Is Jay Far Right?, Recounts, Tobacco Regulations, Saudi Sanctions, Challenges to Pelosi

Subscribe:  iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS

This week’s show opens with Mike talking about where Jay is on the ideological spectrum. Mike argues that although a number of listeners feel Jay is far right, he’s actually fairly moderate when compared to real far right voices like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

Next is a discussion of the recounts in Florida and Georgia. Mike and Jay agree that voting should be as easy and straightforward as possible, while still maintaining the integrity of the system, but Jay is more inclined to see malice in the system, whereas Mike attributes much more to a combination of incompetence and underfunding. Mike argues for broader adoption of the vote by mail systems used in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon, which Jay thinks would be a mistake.

Following that, the Guys discuss the new FDA regulations cracking down on the availability of flavored e-cigarettes and a proposed ban on menthol cigarettes and cigars. Mike is a big fan of these regulations and hopes they’ll go even further in years to come. Jay is naturally more anti-regulation and he has some concerning about a limiting factor (Mike says the limiting factor is ultimately elections).

Then it’s a look at the Trump administration’s sanctions against Saudi Arabians who have been implicated in the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Mike says that the sanctions don’t go far enough and supports the bipartisan Senate bill that would ban all offensive arms sales to the Saudis. Jay is sort of lukewarm on this, feeling that the executive is due a certain amount of deference in the formulation of foreign policy.

Finally, Mike and Jay talk about whether or not Nancy Pelosi should be the next Speaker of the House. Mike thinks Pelosi will get the job and be a great Speaker, but he’d like to see the torch pass to someone like Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan. Mike also points out that Pelosi is actually much more conservative than her right-wing vilifiers would have people believe. Jay thinks that Pelosi is the right choice for the Democrats given her proven ability to run the show and raise plenty of money for her fellow Members.

Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to

13 thoughts on “Is Jay Far Right?, Recounts, Tobacco Regulations, Saudi Sanctions, Challenges to Pelosi”

  1. Does anyone seriously think Jay is too far right?

    This seems like a disingenuous argument that rather misses the point of the real issue. This criticisms of Jay I most often see people make (and that I share) are that his arguments often resort to specious partisan rhetoric – not that they are too extreme.

    1. Unless you count his tin-foil-hat wearing descent into believing that there is a dark cabal of operatives – Clinton stooges, no doubt – who have infiltrated the DOJ and FBI in order to smear Trumps fine name with false accusations.

      He seems to have happily drunk the Kool Aid on that one.

  2. I’m sorry, but the ignorance from Mike on the e-cig conversation is absolutely astounding. I started smoking (the real thing) as a freshman in high school and had no trouble getting them. Prior to quitting cigarettes four years ago with the assistance of e-cigs I was smoking two packs a day, and guess what Mike?

    My go to flavor was one of those “candy flavored nicotine products” Fruit Loops, followed closely by strawberry milkshake and lemon meringue pie. Despite you claiming to to be a “stretch” If I was restricted to basic tobacco flavors, I never would have quit.

    It’s not just me, I was the first among my group of friends to make the change, and slowly but surely – with little to no effort on my part – they all quit as well, and all with the help of e-cigs and flavors that are for “children”. I have no fewer than a dozen current friends that all quit cigarettes with vaping, and not a one vapes traditional tobacco flavoring – and they never have.

    Nobody with a brain actually argues that e-cigs are GOOD for you. However, the results speak for themselves. My repository system and heart have noticeable improved, both according to my doctor and noticeably on a day to day basis. E-cigs are about harm reduction, they are simply not comparable to cigarettes and any attempts to do so without hard science to back it up is disingenuous and harmful.

    While I agree that minors (and anyone really) would be best to avoid nicotine entirety, We already have age restrictions in place. They don’t work. They have never worked. It’s a joke now for a minor to get alcohol, cigarettes, e-cigs or porn – and it always has been. I know Mike isn’t saying he would rather them pick up the real thing, but that’s what will happen. What we need is education and real research. It’s an expensive habit, and a pointless one for anyone not attempting to quit cigarettes. Not more fear mongering and scare tactics that could potentially lead to tens of thousands of pointless deaths at the hands of cigarettes.

    Here are a few links, should Mike choose to educate himself a bit before broaching a subject he has little to no knowledge of again:

    1. Hi Zach! Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment with such a thoughtful, well-informed post. It was something of a throw-away line on my part, but as you’ve pretty clearly demonstrated I made it without thinking through the issue carefully enough. One of my favorite things about doing the show is the great listeners like you who care enough to call us out when on lazy comments like the one I made. It’s greatly appreciated! -Mike

      1. Hey Mike,

        Thanks for the reply, and after reading my initial post over again I want to apologize for the overly hostile tone. It’s a subject I’m passionate about, as they have improved my life greatly – and one that I am forced to defend regularly (ironically, far more often than when I simply smoked cigarettes).

        So again, sorry for coming off a bit intense, I’m a big fan of the show and can’t wait for the next episode!

  3. Jay cited a bogus right wing story about ballots found in a Broward rental car to support his case for restricting the counting of votes. So yes, he is far right, disingenuous, or both. I am happy to listen and support the airing of views I disagree with…but not FACTS I disagree with. There is a real danger in giving a bigger microphone to someone who was hoping to convince others the election was being stolen in Broward based primarily on an untrue story.

    1. I completely agree, Erik. I think that spreading of lies and false equivalencies and conspiracy theories is the more pernicious part of Jay’s rhetoric.

      Saying he’s ‘too far right’ makes it sound like it’s a purely ideological positioning thing, which can then be waved away by selectively choosing topics in which he’s not in lock-step with the Ann Coulters of the world.

      But being able to say, ‘Look, he doesn’t like Trump’s trade policy, he can’t be a total right wing nut…’ doesn’t answer the specious reasoning, deflections, or, yes, as you rightly cite, fraud that he perpetuates to forward his actual beliefs.

  4. Hi Guys! Thanks for taking the time to comment on the ‘Is Jay far right’ thing. I think the direction you’re taking it in is interesting, even if I don’t necessarily agree with some of your conclusions. I think it would make for a great segment the next time we do a listener response show. Do any of you want to take a crack at formulating this into a question that Jay could respond to?

  5. How about:

    What responsibility does a host of The Politics Guys have to truth and facts when forwarding an argument?

    Given that the purview of the program (as stated in each episode’s introductory statement) is to provide rational, bipartisan, civil debate, is there not a danger in allowing unsubstantiated rumour to be used as illustrative examples that forward a partisan position?

    While most of the program’s hosts, from all sides of the political spectrum, appear to respect this intent, striving to utilise historical evidence and research conducted by respected third parties, and always clearly indicating when they are drawing upon personal presuppositions in their argument, Jay seems to have progressively tipped over into a more anecdotal, even conspiratorial style of rhetoric.

    From his repeated denigration of the ‘liberal’ media (which he seems to extrapolate out into a concerted effort to discredit all conservatism), his allusions to a ‘dark web’ infiltrating the FBI and DOJ, his embrace of any whisper around Clinton family impropriety, past suggestions that protestors at rallies are paid operatives, to some of the most recent episodes’ assertions about rampant voter fraud, a democrat candidate smeared for sexual impropriety and claims of election fixing by a ‘crook’ in Florida, Jay seems willing to entertain, and even actively promote, specious, unverified innuendo that muddies the water of any civil, substantive discussion.

    With a President and White House that have spent the past two years brazenly embracing dissembling and fraud – now willing to contradict demonstrable evidence if it disproves their assertions and release doctored video footage to discredit members of the media – is it not more important than ever for figures such as yourselves to maintain a level of rhetorical decorum that at least respects the principle of fact based reasoning?

    1. Bryan – Thanks for taking the time to do that. I’ll add your question to the list we maintain so that Jay and I can discuss it on the air. (We have a bit of a backlog, so it might not be the next ‘listener mail’ show, but surely the one after that.) -Mike

        1. Actually, at the risk of sounding like I’m trying to tell you how to do your job – this question might pair well with a discussion of the recent Climate Change report that Trump has just dismissed (despite it being from the White House itself).

Leave a Reply