Catching Up With Candidates
Reviews of RFK Jr. and Vivek Ramaswamy's separate interviews with Tucker Carlson
After my article about Steven Sund’s interview with Tucker Carlson, I got a couple requests to do a “deep review” of the Tucker Carlson interview with RFK Jr. A couple days later, I decided to package that up with a review of Tucker’s newly dropped interview with Vivek Ramaswamy. Enjoy! (Or don’t. I’m not your boss.)
Tucker’s interview with RFK Jr. begins with Carlson commenting on Kennedy’s lack of Secret Service protection. Although Kennedy gets death threats and has mentally ill people invade his home fairly regularly (a shocking revelation), the Department of Homeland Security denied Kennedy’s Secret Service request — an unprecedented development as far as Kennedy’s team could find. When pressed about the reason for the denial, Kennedy suggested that the “least malevolent interpretation” is that Biden (the person he’s running against) simply wants to bleed Kennedy dry by forcing him to pay for his own security. ($100,000 to $200,000 a month adds up quick!)
Kennedy also mentioned that John Bolton still has a Secret Service detail.
Yes, THAT John Bolton.
Tucker turned the conversation to why the media hates Kennedy. RFK Jr. replied that the consolidation of media outlets has tended to narrow the acceptable topics of conversation and that at this point, most are beholden to the RNC or DNC. (I would personally say “The Uniparty” instead of RNC/DNC.)
One example of this, Kennedy says, is that we’re being lied to about what’s going on in Ukraine — a complex issue the media likes to paint in black-and-white terms. Kennedy explains the neocon agenda (dominance through overwhelming firepower) and outlines the basic terms of the Minsk agreements. (The key being that the US and allies would not move NATO to the east — which they did.)
Admittedly I don’t listen to TOO many politicians speak, but Kennedy impressed me when comparing what was happening in Ukraine to our very own Cuban Missile Crisis — something I often do as well. Kennedy stressed the need for us to attempt to understand the Russians’ point of view — something JFK did to de-escalate the Cuban Missile Crisis.
How did we expect Russians to act when the CIA was funding riots against the democratically elected government of Ukraine? How did we expect Russians to react to Victoria Nuland’s phone call “choosing” Ukraine’s new government? Kennedy claims the CIA overthrew 83 governments between 1947 and 1997, and certainly the Russians know that too. Ukraine is Russia’s “red line”, just like Cuba was for us.
In fact, Kennedy points out, Zelensky was actually elected on a promise to finally agree to a version of the Minsk accords — but after his election he turned on a dime. (The insinuation being that he was forced to do so by the CIA.) When Zelensky and Putin tried to reach a peace agreement, we torpedoed that negotiation as well.
Kennedy points out that a lot of “Ukraine aid” is actually just another government giveaway for US military contractors — the same ones (silently) represented by “Former Generals” on mainstream media outlets. Kennedy calls out BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard by name. (And it’s worth pointing out these companies also show up when we talk about media ownership!!!)
But the worst part about Ukraine, Kennedy says, is that “We push Russia into the embrace of China, which is the worst foreign policy outcome imaginable.” He hotes that instead of crippling Russia, American and European sanctions have simply driven the country to trade with China and insulated Russia from attacks via the west’s banking system.
This led to the creation of BRICS, about which Kennedy says, “If we lose that status as the world’s reserve currency, the Great Depression will look like a cakewalk.”
But the ‘leaders’ of the country won’t turn away from the Ukraine war because they are neocons, RFK Jr. says. It’s the same people who took us into Iraq based on lies and passed the USA PATRIOT Act — which opened up previously banned bioweapon research under the guise of bioweapon protection.
At this point, Tucker asks RFK Jr. “Why would we have biolabs in Ukraine?”, to which Kennedy gives the best possible answer: “We have biolabs in Ukraine because we’re developing bioweapons.”
This is one of the topics we are ABSOLUTELY not allowed to talk about. But Kennedy does. He details how, after the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, the Pentagon started throwing around cash for research — but they were nervous the provision in the bill wouldn’t stop them from violating the Geneva Conventions. That’s when our favorite villain — Anthony Fauci — is tapped to fund gain of function research in the United States.
Kennedy notes that when you develop bioweapons, you have to simultaneously develop vaccines. (Any of this sounding familiar?) That’s because your “side” is eventually going to get hit with your bioweapons as well — which is what happened in 2014 when multiple viruses escaped their laboratory conditions. This led to the ban of gain-of-function research in the US and prompted Fauci to move such research overseas — to Wuhan (China) and Ukraine.
(Do we see how deep this rabbit hole goes and why the entire establishment was covering for Fauci? It wasn’t just him, it was multiple agencies across government that wanted this done — including military.)
Moving on from these intertwined topics, Carlson asks why the CIA killed JFK. Kennedy responds that most of the people who were involved in the plot were upset about JFK’s response during the Bay of Pigs invasion and the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Proof that a desire for peace is never tolerated in DC.)
Kennedy also notes that after the assassination, the CIA sent out a telecom to Operation Mockingbird agents — roughly 400 people placed throughout the American press — to dismiss those who doubted the government narrative as “conspiracy theorists.” (Some things never change, I guess.)
To wrap up the interview, RFK Jr. and Carlson discuss the border. Kennedy explains that while he was not a “Trump’s wall” guy, he has now visited the area and understands the need to close the border immediately. He claims the Mexican drug cartels are basically running immigration policy, and are advertising on TikTok and other online venues encouraging people to fly into Mexico City and walk right through. (For a fee, of course.) Kennedy notes that although the illegal immigrants are given an asylum court date 7 years in the future, they are nearly all here searching for a better life and don’t actually have valid asylum claims.
Kennedy ends the interview stating there always seems to be money to bail out banks and go to war, but never any money to actually help people. He notes that families are struggling, and economic uncertainty leads to anxiety and a host of health problems that go with it.
Overall, I was extremely impressed with this interview. It’s always nice to see candidates talking about the “unapproved” topics of conversation. People are so hungry for honest discussion, it’s easy to see why Kennedy’s got traction running against Joe Biden.
If there is one knock on Kennedy, it’s the way he speaks. I’m not (just) talking about his voice, but his penchant to interrupt his own stories with possibly irrelevant sub-stories. This drags out the point — and on more than one occasion it looked like Kennedy finished his thought only to forget why he brought it up in the first place.
What Kennedy is saying is very important, and it would be a shame to allow a subpar communication style get in the way of that.
Moving to the next interview, we turn to a guy who has very little problems communicating. (So much so that I get a little suspicious, to be honest. Perhaps with good reason?)
Vivek Ramaswamy has been rising in the GOP primary polls with a combination of high-level communication skills, common sense, and a willingness to challenge the prevailing narrative. Here’s my recap of his sit-down with Tucker:
The interview starts out quick, with Tucker immediately bringing up an interview Ramaswamy did regarding 9/11. Media has attacked Ramaswamy as a “9/11 truther” because he states that the government lied to us about what happened. He backs up his claim with a story of a Saudi Arabian spy living in the US who met with two of the 9/11 hijackers. The government knew he was a spy, but officially said he was just some guy who ran into the hijackers at the airport and took them home. (Yes, really.)
Ramaswamy then states that it’s not okay for government to lie to the public, and that government seems to have this sort of “parental” view of their role to the people. Like children, we can’t handle the truth, so they lie to us for our own good. Ramaswamy wants answer to all the questions we have, be they about covid 19 origin and what we knew about the vaccine program or the suppression of Hunter’s laptop. Other examples he brings up are 1/6 and the Nashville shooter’s manifesto.
Ramaswamy says that when he talks to “important” people like donors, they say that he’s not supposed to mention these things because its hurts him in the polls. “Why is that the first question that should go through my mind?” he wonders. The problem is that government and other institutions don’t believe the citizens can be trusted. And government officials actually think what they’re doing is the right thing — a much more dangerous situation than an outright evil government.
That’s actually a very old school of thought, Ramaswamy points out. Most of human history is people being ruled by those making deals in back rooms. It was the “1776 ideas” that turned that around and turned America into the country we know. Those ideals are supposed to unite us a country. Ramaswamy says we need to channel this energy into a positive reaffirmation of those ideals, or it’s going to go very badly.
The conversation turns to the economy, where Ramaswamy predicts tough times ahead (possibly in 2024). Many of Biden’s economic numbers hide a deeper structural issue, Ramaswamy argues. As an example, he brings up the fact that many students are graduating with four-year degrees but without any actual skills. Ramaswamy also wins an award for understanding that inflation is cumulative, and saying that inflation is going down doesn’t mean that prices are coming down.
The economic hardships are exacerbated, Ramaswamy says, by the deep distrust that Americans feel for government officials. (Hard to argue that.) He states that while a recession might be the “match” that we talk about, “it’s the kerosene on the floor we need to be paying attention to”.
Shifting the conversation to Ukraine, Ramaswamy states that he’s lost numerous donors over his position that America has no national interest in Ukraine. Ultimately, he says, this is one of those issues we’re simply not supposed to confront — like 9/11. Nobody else on the upcoming debate stage has a sane position on Ukraine because those are the orders they’ve been given, Ramaswamy declares.
Like RFK Jr., Ramaswamy points out that by arming Ukraine, we are driving Russia into China’s arms — creating the greatest military threat in the world. Ramaswamy fears this could be just like Iraq, but against a nuclear power that’s teaming up with the country we depend on for our economy.
Ramaswamy then discusses Taiwan and our over-dependence on the country for our way of life, something that’s threatened by China’s posturing. He declares the solution is to make semiconductors here in America and that this would also reduce the stranglehold China has on our international negotiations.
Pivoting slightly away from foreign policy, Ramaswamy outlines his vision for the military: Actually protect the homeland instead of projecting power abroad. When Tucker comments how that makes sense, Ramaswamy notes that many Republicans call the plan “weak.”
“Is there a dumber group than foreign policy Republicans?” Carlson asks.
To drive the point home, Ramaswamy notes that a nuclear war against a Russia/China alliance could literally lead to the end of the country and then lists off the numerous ways that our power grid is vulnerable to attack. Priority #1 must be fixing our actual defense, he claims.
Carlson then turns discussion to this video of Ramaswamy deftly answering a question about same-sex couples from a pansexual:
Ramaswamy then discusses his views about the LGBTQ+ community, pointing out that the groups actually believe different things and only join together to create an “us vs them” mentality.
In a weirdly apt comparison, he compares the illogic of the LGBTQ+ community with the green community, which wants to reduce carbon emissions but ignores nuclear power. You can’t believe both things at once, he says.
To finish the interview, Ramaswamy declares that the way forward is to fill the void that people have in their lives with an affirmative vision of who we are. He shares my personal frustration that Republicans don’t seem to have a vision for their policy because they don’t even know who they are. (My guess is because of the donor problem mentioned above.)
A lot of the stuff Ramaswamy says is pretty common-sense, and it’s refreshing to see somebody saying it out loud in “important” venues.
Compare Tucker’s interview to this one Ramaswamy gave on CNN today:
This is a perfect example of why frustration with the media is at an all-time high. The anchor ignores everything Ramaswamy is saying in order to continue to push the narrative that he’s a 9/11 truther who declared it was an inside job.
Listen to the full audio of the clip they’re discussing and determine for yourself what he meant:
Seems pretty obvious to me, but what do I know? I’m just some guy who’s Screaming into the Void.
Afraid of commitment? Buy me a coffee on Ko-fi — no subscription required!
I’m a Brit and I’d vote for Vivek in an instant.
Not to be too nit picky, well, ok just to be nit picky... it is "The Party" not Uniparty (sticking with Orwell).
Since Orwell basically wrote the story we should show respect ;-). Ok just kidding around. Thanks for the summary. I have to admit I tried to listen to both interviews but Tucker Carlson is link nails on a chalkboard to me, for some reason. I got through enough to see your points.
Both RFK and VR are interesting speakers, and both can be hard to listen to. Both say a lot that makes sense, punctuated with just enough "WTF?" moments to add some, shall I call it mystery?
What I find interesting about RFK is if we stay away from the topic of CIA and his family history, his policy positions are really quite close to his father Robert and uncle John. Despite identifying as republican, what he says is quite close to his family heritage (if we ignore Ted, which is generally good advice). I used to think it shows the reversal of roles of the two in-name parties (with RFK perhaps being "the real Kennedy"?). Now I say it supports the one party reality (he is more distracting as a republican).
Of course a huge difference is JFK and RFK (1) were faithful to and backed by The Party. RFK seems to have given up party loyalty (IMO a good thing to do) and certainly seems to be making his way onto the list of Enemies of The Party.