Transcripts For BLOOMBERG Charlie Rose 20140628

From our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Issuedinvestment corp. Several anticipated rulings. Affecting everything from how we watch television to when the police can search euro cell phone. Joining us from washington to talk about the high courts ruling is adam liptak. Characterize this day and these decisions. On one level the Supreme Court confronted two big technological issues and you would not think they would be particularly good at this but they were fairly savvy in both cases. The bigger, more surprising one was a sweeping privacy ruling saying the police have to get a warrant before they search the cell phones of anyone they arrest. 12 Million People are arrested and the search is a routine so that is a big pushback from a court that is not often sympathetic to arrested people and criminal defendants but they seem to think that the digital age is different and we need different Fourth Amendment rules in the air of big data. A 90 decision . 90 and i got to say i did not see that coming. This is the year of unanimity. They are unanimous more than half the time and on accursed controversy oks like this it is not what a lot of people thought was coming. Why did the court go there . There seems to be a sensitivity and this is the second time they have done this. They also went 90 to say the police cannot put gps on your car and track your movements for month. They have come to an understanding there is Something Different about the digital age and the amount of data the government can collect and sift about private citizens and they are pushing back. This is in this sense a proprivacy court. Roberts wrote the majority opinion . Yes. He is a very colorful writer and he made clear that he understands that smartphones are barely phones, they are many that have every aspect of your political affiliations, email, photographs that allow the allowing the police to search her cell phone is not different from allowing them to waltz into your house and look at everything you known every you know. Diaries,an be called albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers. Ll that. Which is a profile of who they belong to. That is right. Music of this the decision suggests it is not limited to people who are arrested. This is going to inform lower courts as they think about computer searches of all times all kinds. The court has put its foot down and put down a marker that digital information, the vast amounts of information is different in kind for the Fourth Amendment. How will this affect Law Enforcement . Justice very candidly says this will exact a cost. It will make it harder to solve some crimes that he says if you way that interest against arsenal privacy, privacy wins. He acknowledges that personal privacy has a cost. Lets talk about the verio case. The justices thought their service was too clever by half. Antennas ininiature cities and assigned you your own antenna and streams over the internet live rod castello version. Television. Six justices said that is basically theft and not acceptable under the copyright laws. The three dissenting justices did not disagree for the most part. They found this practice distasteful but said the law is written contains this loophole. As you can put your rabbit ears on your tv and watch Live Television there is nothing different of putting up a miniature antenna miles away and watching live tv on your ipad. Statementup press which said they think that will put a Chilling Effect on innovation. There is some truth in that probably and the court tried to write the decision very narrowly so it would not affect other Cloud Computing services but this particular thing was too much for them to swallow and the broadcast industry really thought they would be in deep trouble if materials, copyrighted materials that they get paid large fees for why cable and Satellite Companies are available free to people. It could cause that cable to, and bundles which would terrify broadcasters. This is a decision that will kill a business. Aereo will go out of business. That is probably the outfit outcome. Live is a suggestion that streaming is different from stored streaming which you can look at. I think the short of it is that aereos days are numbered. Watch some of the Supreme Court as you have watched it. The court is still divided on campaignfinance, on religion, on race, but this has been a term in which the nine justices have come together and as able lawyers as they are found Common Ground and in many cases issued 90 decisions which is not the story win the press usually tell about the court but it is the story this year. Does that Say Something about the leadership of john roberts . He cannot help but say that. But were in mind he gets one vote. He does have the power to assign the majority opinion but that is his only special power. It may have something to do with the fact that they have lived together for four years and they know each other a little bit better in the get to choose their own cases. They had two huge terms, one over health care and the other over samesex marriage. This current term is not as big so in lower profile cases the get together and try to work together. Thank you for joining us. Back in a moment. Stay with us. Is here. Tribe lawas taught constitutional for more than four decades. He has argued dozens of cases before the justices including bush v gore. His new oak is called book is called uncertain justice. Ted olson writes i am pleased to have Laurence Tribe back at this table. Olson, very nice praise. Click season evenhanded and fair guy. He is an evenhanded and fair guy. Justice roberts will be there for a long time. Gracie has been there for nothing he has been there for nine years and you can see not in the standards the divisions of 94 but the under curtains, some important trends about privacy, about race, about gender, about Sexual Orientation , about the way we lead our lives and i thought it was time to make those things more understandable for a general audience. Not just for specialists. And to get beyond the simplified stereotypes of right versus left because that is not where it is at. It is all these labels we tend to put. Journalists are busy and they have their own lives. Theyre beginning to realize that the courts decision affect their lives and they want some easy answer but when i tried to show in this book is that although the answers are interesting they are not easy. Hl mencken once said that every complicated problem has an easy answer and it is usually wrong. In fact the answer that these justices are just alterations in robes is just wrong. They have serious philosophies. Their philosophies are not those of just umpires calling balls and strikes as the chief justice once said. But they are not philosophies about how can i make my Political Party stronger than the other guys Political Party. Lets go through the things they have clear trends. Privacy. The court is looking at the impact of new technology. More of the justices including sotomayor and scalia. To take an example of someone who is thought as a liberal and , realize that there are serious threats from new technology to privacy. They have different approaches to those threats and interestingly, breyer is to the right of scalia. Is one of grappling with new problems. Court does not have a leftright commit men on privacy. Can you predict how they might come down on a case . When i study the case closely what i said the chief justice would cast the decisive vote based on the taxing power. I do not claim to be unique. I do not sat have a say i have a crystal ball. The issues i need to study art issues that arent that are beneath the service. Beneath the surface. Than that. Eper are understanding the deeply thought, well studied philosophy of an individual judge . Has Life Experience and a philosophy about the role of the states versus the federal government. About the power of the government to coerce individuals and to bribe them. There are a lot of issues that have not been surfaced yet that are important in the Supreme Courts decision. They are earnest and trying to find the answers during the takeioning period and their role seriously. They are often testing their views against one another. They often use the lawyers simply as target practice. The use the lawyers to bounce their ideas off because they do not have nearly as much dialogue within the court as some people might wish. I think in preparation for each case, i think every justice including Justice Thomas who thinks aboutence, the case deeply, take Something Like affirmative action where you could not have more different views than that of thomas and soto mayor. Theyre both views that when you read the opinions including soto sotomayors view, they of out of personal experience. They both said affirmative action made a huge difference in their lives but he was a difference. Thomas said it proved that you should not look to people to give you favors because of your race. Because then you will never know whether you really belong. Everyone will doubt your achievements. Sotomayor said i do not doubt my achievements. I might not have gotten here without a leg up. Race was one of the things were you can get a sense of the court. Court is moving toward the view that we have gotten the racial problems archly behind us. I think that is a mistake but when they decide a case like Shelby County saying that there has been a lot of progress, we no longer need to have the preclearance procedures in the justice department, Justice Ginsburg said it best in her dissent which is it is like saying that we have stayed dry in a storm so we might as well give the umbrella away. It is not a very rational response. I do not think it helps to pile on. At a of liberals look decision like Shelby County and get a lot of joy out of castigating the court and saying it is blind. What good does that do . They have the votes but what we need to do is understand what is driving them. What are the possible levers and what are the motivations . Sometimes the answer is theres nothing we can do short of an eventual change in traditional personnel and that will depend on a lot of things beyond theory. It will depend on who wins the next residential election and who controls the senate. When we have another opening on the Supreme Court. We might as well understand it realistically rather than self congratulatory leap attack the court when we agree with it or prays the court when we agree with it. There are more than enough points of view to merit expression. Most of the arguments about these things are arguments where there is no right answer. The country is divided about a lot of these issues like reproductive rights and race because they are tough issues. They are competing values. Reproductive rights a case where you can see a clear trend . The court is ready to cut back further to my not ready to overrule it. We will see more when we see the case involving the 35 foot iners own around clinics massachusetts. There are values of free speech on one side and reproductive rights in the other. The court so it reaffirmed roe v wade in 1992, probably ready to give more leeway to those who believe that the unborn have rights of their own. The court has not taken a serious look at the abortion problem for number of years but that is my sense of where the justices are. And on gender issues . The court has been silent probably because it has not had new opportunities when it interprets statutes like the interpretation that made it harder for women to sue unless they sue quickly when they first discover any sign of discrimination. Congress has come back and corrected it in the Lilly Ledbetter act. Most of what it has done on gender in recent years has been in terms of statutory interpretation. It is pretty much established that lines drawn along gender are lines that are probably unconstitutional. Sexual orientation is an area where there is also a clear trend. Justice kennedy is leading the charge and i think that having struck down the defense of marriage act the court is probably ready in one of these cases from the lower courts to take the next step and say that states cannot give secondclass citizenship to samesex couples. Arguing statesre rights the core will argue it is not. Quick states rights never completely trump individual human rights and dignity and livery liberty, equality. A guy like kennedy has said the whole point of states rights is to protect liberty. Governmentor closer to the people so they can take a participatory role in government. I do not think you will allow the tail to wag the dog and say states rights trump personal rights. Who has been the most includingl thinker justices on you in the way you see the law . A great question. I would say probably Justice Brennan some years ago. His architectural sense of how the law fits together has influenced me a lot. He and Justice Oconnor dissented when the Supreme Court do notat states that raise their drinking age to 21 will lose 5 of their highway funds are you do do not think of brennan as a states rights advocate normally. Realize oconnor, he that when the government has the power to use its enormous fiscal tell states just to and individuals how to spend its money but had to spend their own money, how to make their own policies, that we are putting rights on the auction block. There is a chapter in here called rights for sale that onks about the limits governments power not just to ,ourse people but to bribe them in effect, into giving up their rights in a thing brennan saw that that is a seamless web. You cannot give government the power to manipulate and bribed without limit. Rights,ct to states without losing a lot of principles with respect to individual rights. These are my curiosity questions. Who among all the justices and opinions was the most billion writer Brilliant Writer . Robert jackson. You could say John Marshall but it is an earlier style and it is hard to appreciate. Buty 19thcentury writing Robert Jackson was extraordinary. When he said that compulsory unanimity produces only the unanimity of the graveyard, he words what if you have been able to say in entire books. Will we be better off, there is a similarity to the Supreme Court in terms of their education, ivy league. Online went to harvard or yale. Exactly. I do not have anything against harvard or yale but that is crazy. All of them you do not have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. The only job where you have to be a lawyer is solicitor general. You dont have to be a judge. Thatu look at the court decided brown. It was former senators, former governors, that kind of Life Experience makes a difference. Court. A great when oconnor was on the court the fact that she had been a state court judge and a state legislator brought something to the proceedings because the court is a mix. It is a chemical composition of has changedich dramatically if you suddenly do not have anyone there who has the experience of politics. That hillaryme clinton decides to run and lets assume she is elected. Might she consider barack obama as a possible Supreme Court nominee . There have been president s who became chief justice. William howard taft. I guess he is the only one. It is not inconceivable. He would make quite a good judge. He is your student. He was my student and was my research assistant. For two and a half years. He was great. It takes to be a great president is different from what it takes to be a great judge. He might be a better judge. It is too early to say how good a president he has been. There are things i wish you might have done early. He has had some major accomplishments. He does have these this quality to see all sides. It is important that you come to closure. And you have a principle that you have studied. When you look at the court today and the decisions it faces, what are the great issues that have not come to the court that will come to the court . Issues about bioengineering, the meaning of personhood. Not only at what point does a fetus become a person but is a chimpanzee a person, artificial intelligence. Fermentationt of and you need legislatures to weighin and lower courts. Eventually as lincoln said we cannot be a country have free and half slave. We cannot have person mean one thing in mississippi and another thing in california or new york. Eventually the basic concepts of what are human beings, what are the rights of persons have to be decided in a way that although it can be changed by amendment has to be decided by the Supreme Court. Is there just is who you disagree with philosophically but when you read his opinions or her opinions and you say, damn. Scalia. I love his opinions. They capture the essence of a point. Even when i disagree with him strongly. He is great. There are several great writers on the current court. Kagan is your marketable and sotomayor. And the clarity of roberts. They are so elusive they can be understood ordinary human beings which matters. One of the principles of the book we wrote is the constitution and the interpretation is not a matter for just experts. This is a matter for national discussion, for national conversation. I think we underestimate the intelligence of the American People if we assume you have to talk legalese and jargon all the time. That is why like the simplicity of the roberts opinions. They come to the point and they are concise and clear. Joshua is amention former student. He was my chief Teaching Fellow in an undergraduate course and he will be clerking for Justice Kennedy starting july. He is clerking for Steve Reinhardt on the ninth circuit. He is a very brilliant kid with a great future. We worked together seamlessly. He really deserves lots of credit for helping me write this. How do you think youre shaping the minds of these Young Lawyers . I might gow that into psychology or some other field. I do not know. I think i help them see x what is the difference between when they come in and when they leave . I think they see more sides of every issue. They recognize that things are just plantingy your feet in the sand and sticking to a position. That the best way to understand inething is to put yourself someone elses mind. When i talk about gun rights in the chapter on guns in this book i do not demonize the National Rifle association. It does turn out that when Charlton Heston first learned he the he was then head of nra that i was coming around thinking people do have rights with respect to guns, he called me up and he said why dont you meet me in my private plane now that we are on the same side and i said, whoa, wait a minute. I still think you can regulate guns and that was the end of that conversation. I said i add meyer do i admired planet of the apes. Students andmy they tell me that i have shown therehat there is more than initially meets the eye and if you think hard about what makes the other guy tick and why people have these views that you think are wrong, you will both be more effective as an advocate and have a deeper wisdom. I think it is that and the other thing is the idea of have to think. How to think. The experience of a rigorous education. I have nothing to do with the law but i did have a law school education. It is a way to think about issues and that is an important thing that you can carry for the rest of your life. You can forget every case you have ever read. But you know how to think about things. People think about learning to think about like a lawyer. I mean learning to think, period. Wise human being. History and mathematics can help you. You should not get a Legal Education if you want unless you want to be a lawyer . It will help a lot. It is not the only path to wisdom. Are you worried about Citizens United . They do worry me. I think that people who assume that you could just remove them from the landscape with a simple constitutional amendment are fully themselves. Money is so pervasive in lobbying and throughout politics that to fix it requires something much more radical than anybody has considered. Simply handing the power to the people that you think are bought and paid for under the present saying, you designed the system of Campaign Finance regulation and we will rubberstamp it does not make a lot of sense. The problems are very deep, very systemic. I am worried about how influential money is in politics but i think given the state of First Amendment law, Citizens United and mccutchen were probably rightly decided. That shocks most of my liberal friends and i am critical of the role of money. It is not that money is speech. It takes money to amplify your speech and reach people. These people in Citizens United were publishing a movie. An antihillary movie. It could have been an orimccain movie antianybody else movie but are we going to say because a corporation is spending a lot of money on a politically influential movie or book that because it is a corporation, we can say no, we shut it off . That is a very dangerous power to give government. Where have you changed her opinions about big issues, anywhere . Your opinions about big issues, anywhere . I have not that i have thought that affirmative action is a more complicated problem. I used to think that what helps minorities is not a problem. Aat helps and what hurts is bigger problem and what stigmatizes is harder to predict so i think affirmative action is an area where i am much more ambivalent. I do think that assuming we have solved all our racial problems is wrong. I now think affirmative action is an area where we have to go slow and where we have to be careful. The danger is . That we will perpetuate racial divisiveness. What was it Justice Roberts said . It is a little simplistic. It is a nice bumper sticker, the end discrimination based on race is to and discover nation based on race. You cannot make the magic weibo magic wand. Wave a magic wand. He has this example the first article is likely to be the influence of immanuel he evvidence year identiary approaches. It is not much help to the bar. When i look at titles people are getting pretty desperate for satirica. The ripples moving on, attached to the next pool which the first pool feeds. There is a kind of ripple effect. The Supreme Court decides a case and it changes the world and the world changes the court. We cannot treat these things as though they were a staple and fixed for all time. Even if we are originalists. It was great to see you. Great to see you. , the book isribe called uncertain justice. Lex shook gordon is a man you probably have not heard of but he is one of hollywoods insiders. Careers ofged the insight artists such as alice cooper and the late eddie pendergrass. Pendergrass. He is the subject of a new movie. Here is the trailer. Ve into los angeles and it was a hollywood landmark. The girl said she was janis joplin and she introduced me to jimi hendrix. He said are you jewish . He said you should be a manager. I said who should i manage . Alice cooper. She is a protector. He keeps the wolf from the door. Whof someone asked me invented the celebrity chef . Shep gordon. He wrote the book. Money, always rubber to get the money, never forget to always remember to get the money. Remember to get the money. Andhat is something new lets stick with it. We tried to do as many outrageous things as possible. Everybody went wild. He navigated us through this rough passage. I was so over my head. Fame thatothing about sells it. The ones who rose to the top got hurt the worst. I felt the stress of l. A. I had spent my life living other peoples lives and it wanted to see what my life was. Never really developed a family. I am making up work. Shep gordon is the nicest person ive ever met hands down. What is important is doing compassionate business. No winners and losers. There is only winners. Sheps all end up in kitchen. He tells the best stories. I have [inaudible] not even my wife. [laughter] us is mike myers and shep gordon. How long have you known him . 23 years. How long have you been trying to get him . To allow you to make a movie about him . 20 years. Very shortly after meeting him i said i would like to do a movie about you and he was like, i really do not want to. No thanks. Not for me. And a few years ago he said yes. You were an agent for alice cooper and Teddy Pendergrass and then you leave and go to hawaii. Way away. Long i realized that for me i was heading toward a crash. That it was just too much of everything and whats it all about. Why have you not written a book about this . Said nohe same reason i to mike for many years. Fame is something i think is a very dangerous thing. It is something that is necessary if you are a creative mike tellsis it better than i do. If you are a creative person in many ways, fame is the industrial disease of creativity. Shep has been the hazmat suit for so many people for so many years. Want to flirt with it. I went to hawaii and bought a house. I continued my business. Do you serve . I body surf. I kept them while i was in hawaii. Alice i always kept. He is a body part. We have been together for 45 years. He is a fascinating guy. He is interesting and interested. He is in many ways for stomp forrest gump. Him he wasfirst met anding he had a ponytail a tour jacket. I had never been in a movie, i had never been on a movie set. Lauren said you have to talk to shep gordon. Waynesper was in world. I felt like a hunk rocker in toronto. He said i know you want alice cooper in the muddy movie. How about something from the new album . And i said how about no . A song. E my heart was broken. What do you want . He was so nice about it. He said i read the script and alice is only on stage for eight seconds and if you put schools out in the end credits everyone will think that is the song and it will not matter. He was right. He was so nice and protective and loving of alice cooper and i worshiped ellis cooper. Oh alice cooper. He is the link between the hippies and the punks. Lyden even said that. On the 1eighteen jukebox. Torontowas the festival. It was called the peace festival. This was 1970 1969. I dont member things too well. Why is that, shep . Someone slip something in my drink once in a while. The psychedelic era. If you do not revert and youre not there. I i was always alice and were always looking to irritate people. That was the core of the career, that if we could irritate people and parents in particular, the kids would love us. And we were on a peace festival and i got alice on before john lennon and there was a chicken backstage and i said if i throw this chicken onstage something will happen that is going to be really heritable horrible. Something will happen. He took it and he thought it could fly and he threw it in the audience and the audience rigid a part. Up, and ito angsted was a peace festival and we ended up getting all the headlines. It defined alice to this day. Piece, it put him on the map. We had only known it was that easy. Hasnt been easy to get to tell the stories has it been easy to tell the stories . There are days when shep is quite loquacious and less. At first he did not trust, where he are you making a movie about me and then as people showed up like sylvester stallone, Michael Douglas and all these people and told stories and i said, this is off. They said, it took did people in hollywood say mike myers wants to make a documentary . No, i just made it. I have a very odd career. I just make things. I never really had a career plan. I have these other projects i was working on but shep said yes. The first thing i would tell you is do not do the documentary if i was your manager. I had to do it. It had to get out. A fantastic experience. Why . I financed it myself. Why are you making the move movie, because this would be a fun gig to do for a while . It was around the time i did my first kid. I love new york city and i hate leaving new york city. Shep said yes. I thought it was going to be john kass of eddies cassav etes, i would create the canadian realist of the cinematic movement. I would be john sayles, jim jarmusch, all of this combined. On saturday night live. I did not know it would necessarily happen. For me it the audience has been, in toronto it was this fantastic standing ovation. People crying, people laughing. I have seen this movie with the house more than i have seen other movies i have been involved with. The audience loves it. It is a wonderful, satisfying experience. Are you glad you did it . At first i was a little embarrassed. Supermensch the legend of shep gordon, it is way outside my wheelhouse. But i respect mike and i love the [inaudible] i went to toronto really thinking this is the last time i will have to go see it and i am going to [inaudible] when the movie played, the response of the people, it touched them so deeply, people couldsking where they adopt children because i adopted four children. Mike constructed it. I do not see people getting touched. They want to be better people. How did you change the Music Industry . That is a big question and i think in a small way i brought theatrics into the music world. When i started with alice, the contemporary music world was a couple of amplifiers and lights. Nobody telling stories. Just singing songs. I think with alice we showed that you could tell a story. You could create an environment andyou could build things carry equipment and really set the stage and set the mood. And i think you see it now all the way through. And also i think i being bold enough to call a man alice and where i make up wear eye when you see lady gaga you can see a thread and motley threads of alice through everyone. Time yous about the were by a pool. I went out to tell foreign as a probation officer. As a probation officer. I was a recovering hippie and got beat up my first day. I was along here. I had some psychedelics. He said he went to work with criminals and say lets have a soft all game and hug it out and the others were like, yeah. They left on cues. The criminals picked up the baseball bats and beat him in that is when he went and driven to l. A. And checked into a motel. I took some psychedelics. I heard a girl screaming. The girl punched me. I went up to my room feeling like a jerk because they were making love, they were not fighting. I knew it after they punched me. She made it very clear. I went down to the pool in the morning and he was janis joplin and jimi hendrix and jim morrison was there that day. Out. As always hanging this is the place where everybody hung up. Theou just happen to select motel. That is the mr. Magoo factor. Factor is what i instantly saw in shep. A has a fantastic base and dash base and a fantastic voice. There is a way to make a living that is human. It is a fantastic is this. Business. Doesnt often attract the healthy, happiest, and whole in our society and does not foster like peoples yes is being yes and no being no. I saw progressive capitalist, and ethical hedonist and a protector of artists and who loved the court. If there is anything i love in creativity is innovation and freshness. The first time that. The first time you hear the beatlesand you go, eagle and you go wow. Kurt vonnegut, the first time you read a Kurt Vonnegut novel. There are people who need to protect innovation. Show business, the hollywood system and all that stuff is a great system. It makes fantastic movies. The envy of the world. World with thehe england with the ship, america does with the moving image. The only thing it isnt tough when things are fresh. Torequires people like shep protect it. I am at a certain age in my career. I wanted that message, i wanted to say thank you to the protectors. That is a huge, huge thing. Like Harvey Weinstein has been a fantastic protector. These people need the love. Where is your life going now . Back to hawaii. You are open to possibilities. I wake up at night and take the ride and go to sleep and see what happens in the middle. What is life like in hawaii . It is beautiful. Cookingily and a lot of and a lot of walking and a lot of pinching myself saying, how did i get this lucky . I cannot believe i am here. The celebritydo how did you do the celebrity chef thing . I got taken to a restaurant and in there was the whos who of hollywood but no one was that comfortable in their skin. It was still a lot of smoking in those days. Of smoking and looking around to see who is in there. And then i started thinking of becoming i am becoming one of them and i had my cigarette in my mouth and my knee was sort of going and into the room walked this beautifully calm, a whiteful sunset in a cooking jacket and white here. You can see that he was the power guy. It was the chef. Beent and asked if i could his grasshopper. Series therefu was a character who sat by the masters feet and learned. He did not know what i was talking about. Me, picassoven to had died two years before. I am watching the rushes and oh, no. Up. E made it all this is. Thats what one of my favorite moments is when i say i was with public he said with picasso it was not true. Picasso was dead and shep was high. Be hiswed me to grasshopper. World. Him on waynes he has that same quality so he followed the chef. This is the story about his cat in cary grant. I started to make some money so i bought several houses. One of the homes i had had a miniature a train. You use to get these people ringing the doorbell. I realized alices house had been put on the star map. That said alice does not live here anymore. Go get a refund. The cat went missing and someone told me a went into cary grants house. I rang the bell and his assistant open the door. I said that is my cat and she said you cannot take the cat. We agreed on joint custody of the cat. It was true. Nuance to the story. I first put up signs on telephone poles. My cat is missing. I got a phone call from someone who said he was carried grants housekeeper and they had found the cat. I was at a town so i said i would come back and pick up the cat. I called three days or four days and no one answered. I went down to the house and rang the doorbell. The doorbell the door answers but on the floor is cary grant carpet, a sterling silver bowl, the sensitive one there and looks up at me and says, do not blow this for me. I can hear him talking to me. Thank you. Great to have you here. Rex thank you. Supermensch the legend of limiteddon is out in release. See you next time. This week on political on the, Jeffrey Zients economy. We are really wellpositioned. Rulings andourt what is next in iraq. And Margaret Carson and Ramesh Ponnuru debate the state of the republican party. We begin the program with the National Economic Council Director to the president , Jeffrey Zients. You have downplayed the First Quarter drop in the economy as due to battle weather. To achieve the