Subscribe: iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS
Mike talks to Kurt Schlichter, an attorney, retired Army infantry colonel, and Senior Columnist for Townhall.com. His commentary on political, military, and legal issues has been featured in numerous national outlets, such as Fox News, CNN, and the Hugh Hewitt Show.
They discuss why Hillary Clinton has less respect for democratic norms than Donald Trump, scuzzy bureaucrats in the intelligence community hoping to destroy the Trump presidency, why he gives Trump a grade of A+ so far, the complete lack of evidence in the Russia probes, and lots more!
– follow Kurt Schlichter on Twitter
Kurt’s Recommended Sites
– Townhall
– Instapundit
– American Greatness
– American Thinker
Good interview today! Although, I think you may have been better off adding a trigger warning at the beginning of the podcast. 😉
I knew that a lot of people would take issue with Mr. Schlichter, but I think it’s important to bring on people from a variety of ideological positions. The great thing about our listeners is that they’re not only a smart and engaged bunch, but they support what we’re trying to do, which is to expose people to views that lie outside of their ideological comfort zone. – Mike
Is this guy for real? His first statement alone, calling Hilary Clinton a maniac and other choice words was enough to turn me off to this episode, particularly in light of recent violent events in which Republicans called liberals the ones foaming at the mouth. To also say that the only reason you voted for Trump was because he is not Hilary is completely baseless for giving Trump an A+ for his horrid job performance. This guys seems like an Alex Jones-type, a conspiracy theorist, who is polluting the political landscape by attacking the persons of Hilary and Obama instead of making any valid cases for why their POLICIES were harmful to America, if they even were. Oh, and he goes on to say that Trump isn’t radical…I’m just going to leave that there for everyone to mull over… I must say, though I listen to this podcast all the time, I was quite disappointed in Mike’s lack of fact-checking, debate, and just general allowing this guy to walk all over him. Really disappointing episode.
Thanks for commenting! While I certainly don’t agree with Mr. Schlichter’s positions, my approach to interviews has always been to let the people I’m talking to have their say, whether they’re considerably to the left of me (like Sarah Kendzior, for example) or considerably to the right of me, like Mr. Schlichter. On-the-fly fact checking is extraordinarily difficult, even for professional journalists with significant resources behind them and it’s not something I’d venture to try. I know that Politics Guys listeners are a smart & savvy group, and that they’ll point out issues and draw intelligent conclusions. – Mike
Hi Mike,
Thanks for that response, and also for your always professional interviews. While I sometimes don’t agree with some of the positions that guests take while on the show, I want to hear from them too. In fact, I’d argue that I need to hear them, if only to make sure I can properly argue and defend the value of the positions I take personally (which sometimes lean right, other times lean left, and sometimes even conflict. This is politics, so that’s okay).
I understand the point that Sivan is making, and I’m no fan of most of the positions taken by Mr. Schlichter. But, I truly believe that to be properly informed, you must really hear all sides. A number of folks I know would also happily echo his A+ grade he granted to President Trump, for the exact same reasons. His position is not unique, and is both shared and trumpeted by a bigger number of people than many would estimate. However, if you can’t stomach his positions in this episode of the podcast, please please please, don’t look at what he’s written.
@ Sivan: I don’t know that I agree that Mr. Schlichter “walked all over” Mike. I believe Mike posed almost all of the same questions he does of all his guests. This guest just answered in a way that you didn’t like, and I think you may have wanted Mike to challenge him on that. The downside there becomes a “who is more right that who?” game. Nobody can win that game.
One last thought. Mr. Schlichter served, and has more than earned the right to express his views and opinions. You’re not required to agree with it, but Mike isn’t required to seek it, either. Yet, he does look for differing opinions, and that’s one of the reasons I continue to enjoy listening to this podcast.
Thanks,
Lee
I agreed with your ideology of exposing audience to different ideology types, I believe its healthy and brings people to a common ground, which is what we need now more than ever. However, a lot of the statements of your guest were intended to do the opposite. By letting someone to be offensive, name calling and hate instigator, you are not promoting understanding and tolerance. You become an accomplish of his hate and division. I believe you could’ve allow him to express his opinions while prompting him to be respectful and while making it clear your show is not a platform to spread hate and division.
I was looking forward to hear his views and reasoning on giving Trump an A+, because is something I am not able to see on my own. But when an argument is delivered with so much hate and intolerance, it makes it impossible to internalize and assimilate and it just becomes a waste of time.
I 100% agree with your statement, Analy. The vitriol from Mr. Schlichter was just something I was not prepared to listen to on TPGs.
I agree that Mr. Schlichter put many things strongly. I wouldn’t call anyone a ‘vagina hat wearing moron’ (I’m paraphrasing, but I think that’s close) and I certainly don’t believe Hillary Clinton is evil. (I don’t believe Donald Trump is evil either, for that matter.) My one regret about the episode is that I didn’t ask him to explain his ‘evil’ comments about Clinton. He was wiling to tape another short segment where he did explain that, and we’ll be airing that, along with thoughts from Jay and me about all the strong listener reaction, on Wednesday 6/28.
“particularly in light of recent violent events in which Republicans called liberals the ones foaming at the mouth.”
I know, right? Geeze, remember when that Republican tried to assassinate a whole baseball field full of Democrats with a rifle? I mean come on!
I totally agree…I’m trying to be fair in listening to the breitbart side..but this interview was ridiculous..nothing of substance ..just a rant against Hillary
I’m to a bad person…I am a liberal
Listening to your podcast from London as a former American resident who’s still fascinated with the trash fire politics going on back home, and was quite suprised to hear your guest on this episode.
Kudos for balance! I’m on the same political spectrum as yourself, but it’s always good to hear both sides so critical evaluation can be made.
However, perhaps the pendulum swung a little far to this right with the guest. I couldn’t disagree with him more and I’m centre-left. He espoused some pseudo-conspiratorial rhetoric. Perhaps when some of this ideology is being made, it is our job to challenge it. I wish you would have challenged the guest a little further.
Anyways, just a little nitpicking. I can’t moan much as our politics here in the UK are just as trashed as they are back home.
Keep up the good fight! It’s a good listen for my commute on the tube to nursing studies at King’s College.
The fact that this guy- somewhere in between a low rent pundit and an internet troll- is the best defender of Trump, is a testament to the indefensible nature of the Trump presidency. I have listened to most of the episodes in the past 8 months and I have witnessed a contorsionist’s effort to attempt to debate the Trump presidency within the confines of the Overton window with measured tone. These discussions have served to normalize trump and surpress the aggressive and divisive nature of Trumpism because in attempting to fill the niche of the measured, centrist conversation, a sense of proportion is lost. The brazen will to destroy democratic institutions that have been painstakingly crafted over centuries makes any attempt to circumscribe a debate into traditional models and concepts seem disingenuous at best.
Mike has stated his admiration for Bush Sr. several times. It is my view that Mike is not very far from Mr. Bush ideologically and I think he has oversold his transition into a “liberal.” As a union worker who has marched with the striking Verizon workers and heard their stories, I was not surprised by Jay’s dismissal- I expect as much from conservatives; I was floored by Mike agreeing with Jay on the thrust of his point that the workers were abusing their privileges and were overpaid. That… is just not a tenable position for any intellectually honest liberal. It isn’t a peripheral issue, it is the defining fight of the working class against staggering wealth inequality.
Now with the new addition, the politics guys are Mike, the HW Bush republican, Jay, the Barry Goldwater republican and Trey, the Rand Paul republican. Three people somewhere between the center and the far right of the political spectrum soothing our (normal and healthy) anxieties about Trump and telling us over and over that they “probably won’t find anything with the Russia investigation.” I will keep listening because I’m a politics junkie, but some real progressive voices would be a welcome change from the ally-hoops that Mike throws up for Jay to slam dunk.
Love your first paragraph. Well said, and I wholeheartedly agree.
Eh, give Mike a break.
Even Elizabeth Warren was once a Reagan Republican.
I enjoy listening to your podcast and absolutely support your desire to give a voice to any and all political views and opinions and yes, I understand that fact-checking or otherwise critiquing a guests’ words and sources is difficult to do on the fly. I however believe that a discourse is needed to reach some semblence of agreement and help those of us who don’t agree to see eye-to-eye. I think the guest on this particular episode was not seeking a conversation, and respectfully Mike there wasn’t much of one (I understand this was more an interview than an in-depth discussion.) I applaud Mr. Schlicter’s willingness to join you on the show and share his opinion, and I agree with a few things he was saying but I don’t think he was as respectful of oppposing views as you were of his. You posed a good question at the 11:20-11:30 mark that highlighted very well Mr. Schlicter’s very myopic view of the Left. Suffice it to say, I think he was ignorant in most cases, hypocritical in others: Stating Clinton’s 20-year track record of “evil” while claiming that the Left are overreacting to Trump; claiming major differences between the Tea Party’s opposition of Obama and the “Resistance,” claiming the latter’s more harsh jargon while at the same time stating them to be “vagina-hat wearing morons.”
I’ve seen the political discussion these days, and I see the phrase “tit-for-tat” used often to describe it. Mr. Schlicter acknowledge’s this to some degree, but with a sympathetice err towards the Right. I think your aforementioned question to Mr. Schlicter tried to get to the heart of this, but I think he went the wrong direction with it.
The thing that I really like about The Politics Guys is that it gives me hope that Americans can disagree fiercely but still have a civil discussion, and maybe even like each other after the discussion. Jay and Mike (and now, Trey) do a good job of showing the attitude of “there’s hope for you yet.” This is something that has been missing in political dialogue for the past year or so in every avenue from my personal interactions with friends and family, to social media, to the worst of the worst – all forms of cable news.
I’ve tried to write a remark about this interview five times. Each time I fail to fully capture exactly how wrong Mr. Schlichter is on nearly every subject he discussed. Now, on the sixth rewrite, I recognize that the problem is not that Mr. Schlichter is wrong. The problem is that Mr. Schlichter betrays the “there’s hope for you yet” mentality that The Politics Guys is based on. Schlichter full stop believes that opposition to Donald Trump is nothing more than opposition to the people that elected Trump. He completely believes that the other side seeks to only smear the right. He fully believes that Trump should give zero ground to those on the other side. He flat out accused the career non-partisan professionals of being scumbags.
This complete dismissiveness of any point of view other than his own is Schlichter’s problem. But it’s not just his problem. It’s the problem with our society right now. Nobody wants to listen to each other- not on the left, and not on the right.
This is why I worry for our country. Schlichter couldn’t even pretend to give any ground to the middle on a podcast that excels in giving ground to the middle. How many more Schlichters are there, on both sides of the aisle? If nobody is willing to take a step, how can we ever come together?
Agree agree agree…we’ll said
Great interview. Reassuring to hear my views expressed so eloquently. Thanks Mike for listening.
I’m a very calm, pragmatic person. At work I am known for being strong but not emotional. I also never go out of my way to post comments or feedback on the internet (outside of my own social media), including horrible hotel experiences on Yelp. I say this so that when I tell you that this episode had me flabbergasted, open-mouthed and screaming in my car on my way to work this morning, you’ll understand the severity of my actions and the impact this had on me. The reason I listen to your podcast is because I appreciate the duality of the discussions and how arguments for both sides are generally very thoughtful and based on facts. As much as I disagree with one or both of you from time-to-time, I fully endorse taking in all this information to better understand the complete picture. But your guest today brought no thoughtful discussion, no fact-based argument to the table. Instead, he went on a diatribe of opinion, a harangue against Hillary Clinton. At the risk of sounding very liberal, it seemed to me that he gave in to the Alex Jones philosophy of demonizing the opponent, and then saying it so much that he believes it, and then surrounding himself with others who have done the same thing, creating a self-fulfilling mob mentality. Not only was much of what he said blatantly incorrect (he said that Conservatives accepted Obama as President and respected him and worked with him), but he also contradicted himself (at the beginning he said Trump is not a Conservative but a Populist, then half-an-hour later said Trump is Conservative at his core), he seems either unaware or chose to ignore of a lot of Trump’s policy decisions and actions but was quick to blame Obama’s policies, and he kept mentioning how “evil” Hillary Clinton is when she is not even in the game anymore (the election has been over for about seven months) . How can we have respect for a guest on your show when the first words out of his mouth are how evil someone is? That is not a political discussion, that is a propagandist commercial. And the most disappointing factor is that up to the point I stopped listening, you did not debate him. I fully understand and appreciate just allowing the guest to talk, in order to fully hear their side, but instead of challenging his beliefs you allowed him 30 minutes of free press time. If this is the caliber of discussion I can expect from your guests, I’ll need to find a new source. I apologize for this headstrong comment, because I am otherwise appreciative of your work, but this podcast was flagrantly upsetting.
Dude I’m there with you. I would have liked to have seen Jay talk with his guy.
Also, if your guest is a dud. It’s okay to keep him off the feed.
By that, I’m talking to the producers. I’ll take quality over quantity.
I actually thought it was a really good interview. I wanted to find someone who could clearly articulate the sort of very common conservative views that neither Jay nor Trey believe in, and I feel Mr. Schlichter did that very well. Of course, I certainly disagree with a lot of what he said, and even if I did agree, I wouldn’t be as bombastic as he.
This guy made some good points but was a jerk. Mike, you could have asked him “Do you hate liberals?”. Because I think he hates you and your audience. We got played today. His attitude and tone is the antithesis of your show and he’s touting it on Twitter. Way to help his career.
But lesson learned. All we can do is pick ourselves off the mat and hope our hosts coach the guests a little better.
I honestly felt his man insulted all of us for an hour.
I didn’t get the sense that he hated liberals as a group, and I definitely didn’t get the sense that he hated or played me. However, I was able to talk to him informally before and after we were recording, which could make a difference. My overall sense is that while he’s certainly bombastic at times, almost all of what he had to say falls pretty squarely into the Republican mainstream. – Mike
I have had this guy’s thoughts uncomfortably roiling in my head for several days now. Many of my views have been well spoken in the previous comments. The point that sticks is this: I supported Clinton in the last election. This does not make me: stupid, ignorant, unintellingent and, most importantly “evil”. It does mean that my view of the appropriate place for the role of government in our lives is probably different than that of Col. Schlicting. I have the moral strength to say that I support his right to his opinion. I’m not sure he would afford me the same courtesy. Deep State be damned.
Mr. S used such a loud voice, aggressive tone, and inflammatory language that I felt he was grandstanding–promoting himself. Some commentators employ that style to fire up listeners & improve ratings. It’s impossible to say what they actually believe because it’s all part of the act. He sounded like that sort of person, speaking in a way that would appeal to people who will pay to hear him speak, read his books, feature him on their programs, and maybe offer him a gig as a highly paid commentator, that is, the more aggressive and outrageous, the better. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he is sincere. I didn’t dismiss his words because I do understand that he speaks to and for many people who would also give Trump an A+ but I doubted his advocacy for any ideology other than promoting himself.
This was one of my favorite episodes from you guys. It was actually refreshing to hear the other side. I agree his choice of words wasn’t PC but that personally doesn’t bother me. You hear that same type of talk on the other side of the isle all the time. I would love to hear him on your show again. I do think you sort of sat back and let him talk without pushing back too much. I really like to hear a balanced discussion and this was almost there. If you (Mike) had pressed him a little harder on some issues or expressed your views a bit more it would have been perfect. This wasn’t some nut job. He had valid points to make and made them well. A+ for this episode.