Advertisement
Call the Show 800-520-1234
LIVE: Mon-Fri, 6-9AM, ET
Hugh Hewitt Book Club
Call 800-520-1234 email Email Hugh
Hugh Hewitt Book Club

Dr. Larry Arnn on his CPAC Speech and Previewing the Presidential Address to Congress Next Week

Email Email Print
Advertisement

HH: On Friday, the last radio hour of the week means it is time for the Hillsdale Dialogue. All things Hillsdale available, of course, at www.hillsdale.edu. But these conversations with Dr. Larry Arnn, the president of Hillsdale College, or one of his colleagues date back to 2013, and they are all collected at www.hughforhillsdale.com. And we are busy right now collating the audio with the transcripts which have been done all the way back to 2013, making it easy, accessible and indeed indexed. But now, Dr. Arnn has gone and done something that screwed up my whole plan, as he often does. I have a plan for this show, but then Dr. Arnn doesn’t tell me that he’s appearing at CPAC, and going to make a wonderful speech. And we played that speech in the first hour, and people want me to talk to him about that speech and about Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon showing up, and the Vice President. So Dr. Arnn, a little coordination, please.

LA: (laughing) You know, I think I hardly remembered the day before I gave that speech that I was going to do it. So…

HH: It was a very fine set of remarks, and we played them from start to finish. And the audience appeared, as usual, to be quite attentive to comments about first things and what first things mean, and what words mean, and what we are conserving, and about Donald Trump. Was it so in the room?

LA: Yeah, well, first of all, CPAC is odd. I’m an old man now, and I haven’t been to CPAC for many years, and that was deliberately. But it’s now completely changed. And I learned of the change from hordes of Hillsdale students who get on a bus, you know, last year, 200, this year, 100, and go and see that thing and come back. And so then they’re all extremely excited that I’m going to speak at CPAC. And I said really, you’re excited about that? Anyway, then you get there, and it’s a big deal now. And it’s very professional, and like makeup people, which I hasten to say I didn’t use. And it’s, you know, a big production, and people have entourages. And so anyway, it was like that. And having said that, you walk out, and you go on a, you walk out on a runway now. And there’s a beautiful woman coming in the other direction having introduced you. And you wonder why would anybody want to see you?

HH: (laughing)

LA: (laughing) And so…

HH: Well, I have never been, nor do I expect to ever go to CPAC, because the idea of enthusiastic crowds of well-wishers is not what I like to do. You enjoy giving large crowd audience conversations. I prefer to work on a microphone. I am just curious, though, did they pay attention? It’s often hard to get a crowd to pay attention at CPAC.

LA: Well, I’ve spoken to the whole crowd at CPAC three times in my life. And this one was different. The last two times, they were paying rigid attention, but also they were in a stupor.

HH: (laughing)

LA: (laughing) They had heard so many speeches by now, and they were there doing their duty, and they were sitting at rigid attention, but I think if the room had caught fire, they wouldn’t have known it.

HH: (laughing)

LA: It was, this time, it was early in the morning, and everybody was bright and alert, and there were laughter, and when I walked out there, I had the sense that a lot of people knew who I was.

HH: Of course, they know Hillsdale as well, don’t they?

LA: Yeah, well, and the Hugh Hewitt Show. Everybody, you know, people come up and ask me, oh, I just love you and Hugh Hewitt. And I said, I always say the same thing. I say do you really like him? And they always say no.

HH: Yeah, that’s it. I play the Tommy Smothers role here, and they like that part. Tommy Smothers had his fans as well. Listen, I want to play for you, they’ve heard you. I want your reaction to things that the mysterious Mr. Bannon said. And I call him the mysterious Mr. Bannon, because he’s quite intention about not appearing in public. Reince is quite available, and Reince is very good. They came out together. First of all, that was an excellent stroke in itself, don’t you think?

LA: Oh, yeah. Yeah, that was, the most important thing that happened that day was those two guys.

HH: Coming out together.

LA: Yeah, yeah.

HH: It just confounds the media, and I’m going to play the most important things said in the entire day. Now the President speaks there today, so it will be overshadowed. It’s not said by the Vice President, though the Vice President was very good, and we’ll play him some. It’s this comment from Steve Bannon, cut number 17:

SB: On the national security part, it was certainly the first, I think the first two EO’s that you started to see implemented here in the last couple of days under General Kelly. That is the rule of law is going to exist when you talk about our sovereignty, and you talk about immigration. General Kelly and Attorney General Sessions are adamantly, you know, that and you’re going to start to see, I think with the Defense budget we’re going to talk about next week when we bring the budget out, and also with certain things about the plan on ISIS and what General Mattis needs to do. I think you’ll start to see the other part of that. But the third, this regulation…

RP: Oh, yeah.

SB: Every business leader we’ve had in…

RP: Right.

SB: …is saying not just taxes, but it is also the regulation. I think the consistent, if you look at these cabinet appointees, they were selected for a reason, and that is the deconstruction, the way the progressive left runs is if they can’t get it passed, they’re just going to put it in some sort of regulation in an agency. That’s all going to be deconstructed, and I think that that’s why this regulatory thing is so important.

HH: The deconstruction of the regulatory state is the central theme of the Bannon-Priebus segment at CPAC. Do you think the media even understands what that means?

LA: Well, you know, they might, because the New York Times makes a big deal out of that this morning. And I looked specifically to see if they would, because that was one of the most consequential things said by this, any administration since the administrative state was built. And it was, it was powerful, because it was sort of here’s what we’re reasoning about. It wasn’t like he built up the point. That’s how they think. They’re thinking like this, and that’s why we did these things we’ve done. So that, I think that’s just awesome.

HH: Let me play you a second thing that he said that was quite amazing, cut number 15:

SB: The first is kind of national security and sovereignty, and that’s your intelligence…

RP: Right.

SB: …the Defense Department, Homeland Security. The second line of work is what I refer to as economic nationalism, and that is Wilber Ross at Commerce, Steve Mnuchin at Treasury, Lighthizer at Trade, Peter Navarro, Stephen Miller, these people that are rethinking how we’re going to reconstruct our trade arrangements around the world. The third, broadly, line of work is what is deconstruction of the administrative state. And if you, so I think the three most important things, I think one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history was his immediate withdrawal from TPP. That got us out of a, got us out of a trade deal and let our sovereignty come back to ourselves. The people, the mainstream media don’t get this, but we’re already working in consultation with the Hill. People are starting to think through a whole raft of amazing and innovative bilateral relationships, bilateral trading relationships with people that will reposition America in the world as a fair trading nation, and start to bring jobs, high value-added manufacturing jobs back to the United States of America.

HH: This is quite a plan, Dr. Arnn.

LA: Yeah, it’s, I met, I don’t know Steve Bannon. I met him, I know Reince Priebus, but I don’t know Steve Bannon. And I met his chief of staff or right hand person in the hall, and I said well, there are two views of your boss, and one is that he’s a genius, and the other is he’s an evil genius. Everybody agrees he’s a genius.

HH: (laughing)

LA: (laughing) And she liked that, but that, you know, the more I read about that guy, I think he’s a deliberate man. He’s thought through some big things, and he’s pursuing them, and he’s effective. Goodness gracious, look where he is.

HH: I have a friend who is in the media who knows him for a long time, and says he was quite well-respected at Goldman-Sachs. I don’t know him. I only know him by text message. We were supposed to get together a couple of weeks ago, and I have never spoken with him, so I don’t have an opinion, yet. I always reserve until I actually meet someone having an opinion about them. But I read one other thing he said. We don’t have an economy with open borders. We have a nation with an economy. He’s trying to make a point here about the bilateralism, which I think is also what Brexit’s point is, and I want to talk to you about the bi-elections that have been conducted in the last couple of days, which is that you can have a whole series of bilateral negotiations, and great trade deals without enmeshing yourself in an international organization that replaces its judgment for your own.

LA: Yeah, and that’s exactly right. And the shape that international affairs have taken in recent years is not really around economics. The European Union started out as a common market, and it had two main things, which was free trade and common defense to keep there from being more world wars. But there was some intention of it being a government at the beginning. And what it’s become is a big, massive, bureaucratic, ill-representative government. And it manages the details of people’s lives now, and there’s not really any way that a local single individual country constituency can change that thing. And people don’t like it. And so this, when he says economic nationalism and sovereignty, that’s right. There’s an assault on sovereignty through the claim of economic free trade.

HH: I will be right back with Dr. Larry Arnn. It is the Hillsdale Dialogue. All of them are collected at www.hughforhillsdale.com. Much more ahead, America. Stay tuned.

— — — –

HH: Dr. Arnn, being a biographer of Winston Churchill, and being married to the wonderful Penny, herself a native of the United Kingdom, is in a position to comment on a big story that not many people will cover today. They had two bi-elections in Great Britain yesterday, and I read from the Times of London this morning Jeremy Corbin has ruled out, he’s the leader of the Labour Party, has ruled out resigning in the wake of a crushing bi-election defeat as his allies blame Tony Blair for handing Copeland, that is a seat in Parliament, to the Conservatives for the first time in more than 80 years. Theresa May was today heading for the Cumbria seat to celebrate for the first time a governing party has taken a seat from the principle opposition since 1982. The victory will shorten the odds on Ms. May holding an early general election, and renew pressure on Mr. Corbin to stand down. the Labour leader was given some respite, however, as Labour held off a UKIP challenge to retain Stoke on Trent Central. The UKIP leader, Paul Nuttall’s failure to take the seat led to questions over the future of the party after the Brexit vote. Quite a lot in three paragraphs, Dr. Arnn, but it tells me that Brexit is real and enduring, that Theresa May is popular and enduring, and that it wouldn’t be a bad thing to hold an early election. What say you?

LA: Yeah, that’s, so I should tell you that Nigel Farage was on the Hillsdale College campus on Monday night of this week. And it was the rowdiest Hillsdale College crowd and one of the biggest we’ve ever had. It was just huge.

HH: How interesting.

LA: Everybody just loved that guy, and that guy is the founder of UKIP, the United Kingdom Independence Party. And Paul Nuttall is his successor. But it, and Nigel Farage, who’s sort of a, he’s a brilliant guy, and I really like him. I will also say that he’s a mixture of the really best of British Saturday night variety comedy on the BBC, and a really smart and courageous statesman. He’s both those things. So if you’re married to an English girl and he’s giving a speech, like everybody else, you’re giggling, but you’re giggling for a different reason. (laughing)

HH: (laughing)

LA: His gestures and his facial expressions are just like some of those best guys, you know. It’s sort of like going back home for Penny. Yeah, but the question for UKIP is what are they going to do now that Theresa May is being very direct and forthright and determined about Brexit? And I think, well, Nigel Farage, the way he talks, he never wanted public office anyway. He’s just been a member of the European Parliament, which he doesn’t even regard as being public office, really, since 1990? And everybody, your readers, our listeners, should go and do Brexit, day after Brexit, Nigel Farage, European Parliament, and watch his speech the day after Brexit passed in the European Parliament, and you will see in about nine minutes how deep is this divide, because the whole European Parliament booed him when he walked in the day after the Brexit vote. It just was amazing to me. And you’d think they’d be solemn or civil, but of course, then he turned on them and lambasted them.

HH: (laughing)

LA: And the thing is, that, you know, so the most consequential news, it’s not really all that consequential that Nuttall didn’t win that seat up against the Labour guy. That seat went 70% against UKIP in the Brexit vote. And it’s a safe Labour seat. But the one that, the Copeland that the Conservatives won…

HH: Yes.

LA: That’s, you know, that’s really remarkable, because bi-elections are, you know, in the British Parliament, there are 600 and some seats in the House of Commons. And when one comes open, they have an election two weeks later or three weeks later. And those elections, you know, they tend to happen, right, because there’s 600 and some people, and there’s change, people die or something. And so they, they’re a barometer. And of course, there’s a science of knowing whether it’s a swing seat and how the vote was last time and stuff like that. And since Margaret Thatcher, really, and including during her time, bi-elections have never gone to the party in power. It swings from one, from the minority party, that hasn’t happened since 1980.

HH: That is a huge deal. More on that and on Mike Pence when we return, America. Quite a significant week, and we find the stuff that matters, the signal among the noise here on the Hugh Hewitt Show on the Hillsdale Dialogue.

— – – — –

HH: And I have again postponed the conclusion of our conversation about C.S. Lewis’ the Abolition of Man, because CPAC happened, and Dr. Arnn was there and stole the show, and so was Stephen Bannon and Reince Priebus, and the President is going this morning. By the way, Dr. Arnn, the President this morning has tweeted out the FBI is totally unable to stop the national security leakers that have permeated our government for a long time. They can’t even find the leakers within the FBI itself. Classified information is being given to the media that could have a devastating effect on US. FIND NOW. What do you make of those two tweets?

LA: Well, I think, I think that the intelligence community may be part of the administrative state. And I think that they have, that there are elements within them that have a stake in all of this, and they are hostile to the Trump administration. That’s what I think.

HH: And I agree with it. I don’t want to overstate the deep state problem, but I do recall that Watergate was led by the deputy director of the FBI, it turned out to be Deep Throat. And they couldn’t find it out for 40 years.

LA: Yeah.

HH: I mean, it took that long to find it out. Now I want to turn to Vice President Pence. He is known to be a friend of yours, which tells me he’s a man of eclectic and idiosyncratic and rather generous tastes.

LA: Yeah, slumming.

HH: He had a lot to say at CPAC yesterday. Let me play for you a few of the things he had to say, cut number 6, please.

MP: And we’re going to get this economy moving again by cutting taxes for working families, small businesses and family farms. We’re going to keep rolling back job-killing regulations, and we’re going to rescind unconstitutional executive orders signed by Barack Obama. And under President Trump’s leadership, we’re going to continue to rein in wasteful government spending and restore fiscal responsibility to Washington, D.C. We’ll enact real education reform that gives families more choices and recognizes that education is a state and local function. And under President Donald Trump, no state will ever be forced to adopt the Common Core.

HH: So Dr. Larry Arnn, that is time to crescendo the last statement, no state shall be forced to adopt the Common Core. How important is that commitment?

LA: Yeah, well, if we’re going to govern ourselves, one of the things we’re going to get to do is raise our children. And so the reason the school should be the sovereign unit in education is that schools are full of parents and teachers. And they’re the ones who know the kids. And so this idea that you can’t run an education, K-12 education, mind you, which is not rocket science, right? Reading, writing and arithmetic – it turns out those are very important things, that you can’t run such a thing without a top heavy bureaucracy that actually outnumbers the number of teachers. That’s what we have. And of course, that union that represents them is one of the strongest political forces in the land. So he just takes that on, right? We have to, for the sake of the long term, for the sake of us being independent people and our children not being the subject of continuing social experiments, we have to restore the authority of the school. And I think that’s what they’re trying to do.

HH: Let me play for you as well cut number four of the Vice President at CPAC yesterday.

MP: And when it comes to the highest court in the land, in Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump kept his word to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court who will uphold our Constitution and all the God-given liberties enshrined in it in the tradition of the late and great Justice Antonin Scalia.

HH: Now I want to talk a little bit about Judge Gorsuch, Dr. Arnn. There is a case, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. V. Pauley, which is going to be heard by the Supreme Court on April 19th, 2017. I really hope that Judge Gorsuch is on the panel for that discussion on the Court. And it involves whether or not a Lutheran preschool can receive recycled tire surfacing for their playground. There is a Blaine Amendment, a little Blaine Amendment in Missouri that says a high wall of separation between Church and state. You and I know the Blaine Amendments were motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry that ran rampant in the aftermath of the Civil War right through the early 1920s. What do you think of the possibility that the Court finally understands and gets correct the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause pairing with Neil Gorsuch on the Court?

LA: Well, he’s a very, very smart man, and I mean remember he diagramed an English sentence accurately in the 19th Century way in order to parse out a statute in one of his opinions.

HH: Yes.

LA: It’s the greatest feat of jurisprudence of our time (laughing).

HH: (laughing)

LA: And he’s also witty. He’s really great. So what does free exercise mean? And it means that you shouldn’t put people in places under the law where they’re forced to worship in a way they don’t believe. And nobody wants that, right? You want the Congress of the United States to dictate how you pray. So we don’t want that, right? And then the question is, is it an offense to be exposed to a prayer? You know, the Catholic schools, I substitute taught in a Catholic school back when I was a graduate student, and I was an utter and complete failure. And the reason I couldn’t do it was because I wasn’t a nun.

HH: (laughing)

LA: I was taking the place of these nuns, right? And the kids in the school, you know, a lot of them were not even Catholic. And they didn’t spend their day all day long in Catechism. They were learning. And so the idea that you can’t take a voucher to a Catholic school if you’ve got the option to go to another school if you don’t want that one, I don’t understand why that interferes with anybody’s religion. And I am confident that the people who wrote the Constitution of the United State would not think that it did.

HH: Do you know that in the common school movement, before the progressives got ahold of it, it was the routine to read the Bible. Now this caused Catholic angst, because they read a different Bible. They read the King James Bible, and the Catholics did not like that Bible. So they started their own school. And out of that came the anti-Catholicism brought about by the Irish immigration, etc. But a lot of what was taken for granted in the first 80 years of our Republic was that of course the Bible, as we understand it generally, and there’s quite a lot in agreement now that maybe Catholics and Protestants ought to be arm in arm in defending moral teaching in the schools, that it ought to be a part of our education. That has come to be understood to be anathema by the left. And do you think we can reverse that?

LA: Well, you, I mean, first of all, if you, if you don’t, if you haven’t studied the Bible or the Koran, for that matter, then that’s an ignorance, right? You should, you know, the question of God is an eternal question. And as long as people have been writing coherent thoughts down, they’ve been talking about God, wondering about God, arguing about God. So a proper subject for any school, any education is what is this deal about God? Who is that guy? Why do we think there’s such a thing? Why does that come up? And to think about that, then you have to read the classics, which means pagans, and then you have to read the Jews, and you have to read the Christians, and you have to read the Muslims, and you know, the Buddhists, although they’re not theistic, they say. So the point is, these are powerful and important things to know. It is argued that they are in the implications of nature itself by the classics, by the things you see. You can see that there might be some protection. There must be, even, some perfection at the top that is without any flaw or failing. And so to not learn that argument is to cut off learning before it gets to the top, and that’s such a shame to do that.

HH: And they have succeeded in doing that by making Jefferson’s aside to the Danbury Baptists an allusion in their mind about a wall of separation to which they attribute all sorts of super, they don’t want a wall on the border. They want one between religion and every human being in America. That’s the wall that they want. And it’s the wrong wall. They want the wrong wall. Speaking of the other wall, Secretary of Homeland Security, Marine Corps General retired John Kelly, was in Mexico yesterday, and he said this, Larry Arnn, cut number one:

JK: Let me be very, very clear. There will be no, repeat, no mass deportations. Everything we do in DHS will be done legally and according to human rights in the legal justice system of the United States. All deportations will be according to our legal justice system which is extensive and includes multiple appeals.

HH: Now you see, Dr. Arnn, that is giving the lie to the coverage and the frenzy that surrounds the Trump administration. And I think it’s purposeful on the part of Manhattan-Beltway media to sow fear among people. What do you think?

LA: Well, it’s just excitable, isn’t it? So my Time Magazine journalist yesterday was very offended that Trump criticized the Court. And I said that’s a sign of the vigorous operation of separation of powers.

HH: (laughing)

LA: So you know, what he can’t do is send troops in there and arrest the judges, or send troops to defy a court order, at least as that court order regards particular persons, because what judges do in the first instance is they dispose of cases, and they are decisively outside the control of the executive branch. If Trump interfered with that, that would be really bad.

HH: Now I do make this distinction. I don’t think he ought to call judges so-called judges, because they have been Constitutionally-appointed and confirmed. But I think he ought to blast away at decisions by judges that he does not like.

LA: Oh, I see. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There you go. And if he does that, you know, I mean, you know, I have proved resilient in the face of Donald Trump. (laughing)

HH: (laughing)

LA: I can put up with him a fair amount. But yeah, of course, he, you know, you know that thing I’m well known for now. People said how can you support Lincoln and Churchill and then also Trump? And I always say are Lincoln or Churchill in the race?

HH: In the race.

LA: So I’m for them, you know? But he doesn’t talk like them. And Lord, it would be better if he did. But it would be better if we did, too. You know, it’s just really hard to do.

HH: Well, I try to every day, but then you come on the show, and it makes it very hard to do.

LA: (laughing) I’m messing it all up.

HH: And mess it all up. Now when we come back from break, he is giving a speech on Tuesday night, and I’d like you to considering during the break what it is that Donald Trump ought to say in that speech before the House. I’ve actually written one, and I’ve sent it to the Washington Post, and I imagine it will appear there today or tomorrow. I have ghosted a speech for Donald Trump, because I don’t know that his speechwriting staff is terrific, but I can kind of, I talk Trump. I speak Trump, and you do as well, and I know what he means when he says things that a lot of people don’t. so when we come back from the break, Dr. Larry Arnn will be talking with me about what in fact Donald Trump ought to say in the presidential speech. Don’t go anywhere. I’ll be back with Dr. Arnn on what Donald Trump ought to say on Tuesday night. Stay tuned.

— – — —

HH: Next week, we will conclude the Abolition of Man, and then we begin our study of the Constitution in detail as we prepare for a Constitutional government return in the United States. But Dr. Arnn, later today, I’ll be flying to Sacramento to address tonight the state Republican Party at the invitation of our friend, Jim Brulte. And I have a goal for that speech, which is to encourage them to elect more Congressmen, and to do so with purpose and how to go about that. Donald Trump is going to give, you gave a speech, and you had a purpose for your speech at CPAC yesterday. Donald Trump is giving a speech on Tuesday night to the assembled House and Senate, and to the country. What do you think his purpose ought to be?

LA: Well, I think he should, first of all, he’s a very determined man, and he’s got to continue to seem that way. And so he will repeat all of the stuff that he’s been saying. And he’s going to insist. He’s going to say I’m going to keep on. I was elected to do this. I think that he should dwell on the fact that he does not have any policies that regard any person as a member of a race, because that would be wrong to do. And he should eschew any doing of it. And he should talk about, and this is my favorite thing, and oh, there are just three things, right? This is the land for all American citizens equally of every color. That’s one. Two, we’re going to defend this country. People who say that I’m too friendly with Putin should notice that we’re getting ready to build up our Defense budget a lot. And that means that anybody, if they’re right and Putin’s a threat, I wouldn’t mention him by name, if anybody’s right that anybody’s a threat, we’re going to be able to defend ourselves. And then three, we have to get back to the rule of law, and that means the Congress. This Congress is going to have to make the laws again.

HH: That’s not very far removed from my draft.

LA: Ooh.

HH: I do it much more elegantly, I might add.

LA: Of course, you do.

HH: And at length, because you’ve got to speak like Trump, and he doesn’t speak that way. But it is important, especially on that first point, we are all citizens, and there is no category. It has been attributed to him quite amazingly that he’s anti-Semitic this week. This inference is made after, after the John Kerry speech that condemned Israel for building settlements, and after the UN resolution was not vetoed, he is acclaimed to be anti-Semitic while Mike Pence is down in a cemetery that has been desecrated, rebuilding it. It’s absolutely astonishing to me, Larry.

LA: Yeah, look at his, you know, his policies in Israel. I mean, he’s, gracious sakes, who’s been for Israel more than this guy? But he also, there isn’t, you know, as far as I can tell, and you know, his life is very well-known, right? And around him, people of every color, Jews and gentiles, you know, he’s just, he’s a New Yorker, for goodness sakes.

HH: And that means cosmopolitan, that means a city of the world. Here is Mike Pence yesterday, by the way, speaking about Israel, cut number 8:

MP: I’m proud to stand with a president who is doing all of this and more. And I’m proud to stand with a president who stands with our most cherished ally, the Jewish state of Israel.

HH: Now Larry Arnn, I know that you love the special relationship, so when he says our most cherished ally, do you bristle a bit?

LA: No, I remember what Churchill said, very fond of Israel and of Greece, he said, of the Jews, he said wherever there are three Jews, there are two prime ministers and one leader of the opposition.

HH: (laughing)

LA: (laughing) So I don’t blame Pence for being diplomatic with those guys.

HH: Okay, so a diplomatic matter, okay. So do you think he should talk in his ordinary voice, because the ghosted speech, which will appear later today, I tried to put it into Trump’s voice, because I actually think that’s what’s winning. People think he’s telling them the truth.

LA: It’s the same thing with this guy, Nigel Farage, whom I’ve, you know, met as I said this week. And yeah, he is genuine, right, obviously genuine. And the politically correct intellectual, centralized bureaucratic state shoehorns everyone into a mode of speech. And so you sound artificial all the time. And you know, I happen to know one of Trump’s speechwriters, and you know, I talk to that person quite a bit. And you know, Donald Trump’s going to say what he wants to. And he’s going to say it just the way he wants to. So great, you know, that’s what he should do. Of course, he should do that.

HH: It is not an enviable thing job, by the way, to write for people who go off script. I hope you will send them, I will send you the link when it comes…

LA: Okay.

HH: And you can relay it to your friend, because I think you’ve got to learn how to get into his rhythm in order to be effective in making this. And I’m just going to enjoy watching the Speaker of the House and the Vice President behind him, because they will laugh, right?

LA: Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, if they’re human. (laughing)

HH: (laughing) If it’s not in fact an inflatable set of Speaker and Vice President dolls up there. Dr. Larry Arnn, you messed up my show again, but it’s always a pleasure to speak with you. All of the Hillsdale Dialogues available at www.hughforhillsdale.com. And I tell you, I tell you now, everything at Hillsdale deserves your attention and support. Go to www.hillsdale.edu and get Imprimis, and get involved, and get back here on Monday.

End of interview.

Hughniverse

Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertisement
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Book Hugh Hewitt as a speaker for your meeting

Follow Hugh Hewitt

The Hugh Hewitt Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Advertisement
Friends and Allies of Rome