All Episodes
Previous Next
May 18, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
34:02
Rand Paul - May 17th, Hour 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down at Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, news roundup and information overload hour on this primary day in a number of states across the country, also in the great state of Kentucky, where of course we're supporting Senator Ram Paul, no-brainer.
And I'm sure he'll do very well today.
Anthony Fauci out there again talking about the possibility of a COVID surge due to waning immunity and people not wearing masks indoors.
When does he ever get it?
Probably never.
Furthermore, goes on to say, right now, looking forward, I don't see the need of a lockdown in the future.
And then he defends lockdowns again.
You just can't make this up.
Let's play it.
The fall is several months away.
If we don't get people who've been vaccinated to be boosted and getting the people who've not been vaccinated, we're going to have a degree of immunity that's below the level of what you want for the community protection across the country.
Then you get a situation besides the waning of immunity where as the weather gets cooler, people tend to congregate indoors.
And we've seen very clearly a relaxation of some of the mitigation where people are going to indoor congregate settings without masks.
Now, masks are not required in so many places, but people are not wearing masks.
So we're concerned about all of those things.
We're concerned about the surge we're seeing right now, as you mentioned, and the fact that as we approach the fall, the late fall and early winter, we're going to have a waning of immunity and circumstances, namely a lot of indoor activities, which make it very conducive to another surge.
If you're going to lock down, you've got to use it temporarily for a reason to prepare you to be able to unlock down and get the public prepared for that.
Right now, looking forward, I don't see the need of lockdown in the future unless something really very, very unusual happens.
And the reason is that what we really need to do is we need to get our population vaccinated and we need to get them boosted.
That would completely obviate the need to lock anything down.
So right now, if you ask me the question, looking forward, do I see even if we do get a new variant, I think the vaccinations that we have have enough cross-reactivity and our ability with proper resources to make variant-specific boosts.
I don't see lockdown in the future.
Lockdown is a temporary thing to get you to be able to move quickly to save lives.
Knowing what you know now, have you known it then?
Did we do the right thing in shutting down society?
Would we have been better off saying, no, we're going to protect the vulnerable, the elderly, the people who are immunocompromised, and we're going to Isolate them, but have the rest of American society, churches, businesses, universities, schools, go on about their business while at the same time providing them guidance about how to protect themselves.
Well, it's a complicated question.
I'll try and give as simple as answer as possible.
I think there's a misperception about who the vulnerable are.
Anyway, Senator Ram Paul of the great state of Kentucky, also a medical doctor in his own right, has done more single-handedly to expose Anthony Fauci and the fraud of the NIH and the CDC and the absolute atrocious policies that were adopted that had everything to do with, had nothing to do with anything scientific.
There was no following the science.
They're still not following the science because you can be fully vaccinated, get a booster, another booster, have a previous infection, and still get COVID again.
Because I know so many people, more than I can even express, that have had it twice.
And I now know people that have had it a third time.
Anyway, Senator Ram Paul, thank you for being with us.
How are you, sir?
Good luck.
I don't even need to wish you luck.
You're going to run away with this today.
It's going to be.
Well, I appreciate it.
Pennsylvania is a little more dramatic.
Let's be honest.
Yeah, you're right.
It is going to be a little more dramatic.
But you know, the whole thing about whether we should be afraid of the virus still, the most important thing to know is that if you randomly test 1,000 people from any state in the union, you'll find that 97% of people have immunity.
They've either got it from having the virus previously or from being vaccinated, or sometimes both.
75% of our kids have had it naturally.
So this is no longer a novel virus.
This is a virus that our immune system knows about and has surveillance.
And in all likelihood, people will do fine with this.
Whether you need a booster or not, I think depends on whether you've also been infected, and it depends on your age.
But I think it's absolutely crazy, and the science does not support giving boosters to kids, particularly adolescent males.
I think the risk of getting myocarditis from the vaccine exceeds the risk from the disease for kids, particularly for adolescent boys and girls.
You know, I don't know if you saw this story.
It's now gotten a lot of play.
And there's a quote of Joe Biden that's been out there now since March, where he says, now is a time when things are shifting.
We're going to, there's going to be a new world order out there.
We have got to lead it, and we've got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it.
Daniel Horowitz wrote a column about the World Health Assembly on May 22nd, the governing body of the WHO, and how they're going to meet in Geneva, Switzerland, and the purpose of which is to discuss the next step in what I would view, in his words, a nefarious pandemic treaty and the quest to use public health to expand the WHO's power over sovereign states.
Senator, you know as well as I do that the WHO did nothing but become the press office for the communist Chinese and all their lies about COVID and its origins and everything in between.
When anybody starts talking about the new world order, I shudder.
When anybody starts talking about world government or world health organization having edicts and mandates that go beyond and into and invade our country's borders, I'm terrified of that and absolutely opposed to it.
I want to do everything to fight against that.
I'm against the mandates even within our country, much less an international order of mandates.
Do we really want to be Australia or do we want to be Shanghai where people in ASMAT uniforms are beating the crap out of their own citizens?
We don't want that.
And the thing is, it turns out if you look carefully at the science, none of the things we did, plexiglass, masks, stickers on the floor, none of that really works.
The only thing that works with the virus is immunity.
You get immunity from a vaccine and you get immunity also from the disease.
Those are the real things that can affect the trajectory of the virus.
But everywhere they mandated masks, there is no evidence of a correlation between law, legal mandates with masks, and there's no correlation between that and the incidence of the disease.
And this is in dozens and dozens of countries, states, and provinces.
If they truly followed the science, now that you can be fully vaccinated and boostered and boostered again and even have had an earlier infection, a natural immunity, and you could still get it again.
Doesn't the science then push us away from this mantra of booster, booster, vaccine, vaccine, and towards therapeutics like the antivirals that apparently are working pretty well for people, according to people I talk to.
You're a doctor, you know better than I, but I would argue the gold standard absolutely is our monoclonal antibodies.
And in this case, for this variant, BA2, Omicron, that would be the Eli Lilly monoclonal antibody.
Well, we have a great deal of evidence, and the CDC has been trying to hide this evidence, but the study that came out in January showed that if you've been previously infected, that you're like 55 times less likely to be in the hospital than someone who has not been infected or vaccinated.
If you've been vaccinated, you're 20 times less.
So we do know that the infection helps you.
So if you're 60 years old or 65 years old and trying to decide, do I need my 10th booster?
Ask your doctor, can I be tested to see if I've gotten the disease naturally or I know I had it naturally?
Because really, that's the information that needs to be gotten forward.
We have tons and tons of data at the CDC, but they're not releasing the influence of previous infection.
If we did, maybe people would be less paranoid and we'd get away from all of these sort of edicts that you've got to get a booster every six months.
We need to study and they need to release the data on if you've been previously infected and vaccinated, you know, when do you get infected again?
What's your chance of going to the hospital?
What's your chance of dying?
So my recommendation is ask your doctor, obviously, take into account your current medical condition, your medical history, and, you know, are you vaccinated?
Did you get a booster?
Did you have a previous infection?
All those things would clearly factor in.
But then ask your doctor about monoclonal antibodies.
Senator, let me just tell you this.
I have probably helped out hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people.
I can't even count how many people I've directed to go to their doctors and ask about monoclonal antibodies.
In every single case, if somebody gets it within the first, it's better within the first 24, 48 hours, but 72 hours, usually without fail, within 48 hours, it's done.
It's over.
They're better and they move on with their life.
The problem we have now is the government owns all of the monoclonals.
They've forbidden insurance from paying for them and they've forbidden individuals in paying for them.
So the government dictates a policy.
So Regeneron and the others were taken off the market abruptly.
The thing is, all of these, the government's been limiting the use of them because they say they don't work in laboratory tests.
And I had a meeting with one of the scientists the other day, and I said, what we really need to know is, are the laboratory tests absolutely indicative of what it does in the clinical experience?
Because I have lots and lots of doctors who said, you know what, even though they said it wasn't working in the lab, our clinical experience, what it was, that it was.
So really what we need are clinical trials of continuing to use the monoclonal antibodies.
Because my experience last year, yes, the reports were astounding at how well the monoclonal antibodies were working.
But there's too much control by the government and there's not enough studies being done currently to find out whether or not laboratory evidence of efficiency or efficacy is the same as the clinical experience.
And that's what we need to know.
By the way, do you even have a primary opponent?
Because if you do, I don't know about them.
I have five.
My goodness, John.
Yeah, people need to be able to do it.
Five of them are going to have very bad news tonight.
I can predict.
They've got to go to randpaul.com because I have five opponents, Sean.
No, my case, I should do pretty well in the primary, and then we'll see how the fall goes.
But I'll know more this evening who my opponent will be.
Listen, we haven't always agreed on everything, but I'd say we agree on 90, 95% of issues.
And I'll tell you, you are one of the few that stands on principle, fights for liberty, fights for our Constitution, fights for our freedoms.
And the times we disagree, usually you have a pretty darn good argument for doing what you do, which I respect, even if I might disagree occasionally.
So I give you a lot of credit.
One of the things we've got is a big fight on our hands coming up immediately at the end of this week or early next week is the Democrats and about 10 Republicans are pushing for $50 billion more in bailouts for restaurants.
There's no reason to be doing this.
The restaurants have rebounded.
There are no limitations.
If there are any limitations on going to restaurants, they're in Democrat states because the governors have been too zealous.
But we need to not be passing another $50 billion worth of debt.
But y'all need to talk about the Republicans that are pushing this because there's about 10 Republicans that are pushing for $50 billion to bail out the restaurants, even though the COVID lockdown's been done for probably.
Okay, haven't we now figured out we can't spend any more money with 42-year high inflation numbers than the highest gas prices we've ever paid?
I never thought the economy could be turned into such garbage in such a short period of time.
And that's why this Senate race is so important.
That's why I took a strong position in Pennsylvania in a primary.
That's why I'm supporting people like you.
I'm supporting people that I know believe in fiscal responsibility and have the common sense to get us on the right path.
We can fix these problems.
Energy independence will be a big component of it.
That's a big issue in your great state of Kentucky.
It destroys our argument against inflation, though, because inflation is from big spending and debt if we are piling on wanting the subject, too.
So Republicans need to be consistent.
If they're going to blame Democrats, which they should, for the debt and for the inflation, let's get off of asking for more bailouts for restaurants.
It's a big mistake.
It's not consistent with our ideology.
And guess what?
We don't have any money.
We've got to borrow it from China to give it to people.
Scary times, Senator.
Thank you for being with us.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Ian is in the great state of Florida, and we got 90 seconds, and I'm giving all 90 to you.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Sean.
It's wonderful to be able to speak with you today.
I'm going to go straight to the point, though.
I'm really concerned about this World Health Organization Vote that will be taking place next week.
And I'm not really hearing too much chatter about this out there.
And I'm kind of concerned that, you know, it's going to slip through and nobody's paying attention because everybody's worried about elections and raising money for their election campaigns.
And they're not paying attention to what's, you know, really crucial out there.
Let me tell you, the person, when I read Daniel Horowitz's column on this, I said, like a five-alarm fire went off in my head because you're right.
That's scary.
We would literally be giving up and surrendering our sovereignty to an organization that we already know is corrupt.
And this is the same organization that defended China and became the press department for China.
It's insane.
So you're right on the money, Ann.
And I promise you, we're not going to let this go.
We'll stay on it next week.
I know we've got a lot of politics going on, a lot of primaries happening, but we definitely will stay on top of this issue.
You have my word, okay?
Thank you, Sean.
I really appreciate it because a lot of people listen to you, and this can't just slip through the cracks without being.
I agree.
Anyway, thank you, Ann.
Appreciate the call.
Quick break.
We'll come back.
More of your calls on the other side.
I was apparently attacked by Kathy Barnett.
Not that I should pay much attention to it, but anyway, we'll get to that next straight ahead.
Be sure
to check in as soon as you get to your car after work for breaking information you need to know about.
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Hi, 25 till the top of the hour, 800-941.
Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
It is primary day in a number of states around the country.
We're following all of them.
Probably one of the most interesting, I think, is the Pennsylvania race.
I'd never seen this in my entire career where somebody out of nowhere that's not polling well that nobody paid attention to all of a sudden surges like eight, nine days outside of the primary.
I mean, I just had never seen anything like it.
Anyway, so we did a deep dive.
We started vetting Kathy Barnett.
She'd been on our program a number of times, radio and TV.
Every time she was on, I liked her.
I have no problems with her.
Now that I have all of these tweets and all of these comments, and I still can't get over the push to build a statue of Barack Obama, all of her hatred towards Donald Trump.
I mean, the most incendiary comments on gays and lesbians and Muslims that I would argue in a general election make her unelectable.
I quoted William F. Buckley Jr., the most conservative candidate that can win.
There are real issues and questions about whether she'd have any chance of winning.
I know polls are open now for, what, another two hours and 23 minutes in the great state of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
So she goes on this radio show on our affiliate, WPHT, in the morning.
I mean, they've got such a great station there.
And she goes on Dawn Stenslin's morning show starts at 5.30 every morning.
Fantastic host, fantastic show.
Does incredibly well.
And anyway, the issue of me and her come up.
Now, we had called and reached out to Kathy Barnett.
My team was finally able to get her once on one phone call.
And we tried repeatedly to text, to call, to text, to call, to get explanations for the things that she had said, the things that she had written, the things that nobody paid any attention to leading up until this primary race.
And then all of a sudden, she wouldn't take our call anymore.
And then Linda, you might recall, because you were part of this, she sends out a tweet saying, I'll see you Monday night.
I'll debate Dr. Oz one-on-one.
You say you're fair and balanced.
I said, well, the night before a primary debate, a primary is not the night for a debate with only two of the candidates.
If I'm going to be really fair and balanced, I would have to invite all the candidates at that late hour.
And so, and not only that, this is, what, three and a half days before we'd actually put the show on, which would have been last night.
I mean, I'd love to say we can just snap our fingers and find a location and get all of the television equipment there and build out a studio audience and build out the lighting and build out all the engineering issues and just snap our fingers and it would be done.
Usually something like that takes months to plan.
You could probably pull it off in a couple of weeks if you're really stressed, but it's not something you can physically pull off with the quality that, of course, Fox would rightly demand.
So that wasn't, that was a non-starter from the beginning.
But I did say, and I tweeted her back.
I tweeted her, I think, what, six texts back that I could put together if the other candidates would agree with a radio debate.
And I would have had that yesterday.
Did she ever respond, Linda?
Because I don't check Twitter.
I don't have access to it.
No, she did not.
She's been very busy doing a lot of interviews with other people, telling people she doesn't remember anything she wrote on her own account.
You know, because we once had an issue with Twitter where it had been compromised in some way.
What was the exact words at Jack used to you?
It was compromised.
And it was some weird.
Yeah, I mean, we saw it and everybody thought it was like some special code of like it meant something.
I'm like, yeah, no, it's just some weird screw up on internally.
They fixed it.
It's fine.
Okay.
So then we fixed.
So all of these quotes, I don't remember them.
That doesn't sound like me.
They're not full sentences.
Here's the problem with the full sentences thing, too.
I'm sorry.
But, you know, back in the day, Twitter was 140 characters.
That's a full sentence back in the day.
That's how much that's what you get.
So I don't even know what that means.
So anyway, she goes on this radio show this morning, and here's what she said.
I had been told that, in fact, you had offered to go on Hannity and answer some of the things that, you know, he was saying.
And did he, is there any, did he ever let you answer to any of those, you know, things that he was saying?
No, he did not, right?
So this probably started last Thursday.
And it was just wishes and lies.
And they were splicing up videos to make me say something I never said that I don't like Trump.
I never voted for Trump and I'm all about this, that, and the third.
And it was just complete lies and mischaracterizations.
And Hannity seemed so perplexed, although I've been on his show seven different times prior to now.
And he never asked me any of these riveting questions.
And then he went even lower by bringing in my opponents and getting them to bash me.
So I said, listen, Hannity, I would love to come in studio and sit down with you and Mammoth Oz.
And then you can ask me all of these questions you seem so perplexed about.
I would love to sit down and have a discussion.
And I said all of that in one tweet, and he sent back six different tweets, all of them saying no.
That's not true.
I think she put together a radio debate with all the candidates.
She trashes Trump all over her Twitter feed.
I have one right here in front of me with my picture on it.
Why does Sean Hannity support unprincipled Donald Trump?
And by the way, that's one of her nicest comments about Donald Trump at the time.
And, you know, that's fine.
She didn't have to agree with me.
She doesn't have to agree with me today.
But there are so many of these tweets that are out there that it's, you know, she said, for example, about Donald Trump.
She says, no, we have Cruz.
We have Ben Carson.
I like hashtag Trump2016.
He's a riot, but he's nothing more than headlines, very little substance.
She said about Donald Trump, hashtag Trump2016 is good for beers and barbecue, but not as president.
We are so morally bankrupt, et cetera.
Then she goes on, hashtag 2016, hashtag Trump2016, moral character is questionable, braggadocious, constant jabs, war bankruptcies, brags, bending rules.
And she goes on and on and on.
And then I don't even want to read the stuff that she said.
You know, that an entire religion should be canceled, broad sweeping generalizations.
Pray for me and my children.
We just got on a plane and there's a gay woman here.
I'm like, okay, so what?
And now you might say, well, Hannity, maybe primary voters want that.
I am saying, and I am arguing, that the odds of her winning a general election are nil, next to zero.
Maybe there's 1%.
If it's such a huge wave election, maybe, maybe an outside, outside, outside chance.
What is your take, Wendell?
Well, I mean, the first problem I have is just her saying, you know, like in all of those tweets, he said no.
I'm like, no.
What he said was a TV show with, you know, six or seven different people all coming in is just too much to do in a matter of two days, not to mention the fact that you had a personal thing that you were handling over the weekend and you were going to be away.
So then you're coming to Monday.
There's no time to do it.
And instead, we were like, but listen, we could definitely do something on radio.
We'll give you the time.
We've got almost 700 stations.
We've got millions of listeners.
We've got a huge base in Pennsylvania.
Like, let's at least do that.
No response to that.
So again, her ability to read what's being written in all of our tweets.
And yeah, there were six of them.
You know, yeah, there's six of them because we want to be in context, you know, because context is very important to Kathy, as she's mentioned many times.
So we want to give it to her in context.
We want to give her as much thought out, you know, verbiage and word salad that she can digest so that she understands where we're coming from.
And yet she still didn't understand it and says we said no.
I'm like, no, we just said no to a live TV debate.
We said that we could do something on radio.
It's a little easier and it allows people more flexibility to be from different locations.
It would have had a huge audience.
Yeah.
And not to mention the fact while she's sitting out there having all these conversations about us and everybody else, she's not talking about solutions.
She's not talking about what she should do.
And she's not answering the truth.
Nobody says in a book that isn't her biography she lives in Virginia.
It's ridiculous.
I have the text records of everybody on my staff reaching out to her.
She doesn't answer.
She doesn't respond.
We were begging her to respond to us.
Listen, she took one phone call, found out we were asking tough questions, and that was it.
Never picked up the phone, never answered again.
Then she publicly tweets to me.
So I say, okay, here, I can do it physically impossible.
But I can do this on 675 stations.
And she still has not responded to that.
And then what she's saying to Dawn on WPHT just isn't accurate.
I mean, I'm not even accurate.
Accurate is a very, I would say it's untrue.
And I think the problem that I have as someone who lives in this state and is from this state, and it's a big one, is we need somebody that's going to beat Fetterman.
You know, anybody who's lived under Shapiro and Wolf knows what a debacle it has been here.
I mean, it's a hot mess.
We need real leaders that can kick their ass, and we do not need somebody who does not remember writing something.
Some of the things she said are so egregious and incendiary and offensive to so many people.
And it's inappropriate and has nothing to do with getting food on the table, getting gas in your car, paying your mortgage, and getting to work.
So as far as I'm concerned, I would really like to know what those solutions are and why you can't remember what you wrote.
Because if you can't remember what you wrote and you were so outraged by these things and you haven't even taken them down, it's like, it's not even like, well, I don't even know.
Oh, is that offensive?
But the answer is that that doesn't, I didn't, I don't write like that.
That's, that didn't come from me.
So are you claiming?
Because she was asked directly on another talk show whether or not she believes her account was hacked.
She didn't answer that question.
That's right.
Now, either you were hacked or you weren't hacked.
If you weren't hacked, that means you wrote it.
And there's so many of these incendiary comments and tweets.
Never mind why anybody that claims to be MAGA, didn't she claim in her book?
Somebody told me that she claimed in a book she didn't vote for Trump at one time.
I don't know about that.
I mean, I have flipped and flopped and flailed all over these issues.
Here's the main question.
There's a little over two hours now for the people in Pennsylvania to decide.
I don't get to decide.
Eight o'clock, everybody.
Eight o'clock, just an FYI.
Right.
Eight o'clock, the polls close.
Okay, so after this show, you'll have two hours if you live in Pennsylvania to go vote.
I've made my case why I supported Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020.
I've made my case why if I lived in Pennsylvania, I'd support Oz.
You do have a vote in Pennsylvania, Linda.
Have you voted yet?
I do.
No, I'm voting after the show.
I'll be one of those people.
And I'm not going to ask you who you're voting for.
That's none of my business.
But I will say this, that it is this seat is so critical.
I have made the case.
There's not much I can do.
I'm at peace with myself.
I'm at peace because I know that I told the truth.
I know who Oz is.
I know he's an America first, make America great again, save America conservative through and through.
I know he's pro-life.
I know he's pro-Second Amendment.
I know he's pro-energy independence.
And I know he's a fighter.
And I know that he can win the general election.
And so he meets the Buckley criteria.
I think that's a valid point, right?
So at the end of the day, when you go and I was just saying this this morning, I mean, I talked to Jeff and to Rose, but we're all here and we're all talking about what's happening.
And I think the bottom line is for anybody voting in any state today in a primary is you have to vote your conscience, but you also have to vote and make your vote count because you're voting for somebody that has to go up against a machine.
And the machine is destroying our country.
So if you would like to be a part of literally writing the ship, then you need to vote for the person that is going to win when the general election comes.
And right now, people are getting all caught up in this whole idea of, well, this one's not a conservative and this one is a conservative and this one says how I feel.
And it's like, you need to understand something.
We have to vote in a way that is going to get us to the goal we need to get to.
You want to win a battle?
I want to win the war.
That's where we're at here.
And I need to vote for the person that's going to make sure that we get an R in this state because it's not doing so good under where we are right now.
And that's what people need to think about.
It's not.
And that's why I've been very clear on what matters.
Now, there are primaries in North Carolina.
I really do believe that Bud, who we had on last week, the Senate candidate, is going to win that Senate primary.
Yeah.
People were also looking at Oregon and Kentucky, Idaho.
Kentucky, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Oregon.
It's going to be a very, very interesting night.
And I was surprised that the president, I don't know what's going on with Madison Cawthorne.
I don't, but the president said he's been acting crazy.
You know, we need to forgive him and give him one more chance, which I just found an interesting remark because that's always kind of been my position.
You know, one thing that kind of young people.
If Kathy would have owned, taken ownership of things she said in the past and apologized and said, I'm a different person today and meant it, and it was sincere, I think she'd be in a very different position than she is right now.
I agreed.
I completely agree.
Nobody ever wants to do that.
All right, that's going to wrap things up for today.
All right.
Full coverage of the primaries.
We got North Carolina, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Oregon, full coverage.
Bill Hemmer at the big board tonight.
Kellyanne, Reince, Newt Gingrich, Leo 2.0, Terrell, and Joe Concha, Geraldo, Greg Jarrett, and much more.
Oh, and yes, we'll cover MSDNC saying Democrats will win if they just brand Republicans as racist.
Anyway, we'll see you tonight at nine.
Back here tomorrow.
Thank you for making the show possible.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
▲
Export Selection