuck.
Also, another thing, I got an email telling me, we did all this week and stuff I like, we did Paul Verhoven.
Somebody wrote and said, you're mangling Paul Verhoeven's name.
Verhoeven pronounces his name Verhoefen.
And so I wrote back to him and I said, you should write to him.
It's not my fault.
He doesn't know how to pronounce his name.
He didn't think that was funny, but I did.
All right.
So today the Senate starts their hearing, right?
There's been this House hearing that has devolved into the Russian connection in our election.
And the House hearing has devolved into this kind of clown show of people slinging mud at each other, Adam Schiff on the Democrat side and Devin Nunes on the other side.
And the reason is they don't want to really investigate whether the Russians tampered a little bit with our election, which they obviously did.
They've been doing it forever.
We've been tampering with elections too.
I mean, I don't want to sound too much like Donald Trump, but we tamper with elections too.
And they have been tampering with our elections at least since the 60s when the Soviets were, you know, most of the older people complaining about the Russians were tools of the Soviets back in the 70s because they have these peace movements and all that stuff that the Soviets were funding and infiltrating.
And so, you know, half the college professors teaching in America were tools, you know, unwitting tools of the Soviets.
So Adam Schiff wants to create this whole thing about Donald Trump was colluding with the Russians and helping them to defeat Hillary Clinton.
Absurd.
It's absurd.
I mean, I just don't believe it.
I'm not saying there was no communication, but the proof, they've been investigating it now since July.
And it's just ridiculous.
On the other side, on the other side in the House, is Devin Nunes, who has been saying that Obama effectively used this stuff, used the intel that was being gathered about this, to get in the way of Donald Trump, to create this narrative that Trump is an agent of Smursh, you know, that he's like a Russian spy.
And the other day, one of Obama's former, one of the people in the Obama administration blurted out on Morning Joe that this was essentially true.
And I haven't seen anybody covering this.
It just kind of came out by accident, right?
So we'll get back to that in just a minute.
But let's just talk about what's happened, just to talk about what's happening today.
Now the senators are going forward and the senators, you know, the whole thing is the House is supposed to be where the kids have this sandbox and they yell at each other, but the senators are supposed to be the grown-ups in the room.
So they're saying, we are going to be completely, you know, we're just going to investigate the Russians, the Russian infiltration in the elections, and we're going to be completely objective.
So here are the two senators, what is it, Richard, just so I'd have their names.
It is Richard Burr and Mark Warner.
Mark Warner is the Democrat, Richard Burr is the Republican.
And of course, NPR asked Richard Burr, who was part of Trump's transition team, if he can be objective.
Having served as an advisor on the Trump campaign, can you say hand over heart that you can oversee an impartial and serious interview?
Absolutely.
I'll do something I've never done.
I'll admit that I voted for you.
We always hide who we vote for.
That's part of the Democratic process.
But I've got a job in the United States Senate, and I take that job extremely seriously.
It overrides any personal beliefs that I have or loyalties that I might have.
Mark and I might look at politics differently.
We don't look at the responsibilities we have on the committee differently, and that's to earn the trust and the respect of the intelligence community so they feel open and good about sharing information with us because that enables us to do our oversight job that much better.
And let me just Richard Bird, that we together with the members of our committee are going to get to the bottom of this.
So everybody's been saying, get to the bottom of this has become like a mantra on this.
But meanwhile, meanwhile, there is no evidence.
There's no evidence that the Trump team in any meaningful way colluded with the Russians to overturn the election.
I personally don't believe that the Russians could have any way that Vladimir Putin could have had any way of knowing that Trump was going to win, that Trump had any capability of winning.
Nobody knew that.
Nobody knew that.
I mean, a few people knew, but certainly not Vladimir Putin.
So he was really, what he was really trying to do was undermine the credibility of Hillary Clinton.
He didn't like Hillary, so he was trying to make her look bad by releasing DNC emails or whatever they were doing.
But I don't think he was trying to get Trump to win.
I don't think he had any, they thought that that was possible.
Nobody thought it was possible.
But the real crime, the one thing that we know is a crime, is the leaking of Michael Flynn's name from a wiretapped, you know, a wiretapped conversation with the Russian ambassador.
You're allowed to wiretap the Russian ambassador, but if an American gets caught up in that, you have to mask his name.
And they unmasked it.
And obviously, the Obama administration made this easier to do by disseminating the unmasked information to people, all right?
So I mentioned this yesterday.
Michael Duran wrote this great piece in the Hill.
He says, the leaking of Flynn's name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and at the same time to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's Manchurian candidate.
On December 29th, Obama announced sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities.
From that date until Trump's inauguration, the White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information, one about Russian hacking, the other about Trump's Russia connection in the hands of sympathetic reporters.
The two streams blended into one.
That is what they were doing.
And Duran put out a tweet today saying every reporter knows this because every reporter was getting phone calls from the Obama administration saying, you're going to write about this, right?
You're going to write about the Russian connection.
So Emily Farkas, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia under Obama, right, was with Mika Brzezinski on Moinjo.
And if you watch this, if you're watching this on video, watch her eyes because as she's speaking, you can tell she's thinking, wait, am I, should I be saying this?
And she just, she basically says it's all true that Obama was spying on Trump.
Here it is.
You actually knew about this attempt to get and preserve information.
And full transparency were doing some work yourself.
Tell us about that.
Well, I was urging my former colleagues and frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left.
So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that there was more.
We have very good intelligence on Russia.
So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.
All of this was leaking out into the press until the moment when Donald Trump tweeted, oh, they wiretapped me at Trump Tower.
And then all of a sudden, no, But essentially, they were spotted.
So Reince Priebus goes on Hugh Hewitt this morning, and this is just an audio clip from the show.
And he asks him about this, and Priebus can't believe he heard it.
He can't even, that's why I think that's why nobody's talking about it, is nobody can actually believe it happened.
And I heard it late last night.
So, I mean, I honestly, I talked to Sean a little bit about it late last night, Spicer, and then we were going to be meeting this morning.
This is an incredible statement, you know, and what it means and what she meant by that and whether that has anything to do with the issues in regard to surveillance of Trump transition team members is something that we need to figure out this morning and throughout the day.
But it certainly is an incredible comment, although I don't want to add too much into it right now until I have an opportunity to sort of dig into it and figure out the scope of such a statement.
By the end of this interview, Priebus is virtually inarticulate because he sucks to say, like, I can't believe it.
I can't believe it.
All right, John Nolte.
You know, we're going to bring Nolte on and we're going to stay on Facebook and YouTube so you can watch the interview.
But that doesn't alleviate you of your responsibility to subscribing to thedailywire.com for a lousy eight bucks a month.
And then you can watch the entire show on the site.
You can also ask questions in the mailbag.
And if you subscribe for the year, we will send you the completely blank book of Michael Knowles' reasons to vote for Democrats.
Of course it's blank.
You know, what could he say?
What could he say?
So have we got Nolte?
Can I see him?
There he is, the Noltonator, John Nolte, the best observer of the media in the business.
He really is.
You are the most accurate observer of the media.
You're CNN.
What's your latest CNN, your latest Twitter handle?
At Nolte NC, N-O-L-T-E-N-C.
And your title, you have a title like CNN is Hitler used to be your title?
Oh, yeah, CNN lies and is Hitler.
And is Hitler, okay.
I want you to know, and I'm going to get back to this.
Yesterday, after we decided we were going to ask you to come on the show, I was driving home and listening to Rush.
Did you know he was reading your piece on the air?
You know, I very rarely listen to talk radio.
I've got so many other things going on.
You know, I have a TV.
So I very rarely listen to talk radio, but I was driving yesterday.
So I was listening to Rush.
I always listen to Rush when I drive.
And I couldn't believe.
I was actually pumping gas and my wife jumped out of the car and she's like, Rush is talking about you.
Rush is talking about you.
So that was very exciting.
Very exciting.
Very cool.
I'm going to ask you about what he was talking about, too.
But first, let's just talk about this week because I'm watching the news this week and it almost almost like a cloud of nonsense at this point.
This whole Russian story with Trump, you know, I just, I think Trump should start wearing a trench coat and a slouch hat so that he looks like a James Bond villain, maybe metal teeth or something like this.
They don't have any, am I wrong?
Are they just making this stuff up at this point?
Yeah, I mean, this is, we're going on, I think, seven months now.
Yeah.
And what's interesting is that what you're seeing in the media now is that the Russian story is obviously falling apart.
I mean, maybe James Comey's going to pull a rabbit out of his hat.
I doubt it because there's so many leaks.
I think we'd know by now.
But As the Russian story is falling apart, but the story that's coming together is the story about Obama's surveilling of Trump.
And I think it was illegal.
It was certainly unethical.
And that story is coming together.
So you have the media pretending the Russian story is, oh, this is hot.
This is hot.
At the same time, they're trying to wish the surveillance story away into the cornfield.
Or what they're trying to do is they're trying to conflate the two stories to discredit the surveillance story.
And that's not working very well.
And I don't think it's going to work.
I think that once the Russian story is done and the Senate's having hearings now, and probably within about 10 days, this is all going to be over.
Then you're going to have, maybe the Republicans will take advantage of the fact that they won some elections and they'll then do some hearings on this surveillance.
And that tape that just came out, which is, I think, from early in March, of that Obama surrogate bragging about having the surveillance and getting it to partisans on Capitol Hill, who in turn were leaking it to the media, which is illegal.
It's a violation of the Espionage Act.
That is huge.
And you watch the woman who's talking out of turn, and you're right.
You look at her eyes, she can kind of tell.
You can kind of tell she knew it.
But look at Mika.
When the clip cuts to Mika Brzezinski, she's going to, okay, yeah.
Let's hope Grabian doesn't pick this up.
Yeah, yeah, okay.
Because they know, I mean, she let the cat out of the bag and everything.
And listen, the media has known this for months.
They had to have known because they were the ones who have called, yeah.
They reported on it.
They reported on the Obama administration spying on Trump.
When Mike Flynn resigned, they bragged about how Obama's surveillance of Trump, the Trump team, brought down Mike Flynn.
And then when Trump claimed that he had been quote unquote wiretapped, which if you look at the MIT definition, includes exactly what happened to him, they got hyper-literal, wiretapped.
You know, if we don't have video of Obama.
I'm sneaking into your apartment.
Yeah.
Yeah, hanging in Trump Tower like Tom Cruise and Mission Impossible.
He's innocent.
But it's, Trump got it.
He totally changed the dynamic of the story.
And it's boomeranging.
And hopefully some people are going to go to jail because politicizing intelligence, that's about as bad as it gets.
It really is bad.
I mean, the thing about it is, like, I don't like Obama.
I'm willing to sling mud at the guy sometimes.
But this really is bad.
I mean, this is an election, an election.
And it's one thing to say the Russians are trying to mess with our election.
They're always trying to mess with our election.
They're bad people.
Cable Packages and Viewers00:12:07
But Obama was surveilling the opposition party.
I mean, that is insane.
That is really bad stuff.
So the thing that Rush was talking about was he was talking about your idea.
I mean, I was doing some research a couple of days ago, and the networks are bleeding.
The network news are bleeding viewers.
I mean, viewers are punishing these guys.
They are lying.
They're just distorting.
I mean, lying is almost the wrong word.
They're just showing everything through this warped lens, and people are abandoning ship.
But your point was that you really can't punish these guys by boycotting them anymore because they've already lost all their viewers.
Am I getting that right?
Yeah, look at CNN, for example, which I think is the most irresponsible network news outlet in America right now.
CNN had their record quarter last quarter.
They still came in 12th place behind investigative discovery, but they had their record quarter.
Their record quarter for CNN averaged on the day about 830,000 viewers.
Wow.
Which in a country of 330 million is zero.
It's zero as a statistic.
So many people watch girls.
I mean, that's, yeah, it's nobody.
Yeah, yeah.
These are horrible, horrible ratings.
Nobody watches CNN.
Now, they can't stay alive when you only have that many viewers, total viewers.
This isn't even the demo.
These are total viewers.
You can't stay alive if you only have 800,000 viewers on advertising revenue alone because you don't have enough viewers to make enough money to create a machine like CNN.
So what they've done, and ESPN has done this, and MSNBC has done this, and even Fox News, is they've rigged the system through cable.
About four years ago, 100 million people had cable television in their home.
It's now down to 88 million.
It's still a high number.
But anyone who has CNN on their package, let's say you want Turtle Classic movies and you want Fox News.
But in order to get those two channels, you have to also take a package that includes CNN.
Whether or not you watch CNN or ESPN or any of these other networks, if it's on your cable package, your part of your bill is going to CNN.
It's about $1.50 to $2 per month that you're subsidizing CNN.
It's $7 per month.
You're subsidizing ESPN.
And that's how the last report I saw, 50% of CNN's revenue comes from these sneaky subscriber fees that have nothing to do with viewership or popularity or merit.
It's just that you're forced to have that channel on your cable package.
And the only way to hurt them, if you want to hurt CNN, you have to cancel your cable package.
You have to watch TV in a different way, which is what I'm doing.
So now, but nowadays, if you cancel your cable package, that doesn't mean you don't have TV.
You just do it through the internet.
Is that basically what you do?
Yeah.
My cable package, I think, was about $105.
And it wasn't, you know, and I think that's about average.
And I watched about four channels.
Okay.
And now I have Netflix and I have Amazon, and that's about $20 a month.
And I have, I watch all kinds of stuff on YouTube.
There's a ton of TV shows on YouTube.
That's free.
There's a ton of free movies and television shows through your Roku, which is like a little, it's about that big.
Yeah.
It's a beautiful thing.
If you don't mind, if you don't mind commercials, there's all kinds of free movies and television shows, but it's still fewer commercials than on your cable.
And you can get, if you want to watch cable news, CBS has a free 24-7 cable news channel if you just want to see what's going on in the world.
I don't miss cable at all.
Wow.
Did you tell them why you were doing it?
Did you write to them and say, I can't stand the left-wing ESPN?
No, no.
I mean, this is something I've actually been writing about for seven or eight years.
And I don't want to beat up the, you know, the poor guy in India who's on the phone canceling my charter cable, you know.
But I've been, no, this is an alarm.
I've been sounding this is the one-legged stool that holds the media up.
It also holds, it also holds Hollywood up.
Yeah.
Because it's all these mega corporations that own, you know, Time Warner owns Warner Brothers and CNN.
People do not understand this.
Yeah.
And Warner Brothers, you know, their movies aren't making a lot of money.
So they make money because they own all these channels and they get all these subscription fees.
Even Disney, which is the most powerful movie studio in the country right now, about 50% of their revenue comes from these subscription fees.
If you want to hurt Hollywood in the media, you can't not watch.
You have to cancel your cable package.
That's the one-legged stool holding it up.
And people do not understand this.
People are always saying to me, Hollywood is all about the money.
And that's a half-truth.
I mean, first of all, they are about the politics.
They do make movies that bomb for political reasons and for political messaging.
And they're all about getting invited to the right parties and winning the awards that you get when you make those movies.
But also, they make money no matter what.
They don't care.
It's not like the old days where a movie had to be a hit for them to make money and they lost money if it wasn't a hit.
It's not like that anymore.
They are making it all over the place and they make that money no matter what happens.
So it's a good point.
Let me ask you about one thing before I let you go, though.
This is kind of a point of contention.
Now, you were an early Trump supporter when we hear, most of us here at the Daily Wire.
I mean, I decided to vote for Trump.
I did it.
It was tough for me to do, but obviously the choice was so clear that, and I still think we just dodged, I feel we dodged a bullet, like a .50 caliber bullet in Hillary Clinton.
There's no question about that in my mind.
But you said to me, I brought you on the show and I asked you, does it bother you that he's not really a conservative?
And you said he's conservative enough for me, given what we've got, given the field of play.
So today, there's all this stuff, the Freedom Caucus is being hit for not voting for this health care bill, which obviously was a mess.
I mean, the health care bill was a mess.
And my argument about this, my argument was not that they should vote for the health care bill as a matter of principle or not principle.
It was that this was Trump's first big legislative play.
Give him a win because he's not a conservative to keep him basically on the conservative path.
You know, give the president his first big win so that he doesn't go off and start consorting with Democrats, which is what he's threatening to do.
Now, I think it's just a threat because I don't think the Democrats are going to give him anything.
But still, you know.
So, how did you feel about that?
You know, now everybody's saying, oh, Trump is bullying the Freedom Caucus and he shouldn't do it.
But I feel that's kind of a negotiating ploy.
What did you think the right play was there?
You know, I have to say that I hated the health care bill.
Me too.
And I'm not saying this to flatter you, but it wasn't until I read your piece that I kind of understood the argument for it because I read your piece about why this was probably a very bad thing to vote against it.
And maybe it's a very good example of Republicans killing the good in pursuit of the perfect.
And I'm not really a policy person, so I probably should have shut my mouth about the health care bill on Twitter because I don't really follow policy.
It bores me.
But just on its face, it just looked bad.
But then I read your piece and I thought, well, you know what?
Maybe they should have gone for this.
Maybe the good is worth it and we shouldn't be pursuing the perfect at the expense of it.
But I agree with you on him going after the Freedom Caucus.
What I'm seeing in him is the same thing Bill Clinton did, triangulation.
It's a negotiating ploy.
And my guess is that what they're trying to do under the radar is they have to repeal Obamacare.
They have to.
They promised us it for seven years.
And I think now we got a taste of what failure looks like, and we're all a little bummed, even those of us that were against the bill.
So he's triangulating a bit now.
And it sounds like below the radar, they're trying to get everybody together.
And without the media focusing on them constantly and trying to disrupt the bill, because that's all the media was trying to do during the whole thing was trying to disrupt everything and talk about how bad it was.
And if they can come to an agreement below the radar, the other dumb thing they did was setting a deadline.
Yes, that was dumb.
I agree with you.
I agree.
That was just the dumbest thing ever.
So I think they're trying to do it right now.
So that's what I think is going on now.
And it wouldn't surprise me if, you know, by the end of next week, that it looks like we're going to repeal Obamacare.
And really, if they could just get rid of the mandate.
Yep.
That's what I mean.
Get rid of the mandate and the taxes and all this stuff.
I mean, the rest will take care of itself in a lot of ways.
If they resurrect this thing, it will be hilarious because the smile on Schumer and Pelosi's face, I have to say, it was like a dagger in my heart.
In Chuck Todd's face.
Yeah, I know.
Manky Haberman's face.
Tapper's face.
And Chris Coleman, just slap it off their face.
Yes, it was.
The media was exhilarating.
And it just bummed me out for a day, and I'm hard to bum out.
Yeah, me too.
I know.
It did bother me too.
And I just think, I think that you got to play politics.
It doesn't help to say, it doesn't help for conservatives to say, oh, this Rotten Trump, the Never Trumpers, are always saying this Rotten Trump, he's really a liberal.
Well, if that's true, then you got to play for the conservative stuff you can get.
You got to live in.
I'm a big fan of reality, which is one of the reasons I hate the media, because I think it is really, it really has become a cloud of fantasy, a cloud of, you know, this whole thing about fake news, it's all fake news as far as I'm concerned, until they start to get some conservatives in there to at least balance the view in-house, in-house.
Yeah, and then what does the NBC do?
They hire Josh Ernest.
I know.
They don't want to fix it.
But I have to say, I just want to, because I like to admit when I'm wrong, after I read your piece, right after the bill went down, after I read your piece about why they should have passed it, I regretted coming out against the bill because I think you were right.
I think they should have passed it.
I think it was worthwhile.
There was enough good stuff in there that they should have passed it.
And also, by not passing it, they probably hurt our chances at tax reform because of all the savings that was in there.
I know.
Politics is tough.
It's a tough game.
All right, John Nolte, the Noltenator, great to see you.
And I hope you'll come back soon.
Anytime.
Thank you.
All right.
Thanks a lot.
All right.
So we're.
Are you on?
All right.
We're done with the Paul Verhoven für Fufenfafen Pfaufenfiefen talking about movies.
We're going to end with a little music.
You know, last Clavenless weekend, we lost the healthcare bill.
I'm dreading what happens next.
And then we've only got a week.
I'm here next week.
And then I'm taking a vacation.
I'm going to go overseas to England.
And I'm going to help push it away from the mainland.
Yeah, we're getting together.
You know, part of Brexit is we have to chisel away at the things that mind us.
But I got to end with one of my favorite singers.
I don't think I've ever played her before.
And Jane Monheit is one of the great cabaret singers.
She has got a voice like a bell.
And she's cute too, but she's got a voice like a bell and she sings all the old songs that I like.
And this is one of my favorite cuts from her called Hit the Road to Dreamland.
We are going to hit the road to the Clavenless weekend.
It's been a good week, and we'll have another one next week.
Come back on Monday.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is the Andrew Clavin Show.
Have as good a Clavenless weekend as you can.
Survivors gather here.
Bye-bye, baby.
Time to hit the road to Dreamland.
You're my baby.
Dig you in the land of night.
Hold tight, baby.
We'll be swinging up in Dreamland all night, baby.
Bye-Bye, Baby Time00:00:40
Where the little cherubs drop.
Look at that knocked-out moon.
And I'm blowing his top in the blue.
Never saw the likes of you.
What an angel.
Bye bye, baby.
Time to hit the road to dreamland.
Don't cry, baby.
It was divine, but the rooster has finally crowed.