Please join the B.D. Standard for an important policy forum hosted in conjunction with concerned veterans for America and the Manhattan Institute on the morning of August 7th at the Harvard Cloud in New York City. In titled Liberty versus Security, what is the right post-9-11 balance in America, this free breakfast forum will feature an expert discussion on the subject of how we as Americans construct the proper balance between our guaranteed individual liberties and the need for collective national security in a dangerous world. This event will feature remarks in discussion from Congressman Peter King, John Stausl, Joseph Stausl on Fox News Channel, and William Crystal, a weekly standard, followed by an expert panel discussion.
There's no charge to attend the event, and breakfast will be served. Space is limited and filled in quickly, so please R.S. VP today to ensure participation in this event. For the registered to attend Liberty versus Security, please click the link below the podcast.
Welcome to the weekly standard podcast. I'm your host, my grandmother is Steve Hayes. Right here at Shorenier for the weekly standard and course we see him on Fox all the time. So you've got to ask you the question, who's having the most vicious, interesting warfare right now?
The Clintons and the winners or Rand Paul and Chris Christie? Well, I think that the tougher bars are being exchanged between Rand Paul and Chris Christie. The Clinton winner thing is all anonymous sources and sort of behind the scenes. And I don't think it's like we'd have much of an impact on Hillary Clinton presidential run in 2050.
I think we're going to look back on this aspect of it and people will remember who may have a team for any other than the fact that she's an early Clinton advisor at that effect, which you've got in any way. There's not going to be a merit. Or she's going to disappear from the headline. I don't think it's actually having a long time.
What about the Rand Paul, Chris Christie? I can't resist. I can have a long time back. I think it's been a debate that's been taking place largely behind the scenes or underground or probably not between what it would be called a non-intervention.
It's one of the Republican Party and the more hawkish Republicans. I think that the shorthand though on this Chris Christie versus Rand Paul doesn't exactly cover the scope of use in the Republican Party to conservativeism. Remember, Chris Christie in the comments that sort of kick this whole thing off. You know, Chris has Rand Paul for something he's used in called the returnism on national security policy dangerous.
But he also then went on to defend President Obama. And his boss used to go on terror. There are a whole lot of Republicans who would not be with Chris Christie on that. I think that President Pat, it's done a good job on a one-on-a-one dare if he hadn't fought the one on terror vigorously enough.
So I think you'd rather than have two games at them. So he needs to be a short-hand to suggest Republicans and conservatives are divided into any of the much more complicated with a whole half of the right side of the political spectrum being left open between Rand Paul and Chris Christie, President President Obama and the left, Chris Christie who's presiding right about defending President Obama. And then everybody else. But there is a question of whether or not the Republican Party because it's an ideology based party as opposed to identity politics based party, which many of the Democratic parties can survive.
If you have wide gaps, I agree with you that Chris Christie is waiting for President Obama. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, they're very strongly supportive of the NSA expanded surveillance. I don't know any limits on surveillance that they would support. There seems to be some space in between the United Kingdom wing of the Rand Paul Party and the U.S.
And they use fine on everybody wing. Yeah, you and I are basically making the same point. You're making it better. And in the first time frame, I think that's exactly right.
So much more complicated picture than many are making it out of the audience. You have generally, I guess, we agree with Lindsey Graham and John McCain on national security. More than, you know, I would with Rand Paul, but I have strong disagreements with John McCain on an identification on Guantanamo on what to do in Syria right now on falling back, finding a huge hit right now. I mean, you go down the line.
I think we've got some sort of national security landscape that in any way defies sort of traditional ideological pockets that the media like to put people in particular like to put conservatives. Yeah, that's funny because I find the entire conversation frustrating because President Obama has done Republican this huge favor. He has left the goal unattended. And on two major issues, one is the comment about phony scandals.
I think it's a lot of people not just Republicans run away. So-called grand compromise on taxes, which is let's raise taxes on more money. And so I think back not only is he leading the goal on defending at the ice. He's up in the sand, kicking the fans and the shins and Republicans running ice fighting each other.
Are you kidding me? Yeah, it is certainly, you know, a lot of media on the course of media like the cover of Republicans fighting Republicans. I mean, I think that's something that I think that's going to be fair to me. They like to cover Democrats as well and they're not going to drop out of conflict.
I think it's something that will drop, I've all dropped, drop, drop yours. Yeah, I think the way I'm assuming literally and it looks like their claim to work. I think they have basically a two-part plan, maybe a two-part campaign as we move forward. But their first was the clear of the scandal over and finally.
And the second was to launch something to make a call, a grand bargain, and get basically positive press for reaching out to Republicans. The audience for this dual component strategy is not necessarily the voters at large. But I think it's much more targeted. I think it's a Washington Press work.
And I think this is the way of the administration is the way I was going to reporters who I think are pretty sympathetic with the policy goals of the White House. And then we're further ones to go. They're basically going, look, you had your time on these panels. We don't think they're still going to be located on a negative gun.
Now we're going back to the real governing big arguments on Grand Bargains and Deceiling and Continuing Revolution. And this is what we should be talking about. It's almost like they're trying to shame reporters in covering what the White House wants them to cover rather than covering the these panels. I think three of the four big things we spent in passing was talking about our these scandals.
They're trying to get them to effect believe that they're over. But it's pretty clear that there are many questions on any number of these panels that haven't entered yet. We're listening to take that the audience for this pony scandals line is the Washington Press. But the Washington Press has very few votes.
Meanwhile out in the normal world, the average person when you give them just two sentences on Benghazi, they go, holy crap. When you give them just three sentences on the IRS, they go, that's just wrong. They don't believe that the scandals are phony. Why would Republicans be seizing pony scandals as a mantra?
I mean pouring out to their home districts this August and going out on TV and saying, again, again, the gang laying out. This is what the President calls phony. This is what the President calls phony. His hand-picked IRS attorney meeting with the people who abused taxpayers just wanted to get together and get involved in politics.
Why would they do that? I mean, if you do debate that, we'll have to fall and then build the next year into the 2014 election. The Republicans should be focusing on exactly those scandals. In particular, as you see behind the questions, there's so many ideas of questions about Benghazi.
We're spending almost almost a year, about a month now. There are so many ideas of questions about what happened with the Federal Reserve. And all sorts of interesting ways that I think Republicans and conservatives can raise these questions. The man answers to them.
I think taxpayers should get answers to these questions whether the White House wants them to or not. But I wish that there's a big discussion of Republicans who are going to write up the push and big discussion. Of those issues, I think there's yet another split in the Republican Party. And that's what involves how much to talk about Obamacare.
Some of the people who are making the argument likely in that cruise and market review that you fund about there want to make Obamacare. The center of these are the Republicans, campaigns in 2014, and a major topic of the question. Until then, I think you have another group that wants to be rail Obamacare. These John Boehner's have different tactics in order to do that.
But still, the end goal is basically the same. And I think you have a third group. I don't know how a large group is in. You have a third group that basically I would call it to basically say, he's going to be ready to go in 2015.
He's never going to find anything that would take out some of Obamacare. So there's really no use in even trying. He's even making an argument. Not just on a group.
Who do you think has the best argument? The contractors and the railers or the leaders? I would say the railers have the best argument. There's very big idea of where we can see the website by Jeffery Anderson making the argument that the real case that should be made as well.
The lane that keeps components of Obamacare and the middle mandate exchange subsidies rather than pushing to be fined. But having said that, I have to say, I disagree with some of my conservative colleagues who think that this might be that cruise market review effort has done more harm than do it. I get done more good than harm in part because it's focused attention on this question of what Republicans are going to be. I think it's made leadership in both the Senate and House.
I have to think about a real strategy that would stall the implementation of Obamacare. We're at this moment now where you're seeing the president's strong supporters of Obamacare. You're seeing states saying that they can't possibly make this seem as work the time to ask for the layering extension. They're seeing all of these problems with the implementation of Obamacare and neighborhoods in terms of the particular issue.
And you have some of them about the party who are saying that we really shouldn't be talking about this as a fact that we've got to the previous argument to make. I don't think that where leadership in the Senate House is. But there are people in people who have made an argument in leadership. See, thanks a lot for your time.
We're at the same department. Please be sure to check with us at www.weac