September 3, 2023
Why letting fast-talking 38-year-old amateurs play in the Major Leagues would unleash a tsunami of global chaos.
It’s a bad idea to give the keys to the car to a kid afflicted with terminal narcissism.
Below are transcripts from recent Mark Levin and Sean Hannity interviews with Vivek Ramaswamy. Both gave him push back regarding his positions, unlike most softball interviewers he encounters. What they learned (and didn’t learn) in response is troubling.
Why has it been so hard for so many to see the obvious? Much blame can be placed upon Ramaswamy’s incompetent, fawning, hypnotized, unworldly interlocutors in his incessant media appearances. How is it that so many managed to achieve adulthood without being about to detect a bullshit artist sophist from 100 yards? Are to many American adults — from across the political spectrum — really so gullible? Ramaswamy has proposed that those 18 to 25 be required to pass a basic citizenship test before acquiring voting rights. It would be far more appropriate if they were able to acquire the skills to detect when a loquacious politician is manipulating them for his own ends.
One who had no trouble detecting the obvious is Attorney Mark Levin, a skilled litigator and Reagan administration alumnus as Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. Probably no American jurist would not have reached a similar diagnosis. Judges are quick to discern when defendants, witnesses, and attorneys prevaricate. They get paid to do so. Unless you are now able to perceive the obvious telltale (tells of tales) signs after Levin points them out, you should probably not set foot on a used car lot. Unlike most other interviewers, Levin pushed back and challenged Ramaswamy on numerous points. He discovered a void — there was nothing behind the passionate delivery.
Having been exposed, Ramaswamy is unlikely to revisit Levin soon. Levin picks up on Ramaswamy’s essentially liberal (thus disjointed) instincts. His anti-woke act fuels his enormous ego and political ambitions. Levin recognizes Ramaswamy is no conservative.
Then there is the full-blown narcissism. It is not a question of whether, but of which species of narcissism and/or Machiavellianism he is afflicted with. Narcissists do enormous damage to those they are in relationships with. Too often they rise to positions of authority, in the corporate and political realms. Hitler’s variant condemned millions. This is what happens when an individual lacks empathy and the wellbeing of others is subsumed to their grandiose aspirations. We need look no further for an example than the current White House occupant. Biden manifests a particularly malignant strain. Many can not understand how he can go to Maui and tell a hyperbolically tall tale regarding almost losing his cat. Yet similar incidents have been repeated time-after-time during his half-century political career. Biden is incapable of empathy, a manifestation of narcissism. To compensate, he constantly attempts to personalize (and grossly exaggerate) his life experiences, while futilely attempting to relate to his audience (whether an individual or a nation). Angry outbursts when challenged are yet another symptom. Ben Shapiro has the receipts. This also explains the wholesale, pathological lying about matters large and small. Or Biden’s deep-seated callousness.
While proceeding through Levin’s methodical deconstruction of Ramaswamy’s glib, reckless blather, keep in mind the narcissism (and/or Machiavellianism) aspect. This explains a lot. When interviewing to replace a highly stable genius, you better have your head screwed on straight. Ramaswamy’s isn’t. One thing is certain: he is enamored with the sound of his own voice.
Consider Ramaswamy’s windup pitch below in this typical softball interview. Anyone much beyond high school age who thinks this constitutes deep philosophy and statesmanship should investigate whether they need a conservator appointed. If the answer comes back no, request a second opinion.
Q: Why do you want to be the next president of the United States?
I am worried that we are in the middle of this national identity crisis where my generation in particular, our generation, we're hungry for purpose and meaning and identity, and yet we hunger to be part of something bigger than ourselves. Yet we can't even answer what it means to be an American. I think that loss of identity is responsible for a lot of our economic stagnation [WTF?]. It's part of what's actually even behind the loss of our fortitude on the global stage. And I think that I actually have a vision of what it means to be a citizen of this country because I have lived the true American dream, and I am worried that will not exist for the next generation unless we do something about it.
Q: What qualifies you to be the next president of the United States?
So the fact that I am an outsider is, I think, an important qualification. [Levin reveals how vapid this statement is.] But I bring a unique combination. I do think it will take an outsider who has executive experience, who's been a successful CEO, but to combine that, and I think this is where, for example, Trump left short, combine that with a deep first personal understanding of the Constitution itself, a deep understanding of the laws that actually empower a US president to shut down the administrative state and the federal bureaucracy that gets in the way of prosperity and liberty in this country. [Another assertion Levin dismantles.] That's a rare combination. I bring that combination to the table. I think that's going to be required to reach the next generation of Americans, and I feel a sense of obligation to do it.
Got it? We don’t know who we are, what it means to be an American. We are listless vessels awaiting our anti-woke messiah to guide us to the Promised Land. At least DeSantis openly calls out Trump’s deplorable supporters as “listless vessels.” Ramaswamy infers precisely the same. Because he understands the Constitution and laws better than anyone before him, he can be our tour guide into the wonderful future awaiting us.
This is simply a clinical manifestation of narcissism. He needs counseling, not votes, which would only fuel his pathology. An army of enablers has allowed Ramaswamy to get this far. They should be ashamed. When someone says they possess “a deep understanding,” this is code for: “I’m smarter than everybody else.” What is it that the rest of us don’t understand about the Constitution?
Mark Levin Show transcript, August 18, 2023:
I look at this Vivek and it's amazing to me how friends, even colleagues on my favorite cable job, they keep pushing this Vivek guy, and I go why?
You know, I predict that people are gonna like Vivek Ramaswamy after this debate. Because he's smooth, he's very smooth. But here's my problem. And I don't personally dislike him. I don't personally know him. He'll say things that are kind of flip, and they're quick, and then we move on. They're not very substantive. Now what am I talking about? I guarantee he's going to say during this debate: “I'm not part of the swamp. I've never been in politics.” It's one thing to be an outsider. It's another thing to have no record whatsoever of supporting conservatives, of being conservative or writing conservative things, or saying conservative things, supporting groups like the Tea Party. I mean he's an adult. He's a man. He's almost 38 years old. There's nothing [of his record in public life] past two years or so, and beyond. Nothing. Now that gives you an opportunity to say whatever you want, gives you an opportunity to say: “I'm going to do this. I'm going to do this. I'm not part of the swamp.” But that doesn't mean if you're not part of the swamp that you're conservative. There's [a] vast majority of you who are not part of the swamp. I can find nothing, absolutely nothing. He was on the show. I asked him, I put it to him. He came up with nothing. So for me I need some fingerprints somewhere.
Then he says some truly outrageous things about Taiwan: “We're going to have Taiwan help us build up our chip industry, hopefully by 2035 or 2038. And then we're going to, then they're on their own.” What? So why would Taiwan help us build up our chip industry if a president of the United States says help us and then you're on your own? Does anybody know why we have an alliance with Taiwan, anybody? Get to that in a minute. But that position rejects every position of every conservative candidate and president since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. Well it's not a Forever War so that can't be the issue. So you're gonna hand Taiwan to the Communist Chinese. Now what are the implications for that America, what are the implications? Oh good, maybe the Philippines are next, because what use are the Philippines to you and me, they don't even have a chip industry? That's the problem. But yesterday he said something to me that was equally, if not crazier, and I want to get to that in the next hour.
All right, let me start this, maybe I can end it too. Vivek Ramaswamy effectively says: “Look. I want to help. The core of my policy in the Middle East will be to get more Abraham Accords between Israel and Arab countries, and then leave. Get out of there, and we shouldn't give aid to Israel unless we give aid to everybody, and about the same amounts.” Really? Does that appeal to you? . . . This isn't even: we don't want any more forever wars. We don't want to call World War III. This is as extreme as Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy. [Or Biden’s foreign policy, if there even is one.]
. . . First he made a statement about our relationship with the state of Israel, which essentially says look: essentially we should treat the Arab states and Israel on a level playing field. We should, you know, give aid to Israel, as much as we give to anybody else. We get all these Arab accords in there, and many more of them, and then integrate Israel into these sort of Arab alliances and then leave. We don't need to give them any more aid. So he's kind of adjusted that since I called him out. I said not good, awful actually. Our relationship with Israel is very special. It should be treated like say Yemen? And then I said that Vivek also threw Taiwan under the bus. He says in response: the centerpiece of my Middle East policy in Year One will be to consummate Abraham Accords 2.0, which will be good for the U.S and good for Israel. Let's stop right there. How are you going to do that? How are you going to do that?
I'll get to that in a minute. Trump knew how to do it. [Then Vivek says:]
“If we can lead the way in helping Israel fully integrate into the economic and security infrastructure of the Middle East, via the Abraham Accords 2.0, it is better for everyone if Israel is truly able to stand on its own two feet, with support from partners across the Middle East, that we diplomatically bring to the table. We will not leave Israel hanging out to dry, ever.”
Okay, these statements don't work together. You can't integrate all this in any kind of a logical way. What I'm saying is, and I'll break it down: Vivek is probably the best speaker that's running, with the thinnest credentials. Now he'll move quickly between: you know I've been a businessman, and I'm not part of the swamp and everything. But that's not good enough for me. It's just not. When I see some of these guys who have fought like hell to stop the radicals from taking over our country and now they're part of the swamp. I'm not buying that. So I wrote in response to Vivek:
Israel does stand on its own two feet. It spends, and I had to correct [him on] this, over 5% of its GDP on defense. And it has fought bravely for 75 years in numerous wars and battles. Your statement is absurd. Nonetheless, it's a tiny country with few people. Its enemies not only receive billions in weapons from our enemies, but in the case of Iran, billions of dollars from our country via Biden's policies. However, you missed the point entirely. Israel is an ally in a very dangerous part of the world. We need Israel as a counterweight to Iran, Syria, terrorist organizations, etc. You seem oblivious to America's need to have strong and reliable allies throughout the world to help our own security needs. Foreign policy should be based on prudence, not flip ideological comments. You're not ensuring our security. You're ensuring that we will need a much larger military, many more service personnel, bigger intelligence operations, more ships, more aircraft, etc. If we do as you suggest. In other words, my point is we're not going to have bases. We're not going to have allies out there who are looking to help us because we're not helping them. They'll have China and Russia in the region pouring in, and you'll have Iran as a power. It would be a disaster. Our allies benefit from our support but we benefit from them being our first line of defense in certain parts of the world. Your position is not well considered. Happy to discuss further with you on my radio show after next week's debate, although it's always tough to get you on. [Something tells us he will not be going on Levin again anytime soon.]
Moreover, you can't just say you're going to create more Abraham Accords and then walk away. First, nobody will enter into a new accord if we take your position. Why would they? You're just going to sweet talk them into it? Our role there is what created the accords as president Trump understood. Second, the Abraham Accords actually expanded our role in the Middle East. China, Russia, and Iran would salivate, would salivate, if we did as you say. Yet you say you support them — meaning the Abraham Accords. You've essentially said the same about Taiwan. Somehow Taiwan will help us build a computer chip industry, then we abandon them. That's nonsensical. Nor is it in our best interest. From Goldwater to Trump, no serious Republican or conservative has believed as you do. I fear your foreign policy is more in line with Bernie Sanders or the late George McGovern, maybe even the squad. I also believe it's much more likely to cause a world war as China and others see appeasement and weakness as great opportunities. I'm all for [political] outsiders, but respectfully, you need to bone up a bit on this subject. it's not about Forever Wars, which has nothing to do with this. Or new thinking. It's old and failed and provocative thinking, nothing novel or smart about it, in my humble opinion. God bless.
So it's going to take those of you out there who are constitutionalists, who are conservatives, who believe in a strong national defense, our national sovereignty, but understand that we have to have alliances that help serve our purposes, that we cannot embrace Sanders’ foreign policy, McGovern’s foreign policy, the squad foreign policy, and expect to survive. They're going to choke us off economically. They're going to become increasingly aggressive. Their military is getting bigger than ours and so the volunteer Army doesn't work. They're going to start drafting our sons and our grandchildren, maybe even our granddaughters, so this is not the answer in my view. But you're going to treat Israel like Yemen? You're going to treat Israel like what, like Kuwait? And once they have these accords then Israel has to integrate into the Arab societies?
Now come on, is this a joke? Sounds cool. It's quite different to have the Abraham Accords and then assume that the Jewish state and its population is going to be accepted and embraced and integrate into the Muslim communities where they're killing each other in the Middle East. It's not going to happen. So sometimes you have to embrace reality and foreign policy should be based on reality. That's why I use the word prudence. It shouldn't be based on bumper sticker statements, or sweet talking, or pie in the sky, or whatever the hell it is, on the Abraham Accords. There's not another Arab country that will engage in an Abraham Accord negotiation if it thinks the United States, it's just going to bail on everybody and leave the region to China and Russia and Iran. It's not going to happen. So that's number one. I don't know who the foreign policy advisor is — if there is any. [Ramaswamy does not need one, he is a narcissist.]
Oh I know, “Oh, you know, there's Mark, an old school hawk.” I’m not, I’m a Reaganite. You know old school I'm not. I'm a Reaganite, it's what I am now. “It's time to hate Reagan the old,” literally. No it's not. The most successful president in what? Really maybe ever. I mean, I put Washington, Lincoln up there, but who's number three? From my perspective it's Reagan. And by the way, solid conservative. Not perfect, perfect enough, and the greatest electoral victory, first time he ran, ever for a Republican, ever. And the second greatest electoral victory ever, maybe ever, losing one state by 3,000 votes and of course [losing] the District of Columbia, where Donald Trump “can get a fair trial of course, jury of his peers.”
So yes, I have some questions. Now I don't know who George Soros's older brother is. I don't know if he's a good guy or a bad guy. I just assume he's just as bad as his brother. But here's my question: before you announce that you're going to run for president, why do you broom that off your site, why do you pressure Wikipedia to take that off their site? [Ramaswamy has been assumed to have paid a Wikipedia editor to redact his information.]
I'm just curious, nothing personal. Why would you do that? First of all, we've been trying to get Wikipedia to stop lying about me over and over again. They blow us off completely. They don't even have the name of my wife correct. We try to fix that, They ignore us completely. I don't know how you persuade them to take Paul Soros’s name off in connection with the fellowship that you had of some kind. I don't know what it is. Again, if you don't have a background or record then what are people supposed to look at? [Paul Soros funded a fellowship which allowed Ramaswamy to attend Yale Law School. Unlike what Ramaswamy has claimed, it didn’t really “allow” him to attend, because we now know — from recently released tax records — that he had already earned millions of dollars by that point and could easily have afforded the $90,000 fellowship.]
Now some of you after the debate are going to come back and say: “I like that guy. Mark, you're an a-hole. I like that guy.” So like him. Vote for him. I'm not stopping anybody from doing it. I'm voicing my opinion. Now I look at that and then I look at the Trump record, which is enormous: the Abraham Accords, that's Trump. Securing the border, Trump got close. Holding China in line, Trump. Little Rocket Man, stop firing m….. I can go on, and on, and on about his presidential record. It's tremendous. . . .
I look at this Vivek and it's amazing to me how friends, even colleagues on my favorite cable job, they keep pushing this Vivek guy, and I go why? Entertaining, I agree. But ask some questions. I've got some more questions, we're going to invite him back on after the debate. We'll invite DeSantis back on. Of course we'll invite Donald Trump, Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, whatever. We'll keep inviting Chris Christie. He’ll get up: “Mmmmm . . . what about . . . ” What about it Chris? Why won’t you come here, Mr. Tough Guy? It’s OK, you won’t get hurt. It’s all right Chris. You hear what he said today, Mr. Producer? He’s a big leader, he said. We need a really big leader, he says. . . .
All right, where does Vivek stand on right to life? Where does he stand on right to work? I'm serious. Let's go through a bunch of other issues too. Where does he stand on, let's pick some other issues. Let's talk about this. Where does he stand on a flat tax, or an across the board income tax at say 10%. Where does he stand on Convention of States? What did he do to support the Tea Party Movement in his community, if anything? I mean if you want to run for president you have, you got to have done something right. You can't just wake up one morning — or I suppose you can — I'm gonna run for president. I'm just curious.
So all these interviews. Honest to God, if you watch cable TV it'll give you a feel for who's pushing what. Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie appear everywhere on our favorite cable network [MSNBC?], and on the other cable network [CNN?]. Now, when it comes to a guy like Ron DeSantis, he's not on our favorite cable network that much. Who's pushing him? Nobody. Certainly not the more newsworthy platforms. By the way, this isn't an attack. It's not a criticism. The Left will try and twist it, and do. Doesn't matter what they do, I'm speaking in plain English, for you. This is how it works, this is what's going through the minds of the candidates and the campaigns, this is what's going through the minds of the bookers, and the others, and the news organizations. But I'm curious where he stands on all these issues, and even more than that, I'm curious if he's done anything about any of them. . . .
I get these polls sent to me, a lot of them, and endlessly, by President Trump's team mostly, and they're really quite fascinating. I don't repeat them much because polls are fleeting, but this one seemed interesting. And take it, you know, as you would use your noggin when you hear these things. A new National Quinnipiac University poll, conducted after the August 1 federal indictment of Trump, finds the former president with a 39-point lead over his nearest rival, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Trump gets support from 57% of Republican registered voters. DeSantis gets 18%. Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy gets 5%. Former Vice President Mike Pence gets 4.
Now why am I reading this to you? I don't even find this slightly entertaining. I'll tell you why. I just watched a program with a host who had Vivek on. Then she, or he, who, it has two guests on, and they say Vivek's taking the nation by storm. Mr. Producer, he's at 5% now, President Trump touts this poll, among others, where he's at 57%, DeSantis is at 18%, Vivek’s at 5%, Pence is at 4%, no other Republican gets more than 3%. If you're at 5% I don't think you're taking the nation by storm. I'm just giving my opinion. Again, not stirring the pot, not attacking anybody. If I wanted to do that I know how to do it. But why should I? That's not where I am. 5% is not taking the country by storm.
Now caveat: this is very important. You're going to watch this debate and you're gonna like this guy. You're gonna like this guy. I'll tell you why you're gonna like this guy. The same reason my daughter initially liked this guy, so she started to dig into him, and others have to, it's a fresh voice in many ways, it's a positive, refreshing voice. What he's going to do. He 100% defends Donald Trump, although he did not after January 6th. In fact, he trashed them pretty good. But that's okay. I got it. It's politics. . . .
I asked a simple question when he was here. I said I appreciate your ideas, but my question to you is this: you want to fundamentally fire all these people in the federal bureaucracy? I'm certainly for it, but let's say Congress says not only won't you be able to do that because we will block it, and he says we’ll we have the power in the executive branch to do a lot of this on our own — and he's right — but let's say they say: you know what, the Democrats we are, we're not going to fund your defense budget or 50 other things. They could say.
I said these are the kinds of things you need to think about. And he didn't have an answer. I'm just saying maybe there is no answer. But you had to be prepared for real hand-to-hand combat. This isn't, how can I put it, this isn't a Harvard debate society. This isn't a Harvard debate society. You got to skin your knuckles, get some dirt under your fingernails. And if you haven't done that before, you gotta explain how you're going to be able to do it. Does that make sense, Mr. Producer? Because when push comes to shove, you're going to have to get in the trenches and fight. How are you going to do it? I think it's a legitimate question. I mean this is the presidency we’re talking about.
Let's go to Luke, trucker, Utah, XM Satellite. Luke, how are you sir?
Thank you. Yeah hey Mark. Yeah, home every day trucker, so I'll cut right to the chase. I've watched probably 20 interviews with Vivek Gramaswamy. And I've listened and watched him very closely. And I think, you know, he would have to be the greatest con man. But I really do think that he loves this, I think he loves America. I think he understands the Constitution . . .
I think he loves America too.
He's smart off the charts. There's no doubt about that. I'm just saying, I've watched . . .
But you don't know a damn thing about him. That's the problem, and I don't either.
That's true. I’m just saying I’ve watched . . .
Where do you live in Utah, what city? Okay Luke, let's have a conversation. Where do you live in Utah?
American Fork Utah is where I live.
Would you vote for a mayor, if you didn't know anything about the mayor? Let me put it to you this way: appearances on Fox, or Meet the Press, or on radio shows are great. I've been doing this a long time. I'm not against the man. I want to be utterly clear. I'm not his enemy. I can't pin him down. And you're not going to persuade me otherwise. Because I need him to persuade me otherwise. And of course you've watched him 20 times on Fox. Because he's been on Fox 20 times. I'm not against that either. That's why he's at 5%, and not at 1 or 2% like Chris Christie. He's been on Fox forever too, but he's not likable.
Vivek is likable. Vivek can talk. He's articulate. He's smart. That's great. It's not enough for me, that's all. It's just not enough. When I see that up against a Donald Trump who has a record, or up against a Ron DeSantis who has a record, or some of these other people, when you've actually gone through and fought like hell with the teachers’ unions, and fought like hell with the Republican establishment, and have fought like hell for a wall on the southern border, and have fought like hell for judgeships — whether the Supreme Court. When I see all that, I'm: “there's my Patton.” There's my George Patton. When somebody says they're going to do things that others are already doing, that's a communications director. A communications director. I want George Patton. That's what I want, you understand what I'm saying?
Yes sir. The other thing is, is that, you know, nobody, yeah I think you have to have a little bit of humility. Each person does, by the way [except narcissists]. It's that DeSantis and Trump are warriors, you know, for sure. I just think that maybe there has to be some humility to understand that nobody's going to have all the answers all the time. Trump's made mistakes, we all make mistakes. . . . So I think there has to be some understanding that hey, look you know, we're not going to have all the answers all the time on foreign policy, on this and that, you know, and . . .
All right, I'm confused. So who has to have humility, who are you talking to? . . . Listen, let me say, to the defense of all of them up there, they have to have answers. Otherwise, what's the point? I don't think it means they don't have humility. I think it means they have to have positions. They have to run on stuff. They have to have an agenda, which they [pretend to] believe in, which they have to get behind. The question for me, the voter not the campaign manager, and I think for me the voter is: what am I voting for? That's all. What am I voting for?
And so that's why I said I live here in Florida. We do half the time, more than half the time of the year. Compared to other states this is paradise. It didn't just happen. You could send your kids in grade school, and grandkids to public school here, they're not going to learn about CRT, they're not going to learn about private parts. Parental rights exist in this state. This was all done under DeSantis. I'm just making a point. Under DeSantis. Right here, when they had the pandemic, and were here. It was like you're in West Germany versus East Germany. You could go into a restaurant if you wanted to, you didn't have to wear a mask. Restaurants were open, they survived. It was night and day.
Now I have to compare that to Vivek Ramaswamy, who I'm told is rising in the polls, and I'm thinking: why? It's not that he's a bad guy. It's not that he doesn't have good ideas, but to get these things done in a state, or nationally like Trump did, you have to have knife wounds, you have knives in your back, there are political injuries from this stuff. People want to take you out. You have dirt under your fingernails, as I said. Your knuckles are scraped. You understand what I'm saying?
All right my friend, thank you. I appreciate it.
Let's go on. Quickly — Kathy, Bergen New Jersey, the great WABC. Quickly please, go right ahead.
Hi Mark, I just wanted to add to the healthy skepticism of Vivek. When he was on Hannity last night, . . . So last night on Hannity he was talking about taxes and Hannity wanted him to say there would be no inheritance tax. And then he said he would do a 12% tax. And Hannity said: what do you mean, like you would have an inheritance tax? And then he said 12.5% across the board. So it was just kind of interesting. He started, he literally said 12 and then two sentences later it was . . .
Well, I'll tell you this: under Reagan's tax cut there was zero.
So we verified Kathy’s allegation, and she was right:
Sean Hannity also pushed back on Ramaswamy, and it did not go well for him. His numerous references to the youth vote suggest polling reveals this demographic to be most susceptible to his charms. Note that Levin and Hannity are Murdoch employees at Fox. If they were fully unleashed, the Murdoch family’s boy toy Ramaswamy might have been treated more harshly by the two.
Hannity transcript August 16, 2023
Let me ask you. I know the issue of your of your voting record has come up quite a bit lately. Election records in Ohio's Franklin County where you live show that you registered to vote in November 2021, not as a Republican but as unaffiliated. You did say you voted for the Libertarian presidential candidate in 2004 and didn't vote in the presidential election again until 2020 when you voted for Donald Trump. Why? I mean why, did you have a lack of interest?
Sean I have, well the truth is for most of my 20s like so many people in their 20s, I understand where they're coming from. Young people are disaffected from professional politicians: George Bush, John Kerry didn't inspire me. John McCain, Barack Obama didn't inspire me. Mitt Romney, Barack Obama did not inspire me. So like so many young people I was badly disaffected from professional politicians. I think Donald Trump was the single greatest president we've had in my lifetime, the single greatest president in the 21st century. And so when he delivered I voted for him in 2020.
Why did you not vote for him in 2016, did you not see the potential?
Because I didn't believe it, exactly. I was skeptical. I was a jaded person in my 20s, and like so many people in their 20s Sean, I get it. I'm not a professional politician. . . . we are reaching young people in this campaign in droves. Sean, many of my supporters are young. We're bringing them to our party and our movement for the first time. And a part of the reason why is I understand it. I get it. I'm a millennial. I got my first job in 2007 [when he was 22] right on the eve of the 2008 financial crisis, in New York City. So I understand why many millennials are jaded. The 2008 bailouts that came under a Republican administration, which was just crony capitalism. [most of the 2008 bailout funds were implemented under the Obama administration]
To me, I don't care much about the distinctions between traditional Republicans or traditional Democrats. The truth is, in many ways I could care less for either of them. I stand for the America First movement, putting the interests of this nation first. That means putting all Americans first, even those in Hawaii, even those on the south side of Chicago where I visited. Or Kensington in the inner city of Philadelphia where traditional Republican candidates don't go. I think that putting America First means putting all Americans first. And yes, I'm using the Republican party as a vehicle to advance that agenda, not as a professional politician, but as a successful businessman and outsider. And yes, somebody who is a member of that different generation.
Let me ask you one last question, and it might be a point of disagreement between us. In one of your books you talked about the inheritance tax rate being as high as 59%. You're supporting that, saying passing wealth from parents to children breeds inequality and hereditary aristocracy. [audience begins booing] This is all money people have already paid taxes on. Why would you let the government basically take another bite of the apple and steal more money?
You know how this game works Sean. That's an opposition research photograph of the book, lift out, put it on Twitter. The reality is, the context I was going through in that book was a thought experiment, saying let's bring the income tax down to a flat tax, as low as possible, and in that context that's how high the inheritance tax would have to be to make up for it. To be clear, I didn’t write candidate books. I wrote thoughtful, I wrote three thoughtful books and I was honest in doing thought experiments in those books. But the opposition research is now, as you know well impossible, you know how it goes . . .
Just to be clear, for the record. You do not support that? Do you support any inheritance tax or . . .?
I absolutely do not support that. I, I absolutely reject that. That's the short answer to that question.
And you support, just to be clear. And you support that. Question: So just to be aware, you support no low inheritance tax, no death tax, no death tax at all?
No change to the status quo. That's what I support on the death tax
The status quo is 40%. Do you support 40% or do you support nothing?
I support a 12% flat tax across the board of every kind, including from inheritance, to income, to capital gains, to corporate. One tax that you can . . . on every measure, across the board, income to estate, 12.5% [a 0.5% tax increase in under 30 seconds, a new record] across the board.
All right Vivek Ramaswamy. Thank you, appreciate you being with us.
NOTE: In a matter of minutes, this flopping fish goes from previously supporting an estate tax, rejecting an estate tax, then deciding he wants a 12% tax on income and estates, then ups it to 12.5%.
As a point of reference, the third plank of the Communist Manifesto addressed this issue 175 years ago:
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Glenn Beck interviewed Ramaswamy and also caught him in a lie engaging in double talk. Ramaswamy had donated $2,700 to rabid leftist congressional candidate Dena Minning Grayson, wife of former congressman Alan Grayson, author of the screed book High Crimes: The Impeachment of Donald Trump. One of the most obnoxious members ever to serve in Congress, Alan Grayson once ran campaign ads comparing the Tea Party to the Ku Klux Klan.
Beck: “In 2016, you not only were against Donald Trump, but you actually made donations to somebody who is virulently anti-Trump.”
Ramaswamy: “In 2016, I was not anti-Trump. I just didn’t vote because I was deeply jaded and skeptical of all politicians. I judge based on results, and [Trump] delivered for this country, and I voted for him with pride in 2020.”
Beck: “So what happened? But you gave $2,700 to Act Blue” [on behalf of candidate Dena Minning].
Ramaswamy: “I had no idea who this individual was. She’s in the biotech industry, and I’m a biotech CEO. I showed up, stayed as long as minimal time as I could, but that was the entry ticket to go in. I frankly regret doing it just because it raised so many questions afterwards. I wasn’t plotting to be a politician back then. But the fact of the matter is, if you’re a CEO, you get dragged around a lot of fundraisers in New York City. That was when I got dragged into and the ticket price is one that I wrote to get in. I couldn’t even tell you the name of the person who it was.”
The problem with this explanation is that it contradicts Ramaswamy’s Senior Advisor Tricia McLaughlin, who previously stated the contribution was “not a political [donation] in support, purely friendship. Dena was a friend of Vivek.”
Prior to 2017, Ramaswamy’s reported federal campaign contributions went to only two other candidates beside Dena Minning Grayson: California Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley and Massachusetts Democrat Eric Lesser. Lesser served as Special Assistant to David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to President Obama. A 2008 Obama campaign worker, for two years, Lesser’s office shared a wall with the Oval Office.
Obama endorsed Lesser in his race for a Massachusetts State Senate seat:
I’ve known Eric for many years, and have seen his incredible work ethic, intellect, and commitment to public service up close. From new job training, to new laws combating substance abuse, to new efforts to invest in high speed rail, Eric is serving Western Massachusetts with distinction. As his former boss, I’m proud of the work Eric has done, which is why I’m honored to endorse him for a second term.
WHO is Ramaswamy? Even he does not know.
When a politician a) does not register in your party; and b) informs you he is using your party as a vehicle, thorough investigation is required to determine his true agenda. Some of us are old enough to recall a smooth-talking presidential candidate who promised Hope and Change. It was always apparent to inquisitive types what sort of Change he had in mind, but the rest of the electorate found out after the fact that his intention was a soviet-style surveillance state. Way back in 2020, an elderly presidential candidate campaigned on a promise to unite the nation. How well did that work out?
Now we are confronted with determining Mr. Ramaswamy’s true agenda. And we just don’t know. All that can be concluded with certainty is what he would not do. We know it would not be conservative in nature. This much is clear, including from various additional clues he has dropped which we have outlined elsewhere. It is not even clear if he knows where he might be headed. His flip flops and evasions confirm a lack of any firm convictions or principles, other than self-advancement. He is ad-libbing his way through the campaign, making it up as he goes along.
Ramaswamy’s pandering to various constituencies is hardly unusual in his new profession. This leaves us attempting to discern what a narcissist — focused on gaining command of the world’s mightiest military — might actually believe, if anything. He is either unsure himself, or keeps his true intentions concealed. Probably both. Neither is good. Such scenarios never end well, especially when such flawed individuals are handed enormous power.
To be continued . . .
LEARN MORE:
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 1: Red flags
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 2: Have you ever wanted to be a billionaire? 11 easy steps to immense wealth.
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 2.1: Vivek responds to Kevin's allegations.
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 2.2: 2015 Happy Talk vs. 2023 Sad Talk
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 3: Levin & Hannity August interviews
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 4: Vivek vs. Irwin; Respecting the least among us. A classy guy.
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up — Part 5: The Murdoch connection; friends in high places
Will the Real Vivek Please Stand Up— Part 6: Numbers which don't add up