“LUDICROUS!” Rob Reiner Says Kamala Harris LIED About Him In Book | Piers Morgan Interview
Hollywood legend Rob Reiner had a string of smash hits in the 80s and 90s and has now written a new book on the iconic Spinal Tap, called ‘A Fine Line Between Clever & Stupid’. He joins Piers Morgan to talk about free speech in today’s political climate, drawing on the death of Charlie Kirk and the leftwing rhetoric of comparing Donald Trump to Hitler. He also tells Piers the things said about him by Kamala Harris and Jake Tapper in their books are not true and reveals the movie he’d most like to be remembered for. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Cozy Earth: Luxury shouldn't be out of reach. Go to https://cozyearth.com/PIERS for up to 40% off Cozy Earth’s best-selling temperature-regulating sheets, apparel, and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Reality vs Interpretation00:15:02
I say two plus two is four and the other person says two plus two is Thursday.
There's no real way to have a discussion.
You can't talk to people who don't acknowledge certain realities.
But calling him Hitler or calling his supporters Nazis, I think crosses every acceptable line because he hasn't murdered 12 million people.
No, no, no, no.
You're crossing the line here.
Donald Trump trying to find ways.
That's what authoritarians do.
Rob Reiner has screamed at him, we're going to lose our fucking democracy and it's your fault.
First of all, did you say that?
You're allowed to use the F word.
Yes.
Oh, that's right.
Unsensitive.
I said something like, it's all over.
We're fucked.
We're going to lose.
But I never, ever said to Doug Emhoff, it's your fault.
That's ludicrous.
How could it possibly be Doug Emhoff's fault?
Rob Reiner is indisputably a Hollywood legend.
His string of smash hits in the 80s and 90s may have been the first and best example of what's now referred to as a generational run.
He's written a new book on the iconic spinal tap called A Fine Line Between Clever and Stupid.
Ironically, that's how many commentators feel when they're interpreting the words of President Trump, a man for whom Reiner famously has, well, very limited tolerance.
And Rob Reiner joins me now.
Rob, great to see you again.
I don't think I've interviewed you probably for about 14 years when I was at CNM.
Is that how long it's been?
I think so, yeah.
Something like that.
There you go.
Yeah.
Well, it's great to see you.
It's nice to see you.
As always, you're making a lot of news.
I watched with great interest your chat with Bill Maher on his podcast last week, which was really enjoyable, really interesting.
But there was a moment in that, which I'll come to in a moment, relating to how the left and right can somehow bring it upon themselves to come together to deal with the obvious toxicity in public discourse in America.
But first, I just want to ask you, when you first heard about the murder of Charlie Kirk, what was your immediate gut reaction to it?
Well, horror.
Absolute horror.
And I unfortunately saw the video of it.
And it's beyond belief what happened to him.
And that should never happen to anybody.
I don't care what your political beliefs are.
That's not acceptable.
That's not a solution to solving problems.
And I felt like what his wife said at the service at the memorial they had was exactly right.
And totally, I believe, you know, I'm Jewish, but I believe in the teachings of Jesus and I believe in doing to others and I believe in forgiveness.
And what she said to me was beautiful and absolutely, you know, she forgave his assassin.
And I think that that is admirable.
So that leads me to the Bill Maher thing, because one of the more interesting exchanges you had was, obviously, everyone knows that Bill went to have dinner with Donald Trump at the White House.
And I was on his show the week after when he first talked about it.
And it was really interesting, the reaction.
He got pasted by many people on the left and he got lauded by people on the right that he often vehemently disagrees with.
But he felt, and he said this to you, that it was certainly something he was glad he did, doesn't regret doing it.
And that actually, you have to do this, that everyone can refuse to have any to do with the other side and hate each other.
And that leads really to nothing.
It just leads to endless division.
You pushed back at that.
You said that you didn't have to do that.
No, no, no.
What I said to him, you know, if you listen to the whole thing, what I said is I'm happy to talk to people I don't agree with.
I do it all the time.
I mean, I'm open completely to doing that.
But what I said to him is when you're having a discussion, and I just watched the discussion you had with the ambassador, which I thought was really interesting.
I mean, and I admire your ability to, in a way, it wouldn't be mine if you were one of the people helping to solve that situation there because you had some very good points about releasing the hostages.
But what I say is I'm happy to talk to anybody who I disagree with.
And I've been on, you know, Tucker Carlson's show.
I've been on, you know, Laura Ingram.
You know, I will do that.
But when I have a discussion with somebody I disagree with, we both have to at least start with two plus two is four.
If we both agree on that, then let's let the discussion start.
But if I say two plus two is four and the other person says two plus two is Thursday or whatever, or two plus two is five, whatever, there's no real way to have a discussion.
You can't talk to people who don't acknowledge certain realities.
Right, but that was the point.
That was really what I was getting at.
And what was interesting, Bill pushed back at you because he said, actually, that's exactly when you need to engage with people because you don't know where they've got their information.
They may have seen it on social media.
They may have seen a TikTok, whatever it may be.
People get led down rabbit holes.
They get to see a certain version of an interpretation of facts that may not be yours.
But actually, so I was going to ask you just a question.
Just now you've had time to think about that chat with Bill, whether he gave you cause to just perhaps rethink that, because I found myself siding with Bill there.
And I've got a lot of respect for both of you, but I felt like I sit down with people who I believe their interpretation of fact is completely skewed.
I do it all the time.
But I do think it's important to try and have a rational conversation with them about it.
Yeah, no, no, but you just said something interesting.
Their interpretation of fact.
Right.
Fact is fact.
I mean, there's no such thing as alternative fact.
Well, let me give you an example of what I mean.
So I was on a political show called Question Time, BBC's big political panel show in the UK last week, and Bonnie Greer was on it.
He's a very long, experienced left-wing commentator.
And she has repeatedly called Donald Trump in the last few weeks, Adolf Hitler and his supporters, Nazis.
Now, I would still sit down with her and I would have a conversation with her and I would try and debate with her.
I did it in public on that panel.
And yet there's no way anybody in the world will ever persuade me that what she is saying about Trump with those categorizations is factual.
So by your yardstick, by your yardstick, I shouldn't sit down with Bonnie Greer or try and have an argument with her.
No, no, you should.
Because here's the thing.
That's not fact.
Right.
You know, she may think it's a fact.
But she thinks it is, is the point, right?
So my thing about interpreting.
So my thing about the interpretation aspect is that...
No, I hear what you're saying, Piers, and I understand that.
And I think you should have, and you should be able to engage in that and try to convince people that what you think is fact is in fact not fact.
And I think that's-you can have that conversation and you should.
And that's that's the point I think Bill Maher was making to you, which I thought was really interesting because I believe that.
Listen, I get people on this show all the time who vehemently disagree with each other.
But I think there is a valuable public service in having all the arguments ahead, all the sometimes outrageous and completely obviously wrong interpretations of facts, but having people challenge them in real time and the viewer hopefully reaching a place where they can see reality unfurl before their eyes, rather than what has become, I think, fueled by social media, so much toxic tribalism where people disappear into their tribe.
They exist in kind of these weird echo chambers where they only follow people who agree with them and they start to become very self-righteous about their worldview.
And I think that is a path to real danger.
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief podcast.
If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon.
And on the weekend, we go longer with the PDB Situation Report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Also on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
No, it's not only a path to danger, but it's where we are.
Right.
I mean, unfortunately, it is where we are right now.
And it is unfortunate.
And we should be able to have that discourse with somebody who you totally disagree with.
And what you're trying to do, hopefully, is come either have them come around to your beliefs or find some place in the middle, like you were doing with the ambassador just now, to find a place where you can come to an agreement.
And there are places where we all can agree, you know, and I think those are the things that we have to build off of.
For instance, you know, recently we saw the thing with Jimmy Kimmel where he was taken off the air and then, you know, shortly after he was put back on the air.
And that was about First Amendment right, freedom of speech.
And, you know, in our Constitution, the federal government is not allowed to meddle in freedom of speech.
It's why you're allowed to be on the air to talk about what you want.
And we're talking now and I can say what I want.
And we can all agree on that.
We can all agree that we, especially American, in American democracy, according to the Constitution, we all have a right to freedom of speech.
And we can all agree on that.
So from there, let's say, and we also know that, you know, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater because that's not free speech.
That's violent speech, you know, that causes, you know, violence and death and all that.
So we can all agree on that.
And there are other things in the Constitution that we can all agree on.
But the first thing we have to agree on is that we have this constitution that says these things.
Now, you want to change them.
You can change it.
There's provision in our law that allows you to change it.
But you can't just say, I'm not paying attention to that part of the Constitution.
I don't like that part.
So I'm going to act as if it's not there.
And that's one of the problems that we're having right now.
We're having an administration that is basically thumbing their nose.
And even Donald Trump said, I don't know if I agree with the Constitution.
That's fine.
You don't have to agree with it.
You're allowed to amend it.
The founding fathers were smart enough to know that they weren't completely right about everything and that they could be wrong about things.
And we've seen the Constitution amended many, many, many times.
See, I agree with you.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about free speech and how important it is and to be aggressively protected.
But the Kimmel thing...
For me, I watched Joe Rogan last night and he said some interesting things about Kimmel, which I think are correct, which is, and all these things can be true at the same time, but he said, you know, Jimmy Kimmel, when Tucker Carlson got fired from Fox, for example, or Roseanne Barr got fired by his own network, different circumstances, but they got fired.
Jimmy Kimmel, you know, gleefully trampled on their career grades on his show in a way that made it very clear that he has a personal political bias, which is then proven by an, I'm going to show you a graph here.
No, I think you're going to be able to do that.
Yeah, let me just show you the graph.
So the graph I'm showing here, Rob, this shows you how few conservatives ever appear on late night shows anymore, right?
I mean, literally, it's like a tiny handful, including Ron Kimmel.
And I remember there's a brilliant documentary.
I'm sure you've seen it, the one about the late night sort of history.
And you go back to Johnny Carson.
Johnny Carson never let anyone know what his politics were.
He had everybody on from all the parties.
He didn't care.
He just wanted to make people laugh.
And then slowly, and I think Donald Trump has accelerated this phenomenon.
But it seems to me now that the late night guys, they see it as part of their remit to be political activists, both in the choice of guests and the way they talk about Trump and the other things.
And I don't think that's healthy.
What do you think about that?
Well, I mean, it's their platform.
They can say whatever they want to say.
They're allowed to do it, but do you think it's right?
I mean, do I think it's right?
Yeah.
Yeah, it's right to have the freedom to say whatever you want.
I mean, Johnny Carson, well, you're right.
Johnny Carson was not political.
He never went into the political.
But, you know, you cited all those late night shows.
You know, John Oliver has a certain point of view.
Jon Stewart has a certain point of view.
The people that hire them and put them on allow them to do that.
When you talk about, you know, talk radio, when it first came to be, most of the talk radio shows lean to the right.
And so whoever put those shows on decided those are the shows they wanted on.
It's okay as long as the people who are hiring are saying we're okay with this.
What's not okay is when the federal government tells you what you can do.
I agree.
I agree.
And I would feel the same way, by the way, what I'm about to say the other way around.
In other words, you mentioned John Oliver.
He skews to the left.
Jon Stewart skews to the left.
Jimmy Kimmel skews to the left.
Issue-Oriented Entertainment00:06:02
Unashamedly, they're very open about it.
Stephen Colbert skews to the left.
Seth Meyer skews to the left.
The common theme is they all skew to the left.
I mean, there's an interesting moment recently where Greg Gutfell from Fox News appeared on Jimmy Fallon.
And it was such a refreshing thing to watch these two guys.
You completely probably disagree about most political issues, but they had a very nice, convivial conversation.
The ratings were through the roof because the other common thread of the late night thing is all their ratings have been tanking.
And I don't think the two things are necessarily independent because I think if you only appeal with a show like that to one section of America and you eliminate everybody who voted Republican automatically, I don't think that is a sensible strategy.
Never mind anything else.
And my view is borne out by ratings.
In terms of economics is what you're saying.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But here's the thing.
You know, it's a little bit different with John Oliver and Jon Stewart, but with, you know, Jimmy Fallon or Stephen Colbert, they're not, I don't know how to say this.
They're not, if they were to have on somebody who disagrees with them on the right, this show is supposed to be not about fighting or, you know, arguing points.
It's about entertainment.
So the question is, what entertainers or people that are of the right could they have on?
I mean, you look at Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan, you know, he's kind of, you know, he skews right, but he's kind of in the middle.
You know, a lot of times he'll go to the left.
A lot of times he'll go to the right.
But he's also positioned his show as an issue-oriented show.
These shows are not really issue-oriented.
Your show is.
Certain shows on Fox News and certain shows, you know, on MSNBC and CNN.
These are issue-oriented shows.
Those are the hosts that need to engage in the back and forth and difference of ideas, not entertainment shows.
But what was interesting about the Jimmy Fallon, Greg Guttfeld one, was they didn't really talk about politics.
They actually talked about a time they were in a bar together and all that kind of thing.
That's what made it very watchable and entertaining, which is, I totally agree with you, should be that criteria.
That's good.
I mean, that's good.
And if it's fun and they're having laughs, and then what you're saying is the people may not even know where Guttfeld stands.
Right.
Because they're in their little silos.
Yes.
They're not watching Fox News.
Exactly.
There's a guy that just comes on and then he says hello.
And then whatever the byplay is, it is.
But what you're talking about is, you know, you don't want to have those shows become issue-oriented.
No, I agree.
They're entertainment shows.
Yeah.
My issue with them, and I say this as somebody who's always, you know, identified as a liberal.
My issue with them is I think they've just become too partisan and it's become too obvious.
And one of the reasons I think the Kimmel thing with Charlie Kirk blew up so big was because it seemed to confirm to everybody on the conservative right in America that that was the bias.
And there it was laid bare.
Now, I don't want to get into the subtleties of what Jimmy actually meant, whatever.
He's accepted that people interpreted it a different way.
But we were talking earlier.
You mentioned your Jewish upbringing.
And we were talking earlier about Bonnie Greer and the use of Hitler and Nazi about Trump and so on.
Interestingly, while we've been talking, you've got Senator Ted Cruz has come out and said that people should stop using the Nazi rhetoric.
And I feel very strongly about this.
I think that you can absolutely go after Donald Trump in an aggressive way and hold him to account for a number of things.
I agree with some of the things he does.
I disagree vehemently with other things he does.
But calling him Hitler or calling his supporters Nazis, I think crosses every acceptable line because he hasn't murdered 12 million people and he hasn't waved a holocaust against Jewish people.
When Ted Cruz says that, but do you agree with that, Roy?
But not only that, but it doesn't get you where you want to be.
Right.
Which is, if you're opposing Donald Trump, which I do, and I don't really know very many things that I agree with him on, except for the fact that I do agree, I did agree with him on the warp speed on the vaccine for COVID, which now he's kind of, I didn't say that I never, I don't know, I don't know what COVID, you know what I mean?
He's like distancing himself from that.
I don't agree with that, but I also feel that if you go name-calling like that, it's not going to get you what you want.
You have to rally people around the things that you agree with that are in disagreement with Donald Trump.
And to me, the one area that, again, we both agree on is the freedom of speech and in the Constitution, First Amendment.
And when you have your head of your FCC doing that, see, that's his appointment.
That's Donald Trump.
No, I agree with you.
I think he's totally right.
So that's something that we can all rally around, Republicans and Democrats to say, no, no, no, no, you're crossing the line here.
And I think you're going to see a bit of that.
And I think what we're seeing is Donald Trump trying to find ways to take these federal agencies, whether it's the Justice Department and going after his, you know, his political enemies.
That's an authoritarian type thing.
That's what authoritarians do.
They use their levers of power to go after them.
They do, but let me throw something.
You mentioned COVID.
Federal Agency Pressure00:10:21
Today's show is brought to you by Oxford Natural, makers of the Optimum Day and Optimum Night, all natural supplements.
Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results.
Optimum Day is designed to boost your energy and support weight loss throughout the day.
Optimum Night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep.
And don't just take their word for it.
Here are just a few of their success stories.
England football legend, Michael Owen, lost £40.
Robbie, the face of AFTV, dropped over £100.
Linda, a top laurel firm executive, lost £50.
And Anita, an immigration lawyer, shed £60.
To watch their full stories and find out more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit oxfordnatural.com slash peers.
And here's the best part: use the code PEERS, P-I-E-R-S, and get 70% off your first order.
You're 70% off with the promo code PIES.
Uncensored is proudly sponsored by Cozy Earth, which, like me, delivers next level quality and comfort.
If I wasn't hosting this show today, I'd be wearing a pair of their bamboo joggers.
Why?
Well, they're buttery soft.
They never lose their shape.
And besides TV appearances, you can wear them for pretty much anything.
Flights, school runs, or just relaxing at home.
For those seeking intense comfort in more formal attire, take a look at their everywhere pants.
Lightweight, breathable, ludicrously flexible, but still polished enough to wear out.
If you're ready to look sharp and feel great, go to cozyearth.com and use code PEERS, P-I-E-R-S, for up to 40% off joggers, pants, shirts, everything.
And remember to tell them that I sent you Cozy Earth built for real life.
Interestingly, yesterday, there was a huge Kimmel story, everyone talking about it.
Many millions of liberals ecstatic he was brought back and the victory for free speech and all this kind of thing.
Terrible Trump for trying to get involved in curtailing his free speech.
And yet, interestingly, yesterday, a massive story dropped, in my view, far more significant in many ways, that Google stroke YouTube had been bullied by the Biden administration into severe censorship of many, many people for expressing honestly held views about COVID and that they were admitting this and they were going to correct it and they were going to have new standards and practices going forward to prevent this happening again.
You know, that to me is, you know, people talk about an administration censoring free speech.
There you have the Biden administration literally bullying a tech company into suppressing many Americans' free speech.
And yet the people screaming loudest about Jimmy Kimmel don't seem to be too bothered by it.
That to me says there is a double standard and it works both ways, but there is a double standard there because actually everyone who's annoyed about Jimmy Kimmel being suppressed should be really annoyed about what the Biden administration told Google to do.
Well, first of all, you're telling me something that I have no knowledge of.
So I can't really argue what the Biden administration did or didn't do with regards to that.
I would have to make myself more familiar with that.
But, and because I don't know about that, if Biden did exactly what Trump has done in ordering having the FCC step on freedom of speech, I think you'd see outrage.
I don't know that.
But that's what we see.
That's interesting.
And the point is this is a whataboutism thing.
We are where we are now and we know what we know now.
No, but I think it's really interesting that you don't know about this because it hasn't been given the same media coverage as the Jimmy Kimmel story.
But I bet when you go away and read about it, now I've told you about it, you will, I think, given what your views about free speech and about political interference, you will conclude as I have done, I think dispassionately, I don't come at these things from a partisan point of view at all, but I think that it was pretty egregious that they...
Let me ask you because I will look into it after we get off.
But can you tell me that, just briefly, can you tell me that the Biden administration had a federal agency go in and browbeat YouTube or whatever?
Well, the report is extensive, but what is crystal clear is that the Biden administration bullied Google into suppressing people accounts who were talking about COVID in a way the Biden administration did not agree with.
In other words, they were basically suppressing free speech about, but what levers did they push to make that happen?
Did they use a federal agency to make that happen or did they just suggest?
I'm just asking because I don't know.
Look, I would say to you, I don't know the exact way that it was done, but there's an extensive report.
I've read the top line from.
I'll check it out.
It's definitely well worth looking at.
I will look at it.
But what I do know is that the head of the FCC did make these statements.
That we know.
We saw it on Twitter or whatever, and we saw him make these statements.
So we know that happened.
Everybody knows that happened.
And because we know that happened, we can address it.
You're telling me something that I don't know what federal agency the Biden administration used to try to suppress speech.
Let's turn to another thing that's got you in the news, which is Carmela Harris's book, in which she talks about you guys being at a fundraiser in Los Angeles, watching the now infamous Trump-Biden debate, which obviously led to him then stepping down.
And the book says Doug, her husband, at a watch party with Hollywood donors, was getting an earful.
Rob Reiner has screamed at him, we're going to lose our fucking democracy, and it's your fault.
First of all, did you say that?
Oh, I'll tell you exactly what I said because it's also in Jake Tapper's book.
It says the same thing.
Jake called me and asked me what I said.
Are you allowed to use the F word?
Can I unsensitive?
Okay, good.
Oh, that's right.
Unsensitive.
Behind you every second saying that.
No, it is exactly what I said.
First of all, when I saw Biden give that answer, it was that really disjointed answer.
I can't remember what the question was.
I said, we're fucked.
We are fucked.
And I went and I went really on a rant.
And I said something like, it's all over.
We're fucked.
We're going to lose.
I don't know if I said we'll lose democracy, but I said, we're going to lose and we're fucked.
But I never, ever said to Doug Emhoff, it's your fault.
That's ludicrous.
Really?
Now, no, because listen, Jake Tapper said the same thing that I said that.
How could it possibly be Doug Emhoff's fault?
I'm not that unsophisticated to know how people get, you know, decide to run or not decide to run.
I was screaming at the whole world there.
And Andy Bashir was at this thing.
J.B. Pritzker was there.
Who else?
Oh, Jay Fonda.
But no, there was one, governor of Michigan.
I'm blanking on the name for a second.
She was there.
We were all there and I was screaming at the world.
I never direct, and Doug was definitely there.
He was hearing all of that.
I didn't say to him, it's your fault.
It makes no sense.
Why would I say it's his fault?
It's not his fault.
How could it be his fault?
I'm fairly politically sophisticated.
I would know that it's not Doug Emhoff's fault that Joe Biden is making a mess out of a debate.
Why would Carmela Harris put this in her book?
I don't know.
And why would Jake Tapper put it in his book?
Well, a reporter.
I told him and I talked to Jake three different occasions and I said, it makes no sense.
Why would I tell Doug Emhoff it's all your fault?
How could it be Doug Emhoff's fault?
Well, I presume that the implication was him and his wife's fault in the sense that they must have known that Biden was incompetent.
Well, she might have known, but I'm not going to blame Doug Emloff for that.
If anything, if I did say it's all your fault, I would have said it to Kamala.
She wasn't there.
I wouldn't say it was his fault.
How could it be his fault?
It makes no sense.
Do you think it was Kamala's fault?
Do I think?
I think there were a lot of people who enabled Joe Biden.
And I don't know whether it was Kamala, his wife, advisors.
You know, I had conversations with many of his advisors and everybody assured me that he was fine.
And listen, he did a lot of great things when he was president.
And I applaud the infrastructure bill, you know, Build Act Better and all of those things.
I applaud what he did, but I didn't know how, you know, compromised he might have been or how weak he might have been.
I had no idea about that.
And I don't know who did know and who didn't know.
I really don't.
Uniting the Country00:04:22
Attention podcast, people.
I'm Harry Cole, and I'm invited to something properly different, something urgent, something real.
It's called Harry Cole Saves the West.
If you're tired of limp commentary and afraid to offend punditry, then this is the show for you.
We're taking sledgehammers to sacred cows and battling the malign forces, tearing apart the US and UK.
From open borders to cultural collapse to economic chaos to the threats to national security, the values and freedoms of the West are under siege like never before.
This is the show where American grit meets British backbone.
We all defend faith, family, freedom, and the future of the West with bold, unapologetic truth-telling.
So if you're ready to push back, ready to stand tall, ready to laugh at the madness, then hit subscribe.
Harry Cole Saves the West right now.
Available wherever you get your podcasts.
The fight back starts here.
And yes, bring the popcorn.
I mean, the repercussions of the Democrats not taking action about Joe Biden a lot earlier, and you could argue not having a kind of more open convention and seeing who emerged strongest, you know, were devastating for the party.
Their polling has never been lower.
Donald Trump got re-elected, their big nemesis, and is now doing pretty much everything he said he was going to do.
People can't say they weren't warned.
So it's been a pretty calamitous period for the Democrats.
Rob, you know, you've been a Democrat.
Well, do you identify as a Democrat still?
Absolutely.
So what is the way out for the Democrats?
Now, what's the future?
Do you look at somebody like Mamdani in New York and think that they've got to go that way?
Do you look at AOC and see that?
Do you look at Gavin Newsom?
I mean, who is the person?
Because it seems to me what the party desperately needs, I think, is somebody like Bill Clinton to emerge or an Obama figure, somebody a little bit, you know, left to center, but who's very generally electable.
But I'm not sure I see anybody there.
Well, I agree with that.
I don't think somebody who's on the hard, hard, hard left is going to be able to, you know, have the country coalesce around them.
I agree with that.
And we don't know who's going to emerge.
At the time when Clinton emerged, the country didn't know very much about him.
I mean, he came out of a southern state and, you know, it was the new Democrats, you know, the third way and all of that.
And we don't know what's going to emerge.
Right now, we have something much more immediate, which is do we preserve the democracy?
Are we going to be able to have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028?
That we don't know.
We have to first, first thing we have to do is unite the country behind the Constitution and the rule of law.
Those are the things we have to do.
And then we can argue about policies and whether or not you believe that climate change is a hoax or not.
I mean, I think the jury's in on that one, but you've got Trump still screaming about that.
But all the issues that we all disagree on, that we can have that debate.
But the first we have to do is unite the country around things that we all can agree upon, which is the Constitution and the First Amendment.
Right now, we've got a president that doesn't necessarily agree with those things.
So that's the first thing we have to do.
And that's going to be in the 2026 election and whether or not the Democrats or a consensus of people take over to be able to at least start the process of healing and start the process of hearings and to get to the bottom of some of these things.
Because I don't think it's about Democrats or Republicans anymore right now.
Right now, it's about whether or not we preserve 250 years of this wonderful experiment that we've started on, that we've messed up fits and starts over the years, but creeping towards better and more perfect union as we have, or that goes away.
Securing Our Democracy00:03:09
Because as you know, you know, democracy is fragile.
And strong men and autocracy, once it takes root, it's very hard for democracy to rebound after that.
So that's to me where that is where we are right now.
So we have to, first thing, it's not about Democrats or Republicans.
Can we secure our democracy first?
Once we've done that, then we can have the discussions of which issues we agree or disagree on.
But maybe the big mistake was to abandon a monarchy, Rob, and you should go back to British rule.
You might be onto something there.
I mean, we've had a pretty good run of it with our monarchy.
While we've been talking, my team have been checking out the question that you raised about the Google issue.
So Google's letter to the House Judiciary Committee cites, quotes, senior administration officials and senior White House officials as exerting pressure to censor specific accounts it blamed for COVID and political misinformation.
So pretty clear there.
Say that again.
They're blaming doing what?
They're saying they were censoring.
So they were exerting pressure on Google to censor specific accounts that it blamed for COVID and political misinformation.
In other words, suppressing.
But who was putting pressure on Google?
In their letter, they cite senior administration officials and senior White House officials.
We're pressuring Google.
We're exerting pressure specifically on Google to censor specific accounts on YouTube that it blamed the administration for COVID and political misinformation.
Now, I would have thought, given that, that you would, if you're applying the Kimmel rule, that is clear evidence of political interference from an administration to a tech company to censor people from giving their honest opinions on YouTube.
Right.
But they didn't force Google to do that, did they?
Well, they used the word bullying.
Well, bully.
I mean, the point is you can lobby anything you want.
You can lobby.
It's when you exert actual, not just pressure, but actually taking somebody off, you know, making Google whatever, you know, but they did.
But here's the point, Rob.
They did.
Google did.
Hang on.
Google did censor those accounts.
They did.
So they did.
The parallel is pretty clear.
I mean, it's the same thing.
And why did Google censor those accounts?
Because the Biden administration bullied them into doing it.
Well, but I mean, did Google have anything to lose?
Well, you could argue that about the Kimmel situation with ABC, Disney, and all of them.
But I just think I just think that if people are going to be intellectually honest about all this, they've got to be consistent, right?
And I think that's a good question.
The Perfect Movie00:05:00
I agree with that.
And I think that what the Biden administration did with Google is not dissimilar to what people on the left are rightly saying is inappropriate pressure exerted by the Trump administration in the Kimmel case.
And I think you've got to be, to me, everyone's got to be clear-headed and say they're both wrong.
Right.
So you, you, so let me look more at what you're saying.
You know, I'm hearing what you're telling me.
Let me look into it a little bit more because I'm not sophisticated about it.
And I don't know who those officials were.
I have to look at it.
And if you're right and they did exactly what Trump did, you're right.
But we can all agree that what we all know, the public knows that his F's, you know, his FCC guy did come on the air and say these and was completely inappropriate.
And so we know that that's wrong.
Yeah, I agree.
Spinal Tap 2, The End Continues, Out Nursing and Mars.
It's brilliant.
I just wanted to ask you one question before I let you go, because so many of your movies I've absolutely loved.
You know, from a few good men to particularly when Harry met Sally and so on.
You know, we just saw Robert Redford very sadly dying, one of my favorite actors.
He made so many of my favorite movies.
And I had the privilege of asking him once, what was his favorite Robert Redford movie?
And he said it was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
And he gave a great answer as to why.
It was where they filmed it, filming with Paul Newman.
He said everything apart from the damn song, which he hated, everything else he loved.
He's exactly right.
And I'll tell you something.
It was the only thing I love that movie.
And then the song to me, and I want to tell you something because I was a very dear friend with William Golden, Bill Goldman, who wrote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
So wrote The Princess Bride and the first draft of Misery, two movies I made.
And Bill told me two things.
One was he said it was originally called The Sundance Kid and Butch Cassidy.
That was the name of the film.
But when they got Paul Newman, who was a bigger star at the time, they switched it and became Butch Cassidy.
And I can't even imagine the movie being called The Sundance Kid and Butch Cassidy.
It doesn't work.
It doesn't work.
The other thing he always said to me is you should, every scene that you do in a movie should attach to the spine of the story, whether it's moving the plot along or developing the characters more.
And he says, you never want to take a detour off that spine unless you've got the best tap dance in the history of the movie business and then quickly get back on.
To me, I look at that song.
It's a bad example of a great tap dance because it goes off the edge and you go, oh, please don't do that.
And then, you know, we have to get back to it.
But you know what?
I was in Santrope this summer having a lovely dinner, open-air restaurant, beautiful views.
And the DJ suddenly put on that song.
And I absolutely loved it because it took me straight back to that movie.
Well, the song is good.
It just, we're in the middle of that movie.
No, no.
But my question, my reason for mentioning all this was simply, I'm not expecting this to happen anytime soon, Rob.
You're looking at a fine, healthy figure of a man.
But should the moment come when we need to remember the work of Rob Reiner?
How would you, which is the one for you of everything you've ever done that you would most like to be remembered for?
Well, I mean, you know, listen, people have their favorites.
They, you know, and we have the cliche.
love all our children, even the even the bad ones, you know.
But, you know, I get, you know, I always say Stand By Me to Me is the one that meant the most to me.
I don't know that it's the best.
You know, it's for other people to decide, but it's the one that meant the most to me because it really is an extension of my personality and my sensibility.
It has a mixture of humor and melancholy and emotion.
And it's something that is closest to me of all the films I've done.
Mine of yours would be When Harry Met Sally.
I think it's almost a perfect movie.
Would you want to hear some points about that movie?
People tell me, and I've heard this, that they'll put the movie, they put the movie on at 11, at 10.30 at night, because the movie an hour and a half, and then they time it to New Year's Eve.
So that when Billy Crystal is professing his love to Meg Ryan at the stroke of New Year's Eve, it'll be timed at that point.
That's when they watch the movie.
I love that.
I love it.
It's a great film and just beautifully acted, beautifully produced, directed.
All of it, everything about that is perfect.
And the music's fantastic.
You didn't even have the Redford problem in Butch Cassidy with the music.
Butch Cassidy Legacy00:01:04
No, no, no, we integrated it.
It was brilliant.
Rob, I could talk to you for hours.
I sadly have to leave it there.
Thank you very much.
It's been great catching up with you again.
Nice to talk to you.
Maybe it'll be, what was it?
20 years ago?
How long ago?
I think it was about 13, something like that.
13.
Well, I'll see you in another 13 years.
I'll be very happy if I'm still around.
Cheers, Rob.
Good to talk to you.
Okay.
All the best.
Bye.
Bye.
I'm Pears Morgan.
I'm a black lesbian.
Hollywood has been trying to remove masculinity for it seems like the last decade.
There were tears that ran down my face, but I did not cry.
I mean, that's crying.
Your tweet about a sex hate coming next is quite an incredibly inevitable.
Americans are fat pigs and British people have effed up teeth, but we're allies.
When we say good genes are the ones.
That's a load of crap.
I saw Beyoncé do a gene Zad.
Everybody drooled over it.
Should trans athletes have their own category now?